# X. Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients

This chapter reports on the demographic characteristics and financial
circumstances of families who received cash assistance and families who
discontinued receiving assistance under the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program during the period of October 1999 --
September 2000. It also includes the characteristics data of the
Separate State Program -- Maintenance of Effort (SSP-MOE) recipient
families. This chapter is available on the Internet at
[[http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/particip/index.htm#characteristics]{.underline}](http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/indexpub.htm).

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 \-- particularly those who have left or
avoided cash welfare for work. These data are limited to those who
received cash assistance at sometime during the observation period.

The data referenced by this document were obtained from a statistically
valid sample of TANF and SSP-MOE cases within the national TANF/SSP-MOE
Database. Data are presented for all States, the District of Columbia,
Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) established a new TANF program to replace the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. The new welfare law
also established State data reporting requirements for the TANF program.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) issued final
regulations implementing data reporting and other aspects of PRWORA in
April 1999.

The TANF statute requires States to collect TANF data on a monthly basis
and report them to DHHS on a quarterly basis. These data include
disaggregated case record information on the families receiving
assistance, families no longer receiving assistance, and families
newly-approved for assistance from programs funded with TANF funds.
Effective with the October-December 1999 quarter, all States, the
District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands were
required to implement the quarterly reporting requirements in the final
TANF rules. The 54 States and Territories transmitted data on 8,391,790
active cases and 649,794 closed cases to the national TANF database for
fiscal year (FY) 2000. Oregon transmitted its closed cases after
preparing this report.

In Appendix 10:1 there are SSP-MOE recipient characteristics for 23
States who reported data on their SSP-MOE families. SSP-MOE eligible
families may be quite different among the 23 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 possible 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 DHHS. Thirty States submitted
universe data, from which DHHS randomly selected approximately 275
active cases and 100 closed cases for each State each month to prepare
this report. The remaining 24 States submitted sample data. A total
sample of 198,415 active cases and 54,340 closed cases was used to
compile 54 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 Appendix 10:2, the
reliability of estimates.

Implementation of the final rules of TANF/SSP-MOE data collection
requirements posed significant initial challenges to States and DHHS. In
cases where a few States submitted questionable data, the data from
those States were eliminated from the tables. In cases where numerous
States reported questionable data or unusually large numbers of
"unknown" or "other" categories, DHHS urges caution in drawing
conclusions on the basis of the data.

## Summary

This summary describes TANF recipient characteristics in October 1999 -
September 2000. Wherever possible, the recipient characteristics were
compared with those in the preceding year, October 1998 - September
1999. As presented in Exhibit I, separate characteristics data are
presented for active cases, newly-approved cases, child-only cases, and
closed cases for October 1999 - September 2000. In Appendix 10.1 there
are SSP-MOE recipient characteristics for 23 States who reported
characteristics data on their SSP-MOE families. Because SSP-MOE eligible
families may be quite different among these 23 States, it was not
possible on a national level to compare characteristics of SSP-MOE
recipients with those of TANF recipients.

### The TANF Family

The average monthly number of TANF families was 2,269,000 in FY 2000.
The estimated total number of TANF recipients was 1,579,000 adults and
4,385,000 children. The average monthly number of TANF families
decreased in almost all States and reflects an overall 14 percent
decrease from 2,648,000 families in October 1998 - September 1999.

California had the largest number of TANF families with a monthly
average of 501,000, which accounted for almost a quarter of the U.S.
total TANF families. New York ranked second with a monthly average of
258,000. California and New York had a combined monthly average of
759,000, accounting for a third of the U.S. totals. Of the \$9.5 billion
paid to TANF eligible families in cash assistance during FY 2000,
California alone paid \$2.9 billion, which accounted for 30 percent of
the U.S. total cash payments. New York made total cash payments of \$1.4
billion. The combined TANF cash payments of California and New York
accounted for almost a half of the U.S. total TANF cash payments.

The average number of persons in TANF families was 2.6 persons. The TANF
families averaged two recipient children. Two in five families had only
one child. One in ten families had more than three children. The average
number of children in closed-case families was only 1.8. Nearly one in
two closed-case families had one child, and seven percent had more than
three children.

Sixty percent of TANF families had only one adult recipient, and four
percent included two or more adult recipients. In 17 States and two
Territories, there were no two-parent family cases to be used in
calculating the work participation rate. These States placed two-parent
families under Separate State Programs. About 35 percent of TANF
families had no adult recipients, up about 5.4 percentage points when
compared to the October 1998 - September 1999 period. 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 26 percent had a parent in unknown
citizenship/alienage status. Only 11 percent had a parent in sanction
status because of refusing to comply with work requirements, not
attending school, or not cooperating with child support. The reasons
were unknown for the remaining 21 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 31 percent of the families and 25 percent were
Hispanic. Of TANF families, 1.6 percent were Native American, and 2.2
percent were Asian. Of all newly-approved families, 39 percent were
African American families, 37 percent were white families, and 20
percent were Hispanics. Of all closed-case families, 36 percent were
African American families, 38 percent were white families, and 21
percent were Hispanics.

Of TANF families, 80 percent received food stamp assistance, which is
consistent with previous levels. Those families received an average
monthly food stamp assistance of \$224. Of closed-case families, about
71 percent received food stamp assistance in the month of closure.

Almost every TANF family was eligible to receive medical assistance
under the State plan approved under title XIX of the Social Security
Act.

The proportion of families that received a reduction in assistance for
the reporting month was 23.6 percent distributed as follows: sanction
(6.1 percent); recoupment of a prior overpayment (8.7 percent); and
other (8.8 percent). Over 50 percent of sanctions were due to a failure
to comply with work requirements. "Other" could include reasons for a
reduction in assistance, such as length of time on assistance or the
application of a family cap.

The reasons for TANF families no longer receiving assistance were
employment at 19.7 percent, State's policy at 12.1 percent, family
served by a Tribal program at 10.5 percent, failure to cooperate with
eligibility requirements at 22.2 percent, sanction at 6.5 percent, and
voluntary closure at 2.3 percent. However, understanding the reasons for
case closure is limited, in that States reported 26.4 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 19.7 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.

### The TANF Adults

Most TANF adult recipients were women. Men represented ten percent of
adult recipients. The average age of TANF adult recipients was 31.3
years. Of TANF adult recipients, seven percent were teenagers and 18
percent were 40 years of age or older. Nearly 93 percent of adult
recipients were the head of the household. There were about 138,000 teen
parents whose child was also a member of the TANF family. In other
words, 14 percent of teen recipients were teen parents. Only 12 percent
of adult recipients were married and living together. This does not
include those families that receive benefits under a separate State TANF
program.

African American adults comprised 38 percent of adult recipients. White
adults comprised 33 percent of adult recipients and 24 percent were
Hispanic. Of adult recipients, 1.8 percent were American Indian or
Alaska Native, and 2.6 percent were Asian.

There were about 700,000 non-recipient adults in child-only cases. Of
all non-recipient adults living in the child-only case household, 55
percent were parents, 38 percent were caretakers and seven percent were
other persons. Of such non-recipient adults who may not be eligible to
receive assistance, 30 percent received SSI benefits, 21 percent were in
unknown citizenship/alienage including undocumented or non-qualified
aliens, and only seven percent were in sanction status. In 42 percent,
the reason that the adult was not included in the assistance unit was
unknown.

Most TANF adult recipients were U.S. citizens. Non-citizens residing
legally in this country were eight percent of TANF adults. Half of TANF
adult recipients completed a formal education of 12 years or more. About
20 percent of adult recipients had less than ten years of education.

Of TANF adult recipients, 26.4 percent were employed. There was little
difference in the employment rate between male recipients and female
recipients. Employment slightly decreased by about four percent when
compared with 27.6 percent in FY 1999. Half of TANF adult recipients
were in the labor force, i.e., seeking work but not employed, and a
quarter of adult recipients were not in the labor force. On the other
hand in newly-approved families, 19.7 percent of adult recipients were
employed. In closed-case families, 37.9 percent were employed.

Work participation was mandatory for almost three of every five adult
recipients. Of TANF adult recipients, about seven percent were exempt
from the work participation because they were single custodial parents
with a child under 12 months. Nearly 11 percent were exempt because of a
sanction, part of an ongoing research evaluation or an approved welfare
reform waiver. Ten percent were exempted by the State from the work
participation status because of a good cause exception, e.g., disabled,
in poor health, or other. About eight percent were exempt teen parents
who were required to participate in education.

Overall, 45 percent of all TANF adult recipients participated in some
type of work activities during the reporting month. In other words, 26
percent worked in unsubsidized jobs, five percent did job search, and
another 14 percent were engaged in subsidized employment, job skills
training or work preparation activities. (Some TANF adults did two or
three work activities. Also, some adults participated who were work
exempt.) Their average number of hours per week participating in work
activities was 25 hours.

In addition to 37 percent who were exempt from work participation, it
appears that at least 20 percent of adult recipients who were required
to participate did not participate in mandatory work activities.

### The TANF Children

TANF recipient children averaged about 7.8 years of age. Thirteen
percent of recipient children were under two years of age, while 39
percent were of preschool age under 6. Only eight percent of the
children were 16 years of age or older.

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, 62
percent lived with parents and 23 percent with grandparents who did not
themselves receive assistance.

The racial distribution of TANF recipient children was slightly changed
in recent years. African American children continued to be the largest
group of welfare children, comprising about 40 percent of recipient
children. About 27 percent of TANF recipient children were white and
about 27 percent were Hispanic. The percentage of African American
children on TANF remains unchanged. The percentages of white and
Hispanic children are up 1.0 percentage point, however, when compared to
October 1998 -- September 1999.

### Financial Circumstances

Of TANF families, 98 percent received cash and cash equivalent
assistance, with the average monthly amount of \$349 under the State's
TANF program. The monthly cash payment to the TANF families averaged
\$285 for one child, \$356 for two children, \$423 for three children
and \$516 for four children or more*.* Some TANF families who were not
employed received other forms of assistance such as child care,
transportation, and other supportive services.

One in every four TANF families had non-TANF income. The average monthly
amount of non-TANF income was \$580 per family. Sixteen percent of TANF
families had earned income with the average monthly amount of \$675.
Eight percent of TANF families had unearned income, with the average
monthly amount of \$277. Similarly, 22 percent of newly-approved
families had non-TANF income with the average monthly amount of \$478.
Of all closed-case families, 40 percent had non-TANF income, with the
average monthly amount of \$830.

A quarter of TANF recipient adults had earned income. Their average
monthly earned income increased to \$668 from \$598 in FY 1999, an
increase of about 12 percent. Six percent of adult recipients had
unearned income averaging about \$291 per month. Three percent of
recipient children had unearned income, averaging about \$166 per month.

Ten percent of TANF families received child support, averaging about
\$174 per month. One in ten TANF families had some cash resources (e.g.,
cash on hand, bank accounts, or certificates of deposit) averaging about
\$252 per month. Such family's cash resources were defined by the State
for determining eligibility for and/or amount of benefits.[^1]

![](media/image1.wmf){width="6.446527777777778in"
height="8.158333333333333in"}

![](media/image2.wmf){width="6.446527777777778in" height="6.36875in"}

![](media/image3.wmf){width="6.446527777777778in" height="7.61875in"}

## AFDC/TANF Trends in the 1990's

Because of the rapid decline in the caseload beginning from a record
high of 5.0 million families in FY 1994 to 2.3 million families in FY
2000, 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 client
population has been changing.

A number of major changes in the characteristics of welfare recipients
have occurred in the 1990s including the number of child-only families,
the racial composition of welfare families, the age of adult recipients,
the age of the youngest child, the percent of unborn children, and the
employment rate of adults. These trends in AFDC/TANF recipient
characteristics are presented in Exhibit II.

### Child-only Families

In FY 2000, there were about 782,000 child-only cases, which accounted
for 35 percent of the total caseload. The number of child-only families
increased steadily throughout the mid 1990's, reaching a peak of 978,000
families in 1996. Through 1998 the number of child-only families
decreased to 743,000, although their proportion of the caseload
continued to increase slowly to 23 percent.

### Racial/Ethnic Composition of Families

The racial composition of welfare families has changed substantially
over the past ten years. In FY 1990, it was 38 percent white, 40 percent
African American and 17 percent Hispanic. In FY 2000, however, it was 31
percent white, 39 percent African American and 25 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 1996 and is particularly pronounced in
California, New York and Texas. Thus, in FY 2000, 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 welfare families increased to 45 percent in
FY 2000 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
were minorities has increased from three-fifths to just over two-thirds,
primarily driven by the relative growth in Hispanic families.

### Age of Adult Recipients

Throughout the decade the average age of adults has gradually increased
from 29.7 in 1990 to 31.3 in 2000. Between 1990 and 2000, the proportion
of older adults over 39 years increased most dramatically from 13 to 18
percent of adult recipients. Slightly less than half of this growth
occurred in the three years after TANF was enacted compared to the six
prior years.

### Employment Rate

The employment rate of adult recipients has increased significantly in
the past five years. In FY 2000, 26 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.

### Age of the Youngest Child

Between 1990 and 2000 the proportion of families with a youngest child
who was a toddler, i.e., aged one or 2, 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.
Furthermore, this trend was accelerated after 1996 with 63 percent of
the growth over the decade occurring in the later three years.

## Conclusion

Ultimately, the question of whether national caseloads are becoming, on
average, more disadvantaged as caseloads decline, is far less important
than whether local welfare agencies are addressing the challenges
recipients are facing as well as becoming more adept at helping clients
respond to barriers. This is clearly happening as a result of welfare
reform. Indeed, the popular perception that caseloads are becoming
\"more disadvantaged\" may likely be a product of welfare agencies
examining their caseloads more closely then ever before, making
considerably greater effort now to help all their cases escape
dependency. This expanded appreciation of client characteristics at the
local level is helping agencies to design more helpful programs.

![](media/image4.png){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="8.418055555555556in"}

## Appendices

**[TANF Families and Households]{.underline}**

Table 10:1 Percent Distribution of TANF Households by Number of Persons
in the Household

Table 10:2 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Number of Recipients

Table 10:3 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Number of Adult
Recipients

Table 10:4 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Number of Recipient
Children

Table 10:5 Percent Distribution of TANF Families with No Adult
Recipients by Number of Recipient Children

Table 10:6 Percent Distribution of TANF Families with One Adult
Recipient by Number of Recipient Children

Table 10:7 Percent Distribution of TANF Families with Two Or More Adult
Recipients by Number of Recipient Children

Table 10:8 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Ethnicity/Race

Table 10:9 Percent Distribution of All Adults Living in the Household by
the Family Affiliation

Table 10:10 Percent Distribution of TANF Teen Recipients with Teen
Parent Status

Table 10:11 Percent Distribution TANF Child-Only Cases with Parents:
Reason for Parents Living in the Household but Not in the Assistance
Unit

Table 10:12 Percent Distribution of TANF Families Receiving Assistance
(Medical, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Subsidized Child care)

Table 10:13 Percent Distribution of TANF Families with Child Support and
Cash Resources

Table 10:14 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Reason for Grant
Reduction

Table 10:15 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by the Federal
Time-Limit Exemption Provision

Table 10:16 Percent Distribution of TANF Families by Type of Family for
Work Participation

**[Adult Recipients]{.underline}**

Table 10:17 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by Age Group

Table 10:18 Percent Distribution of TANF Male Adult Recipients by Age
Group

Table 10:19 Percent Distribution of TANF Female Adult Recipients by Age
Group

Table 10:20 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by
Ethnicity/Race

Table 10:21 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by Marital
Status

Table 10:22 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients Receiving
Disability Benefits

Table 10:23 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by
Relationship to Head-of-Household

Table 10:24 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by Education
Level

Table 10:25 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by Citizenship
Status

Table 10:26 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by Work
Exemption Status

Table 10:27 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients Participating
in Work Activities

Table 10:28 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by the Average
Number of Hours Per Week Participating in Work Activities

Table 10:29 Percent Distribution of TANF Adult Recipients by Employment
Status

**[Recipient Children]{.underline}**

Table 10:30 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children by Age Group

Table 10:31 Percent Distribution of TANF Male Recipient Children by Age
Group

Table 10:32 Percent Distribution of TANF Female Recipient Children by
Age Group

Table 10:33 Percent Distribution of TANF Youngest Recipient Child by Age
Group

Table 10:34 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children by
Ethnicity/Race

Table 10:35 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children Receiving
Disability Benefits

Table 10:36 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children by
Relationship to Head-of-Household

Table 10:37 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children in
Child-Only Cases by Relationship to Head-of-Household

Table 10:38 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children by Education
Level

Table 10:39 Percent Distribution of TANF Recipient Children by
Citizenship Status

**[Financial Circumstances]{.underline}**

Table 10:40 TANF Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Average Monthly
Amount by Number of Recipient Children

Table 10:41 TANF Families with Income by Type of Non-TANF Income

Table 10:42 TANF Adult Recipients with Income by Type of Non-TANF Income

Table 10:43 TANF Recipient Children with Unearned Income

**[Closed Cases]{.underline}**

Table 10:44 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Families by Reason
for Closure

Table 10:45 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Families by Number
of Family Members

Table 10:46 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Families by
Ethnicity/Race

Table 10:47 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Families Receiving
Assistance (Medical, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Subsidized Child
care)

Table 10:48 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Adult Recipients by
Age Group

Table 10:49 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Recipient Children
by Age Group

Table 10:50 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Youngest Child
Recipient by Age Group

Table 10:51 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Adult Recipients by
Marital Status

Table 10:52 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Adult Recipients by
Education Level

Table 10:53 Percent Distribution of TANF Closed-Case Adult Recipients by
Employment Status

Table 10:54 TANF Closed-Case Families with Income by Type of Non-TANF
Income

**[Appendix 10:1 \-- SSP-MOE Recipients]{.underline}**

Table 10:55 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Families by Number of Family
Members

Table 10:56 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Families by Type of Families
for Work Participation

Table 10:57 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Families by Number of
Recipient Children

Table 10:58 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Families By Ethnicity/Race

Table 10:59 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Families Receiving
Assistance (Medical, Food Stamps, Subsidized Housing, Subsidized Child
care)

Table 10:60 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Adult Recipients by Age
Group

Table 10:61 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Adult Recipients by Marital
Status

Table 10:62 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Adult Recipients by
Education Level

Table 10:63 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Adult Recipients by Work
Exemption Status

Table 10:64 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Adult Recipients
Participating in Work Activities

Table 10:65 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Adult Recipients by
Employment Status

Table 10:66 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Recipient Children by Age
Group

Table 10:67 SSP-MOE Families Receiving Cash Assistance and Average
Monthly Amount by Number of Recipient Children

Table 10:68 SSP-MOE Families with Income by Type of Non-SSP Income

Table 10:69 Percent Distribution of SSP-MOE Closed-Case Families by
Reason for Closure

**[Appendix 10:2 \-- Reliability of Estimates]{.underline}**

Table 10:70 Average Monthly TANF Active Caseload, Sample Size, Sample
Fraction and Percent by Which Estimate of 50 Percent Might Vary from
True Value at the 95 Percent Confidence Level

Table 10:71 Total Number of Annual TANF Closed Cases, Sample Size,
Sample Fraction and Percent by Which Estimate of 50 Percent Might Vary
from True Value at the 95 Percent Confidence Level

Table 10:72 Approximate Standard Error of Estimated Percentages of TANF
Families

Table 10:73 Significance Differences for Percentage Values between the
United States and States with Samples of 3000

Table 10:74 Significance Differences for Percentage Values between
States with Samples of 3000

![](media/image5.wmf){width="6.491666666666666in"
height="8.22638888888889in"}

![](media/image6.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="7.526388888888889in"}

![](media/image7.wmf){width="5.911111111111111in"
height="8.514583333333333in"}

![](media/image8.wmf){width="6.4375in" height="8.654861111111112in"}

![](media/image9.wmf){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="7.651388888888889in"}

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.364583333333333in" height="8.4in"}

![](media/image11.wmf){width="6.372222222222222in"
height="8.845138888888888in"}

![](media/image12.wmf){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="8.19513888888889in"}

![](media/image13.wmf){width="6.395833333333333in"
height="8.885416666666666in"}

![](media/image14.wmf){width="4.73125in" height="8.840277777777779in"}

![](media/image15.wmf){width="6.058333333333334in"
height="8.753472222222221in"}

![](media/image16.wmf){width="6.3805555555555555in" height="8.99375in"}

![](media/image17.wmf){width="5.698611111111111in"
height="8.848611111111111in"}

![](media/image18.wmf){width="5.9319444444444445in"
height="8.999305555555555in"}

![](media/image19.wmf){width="6.490277777777778in"
height="8.690277777777778in"}

![](media/image20.wmf){width="6.245138888888889in"
height="8.988888888888889in"}

![](media/image21.wmf){width="6.300694444444445in"
height="8.738194444444444in"}

![](media/image22.wmf){width="6.49375in" height="8.758333333333333in"}

![](media/image23.wmf){width="6.492361111111111in"
height="8.724305555555556in"}

![](media/image24.wmf){width="6.491666666666666in"
height="8.668055555555556in"}

![](media/image25.wmf){width="6.490972222222222in"
height="7.427083333333333in"}

![](media/image26.wmf){width="5.477083333333334in"
height="8.802777777777777in"}

![](media/image27.wmf){width="4.226388888888889in"
height="8.902777777777779in"}

![](media/image28.wmf){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="8.44513888888889in"}

![](media/image29.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="8.342361111111112in"}

![](media/image30.wmf){width="4.741666666666666in"
height="8.886111111111111in"}

![](media/image31.wmf){width="6.065972222222222in"
height="8.905555555555555in"}

![](media/image32.wmf){width="6.491666666666666in"
height="8.625694444444445in"}

![](media/image33.wmf){width="6.378472222222222in"
height="8.829166666666667in"}

![](media/image34.wmf){width="4.9840277777777775in"
height="8.990972222222222in"}

![](media/image35.wmf){width="6.152083333333334in"
height="8.850694444444445in"}

![](media/image36.wmf){width="6.177777777777778in"
height="8.997222222222222in"}

![](media/image37.wmf){width="6.209722222222222in"
height="8.802777777777777in"}

![](media/image38.wmf){width="6.19375in" height="8.716666666666667in"}

![](media/image39.png){width="6.496527777777778in"
height="8.13263888888889in"}

![](media/image40.wmf){width="6.496527777777778in"
height="7.652083333333334in"}

![](media/image41.wmf){width="5.322222222222222in"
height="8.888194444444444in"}

![](media/image42.wmf){width="6.495138888888889in"
height="8.541666666666666in"}

![](media/image43.wmf){width="6.490972222222222in"
height="8.518055555555556in"}

![](media/image44.wmf){width="5.986111111111111in"
height="8.896527777777777in"}

![](media/image45.wmf){width="4.886111111111111in"
height="8.720138888888888in"}

![](media/image46.wmf){width="6.493055555555555in"
height="8.384027777777778in"}

![](media/image47.wmf){width="6.413888888888889in"
height="8.719444444444445in"}

![](media/image48.wmf){width="6.413888888888889in"
height="8.810416666666667in"}

![](media/image49.wmf){width="4.4430555555555555in"
height="8.995833333333334in"}

![](media/image50.png){width="6.490972222222222in"
height="7.136805555555555in"}![](media/image51.png){width="6.490277777777778in"
height="7.198611111111111in"}

![](media/image52.png){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="7.892361111111111in"}

![](media/image53.png){width="5.227777777777778in"
height="8.995138888888889in"}

![](media/image54.png){width="6.184722222222222in"
height="8.802777777777777in"}

![](media/image55.png){width="6.465277777777778in"
height="8.677083333333334in"}

![](media/image56.png){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="8.143055555555556in"}

![](media/image57.png){width="6.49375in" height="8.828472222222222in"}

![](media/image58.png){width="6.381944444444445in"
height="8.990277777777777in"}

![](media/image59.png){width="5.548611111111111in"
height="8.720833333333333in"}

![](media/image60.png){width="6.498611111111111in"
height="8.852777777777778in"}

Appendix 10:1

**SSP-MOE Recipient Characteristics**

![](media/image61.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="4.586805555555555in"}

![](media/image62.wmf){width="6.498611111111111in"
height="5.090277777777778in"}

![](media/image63.wmf){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="4.983333333333333in"}

![](media/image64.wmf){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="4.620138888888889in"}

![](media/image65.wmf){width="6.495833333333334in"
height="6.215277777777778in"}

![](media/image66.wmf){width="6.49375in" height="5.1625in"}

![](media/image67.wmf){width="6.4944444444444445in"
height="5.575694444444444in"}

![](media/image68.wmf){width="6.498611111111111in"
height="5.116666666666666in"}

![](media/image69.wmf){width="6.498611111111111in"
height="5.604166666666667in"}

![](media/image70.wmf){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="5.833333333333333in"}

![](media/image71.wmf){width="5.8597222222222225in"
height="7.406944444444444in"}

![](media/image72.wmf){width="6.491666666666666in" height="4.7125in"}

![](media/image73.wmf){width="6.491666666666666in"
height="4.356944444444444in"}

![](media/image74.wmf){width="6.499305555555556in"
height="4.636111111111111in"}

![](media/image75.wmf){width="6.497916666666667in"
height="4.928472222222222in"}

Appendix 10:2

### 

### Reliability of Estimates

All States, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico and 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
program. During FY 2000, all 54 States and Territories transmitted
8,391,790 active cases and 649,794 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 DHHS. Twenty-four
States submitted sample data. The remaining 30 States submitted universe
data, from which DHHS randomly selected approximately 275 active cases
and 100 closed cases each month. A total probability sample of 198,415
active cases and 54,340 closed cases was used in the TANF recipient
characteristics study for FY 2000.

The statistical data are estimates derived from samples and, therefore,
are subject to sampling errors as well as nonsampling errors. Sampling
errors occur to the extent that the results would have been different if
obtained from a complete enumeration of all cases. Nonsampling errors
are errors in response or coding of responses and nonresponse errors or
incomplete sample frames.

### Standard (Sampling) Errors

For FY 2000, 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 Table 10:70
and 10:71.

Table 10:72 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
14,855 cases out of a total of 2,269,131 cases or 0.65466546 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 10:71, 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 0.8036 percentage points (0.41 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.

### Nonsampling Errors

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 and 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 recoded as unknown in the data
processing.

### Standard Errors of Subsets

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 0.0065466546;
(b) divide the sample size of all families (14,855) 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 10:71.

For example, for child-only cases the approximate standard errors of
percentages can be found by multiplying the data in Table 10:71 by the
square root of 14,855/5,117 or 2.9031. The sample size of 5,117 is
determined by 781,546 x 0.0065466546.

### 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
(14,855) by the State sample size shown in Table 10:69. Then take the
square root of the result and multiply it by the standard errors shown
in Table 10:71. For example, for Florida the approximate standard errors
of percentages can be found by multiplying the data in Table 10:71 by
the square root of 14,855/3,275 or 2.1298.

### Statistically Significant Differences

Table 10:72 shows the percentage values at which differences between
national and State estimates become significant at the five percent
confidence level based on annual State samples of 3,000 active cases.

Table 10:73 shows the percentage values at which differences between
State estimates become significant at the five- percent confidence level
based on annual State samples of 3,000 active cases.

![](media/image76.png){width="6.377083333333333in"
height="8.819444444444445in"}

![](media/image77.png){width="5.385416666666667in"
height="8.990277777777777in"}

![](media/image78.png){width="6.051388888888889in"
height="6.301388888888889in"}

![](media/image79.png){width="4.872916666666667in"
height="8.990277777777777in"}

![](media/image80.png){width="5.122222222222222in"
height="8.683333333333334in"}

[^1]: ^^**NOTE**: 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 (1) sample cases of 3,300 randomly selected for
    States who submitted the universe data, and (2) the data transmitted
    by States as of May 23, 2001.