 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
|
|||
| ACF Home | Services | Working with ACF | Policy/Planning | About ACF | ACF News | HHS Home | ||||
Questions?
|
Privacy
|
Site Index
|
Contact Us
|
Download Reader™
|
Print
|
|---|
Fifth Annual Report to Congress (February 2003)X. Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients
TANF Adults TANF Children Financial Circumstances Ethnic/Racial Composition of Families Age of Adult Recipients Employment Rate Age of the Youngest Child Non-sampling Errors Standard Errors of Subsets Standard Errors for State Estimates Statistically Significant Differences
This chapter reports on demographic characteristics and financial circumstances of families who received assistance and families who no longer received assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program during the period of October 2000 – September 2001. It also includes the characteristics data of Separate State Program – Maintenance of Effort (SSP-MOE) recipient families. (Additional information on TANF/SSP-MOE recipient characteristics and financial circumstances is available on the Internet at /programs/ofa/). It is important to note that States are now spending considerable proportions of their TANF funds on various services to families who are not receiving cash assistance. These data are limited to those who received TANF cash assistance at some time during Fiscal Year (FY) 2001. The data referenced in this chapter were obtained from a statistically valid sample of TANF and SSP-MOE cases reported to the national TANF/SSP-MOE database. Data are presented for all States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. PRWORA established State data reporting requirements for the TANF program. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued final regulations implementing data reporting and other aspects of PRWORA in April 1999. States are required to collect monthly TANF data and report them to HHS quarterly. These data include disaggregated case record information on families receiving assistance, families no longer receiving assistance, and families newly-approved for assistance from programs supported by TANF funds. All States and Territories but Guam transmitted 8,103,182 active cases and 645,365 closed cases to the national TANF database for FY 2001. Tables 10:60 to 10:74 contain data on SSP-MOE recipient characteristics for the 25 States that reported data on their SSP-MOE families. SSP-MOE eligible families may be quite different among the 25 States as well as within a State where there are multiple SSP-MOE programs. For example, a State may have a two-parent SSP-MOE cash assistance program as well as an SSP-MOE program that provides transportation assistance to other families. Multiple SSP-MOE programs are reported as a single combined program. About 60 percent of the States reported serving multiple types of families. It is for these reasons that it is not meaningful at the national level to compare characteristics of SSP-MOE recipients with those of TANF recipients. Under the TANF data reporting system, States have the option to submit either sample data or universe data to HHS. Thirty States submitted universe data, from which HHS randomly selected approximately 275 active cases and 100 closed cases each month from each State to prepare this report. The remaining 23 States submitted sample data. A total sample of 207,652 active cases and 60,923 closed cases was used to compile 59 tables for TANF recipient characteristics. The statistical data in this report are estimates derived from samples and, therefore, are subject to sampling errors as well as non-sampling errors. Statistical specifications can be found in Tables 10:75 to 10:79. Implementation of the final rules of TANF/SSP-MOE data collection requirements posed significant initial challenges to States and HHS. In cases where a few States submitted questionable data, the data from those States were eliminated. In cases where numerous States reported questionable data or unusually large numbers of "unknown" or "other" categories, HHS urges caution in drawing conclusions on the basis of the data. This summary describes TANF recipient characteristics between October 2000 and September 2001. Wherever possible, recipient characteristics were compared with those in the preceding year, October 1999 to September 2000. As presented in Exhibit I, October 2000 – September 2001 TANF recipient characteristics were also compared for active cases, newly-approved cases, child-only cases, and closed cases. The work participation activity data may be somewhat different from those presented in "Section III - Work Participation Rates" because TANF recipient characteristics in this section were prepared using sample cases of 3,300 randomly selected for States that submitted the universe data, and the data transmitted by States as of May 15, 2002. The average monthly number of TANF families was 2,120,500 in FY 2001. The estimated average monthly number of TANF recipients was 1,409,000 adults and 4,055,000 children. The average monthly number of TANF families decreased in 37 States and reflects an overall seven percent decrease from 2,269,000 families in FY 2000. California had the largest number of TANF families with a monthly average of 474,000, accounting for almost a quarter of the U.S. total. New York ranked second with a monthly average of 226,000. California and New York had a combined monthly average of 700,000, accounting for a third of U.S. totals. Of the $8.9 billion paid to TANF eligible families in cash assistance during FY 2001, California alone paid $2.8 billion, or 30 percent of U.S. total cash payments. New York made total cash payments of $1.2 billion. Combined TANF cash payments in California and New York accounted for almost half of U.S. total TANF cash payments. The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.6, including an average of two recipient children, which remained unchanged. Two in five families had only one child. One in 10 families had more than three children. The average number of children in closed-case families was 1.9. Nearly half closed-case families had one child, and only seven percent had more than three children. Sixty percent of TANF families had only one adult recipient, and about four percent included two or more adult recipients. In 17 States and two Territories, there were no two-parent family cases on TANF, these States having aided two-parent families through a Separate State Program. About 37 percent of TANF families had no adult recipients, to an increase of about 2.7 percentage points when compared to FY 2000. Although the percentage of child-only cases on the welfare rolls has continued to increase in the past several years, the total number of child-only cases has actually declined by about 200,000 since FY 1996. Nearly half of child-only families had a parent in the household. Of those child-only families with a parent present, about 42 percent had a parent on SSI and 32 percent had a parent in unknown citizenship/alienage status. Only 10 percent of cases without adults had a parent removed from the case (sanctioned) for failure to comply with work requirements, attend school, or cooperate with child support. Reasons were unknown for the remaining 16 percent that had a parent not in the assistance unit. There was little change in the racial composition of TANF families. African-American families comprised 39 percent of TANF families. White families comprised 30 percent of the families, 26 percent were Hispanic, 1.3 percent were Native American, and 2.1 percent were Asian. The proportion of Asian families has decreased from three percent over the past two years because California moved all two-parent family cases to the SSP-MOE program. Of all newly-approved families, 40 percent were African-American, 38 percent were white, and 19 percent were Hispanic. Of all closed-case families, 35 percent were African-American, 36 percent were white, and 25 percent were Hispanic. Eighty-one percent of TANF families received food stamp assistance, which is consistent with previous levels. Those families received an average monthly food stamp assistance of $228. About 74 percent of closed-case families received food stamp assistance in the month of closure. Almost every TANF family was enrolled in Medicaid under the State plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security Act. The reasons for TANF families leaving assistance were employment at 19.4 percent, State policy (e.g., State time limit, excess unearned income or resources, transferring to SSP-MOE program, etc.) at 12.9 percent, families transferred to a Tribal program at 12.7 percent, failure to cooperate with eligibility requirements at 22.2 percent, sanctions at 7.2 percent, and voluntary closure at 2.4 percent. However, understanding of the reasons for case closure is limited by the fact that States reported 23.0 percent of all cases closed due to "other" unspecified reasons. For example, while independent studies of the reason for families leaving welfare typically find that somewhat over half leave as a result of employment, States reported only 19.4 percent of cases closing due to employment, clearly an understatement of the true rate. Many closures due to employment are coded as failure to cooperate or as some other category because at the point of closure the agency often is unaware that the client became employed. There were about 2,286,000 adults living in TANF households. Of those adults, 61 percent were TANF recipients and 39 percent were not. Of such non-recipient adults who may be ineligible for assistance, 22 percent were parents, 13 percent were caretakers, and 4 percent were other persons whose income was considered in determining eligibility. Most TANF adult recipients were women. Men represented only ten percent of adult recipients. The average age of TANF adult recipients was 31.3 years, which is unchanged from the previous year. Of TANF adult recipients, seven percent were teenagers and 19 percent were 40 years of age or older. Nearly 93 percent of adult recipients were the heads of households. There were about 122,000 teen parents with children who were also members of the TANF family. In other words, 13 percent of teen recipients were teen parents. Only 12 percent of adult recipients were married and living together. The proportion of married adult recipients decreased because many States recently moved two-parent families to SSP-MOE programs. Most TANF adult recipients were U.S. citizens. There were about 113,000 non-citizens (i.e., eight percent of TANF adults) residing legally in this country. Of TANF adult recipients, about 26.7 percent on average were employed in the reporting month. There was little difference in the employment rate between male recipients and female recipients. Employment increased slightly when compared with 26.4 percent in FY 2000. In newly-approved families, 18.8 percent of adult recipients were employed. In closed-case families, 35.8 percent of adults were employed in the month case closed, regardless of the reason listed for case closure. TANF recipient children averaged about 7.8 years of age. Thirteen percent of recipient children were under two years of age, while 38 percent were of preschool age (under six). Only eight percent of the children were 16 years of age or older. This age distribution of TANF recipient children is unchanged from the previous year. Most recipient children were children of the head of the household in TANF families, and only eight percent were grandchildren of the head of the household. Of all TANF recipient children in child-only cases, 63 percent lived with parents and 22 percent with grandparents who did not themselves receive assistance. Ninety-eight percent of TANF recipient children were U.S. citizens. The other two percent were qualified aliens. Of TANF families, 99 percent received cash and cash equivalent assistance, with an average monthly amount of $351. Monthly cash payments to TANF families averaged $288 for one child, $362 for two children, $423 for three children, and $519 for four children or more. One in every four TANF families had non-TANF income. The average monthly amount of non-TANF income was $593 per family. Sixteen percent of all TANF families had earned income with an average monthly amount of $693. Eight percent of TANF families had unearned income with an average monthly amount of $299. Similarly, 22 percent of newly-approved families had non-TANF income with an average monthly amount of $489. Of all closed-case families, 40 percent had non-TANF income with an average monthly amount of $893. A quarter of TANF recipient adults had earned income. Their average monthly earned income increased to $686 from $668 in FY 2000. Seven percent of adult recipients had unearned income averaging about $315 per month. Three percent of recipient children had unearned income with an average monthly amount of $176. As in FY 2000, one in ten TANF families received child support, with an average monthly amount of $179. Twelve percent of TANF families had some cash resources (e.g., cash on hand, bank accounts, or certificates of deposit) with an average amount of $244. Such family cash resources were defined by the State for determining eligibility for and/or amount of benefits.
Trends in AFDC/TANF Characteristics Because of the rapid decline in the caseload from a record high of 5.0 million families in FY 1994 to 2.1 million families in FY 2001, the question has been raised as to whether the current caseload has changed significantly after PRWORA. An examination of longer-term trends is helpful in beginning to understand how the welfare recipient population has been changing. A number of major changes in the characteristics of welfare recipients have occurred in the 1990’s including the number and percentage of child-only families, the racial composition of welfare families, the age of adult recipients, the age of the youngest child, and the employment rate of adults. These trends in AFDC/TANF recipient characteristics are presented in Exhibit II. In FY 2001, there were about 786,900 child-only cases, comprising 37.2 percent of the total caseload. The number of child-only families increased steadily throughout the middle 1990’s, reaching a peak of 978,000 such families in FY 1996. Through FY 1998 the number of child-only families decreased to 743,000, although their proportion of the caseload continued to increase slowly to 23.4 percent from 21.5 percent in FY 1996. In FY 2001, however, both the number and the proportion increased. Since FY 1998, both the number and the proportion have increased each year. Ethnic/Racial Composition of Families The racial composition of welfare families has changed substantially over the past ten years. In FY 1992, it was 39 percent white, 37 percent African-American, and 18 percent Hispanic. In FY 2001, however, it was 30 percent white, 39 percent African-American, and 26 percent Hispanic. Viewed over the decade, there has been a shift from white to Hispanic families, which is consistent with broader population trends. This shift has been accelerated since FY 1996 and is particularly pronounced in California, New York, and Texas. Thus, in FY 2001, 70 percent of all Hispanic welfare families were in three large States (California, New York and Texas), as compared to 65 percent in FY 1996. In California, the proportion of Hispanic families increased to 49 percent in FY 2001 from 38 percent in FY 1996. In addition, the proportion of African- American families has trended up slightly since FY 1996, following a decline that preceded FY 1996. The result of these changes is that over the past decade the proportion of welfare families that are minorities has increased from three-fifths to just over two-thirds, primarily driven by the relative growth in Hispanic families. Throughout the decade the average age of adults has gradually increased from 29.9 in FY 1992 to 31.4 in FY 2001. Between FY 1992 and FY 2001, the proportion of older adults over 39 years increased most dramatically from 14 to 19 percent of adult recipients. Slightly less than half of the increase in older adult recipients occurred in the five years after TANF, compared to the six prior years. The employment rate of adult recipients has increased significantly in the past five years. In FY 2001, 27 percent of adult recipients were employed, about 2.4 times the 1996 employment rate of 11 percent and four times the rate of the early 1990’s. Between FY 1992 and FY 2001, the proportion of families with a youngest child who was a toddler, i.e., age one or two, declined sharply from 30 to 20 percent. At the same time, the proportion of families whose youngest child was age six or older increased sharply from 36 to 45 percent.
All States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were required to submit TANF data on the demographic characteristics and financial circumstances of families receiving assistance and families no longer receiving assistance under their TANF programs. During FY 2001, all States and Territories but Guam transmitted 8,103,182 active cases and 645,365 closed cases onto the national TANF database. Under the TANF data reporting system, States have the option to submit either sample data or universe data to HHS. Twenty-three States submitted sample data. The remaining 31 States submitted universe data, from which HHS randomly selected approximately 275 active cases and 100 closed cases each month. A total probability sample of 207,652 active cases and 60,923 closed cases was used in the TANF recipient characteristics study for FY 2001. The statistical data are estimates derived from samples and, therefore, are subject to sampling errors as well as non-sampling errors. Sampling errors occur to the extent that the results would have been different if obtained from a complete enumeration of all cases. Non-sampling errors are errors in response, coding of responses and non-response errors, or incomplete sample frames. For FY 2001, the average monthly caseload, annual sample sizes, average monthly sample sizes, sampling fractions and the percentage points by which estimates of the total caseload for each State might vary from the true value at the 95 percent confidence level are shown in Tables 10:75 and 10:76. Table 10:77 indicates the approximate standard error for various percentages for the U.S. total caseload. These standard errors are somewhat overstated because they are calculated assuming a sample of 13,624 cases out of a total of 2,117,658 cases, or 0.64334888 percent of the average monthly caseload. California is the State with such a small sampling fraction. To obtain the 95 percent confidence level at each percent in Table 10:77, multiply the standard error by a factor of 1.96. For example, national estimates of 50 percent should not vary from the true value by more than plus or minus 0.8428 percentage points (0.43 x 1.96) at the 95 percent confidence level. To obtain the 99 percent confidence level, multiply the standard errors by a factor of 2.58. Every effort is made to assure that a list of the universe or the sample frame is complete. It is possible, however, that some cases receiving assistance for the reporting month are not included. There is no measure of the completeness of the universe. Data entries are based on information in the case records. Errors may have occurred because of misinterpretation of questions or because of incomplete case record information. Errors may also have occurred in coding and transmitting the data. There are no measures of the reliability of the coded information. For some data elements, obviously incorrect or missing information was re-coded as unknown in the data processing. For tables based on subsets of the populations, e.g., one-adult or two-adult families, the approximate standard errors can be computed by the following method: (a) determine the assumed sample size of the subset by multiplying the number of cases in the subset by 0.0064334888; (b) divide the sample size of all families (13,624) by the assumed sample size of the subset; and (c) take the square root of the result and multiply it by the standard errors of the total caseload shown in Table 10:77. For example, for child-only cases the approximate standard errors of percentages can be found by multiplying the data in Table 10:77 by the square root of 13,624/5,063 or 1.6404. The sample size of 5,063 is determined by 786,932 x 0.0064334888. Standard Errors for State Estimates The method used above can be adapted to calculating standard errors of State estimates. First, divide the national sample size of all families (13,624) by the State sample size shown in Table 10:75. Then take the square root of the result and multiply it by the standard errors shown in Table 10:77. For example, for Florida the approximate standard errors of percentages can be found by multiplying the data in Table 10:77 by the square root of 13,624/3,260 or 2.0443. Statistically Significant Differences Table 10:78 shows the percentage values at which differences between national and State estimates become significant at the 5 percent confidence level based on annual State samples of 3,000 active cases. Table 10:79 shows the percentage values at which differences between State estimates become significant at the 5 percent confidence level based on annual State samples of 3,000 active cases.
This document was last modified on
Dec-17-2008
. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
D
D