U. S. Department of Health and Human Services.

2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

Appendix A.
Program Data

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
Food Stamp Program (FSP)
Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs:

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program authorized under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program in 1996);
The Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended;
The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act.

This chapter includes information on these three programs, derived primarily from administrative data reported by state and federal agencies instead of the national survey data presented in previous chapters. National caseloads and expenditure trend information on each of the three programs is included, as well as state-by-state trend tables and information on the characteristics of program participants.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program — originally named the Aid to Dependent Children program — was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their fathers or mothers were absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.

During the 1990s, the federal government increasingly used its authority under section 1115 of the Social Security Act to waive portions of the federal requirements under AFDC. This allowed states to test such changes as expanded earned income disregards, increased work requirements and stronger sanctions for failure to comply with them, time limits on benefits, and expanded access to transitional benefits such as child care and medical assistance. As a condition of receiving waivers, states were required to conduct rigorous evaluations of the impacts of these changes on the welfare receipt, employment, and earnings of participants.

Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), replaced AFDC, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a block grant called the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months)^[1] on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with federal funds, increasing work participation rate requirements that states must meet, and broad state flexibility on program design. Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.5 billion per year, slightly above FY 1995 federal expenditures for the four component programs. States also must meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail work participation rate requirements).

TANF gives states wide latitude in spending both federal TANF funds and state MOE funds. Subject to a few restrictions, TANF funds may be used in any way that supports one of the four statutory purposes of TANF: to provide assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for at home; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.

Legislative Changes

The current legislative authority for the TANF block grant is from the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171). Enacted in February 2006, the Act reauthorizes the original 1996 legislation at an annual funding level of $16.5 billion and continues to require each state to have at least 50 percent of its work eligible families participating in meaningful work activities. However, prior to this Act, a caseload reduction credit allowed states to reduce their work requirement by their caseload declines since 1995. As most states experienced dramatic caseload declines, the credit had virtually eliminated the work participation requirements for most states. Starting with FY 2007, the Deficit Reduction Act recalibrates the base year for calculating the caseload reduction credit to 2005, effectively re-implementing a meaningful performance guideline.

Also starting in FY 2007, the Deficit Reduction Act expands the work participation calculations to include adults in certain welfare programs funded out of state funds countable toward the maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement. Under the original legislation, these adults were excluded from the calculations. This change was implemented because there was some concern that states were moving work-eligible TANF adults into non-TANF programs with similar program structures, in part, to avoid federal work participation standards.^[2] In addition, new regulations from the Department of Health and Human Services create consistent definitions of the activities that count toward federal work requirements and provide new flexibility for states to count adults who miss scheduled hours due to holidays and excused absences. The new regulations also provide more detailed instructions to states as to which families they are to include in their work participation rate calculations. In some circumstances states are required to include adults that have been removed from the assistance unit because of failing to comply with program rules. In addition, the new regulations allow states to include adults receiving federal disability benefits on a case by case basis, and to exclude parents caring for disabled family members.

The Deficit Reduction Act also provides $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages, and up to $50 million annually for programs designed to encourage responsible fatherhood. In addition, the new law increased mandatory child care funding to states to $2.9 billion annually.

Data Issues Relating to the TANF Program and the AFDC-TANF Transition

States had the option of beginning their TANF programs as soon as PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, and a few states began TANF programs as early as September 1996. All states were required to implement TANF by July 1, 1997. Because states implemented TANF at different times, the FY 1997 data reflect a combination of the AFDC and TANF programs. In some states, limited data are available for FY 1997 because states were given a transition period of six months after they implemented TANF before they were required to report data on the characteristics and work activities of TANF participants.

Because of the greatly expanded range of activities allowed under TANF, a substantial portion of TANF funds are being spent on activities other than cash payments to families. Table TANF 4 in this Appendix which tracks overall expenditure trends includes only those TANF funds spent on “cash and work-based assistance” and “administrative costs,” not on work activities, supportive services, or other allowable uses of funds. Spending on these other activities is detailed in Table TANF 5. Note that TANF administrative costs include funds spent administering all activities, not just cash and work-based assistance. (Administrative costs under AFDC had included a small amount of funds for administering AFDC child care programs; such programs, and the costs of administering them, were transferred to the Child Care and Development Fund as part of PRWORA.)

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. For example, under TANF there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” (UP) program, as there was under AFDC. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. It is also possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. The vast majority of families receiving “assistance”^[3]are, in fact, receiving cash payments.

Another data issue concerns the treatment of families who receive cash and other forms of assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded out of MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. Under TANF, some states use SSP programs to serve specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families, families who have exhausted their time limits). From 1996-2005, such families were not subject to federal time limits. States did not have to include them in the calculation of their work participation rates. As of October 2006, such families are included in the work participation rate calculation, but may still be excluded from the application of the federal time limits on receipt of assistance. Starting with the 2004 edition, this Indicators report adds recipients in SSPs into the caseload totals^[4] (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table TANF 15, by state). Native Americans served through state TANF and SSP programs are included in these caseload counts, but families served through TANF programs operated by Tribal governments are excluded. Expenditures for SSPs are shown in Table TANF 5.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figures TANF 1 and TANF 2, and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1 through 6). These are followed by information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7)^[5] and a series of tables presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 15). These data complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a and IND 4a in Chapter II.

AFDC/TANF Caseload Trends (Tables TANF 1 through TANF 3 and Figure TANF 1). Welfare caseloads have stabilized over the past few years after declining dramatically during the 1990s. In FY 2006, the average monthly number of TANF recipients was 4.7 million persons, down 7 percent from FY 2005. Moreover, this was 62 percent lower than the average monthly AFDC caseload in FY 1996 and the smallest number of people on welfare since 1967. From the peak of 14.2 million in FY 1994, the number of AFDC/TANF recipients dropped by 67 percent to 4.7 million in FY 2007.^[6] Over four-fifths of the reduction in the caseload since FY 1994 has occurred following the passage of PRWORA in FY 1996. These are the largest welfare caseload declines in the history of U.S. welfare programs.

Several studies have attempted to explain the unprecedented decline in caseloads and, specifically, to disentangle the effects of PRWORA and welfare reform from the simultaneous growth in the U.S. economy. Separating these effects is difficult, however, because PRWORA was enacted at a time when the economy was expanding dramatically, offering a uniquely conducive environment within which to move many recipients off the welfare rolls and into the labor market. Other policy changes, most notably expansions in the Earned Income Tax Credit, add further complexity.

In general, studies have found that both economic conditions and welfare reform policies have played important roles in the recent caseload decline. A review of a dozen studies concluded that roughly 15 to 30 percent of the caseload decline prior to 1996 was attributed by most studies to welfare policies under waivers to the AFDC rules with approximately 30 to 45 percent of the decline explained by economic conditions (Schoeni and Blank, 2000). A study by the Council of Economic Advisers (1999) of the post-PRWORA period finds that just over one-third of the caseload decline can be explained by welfare reform policy, while 8 to 10 percent is due to the economy. A more recent study estimates that over half the decline in caseloads after enactment of PRWORA was attributable to welfare reform (O’Neill and Hill, 2001).

AFDC/TANF Expenditures (Tables TANF 4 through TANF 6 and Figure TANF 2). Tables TANF 4 and 5 show trends in expenditures on AFDC and TANF. Table TANF 4 tracks both programs, breaking out the costs of benefits and administrative expenses. It also shows the division between federal and state spending. Table TANF 5 shows the variety of activities funded under the TANF program.

Figure TANF 2 and Table TANF 6 show that inflation has had a significant effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In real dollars, by 2006 the average monthly benefit per recipient had declined to 65 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.

AFDC/TANF Recipient Characteristics (Table TANF 7). With the dramatic declines in the welfare rolls since the implementation of TANF, there has been a great deal of speculation regarding how the composition of the caseload has changed. Two striking trends are the increases in the proportion of families with no adult in the assistance unit and in employment among adult recipients.

One of the most dramatic trends is the increase in the proportion of adult recipients who are working. In FY 2006, 22 percent of TANF adult recipients were employed, down from 26 percent in 2000, but up from 11 percent in FY 1996 and 7 percent in FY 1992, as shown in Table TANF 7. Adding in those in work experience and community service positions, the percentage working was 30 percent in FY 2006^[7] (data not shown). Similar trends are shown in data on income from earnings. These trends likely reflect the effects of expanded earnings disregards, welfare-to-work programs, and the economy. One can also see a relationship between employment of welfare recipients and broader trends in labor force participation. (For example, see Table WORK 8 in Chapter III for trends in employment rates for women with children under age 18.)

Another dramatic change in the caseload is the increasing fraction of cases without an adult recipient. Such cases occur when the adults are ineligible (because they are a caretaker relative, SSI parent, immigrant parent, or sanctioned parent). Families with no adults in the assistance unit have climbed from 15 percent of the caseload in FY 1992 to 47 percent in FY 2006.^[8] This dramatic growth has been due to an increase in the number of cases without recipient adults during the early 1990s, followed by a decline in the number of cases that included adults in the assistance unit. The number of cases without an adult in the assistance unit has fallen by about 127,000 since 1996 — between 1996 and 1998 they decreased by 254,000 but subsequently increased by 127,000.

In other areas, TANF administrative data show fewer changes in composition than might have been expected. There has been widespread anecdotal evidence that the most job ready recipients — those with the fewest barriers to employment — have already exited the welfare caseload and have stopped coming onto the welfare rolls, leaving a more disadvantaged population remaining. However, as the expectations for welfare recipients have increased, and fewer recipients are totally exempted from work requirements, others have speculated that the most disadvantaged recipients may also have been sanctioned off the rolls or terminated for failure to comply with administrative requirements. In fact, analyses of program data have not found much evidence of an increase or decrease in readily observed barriers to employment in the current caseload.

The question of whether the caseload has become more disadvantaged cannot be answered simply through TANF administrative data provided by the states, which do not contain detailed information on such barriers to employment as lack of basic skills, alcohol and drug abuse, domestic violence, and disabilities. A few recent studies have found very high levels of these barriers among the TANF population. These studies also have found that the more barriers a recipient faces, the less likely she is to find a job and maintain consistent employment over a period of time.

AFDC/TANF State-by-State Trends (Tables TANF 8 through TANF 15). There is a great deal of state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as shown in Table TANF 10, while every state has experienced a caseload decline since the 1990s, the percentage change between the state’s caseload peak and March 2007 ranges from 96 percent (Wyoming) to 44 percent (Nebraska). Sixteen states have experienced caseload declines of 75 percent or more. Table TANF 10 also shows that states reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as late as June 1997 (Hawaii).

Table TANF 15 shows TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) families and recipients, by state. Thirty-two states (including DC) had such programs.

Figure TANF 1.
AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance. See text for explanation and tables for data.

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and “UP Families” are two-parent cases receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. Shaded areas indicate NBER designated periods of recession from peak to trough. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is March 2007.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation.

Figure TANF 2.
Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2006 Dollars

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2006 Dollars. See text for explanation and tables for data.

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in constant 2006 dollars with the weighted average maximum benefit in constant 2006 dollars since 1988 indicates that the primary cause of the decline in the average monthly benefit has been the erosion of the real value of the maximum benefit due to inflation. This is due to the fact that the current value of the maximum benefits has increased less than the cost of living in most states since the late1980s.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 and earlier years along with unpublished data.

Table TANF 1.
Trends in AFDC/TANF Caseloads: 1962-2006
Fiscal Year	Average Monthly Number (thousands)					Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average¹ Number of Children per Family
Fiscal Year	Total Families¹	AFDC UP² Two-Parent Families	TANF Two-Parent Families	Total Recipients	Child Recipients	Children as a Percent of Total Recipients	Average¹ Number of Children per Family
1962	924	48	NA	3,593	2,778	77.3	3.0
1964	984	60	NA	4,059	3,043	75.0	3.1
1965	1,037	69	NA	4,323	3,242	75.0	3.1
1966	1,074	62	NA	4,472	3,369	75.3	3.1
1967	1,141	58	NA	4,718	3,560	75.5	3.1
1968	1,310	67	NA	5,349	4,013	75.0	3.1
1969	1,539	66	NA	6,146	4,591	74.7	3.0
1970	1,906	78	NA	7,415	5,484	74.0	2.9
1971	2,531	143	NA	9,557	6,963	72.9	2.8
1972	2,918	134	NA	10,632	7,698	72.4	2.6
1973	3,123	120	NA	11,038	7,967	72.2	2.6
1974	3,170	93	NA	10,845	7,825	72.2	2.5
1975	3,357	100	NA	11,067	7,952	71.9	2.4
1976	3,575	135	NA	11,386	8,054	70.7	2.3
1977	3,593	149	NA	11,130	7,846	70.5	2.2
1978	3,539	128	NA	10,672	7,492	70.2	2.1
1979	3,496	114	NA	10,318	7,197	69.8	2.1
1980	3,642	141	NA	10,597	7,320	69.1	2.0
1981	3,871	209	NA	11,160	7,615	68.2	2.0
1982	3,569	232	NA	10,431	6,975	66.9	2.0
1983	3,651	272	NA	10,659	7,051	66.1	1.9
1984	3,725	287	NA	10,866	7,153	65.8	1.9
1985	3,692	261	NA	10,813	7,165	66.3	1.9
1986	3,748	254	NA	10,997	7,300	66.4	1.9
1987	3,784	236	NA	11,065	7,381	66.7	2.0
1988	3,748	210	NA	10,920	7,325	67.1	2.0
1989	3,771	193	NA	10,934	7,370	67.4	2.0
1990	3,974	204	NA	11,460	7,755	67.7	2.0
1991	4,374	268	NA	12,592	8,513	67.6	1.9
1992	4,768	322	NA	13,625	9,226	67.7	1.9
1993	4,981	359	NA	14,143	9,560	67.6	1.9
1994	5,046	363	NA	14,226	9,611	67.6	1.9
1995	4,871	335	NA	13,660	9,280	67.9	1.9
1996	4,543	301	NA	12,645	8,672	68.6	1.9
1997 ²	3,937	256	NA	10,935	7,781 ³	71.2 ³	2.0 ³
1998	3,200	NA	162	8,790	6,273	71.4	2.0
1999	2,674	NA	125	7,188	5,319	74.0	2.0
2000	2,356	NA	132	6,324	4,598	72.7	2.0
2001	2,200	NA	119	5,761	4,227	73.4	1.9
2002	2,195	NA	118	5,656	4,149	73.3	1.9
2003	2,181	NA	116	5,518	4,075	73.9	1.9
2004	2,160	NA	113	5,376	3,993	74.3	1.8
2005	2,090	NA	108	5,118	3,819	74.6	1.8
2006	1, 962	NA	98	4,746	3,561	75.0	1.8
Note: Beginning in 2000, all caseload numbers include SSP families. ¹ Includes unemployed parent families and child-only cases. ² The AFDC Unemployed Parent program was replaced when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed AFDC and set up the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program beginning July 1, 1997. ³ Based on data from the AFDC reporting system that were available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/).

Table TANF 2.
Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various Population Groups: 1970-2006
Calendar Year ¹	Total Recipients in the States & DC (thousands)	Child Recipients in the States & DC (thousands)	Recipients as a Percent of Total Population ²	Recipients as a Percent of Poverty Population ³	Child Recipients as a Percent of Total Child Population ²	Child Recipients as a Percent of Children in Poverty ³
1970	8,303	6,104	4.0	32.7	8.7	58.5
1971	10,043	7,303	4.8	39.3	10.5	69.2
1972	10,736	7,766	5.1	43.9	11.2	75.5
1973	10,738	7,763	5.1	46.7	11.3	80.5
1974	10,621	7,637	5.0	45.4	11.3	75.2
1975	11,131	7,928	5.2	43.0	11.8	71.4
1976	11,098	7,850	5.1	44.4	11.8	76.4
1977	10,856	7,632	4.9	43.9	11.7	74.2
1978	10,387	7,270	4.7	42.4	11.2	73.2
1979	10,140	7,057	4.5	38.9	11.0	68.0
1980	10,599	7,295	4.7	36.2	11.5	63.2
1981	10,893	7,397	4.7	34.2	11.7	59.2
1982	10,161	6,767	4.4	29.5	10.8	49.6
1983	10,569	6,967	4.5	29.9	11.1	50.1
1984	10,643	7,017	4.5	31.6	11.2	52.3
1985	10,672	7,073	4.5	32.3	11.3	54.4
1986	10,850	7,206	4.5	33.5	11.5	56.0
1987	10,841	7,240	4.5	33.6	11.5	55.9
1988	10,728	7,201	4.4	33.8	11.4	57.8
1989	10,798	7,286	4.4	34.3	11.5	57.9
1990	11,497	7,781	4.6	34.2	12.1	57.9
1991	12,728	8,601	5.0	35.6	13.2	60.0
1992	13,571	9,189	5.3	35.7	13.8	60.1
1993	14,007	9,460	5.4	35.7	14.0	60.2
1994	13,970	9,448	5.3	36.7	13.8	61.8
1995	13,242	9,013	5.0	36.4	13.0	61.5
1996	12,156	8,355	4.5	33.3	11.9	57.8
1997	10,224	7,077 ⁴	3.7	28.7	10.0	50.1
1998	8,215	5,781	3.0	23.8	8.1	42.9
1999	6,709	4,836	2.4	20.5	6.7	39.4
2000	6,043	4,415	2.1	19.1	6.1	38.1
2001	5,631	4,140	2.0	17.1	5.7	35.3
2002	5,534	4,073	1.9	16.0	5.6	33.6
2003	5,424	4,024	1.9	15.1	5.5	31.3
2004	5,282	3,936	1.8	14.3	5.4	30.2
2005	4,975	3,727	1.7	13.5	5.1	28.9
2006	4,542	3,430	1.5	12.5	4.7	26.7
¹ Total recipients are calculated here as the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used to compute the recipiency rates. From 2000 onward, total recipients includes SSP recipients as well as TANF recipients and likewise for child recipients. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates. ² Population numbers used as denominators are resident population. See Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106 ³ For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-231 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html). ⁴ Estimated based on the ratio of children recipients to total recipients for January through June of 1997. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-233 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table TANF 3.
TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2006
[In thousands]
Fiscal Year	TANF	SSP	Total
Fiscal Year	Families
2000	2,265	91	2,356
2001	2,117	82	2,200
2002	2,065	129	2,195
2003	2,032	149	2,181
2004	1,987	173	2,160
2005	1,921	170	2,090
2006	1,807	155	1,962
	All Recipients
2000	5,943	380	6,324
2001	5,423	338	5,761
2002	5,149	508	5,656
2003	4,967	551	5,518
2004	4,784	592	5,376
2005	4,549	569	5,118
2006	4,229	517	4,749
	Child Recipients
2000	4,370	228	4,598
2001	4,025	202	4,227
2002	3,841	308	4,149
2003	3,731	344	4,075
2004	3,617	376	3,993
2005	3,459	360	3,819
2006	3,234	326	3,561
Note: Some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs (SSPs) which are funded out of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars rather than federal TANF funds. See Table TANF 15 for SSPs by state. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/).

Table TANF 4.
Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970 – 2006
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal Year	Federal Funds (Current Dollars)		State Funds (Current Dollars)		Total (Current Dollars)		Total (Constant 2006 Dollars¹)
Fiscal Year	Benefits	Admin	Benefits	Admin	Benefits	Admin	Benefits	Admin
1970	$2,187	$572 ²	$1,895	$309	$4,082	$881 ²	19,248	4,154
1971	3,008	271	2,469	254	5,477	525	24,724	2,370
1972	3,612	240 ₃	2,942	241	6,554	481 ₃	28,571	2,097
1973	3,865	313	3,138	296	7,003	610	29,320	2,554
1974	4,071	379	3,300	362	7,371	740	28,424	2,854
1975	4,625	552	3,787	529	8,412	1,082	29,566	3,803
1976	5,258	541	4,418	527	9,676	1,069	31,835	3,517
1977	5,626	595	4,762	583	10,388	1,177	31,815	3,605
1978	5,724	631	4,898	617	10,621	1,248	30,517	3,586
1979	5,825	683	4,954	668	10,779	1,350	28,480	3,567
1980	6,448	750	5,508	729	11,956	1,479	28,428	3,517
1981	6,928	835	5,917	814	12,845	1,648	27,763	3,562
1982	6,922	878	5,934	878	12,857	1,756	25,996	3,551
1983	7,332	915	6,275	915	13,607	1,830	26,303	3,538
1984	7,707	876	6,664	822	14,371	1,698	26,677	3,152
1985	7,817	890	6,763	889	14,580	1,779	26,127	3,188
1986	8,239	993	6,996	967	15,235	1,960	26,684	3,433
1987	8,914	1,081	7,409	1,052	16,323	2,133	27,845	3,639
1988	9,125	1,194	7,538	1,159	16,663	2,353	27,409	3,870
1989	9,433	1,211	7,807	1,206	17,240	2,417	27,204	3,814
1990	10,149	1,358	8,390	1,303	18,539	2,661	27,979	4,016
1991	11,165	1,373	9,191	1,300	20,356	2,673	29,396	3,860
1992	12,258	1,459	9,993	1,378	22,250	2,837	31,363	3,999
1993	12,270	1,518	10,016	1,438	22,286	2,956	30,637	4,064
1994	12,512	1,680	10,285	1,621	22,797	3,301	30,680	4,443
1995	12,019	1,770	10,014	1,751	22,032	3,521	28,963	4,629
1996	11,065	1,633	9,346	1,633	20,411	3,266	26,177	4,189
1997 ⁴	9,748	1,273	7,799	1,098	17,547	2,371	21,960	2,967
1998	7,518	1,231	7,096	1,028	14,614	2,259	18,021	2,786
1999	6,475	1,407	6,975	884	13,449	2,291	16,292	2,775
2000	5,444	1,570	5,736	1,032	11,180	2,302	13,133	3,057
2001	4,772	1,598	5,390	1,042	10,163	2,639	11,569	3,005
2002	4,554	1,633	4,854	983	9,408	2,617	10,551	2,935
2003	5,820	1,592	4,398	859	10,219	2,451	11,195	2,685
2004	4,717	1,471	5,652	828	10,368	2,300	11,103	2,463
2005	5,193	1,507	5,546	870	10,739	2,377	11,136	2,464
2006	4,926	1,525	4,980	886	9,906	2,411	9,906	2,411
Note: Benefits do not include emergency assistance payments and have not been reduced by child support collections. Foster care payments are included from 1971 to 1980. State funds for benefits include benefits under Separate State Programs. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of certifying AFDC households for food stamps is shown in the food stamp program’s appropriation under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Administrative costs include: Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, Child Care administration (through 1996), SAVE and other State and local administrative expenditures. ¹ Constant dollar adjustments to 2006 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year price index. ² Includes expenditures for services. ³ Administrative expenditures only. ⁴ The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Under PRWORA, spending categories are not entirely equivalent to those under AFDC: for example administrative expenses under TANF do not include IV-A child care administration (which accounted for 4 percent of 1996 administrative expense). Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Systems.

Table TANF 5.
Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending: 1997 – 2006
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal Year	Cash & Work-Based Assistance	Work Activities	Child Care	Transpor- tation	Adminis- tration	Systems	Transitional Services	Other Expenditures	Total Expenditures
Federal TANF Grants
1997	7,708	467	14	–	872	109	0	862	10,032
1998	7,168	763	252	–	938	224	6	1,136	10,487
1999	6,475	1,225	604	–	1,070	337	17	1,595	11,323
2000	5,444	1,606	1,553	496	1,328	242	–	2,715	13,384
2001	4,772	1,983	1,583	522	1,375	223	–	4,325	14,782
2002	4,554	2,121	1,572	339	1,339	294	–	4,368	14,588
2003	5,820	1,937	1,698	434	1,307	285	–	4,772	16,254
2004	4,717	1,613	1,427	354	1,220	251	–	4,811	14,393
2005	5,193	1,702	1,279	393	1,277	230	–	4,089	14,164
2006	4,926	1,681	1,238	341	1,294	231	–	3,859	13,570
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF Program
1997	5,955	311	752	–	704	101	9	926	8,758
1998	6,879	520	890	–	883	138	11	1,301	10,623
1999	6,541	503	1,135	–	743	118	23	1,334	10,397
2000	5,432	884	1,893	150	921	92	–	1,170	10,541
2001	4,887	685	1,730	113	920	83	–	1,195	9,613
2002	3,994	582	1,860	221	877	66	–	1,554	9,154
2003	3,597	596	1,993	73	766	60	–	1,441	8,526
2004	4,729	501	1,878	119	721	55	–	1,330	9,333
2005	4,537	429	1,761	111	776	46	–	1,489	9,148
2006	4,105	630	2,120	102	793	41	–	1,323	9,114
State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in Separate State Programs
1997	69	12	111	–	0	0	–	18	210
1998	216	3	137	–	6	1	–	28	391
1999	434	26	257	–	22	0	0	126	865
2000	305	11	73	17	19	0	–	431	856
2001	503	28	34	20	38	1	–	499	1,125
2002	860	24	72	24	41	-.5	–	652	1,673
2003	801	66	-223	36	33	-.3	–	848	1,560
2004	922	40	45	19	52	1.1	–	1,016	2,095
2005	1,009	36	157	19	46	1.9	–	999	2,268
2006	875	53	184	29	51	1.3	–	1,716	2,910
Total Expenditures
1997	13,731	790	877	–	1,577	211	9	1,805	19,000
1998	14,264	1,286	1,280	–	1,828	362	17	2,465	21,502
1999	13,449	1,754	1,995	–	1,835	456	40	3,055	22,585
2000	11,180	2,501	3,519	663	2,267	335	–	4,316	24,781
2001	10,163	2,696	3,347	655	2,333	306	–	6,019	25,520
2002	9,408	2,727	3,504	584	2,258	359	–	6,574	25,414
2003	10,219	2,599	3,468	543	2,106	345	–	7,060	26,340
2004	10,368	2,154	3,350	492	1,992	307	–	7,157	25,821
2005	10,739	2,167	3,197	523	2,099	278	–	6,577	25,580
2006	9,906	2,364	3,542	472	2,138	273	–	6,898	25,594
Note: Administration and Systems, shown separately here in Table TANF 5, can be combined to show total administrative costs, as in Table TANF 3. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services (available online at http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofs/data/index.html).

Table TANF 6.
Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962 – 2006
Fiscal Year	Monthly Benefit per Recipient		Average Number of Persons per Family	Monthly Benefit per Family (not reduced by Child Support)		Weighted Average ¹Maximum Benefit (per 3-person Family)
Fiscal Year	Current Dollars	2006 Dollars	Average Number of Persons per Family	Current Dollars	2006 Dollars	Current Dollars	2006 Dollars
1962	$31	$181	3.9	$121	$705	NA	NA
1963	31	180	4.0	126	725	NA	NA
1964	32	181	4.1	131	746	NA	NA
1965	34	188	4.2	140	784	NA	NA
1966	35	192	4.2	146	798	NA	NA
1967	36	193	4.1	150	799	NA	NA
1968	40	203	4.1	162	832	NA	NA
1969	43	214	4.0	173	855	$186 ²	$923
1970	46	216	3.9	178	840	194 ²	916
1971	48	216	3.8	180	814	201 ²	908
1972	51	224	3.6	187	816	205 ²	895
1973	53	221	3.5	187	782	213 ²	891
1974	57	218	3.4	194	747	229 ²	882
1975	63	222	3.3	209	734	243	854
1976	71	233	3.2	226	742	257	845
1977	78	238	3.1	241	738	271	830
1978	83	238	3.0	250	719	284	817
1979	87	230	3.0	257	679	301	795
1980	94	224	2.9	274	650	320	761
1981	96	207	2.9	277	598	326	704
1982	103	208	2.9	300	607	331	668
1983	106	206	2.9	311	600	336	650
1984	110	205	2.9	322	597	352	653
1985	112	201	2.9	329	590	369	661
1986	115	202	2.9	339	593	383	671
1987	123	210	2.9	359	613	393	671
1988	127	209	2.9	370	609	403	663
1989	131	207	2.9	381	601	413	651
1990	135	203	2.9	389	587	420	634
1991	135	195	2.9	388	560	424	613
1992	136	192	2.9	389	548	419	590
1993	131	181	2.8	373	513	414	570
1994	134	180	2.8	376	507	416	559
1995	134	177	2.8	376	496	418	550
1996	135	173	2.8	374	480	419	538
1997 ³	130	163	2.8	362	453	418	524
1998	130	161	2.7	358	441	429	529
1999	133	161	2.7	357	432	450	545
2000	130	153	2.7	349	410	446	524
2001	134	153	2.6	351	400	448	510
2002	141	158	2.6	364	408	452	507
2003	140	153	2.5	354	388	455	498
2004	145	155	2.5	360	386	462	495
2005	151	157	2.4	370	383	468	485
2006	154	154	2.4	372	372	495	495
Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2006 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal-year price index. ¹ The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC/TANF + SSP families. ² Estimated based on the weighted average benefit for a 4-person family. ³ The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Beginning in 1997, average monthly benefits are calculated from case-level data rather than by dividing aggregate expenditures on cash assistance by aggregate caseloads, as in the past. This change was necessary due to uncertainty about the extent to which states may be reporting non-cash basic assistance as well as cash assistance in the expenditure data formerly used to calculate average cash benefits. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993 and earlier years along with unpublished data.

Table TANF 7.
Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families: Selected Years 1969 – 2006
	1969	1975	1979	1983	1988	1992	1996	2000	2003	2006
	May	May	March	Fiscal year ¹
Avg. Family Size (persons)	4.0	3.2	3.0	3.0	3.0	2.9	2.8	2.6	2.5	2.3
Number of Child Recipients
One	26.6	37.9	42.3	43.4	42.5	42.5	43.9	44.2	47.9	50.2
Two	23.0	26.0	28.1	29.8	30.2	30.2	29.9	28.4	27.8	27.2
Three	17.7	16.1	15.6	15.2	15.8	15.5	15.0	15.3	13.8	13.2
Four or More	32.5	20.0	13.9	10.1	9.9	10.1	9.2	10.1	8.6	7.5
Unknown	NA	NA	NA	1.5	1.7	0.7	1.3	2.0	1.9	2.0
Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit ²	10.1	12.5	14.6	8.3	9.6	14.8	21.5	34.4	40.9	47.2
Families with Non-Recipients	33.1	34.8	NA	36.9	36.8	38.9	49.9	–	–	–
Median Months on AFDC/TANF
Since Most Recent Opening	23.0	31.0	29.0	26.0	26.3	22.5	23.6	–	–	–
Presence of Assistance
Living in Public Housing	12.8	14.6	NA	10.0	9.6	9.2	8.8	17.7	19.1	17.2
Participating in Food Stamp or Donated Food Program	52.9	75.1	75.1	83.0	84.6	87.3	89.3	79.9	80.9	80.7
Presence of Income
With Earnings	NA	14.6	12.8	5.7	8.4	7.4	11.1	23.6 ³	19.5 ³	18.4 ³
No Non-AFDC/TANF Income	56.0	71.1	80.6	86.8	79.6	78.9	76.0	71.6 ³	74.4 ³	76.6 ³
Adult Employment Status (percent of adults)
Employed	–	–	–	–	–	6.6	11.3	26.4	22.9	21.6
Unemployed	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	49.2	49.0	54.8
Not in Labor Force	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	24.3	28.1	23.6
Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):⁴
Full-time job	8.2	10.4	8.7	1.5	2.2	2.2	4.7	–	–	–
Part-time job	6.3	5.7	5.4	3.4	4.2	4.2	5.4	–	–	–
Marital Status (percent of adults)
Single	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	65.3	67.3	69.9
Married	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	12.4	10.7	10.5
Separated	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	13.1	12.8	11.4
Widowed	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	0.7	0.5	0.6
Divorced	–	–	–	–	–	–	–	8.5	8.7	7.9
Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):
Incapacitated	11.7 ⁵	7.7	5.3	3.4	3.7	4.1	4.3	–	–	–
Unemployed	4.6 ⁵	3.7	4.1	8.7	6.5	8.2	8.3	–	–	–
Death	5.5 ⁵	3.7	2.2	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.6	–	–	–
Divorce or Separation	43.3 ⁵	48.3	44.7	38.5	34.6	30.0	24.3	–	–	–
Absent, No Marriage Tie	27.9 ⁵	31.0	37.8	44.3	51.9	53.1	58.6	–	–	–
Absent, Other Reason	3.5 ⁵	4.0	5.9	1.4	1.6	2.0	2.4	–	–	–
Unknown	–	–	–	1.7	–	0.9	0.6	–	–	–
Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise. ¹ Percentages are based on the average monthly TANF caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data after 1986 include the territories and Hawaii. Unlike most of the figures in this report, this table does not include families from Separate State Programs (SSP). ² Adults that live in TANF families with children are sometimes excluded from the assistance unit because they have been sanctioned, receive disability income from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), have been time-limited, do not qualify based on citizenship requirements, or are non-parental caretakers such as relatives or other adults taking responsibility for the children. ³ Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients, not families, in 1998 and subsequent years. ⁴ For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only. ⁵ Calculated on the basis of total number of families. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, unpublished data and Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: TANF Annual Report to Congress selected years.

Table TANF 8.
AFDC/TANF Benefits by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2006
[In millions of dollars]
State	1978	1984	1986	1988	1990	1994	1998	2000	2003	2006
Alabama	$78	$74	$68	$62	$62	$92	$44	$36	$46	$35
Alaska	17	37	46	54	60	113	77	55	50	36
Arizona	30	67	79	103	138	266	145	107	175	137
Arkansas	51	39	48	53	57	57	26	34	22	15
California	1,813	3,207	3,574	4,091	4,955	6,088	4,128	3,643	3,119	3,480
Colorado	74	107	107	125	137	158	80	48	51	63
Connecticut	168	226	223	218	295	397	305	166	133	124
Delaware	28	28	25	24	29	40	24	20	20	18
Dist. of Columbia	91	75	77	76	84	126	97	72	68	62
Florida	145	251	261	318	418	806	357	234	251	170
Georgia	103	149	223	266	321	428	313	180	169	96
Hawaii	83	83	73	77	99	163	153	141	91	85
Idaho	21	21	19	19	20	30	6	3	6	7
Illinois	699	845	886	815	839	914	771	269	115	124
Indiana	118	153	148	167	170	228	104	87	139	109
Iowa	107	159	170	155	152	169	104	79	81	74
Kansas	73	87	91	97	105	123	41	43	55	63
Kentucky	122	135	104	143	179	198	147	104	102	101
Louisiana	97	145	162	182	188	168	103	58	67	45
Maine	51	69	84	80	101	108	80	73	66	65
Maryland	166	229	250	250	296	314	192	196	32	106
Massachusetts	476	406	471	558	630	730	442	336	339	320
Michigan	780	1,214	1,248	1,231	1,211	1,132	589	386	390	422
Minnesota	164	287	322	338	355	379	276	193	193	129
Mississippi	33	58	74	85	86	82	60	18	36	22
Missouri	152	196	209	215	228	287	180	139	130	122
Montana	15	27	37	41	40	49	30	21	31	17
Nebraska	38	56	62	56	59	62	41	41	59	63
Nevada	8	10	16	20	27	48	39	28	48	33
New Hampshire	21	16	20	21	32	62	39	32	39	35
New Jersey	489	485	509	459	451	531	372	222	222	78
New Mexico	32	49	51	56	61	144	104	113	78	74
New York	1,689	1,916	2,099	2,140	2,259	2,913	2,149	1,554	1,605	1,624
North Carolina	138	149	138	206	247	353	211	140	133	94
North Dakota	14	16	20	22	24	26	22	12	18	10
Ohio	441	725	804	805	877	1,016	546	368	304	331
Oklahoma	74	85	100	119	132	165	72	78	58	28
Oregon	148	101	120	128	145	197	141	34	82	89
Pennsylvania	726	724	389	747	798	935	523	573	324	393
Rhode Island	59	71	79	82	99	136	117	105	83	65
South Carolina	52	75	103	91	96	115	52	91	49	39
South Dakota	18	17	15	21	22	25	14	10	11	12
Tennessee	77	83	100	125	168	215	108	146	138	104
Texas	122	229	281	344	416	544	315	248	323	139
Utah	41	52	55	61	64	77	50	40	44	37
Vermont	21	40	40	40	48	65	47	39	34	35
Virginia	136	165	179	169	177	253	123	186	129	136
Washington	175	294	375	401	438	610	450	312	269	284
West Virginia	53	75	109	107	110	126	52	49	68	37
Wisconsin	260	519	444	506	440	425	145	7	109	111
Wyoming	6	13	16	19	19	21	7	9	15	10
United States	$10,621	$14,371	$15,236	$16,663	$18,543	$22,798	$14,614	$11,180	$10,219	$9,906
Note: Benefits refers to total cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance payments. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Program Support, Office of Management Services, data from the ACF-196 TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report.

Table TANF 9.
Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs and 2006 Family Assistance Grants Awarded under PRWORA
[In millions of dollars]
State	FY 1996 Grants for AFDC, EA, & JOBS ¹	FY 2006 Family Assistance Grants & Supplemental ²	FY 2006 Bonus Awards ³	FY 2006 Total Awards	Increase of FY 2006 over FY 1996 Level	Percent Increase from FY 1996 Level
Alabama	$79.0	$104.4	$0.0	$104.4	$25.4	32
Alaska	60.7	54.8	0.0	54.8	-5.8	-10
Arizona	200.6	226.1	0.0	226.1	25.5	13
Arkansas	54.3	63.0	0.0	63.0	8.7	16
California	3,545.6	3,669.9	0.0	3,669.9	124.3	4
Colorado	138.9	149.6	0.0	149.6	10.7	8
Connecticut	221.1	266.8	0.0	264.4	43.3	20
Delaware	30.2	32.3	0.0	31.4	1.2	4
Dist. of Columbia	77.1	92.6	0.0	90.5	13.4	17
Florida	504.7	622.7	0.0	622.7	118.0	23
Georgia	301.2	368.0	0.0	368.0	66.8	22
Hawaii	98.4	98.9	0.0	98.9	0.5	1
Idaho	31.3	33.9	0.0	33.9	2.6	8
Illinois	593.8	585.1	0.0	585.1	-8.8	-1
Indiana	121.4	206.8	0.0	206.8	85.4	70
Iowa	129.3	131.5	0.0	131.5	2.2	2
Kansas	86.9	101.9	0.0	101.9	15.0	17
Kentucky	171.6	181.3	0.0	181.3	9.6	6
Louisiana	122.4	181.0	0.0	181.0	58.6	48
Maine	73.2	78.1	0.0	78.1	4.9	7
Maryland	207.6	229.1	0.0	227.5	19.9	10
Massachusetts	372.0	459.4	0.0	459.4	87.3	23
Michigan	581.5	775.4	0.0	775.4	193.9	33
Minnesota	239.3	263.4	0.0	263.4	24.1	10
Mississippi	68.6	95.8	0.0	95.8	27.2	40
Missouri	207.9	217.1	0.0	217.1	9.2	4
Montana	39.2	39.2	0.0	39.2	0.0	0
Nebraska	56.2	57.8	0.0	57.8	1.6	3
Nevada	41.2	47.7	0.0	46.4	5.1	12
New Hampshire	36.0	38.5	0.0	38.5	2.5	7
New Jersey	353.4	404.0	0.0	404.0	50.7	14
New Mexico	129.9	117.1	0.0	117.1	-12.8	-10
New York	2,332.7	2,442.9	0.0	2,442.9	110.2	5
North Carolina	311.9	338.3	0.0	338.3	26.5	8
North Dakota	24.5	26.4	0.0	26.4	1.9	8
Ohio	564.5	728.0	0.0	728.0	163.5	29
Oklahoma	125.1	147.6	0.0	147.6	22.5	18
Oregon	146.4	166.8	0.0	166.8	20.4	14
Pennsylvania	780.1	719.5	0.0	719.5	-60.6	-8
Rhode Island	82.9	95.0	0.0	95.0	12.2	15
South Carolina	99.4	100.0	0.0	100.0	0.5	1
South Dakota	19.7	21.3	0.0	21.3	1.5	8
Tennessee	178.9	213.1	19.2	232.2	53.3	30
Texas	437.1	539.0	0.0	539.0	101.9	23
Utah	68.0	84.3	0.0	84.3	16.4	24
Vermont	42.4	47.4	0.0	47.4	5.0	12
Virginia	134.6	158.3	0.0	158.3	23.6	18
Washington	393.2	382.9	0.0	382.9	-10.3	-3
West Virginia	95.1	110.2	0.0	109.2	14.0	15
Wisconsin	241.6	314.5	0.0	314.5	72.9	30
Wyoming	14.4	18.4	0.0	18.4	4.0	28
United States	$15,067	$16,647	$19.2	$16,657	$1,590	11
¹ Includes Administration and FAMIS but excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be comparable to the Family Assistance Grant. The 1996 figures have been revised since earlier versions of this report, to reflect upward revisions in states' reports of expenditures on the JOBS program. ² The FY 2006 Family Assistance Grants and Supplemental is net of the Tribal Grants amounts. ³ FY 2006 Bonus Awards include Contingency Fund Grants but not penalties assessed. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services.

Table TANF 10.
AFDC/TANF Caseload by State: October 1989 to March 2007 Peak
[In thousands]
State	Peak Caseload Oct ‘89 to June ’06	Date Peak Occurred Oct ’89 to June ’06	Sept ’96 AFDC Caseload	March ’07 TANF & SSP Caseload	Percent Decline ¹ Sept ’96 to March ’07	Percent Decline Peak to March ’07
Alabama	52.3	Mar-93	40.7	18.0	56	66
Alaska	13.4	Apr-94	12.3	3.4	73	75
Arizona	72.8	Dec-93	61.8	35.7	42	51
Arkansas	27.1	Mar-92	22.1	8.6	61	68
California	933.1	Mar-95	870.3	471.8	46	49
Colorado	43.7	Dec-93	33.6	11.1	67	75
Connecticut	61.9	Mar-95	57.1	20.7	64	67
Delaware	11.8	Apr-94	10.5	4.6	56	61
Dist. of Columbia	27.5	Apr-94	25.1	5.3	79	81
Florida	259.9	Nov-92	200.3	47.3	76	82
Georgia	142.8	Nov-93	120.9	24.8	79	83
Hawaii	23.4	Jun-97	21.9	8.5	61	64
Idaho	9.5	Mar-95	8.4	1.7	80	83
Illinois	243.1	Aug-94	217.8	31.3	86	87
Indiana	76.1	Sep-93	49.7	41.2	17	46
Iowa	40.7	Apr-94	31.1	16.6	46	59
Kansas	30.8	Aug-93	23.4	14.6	38	53
Kentucky	84.0	Mar-93	70.4	29.8	58	65
Louisiana	94.7	May-90	66.5	10.7	84	89
Maine	24.4	Aug-93	19.7	11.0	44	55
Maryland	81.8	May-95	68.9	19.1	72	77
Massachusetts	115.7	Aug-93	84.3	44.6	47	61
Michigan	233.6	Apr-91	167.5	75.2	55	68
Minnesota	66.2	Jun-92	57.2	26.5	54	60
Mississippi	61.8	Nov-91	45.2	11.2	75	82
Missouri	93.7	Mar-94	79.1	42.8	46	54
Montana	12.3	Mar-94	9.8	3.2	68	74
Nebraska	17.2	Mar-93	14.4	9.5	34	44
Nevada	16.3	Mar-95	13.2	6.4	51	61
New Hampshire	11.8	Apr-94	8.9	5.1	42	56
New Jersey	132.6	Nov-92	100.8	34.9	65	74
New Mexico	34.9	Nov-94	33.0	14.0	57	60
New York	463.7	Dec-94	412.7	159.4	61	66
North Carolina	134.1	Mar-94	107.5	25.5	76	81
North Dakota	6.6	Apr-93	4.7	2.0	57	70
Ohio	269.8	Mar-92	201.9	77.6	62	71
Oklahoma	51.3	Mar-93	35.3	9.0	74	82
Oregon	43.8	Apr-93	28.5	18.9	34	57
Pennsylvania	212.5	Sep-94	180.1	59.9	67	72
Rhode Island	22.9	Apr-94	20.5	10.9	47	52
South Carolina	54.6	Jan-93	42.9	15.7	64	71
South Dakota	7.4	Apr-93	5.7	2.8	50	62
Tennessee	112.6	Nov-93	96.2	62.4	35	45
Texas	287.5	Dec-93	238.8	61.6	74	79
Utah	18.7	Mar-93	14.0	5.0	64	73
Vermont	10.3	Apr-92	8.7	4.5	49	57
Virginia	76.0	Apr-94	60.5	31.3	48	59
Washington	104.8	Feb-95	96.8	52.3	46	50
West Virginia	41.9	Apr-93	37.6	9.8	74	77
Wisconsin	82.9	Jan-92	49.9	17.2	66	79
Wyoming	7.1	Aug-92	4.3	0.3	94	96
United States	5,098	Mar-94	4,346	1,735	60	66
Note: these data do not include Tribal TANF families (about 8,000) in number). This makes little difference nationally, but in States like Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona, their exclusion under TANF overstates the real decline from AFDC years. ¹Negative values denote percent increase. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, Division of Data Collection and Analysis.

Table TANF 11.
Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years
[In thousands]
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	1996-00	2000-06
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	Percent Change
Alabama	78	123	180	130	132	105	46	46	-56	-1
Alaska	5	8	15	20	38	36	22	10	-38	-56
Arizona	40	51	51	124	201	172	87	87	-49	0
Arkansas	30	45	85	71	69	58	29	18	-50	-39
California	528	1,148	1,387	1,902	2,639	2,626	1,574	1,198	-40	-24
Colorado	42	66	77	102	119	99	29	37	-71	30
Connecticut	59	83	139	120	166	162	73	48	-55	-33
Delaware	12	20	32	21	27	23	13	13	-43	-5
Dist. of Columbia	20	40	85	49	74	70	47	40	-33	-15
Florida	106	204	256	370	669	561	158	90	-72	-43
Georgia	71	198	221	293	393	353	129	63	-64	-51
Guam	1	2	5	4	7	8	10	11	26	9
Hawaii	14	25	60	44	62	67	75	26	12	-64
Idaho	10	16	21	17	23	23	2	3	-90	32
Illinois	262	368	672	636	712	655	256	92	-61	-64
Indiana	48	73	157	154	216	148	103	130	-30	26
Iowa	44	64	104	98	110	89	54	49	-39	-10
Kansas	36	53	68	77	87	68	32	45	-54	42
Kentucky	81	129	167	175	208	175	89	70	-49	-21
Louisiana	104	202	213	282	248	236	75	27	-68	-64
Maine	19	36	60	56	64	56	32	32	-42	-2
Maryland	80	131	212	186	222	204	77	54	-62	-30
Massachusetts	94	208	350	263	307	237	102	98	-57	-3
Michigan	162	253	685	655	666	527	207	220	-61	6
Minnesota	51	76	135	171	187	171	116	80	-32	-31
Mississippi	83	115	173	179	159	129	34	28	-74	-18
Missouri	107	140	199	211	263	232	131	113	-44	-14
Montana	7	13	19	29	35	31	13	10	-58	-23
Nebraska	16	30	35	43	45	40	28	33	-30	20
Nevada	5	12	12	23	38	38	16	17	-58	8
New Hampshire	4	9	22	16	30	24	14	14	-42	2
New Jersey	104	286	459	309	335	288	138	109	-52	-21
New Mexico	30	51	53	57	102	101	72	43	-28	-41
New York	517	1,052	1,100	981	1,255	1,184	724	455	-39	-37
North Carolina	111	124	198	223	333	278	100	59	-64	-41
North Dakota	8	11	13	16	16	13	8	7	-44	-9
Ohio	183	266	513	632	685	546	245	170	-55	-31
Oklahoma	73	95	89	112	131	105	36	23	-66	-37
Oregon	31	75	102	89	114	87	39	42	-55	7
Pennsylvania	303	426	629	521	620	544	250	245	-54	-2
Puerto Rico	202	223	168	190	183	155	92	39	-40	-58
Rhode Island	24	38	52	46	63	58	50	31	-15	-37
South Carolina	30	52	153	111	140	119	41	42	-65	3
South Dakota	11	16	20	19	19	16	7	6	-59	-10
Tennessee	76	129	162	211	300	260	147	185	-43	25
Texas	91	214	308	611	788	684	342	169	-50	-51
Utah	22	33	37	45	50	40	23	18	-44	-19
Vermont	5	12	23	22	28	25	16	12	-36	-26
Virgin Islands	1	2	3	3	4	5	3	1	-35	-61
Virginia	46	87	166	151	195	162	75	82	-53	9
Washington	71	109	154	228	292	274	168	136	-39	-19
West Virginia	116	93	77	111	114	95	32	26	-66	-18
Wisconsin	45	79	213	237	226	170	40	41	-76	1
Wyoming	4	5	7	14	16	13	1	1	-91	-53
United States	4,323	7,415	10,597	11,460	14,226	12,645	6,324	4,746	-50	-25
Note: Recipients in 2000 and beyond include both TANF and SSP recipients. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm).

Table TANF 12.
AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years
[In percent]
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	1996-00	2000-06
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	Percent Change
Alabama	2.2	3.6	4.6	3.2	3.1	2.4	1.0	1.0	-57	-4
Alaska	1.8	2.6	3.7	3.7	6.3	5.9	3.6	1.5	-40	-59
Arizona	2.6	2.9	1.9	3.4	4.7	3.7	1.7	1.4	-55	-16
Arkansas	1.5	2.3	3.7	3.0	2.8	2.3	1.1	0.6	-52	-42
California	2.9	5.7	5.8	6.3	8.4	8.2	4.6	3.3	-44	-29
Colorado	2.2	3.0	2.6	3.1	3.2	2.5	0.7	0.8	-73	18
Connecticut	2.1	2.7	4.5	3.6	5.0	4.8	2.1	1.4	-56	-35
Delaware	2.4	3.6	5.4	3.2	3.8	3.2	1.7	1.5	-46	-12
Dist. of Columbia	2.5	5.3	13.3	8.1	12.6	12.3	8.2	6.8	-33	-17
Florida	1.8	3.0	2.6	2.8	4.7	3.8	1.0	0.5	-74	-50
Georgia	1.6	4.3	4.0	4.5	5.5	4.7	1.6	0.7	-67	-57
Hawaii	1.9	3.2	6.2	3.9	5.2	5.5	6.1	2.1	11	-66
Idaho	1.4	2.2	2.2	1.6	2.0	1.9	0.2	0.2	-91	17
Illinois	2.5	3.3	5.9	5.6	6.0	5.4	2.1	0.7	-62	-65
Indiana	1.0	1.4	2.9	2.8	3.7	2.5	1.7	2.1	-32	21
Iowa	1.6	2.3	3.6	3.5	3.9	3.1	1.9	1.7	-40	-11
Kansas	1.6	2.4	2.9	3.1	3.4	2.6	1.2	1.6	-55	39
Kentucky	2.5	4.0	4.6	4.7	5.4	4.5	2.2	1.7	-51	-24
Louisiana	2.9	5.6	5.0	6.7	5.7	5.4	1.7	0.6	-69	-62
Maine	1.9	3.6	5.4	4.5	5.2	4.5	2.5	2.4	-43	-5
Maryland	2.2	3.3	5.0	3.9	4.4	4.0	1.5	1.0	-64	-34
Massachusetts	1.8	3.7	6.1	4.4	5.0	3.8	1.6	1.5	-58	-4
Michigan	2.0	2.9	7.4	7.0	6.9	5.4	2.1	2.2	-62	5
Minnesota	1.4	2.0	3.3	3.9	4.1	3.6	2.3	1.6	-35	-34
Mississippi	3.6	5.2	6.9	6.9	5.9	4.7	1.2	1.0	-75	-19
Missouri	2.4	3.0	4.0	4.1	4.9	4.3	2.3	1.9	-45	-17
Montana	1.0	1.9	2.4	3.6	4.0	3.5	1.4	1.0	-59	-27
Nebraska	1.1	2.0	2.2	2.7	2.8	2.4	1.6	1.9	-31	16
Nevada	1.2	2.4	1.5	1.9	2.5	2.3	0.8	0.7	-65	-12
New Hampshire	0.7	1.2	2.4	1.5	2.7	2.1	1.1	1.1	-45	-3
New Jersey	1.5	4.0	6.2	4.0	4.2	3.5	1.6	1.3	-54	-23
New Mexico	3.0	5.0	4.1	3.8	6.1	5.8	4.0	2.2	-31	-44
New York	2.9	5.8	6.3	5.4	6.8	6.4	3.8	2.4	-40	-38
North Carolina	2.2	2.4	3.4	3.4	4.6	3.7	1.2	0.7	-67	-46
North Dakota	1.2	1.7	2.0	2.4	2.6	2.1	1.2	1.1	-43	-9
Ohio	1.8	2.5	4.8	5.8	6.1	4.9	2.2	1.5	-56	-31
Oklahoma	3.0	3.7	2.9	3.6	4.0	3.1	1.0	0.6	-67	-39
Oregon	1.6	3.6	3.9	3.1	3.7	2.7	1.1	1.1	-58	-0
Pennsylvania	2.6	3.6	5.3	4.4	5.1	4.4	2.0	2.0	-54	-3
Rhode Island	2.7	4.0	5.5	4.6	6.2	5.7	4.7	3.0	-17	-37
South Carolina	1.2	2.0	4.9	3.2	3.8	3.1	1.0	1.0	-67	-5
South Dakota	1.6	2.4	2.9	2.7	2.6	2.2	0.9	0.8	-59	-14
Tennessee	2.0	3.3	3.5	4.3	5.7	4.8	2.6	3.0	-46	18
Texas	0.9	1.9	2.1	3.6	4.2	3.5	1.6	0.7	-54	-56
Utah	2.2	3.1	2.5	2.6	2.5	2.0	1.0	0.7	-48	-29
Vermont	1.4	2.6	4.4	3.9	4.8	4.3	2.7	1.9	-38	-28
Virginia	1.0	1.9	3.1	2.4	3.0	2.4	1.1	1.1	-56	2
Washington	2.4	3.2	3.7	4.7	5.4	4.9	2.8	2.1	-42	-25
West Virginia	6.4	5.3	4.0	6.2	6.3	5.2	1.8	1.5	-66	-18
Wisconsin	1.1	1.8	4.5	4.8	4.4	3.3	0.8	0.7	-77	-2
Wyoming	1.1	1.5	1.4	3.1	3.4	2.6	0.2	0.1	-91	-55
United States	2.1	3.5	4.6	4.5	5.3	4.6	2.2	1.6	*-52*	*-29*
Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC recipients in each state during the given fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerators are from Table TANF 11. Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/states/).

Table TANF 13.
Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years
[In thousands]
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	1996-00	2000-06
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	Percent Change
Alabama	62	96	129	93	96	79	37	35	-53	-5
Alaska	4	6	10	13	24	23	15	7	-35	-55
Arizona	31	39	38	87	136	118	66	66	-44	-1
Arkansas	23	34	62	51	49	42	22	14	-48	-38
California	391	816	932	1,294	1,804	1,805	1,163	961	-36	-17
Colorado	33	50	53	69	80	68	22	27	-68	24
Connecticut	43	62	97	81	111	108	50	33	-53	-34
Delaware	9	15	22	14	19	16	9	10	-41	2
Dist. of Columbia	16	31	59	34	51	48	34	30	-29	-12
Florida	85	160	184	264	463	395	124	75	-68	-40
Georgia	54	150	161	206	274	251	101	55	-60	-45
Guam	1	1	4	3	5	6	NA	NA	NA	NA
Hawaii	10	18	40	29	41	44	50	18	14	-64
Idaho	7	11	14	11	16	16	2	3	-88	40
Illinois	202	283	473	436	486	456	193	73	-58	-62
Indiana	36	55	111	105	145	104	74	99	-29	33
Iowa	32	46	69	64	72	59	36	32	-39	-12
Kansas	28	41	49	52	59	48	23	31	-53	35
Kentucky	58	93	118	117	137	120	64	53	-47	-17
Louisiana	79	157	156	199	180	162	59	23	-64	-61
Maine	14	26	40	35	40	35	22	21	-38	-2
Maryland	61	100	145	124	151	140	56	40	-60	-29
Massachusetts	71	153	228	168	197	153	73	67	-53	-7
Michigan	119	190	460	427	439	354	153	160	-57	4
Minnesota	39	58	91	110	124	116	81	57	-30	-30
Mississippi	66	93	128	129	116	96	27	21	-72	-20
Missouri	82	106	135	139	176	162	94	77	-42	-18
Montana	6	10	13	19	23	21	9	7	-58	-21
Nebraska	12	23	25	29	31	28	20	23	-29	18
Nevada	4	9	8	16	27	27	12	13	-56	9
New Hampshire	3	7	15	11	19	16	10	10	-39	2
New Jersey	79	209	318	213	228	195	102	77	-48	-25
New Mexico	23	39	35	37	66	65	51	31	-23	-39
New York	380	759	759	658	813	771	491	321	-36	-35
North Carolina	83	94	141	152	223	191	76	47	-60	-38
North Dakota	6	8	9	10	11	9	5	5	-39	-12
Ohio	136	198	348	414	455	382	180	130	-53	-28
Oklahoma	55	71	65	77	90	74	28	19	-63	-33
Oregon	23	52	65	60	76	60	29	31	-52	8
Pennsylvania	217	307	432	345	417	368	184	173	-50	-6
Puerto Rico	161	166	118	130	124	105	64	27	-39	-57
Rhode Island	18	27	36	30	41	39	34	22	-14	-33
South Carolina	24	40	109	80	102	89	32	31	-64	-1
South Dakota	8	12	15	13	14	12	5	5	-54	-7
Tennessee	58	99	115	144	203	181	107	132	-41	23
Texas	68	162	225	428	549	484	252	139	-48	-45
Utah	16	23	24	31	33	27	16	14	-40	-16
Vermont	4	8	14	14	17	16	10	8	-34	-25
Virgin Islands	1	2	2	2	3	4	2	1	-38	-58
Virginia	35	66	116	104	134	114	55	58	-52	5
Washington	50	76	97	148	187	177	115	95	-35	-17
West Virginia	80	65	58	68	72	62	22	19	-64	-14
Wisconsin	34	60	142	158	153	123	34	34	-72	0
Wyoming	3	4	5	9	11	9	1	0	-90	-49
United States	3,242	5,483	7,320	7,755	9,611	8,672	4,598	3,561	*-47*	*-23*
Note: From FY 2000 onward, TANF child recipients include both TANF and SSP child recipients. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm).

Table TANF 14.
AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2006
[In percent]
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	1996-00	2000-06
	1965	1970	1980	1990	1994	1996	2000	2006	Percent Change
Alabama	4.6	7.7	11.1	8.8	8.9	7.3	3.3	3.2	-55	-5
Alaska	3.1	5.0	8.0	7.4	12.8	12.4	7.9	3.7	-36	-53
Arizona	4.8	6.0	4.8	8.6	12.1	9.7	4.7	4.0	-52	-14
Arkansas	3.1	5.2	9.3	8.2	7.7	6.4	3.2	2.0	-49	-39
Colorado	4.4	6.4	6.5	7.8	8.3	6.8	1.9	2.3	-72	20
Connecticut	4.4	6.1	11.8	10.8	14.2	13.7	5.9	4.1	-57	-31
Delaware	4.7	7.5	13.4	8.7	10.5	8.9	4.9	4.7	-45	-5
Dist. of Columbia	6.0	13.8	40.9	30.7	44.5	44.1	31.4	26.5	-29	-16
Florida	4.3	7.6	7.8	8.8	14.1	11.6	3.3	1.9	-71	-44
Georgia	3.2	9.1	9.8	11.8	14.6	12.8	4.6	2.2	-64	-51
Hawaii	3.6	6.5	14.5	10.5	13.6	14.5	17.2	6.0	19	-65
Idaho	2.7	4.2	4.7	3.6	4.6	4.6	0.5	0.7	-89	32
Illinois	5.3	7.5	14.6	14.8	15.7	14.4	6.0	2.3	-58	-62
Indiana	2.0	3.0	6.9	7.3	9.8	7.0	4.7	6.2	-33	34
Iowa	3.2	4.7	8.4	8.8	9.9	8.2	5.0	4.5	-38	-12
Kansas	3.5	5.4	7.5	7.9	8.5	7.0	3.2	4.4	-54	36
Kentucky	4.9	8.3	10.9	12.4	14.1	12.4	6.7	5.3	-46	-21
Louisiana	5.5	11.3	11.8	16.5	14.6	13.3	4.9	2.1	-63	-57
Maine	3.9	7.7	12.5	11.5	13.1	11.8	7.5	7.6	-36	1
Maryland	4.6	7.3	12.4	10.6	12.0	11.1	4.1	2.9	-63	-29
Massachusetts	3.8	8.1	15.3	12.4	13.9	10.6	4.9	4.7	-53	-6
Michigan	3.7	5.8	16.7	17.4	17.4	13.9	5.9	6.4	-57	9
Minnesota	2.9	4.2	7.7	9.4	10.1	9.3	6.4	4.5	-32	-29
Mississippi	7.0	11.1	15.7	17.6	15.3	12.7	3.5	2.8	-72	-20
Missouri	5.2	6.9	9.9	10.6	12.9	11.6	6.6	5.4	-43	-18
Montana	2.0	4.0	5.7	8.4	9.7	8.9	3.8	3.1	-57	-18
Nebraska	2.3	4.4	5.5	6.8	7.0	6.1	4.4	5.2	-28	17
Nevada	2.5	5.2	3.8	5.0	7.1	6.5	2.2	2.1	-66	-7
New Hampshire	1.4	2.6	5.8	3.9	6.6	5.4	3.1	3.3	-42	7
New Jersey	3.4	8.8	16.0	11.7	11.7	9.9	4.9	3.7	-51	-24
New Mexico	5.2	9.5	8.5	8.3	13.5	13.1	10.1	6.1	-23	-39
New York	6.3	13.0	16.2	15.4	18.0	17.0	10.6	7.1	-37	-33
North Carolina	4.4	5.3	8.5	9.3	12.6	10.4	3.8	2.2	-63	-42
North Dakota	2.3	3.6	4.7	6.0	6.3	5.4	3.6	3.3	-34	-6
Ohio	3.6	5.3	11.2	14.9	16.0	13.4	6.3	4.7	-53	-25
Oklahoma	6.4	8.5	7.6	9.1	10.4	8.5	3.1	2.1	-63	-34
Oregon	3.3	7.4	9.0	8.1	9.7	7.4	3.4	3.6	-55	8
Pennsylvania	5.5	8.0	13.8	12.3	14.4	12.8	6.3	6.2	-50	-3
Rhode Island	5.9	9.1	14.7	13.4	17.5	16.5	13.8	9.4	-16	-32
South Carolina	2.3	4.2	11.6	8.7	10.8	9.4	3.2	3.0	-66	-7
South Dakota	3.1	5.0	7.1	6.7	6.6	5.9	2.7	2.6	-53	-5
Tennessee	4.2	7.5	8.9	11.8	15.7	13.7	7.7	9.2	-44	19
Texas	1.7	4.1	5.2	8.7	10.4	8.8	4.2	2.1	-52	-49
Utah	3.7	5.4	4.4	4.9	4.9	4.0	2.3	1.7	-42	-25
Vermont	2.7	5.4	9.9	9.5	11.7	10.8	7.2	5.8	-33	-20
Virginia	2.2	4.1	7.9	6.8	8.4	7.0	3.1	3.2	-56	2
Washington	4.7	6.5	8.5	11.3	13.3	12.4	7.6	6.2	-39	-18
West Virginia	12.2	11.2	10.4	15.7	16.8	14.6	5.5	4.9	-62	-12
Wisconsin	2.2	3.8	10.5	12.1	11.4	9.1	2.5	2.6	-73	3
Wyoming	2.1	3.2	3.4	7.0	8.1	6.8	0.8	0.4	-89	-48
United States	4.4	7.6	11.3	11.9	14.0	12.4	6.3	4.8	*-49*	*-18*
Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC child recipients in each State during the given fiscal year as a percent of the resident population under 18 years of age as of July 1 of that year. The numerators are from Table TANF 13. Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state and age available online at http://www.census.gov/popest/states/).

Table TANF 15.
TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2006
[In thousands]
	TANF	SSP	Total	TANF	SSP	Total	TANF	SSP	Total
	Families			All Recipients			Child Recipients
Alabama	19.2	0.3	19.4	44.7	1.0	45.7	34.8	0.5	35.4
Alaska	3.6	–	3.6	9.8	–	9.8	6.8	–	6.8
Arizona	39.6	–	39.6	87.4	–	87.4	65.7	–	65.7
Arkansas	8.2	–	8.2	17.9	–	17.9	13.7	–	13.7
California	449.3	38.4	487.8	1,048.0	150.4	1,198.3	865.9	95.5	961.3
Colorado	14.5	–	14.5	37.4	–	37.4	27.0	–	27.0
Connecticut	18.5	3.9	22.3	36.8	11.5	48.4	26.5	6.8	33.4
Delaware	5.5	0.1	5.6	12.2	0.4	12.6	9.3	0.2	9.5
Dist. of Columbia	15.7	0.5	16.2	38.7	1.3	40.0	29.7	0.8	30.5
Florida	52.5	0.9	53.3	86.4	3.4	89.8	73.4	1.6	75.1
Georgia	31.8	0.1	31.9	62.6	0.4	62.9	54.7	0.2	54.9
Guam	3.1	–	3.1	10.8	–	10.8	–	–	0.0
Hawaii	7.0	2.5	9.4	17.4	9.1	26.5	12.5	5.5	18.0
Idaho	1.8	–	1.8	3.1	–	3.1	2.6	–	2.6
Illinois	36.3	0.9	37.2	90.1	1.8	91.9	72.5	0.7	73.2
Indiana	42.5	2.1	44.6	119.3	10.4	129.7	92.7	5.9	98.6
Iowa	16.7	4.4	21.1	40.2	9.0	49.2	28.5	3.2	31.7
Kansas	17.2	–	17.2	45.0	–	45.0	30.7	–	30.7
Kentucky	33.1	–	33.1	69.9	–	69.9	53.1	–	53.1
Louisiana	11.9	–	11.9	26.7	–	26.7	23.1	–	23.1
Maine	9.3	1.9	11.2	24.8	7.1	31.9	17.0	4.5	21.4
Maryland	20.4	2.8	23.2	46.9	7.2	54.0	35.3	4.8	40.1
Massachusetts	46.6	1.3	47.9	93.4	4.9	98.2	65.0	2.5	67.5
Michigan	83.0	–	83.0	219.8	–	219.8	159.8	–	159.8
Minnesota	27.5	3.0	30.5	66.8	13.5	80.4	49.3	7.5	56.9
Mississippi	13.4	–	13.4	27.8	–	27.8	21.3	–	21.3
Missouri	38.7	5.6	44.3	93.7	19.2	112.9	65.7	11.0	76.7
Montana	3.8	–	3.8	9.9	–	9.9	6.8	–	6.8
Nebraska	10.1	2.7	12.8	24.3	9.0	33.3	17.7	5.3	23.0
Nevada	5.4	1.6	7.0	12.2	5.0	17.2	10.1	3.0	13.1
New Hampshire	6.1	0.2	6.3	13.7	0.6	14.4	9.5	0.4	9.9
New Jersey	40.8	2.0	42.8	101.1	8.2	109.2	72.4	4.3	76.7
New Mexico	16.9	–	16.9	43.0	–	43.0	31.1	–	31.1
New York	134.9	43.1	178.0	307.9	147.2	455.2	225.1	96.1	321.2
North Carolina	30.2	–	30.2	58.8	–	58.8	47.5	–	47.5
North Dakota	2.7	–	2.7	6.8	–	6.8	4.8	–	4.8
Ohio	79.5	–	79.5	170.2	–	170.2	130.0	–	130.0
Oklahoma	10.2	–	10.2	22.5	–	22.5	18.5	–	18.5
Oregon	18.5	–	18.5	41.8	–	41.8	31.2	–	31.2
Pennsylvania	94.7	–	94.7	245.1	–	245.1	173.4	–	173.4
Puerto Rico	14.3	–	14.3	38.8	–	38.8	27.4	–	27.4
Rhode Island	9.7	2.6	12.3	24.0	7.5	31.5	16.8	5.6	22.4
South Carolina	15.7	2.4	18.1	35.5	6.9	42.4	27.2	4.1	31.3
South Dakota	2.8	–	2.8	6.1	–	6.1	5.1	–	5.1
Tennessee	68.1	1.2	69.4	180.0	4.8	184.8	129.3	2.9	132.2
Texas	70.8	1.9	72.7	160.8	8.2	169.1	134.5	4.4	138.9
Utah	7.5	0.0	7.5	18.2	0.1	18.4	13.5	0.1	13.6
Vermont	4.4	0.3	4.8	10.9	1.0	11.9	7.1	0.6	7.7
Virgin Islands	0.4	–	0.4	1.2	–	1.2	0.9	–	0.9
Virginia	9.1	25.8	35.0	26.0	56.3	82.4	16.7	41.0	57.6
Washington	54.2	1.9	56.1	128.3	7.9	136.2	90.5	4.7	95.2
West Virginia	10.9	0.6	11.5	23.7	2.6	26.4	17.7	1.3	19.0
Wisconsin	18.0	0.3	18.3	39.5	1.5	41.0	32.9	1.0	33.9
Wyoming	0.3	0.0	0.3	0.5	0.0	0.6	0.5	0.0	0.5
U.S. Total	1,807	155	1,962	4,229	517	4,746	3,234	326	3,561
Note: Some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State Programs (SSPs) funded out of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars rather than federal TANF funds. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/caseload/caseloadindex.htm).

[ Go to Contents ]

Endnotes

^[1] Many states limit TANF assistance to less than the 60-month federal maximum.

^[2] Separate State Programs (SSP) refer to programs funded by state MOE contributions. Some states have additional programs that are similar to TANF, but are not funded by TANF or MOE sources. These programs are sometimes called Solely State Funded programs and are excluded from any federal work standards and the 60-month limit on assistance. Since States do not report data on these programs they are not included in any of the tables in this report.

^[3] States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, child care, transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, generally should not be counted as recipients of TANF “assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” primarily includes payments directed at ongoing basic needs. It includes payments when individuals are participating in community service and work experience (or other work activities) as a condition of receiving payments (e.g., workfare). In addition, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits when families are not employed. It excludes, however, such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

^[4] States began submitting caseload data on SSPs in FY 2000.

^[5] Family characteristics in Table TANF 7 may differ from those reported in Chapter II because the administrative data focus on the assistance unit, whereas the survey-based data in Chapter II often use a broader family unit definition. For example, grandparents, adult siblings, aunts, uncles, and other adult relatives living in the same household as the recipient children may be excluded from the assistance unit and thus the administrative data, yet be included in survey data on the family in which the TANF recipient resides.

^[6] Note that these figures include recipients in SSPs, who are sometimes omitted from TANF caseload statistics reported by the Department.

^[7] Not all of these adults are participating in enough hours to meet the TANF Work Participation Rate requirement.

^[8] The percentages in this paragraph do not include cases served by SSP programs. In FY 2006, 14.2 percent of SSP caseloads funded by MOE did not have an adult in the assistance unit compared to 47.2 percent of families served through the main TANF programs.

[ Go to Contents ]

Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program (FSP), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service, is the largest food assistance program in the country, reaching more poor individuals over the course of a year than any other public assistance program. Unlike many other public assistance programs, FSP has few categorical requirements for eligibility, such as the presence of children, elderly, or disabled individuals in a household. As a result, the program offers assistance to a large and diverse population of needy persons, many of whom are not eligible for other forms of assistance.

The Food Stamp Program was designed primarily to supplement the food purchasing power of eligible low-income households so they can buy a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet. Participating households are expected to be able to devote 30 percent of their counted monthly cash income (after adjusting for various deductions) to food purchases. Food stamp benefits then make up the difference between the household’s expected contribution to its food costs and an amount judged to be sufficient to buy an adequate low-cost diet. This amount, the maximum food stamp benefit level, is derived from USDA’s lowest-cost food plan, the Thrifty Food Plan (TFP).

The federal government is responsible for virtually all of the rules that govern the program, and, with limited variations, these rules are nationally uniform, as are the benefit levels. Nonetheless, states, the District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, through their local welfare offices, have primary responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the program. They determine eligibility, calculate benefits, and issue food stamp allotments. The Food Stamp Act provides 100 percent federal funding of food stamp benefits. States and other jurisdictions have responsibility for about half the cost of state and local food stamp agency administration.

In addition to the regular Food Stamp Program, the Food Stamp Act authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance Program in Puerto Rico, was funded under a federal block grant of nearly $1.6 billion in 2006. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior to 2004, editions of this Appendix included NAP, but caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to the Food Stamp Program, to be consistent with FSP data published by the USDA.)

The Food Stamp Program is available to nearly all financially needy households. To be eligible for food stamps, a household must meet eligibility criteria for gross and net income, asset holdings, work requirements, and citizenship or immigration status. The FSP benefit unit is the household. Generally, individuals living together constitute a household if they customarily purchase and prepare meals together. The income, expenses and assets of the household members are combined to determine program eligibility and benefit allotment.

Certain households are categorically eligible for food stamps and therefore not subject to income or asset limits. Households are categorically eligible if all of their members receive SSI, cash or in-kind TANF benefits, or General Assistance.

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for categorically-eligible households, or households containing elderly or disabled members, gross income cannot exceed 130 percent of poverty. After certain amounts are deducted for living expenses, working expenses, dependent care expenses, excess shelter expenses, child support payment, and - for elderly/disabled households - medical expenses, net income cannot exceed 100 percent of poverty. Non categorically-eligible households also must not have more than $2,000 in assets comprised of cash, savings, stocks and bonds, and in some states some vehicles; households with an elderly or disabled member can have up to $3,000 in countable assets.

All nonexempt adult applicants for food stamps must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the FSP office. Nondisabled adults living in households without children can receive benefits for three months only, unless they work or participate in work-related activities. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, were admitted as refugees or asylees, or have at least five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

Food stamp benefits are a function of a household’s size, its net monthly income, its assets, and maximum monthly benefit levels. Allotments are not taxable and food stamp purchases may not be charged sales taxes. Receipt of food stamps does not affect eligibility for or benefits provided by other welfare programs, although some programs use food stamp participation as a “trigger” for eligibility and others take into account the general availability of food stamps in deciding what level of benefits to provide.

Legislative Changes

Title IV and subtitle A of title VIII of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) made major changes to the Food Stamp Program, including strong work requirements on able-bodied adults without dependent children, restricted eligibility of legal immigrants, and a reduction in maximum benefits. These three provisions, and subsequent amendments, are discussed below; their impact on program participation and expenditures begins to appear in food stamp administrative data for 1997, with the fuller impact shown in data for 1998 and beyond.

First, a work requirement was added for able-bodied adult food stamp recipients without dependents (ABAWDs). Unless exempt, ABAWDs between the ages of 18 and 59 are not eligible for benefits for more than 3 months in every 36-month period unless they are: (1) working at least 20 hours a week; (2) participating in and complying with a work program for at least 20 hours a week; or (3) participating in and complying with a workfare program. Under the original legislation, the Department of Agriculture was authorized to waive application of the work requirement to any group of individuals at the request of the state agency, if a determination was made that the area where they reside has an unemployment rate over 10 percent or does not have a sufficient number of jobs to provide them employment. The provision was further moderated under the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which allowed states to exempt up to 15 percent of the ABAWD caseload (beyond those subject to waivers) and which increased funds for the food stamp employment and training program for the creation of job slots for able-bodied adults subject to time limits.

Separately, title IV of PRWORA (Public Law 104-193) made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for food stamp benefits. As first enacted, most qualified aliens, including legal immigrants (illegal aliens were already ineligible) were barred from receiving food stamps until citizenship. Subsequently, the Agriculture Research, Extension and Education Reform Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-185) restored food stamp eligibility to certain groups of qualified aliens who were legally residing in the United States before passage of PRWORA on August 22, 1996 and were over 65 years of age on that date or were under age 18 or disabled.

Finally, the 1996 legislation restrained growth in future program expenditures by making changes in the benefit structure for eligible participants, including a reduction in the maximum food stamp allotment. Other provisions of the 1996 act disqualified from eligibility those convicted of drug-related felonies and gave states the option to disqualify individuals, both custodial and non-custodial parents, from food stamps when they do not cooperate with child support agencies or are in arrears in their child support.

Between 1996 and 2001, regulatory and legislative changes were made to increase access to food stamps among working poor families. Regulatory changes announced in July 1999 and expanded in November 2000 allowed states to reduce reporting requirements and made it easier for working families to report income changes on a semiannual basis. Under the November 2000 regulations, states also were given the option of providing a three-month transitional food stamp benefit to most families leaving TANF. Regulations that went into effect in 2001 expanded categorical eligibility to those receiving noncash TANF benefits, excluded vehicles with little equity from the assets test, and eliminated the equity test for most vehicles. In addition, the Agriculture Appropriations Bill for 2001 (Public Law 106-387) provided states with the option of liberalizing the treatment of vehicle assets to align with the states’ TANF rules on vehicle eligibility. These changes were intended to address concerns that some of the decline in food stamp caseloads may be leaving poor families without nutritional assistance as they make the transition from welfare dependence to full self-sufficiency.

The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 – also known as the 2002 Farm Bill – reauthorized the Food Stamp Program through fiscal year 2007. This law brought a number of significant changes to the program, including some that supersede earlier changes made through PRWORA and subsequent FSP legislation and regulations. Specifically, the 2002 Farm Bill restores food stamp eligibility to legal immigrants who have lived in the country at least five years and to legal immigrants receiving disability benefits, regardless of entry date. Children of legal immigrants also are eligible for food stamps regardless of entry date. Effective in fiscal year 2004, the requirement that income and resources of an immigrant’s sponsor be counted in determining the eligibility and benefit amounts for immigrant children was eliminated. Each provision became effective at a different time, but all restorations were in effect by October 1, 2003.

The 2002 Farm Bill also increased the asset limit from $2,000 to $3,000 for households with a disabled member, making it consistent with the limit for households with elderly, and replaced the fixed standard deduction with a deduction that varies according to household size and is indexed to cost-of-living increases, in recognition of the higher expenses larger households incur. For households in the 48 contiguous states and DC, Alaska, Hawaii and the Virgin Islands, the deduction is set at 8.31 percent of the applicable net income limit based on household size. (Households in Guam will receive a slightly higher deduction.) No household receives an amount less than the previous fixed standard deduction or more than the standard deduction for a household of six.

Other 2002 Farm Bill changes include the authorization of $5 million per year for education and outreach grants to help inform the low-income public of their eligibility for food stamps, and increased flexibility for states in spending Employment and Training program funds to promote work. States also are now allowed to extend from three months to up to five months the period of time households may receive transitional food stamp benefits when they lose TANF cash assistance. Benefits are equal to the amount the household received prior to termination of TANF with adjustments in income for the loss of TANF. This change helps individuals moving off cash assistance to make the transition from welfare to work.

The 2002 Farm Bill also implemented a number of administrative reforms and program simplifications, including:

changing the quality control system so that only those states with persistently high error rates will face liabilities;
awarding bonuses to states that improve the quality and accuracy of their service;
allowing states to exclude certain types of income and resources not counted under TANF or Medicaid, such as educational assistance, when determining food stamp eligibility;
allowing states to deem child support payments as income exclusions rather than deductions as an incentive for parents to pay child support;
allowing states to simplify the standard utility allowance (SUA) if the state elects to use the SUA rather than actual utility costs for all households, thus reducing administrative burden, costs and errors;
permitting states to use a standard deduction from income of $143 per month for homeless households with some shelter expenses;
allowing states to extend simplified reporting procedures to all households, not just households with earnings;
eliminating the requirement that the Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) system be cost-neutral to the federal government to help support the EBT conversion process;
allowing USDA to use alternative methods for issuing food stamp benefits during times of disaster when use of EBT is impractical;
requiring food stamp applications be made available through the Internet; and
combining Puerto Rico and American Samoa’s block grants into one grant and indexing both with inflation.

Food Stamp Program Data

The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Food Stamp Program:

Tables FSP 1 and FSP 2 and Figure FSP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the Food Stamp Program as discussed below;
Table FSP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the food stamp caseload; and
Tables FSP 4 through FSP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the FSP through fiscal year 2006.

Food Stamp Caseload Trends (Table FSP 1). Average monthly food stamp participation was 26.7 million persons in fiscal year 2006, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This represents a significant increase over the fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.2 million participants. It is, however, still below the peak of 27.5 million recipients in fiscal year 1994. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further data trends in food stamp caseload, specifically, food stamp recipiency and participation rates.

Considerable research has demonstrated that the Food Stamp Program is responsive to economic changes, with participation increasing in times of economic downturns and decreasing in times of economic growth (see Figure FSP 1). Economic conditions alone did not explain the caseload growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however. Studies suggest that a variety of factors contributed to this caseload growth, including a weak economy and higher rates of unemployment, expansions in Medicaid eligibility, the legalization of 3 million undocumented immigrants, and longer participation spells (McConnell, 1991; Gleason, 1998).

The decline in participation from 1994 to 2000 was caused by several factors, according to studies of this period. Part of the decline is associated with the strong economy in the second half of the 1990s. However, participation fell more sharply than expected during this period of sustained economic growth. Some of the decline reflected restrictions on the eligibility of noncitizens and time limits for unemployed nondisabled childless adults. Participation fell most rapidly among the following three groups: noncitizens and their US-born children, unemployed nondisabled childless adults, and persons receiving cash welfare benefits. As people left the welfare rolls, many also stopped participating in food stamps, even while remaining eligible (Genser, 1999; Wilde et al., 2000; Gleason et al., 2001; Kornfeld, 2002).

The increase in FSP participation from 2000 to 2005 occurred during a period when unemployment increased from four percent to five percent, eligibility was restored to many legal immigrants, states took advantage of opportunities to expand categorical eligibility to those receiving noncash TANF benefits and services and to liberalize the treatment of vehicles, and the Food and Nutrition Service was encouraging states to conduct outreach efforts and simplify the program. In addition, the proportion of eligible households participating in the Food Stamp Program, increased from 50 percent in 2000 to 59 percent in 2005. Between 2000 and 2005, food stamp participation increased by 3.6 million households (see Table IND 4b). Part of this increase was associated with an increase in the number of eligible households and part was associated with an increased participation rate among those households that were eligible.

Food Stamp Expenditures. Total program costs, shown in Table FSP 2, were higher in 2005 and 2006 than in 2004, reflecting the increase in participation during that period as well as an increase in average benefits. Total federal program costs were $32.8 billion in 2006, $32.2 billion in 2005, and $29.0 billion in 2004 (after adjusting for inflation). Average monthly benefits per person, also shown in Table FSP 2, were $94.30 per person in 2006, $96.00 in 2005 and $92.10 in 2004 (after adjusting for inflation). The personal monthly benefit decreased 1.8 percent between 2005 and 2006.

Food Stamp Household Characteristics. As shown in Table FSP 3, the proportion of food stamp households with earnings has increased, from about 20 percent for most of the 1980s and early 1990s, to 30 percent in 2006. At the same time, the proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined, from 42 percent in 1990 to 13 percent in 2006, following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. Over half of all food stamp households have children, although the proportion has declined from over 60 percent in most of the 1980s and early 1990s to 52 percent in 2006. The majority (87 percent in 2006) of households have incomes below the federal poverty guidelines.

Figure FSP 1.
Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2006
(In millions)

Figure FSP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps: 1962–2006. See text for explanation and tables for data.

Note: Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank.

Table FSP 1.
Trends in Food Stamp Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2006
Fiscal Year	Food Stamp Participants			Participants as a Percent of:		Child Participants as a Percent of:
Fiscal Year	Including Territories ¹ (thousands)	Excluding Territories (thousands)	Children Excld. Terr. (thousands)	Total Population ²	All Poor Persons ²	Total Child Population ²	Children in Poverty ²
1962	6,554	6,554	NA	3.5	17.0	NA	NA
1965	5,167	5,167	NA	2.7	15.6	NA	NA
1970	8,317	8,317	NA	4.1	32.7	NA	NA
1971	13,010	13,010	NA	6.3	50.9	NA	NA
1972	14,111	14,111	NA	6.7	57.7	NA	NA
1973	14,607	14,607	NA	6.9	63.6	NA	NA
1974	14,288	14,288	NA	6.7	61.1	NA	NA
1975 ⁴	17,152	16,320	NA	7.6	63.1	NA	NA
1976	18,628	17,033	9,126	7.8	68.2	13.8	88.8
1977	17,161	15,604	NA	7.1	63.1	NA	NA
1978	16,077	14,405	NA	6.5	58.8	NA	NA
1979 ⁵	17,758	15,942	NA	7.1	61.1	NA	NA
1980	21,173	19,253	9,876	8.5	65.8	15.5	85.6
1981	22,518	20,655	9,803	9.0	64.6	15.5	78.4
1982	21,808	20,392	9,591	8.8	59.3	15.3	70.3
1983	21,727	20,095	10,910	8.6	61.4	17.4	78.4
1984	20,854	20,796	10,492	8.8	61.7	16.8	78.2
1985	19,899	19,847	9,906	8.3	60.0	15.7	75.3
1986	19,429	19,381	9,844	8.1	59.9	15.7	76.5
1987	19,113	19,072	9,771	7.9	59.2	15.5	76.1
1988	18,645	18,613	9,351	7.6	58.6	14.8	75.1
1989	18,806	18,778	9,429	7.6	59.6	14.9	74.9
1990	20,049	20,020	10,127	8.0	59.6	15.8	75.4
1991	22,625	22,599	11,952	8.9	63.3	18.3	83.3
1992	25,406	25,370	13,349	9.9	66.7	20.1	87.3
1993	26,982	26,952	14,196	10.4	68.6	21.0	90.3
1994	27,468	27,433	14,391	10.4	72.1	21.0	94.1
1995	26,619	26,579	13,860	10.0	73.0	20.0	94.5
1996	25,543	25,495	13,189	9.5	69.8	18.8	91.2
1997	22,858	22,820	11,847	8.4	64.1	16.7	83.9
1998	19,791	19,748	10,524	7.2	57.3	14.7	78.1
1999	18,183	18,146	9,332	6.5	55.3	13.0	76.0
2000	17,194	17,156	8,743	6.1	54.3	12.1	75.5
2001	17,318	17,282	8,819	6.1	52.5	12.1	75.2
2002	19,096	19,059	9,688	6.6	55.1	13.3	79.8
2003	21,259	21,222	10,605	7.3	59.2	14.5	82.4
2004	23,858	23,819	11,771	8.1	64.3	16.1	90.3
2005	25,718	25,677	12,405	8.7	69.5	16.9	96.2
2006	26,672	26,631	12,579	8.9	73.0	17.1	98.1
¹ Total participants includes all participating states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982–a separate Nutrition Assistance Grant for Puerto Rico was begun in July 1982). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the FSP in 1975. The FFAP participants (as of December) for the seven years shown during the period from 1962 to 1974 were respectively: 6,411; 4,742; 3,977; 3,642; 3,002; 2,441; and 1,406 (all in thousands). From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand. ² Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only–the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population numbers used as denominators are the resident population. ³ The pre-transfer poverty population used as denominator is the number of all persons in families or living alone whose income (cash income plus social insurance plus Social Security but before taxes and means-tested transfers) falls below the relevant poverty threshold. See Appendix J, Table 20, 1992 Green Book; data for subsequent years are unpublished Congressional Budget Office tabulations. ⁴ The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide. ⁵ The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis. Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank, the House Ways and Means Committee, 1996 Green Book, and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-233.

Table FSP 2.
Trends in Food Stamp Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2006
Fiscal Year	Total Federal Cost (Benefits + Administration)		Benefits (Federal) (millions)	Administration¹		Total Program Cost (millions)	Average Monthly Benefit per Person
Fiscal Year	Current Dollars (millions)	2006 Dollars² (millions)	Benefits (Federal) (millions)	Federal (millions)	State & Local (millions)	Total Program Cost (millions)	Current Dollars	2006 Dollars²
1975	$4,619	$16,263	$4,386	$233	$175	$4,794	$21.30	$75.00
1976	5,686	18,740	5,327	359	270	5,955	23.90	78.80
1977	5,461	16,755	5,067	394	295	5,756	24.80	76.10
1978	5,520	15,888	5,139	381	285	5,805	26.60	76.60
1979³	6,940	18,336	6,480	460	388	7,328	30.50	80.60
1980	9,206	21,890	8,721	486	375	9,581	34.50	82.00
1981	11,225	24,262	10,630	595	504	11,729	39.50	85.40
1982	10,837	21,911	10,208	628	557	11,394	39.20	78.00
1983	11,847	22,901	11,152	695	612	12,459	43.00	83.10
1984⁴	11,579	21,494	10,696	883⁵	805	12,384	42.70	79.30
1985	11,703	20,972	10,744	960	871	12,574	45.00	80.60
1986	11,638	20,384	10,605	1,033	935	12,573	45.50	79.70
1987	11,604	19,795	10,500	1,104	996	12,600	45.80	78.10
1988	12,317	20,260	11,149	1,168	1,080	13,397	49.80	81.90
1989	12,902	20,358	11,670	1,232	1,101	14,033	51.70	81.90
1990	15,447	23,313	14,143	1,305	1,174	16,664	58.80	88.60
1991	18,774	27,073	17,316	1,432	1,247	20,018	63.80	92.10
1992	22,462	31,662	20,906	1,557	1,375	23,837	68.60	96.70
1993	23,653	32,516	22,006	1,647	1,572	25,225	68.00	93.50
1994	24,494	32,964	22,749	1,745	1,643	26,136	69.00	92.90
1995	24,620	32,365	22,764	1,856	1,748	26,368	71.30	93.70
1996	24,331	31,206	22,440	1,891	1,842	26,173	73.20	93.90
1997	21,508	26,916	19,549	1,959	1,904	23,389	71.30	89.20
1998	18,988	23,415	16,891	2.098	1,988	20,876	71.10	87.70
1999	17,820	21,587	15,769	2,052	1,874	19,584	72.30	87.60
2000	17,054	20,032	14,983	2,071	2,086	19,140	72.60	85.30
2001	17,790	20,250	15,547	2,242	2,233	20,023	74.80	85.10
2002	20,637	23,143	18,256	2,381	2,397	23,034	79.70	89.40
2003	23,816	26,092	21,404	2,412	2,430	26,246	83.90	91.90
2004	27,098	29,018	24,619	2,479	2,500	29,598	86.00	92.10
2005	31,076	32,225	28,568	2,509	2,556	33,633	92.60	96.00
2006	32,761	32,761	30,187	2,574	2,869	35,626	94.30	94.30
Note: Total federal cost and the cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but does not include the funding for the Puerto Rico nutrition assistance grant from the last quarter of FY 1982 (when it replaced Puerto Rico’s food stamp program) to the present. (Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance grant was $778 million in 1983 and rose to over $1.4 billion in 2004.) ¹ Amounts include the federal share of state administrative and Employment and Training costs and certain direct federal administrative costs. They do not generally include approximately $60 million in food stamp-related federal administrative costs budgeted under a separate appropriation account (although estimates prior to 1989 do include estimates of food stamp related federal administrative expenses paid out of other Agriculture Department accounts). State and local costs are estimated based on the known federal shares and represent an estimate of all administrative expenses of participating states. ² Constant dollar adjustments to 2006 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year average price index. ³ The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis. ⁴ Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data (available at online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fssummar.htm); and the House Ways and Means Committee, 2004 Green Book (available online at http://www.gpoaccess.gov/wmprints/green/2004.html).

Table FSP 3.
Characteristics of Food Stamp Households: Selected Years 1980–2006
	1980	1984	1988	1990	1994	1996	1998	2000	2003	2006
	Year ¹
With Gross Monthly Income: (In Percent)
Below the Federal Poverty Levels	87	93	92	92	90	91	90	89	88	87
Between the Poverty Levels & 130 percent of the Poverty Levels	10	6	8	8	9	8	9	10	11	11
Above 130 Percent of Poverty	2	1	*	*	1	1	1	1	2	2
With Earnings	19	19	20	19	21	23	26	27	28	30
With Public Assistance Income ²	§§	§§	§§	§§	§§	61	59	56	47	41
With AFDC/TANF Income	NA	42	42	42	38	37	31	26	17	13
With SSI Income	18	18	20	19	23	24	28	32	28	27
With Children	60	61	61	61	61	60	58	54	55	52
And Female Heads of Household	NA	47	50	51	51	50	47	44	44	43
With No Spouse Present	NA	NA	39	37	43	43	41	38	37	36
With Elderly Members ³	23	22	19	18	16	16	18	21	18	18
Average Household Size	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.5	2.4	2.3	2.3	2.3
¹ Data were gathered in August in the years 1980-84 and during the summer in the years from 1986 to 1994. Reports from 1995 to the present are based on fiscal year averages. ² Public assistance income includes: AFDC/TANF, SSI, and general assistance. ³ Elderly members and heads of household include those of age 60 or older. §§ The total percentage of households with public assistance income is approximately equal to the sum of those with AFDC/TANF and SSI income with some small percentage of households receiving both due to having individual members eligible for different forms of assistance (in 1996 just under 6 percent of households received assistance from multiple sources). * Less than 0.5 percent. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Food Stamp Households, Fiscal Year 2006, Report No. FSP-07-CHAR (available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane/MENU/Published/FSP/participation.htm) and earlier reports.

Table FSP 4.
Value of Food Stamps Issued by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2006
[In millions]
	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2003	2006	1996-00	2000-06
									Percent Change
Alabama	$103	$246	$318	$328	$440	$344	$466	$594	-22	73
Alaska	6	27	25	25	54	46	66	86	-15	88
Arizona	41	97	121	239	372	240	498	626	-35	161
Arkansas	78	122	126	155	224	206	304	414	-8	101
California	361	530	639	968	2,555	1,639	1,806	2,377	-36	45
Colorado	44	71	94	156	210	127	203	321	-40	154
Connecticut	36	59	62	72	175	138	165	239	-21	73
Delaware	6	21	22	25	47	31	48	70	-34	125
Dist. of Columbia	31	41	40	43	95	77	90	104	-19	36
Florida	207	421	368	609	1,296	771	988	1,684	-40	118
Georgia	129	264	290	382	703	489	782	1,098	-30	125
Guam	2	15	18	15	27	36	53	55	34	52
Hawaii	23	60	93	81	196	166	156	148	-15	-11
Idaho	11	29	36	40	61	46	77	100	-25	117
Illinois	238	394	713	835	1,034	777	1,053	1,503	-25	93
Indiana	58	154	242	226	330	268	484	648	-19	142
Iowa	28	54	107	109	141	100	149	244	-29	144
Kansas	12	38	64	96	135	83	140	188	-39	128
Kentucky	135	211	332	334	413	337	486	645	-18	92
Louisiana	148	243	365	549	597	448	685	1,032	-25	130
Maine	31	60	62	63	113	81	124	169	-28	108
Maryland	76	140	171	203	362	199	257	336	-45	69
Massachusetts	75	171	173	207	295	182	254	422	-38	132
Michigan	124	263	541	663	773	457	783	1,239	-41	171
Minnesota	40	62	105	165	221	165	227	282	-26	71
Mississippi	110	199	264	352	376	226	335	507	-40	124
Missouri	82	142	212	312	480	358	568	740	-25	107
Montana	11	18	31	41	58	51	69	90	-12	76
Nebraska	11	25	44	59	78	61	89	124	-21	104
Nevada	10	15	22	41	91	57	113	124	-38	120
New Hampshire	11	22	15	20	42	28	40	58	-32	106
New Jersey	125	226	260	289	508	304	339	456	-40	50
New Mexico	48	81	88	117	199	140	184	253	-30	82
New York	209	726	938	1,086	2,054	1,361	1,677	2,240	-34	65
North Carolina	122	234	237	282	547	403	645	921	-26	128
North Dakota	5	9	16	25	32	25	37	46	-22	83
Ohio	253	382	697	861	934	520	879	1,266	-44	143
Oklahoma	38	73	134	186	308	208	362	467	-32	124
Oregon	56	80	142	168	259	198	381	463	-24	134
Pennsylvania	175	373	547	661	981	656	785	1,182	-33	80
Rhode Island	18	31	35	42	78	59	69	81	-24	37
South Carolina	121	181	194	240	299	249	443	589	-17	136
South Dakota	8	18	26	35	41	37	51	66	-10	80
Tennessee	115	282	280	372	542	415	722	976	-23	135
Texas	314	514	701	1,429	2,140	1,215	1,881	2,939	-43	142
Utah	12	22	40	71	87	68	102	140	-21	106
Vermont	9	18	20	22	43	32	38	50	-26	57
Virgin Islands	6	19	23	18	42	21	18	21	-50	-2
Virginia	63	158	189	247	450	263	366	526	-42	100
Washington	70	90	140	229	426	241	394	595	-43	146
West Virginia	56	87	159	192	252	185	216	266	-26	44
Wisconsin	29	68	148	180	198	129	233	347	-35	169
Wyoming	3	6	15	21	28	19	24	26	-34	42
United States	$4,386	$8,721	$10,744	$14,186	$22,441	$14,983	$21,404	$30,187	*-33*	*101*
Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include amounts for Puerto Rico of $366 and $828 million respectively. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2006 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfybft.htm) and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.

Table FSP 5.
Average Number of Food Stamp Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years
[In thousands]
	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2003	2006	1996-00	2000-06
									Percent Change
Alabama	365	583	588	454	509	396	472	547	-22	38
Alaska	15	29	22	25	46	38	51	57	-19	52
Arizona	143	196	206	317	427	259	466	541	-39	109
Arkansas	267	301	253	235	274	247	310	385	-10	56
California	1,455	1,493	1,615	1,937	3,143	1,830	1,709	2,000	-42	9
Colorado	150	163	170	221	244	156	208	251	-36	61
Connecticut	155	170	145	133	223	165	181	210	-26	27
Delaware	26	52	40	33	58	32	46	66	-44	104
Dist. of Columbia	122	103	72	62	93	81	82	89	-13	10
Florida	647	912	630	781	1,371	882	1,041	1,418	-36	61
Georgia	498	627	567	536	793	559	750	947	-29	69
Guam	6	22	20	12	18	22	24	28	26	25
Hawaii	75	102	99	77	130	118	100	88	-9	-25
Idaho	39	61	59	59	80	58	82	91	-27	57
Illinois	926	903	1,110	1,013	1,105	817	954	1,225	-26	50
Indiana	392	353	406	311	390	300	470	575	-23	91
Iowa	115	141	203	170	177	123	154	226	-30	83
Kansas	58	90	119	142	172	117	161	183	-32	57
Kentucky	472	468	560	458	486	403	503	589	-17	46
Louisiana	510	569	644	727	670	500	655	830	-25	66
Maine	126	139	114	94	131	102	133	160	-22	58
Maryland	261	324	287	255	375	219	252	305	-41	39
Massachusetts	365	453	337	347	374	232	292	432	-38	86
Michigan	619	813	985	917	935	603	838	1,134	-36	88
Minnesota	167	171	228	263	295	196	235	264	-33	35
Mississippi	376	496	495	499	457	276	356	448	-40	62
Missouri	300	335	362	431	554	423	592	796	-24	88
Montana	38	43	58	57	71	59	71	82	-16	37
Nebraska	49	66	94	95	102	82	99	120	-19	45
Nevada	32	32	32	50	97	61	111	118	-37	94
New Hampshire	44	50	28	31	53	36	45	56	-31	55
New Jersey	490	605	464	382	540	345	339	406	-36	18
New Mexico	157	185	157	157	235	169	195	245	-28	44
New York	1,291	1,759	1,834	1,548	2,099	1,439	1,436	1,786	-31	24
North Carolina	466	582	474	419	631	488	649	854	-23	75
North Dakota	19	25	33	39	40	32	40	43	-20	34
Ohio	854	865	1,133	1,089	1,045	610	855	1,064	-42	74
Oklahoma	171	209	263	267	354	253	380	436	-28	72
Oregon	201	197	228	216	288	234	398	434	-19	85
Pennsylvania	848	980	1,032	952	1,124	777	823	1,092	-31	41
Rhode Island	86	87	69	64	91	74	74	73	-18	-1
South Carolina	410	426	373	299	358	295	451	534	-18	81
South Dakota	33	43	48	50	49	43	51	58	-12	36
Tennessee	397	624	518	527	638	496	728	870	-22	75
Texas	1,133	1,167	1,263	1,880	2,372	1,333	1,872	2,623	-44	97
Utah	46	54	75	99	110	82	106	132	-26	61
Vermont	44	46	44	38	56	41	41	47	-28	16
Virgin Islands	16	34	32	18	31	16	13	13	-49	-15
Virginia	257	384	360	346	538	336	393	507	-37	51
Washington	253	248	281	340	478	295	404	536	-38	82
West Virginia	242	209	278	262	300	227	247	268	-24	18
Wisconsin	148	215	363	286	283	193	297	368	-32	91
Wyoming	10	14	27	28	33	22	25	24	-32	8
United States	17,192	21,082	19,899	20,049	25,543	17,194	21,259	26,672	*-33*	55
Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include recipients in Puerto Rico of 810 thousand and 1.86 million respectively. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2006 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm) and unpublished data from the National Data Bank.

Table FSP 6.
Food Stamp Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years
[In percent]
	1975	1980	1985	1990	1996	2000	2003	2006	1996-00	2000-06
									Percent Change
Alabama	9.9	14.9	14.8	11.2	11.8	8.9	10.5	11.9	-24	34
Alaska	4.0	7.1	4.1	4.5	7.6	6.0	7.8	8.4	-21	41
Arizona	6.3	7.1	6.5	8.6	9.3	5.0	8.4	8.8	-46	75
Arkansas	12.4	13.1	10.9	10.0	10.6	9.2	11.4	13.7	-14	49
California	6.8	6.3	6.1	6.5	9.8	5.4	4.8	5.5	-45	2
Colorado	5.8	5.6	5.3	6.7	6.2	3.6	4.6	5.3	-42	46
Connecticut	5.0	5.5	4.5	4.0	6.7	4.8	5.2	6.0	-28	24
Delaware	4.5	8.7	6.5	5.0	7.8	4.1	5.6	7.7	-48	88
Dist. of Columbia	17.2	16.1	11.4	10.3	16.2	14.1	14.2	15.2	-13	8
Florida	7.6	9.3	5.5	6.0	9.2	5.5	6.1	7.9	-40	43
Georgia	9.8	11.4	9.5	8.2	10.6	6.8	8.6	10.1	-36	49
Hawaii	8.4	10.6	9.5	6.9	10.8	9.7	8.1	6.9	-10	-29
Idaho	4.6	6.4	5.9	5.8	6.6	4.5	6.0	6.2	-33	39
Illinois	8.2	7.9	9.7	8.8	9.1	6.6	7.6	9.6	-28	46
Indiana	7.3	6.4	7.4	5.6	6.6	4.9	7.6	9.1	-25	85
Iowa	4.0	4.8	7.2	6.1	6.2	4.2	5.2	7.6	-32	80
Kansas	2.5	3.8	4.9	5.7	6.6	4.3	5.9	6.6	-34	54
Kentucky	13.6	12.8	15.2	12.4	12.4	10.0	12.2	14.0	-20	41
Louisiana	13.1	13.5	14.6	17.2	15.2	11.2	14.6	19.6	-27	75
Maine	11.8	12.3	9.8	7.6	10.5	8.0	10.2	12.2	-24	53
Maryland	6.3	7.7	6.5	5.3	7.3	4.1	4.6	5.5	-44	32
Massachusetts	6.3	7.9	5.7	5.8	6.0	3.6	4.5	6.7	-40	84
Michigan	6.8	8.8	10.8	9.8	9.6	6.1	8.3	11.2	-37	85
Minnesota	4.2	4.2	5.5	6.0	6.3	4.0	4.6	5.1	-36	29
Mississippi	15.7	19.6	19.1	19.4	16.6	9.7	12.4	15.4	-42	59
Missouri	6.2	6.8	7.2	8.4	10.2	7.6	10.4	13.6	-26	81
Montana	5.1	5.5	7.1	7.1	8.0	6.6	7.8	8.6	-18	31
Nebraska	3.2	4.2	5.9	6.0	6.1	4.8	5.7	6.8	-21	41
Nevada	5.2	4.0	3.4	4.1	5.8	3.0	5.0	4.7	-48	57
New Hampshire	5.3	5.4	2.8	2.7	4.5	2.9	3.5	4.3	-35	47
New Jersey	6.7	8.2	6.1	4.9	6.6	4.1	3.9	4.7	-38	15
New Mexico	13.5	14.1	10.9	10.3	13.4	9.3	10.4	12.6	-31	35
New York	7.2	10.0	10.3	8.6	11.3	7.6	7.5	9.3	-33	22
North Carolina	8.4	9.9	7.6	6.3	8.4	6.0	7.7	9.6	-28	59
North Dakota	2.9	3.9	4.9	6.1	6.1	5.0	6.3	6.7	-19	35
Ohio	7.9	8.0	10.6	10.0	9.3	5.4	7.5	9.3	-42	73
Oklahoma	6.2	6.9	8.0	8.5	10.6	7.3	10.9	12.2	-31	66
Oregon	8.6	7.5	8.5	7.6	8.9	6.8	11.2	11.8	-23	72
Pennsylvania	7.1	8.3	8.8	8.0	9.2	6.3	6.7	8.8	-31	39
Rhode Island	9.2	9.1	7.2	6.4	8.9	7.1	6.9	6.9	-21	-2
South Carolina	14.1	13.6	11.3	8.5	9.4	7.3	10.9	12.3	-22	68
South Dakota	4.8	6.2	6.9	7.2	6.6	5.7	6.7	7.4	-14	31
Tennessee	9.3	13.6	11.0	10.8	11.8	8.7	12.4	14.3	-26	65
Texas	9.0	8.1	7.8	11.0	12.3	6.4	8.5	11.2	-48	76
Utah	3.7	3.7	4.6	5.7	5.3	3.7	4.5	5.1	-31	40
Vermont	9.1	8.9	8.2	6.8	9.5	6.7	6.7	7.6	-30	14
Virginia	5.1	7.2	6.3	5.6	8.0	4.7	5.3	6.6	-41	40
Washington	7.0	6.0	6.4	6.9	8.6	5.0	6.6	8.4	-42	68
West Virginia	13.1	10.7	14.6	14.6	16.4	12.6	13.7	14.8	-24	18
Wisconsin	3.2	4.6	7.6	5.8	5.4	3.6	5.4	6.6	-34	84
Wyoming	2.7	3.0	5.4	6.2	6.8	4.5	5.1	4.7	-33	4
United States	7.6	8.5	8.3	8.0	9.5	6.1	7.3	8.9	*-36*	47
Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of food stamp recipients in each state during the particular fiscal year expressed as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerator is from Table FSP 5. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2006 data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/fsfypart.htm and unpublished data from the National Data Bank; U.S. Census Bureau (population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).

[ Go to Contents ]

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness, or disability. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18 and meet the applicable SSI disability or blindness, income and resource requirements. Individuals and married couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels of $623 for an individual and $934 for a married couple (if both are eligible) in fiscal year 2007. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the SSI program. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed as the “program of last resort.” Therefore, SSA helps recipients obtain any other public assistance that they are eligible to receive before providing SSI benefits. After evaluating all other income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.”

Prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), no individual could receive both SSI payments and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. If eligible for both, the individual had to choose which benefit to receive. Generally, the AFDC agency encouraged individuals to file for SSI and, once the SSI payments had started, the individual was removed from the AFDC filing unit. Since states have the authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit levels under PRWORA, there is no federal prohibition against individuals receiving both TANF benefits and SSI.

With the exception of California, which converted food stamp benefits to cash payments that are included in the state supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive food stamps. If all household members receive SSI, the household is categorically eligible for food stamps and does not need to meet the Food Stamp Program’s financial eligibility standards. If SSI beneficiaries live in households in which other household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility standard of the Food Stamp Program to be eligible for food stamp benefits.

Legislative Changes

Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement Act of 1996, prohibited SSI eligibility to individuals whose drug addiction and/or alcoholism (DA&A) is a contributing factor material to the finding of disability. This provision applied to individuals who filed for benefits on or after the date of enactment (March 29, 1996) and to individuals whose claims were finally adjudicated on or after the date of enactment. It applied to current beneficiaries on January 1, 1997.

PRWORA made several changes designed to maintain the SSI program’s goal of limiting benefits to severely disabled children. First, the act replaced the former “comparable severity” test with a new definition of disability specifically for children, based on a medically determinable physical or mental impairment that results in “marked and severe functional limitations.” Second, SSA discontinued use of the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) for children which it had implemented in 1991 following the Supreme Court's decision in Sullivan v Zebley, 493 U.S. 521 (1990).^[1] Third, references to “maladaptive behaviors” in certain sections of the Listing of Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function) were eliminated. The latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Beneficiaries who were receiving benefits due to an IFA or under the Listings because of limitations resulting from maladaptive behaviors received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might end when their case was redetermined. Additional provisions of PRWORA with impact on enrollment are the requirement that eligibility be redetermined when beneficiaries reach age 18, using the adult disability standard; that "continuing disability reviews" be done for children; and that children who were eligible due to low birth weight have their eligibility redetermined at age one.

Title IV of Public Law 104-193 (PRWORA) also made significant changes in the eligibility of noncitizens for SSI benefits. Some of the restrictions were subsequently moderated by Public Law 104-208, Public Law 106-169, and most notably by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-33), which “grandfathered” immigrants who were receiving SSI at the time of enactment of the PRWORA. Those immigrants who entered the U.S. after August 22, 1996, may be eligible to receive SSI after having been “lawfully admitted for permanent residence.” In addition, Public Law 106-386, the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000, provides that noncitizens who are victims of “severe forms of trafficking in persons in the United States” shall be treated as refugees for purposes of SSI and be eligible for SSI benefits for the first 7 years they are in the United States.

Several provisions aimed at reducing SSI fraud and improving recovery of overpayments were enacted in 1999 as part of the Foster Care Independence Act of 1999 (Public Law 106-169). Other legislation enacted in 1999 (Public Law 106-170) provides additional work incentives for disabled beneficiaries of SSI (e.g., the Ticket to Work and Self-Sufficiency Program).

The Social Security Protection Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-203), enacted March 2, 2004, introduced program and beneficiary protections covering the use of representative payees and required documentation of changes in beneficiary status. It also extended SSI eligibility to blind or disabled children living with a parent assigned to permanent U.S. military duty outside of the U.S. but who were not receiving SSI while in the U.S. Furthermore, Public Law 109-163 provides that individuals who were made ineligible for SSI because of their spouses or parents being called to active military duty would not have to file a new application for SSI benefits if they again could be eligible for benefits before the end of 24 consecutive months of ineligibility.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-171) included two SSI program reforms, designed to improve the accuracy of disability determinations and benefit awards, among other program goals.

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 and Figure SSI 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the SSI program;
Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload;
Tables SSI 7 through SSI 9 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal year 2006.

SSI Caseload Trends (Tables SSI 1 and SSI 2 and Figure SSI 1). From 1990 to 1995, the number of SSI beneficiaries increased from 4.8 million to 6.5 million, an average growth rate of over 7 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. Between 2000 and 2006, the caseload increased from 6.6 to 7.2 million beneficiaries, an average annual growth rate of 1.5 percent. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total number of persons receiving SSI payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2006, and also presents recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind, and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adults ages 18-64, and adults ages 65 or older). See also Tables IND 3c and IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and participation.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 1. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in December 1975 to a low of 1.2 million persons in December 2004 and has since remained essentially unchanged. At the same time, there has been strong growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 6.0 million in December 2006. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased dramatically, particularly during the 1990s, when the number of disabled children receiving SSI increased from 309,000 in December 1990 to 955,000 in December 1996. The number of disabled children fell over the next three years, but has been increasing since 2000, reaching just under 1.1 million children in 2006.

Several factors have contributed to the growth of the Supplemental Security Income program. Expansions in disability eligibility (particularly for mentally impaired adults and for children), increased outreach, overall growth in immigration, and transfers from state programs were among the key factors identified in a 1995 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups – adults with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the Zebley case, expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.^[2]

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). While down slightly from 2004, the total amount of federally administered SSI benefits has increased over the past 5 years from $35.6 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2001 to over $38.9 billion in 2006, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly federally administered benefits per person were $455 in 2006, up (4.4 percent) from 2001 inflation adjusted benefit level of $436. For more details see Table SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics (Table SSI 6). Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI aged recipients has decreased dramatically, from 44 percent in 1980 to under 17 percent in 2006. During the same period, the percentage of disabled recipients increased from 55 percent in 1980 to 82 percent in 2006.

Figure SSI 1.
SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2006

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2006. See text for explanation and tables for data.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2007 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/index.html).

Table SSI 1.
Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974 – 2006
[In thousands]
Date		Total	Eligibility Category				Type of Recipient
			Aged	Blind and Disabled			Children	Adults
			Aged	Total	Blind	Disabled	Children	Age 18-64	65 or Older
Dec	1974	3,996	2,286	1,710	75	1,636	71 ¹	1,503	2,422
Dec	1975	4,314	2,307	2,007	74	1,933	107	1,699	2,508
Dec	1976	4,236	2,148	2,088	76	2,012	125	1,714	2,397
Dec	1977	4,238	2,051	2,187	77	2,109	147	1,738	2,353
Dec	1978	4,217	1,968	2,249	77	2,172	166	1,747	2,304
Dec	1979	4,150	1,872	2,278	77	2,201	177	1,727	2,246
Dec	1980	4,142	1,808	2,334	78	2,256	190	1,731	2,221
Dec	1981	4,019	1,678	2,341	79	2,262	195	1,703	2,121
Dec	1982	3,858	1,549	2,309	77	2,231	192	1,655	2,011
Dec	1983	3,901	1,515	2,386	79	2,307	198	1,700	2,003
Dec	1984	4,029	1,530	2,499	81	2,419	212	1,780	2,037
Dec	1985	4,138	1,504	2,634	82	2,551	227	1,879	2,031
Dec	1986	4,269	1,473	2,796	83	2,713	241	2,010	2,018
Dec	1987	4,385	1,455	2,930	83	2,846	251	2,119	2,015
Dec	1988	4,464	1,433	3,030	83	2,948	255	2,203	2,006
Dec	1989	4,593	1,439	3,154	83	3,071	265	2,302	2,026
Dec	1990	4,817	1,454	3,363	84	3,279	309	2,450	2,059
Dec	1991	5,118	1,465	3,654	85	3,569	397	2,642	2,080
Dec	1992 ²	5,566	1,471	4,095	85	4,010	556	2,910	2,100
Dec	1993	5,984	1,475	4,509	85	4,424	723	3,148	2,113
Dec	1994	6,296	1,466	4,830	85	4,745	841	3,335	2,119
Dec	1995	6,514	1,446	5,068	84	4,984	917	3,482	2,115
Dec	1996	6,614	1,413	5,201	82	5,119	955	3,568	2,090
Dec	1997	6,495	1,362	5,133	81	5,052	880	3,562	2,054
Dec	1998	6,566	1,332	5,234	80	5,154	887	3,646	2,033
Dec	1999	6,557	1,308	5,249	79	5,169	847	3,691	2,019
Dec	2000	6,602	1,289	5,312	79	5,234	847	3,744	2,011
Dec	2001	6,688	1,264	5,424	78	5,346	882	3,811	1,995
Dec	2002	6,788	1,252	5,537	78	5,459	915	3,878	1,995
Dec	2003	6,902	1,233	5,670	77	5,593	959	3,878	1,990
Dec	2004	6,988	1,211	5,777	76	5,701	993	4,017	1,978
Dec	2005	7,114	1,214	5,900	75	5,825	1,036	4,083	1,995
Dec	2006	7,236	1,212	6,024	73	5,951	1,079	4,152	2,004
¹ Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only. ² The jump in benefits in 1992 is due to retroactive payments resulting from the Sullivan v. Zebley decision. Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2007 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/index.html).

Table SSI 2.
SSI Recipiency Rates: 1974 – 2006
Date	All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population ¹	Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population ¹	Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children ¹	Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older) as a Percent of
Date	All Recipients as a Percent of Total Population ¹	Adults 18-64 as a Percent of 18-64 Population ¹	Child Recipients as a Percent of All Children ¹	All Persons 65 & Older ¹	All Elderly Poor ²
Dec 1974	1.9	1.2	0.1	10.8	78.5
Dec 1975	2.0	1.3	0.2	10.9	75.6
Dec 1976	1.9	1.3	0.2	10.2	72.4
Dec 1977	1.9	1.3	0.2	9.7	74.1
Dec 1979	1.8	1.3	0.3	8.8	61.3
Dec 1980	1.8	1.2	0.3	8.6	57.5
Dec 1981	1.7	1.2	0.3	8.0	55.0
Dec 1982	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.4	53.6
Dec 1983	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.3	55.2
Dec 1984	1.7	1.2	0.3	7.2	61.2
Dec 1985	1.7	1.3	0.4	7.1	58.7
Dec 1986	1.8	1.3	0.4	6.9	57.9
Dec 1987	1.8	1.4	0.4	6.7	56.5
Dec 1988	1.8	1.5	0.4	6.6	57.6
Dec 1989	1.9	1.5	0.4	6.5	60.3
Dec 1990	1.9	1.6	0.5	6.5	56.3
Dec 1991	2.0	1.7	0.6	6.5	55.0
Dec 1992	2.2	1.9	0.8	6.4	53.5
Dec 1993	2.3	2.0	1.1	6.4	56.3
Dec 1994	2.4	2.1	1.2	6.3	57.9
Dec 1995	2.4	2.2	1.3	6.2	63.7
Dec 1996	2.4	2.2	1.4	6.1	61.0
Dec 1997	2.4	2.2	1.2	6.0	60.8
Dec 1998	2.4	2.2	1.2	5.9	60.0
Dec 1999	2.3	2.2	1.2	5.8	62.7
Dec 2000	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.7	60.5
Dec 2001	2.3	2.1	1.2	5.6	58.4
Dec 2002	2.3	2.1	1.3	5.6	55.8
Dec 2003	2.4	2.2	1.3	5.5	56.0
Dec 2004	2.4	2.2	1.4	5.4	57.3
Dec 2005	2.4	2.2	1.4	5.4	55.4
Dec 2006	2.4	2.2	1.5	5.3	59.1
¹ Population numbers used for the denominators are Census Bureau resident population estimates adjusted to the December date by averaging the July 1 population of the current year with the July 1 population of the following year (resident population estimates by age are available online at http://www.census.gov). ² For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-233. Note: Numerators for these ratios are from Table SSI 1. Rates computed by DHHS. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2006," Current Population Reports, Series P60-233 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

Table SSI 3.
Federally Administered SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974 – 2006 ¹
[In millions of dollars]
Calendar Year	Total Benefits		Federal Payments	State Supplementation	Administrative Costs (fiscal year)
Calendar Year	2006 ² Dollars	Current Dollars	Federal Payments	State Supplementation	Administrative Costs (fiscal year)
1974	$18,388	$5,097	$3,833	$1,264	$285
1975	19,045	5,716	4,314	1,403	399
1976	18,591	5,900	4,512	1,388	500
1977	18,169	6,134	4,703	1,431	526
1978	18,218	6,372	4,881	1,491	539
1979	18,330	6,869	5,279	1,590	611
1980	18,901	7,715	5,866	1,848	668
1981	18,724	8,357	6,518	1,839	717
1982	18,107	8,705	6,907	1,798	780
1983	17,988	9,134	7,423	1,711	846
1984	18,896	10,073	8,281	1,792	864
1985	19,321	10,750	8,777	1,973	956
1986	20,291	11,741	9,498	2,243	1,023
1987	20,942	12,592	10,029	2,563	977
1988	21,439	13,405	10,734	2,671	976
1989	22,393	14,561	11,606	2,955	1,052
1990	23,727	16,133	12,894	3,239	1,075
1991	25,395	17,996	14,765	3,231	1,230
1992	29,678	21,682	18,247	3,435	1,426
1993	31,938	23,991	20,722	3,270	1,468
1994	32,900	25,291	22,175	3,116	1,780
1995	34,312	27,037	23,919	3,118	1,978
1996	35,000	28,252	25,265	2,988	1,953
1997	34,384	28,371	25,457	2,913	2,055
1998	34,885	29,408	26,405	3,003	2,304
1999	34,998	30,106	26,805	3,301	2,493
2000	34,835	30,672	27,290	3,381	2,321
2001	35,577	32,166	28,706	3,460	2,397
2002	36,464	33,719	29,899	3,820	2,522
2003	36,978	34,693	30,688	4,005	2,656
2004	37,761	36,065	31,887	4,179	2,806
2005	38,164	37,236	33,058	4,178	2,795
2006	38,889	38,889	34,736	4,153	2,850
¹ Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year. ² Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS for calendar years. Note: This table differs from earlier versions because of variations across states in reported numbers of recipients and payment amounts of SSI state-administered state supplements, information on state-administered state supplements is no longer published by SSA. Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2006/index.html).

Table SSI 4.
Average Monthly Federally Administered SSI Benefits: 1975 – 2006 ¹
[In millions of dollars]
Calendar Year	Total Benefits		Federal Payments	State Supplementation
Calendar Year	2006 ² Dollars	Current Dollars	Federal Payments	State Supplementation
1975	$354	$106	$91	$62
1976	352	112	96	65
1977	346	117	101	67
1978	349	122	107	67
1979	398	149	119	111
1980	397	162	138	95
1981	395	176	155	94
1982	393	189	168	92
1983	402	204	182	91
1984	396	211	189	94
1985	392	218	194	99
1986	402	233	205	109
1987	397	238	208	116
1988	392	245	215	114
1989	395	257	224	121
1990	407	276	242	128
1991	412	292	260	120
1992	413	302	275	105
1993	420	315	290	100
1994	423	325	302	94
1995	426	335	313	99
1996	426	344	322	99
1997	425	351	328	102
1998	426	359	336	102
1999	428	369	342	111
2000	430	379	351	113
2001	436	394	366	114
2002	441	407	377	128
2003	445	417	384	138
2004	448	428	395	138
2005	450	439	407	156
2006	455	455	423	156
¹ Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year. ² Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS for calendar years. Note: This table differs from earlier versions because of variations across states in reported numbers of recipients and payment amounts of SSI state-administered state supplements, information on state-administered state supplements is no longer published by SSA. Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/index.html#table7.a5).

Table SSI 5.
Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments by Eligibility Category
[In thousands]
Month and year	Total ¹	Federal SSI	Federally Administered State Supplementation	State Supplementation Only
Jan 1974	3,216	2,956	1,480	260
Dec 1975	4,314	3,893	1,684	421
Dec 1980	4,236	3,799	1,638	437
Dec 1984	4,238	3,778	1,658	460
Dec 1985	4,217	3,755	1,681	462
Dec 1986	4,150	3,687	1,684	462
Dec 1987	4,142	3,682	1,685	460
Dec 1988	4,019	3,590	1,625	429
Dec 1989	3,858	3,473	1,550	384
Dec 1990	3,901	3,590	1,558	312
Dec 1991	4,029	3,699	1,607	331
Dec 1992	4,138	3,799	1,661	339
Dec 1993	4,269	3,922	1,723	348
Dec 1994	4,385	4,019	1,807	366
Dec 1995	4,464	4,089	1,885	375
Dec 1996	4,593	4,206	1,950	387
Dec 1997	4,817	4,412	2,058	405
Dec 1998	5,118	4,730	2,204	389
Dec 1999	5,566	5,202	2,372	364
Dec 2000	5,984	5,636	2,536	348
Dec 2001	6,296	5,965	2,628	331
Dec 2002	6,514	6,194	2,518	320
Dec 2003	6,614	6,326	2,421	288
Dec 2004	6,495	6,212	2,372	283
Dec 2005	6,566	6,289	2,412	277
Dec 2006	6,557	6,275	2,441	282
¹ Total equals the sum of "Federal SSI" and "State supplementation only." Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2007 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/index.html).

Table SSI 6.
Characteristics of SSI Recipients by Selected Characteristics: Selected Years 1980-2006
	1980	1985	1990	1994	1998	2000	2003	2006
	Total
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
under 18	5.5	5.5	6.4	13.4	13.5	12.8	13.9	15.0
18-64	40.9	45.4	50.9	53.0	55.5	56.7	57.3	57.4
65 or older	53.6	49.1	42.7	33.7	31.0	30.5	28.8	27.7
Sex
Male	34.4	35.2	37.2	41.3	41.3	41.5	42.4	43.5
Female	65.5	64.8	62.8	58.7	58.7	58.5	57.6	56.5
Selected Sources of Income
Earnings	3.2	3.8	4.7	4.2	4.5	4.4	3.5	3.8
Social Security	51.0	49.4	45.9	39.1	36.5	36.1	35.1	35.0
No other income	34.8	34.5	36.4	43.6	47.3	54.4	55.4	55.4
Noncitizens	NA	5.1	9.0	11.7	10.2	10.5	10.1	9.3
Eligibility Category
Aged	43.6	36.4	30.2	23.3	20.3	19.5	17.9	16.7
Blind	1.9	2.0	1.7	1.4	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.0
Disabled	54.5	61.7	68.1	75.4	78.5	79.3	81.0	82.2
	Aged
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
65-69	14.0	14.9	19.4	20.5	17.6	17.6	15.2	15.1
70-79	51.5	45.6	41.3	44.3	48.4	48.4	48.2	46.1
80 or older	34.5	39.5	39.2	35.1	34.0	34.0	36.6	38.8
Sex
Male	27.3	25.5	25.1	26.8	27.8	27.8	30.3	31.8
Female	72.6	74.5	74.9	73.2	72.2	72.2	69.7	68.2
Noncitizens	NA	9.7	19.4	30.0	27.0	27.0	28.9	28.0
	Blind and Disabled
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
18-64	80.2	77.7	80.0	83.4	83.6	83.6	83.9	83.9
65 or older	19.8	22.3	20.0	16.6	16.4	16.4	16.1	16.0
Sex¹
Male	39.8	40.8	42.4	41.8	41.1	41.1	45.0	41.5
Female	60.2	59.2	57.6	58.2	58.9	58.9	55.0	58.5
Noncitizens	NA	2.4	4.6	6.2	5.5	5.5	6.0	5.6
	Children
Ages	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0	100.0
Under 5	11.7	NA	NA	15.8	15.8	15.8	16.2	15.3
5-9	20.9	NA	NA	28.5	30.2	30.2	26.7	27.9
10-14	28.8	NA	NA	32.7	34.6	34.6	36.7	34.3
15-17	21.7	NA	NA	17.3	19.4	19.4	20.4	22.5
18-21²	16.8	14.3	9.3	5.7	—	—	—	—
Sex
Male	NA	NA	NA	63.0	62.9	62.9	64.7	65.6
Female	NA	NA	NA	37.0	37.1	37.1	35.3	34.4
Note: Data are for December of the year. ¹ For 1980-1992 male-female classification reflects all blind and disabled, both children and adults; thereafter, it is based on adults only. ² In this table, students 18-21 are classified as children prior to 1998. Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2006 and prior years (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2007/).

Table SSI 7.
Total Federally Administered SSI Payments by State: Calendar Year 2006
[In thousands]
State	Total Federal	Federal SSI	Federally administered state supplementation
Total	$38,888,961	$34,736,088	$4,152,873
Alabama	805,370	805,370	–
Alaska	56,455	56,455	–
Arizona	506,119	506,119	–
Arkansas	433,035	433,035	–
California	8,300,356	5,098,651	3,201,705
Colorado	278,569	278,569	–
Connecticut	271,916	271,916	–
Delaware	69,448	68,373	1,075
District of Columbia	119,087	114,981	4,106
Florida	2,128,009	2,128,009	–
Georgia	985,784	985,784	–
Hawaii	125,114	111,099	14,015
Idaho	113,799	113,799	–
Illinois	1,394,859	1,394,859	–
Indiana	519,364	519,364	–
Iowa	203,150	198,873	4,277
Kansas	194,365	194,350	15
Kentucky	901,618	901,618	–
Louisiana	760,132	760,132	–
Maine	153,051	153,051	–
Maryland	505,655	505,637	18
Massachusetts	952,569	785,001	167,568
Michigan	1,206,441	1,183,998	22,443
Minnesota	383,026	383,026	–
Mississippi	588,730	588,730	–
Missouri	598,130	598,130	–
Montana	74,296	73,355	941
Nebraska	108,092	108,092	–
Nevada	171,488	165,919	5,569
New Hampshire	72,064	72,064	–
New Jersey	799,587	715,886	83,701
New Mexico	263,305	263,305	–
New York	3,713,730	3,146,215	567,515
North Carolina	945,195	945,195	–
North Dakota	35,066	35,066	–
Ohio	1,346,688	1,346,688	–
Oklahoma	405,725	405,725	–
Oregon	314,433	314,433	–
Pennsylvania	1,757,105	1,709,630	47,475
Rhode Island	166,179	142,639	23,540
South Carolina	503,025	503,025	–
South Dakota	56,900	56,897	3
Tennessee	783,747	783,747	–
Texas	2,416,535	2,416,535	–
Utah	117,489	117,409	80
Vermont	66,522	57,695	8,827
Virginia	666,913	666,913	–
Washington	656,188	656,188	–
West Virginia	396,292	396,292	–
Wisconsin	466,399	466,399	–
Wyoming	27,557	27,557	–
Other: N. Mariana Islands	4,291	4,291	–
¹ Columns do not added to totals since the totals include a small amount of payments not distributed by jurisdiction. Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2007 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).

Table SSI 8.
SSI Recipiency Rates by State And Program Type: 1979 and 2006
[In percent]
	1979	2006	1979-06	1979	2006	1979-06	1979	2006	1979-06
	Total Recipiency Rate			Rate for Adults 18-64			Rate for Adults 65 & Over
			Percent Change			Percent Change			Percent Change
Alabama	3.6	3.6	1	1.8	3.6	97	21.0	5.5	-74
Alaska	0.8	1.7	121	0.5	1.6	196	14.0	6.7	-52
Arizona	1.1	1.6	44	0.9	1.5	69	5.0	3.0	-40
Arkansas	3.5	3.3	-6	1.9	3.2	71	17.1	4.7	-72
California	3.0	3.4	13	2.1	2.6	27	16.4	13.5	-18
Colorado	1.1	1.2	9	0.8	1.1	43	6.7	3.0	-55
Connecticut	0.8	1.5	100	0.6	1.5	138	2.7	2.7	0
Delaware	1.2	1.6	34	0.9	1.5	60	5.4	2.1	-61
District of Columbia	2.3	3.7	62	1.9	3.3	72	8.6	5.9	-31
Florida	1.8	2.4	35	1.1	1.8	58	6.2	4.7	-24
Georgia	2.9	2.2	-23	1.9	2.0	6	17.7	5.6	-68
Hawaii	1.1	1.8	71	0.7	1.6	132	7.6	4.8	-37
Idaho	0.8	1.6	103	0.6	1.7	166	3.8	1.9	-50
Illinois	1.1	2.0	85	1.0	2.0	111	4.3	3.8	-11
Indiana	0.8	1.6	113	0.6	1.7	179	3.3	1.6	-52
Iowa	0.9	1.5	69	0.6	1.6	158	3.5	1.6	-54
Kansas	0.9	1.4	57	0.6	1.5	138	3.5	1.8	-48
Kentucky	2.5	4.3	69	1.8	4.5	151	12.5	6.2	-51
Louisiana	3.4	3.7	10	2.0	3.5	72	20.1	6.5	-68
Maine	2.0	2.5	28	1.4	2.8	101	8.6	2.8	-67
Maryland	1.2	1.7	48	0.9	1.6	70	5.4	3.8	-30
Massachusetts	2.2	2.7	21	1.3	2.6	103	10.8	5.6	-48
Michigan	1.3	2.2	75	1.1	2.4	124	5.9	2.9	-50
Minnesota	0.8	1.5	85	0.6	1.4	155	3.7	2.7	-27
Mississippi	4.5	4.2	-6	2.4	4.0	65	26.0	8.2	-68
Missouri	1.8	2.1	19	1.1	2.2	100	7.9	2.5	-68
Montana	0.9	1.6	80	0.7	1.8	150	3.8	1.9	-50
Nebraska	0.9	1.3	48	0.6	1.4	119	3.4	1.7	-50
Nevada	0.8	1.4	67	0.5	1.2	126	5.9	3.4	-42
New Hampshire	0.6	1.1	90	0.4	1.3	195	2.5	1.1	-57
New Jersey	1.1	1.8	58	0.9	1.5	74	4.7	4.6	-2
New Mexico	2.0	2.8	42	1.4	2.6	90	12.4	6.5	-47
New York	2.1	3.3	56	1.6	2.7	70	8.3	9.1	10
North Carolina	2.4	2.3	-4	1.6	2.1	33	13.6	4.4	-68
North Dakota	1.0	1.3	31	0.6	1.3	128	5.1	1.9	-62
Ohio	1.1	2.2	98	1.0	2.4	142	4.2	2.4	-42
Oklahoma	2.3	2.3	-1	1.3	2.4	80	11.6	3.3	-72
Oregon	0.9	1.7	98	0.7	1.7	143	3.3	2.8	-15
Pennsylvania	1.4	2.6	86	1.1	2.6	132	5.0	3.2	-35
Rhode Island	1.6	2.9	82	1.1	2.8	159	6.4	4.9	-24
South Carolina	2.7	2.4	-11	1.8	2.3	29	17.0	4.4	-74
South Dakota	1.1	1.6	40	0.7	1.6	122	5.0	2.7	-46
Tennessee	2.9	2.7	-6	1.9	2.7	44	14.8	4.5	-70
Texas	1.9	2.2	16	1.0	1.8	89	12.7	7.0	-45
Utah	0.6	0.9	64	0.5	1.0	96	3.0	1.8	-41
Vermont	1.8	2.1	19	1.3	2.3	76	8.1	3.0	-63
Virginia	1.5	1.8	20	1.0	1.6	57	8.5	3.9	-54
Washington	1.2	1.9	64	1.0	1.9	94	4.8	3.7	-23
West Virginia	2.1	4.3	102	1.9	4.9	163	8.0	4.3	-46
Wisconsin	1.4	1.7	18	1.0	1.7	77	6.5	2.2	-66
Wyoming	0.4	1.1	162	0.3	1.2	314	2.7	1.3	-53
Total	1.9	2.4	30	1.3	2.2	75	9.0	5.4	*-40*
Note: Recipiency rates for 2004 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS. The 1979 rates are based on the average number of recipients during the year. Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2007 and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Table SSI 9.
SSI Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975 – 2006
[In Percent]
	1975	1980	1985	1990	1994²	1998²	2003²	2006²
Alabama	4.0	3.4	3.3	3.3	3.8	3.8	3.6	3.6
Alaska	0.8	0.8	0.7	0.8	1.1	1.3	1.6	1.7
Arizona	1.2	1.1	1.0	1.2	1.7	1.7	1.6	1.6
Arkansas	4.1	3.4	3.1	3.2	3.8	3.5	3.2	3.3
California	3.1	3.0	2.6	2.9	3.2	3.2	3.3	3.4
Colorado	1.4	1.0	0.9	1.1	1.5	1.4	1.2	1.2
Connecticut	0.8	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.3	1.4	1.5	1.5
Delaware	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.6
District of Columbia	2.2	2.4	2.5	2.7	3.5	3.8	3.6	3.7
Florida	1.9	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.3	2.4	2.4	2.4
Georgia	3.3	2.8	2.6	2.5	2.8	2.6	2.3	2.2
Hawaii	1.1	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.7	1.8
Idaho	1.1	0.8	0.8	1.0	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.6
Illinois	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.6	2.2	2.1	2.0	2.0
Indiana	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.1	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.6
Iowa	1.0	0.9	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.5
Kansas	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.4	1.4	1.4	1.4
Kentucky	2.8	2.6	2.7	3.1	4.1	4.4	4.3	4.3
Louisiana	3.9	3.2	2.9	3.2	4.1	4.0	3.7	3.7
Maine	2.3	1.9	1.9	1.9	2.4	2.3	2.4	2.5
Maryland	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.3	1.6	1.7	1.7	1.7
Massachusetts	2.3	2.2	1.9	2.0	2.6	2.7	2.6	2.7
Michigan	1.3	1.2	1.4	1.5	2.2	2.2	2.2	2.2
Minnesota	1.0	0.8	0.8	0.9	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.5
Mississippi	5.2	4.4	4.3	4.4	5.2	4.9	4.4	4.2
Missouri	2.1	1.7	1.6	1.7	2.1	2.1	2.0	2.1
Montana	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.3	1.6	1.6	1.6	1.6
Nebraska	1.1	0.9	0.9	1.0	1.3	1.3	1.3	1.3
Nevada	1.0	0.8	0.9	1.0	1.3	1.3	1.4	1.4
New Hampshire	0.7	0.6	0.6	0.6	0.8	1.0	1.0	1.1
New Jersey	1.1	1.2	1.2	1.4	1.8	1.8	1.7	1.8
New Mexico	2.3	1.9	1.8	2.1	2.6	2.6	2.7	2.8
New York	2.2	2.1	2.0	2.3	3.1	3.3	3.3	3.3
North Carolina	2.7	2.4	2.2	2.2	2.6	2.6	2.3	2.3
North Dakota	1.3	1.0	1.0	1.2	1.4	1.3	1.3	1.3
Ohio	1.2	1.1	1.2	1.4	2.1	2.2	2.1	2.2
Oklahoma	3.0	2.2	1.8	1.9	2.2	2.2	2.1	2.3
Oregon	1.1	0.8	1.0	1.1	1.5	1.5	1.6	1.7
Pennsylvania	1.2	1.4	1.4	1.6	2.1	2.3	2.5	2.6
Rhode Island	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.7	2.3	2.6	2.7	2.9
South Carolina	2.8	2.7	2.6	2.6	3.0	2.9	2.5	2.4
South Dakota	1.3	1.2	1.2	1.5	1.8	1.8	1.6	1.6
Tennessee	3.2	2.8	2.7	2.9	3.4	3.1	2.8	2.7
Texas	2.2	1.8	1.6	1.7	2.1	2.1	2.1	2.2
Utah	0.8	0.5	0.5	0.7	1.0	1.0	0.9	0.9
Vermont	1.9	1.7	1.8	1.8	2.2	2.1	2.1	2.1
Virginia	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.5	1.9	2.0	1.8	1.8
Washington	1.5	1.1	1.1	1.3	1.6	1.7	1.8	1.9
West Virginia	2.4	2.1	2.2	2.6	3.5	3.9	4.2	4.3
Wisconsin	1.4	1.4	1.5	1.8	2.2	1.7	1.6	1.7
Wyoming	0.7	0.4	0.5	0.8	1.2	1.2	1.1	1.1
Total ¹	2.0	1.8	1.7	1.9	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.4
¹ The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively. ² For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that year. For 1994-2003 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS. Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2007, and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at http://www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).

Endnotes

^[1] In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the IFA (or a residual functional capacity assessment) that applied to adults whose condition did not meet or equal a listing of medical impairments to determine eligibility should also be applied to children whose condition did not meet or equal the medical listing of impairments.

^[2] The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the IFA for children was initiated.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

Appendix A. Program Data

Contents

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)

Legislative Changes

Data Issues Relating to the TANF Program and the AFDC-TANF Transition

AFDC/TANF Program Data

Endnotes

Food Stamp Program

Legislative Changes

Food Stamp Program Data

Supplemental Security Income

Legislative Changes

SSI Program Data

Endnotes

Where to?

Appendix A.
Program Data

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)