Appendix A. Program Data

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
program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) under part A
of title IV of the Social Security Act (replaced with the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program by the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996), the
Food Stamp Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended, and the
Supplemental Security Income 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 on each program and information on the characteristics of
participants in each program.

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

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 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 father or mother is 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 which 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.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) eliminated the federal entitlement to cash assistance
under AFDC, and replaced AFDC cash welfare and other related programs
(AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training
(JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance program) with a cash welfare
block grant called Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Key
elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five years (60 months) on
the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded
with federal funds, increasing work participation rate requirements
which states must meet, and broad state flexibility on program design.
Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at \$16.4
billion per year, slightly above fiscal year 1995 federal expenditures
for the four component programs. States must also 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.

# Data Issues Relating to 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 reflects 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 will be spent on activities other
than cash payments to families. For the purpose of tracking expenditure
trends, these tables only include those TANF funds spent on "cash and
work-based assistance," not on work activities, supportive services, or
other allowable uses of funds. However, the administrative costs include
funds spent administering these other activities.[^1]

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF
caseload figures. One program change is that there is no longer a
separate "Unemployed Parent" program under TANF. While a separate work
participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this
population is not identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. Moreover, it
is possible that a limited number of families will be considered
recipients of TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly
cash benefit. At present, the vast majority of families receiving
"assistance"[^2] are, in fact, receiving cash payments; however, this
may change over time.

**AFDC/TANF Program Data**

The following tables and figures present a variety of data about the
AFDC and TANF programs. Tables A-1 through A-5 and Figures A-1 through
A-3 present national caseload and expenditure trend data on the
AFDC/TANF program. These are followed by two tables showing information
on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families and a series of tables
presenting state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program. These
data complement the data on trends in AFDC recipiency and participation
rates shown in Table IND 9a and Table IND 10a in Chapter II .

Table A-1 presents information on the average monthly number of AFDC
families and recipients for each fiscal year since 1970 through 1998.
The U.S. caseload peaked at record highs in 1994, with an average 14.2
million recipients in over 5 million families receiving AFDC benefits
each month. Since then the caseload has declined about 38 percent \-- to
a monthly average of 8.8 million recipients in 3.2 million families in
1998.

As shown in Figure A-1, AFDC enrollments and benefit outlays generally
tended to increase in times of economic recession and decline in times
of economic growth. Policy changes, such as the eligibility restrictions
of the early 1980s, have also affected caseloads. However, the recent
decline has far outstripped that experienced in any previous period. A
number of studies have attempted to explain the recent decline, and to
determine the relative effect of economic factors versus policy changes
in explaining the caseload by looking at the variation in caseload
decline among states.

A recent report by the Council of Economic Advisors, *The Effects of
Welfare Policy and the Economic Expansion on Welfare Caseloads: An
Update,* August 3, 1999, finds that during the pre-TANF period
(1993-1996), the strong economy was the largest factor explaining the
welfare decline, and that changing policies under waivers and lower
welfare benefits in real dollars also had a substantial impact. During
the post-TANF period (1996-1998), the CEA finds that policy changes
accounted for about a third of the decline in welfare receipt, and that
both the strong economy and the increase in the minimum wage accounted
for about 10 percent of the decline each. In both periods, a large
portion of the welfare decline is not explained by the examined
variables. Possible factors that could account for this additional
decline include the expansions of the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)
and changing cultural perceptions of welfare receipt.

A common misperception of welfare families is that they have unusually
large numbers of children. Table A-1 and Figure A-2 show that the
average number of children per welfare family dropped steadily from the
late 1960s through the early 1980s, and has remained steady at around 2
children per household since. While female-headed households receiving
welfare have a higher average number of children than non-poor
female-headed households, they have a lower average than all poor
female-headed households. Children as percentage of all AFDC/TANF
recipients have increased somewhat in the past few years, because
child-only cases have not declined as fast as other cases in the welfare
population.

Table A-2 and Figure A-3 show that inflation has had a significant
effect in eroding the value of the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit. In
real dollars, the average monthly benefit per recipient in 1998 was only
65 percent of what it was at its peak in the late 1970s.

Tables A-3 and A-4 show trends in expenditures on AFDC and TANF. Table
A-3 breaks out the costs of benefits and administrative expenses, and
shows the division between federal and state spending. Table A-4 breaks
out the benefits paid under the single parent or "basic" program and the
Unemployed Parent (UP) program, and also nets out the value of child
support collected on behalf of recipient children, but retained by the
state to reimburse welfare expenditures. This table presents data
through 1996 only, because the TANF data reporting requirements do not
require that caseload data be separated into "basic" and "UP"
components.

Table A-5 places the AFDC/TANF caseload trends in context, by showing
the number of recipients as a percentage of various populations. In
1998, TANF recipients were a smaller percentage of the total population
than at any time since 1967.

Figure A-4 and Table A-6 show a number of demographic characteristics of
AFDC/TANF families. One of the most striking trends is the recent jump
in the fraction of families with earnings. In FY 1998, 20.6 percent of
TANF families had earned income, up from 11.1 percent in FY 1996 and 7.4
percent in FY 1992.

Tables A-7 through A-13 present state-by-state trend data on the
AFDC/TANF expenditures and caseloads. These reveal a great deal of
state-to-state variation in the trends discussed above. For example, as
shown in Table A-9, while every state has experienced a caseload decline
since 1993, the percentage change from 1993-1998 ranges from 84 percent
(Wyoming) to 12 percent (Rhode Island). Table A-10 shows that states
reached their peak caseloads as early as May 1990 (Louisiana) and as
late as May 1995 (Maryland).

Insert Tables A-1 - A-13 and Figures A-1 - A-4 here:

PAGES A - 5 THROUGH A -- 21

# Food Stamp Program

The Food Stamp Program, 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, the Food Stamp Program 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 increase the food
purchasing power of eligible low-income households to the point where
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 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, had an average of 1.2 million
participants in 1988, funded under a Federal block grant of \$1.2
billion. Unless noted otherwise, the food stamp caseload and expenditure
data in this Appendix include costs for the Nutrition Assistance Program
in Puerto Rico. Prior to 1982, the regular Food Stamp Program operated
in Puerto Rico, under modified eligibility and benefit rules.

The Food Stamp Program has financial, employment/training-related and
"categorical" tests for eligibility. The basic food stamp beneficiary
unit is the "household." Generally, individuals living together
constitute a single food stamp household if they customarily purchase
food and prepare meals in common. Members of the same household must
apply together, and their income, expenses, and assets normally are
aggregated in determining food stamp eligibility and benefits. Except
for households composed entirely of TANF, SSI, or general assistance
recipients (who generally are automatically eligible for food stamps),
monthly cash income is the primary food stamp eligibility determinant.
Unless exempt, adult applicants for food stamps must register for work,
typically with the welfare agency or a state employment service office.
To maintain eligibility, they must accept a suitable job if offered one
and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established
by the administering welfare agencies.

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.

# Recent Legislative and Regulatory Changes. 

Title IV and Subtitle A of title VIII of the PRWORA contains major and
extensive revisions to the Food Stamp Program, including strong work
requirements on able-bodied adults without children, restricted benefits
for 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.

First, a new work requirement was added for able-bodied adult food stamp
recipients without dependents (ABAWDs). Unless exempt, ABAWDs between
the ages of 18 and 50 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 is 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 the
able-bodied.

Separately, title IV of PRWORA made significant changes in the
eligibility of noncitizens for Food Stamp benefits. As first enacted,
most qualified aliens (including legal immigrants \-- illegal aliens are
already ineligible) were barred from 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 (August 22, 1996). Specifically,
the ban on food stamp eligibility was lifted for children, the disabled
and people who were 65 on August 22, 1996.

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 noncustodial parents, from
food stamps when they do not cooperate with child support agencies or
are in arrears in their child support.

Recent regulatory changes also could affect the Food Stamp Program. In
July 1999, President Clinton announced a series of executive actions
designed to increase access to food stamps among working poor families.
The initiative included regulatory changes to make it easier for working
families to report income changes and to own a car and still qualify for
food stamps, and a new public education campaign supports states' and
localities' efforts to serve this population. 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.

# Food Stamp Program Data. 

The following seven tables and figures provide information about the
Food Stamp Program, including information about the Nutrition Assistance
Program in Puerto Rico:

-   Tables A-14 and A-15 present national caseload and expenditure trend
    data on the Food Stamp program, as discussed below;

-   Figure A-5 and Table A-16 present some demographic characteristics
    of the food stamp caseload; and

-   Tables A-17 through A-19 present some state-by-state trend data on
    the Food Stamp program through fiscal year 1998.

Table A-14 presents information on the average monthly number of food
stamp recipients for each fiscal year since 1970 through Fiscal Year
1999. Food stamp participation (including participants in Puerto Rico's
block grant) has continued to fall from its peak of 28.9 million in 1994
to an average of 19.3 million persons in 1999. Both in absolute numbers
and as a percentage of the population, food stamp recipiency is lower
than at any point in the past twenty years. See also Table IND 9b and
Table IND 10b in Chapter II for further data on the recent decline in
food stamp recipiency and participation rates.

Total program costs, shown in Table A-15, have also declined. In fiscal
year 1998, total program costs (including Puerto Rico) were \$20.1
billion, reaching their lowest levels since 1984, after adjusting for
inflation. (Average monthly participation in fiscal year 1998 was 21.0
million). Average monthly benefits per person have also declined in
recent years after adjusting for inflation. Benefits were \$72 per
person in fiscal year 1999, considerably lower than the \$82 per person
benefit (in constant dollars) paid in 1992, but higher than the \$68 per
person paid in 1987.

In general, the health of the economy has historically been a good
predictor of the number of participants in the Food Stamp Program.
Economic factors such as increases in unemployment, increases in the
number of "working poor," increases in food prices, and changes in the
distribution of income are important, as are demographic changes such as
an increase in the number of female-headed households. The size of the
food stamp caseload also is influenced by programmatic changes,
including amendments to the Food Stamp Program, modifications in other
public assistance programs, and changes in immigration laws. In
addition, changes in attitudes toward "welfare" affect the rate at which
eligible individuals participate in the program and may also influence
the average length of time spent in the program.

A Congressionally mandated study undertaken in 1990 concluded that a
variety of factors contributed to the caseload growth in the late 1980s,
including increased unemployment, expansions in Medicaid eligibility,
and changes in immigration laws, particularly the legalization of
undocumented aliens. Similarly, several factors contribute to the more
recent declines in food stamp participation. Some of these declines can
be attributed to eligibility changes made in the 1996 welfare law, most
notably the elimination of eligibility for most legal immigrants and for
many childless adults aged 18-50. The strong economy also played an
important role in recent caseload declines. In addition, studies of
families leaving TANF cash assistance suggest that many of them leave
the Food Stamp Program as well, even though many of them appear to be
eligible for food stamp benefits. Increased stigma about welfare use and
unintentional diversion from the Food Stamp Program may be additional
factors affecting food stamp participation.

Insert Tables A-14, A-15, Figure A-5, and Tables 16 through A.19 here.
Pages A-26 thru A-33.

# 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, unmarried, and meet the applicable SSI
disability or blindness, income and resource requirements. Individuals
and couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below
the Federal maximum monthly SSI benefit levels, which were \$504 for an
individual and \$751 for a couple in fiscal year 1999. SSI eligibility
is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets
of not more than \$2,000, or \$3,000 for a couple.

SSI law requires that SSI applicants file for all other money benefits
for which they may be entitled. Since its inception, SSI has been viewed
as the "program of last resort"\-- after evaluating all other income,
SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily
prescribed income "floor." (The Social Security Administration, which
administers the SSI program, works with recipients and helps them get
any other benefits for which they are eligible.) As of December 1996, 37
percent of all SSI recipients also received Social Security benefits;
Social Security benefits are the single highest source of income for SSI
recipients.

No *individual* could receive both SSI payments and AFDC benefits; if
eligible for both, the individual was required 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. The PRWORA does not specifically
prohibit an individual's receipt of both TANF benefits and SSI; states
have complete authority to set TANF eligibility standards and benefit
levels.

Except in California, which converted food stamp benefits to cash that
is included in the State supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be
eligible to receive food stamps. If all household members receive SSI,
they do not need to meet the Food Stamp Program financial eligibility
standards to participate in the program because they are categorically
eligible. If SSI beneficiaries live in households where 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.

# Recent Legislative Changes. 

Several legislative changes made in the 104th Congress are likely to
affect Supplemental Security Income (SSI) participation and
expenditures. Public Law 104-121, the Contract with America Advancement
Act of 1996, prohibits SSI eligibility to individuals whose drug
addiction and/or alcoholism (DAA) 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.

The PRWORA made several changes designed to maintain the SSI program's
goal of providing benefits for severely disabled children while
preventing children without serious impairments from receiving benefits.
First, the act replaced the former law "comparable severity" test with a
new definition of childhood disability based on a medically determinable
physical or mental impairment. Second, it discontinued use of the
Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) which authorized subjective
judgment to determine children's eligibility for SSI. Third, it
eliminated references to "maladaptive behavior" in the Listings of
Impairments (among medical criteria for evaluation of mental and
emotional disorders in the domain of personal/behavioral function). The
latter two provisions were effective for all new and pending
applications upon enactment (August 22, 1996). Current beneficiaries
receiving benefits due to an IFA or maladaptive behavior listing
received notice no later than January 1, 1997, that their benefits might
end when their case is redetermined. All currently receiving benefits
are subject to redetermination using the new eligibility criteria by
February 28, 1998 (per P.L. 105-33, enacted August 5, 1997).

Title IV of PRWORA also made significant changes in the eligibility of
noncitizens for SSI benefits. Essentially, qualified aliens (including
legal immigrants) are barred from SSI. Some of the restrictions were
subsequently moderated, 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.

# SSI Program Data 

The following set of tables and figures provide SSI program data:

• Tables A-20 through A-23 present national caseload and expenditure
trend data on the SSI program;

• Figures A-6 and A-7 present some demographic characteristics of the
SSI caseload; and

• Tables A-24 through A-26 present some state-by-state trend data on the
SSI program through fiscal year 1996.

Table A-20 presents information on the number of persons receiving SSI
payments in December of each year from 1974 through 1998. In addition to
data on the total number of SSI recipients, Table A-20 also shows
recipients by eligibility category (aged, blind and disabled) and by
type of recipient (child, adult age 18-64, and adult age 65 or older).
See also Table IND 9a and Table IND 9b in Chapter II for further data on
trends in recipiency and participation rates.

From 1990 to 1995, the program increased from 4.8 million beneficiaries
to 6.5 million beneficiaries, an average growth rate of over 6 percent
per year. Since 1995, the number of beneficiaries has stabilized,
fluctuating between 6.5 and 6.6 million persons. In December 1998, there
were 6.6 million beneficiaries.

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as
shown in Table A-20. The number of beneficiaries eligible because of age
has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in
December 1975 to 1.3 million persons in December 1998. At the same time
there has been a strong growth in disabled beneficiaries, from 1.6
million in December 1974 to 5.1 million in December 1998. Moreover, the
number of disabled children has increased dramatically, particularly in
the 1990s, when the number of disabled children receiving SSI increased
from 340,000 in December 1990 to over 1 million in December 1996. The
number of disabled children has fallen in the past two years, declining
to 928,000 in December 1998.

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
General Accounting 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:
adults with mental impairments, non-citizens, and children. The growth
in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed to be due to
outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the *Zebley*
case[^3], expansion of the medical impairment category, and reduction in
reviews of continuing eligibility.

Insert SSI tables A-20 through A-23, Figures A-6 through A-7, A-24, A-25
andA-26 here: Pages A-33 through A-44.

[^1]: In addition, IV-A child care administrative costs were included
    under AFDC, but are no longer counted under TANF, since these
    programs were moved to the Child Care and Development Fund as part
    of PRWORA.

[^2]: States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services,
    including employment and training services, domestic violence
    services, and child care, transportation, and other support
    services. Families receiving such services, however, should
    generally not be counted as recipients of TANF 'assistance." Under
    the final regulations for TANF, "assistance" includes primarily
    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 to cash assistance, the
    definition also includes certain child care and transportation
    benefits (provided the 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.

[^3]: On February 20, 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual
    functional assessment (or a residual functional capacity assessment)
    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. The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children
    were added to the SSI caseload after the individual functional
    assessments for children were initiated.