U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU

Comparing Program Participation of 

TANF and Non-TANF Families Before 

and During a Time of Recession

Household Economic Studies

Issued November 2011

P70-127

Current

Population

Reports

By

Shelley K. Irving

INTRODUCTION1

The Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) 

was signed into law in 1996 and fully 

implemented in 1997. PRWORA, which 

replaced Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), dramatically altered the welfare program in this 

country in several important ways. First, 

low-income levels no longer guarantee 

access to welfare benefits. Second, there 

is now a 60-month limit on the receipt of 

federal benefits. Third, most adult recipients must now engage in work-related 

activities to maintain their welfare eligibility. Finally, states now receive a grant of 

fixed size to fund their welfare programs, 

and federal funding levels are tied to 

their success in moving welfare recipients 

into work. This dramatic overhaul of the 

welfare system occurred during a time of 

economic prosperity and was followed 

by unprecedented caseload declines and 

increased work participation among TANF 

recipients.2

However, post-2000, caseload decline 

slowed and work participation rates 

among TANF recipients fell.3 Nonetheless, after a series of extensions, the

U.S. Congress reauthorized the TANF program in February 2006 with the passage 

1 Any views expressed are those of the author

and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. 2 See U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services. 2009. Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families Program (TANF), Eighth Annual Report to 

Congress. Washington, DC. 3 See Acs, Gregory and Pamela Loprest. 2007. 

TANF Caseload Composition and Leavers Synthesis 

Report. The Urban Institute: Washington, DC. Also, 

see The Urban Institute: Washington, DC. A Decade of 

Welfare Reform: Facts and Figures—Assessing the New 

Federalism, 2006.

of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. This 

legislation placed more pressure on states 

to move TANF recipients into employment and extended the TANF block grant 

through 2010 with fixed funding levels. 

This report examines whether participation in TANF increased and whether 

employment decreased as a result of the 

economic recession. It also compares 

participation in other assistance programs across families based on welfare 

and poverty status before and during the 

economic recession. Finally, this report 

assesses whether there were different 

reasons for a reduction or cut in welfare 

benefits before and after the start of the 

economic recession. 

The data in this report were collected 

from October 2005 to September 2006 in 

Waves 6–8 of the 2004 Survey of Income 

and Program Participation (SIPP) and from 

September 2008 to August 2009 in Waves 

1–3 of the 2008 SIPP. The population 

represented (population universe) is the 

civilian noninstitutionalized population 

living in the United States. This longitudinal survey follows the same individuals over time.4 The SIPP is conducted in 

waves of 4 months duration, with onequarter of sample members interviewed in 

each month of a wave. Sample members 

are asked about activities during the 4 

months prior to the interview, which is 

known as the “reference period.”5

4 The 2004 SIPP Panel followed the same individuals over a period of 48 months from October 2003 

to December 2007. The 2008 SIPP Panel is currently 

scheduled to follow the same individuals over a 

period of 68 months from May 2008 to March 2014. 5 For more details on the interview procedures, 

interview waves, and rotation groups, see Chapter 2 

of the SIPP User’s Guide at <www.census.gov/sipp

/usrguide/ch2_nov20.pdf>. 
2 U.S. Census Bureau

This report uses data collected 

from the core questionnaire in 

Waves 6–8 of the 2004 SIPP Panel 

and Waves 1–3 of the 2008 SIPP 

Panel. The core questionnaire 

collects labor force, income, and 

program participation data and is 

repeated at each interview wave. 

Additionally, this report makes use 

of data from the Welfare Reform 

topical module, which was administered in Wave 8 of the 2004 SIPP 

Panel and Wave 3 of the 2008 SIPP 

Panel. The Welfare Reform topical module questionnaire, asked 

during a single wave in each of the 

SIPP panels, provides more detailed 

information on topics such as 

benefits, assistance that supports 

seeking work or acquiring training, 

requirements for receiving benefits, 

previous receipt of welfare benefits, 

reasons for a reduction in benefits, 

and reasons for no longer receiving 

benefits.6 

Table 1 shows the interview 

months and corresponding reference periods for each of the four 

rotation groups for Waves 6–8 in 

the 2004 SIPP Panel and for Waves 

6 For more information on SIPP survey

content, see Chapter 3 of the SIPP User’s 

Guide at <www.census.gov/sipp/usrguide

/ch3may4.pdf>.

1–3 of the 2008 SIPP Panel. This 

report examines respondents’ 

activities across the 12 months 

prior to their Wave 8 (2004 SIPP) or 

Wave 3 (2008 SIPP) interview. The 

12-month observation period for 

each rotation group is highlighted 

in Table 1. While the observation 

period includes months from 2005 

and 2006 (2004 SIPP) or from 2008 

and 2009 (2008 SIPP), results are 

labeled as “2006” and “2009,” 

respectively, corresponding to the 

year in which the Welfare Reform 

topical module questionnaire was 

administered. 

In addition to comparing the economic circumstances of families 

before and after the impact of the 

economic recession (2006 and 

2009, respectively), this report 

examines differences across several 

family types based on TANF and 

poverty status—looking exclusively 

at families with children under 

the age of 18. “TANF families” are 

defined, for this report, as those 

that received TANF in one or more 

of the past 12 months. “Poor 

non-TANF families” are those that 

did not receive TANF in any of the 

past 12 months and whose average income-to-poverty ratio over 

the past 12 months was less than 

1.0.7 “Other non-TANF families” are 

those that did not receive TANF 

in any of the past 12 months and 

whose average income-to-poverty 

ratio over the past 12 months was 

greater than or equal to 1.0. 

HIGHLIGHTS

The TANF participation rate for families with children increased from 

3.8 percent in 2006 to 4.8 percent 

in 2009.8 Married-couple families 

experienced an increase in their 

overall TANF participation rate from 

2006 to 2009.

Children living in non-TANF families 

were less likely to have a parent 

who worked full-time in all of the 

past 12 months in 2009 compared 

7 Income-to-poverty ratio is equal to total 

family income divided by the poverty threshold for their family size. Values less than 1.0 

indicate that the family is in poverty, while 

values greater than or equal to 1.0 indicate 

that the family is not in poverty. For details

of poverty definition and thresholds, visit

U.S. Census Bureau’s Poverty Web site at 

<www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty

/poverty.html>. 8 Estimates in this report (which may be 

shown in text, figures, and tables) are based 

on responses from a sample of the population 

and may differ from actual values because 

of sampling variability or other factors. As 

a result, apparent differences between the 

estimates for two or more groups may not be 

statistically significant. All comparative statements have undergone statistical testing and 

are significant at the 90 percent confidence 

level unless otherwise noted.

Table 1.

Rotation Groups, Waves, and Reference Months for 2004 and 2008 SIPP Panels

2004 SIPP 

2005 2006

Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep

Rotation 1 . . . 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 7-1 (I) 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 (I) 8-2 8-3 8-4 (I)

Rotation 2 . . . 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 7-1 (I) 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 (I) 8-2 8-3 8-4 (I)

Rotation 3 . . . 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 7-1 (I) 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 (I) 8-2 8-3 8-4 (I)

Rotation 4 . . . 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4 7-1 (I) 7-2 7-3 7-4 8-1 (I) 8-2 8-3 8-4 (I)

2008 SIPP 

2008 2009

May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug

Rotation 1 . . . 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 (I) 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 (I) 3-2 3-3 3-4 (I)

Rotation 2 . . . 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 (I) 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 (I) 3-2 3-3 3-4 (I)

Rotation 3 . . . 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 (I) 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 (I) 3-2 3-3 3-4 (I)

Rotation 4 . . . 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 2-1 (I) 2-2 2-3 2-4 3-1 (I) 3-2 3-3 3-4 (I)

Note: In the number sequences, the first indicates the wave and the second indicates the reference month . (I) indicates the interview month . The reference 

period is the four months preceding the interview month .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 and 2008 panels .
U.S. Census Bureau 3

with 2006. Children living in TANF 

and non-TANF families were more 

likely to have an unemployed parent in the past 12 months in 2009 

than in 2006. 

From 2006 to 2009, participation in 

programs to help find work and job 

skills programs increased for TANF 

and non-TANF families.

Non-TANF families were more likely 

to receive energy assistance, food 

stamps/Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP), and 

clothing assistance in 2009 than 

in 2006. 

About 3 percent of non-TANF 

families in both the 2004 and 2008 

SIPP Panels received TANF at some 

time between 1997 and the start of 

their respective panels. When asked 

about the reason for no longer 

receiving benefits, about one-third 

indicated their income was too 

high, about one-fifth no longer 

needed the assistance, and about 

one-eighth had exceeded their 

time limit. 

RESULTS

TANF Participation

TANF participation rates for all 

families with children by poverty 

status and family type are presented in Table 2. The percentage 

of all families that received TANF in 

one or more of the past 12 months 

increased from 3.8 percent in 2006 

to 4.8 percent in 2009 and the 

number of recipients increased 

from about 1.4 million to about 1.7 

million during that time.9 Much of 

that increase was among families 

that received TANF in some, but 

not all, of the past 12 months—as 

there was no significant change 

in the percentage or number of all 

families that received TANF in all of 

the past 12 months. In 2006, 2.1 

percent of all families with children 

(0.7 million) received TANF in some 

of the past 12 months, while 3.3 

percent did so in 2009 (1.2 million). In 2009, 1.5 percent of all 

families (about 0.5 million) received 

TANF in all of the past 12 months.10

In 2009, 17.7 percent of poor 

families received TANF in one or 

more of the past 12 months, which 

was not statistically different from 

the 2006 estimate.11 However, the 

number of poor families receiving 

TANF increased from 0.9 million in 

2006 to 1.2 million in 2009.12 The 

percentage of poor families that 

received TANF in all of the past 12 

months fell from 8.1 percent in 

2006 to 5.7 percent in 2009, while 

9 The estimate of 3.8 percent is derived 

from adding the 2.1 percent that received 

TANF in some months and the 1.7 percent 

that received it in all months. The estimate 

of 4.8 is derived from adding the 3.3 that 

received TANF in some months and the 1.5 

percent that received it in all months. The 

estimate of 1.4 million families is derived by 

adding the 749,000 families that received 

TANF in some months and 611,000 families 

that received it in all months. The estimate 

of 1.7 million families is derived by adding 

the 1,212,000 families that received TANF 

in some months and the 537,000 families 

that received it in all months. For quarterly 

estimates of the receipt of TANF benefits in 

2009, see <www.census.gov/sipp/tables

/quarterly-est/household-char/2009/1-qtr

/table2.xls>. 10 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates. 11 The estimate of 17.7 percent is derived 

by adding the 12.0 percent that received 

TANF in some months and the 5.7 percent 

that received it in all months. 12 The estimate of 0.9 million families 

is derived by adding the 451,000 families 

that received TANF in some months and 

the 464,000 families that received TANF 

in all months. The estimate of 1.2 million 

families is derived by adding the 839,000 

families that received TANF in some months 

and the 401,000 families that received it in 

all months. 

the percentage that received TANF 

in some of the past 12 months 

increased from 7.9 percent to 12.0 

percent during that time. 

Table 2 also shows TANF participation rates by family type in 2006 

and 2009.13 While married-couple 

families had the lowest rates of 

TANF participation, their participation rate increased from 1.4 

percent in 2006 to 1.9 percent in 

2009.14 The number receiving TANF 

increased from about 321,000 in 

2006 to about 483,000 in 2009.15

Much of that increase was the 

result of a growth in the percentage of married-couple families that 

received TANF in some of the past 

12 months. From 2006 and 2009, 

this percentage increased from 0.8 

percent to 1.4 percent. The percentage of married-couple families 

that received TANF in all of the past 

12 months remained statistically 

unchanged at about 0.5 percent in 

both years. 

Male-maintained families were 

more likely than married-couple 

families to receive TANF in the 

past 12 months; however, there 

was no change from 2006 to 2009 

in the percentage or number that 

received TANF in any, some, or all 

of the past 12 months. In 2009, 

4.0 percent of male-maintained 

families (about 107,000) received 

13 In this report, male-maintained families 

and female-maintained families are those with 

no spouse present. 14 The estimate of 1.4 percent is derived 

by adding the 0.8 percent that received TANF 

in some months and the 0.6 percent that 

received it in all months. The estimate of 1.9 

percent is derived by adding the 1.4 percent 

that received TANF in some months and the 

0.5 percent that received it in all months. 15 The estimate of 321,000 families is 

derived by adding the 186,000 families 

that received TANF in some months and 

the 135,000 families that received it in all 

months. The estimate of 483,000 families 

is derived by adding the 361,000 families 

that received TANF in some months and 

the 122,000 families that received it in 

all months. 
4 U.S. Census Bureau

TANF in one or more of the past 12 

months; 3.0 percent (about 81,000) 

received TANF in some of the past 

12 months; and 1.0 percent (about 

26,000) received TANF in all of the 

past 12 months.16 

Finally, female-maintained families 

were the most likely to receive 

TANF. The number of femalemaintained families that received 

TANF in one or more months 

increased from about 0.9 million 

in 2006 to about 1.2 million in 

2009.17 In 2009, 12.5 percent of 

16 The estimate of 4.0 percent is derived 

by adding the 3.0 that received TANF in some 

months and the 1.0 percent that received it in 

all months. The estimate of 107,000 families 

is derived by adding the 81,000 families 

that received TANF in some months and the 

26,000 families that received it in all months. 17 The estimate of 0.9 million families 

is derived by adding the 508,000 families 

that received TANF in some months and 

the 440,000 families that received it in all 

months. The estimate of 1.2 million families 

is derived by adding the 771,000 families 

that received TANF in some months and 

the 389,000 families that received it in all 

months. 

female-maintained families received 

TANF in one or more of the past 

12 months and 4.2 percent 

received TANF in all of the past 

12 months.18 The percentage of 

female-maintained families that 

received TANF in some of the past 

12 months increased from 6.0 

percent in 2006 to 8.3 percent 

in 2009.

Demographic Characteristics

There were few statistically significant changes in the demographic 

characteristics of families and 

family reference persons from 

2006 to 2009.19 Accordingly, Table 

3 presents only the estimates for 

18 The estimate of 12.5 percent is derived 

by adding the 8.3 percent that received TANF 

in some months and the 4.2 percent that 

received it in all months. These estimates 

are not statistically different from the 2006 

estimates. 19 The term family refers to a group of two 

or more people related by birth, marriage, or 

adoption who reside together. Every family 

must include a reference person. 

2009. The age, race, Hispanic 

origin, nativity, citizenship, and 

educational attainment of family 

reference persons are presented, 

in addition to family type and the 

number of children under the age 

of 18 in the family. 

TANF family and poor non-TANF 

family reference persons were more 

likely to fall into the younger age 

categories (15 to 24 years and 25 

to 34 years) and less likely to fall 

into the older age categories (35 to 

44 years, 45 to 54 years, and 65 

years and over) than other nonTANF family reference persons. The 

reference persons of TANF families 

were more likely to be 15 to 24 

years than the reference persons 

of poor non-TANF families and less 

likely to be 35 to 44 years. They 

were otherwise not significantly different in their age composition. 

TANF family reference persons were 

less likely to be non-Hispanic White 

Table 2.

TANF Receipt in the Past 12 Months for All Families and Poor Families, and

by Family Type: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

2006 2009

Number 

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-) Percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-) Number 

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-) Percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

All families

 No months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,085 606 96 .2 0 .4 *35,340 592 *95 .3 0 .4

 Some months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 749 97 2 .1 0 .3 *1,212 118 *3 .3 0 .3

 All months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 611 88 1 .7 0 .2 537 79 1 .5 0 .2

Poor families

 No months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,824 244 84 .1 1 .7 *5,765 256 82 .3 1 .6

 Some months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451 75 7 .9 1 .3 *839 99 *12 .0 1 .3

 All months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464 76 8 .1 1 .3 401 68 *5 .7 0 .9

Married-couple maintained families 

 No months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,369 525 98 .7 0 .3 24,603 507 *98 .1 0 .3

 Some months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186 48 0 .8 0 .2 *361 65 *1 .4 0 .3

 All months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 41 0 .6 0 .2 122 38 0 .5 0 .2

Male-maintained families

 No months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,256 168 96 .1 1 .4 *2,597 173 96 .1 1 .3

 Some months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 26 2 .4 1 .1 81 31 3 .0 1 .1

 All months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 21 1 .5 0 .9 26 17 1 .0 0 .7

Female-maintained families 

 No months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,459 302 88 .7 1 .2 *8,140 302 87 .5 1 .2

 Some months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508 80 6 .0 0 .9 *771 94 *8 .3 1 .0

 All months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 74 5 .2 0 .9 389 67 4 .2 0 .7

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8 and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .
U.S. Census Bureau 5

(29.9 percent) than poor non-TANF 

family reference persons (42.1 

percent) and other non-TANF family 

reference persons (66.5 percent). 

They were also more likely to be 

Black (38.8 percent) than poor 

non-TANF family reference persons 

(22.5 percent) and other non-TANF 

family reference persons (11.1 percent) but less likely to be Asian (1.3 

percent) than poor non-TANF family 

reference persons (2.5 percent)

and other non-TANF family reference persons (4.4 percent). About 

32 percent of TANF and poor 

non-TANF family reference persons 

were Hispanic compared with 16.5 

percent of other non-TANF family 

reference persons.

A higher percentage of TANF and 

other non-TANF family reference 

persons (about 83 percent) were 

born in the United States compared 

with poor non-TANF family reference persons (74.1 percent). About 

17 percent of TANF and other 

non-TANF family reference persons were foreign born compared 

with 25.9 percent of poor nonTANF family reference persons. In 

2009, 3.3 percent of TANF family 

reference persons, 6.5 percent of 

poor non-TANF family reference 

persons, and 7.9 percent of other 

non-TANF family reference persons 

Table 3.

Selected Demographic Characteristics by Family Type: 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF 

families

Number or 

Percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Number or 

Percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Number or 

Percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Number or 

Percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Family reference person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,089 604 1,749 142 5,765 256 29,575 549

 Age 

 15 to 24 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 .6 0 .4 a

22 .8 3 .4 a,b17 .3 1 .7 a,b,c3 .5 0 .4

 25 to 34 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 .3 0 .8 a

38 .5 4 .0 a38 .3 2 .2 a,b,c25 .7 0 .9

 35 to 44 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 .5 0 .9 a

24 .8 3 .5 a,b30 .2 2 .1 a,b,c42 .2 1 .0

 45 to 54 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 .1 0 .7 a

11 .5 2 .6 a12 .2 1 .5 a,b,c24 .6 0 .9

 55 to 64 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .1 0 .3 2 .4 1 .3 a

1 .8 0 .6 c3 .4 0 .4

 65 years and over . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .4 0 .1 a

0 .1 0 .2 a0 .1 0 .2 b,c0 .5 0 .1

 Race and Hispanic Origin

 White . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 .6 0 .7 a

53 .6 4 .1 a,b70 .2 2 .1 a,b,c81 .7 0 .8

 White, non-Hispanic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 .9 0 .9 a

29 .9 3 .7 a,b42 .1 2 .2 a,b,c66 .5 0 .9

 Black . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .2 0 .6 a

38 .8 4 .0 a,b22 .5 1 .9 a,b,c11 .1 0 .6

 Asian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .9 0 .3 a

1 .3 0 .9 a,b2 .5 0 .7 b,c4 .4 0 .4

 Other race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .4 0 .3 a

6 .3 2 .0 a4 .8 1 .0 b,c2 .9 0 .3

 Hispanic, of any race . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 .6 0 .7 a

31 .8 3 .8 a31 .9 2 .1 a,b,c16 .5 0 .7

 Nativity and Citizenship

 Native-born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 .9 0 .7 82 .9 3 .1 a,b74 .1 2 .0 a,c83 .3 0 .7

 Foreign-born . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 .2 0 .7 17 .1 3 .1 a,b25 .9 2 .0 a,c16 .7 0 .7

 Citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .5 0 .5 a

3 .3 1 .4 b6 .5 1 .1 b,c7 .9 0 .5

 Non-citizen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 .7 0 .5 a

13 .9 2 .8 a,b19 .5 1 .8 a,b,c8 .8 0 .6

 Educational Attainment

 Less than high school diploma . . . . . . . . . 10 .1 0 .5 a

27 .6 3 .6 a23 .7 1 .9 a,b,c6 .4 0 .5

 High school diploma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 .9 0 .8 a

34 .6 3 .9 a36 .0 2 .2 a,b,c22 .1 0 .8

 Some college—no degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .5 0 .6 13 .4 2 .8 15 .0 1 .6 14 .5 0 .7

 College degree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 .5 0 .9 a

24 .5 3 .5 a25 .4 2 .0 a,b,c57 .0 1 .0

Family Type

 Married couple maintained . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 .6 0 .8 a

27 .6 3 .6 a,b40 .7 2 .2 a,b,c75 .3 0 .9

 Male maintained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 .3 0 .5 6 .1 2 .0 a,b9 .5 1 .3 c

6 .9 0 .5

 Female maintained . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 .1 0 .8 a

66 .3 3 .9 a,b49 .8 2 .2 a,b,c17 .8 0 .8

Number of Children

 1 child . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 .6 0 .9 41 .4 4 .0 a

39 .7 2 .2 b,c45 .7 1 .0

 2 children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 .2 0 .8 a

28 .2 3 .7 a30 .7 2 .1 a,b,c36 .5 1 .0

 3 children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .4 0 .6 a

18 .6 3 .2 a18 .8 1 .8 a,b,c13 .2 0 .7

 4 or more children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 .8 0 .4 a

11 .8 2 .6 a10 .8 1 .4 a,b,c4 .5 0 .4

a Statistically different from the “All families” estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

b Statistically different from the “TANF families” estimate at the 90 percent confidence interval level .

c Statistically different from the “Poor non-TANF families” estimate at the 90 percent confidence interval level .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .
6 U.S. Census Bureau

were foreign-born citizens. Poor reference persons to have a high non-TANF families (9.5 percent) 

non-TANF family reference persons school diploma with no college were more likely than TANF famiwere the most likely to be foreign- experience. The reference persons lies (6.1 percent) and other nonborn non-citizens (19.5 percent), of TANF families (24.5 percent) TANF families (6.9 percent) to be 

followed by TANF family reference and poor non-TANF families (25.4 male-maintained. 

persons (13.9 percent) and other percent) were less likely to have a There was no significant difference non-TANF family reference persons college degree than the reference in the number of children in TANF (8.8 percent). persons of other non-TANF families and poor non-TANF families. Both (57.0 percent). There were no significant differ- TANF and poor non-TANF families 

ences in the educational attainment In regards to family type, Table 3 were less likely than other nonof TANF and poor non-TANF family shows that 27.6 percent of TANF TANF families to have one or two 

reference persons. In 2009, 27.6 families were maintained by mar- children and more likely to have 

percent of TANF family reference ried couples compared with 40.7 three or four or more children. 

persons and 23.7 percent of poor percent of poor non-TANF families 

non-TANF family reference per- and 75.3 percent of other non-TANF Income and Poverty

sons lacked a high school diploma families. In contrast, 66.3 percent Monthly earnings, total income, 

compared with 6.4 percent of other of TANF families were maintained income-to-poverty ratios, in addinon-TANF family reference persons. by an unmarried woman compared tion to TANF income for TANFTANF and poor non-TANF family with 49.8 percent of poor non- recipient families, are averaged 

reference persons were also more TANF families and just 17.8 percent across the 12 months prior to the 

likely than other non-TANF family of other non-TANF families. Poor 

Table 4.

Median Income and Income-to-Poverty Ratio in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty 

Status: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

2006 2009

Number or 

median

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Number or 

median

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

All families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,445 616 *37,089 604

 Earnings1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,292 78 *3,918 90

 Total income1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,588 96 *4,281 90

 Income-to-poverty ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .6 0 .1 *2 .5 0 .1

TANF families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,360 131 *1,749 142

 Earnings1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a

309 147 a346 109

 TANF income1

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218 24 *180 17

 Total income1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a

1,073 118 a1,027 117

 Income-to-poverty ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a

0 .7 0 .1 a0 .6 0 .1

Poor non-TANF families . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,824 244 *5,765 256

 Earnings1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,b692 51 a,b636 41

 Total income1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a

995 38 *, a916 52

 Income-to-poverty ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,b0 .6 0 .0 a

0 .6 0 .0

Other non-TANF families . . . . . . . . . . . 29,262 568 29,575 549

 Earnings1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,b,c5,178 78 *, a,b,c5,037 106

 Total income1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,b,c5,467 87 a,b,c5,390 105

 Income-to-poverty ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a,b,c3 .1 0 .1 a,b,c3 .1 0 .1

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

a Statistically different from the “All families” estimate at the 90 percent confidence level . 

b Statistically different from the “TANF families” estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

c Statistically different from the “Poor non-TANF families” estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

1

 The dollar amounts are inflation adjusted to 2009 dollars . Derived from the average Consumer Price Index (CPI-U), adjustment factors of 1 .0985, 1 .0642, and 

0 .9964 were applied to data collected in 2005, 2006, and 2008, respectively, to obtain real earnings in 2009 dollars .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error, 

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .
U.S. Census Bureau 7

interview month for TANF families, of TANF families was $346, median monthly total income amounts for 

poor non-TANF, and other non-TANF monthly total income was $1,027, TANF and poor non-TANF families. 

families in 2006 and 2009.20 The and the median income-to-poverty Median monthly total income for 

median values are presented in ratio was 0.6. However, the median poor non-TANF families was $916 

Table 4.21 monthly TANF benefit amount in 2009—down from $995 in 2006. 

decreased from $218 in 2006 to The median income-to-poverty There was no change in the median $180 in 2009. ratio for poor non-TANF families monthly earnings income, median was 0.6 in 2009. This value is not monthly total income, or median The median monthly earnings of statistically different from the 2006 income-to-poverty ratio of TANF poor non-TANF families was higher estimate or the 2009 estimate for families from 2006 to 2009. In than that of TANF families, with TANF families. 2009, the median monthly earnings no significant change from 2006 

to 2009. In 2009, median monthly Median monthly earnings and total 

20 For the income measures, the dollar earning income for poor non-TANF income for other non-TANF families 

amounts are inflation adjusted to 2009 families was $636—compared to far exceeded those of TANF and dollars. 21 The median is the point that divides the $346 for TANF families. There was poor non-TANF families. In 2009, 

distribution into halves, one half above the no significant difference in median median monthly earnings income median and the other below the median.

Figure 1.

Full-time Employment in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

No full-time employment Full-time employment 1–11 months Full-time employment all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
8 U.S. Census Bureau

was $5,037—down from $5,178 

in 2006—and median total income 

was $5,390. The median incometo-poverty ratio for other non-TANF 

families was 3.1 in 2006 and 2009. 

Labor Force Participation

Figure 1 shows the percentage of 

families by full-time employment 

status over the past 12 months. 

In 2009, 52.9 percent of TANF 

families had no parent that worked 

full-time in any of the past 12 

months.22 The percentage of poor 

non-TANF families with no parent 

22 This estimate is not statistically

different from the 2006 estimate.

that worked full-time in the past 

12 months increased from 36.3 

percent in 2006 to 42.1 percent 

in 2009. Other non-TANF families 

were significantly less likely than 

TANF and poor non-TANF families 

to have no parent with full-time 

employment in the past 12 months. 

However, the percentage falling 

into this category increased from 

3.3 percent in 2006 to 3.9 percent 

in 2009. 

Conversely, in 2009, 12.2 percent 

of TANF families and 17.2 percent 

of poor non-TANF families had a 

parent with full-time employment 

in all of the past 12 months—compared with 76.0 percent of other 

non-TANF families. Poor non-TANF 

and other non-TANF families 

became less likely to have a parent 

with full-time employment in all 

of the past 12 months from 2006 

(24.8 percent and 82.4 percent, 

respectively) to 2009 (17.2 percent 

and 76.0 percent, respectively). 

The percentage of other non-TANF 

families with a parent with full-time 

employment in some of the past 

12 months increased from 14.3 

percent in 2006 to 20.1 percent 

in 2009. 

Figure 2.

Part-time Employment in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling 

and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

0

20

40

60

80

100

No part-time employment Part-time employment 1–11 months Part-time employment all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009

Percent
U.S. Census Bureau 9

The percentage of families by parttime employment status is shown 

in Figure 2. About one-half of TANF 

families and other non-TANF families and about one-third of poor 

non-TANF families had no parent 

with part-time employment in the 

past 12 months. TANF families 

(44.9 percent) were less likely than 

poor non-TANF families (51.0 percent) to have part-time employment 

in some of the past 12 months in 

2009 but more likely than other 

non-TANF families (38.3 percent) 

to do so. The percentage of TANF 

families with part-time employment in all of the past 12 months 

in 2009 (5.7 percent) was less than 

that of poor non-TANF families (9.1 

percent) and other non-TANF families (10.6 percent). 

Figure 3 shows families by unemployment status.23 From 2006 to 

2009, the percentage of families 

with no unemployment in the past 

12 months fell from 66.9 percent 

to 59.6 percent for TANF families, 

from 78.1 percent to 66.5 percent 

for poor non-TANF families, and 

from 95.1 percent to 91.4 percent 

for other non-TANF families. The 

23 People who are jobless and on

layoff from a job or looking for a job are 

unemployed.

percentage of TANF families with 

a parent unemployed in some of 

the past 12 months increased from 

31.5 percent in 2006 to 38.1 percent in 2009. In 2009, 2.3 percent 

of TANF families had a parent who 

was unemployed in all of the past 

12 months.24 For poor non-TANF 

families, the percentage with a 

parent unemployed in some of the 

past 12 months increased from 

21.4 percent in 2006 to 31.6 percent in 2009, and the percentage 

with a parent unemployed in all of 

the past 12 months increased from 

24 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate.

Figure 3.

Unemployment in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009 

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Never unemployed Unemployed 1–11 months Unemployed all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
10 U.S. Census Bureau

0.5 percent to 1.9 percent during 

that time. In 2006, 4.8 percent 

of other non-TANF families had a 

parent unemployed in some of the 

past 12 months and 0.1 percent 

had a parent unemployed in all of 

the past 12 months. By 2009, 8.2 

percent of other non-TANF families 

had a parent unemployed in some 

of the past 12 months and 0.4 

percent had a parent unemployed 

in all of the past 12 months. 

Figure 4 shows that in 2009 about 

one-quarter of TANF families, 

about one-third of poor non-TANF 

families, and about two-thirds of 

other non-TANF families had no 

parent who spent time out of the 

labor force in one or more of the 

past 12 months.25 The percentage of families with an adult who 

spent some of the past 12 months 

out of the labor force increased 

from 27.8 percent in 2006 to 38.1 

percent in 2009 for TANF families, 

from 28.8 percent to 32.9 percent 

for poor non-TANF families, and 

from 13.4 percent to 15.5 percent 

for other non-TANF families. From 

2006 to 2009, the percentage of 

TANF families with a parent who 

spent all of the past 12 months out 

25 People who are jobless and not on 

layoff from a job or looking for work are not 

in the labor force.

of the labor force decreased from 

40.7 percent to 33.7 percent, while 

that of poor non-TANF families 

decreased from 37.8 percent to 

32.4 percent. In 2009, 18.8 percent 

of other non-TANF families had a 

parent who spent all of the past 12 

months out of the labor force.26

Participation in Training and 

Education Programs

Figure 5 shows whether a parent 

participated in training or education 

programs in the past 12 months. 

Programs to help find work teach 

skills such as resume writing, job 

26 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate.

Figure 4.

Not in the Labor Force in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009 

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Never not in labor force Not in labor force 1–11 months Not in labor force all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
U.S. Census Bureau 11

interviewing, self-esteem building, 

or how to dress for work. They 

might also include participation in 

a job search program or job club, 

use of a job resource center, access 

to job listings, and referrals to jobs. 

TANF families were the most likely 

to be engaged in programs to help 

find work, and their participation 

rate increased from 11.5 percent 

in 2006 to 25.0 percent in 2009. 

Participation rates for poor nonTANF and other non-TANF families 

increased from 3.0 percent and 

0.8 percent, respectively, in 2006 

to 7.4 percent and 2.1 percent, 

respectively, in 2009. 

Job skills programs provide assistance with computer training, 

clerical skills, machinery training, 

and other job specific training, in 

addition to work experience programs such as community service 

jobs. Figure 5 shows that participation in these types of programs 

also increased for all family types. 

TANF families were also the most 

likely to participate in job skills 

programs, with 15.6 percent of 

TANF families attending in 2006 

and 23.6 percent in 2009. For poor 

non-TANF families, participation in 

job skills programs increased from 

3.8 percent in 2006 to 7.6 percent 

in 2009, while the rate for other 

non-TANF families increased from 

0.8 percent to 1.6 percent during 

that time.

Educational programs assist participants with basic reading and literacy skills, GED attainment, college 

degree or certificate attainment, 

and English as a second language. 

There were no significant increases 

in participation in educational programs from 2006 to 2009. In 2009, 

28.3 percent of TANF families, 21.9 

percent of poor non-TANF families, 

and 15.3 percent of other non-TANF 

families had a parent who attended 

Figure 5.

Participation in Training and Education Programs in the Past 12 Months

by TANF and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

Program to help find work Job skills program Educational program

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
12 U.S. Census Bureau

an educational program in the past 

12 months.

Housing Assistance Programs

Figure 6 shows the percentage of 

families that participated in several 

types of housing programs in one 

or more of the past 12 months. 

The federal housing program 

includes public housing and Section 

8 housing vouchers. Public housing provides low-cost housing to 

low-income families, the elderly, 

and persons with disabilities. 

This type of housing is owned by 

a local housing agency or other 

public agency. Section 8 provides 

vouchers to low-income families, 

the elderly, and persons with disabilities that enable them to choose 

any housing that meets the requirements of the program and is not 

limited to units located in public 

housing projects. From 2006 to 

2009, there was no change in rates 

of participation in the federal housing program. In 2009, 36.9 percent 

of TANF families and 18.5 percent 

of poor non-TANF families lived 

in public housing or received a 

Section 8 voucher—compared with 

just 2.3 percent of other non-TANF 

families.

Families may have utilities—such 

as water, electricity, gas, or oil—

paid for by a welfare agency. Figure 

6 shows in 2009, 32.7 percent 

of TANF families, 16.3 percent of 

poor non-TANF families, and 2.1 

percent of other non-TANF families 

had their utilities paid for in one or 

more of the past 12 months.27

Energy assistance may come from 

the federal, state, or local government. TANF families were the 

27 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates.

Figure 6.

Participation in Housing Assistance Programs in the Past 12 Months by TANF 

and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

10

20

30

40

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

Federal housing program Utility assistance Energy assistance Other housing assistance

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
U.S. Census Bureau 13

most likely to receive this kind of 

assistance—35.8 percent received 

energy assistance in the past 12 

months in 2009.28 However, receipt 

of energy assistance increased 

from 13.0 percent in 2006 to 17.6 

percent in 2009 for poor non-TANF 

families and from 2.1 percent to 

3.4 percent for other non-TANF 

families. 

Figure 6 also shows the percentage of families that received some 

other type of housing assistance in 

the past 12 months. In 2009, 8.5 

percent of TANF families received 

28 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate.

some other type of housing assistance—an increase from the 2006 

estimate of 3.8 percent. Meanwhile, 

2.0 percent of poor non-TANF

families and 0.4 percent of other 

non-TANF families received this 

type of assistance in 2009.29

Food Assistance Programs

Figure 7 shows the percentage 

of families that participated in 

several types of food assistance 

programs in one or more of the 

past 12 months. The Food Stamp 

Program, which was renamed the 

29 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) in 2008, provides 

low-income households with a 

debit card they can use like cash to 

purchase food at a grocery store. 

The vast majority of TANF families 

received food stamp/SNAP benefits in one or more of the past 12 

months in 2006 (90.7 percent) and 

2009 (91.4 percent).30 From 2006 

to 2009, the percentage of poor 

non-TANF families that received 

food stamp/SNAP benefits in the 

past 12 months increased from 

48.9 percent to 56.1 percent.

30 These estimates are not statistically different from each other.

Figure 7.

Participation in Food Assistance Programs in the Past 12 Months by TANF

and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

Food stamps/SNAP Free or reduced-price school meals Other food assistance

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
14 U.S. Census Bureau

Likewise, food stamp/SNAP assistance—up from 25.1 percent months, while 4.8 percent and 

participation among other non- in 2006. 1.3 percent, respectively, did so in 

TANF families increased from 2009. Other types of food assistance 6.2 percent to 8.0 percent during include the receipt of money, The Special Supplemental Nutrition that time. vouchers, or certificates to buy Program for Women, Infants, and 

The school lunch and breakfast groceries or food, bags of grocer- Children (WIC) provides supplemenprograms provide reduced-price or ies or packaged food, and meals tal foods, health care referrals, and 

free lunches and breakfasts to chil- from a shelter, soup kitchen, Meals nutrition education to low-income 

dren from low-income families each on Wheels, or other charity. Figure pregnant women and to infants and 

school day. In 2009, 71.7 percent 7 shows that the percentage of children up to age 5. Table 5 shows 

of TANF families—down from 79.5 TANF families that received other the percentage of families with a 

percent in 2006—and 68.9 percent food assistance increased from 7.6 child 0 to 5 years old that received 

of poor non-TANF families received percent in 2006 to 13.8 percent WIC benefits in one or more of the 

reduced-price or free school in 2009. Similarly, in 2006, 2.1 past 12 months. In 2009, 73.0 

lunches or breakfasts. In the same percent of poor non-TANF families percent of eligible TANF families 

year, 27.0 percent of other non- and 0.5 percent of other non-TANF and 59.4 percent of eligible poor 

TANF families received this type of families received some other type non-TANF families received WIC 

of food assistance in the past 12 

Table 5.

Participation in WIC in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Program

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 

(N=15,802)

2009 

(N=17,055)

2006 

(N=784)

2009 

(N=1,046)

2006 

(N=2,825)

2009 

(N=3,467)

2006 

(N=12,193)

2009 

(N=12,542)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

WIC . . . . . 31 .8 1 .3 30 .8 1 .2 77 .5 5 .3 73 .0 4 .7 61 .4 3 .3 59 .4 2 .8 22 .0 1 .3 *19 .4 1 .2

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children aged 0 to 5 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error, 

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 . 

Table 6.

Presence of a Work-Limiting Disability and Receipt of SSI in the Past 12 Months by TANF 

and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009 

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic 

or program

All 

families

TANF 

families

Poor non-TANF 

families

Other non-TANF 

families

2006 

(N=35,445)

2009 

(N=37,089)

2006 

(N=1,360)

2009 

(N=1,749)

2006 

(N=4,824)

2009 

(N=5,765)

2006 

(N=29,262)

2009 

(N=29,575)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent 

C .I . 

(+/-)

Work-limiting disability . . .

SSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 .8

4 .0

0 .7

0 .4

14 .3

*4 .7

0 .6

0 .4

38 .0

21 .6

4 .7

4 .0

34 .0

20 .8

3 .9

3 .3

22 .5

7 .9

2 .1

1 .4

21 .7

7 .4

1 .9

1 .2

12 .4

2 .6

0 .7

0 .3

11 .7

*3 .2

0 .6

0 .3

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

Note: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error, 

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .
U.S. Census Bureau 15

benefits.31 From 2006 to 2009, the and 11.7 percent of other non-TANF slight increase in SSI receipt among 

percentage of eligible other non- families.32 other non-TANF families—from 2.6 

TANF families receiving WIC fell percent in 2006 to 3.2 percent in The percentage of families that from 22.0 percent to 19.4 percent. 2009. received Supplemental Security 

Income (SSI)—a program that Health Insurance Disability and Supplemental 

Security Income provides cash assistance to aged, Medicaid provides health care blind, and disabled people who Table 6 shows the percentage of coverage to eligible, low-income have little or no income—in one families with a parent who had individuals and families.34 The or more of the past 12 months is a work-limiting disability in one State Children’s Health Insurance shown in Table 6. In 2009, 20.8 or more of the past 12 months. Program (SCHIP) is included as percent of TANF families and 7.4 In 2009, 34.0 percent of TANF Medicaid in SIPP. Figure 8 shows the percent of poor non-TANF families families had a parent with a work- percentage of families in which at received SSI in one or more of the limiting disability in the past 12 least one member was covered by past 12 months.33 There was a months, as compared with 21.7 34 This program is different from Medicare, 

percent of poor non-TANF families 32 These estimates are not statistically dif- which provides health insurance coverage to 

ferent from the 2006 estimates. people 65 years and older, to people under 31 These estimates are not statistically dif- 33 These estimates are not statistically dif- 65 years with certain disabilities, and to peoferent from the 2006 estimates. ferent from the 2006 estimates. ple of any age with End-Stage Renal Disease.

Figure 8.

Medicaid Coverage in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Never covered by Medicaid Covered by Medicaid 1–11 months Covered by Medicaid all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
16 U.S. Census Bureau

Medicaid in none, some, and all of families.35 Meanwhile, Medicaid 12 months compared with 15.5 

the past 12 months. For each fam- coverage in all of the past 12 percent of poor non-TANF and 

ily type, from 2006 and 2009, there months fell from 88.8 percent in 71.3 percent of other non-TANF 

was an increase in the percentage 2006 to 79.8 percent in 2009 for families.36

covered by Medicaid in some of the TANF families, from 62.5 percent Figure 9 shows the percentage of past 12 months and a decrease in to 53.7 percent for poor non-TANF families in which at least one mem- the percentage covered by Med- families, and from 16.6 percent to ber was covered by a private health icaid in all of the past 12 months. 12.1 percent for other non-TANF insurance plan in none, some, or all Medicaid coverage in some of the families. Accordingly, in 2009, of the past 12 months. The per- past 12 months increased from 2.0 percent of TANF families had centage of families with no private 10.2 percent to 18.2 percent for no Medicaid coverage in the past health insurance coverage in the TANF families, from 18.7 percent past 12 months increased for all to 30.8 percent for poor non-TANF 35 In 2006, all of the estimates are significantly different from each other. In 2009, the 

families, and from 12.9 percent to estimates for other non-TANF and TANF fami- 36 The estimates for TANF and other non16.6 percent for other non-TANF lies are not significantly different from each TANF families are not statistically different 

other, but these estimates are significantly from the 2006 estimates. The estimate for 

different from the estimate for poor non-TANF poor non-TANF families is statistically lower 

families. than the 2006 estimate.

Figure 9.

Private Health Insurance Coverage in the Past 12 Months by TANF 

and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Covered by private

insurance all 12 months

Covered by private

insurance 1–11 months

Never covered by

private insurance

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
U.S. Census Bureau 17

Figure 10.

No Health Insurance Coverage in the Past 12 Months by TANF and 

Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

20

40

60

80

100

Never uninsured Uninsured 1–11 months Uninsured all 12 months

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009

family types. In 2009, 69.1 percent 

of TANF families, 62.1 percent of 

poor non-TANF families, and 10.4 

percent of other non-TANF families 

had no private health insurance 

coverage in the past 12 months, 

compared with 62.4 percent, 55.8 

percent, and 9.2 percent, respectively, in 2006. Accordingly, in 

2009, the percentage of families 

with private health insurance coverage in all of the past 12 months 

was 11.2 percent for TANF families, 

13.5 percent for poor non-TANF 

families, and 77.0 percent of other 

non-TANF families—down from 

21.8 percent, 26.6 percent, and 

in Figure 10. From 2006 to 2009, 

the percentage of families who 

were never uninsured in the past 

12 months fell from 43.6 percent 

to 33.9 percent for TANF families 

and from 27.5 percent to 19.0 

percent for poor non-TANF families. 

The percentage of other non-TANF 

families who were never uninsured 

in the past 12 months increased 

from 55.7 percent in 2006 to 58.8 

percent in 2009. The percentage 

of families who were uninsured in 

all of the past 12 months fell from 

25.5 percent to 15.9 percent for 

TANF families, from 45.6 percent 

to 41.4 percent for poor non-TANF 

83.6 percent, respectively, in 2006. 

In 2009, 19.7 percent of TANF 

families were covered by private 

health insurance in some of the 

past 12 months.37 In that same 

year, 24.5 percent of poor nonTANF families and 12.6 percent 

of other non-TANF families were 

covered by private health insurance 

in some of the past 12 months—up 

from 17.7 percent and 7.2 percent, 

respectively, in 2006. 

The percentage of families that 

were uninsured in none, some, and 

all of the past 12 months is shown 

37 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate.
18 U.S. Census Bureau

families, and from 24.4 percent to parent is unmarried or is married to families received child support in 

15.8 percent for other non-TANF a step-parent.38 Table 7 shows the 2006, 34.3 percent and 40.1 perfamilies. For all family types, the percentage of eligible families that cent, respectively, did so in 2009.

percentage uninsured in some received child support payments in 

of the past 12 months increased one or more of the past 12 months. Child Care Assistance

from 2006 to 2009. In 2006, 30.9 A smaller percentage of families Many low-income families are eligipercent of TANF families, 26.9 received child support payments in ble to receive child care assistance 

percent of poor non-TANF families, 2009 than in 2006. The percentage that allows parents to go to work, 

and 19.9 percent of other non-TANF of eligible TANF families receiving school, or training. This analysis 

families were uninsured in some of child support fell from 30.6 percent is limited to families with full-time 

the past 12 months, compared with in 2006 to 23.2 percent in 2009. employment in one or more of the 

50.2 percent, 39.7 percent, and Whereas 40.8 percent of eligible past 12 months and those with a 

25.4 percent, respectively, in 2009. poor non-TANF families and 46.7 child 6 years old or younger. 

percent of eligible other non-TANF Table 8 shows that the percent- Child Support 38 The child support program is not age of eligible TANF families that 

SIPP respondents are asked about an income-based program, but can be an received child care assistance 

important source of financial support for low- the receipt of child support if the income families, especially those maintained remained virtually unchanged from 

by an unmarried mother. 

Table 7.

Receipt of Child Support in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 

2006 and 2009 

(Numbers in thousands)

All TANF Poor non-TANF Other non-TANF 

families families families families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 

Program

(N=14,912) (N=16,545) (N=1,182) (N=1,470) (N=3,396) (N=4,201) (N=10,334) (N=10,874)

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 

per- per- per- per- per- per- per- percent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent 

Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . 

cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-)

Child support . . . 44 .1 1 .4 *37 .1 1 .3 30 .6 4 .8 *23 .2 3 .8 40 .8 3 .0 *34 .3 2 .5 46 .7 1 .7 *40 .1 1 .6

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 where the parent is unmarried or married to a step-parent . For information on 

confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .

Table 8.

Receipt of Child Care Assistance in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 

2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

All TANF Poor non-TANF Other non-TANF 

families families families families

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009 

Program

(N=16,041) (N=16,495) (N=393) (N=563) (N=2,079) (N=2,215) (N=13,569) (N=13,717)

90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 

per- per- per- per- per- per- per- percent cent cent cent cent cent cent cent 

Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . Per- C .I . 

cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-) cent (+/-)

Child care assistance . . . 6 .1 0 .7 *4 .6 0 .6 32 .5 8 .4 30 .9 6 .6 15 .1 2 .8 *10 .9 2 .3 4 .0 0 .6 *2 .5 0 .5

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with full-time employment in one or more of the past 12 months and those with a child aged 6 or younger . 

For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www census gov/sipp/source html> . . . .

Source: U S Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 . . .
U.S. Census Bureau 19

2006 to 2009—at about 31 per- appointments. This assistance may Low-income families may receive 

cent. However, the percentage of come in the form of gas vouchers, clothing assistance in the form of 

poor non-TANF families receiving bus passes, or car repairs. Receipt clothes or money or vouchers to 

child care assistance fell from 15.1 of transportation assistance among purchase clothes. Although the parpercent in 2006 to 10.9 percent in TANF families increased from 15.6 ticipation rate for TANF families did 

2009, and the percentage of other percent in 2006 to 23.9 percent in not significantly change from 2006 

non-TANF families receiving this 2009 and exceeded participation to 2009, this group was more likely 

assistance fell from 4.0 percent to by poor non-TANF and other non- than non-TANF and poor non-TANF 

2.5 percent during that time. TANF families. In 2009, 3.2 percent families to receive clothing assisof poor non-TANF families received tance in the past 12 months—8.6 

Other Assistance Programs transportation assistance, which percent received this type of 

was not statistically different from assistance in 2009. From 2006 Figure 11 shows participation in 

the 2006 estimate. While receipt to 2009, the percentage of poor other types of assistance programs 

of transportation assistance was non-TANF families that received in the past 12 months. Transportalow for other non-TANF families, it clothing assistance increased from tion assistance is provided to lowincreased from 0.3 percent in 2006 1.1 percent to 2.4 percent and from income adults to help them get to 

work, school, training, or doctor’s to 0.6 percent in 2009. 0.2 percent to 0.5 percent for other 

non-TANF families. 

Figure 11.

Receipt of Transportation Assistance, Clothing Assistance, and Other

Assistance in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and 

sampling and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

All families TANF families Poor non-TANF families Other non-TANF families

Transportation assistance Clothing assistance Other welfare assistance

2006 2009 2006 2009 2006 2009
20 U.S. Census Bureau

Figure 11 also shows if families 

received assistance from any other 

type of state or county welfare 

program. In 2009, 6.9 percent of 

TANF families, 1.3 percent of poor 

non-TANF families, and 0.5 percent of other non-TANF families 

received some other type of welfare 

assistance.39

Tables 9–11 show participation 

rates in other assistance programs 

using data from SIPP’s Welfare 

Reform topical module. These questions were asked only once and 

inquire about the respondent’s participation during the four months 

prior to the interview month. 

In some cases, a social service 

agency will give money to a client’s 

employer to cover all or part of 

that person’s hiring, training, or 

wage costs. Table 9 shows that few 

employers received financial help 

with hiring, training, or wage costs. 

In 2009, the percentage for TANF 

families was 0.9 percent, for poor 

non-TANF families was 0.3 percent, 

39 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates.

and for other non-TANF families 

was 0.1 percent.40

Table 10 shows the percentage of 

families maintained by an unmarried parent that received help in 

obtaining child support. Eligible 

TANF families were more likely than 

eligible poor non-TANF and other 

non-TANF families to receive this 

type of assistance. In 2009, 12.0 

percent of eligible TANF families 

received help in obtaining child 

support, whereas 6.9 percent of 

eligible poor non-TANF families and 

2.5 percent of eligible other nonTANF families did so.41

Short-term cash assistance may be 

provided to low-income families to 

help keep them off of welfare or 

for emergencies. Table 11 shows 

that few families received shortterm cash assistance. In 2009, 2.2 

percent of TANF families received 

short-term cash assistance.42 The 

40 The estimates for TANF and poor nonTANF families are not statistically different 

from the 2006 estimates. The estimate for 

other non-TANF families is statistically higher 

than the 2006 estimate. 41 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates. 42 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate.

percentage of poor non-TANF families receiving short-term cash assistance increased from 0.1 percent 

in 2006 to 0.5 percent in 2009. 

Virtually no other non-TANF families received this type of assistance 

in 2006 or 2009.

Welfare-Related Requirements 

Made by Welfare Office

The Welfare Reform topical module 

in SIPP asked respondents whether 

they performed certain activities 

in the past four months because 

the welfare or social service office 

required it of them to receive TANF 

or because they chose to do them. 

The percentage of TANF families 

that engaged in these activities is 

presented in Table 12. There were 

no significant changes from 2006 

to 2009. In 2009, 56.7 percent of 

TANF families reported their income 

or any family or address changes 

on a regular basis. Only 8.0 percent 

reported working in exchange for 

their benefits or to gain experience. 

Additionally, 4.8 percent underwent 

drug testing and 4.4 percent established the paternity of a child.

Table 9.

Employer Received Help With Hiring, Training, or Wages in the Past 4 Months by TANF 

and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Program

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=34,658)

2009 

(N=36,120)

2006 

(N=1,344)

2009 

(N=1,702)

2006 

(N=4,664)

2009 

(N=5,585)

2006 

(N=28,649)

2009 

(N=28,833)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Help with hiring, training, or wages . . 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 1.5 1.2 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 *0.1 0.1

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.
U.S. Census Bureau 21

Table 10.

Receipt of Child Support Assistance in the Past 4 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Program

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=10,703)

2009 

(N=11,937)

2006 

(N=1,029)

2009 

(N=1,252)

2006 

(N=2,875)

2009 

(N=3,385)

2006 

(N=6,799)

2009 

(N=7,300)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Child support assistance . . 4.6 0.7 4.8 0.7 10.6 3.4 12.0 3.1 7.1 1.7 6.9 1.5 2.5 0.7 2.5 0.6

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 with an unmarried parent. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling 

and nonsampling error, see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Table 11.

Receipt of Short-Term Cash Assistance in the Past 4 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 

2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Program

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=35,445)

2009 

(N=37,089)

2006 

(N=1,360)

2009 

(N=1,749)

2006 

(N=4,824)

2009 

(N=5,765)

2006 

(N=29,262)

2009 

(N=29,575)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Short-term cash

assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1 *0.2 0.1 0.9 0.9 2.2 1.2 0.1 0.2 *0.5 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

Note: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Table 12.

Welfare-Related Requirements Made by the Welfare Office: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

2006 2009

Number or

percent

90 percent 

C.I. (+/-)

Number or

percent

90 percent

C.I. (+/-)

TANF families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,360 131 *1,749 142

 Reported income or family/address change . . . 50.5 4.8 56.7 4.0

 Worked in exchange for benefits . . . . . . . . . . . 6.5 2.4 8.0 2.2

 Drug testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.8 1.8 4.8 1.7

 Established the paternity of a child . . . . . . . . . . 2.4 1.5 4.4 1.7

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

Note: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.
22 U.S. Census Bureau

Reduction in TANF Benefit 

Amount

The Welfare Reform topical module asked current TANF recipients 

if their benefit amount had been 

reduced or if they had been notified that their benefit amount was 

going to be reduced. Table 13 

shows that in 2009, 16.6 percent 

of TANF families reported a reduction in their benefit amount.43

Respondents who answered “yes” 

to this question were then asked 

about the reason for this reduction 

in their benefit amount. The results 

are presented in Table 13.

Of the roughly 291,000 families 

with a reduced benefit amount in 

2009, 33.2 percent reported that 

it was because their income was 

too high.44 Fewer families reported 

a reduced benefit amount because 

they exceeded their time limit (6.7 

percent), had not met their work 

requirements (5.9 percent), or did 

43 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate. 44 This estimate is not statistically different from the 2006 estimate.

not provide all of the information 

requested of them (4.0 percent).45

No Longer Receiving TANF

Respondents who were not receiving TANF when the welfare reform 

topical module was administered 

were asked if they had ever 

received welfare, and if so, the year 

they last received welfare benefits. 

The percentage of families with 

prior receipt of welfare is shown in 

Table 14. In 2006, 1.4 percent of 

respondents not receiving TANF at 

the time of interview had received 

welfare prior to 1997 and 2.8 

percent received welfare in 1997 

or later. In 2009, 1.0 percent had 

received welfare prior to 1997 and 

3.2 percent received welfare in 

1997 or later.46

Of the respondents who last 

received welfare in 1997 or later 

(0.9 million in 2006 and 1.1 million 

45 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates. 46 The 2006 and 2009 estimates for 

receiving welfare in 1997 or later are not 

significantly different from each other.

in 2009), Table 14 shows their 

reported reasons for no longer 

receiving welfare. In 2009, 36.5 

percent of former recipients no 

longer received welfare because 

their income was too high and 20.1 

percent no longer needed welfare.47

However, 12.3 percent of former 

recipients no longer received benefits because they had exceeded 

their time limit and 5.1 percent had 

received the maximum assistance 

allowed.48 In 2006, 4.2 percent 

of respondents reported losing 

their welfare benefits because of 

noncooperation with work requirements, while only 1.4 percent did 

so in 2009.

CONCLUSION

This report shows that the recent 

economic recession impacted 

American families with children 

and the impact was not confined 

to TANF families or poor families. TANF participation rates did 

47 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates. 48 These estimates are not statistically different from the 2006 estimates.

Table 13.

Reasons for a Reduction in Benefits: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

2006 2009

Number or

percent

90 percent

C.I. (+/-)

Number or

percent

90 percent

C.I. (+/-)

TANF families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,360 131 *1,749 142

 Benefit amount has been reduced . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.0 3.2 16.6 3.0

 Reasons benefits were reduced1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176 47 *291 58

 Income too high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39.9 13.1 33.2 9.4

 Exceeded time limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9.0 7.7 6.7 5.0

 Work requirements not met . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8.5 7.5 5.9 4.7

 Child support requirement not met . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7.5 7.0 *0.0 0.0

 Did not provide all requested information . . . . . . . . . . . 6.4 6.5 4.0 3.9

 Rejected individual responsibility plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.8 2.4 1.0 2.0

 Receiving SSI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0 0.8 1.8

 Other reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30.2 12.3 *46.5 10.0

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

1

 This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 that reported a reduction in their benefit amount.

Note: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.
U.S. Census Bureau 23

increase from 2006 to 2009. these other types of assistance total income of TANF and poor nonHowever, it was married-couple than either poor or other non-TANF TANF families pales in comparison 

families—who have the lowest families. to that of other non-TANF families. 

overall rates of TANF participa- Furthermore, TANF and poor non- The uptake in assistance programs tion—that saw an increase in their TANF families were less likely than from 2006 to 2009 coincided with overall TANF participation rate. other non-TANF families to have a declining employment rates. From There was no significant change parent engaged in full-time employ- 2006 to 2009, poor and other non- in the participation rates of male- ment and were more likely to face TANF families became less likely to maintained or female-maintained unemployment. Finally, participa- have a parent engaged in full-time families. Additionally, there was tion in a wide variety of assistance employment. All family types no significant increase in the TANF programs was much higher for experienced increased unemploy- participation rate of poor families TANF and poor non-TANF families ment during this time. It appears, during this time. than for other non-TANF families. however, that some families took 

Participation in other assistance steps to improve their employment In conclusion, this report shows 

programs was also up and not just outlooks. Enrollment in programs that many former TANF recipients 

for those also receiving TANF. From to help find work and job skills pro- no longer receive benefits because 

2006 to 2009, the percentage of grams increased for TANF and non- their income is too high or because 

poor and other non-TANF fami- TANF families from 2006 to 2009. they no longer need the assistance. 

lies aided in meeting their most Although the 1996 welfare reform Although many other non-TANF essential needs—through receipt legislation placed heavy emphasis families appear to have been of energy assistance, food stamps/ on the coupling of work and wel- affected by the economic recession, SNAP, other food assistance, and fare and introduced time limits on TANF and poor non-TANF families clothing assistance—increased. welfare receipt, it seems that few remain disadvantaged in many Nonetheless, TANF families were families are being forced off wel- ways. As expected, the median generally more likely to receive fare for failing to find employment. 

Table 14.

Reasons for No Longer Receiving Benefits: 2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

2006 2009

Number or 

percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Number or 

percent

90 percent 

C .I . (+/-)

Non-TANF families . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,090 606 *35,340 592

 Received welfare prior to 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .4 0 .2 *1 .0 0 .2

 Received welfare 1997 or later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .8 0 .3 3 .2 0 .3

 Reasons for no longer receiving TANF1

 . . . . . . . . . . 946 109 *1,112 113

 Income too high . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 .6 5 .5 36 .5 4 .9

 No longer needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 .7 4 .1 20 .1 4 .1

 Exceeded time limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 .3 3 .8 12 .3 3 .4

 Noncooperation with work requirements . . . . . . . . . . . 4 .2 2 .3 *1 .4 1 .2

 Received maximum assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .5 2 .1 5 .1 2 .2

 Got married . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 .3 2 .1 1 .4 1 .2

 Rejected individual responsibility plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .4 1 .8 0 .9 1 .0

 Did not provide all info requested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 .2 1 .7 *0 .1 0 .3

 Banking eligibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .9 1 .1 0 .9 1 .0

 Children too old . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 .3 1 .3 1 .3 1 .2

 Noncooperation with child support requirements . . . . . 1 .2 1 .3 0 .6 0 .8

 Other reason . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .2 4 .7 18 .7 4 .0

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

1

 Includes only families that received TANF in 1997 or later .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error, 

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .
24 U.S. Census Bureau

In fact, few TANF families reported interpret questions, how able and CONTACTS

working in exchange for benefits. willing respondents are to pro- Contact Mahdi S. Sundukchi of There is some evidence, however, vide correct answers, and how the Census Bureau’s Demographic that families left welfare because accurately the answers are coded Statistical Methods Division at they reached their time limit. and classified. To minimize these <mahdi.s.sundukchi@census errors, the Census Bureau employs .gov>, or Jamie Choi of the Census SOURCE AND ACCURACY quality control procedures through- Bureau’s Demographic Statistical OF ESTIMATES out the production process includ- Methods Division at <jamie.choi ing the overall design of surveys, Source of the Data @census.gov> for further informa- the wording of questions, the tion on the source of the data and The population represented (the review of the work of interview- accuracy of the estimates, includ- population universe) in the 2004 ers and coders, and the statistical ing standard errors and and 2008 Panels of the Survey of review of reports. The SIPP weight- confidence intervals. Income and Program Participation ing procedure uses ratio estima-

(SIPP) is the civilian noninstitu- tion, whereby sample estimates are For information on the content 

tionalized population living in the adjusted to independent estimates of this report, contact John J. 

United States. The SIPP is a longitu- of the national population by age, Hisnanick, Chief, Program 

dinal survey conducted at 4-month race, sex, and Hispanic origin. Participation and Income Transfer 

intervals. The data in this report This weighting partially corrects Branch at <john.j.hisnanick 

were collected from October 2005 for bias due to undercoverage, but @census.gov> or 301-763-2295. 

to September 2006 in Waves 6–8 of biases may still be present when 

the 2004 SIPP, and from September people who are missed by the sur- USER COMMENTS 

2008 to August 2009 in Waves 1–3 vey differ from those interviewed in The Census Bureau welcomes the 

of the 2008 SIPP. The institutional- ways other than age, race, sex, and comments and advice of users of 

ized population, which is excluded Hispanic origin. How this weighting its data and reports. If you have from the population universe, is procedure affects other variables in any suggestions or comments, composed primarily of the popula- the survey is not precisely known. please send an e-mail inquiry to tion in correctional institutions and All of these considerations affect <hhes-info@census.gov>. nursing homes (91 percent of the comparisons across different sur4.1 million institutionalized popula- veys or data sources. SUGGESTED CITATION 

tion in Census 2000). For further information on the Irving, Shelley K., “Comparing 

Accuracy of the Estimates source of the data and accuracy of Program Participation of TANF 

the estimates, including standard and Non-TANF Families Before Statistics from surveys are subject errors and confidence intervals, and During a Time of Recession,” to sampling and nonsampling error. go to <www.census.gov Current Population Reports, All comparisons presented in this /sipp/sourceac/S&A08 P70-127, U.S. Census Bureau, report have taken sampling error _W1toW6(S&A-13).pdf>. Washington, DC, 2011. into account and are significant 

at the 90 percent confidence level Additional information on the SIPP, 

unless otherwise noted. This means including questions on the topical 

the 90 percent confidence inter- modules, can be found at the 

val for the difference between the following Web sites: 

estimates being compared does not <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp 

include zero. /> (main SIPP Web site), 

<www.sipp.census.gov/sipp Nonsampling errors in surveys /workpapr/wp230.pdf> may be attributed to a variety of (SIPP Quality Profile), and sources, such as how the survey <www.sipp.census.gov/sipp was designed, how respondents /usrguide/sipp2001.pdf> 

(SIPP User’s Guide).
U.S. Census Bureau 25

APPENDIX

Table A-1. 

Labor Force Participation in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Characteristic

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=35,445)

2009 

(N=37,089)

2006 

(N=1,360)

2009 

(N=1,749)

2006 

(N=4,824)

2009 

(N=5,765)

2006 

(N=29,262)

2009 

(N=29,575)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Employed Full-Time

 No months . . . . . . . . . . 9.7 0.6 *12.2 0.6 55.2 4.8 52.9 4.1 36.3 2.5 *42.1 2.2 3.3 0.4 *3.9 0.4

 Some months . . . . . . . 18.3 0.7 *24.0 0.8 30.8 4.4 34.9 3.9 38.9 2.5 40.6 2.2 14.3 0.7 *20.1 0.8

 All months . . . . . . . . . . 72.0 0.8 *63.9 0.9 14.0 3.3 12.2 2.7 24.8 2.2 *17.2 1.7 82.4 0.8 *76.0 0.8

Employed Part-Time

 No months . . . . . . . . . . 52.5 0.9 *49.4 0.9 49.9 4.8 49.5 4.1 42.2 2.5 39.9 2.2 54.4 1.0 *51.2 1.0

 Some months . . . . . . . 36.2 0.9 *40.6 0.9 42.8 4.8 44.9 4.1 47.5 2.6 *51.0 2.2 34.0 1.0 *38.3 1.0

 All months . . . . . . . . . . 11.3 0.6 *10.1 0.5 7.3 2.5 5.7 1.9 10.3 1.6 9.1 1.3 11.6 0.7 *10.6 0.6

Unemployed

 No months . . . . . . . . . . 91.7 0.5 *86.1 0.6 66.9 4.5 *59.6 4.0 78.1 2.1 *66.5 2.1 95.1 0.4 *91.4 0.6

 Some months . . . . . . . 8.1 0.5 *13.3 0.6 31.5 4.5 *38.1 4.0 21.4 2.1 *31.6 2.1 4.8 0.4 *8.2 0.5

 All months . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 0.1 *0.7 0.1 1.7 1.2 2.3 1.2 0.5 0.4 *1.9 0.6 0.1 0.1 *0.4 0.1

Not in Labor Force

 No months . . . . . . . . . . 61.3 0.9 *59.1 0.9 31.6 4.5 28.2 3.7 33.3 2.4 34.7 2.1 67.3 1.0 *65.7 0.9

 Some months . . . . . . . 16.1 0.7 *19.3 0.7 27.8 4.3 *38.1 4.0 28.8 2.3 *32.9 2.1 13.4 0.7 *15.5 0.7

 All months . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 0.8 21.6 0.7 40.7 4.7 *33.7 3.9 37.8 2.5 *32.4 2.1 19.3 0.8 18.8 0.8

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

1

 In the case of married couple families, the family is included in a particular category if either the husband or the wife falls into that category. Families may be 

included in more than one category.

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.
26 U.S. Census Bureau

Table A-2.

Participation in Training and Education Programs, Housing Assistance Programs,

and Food Assistance Programs in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

(Numbers in thousands)

Program

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=35,445)

2009 

(N=37,089)

2006 

(N=1,360)

2009 

(N=1,749)

2006 

(N=4,824)

2009 

(N=5,765)

2006 

(N=29,262)

2009 

(N=29,575)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Training and Education Programs

 Program to help find work . . . . . . . 1.5 0.2 *4.0 0.3 11.5 3.1 *25.0 3.5 3.0 0.9 *7.4 1.2 0.8 0.2 *2.1 0.3

 Job skills program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.8 0.3 *3.5 0.3 15.6 3.5 *23.6 3.5 3.8 1.0 *7.6 1.2 0.8 0.2 *1.6 0.2

 Educational program . . . . . . . . . . . 16.4 0.7 17.0 0.7 26.7 4.3 28.3 3.7 23.1 2.2 21.9 1.9 14.8 0.7 15.3 0.7

Housing Assistance Programs

 Federal housing program . . . . . . . . 6.4 0.5 6.5 0.4 38.7 4.7 36.9 3.9 20.2 2.1 18.5 1.7 2.7 0.3 2.3 0.3

 Utility assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 0.4 5.7 0.4 33.3 4.5 32.7 3.8 17.7 2.0 16.3 1.7 2.2 0.3 2.1 0.3

 Energy assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 0.4 *7.1 0.5 30.6 4.4 35.8 3.9 13.0 1.7 *17.6 1.7 2.1 0.3 *3.4 0.4

 Other housing assistance . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 *1.0 0.2 3.8 1.8 *8.5 2.3 1.3 0.6 2.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.1

Food Assistance Programs

 Food Stamp/SNAP . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.3 0.7 *19.4 0.7 90.7 2.8 91.4 2.3 48.9 2.6 *56.1 2.2 6.2 0.5 *8.0 0.5

 Free/reduced-price school meal . . 33.0 0.9 *35.7 0.8 79.5 3.9 *71.7 3.7 68.4 2.4 68.9 2.1 25.1 0.9 *27.0 0.9

 Other food assistance . . . . . . . . . . 1.0 0.2 *2.4 0.3 7.6 2.6 *13.8 2.8 2.1 0.7 *4.8 1.0 0.5 0.1 *1.3 0.2

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.
U.S. Census Bureau 27

Table A-3.

Health Insurance Coverage in the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status:

2006 and 2009

Coverage

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=35,445)

2009 

(N=37,089)

2006 

(N=1,360)

2009 

(N=1,749)

2006 

(N=4,824)

2009 

(N=5,765)

2006 

(N=29,262)

2009 

(N=29,575)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C.I.

(+/-)

Medicaid

 No months . . . . . . . 60.8 0.9 *59.4 0.9 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.2 18.9 2.0 *15.5 1.6 70.6 0.9 71.3 0.9

 Some months . . . . 13.6 0.6 *18.9 0.7 10.2 2.9 *18.2 3.1 18.7 2.0 *30.8 2.1 12.9 0.7 *16.6 0.7

 All months . . . . . . . 25.6 0.8 *21.8 0.7 88.8 3.0 *79.8 3.3 62.5 2.5 *53.7 2.2 16.6 0.8 *12.1 0.6

Private insurance

 No months . . . . . . . 17.6 0.7 *21.2 0.7 62.4 4.7 *69.1 3.8 55.8 2.5 *62.1 2.2 9.2 0.6 *10.4 0.6

 Some months . . . . 9.0 0.5 *14.8 0.6 15.8 3.5 19.7 3.2 17.7 2.0 *24.5 1.9 7.2 0.5 *12.6 0.7

 All months . . . . . . . 73.4 0.8 *64.0 0.8 21.8 4.0 *11.2 2.6 26.6 2.3 *13.5 1.5 83.6 0.8 *77.0 0.8

Not insured

 No months . . . . . . . 51.4 0.9 51.4 0.9 43.6 4.8 *33.9 3.9 27.5 2.3 *19.0 1.8 55.7 1.0 *58.8 1.0

 Some months . . . . 21.3 0.8 *28.8 0.8 30.9 4.4 *50.2 4.1 26.9 2.3 *39.7 2.2 19.9 0.8 *25.4 0.9

 All months . . . . . . . 27.3 0.8 *19.8 0.7 25.5 4.2 *15.9 3.0 45.6 2.5 *41.4 2.2 24.4 0.9 *15.8 0.7

* Statistically different from the 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level.

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18. For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www.census.gov/sipp/source.html>.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3.

Table A-4.

Receipt of Transportation Assistance, Clothing Assistance, and Other Assistance in

the Past 12 Months by TANF and Poverty Status: 2006 and 2009 

(Numbers in thousands)

Program

All

families

TANF

families

Poor non-TANF

families

Other non-TANF

families

2006 

(N=35,445)

2009 

(N=37,089)

2006 

(N=1,360)

2009 

(N=1,749)

2006 

(N=4,824)

2009 

(N=5,765)

2006 

(N=29,262)

2009 

(N=29,575)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Percent

90 

percent

C .I .

(+/-)

Transportation assistance . . . . . . . 1 .2 0 .2 *2 .1 0 .3 15 .6 3 .5 *23 .9 3 .5 2 .6 0 .8 3 .2 0 .8 0 .3 0 .1 *0 .6 0 .2

Clothing assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 .6 0 .1 *1 .2 0 .2 6 .5 2 .4 8 .6 2 .3 1 .1 0 .5 *2 .4 0 .7 0 .2 0 .1 *0 .5 0 .1

Other welfare assistance . . . . . . . . 0 .9 0 .2 0 .9 0 .2 9 .9 2 .9 6 .9 2 .1 1 .1 0 .5 1 .3 0 .5 0 .5 0 .1 0 .5 0 .1

* Statistically different from 2006 estimate at the 90 percent confidence level .

Notes: This analysis includes only families with children under the age of 18 . For information on confidentiality protection and sampling and nonsampling error,

see <http://www .census .gov/sipp/source .html> .

Source: U .S . Census Bureau, Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), 2004 Panel, Waves 6–8, and 2008 Panel, Waves 1–3 .
U.S. Department of Commerce

Economics and Statistics Administration 

U.S. CENSUS BUREAU 

Washington, DC 20233

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use $300

FIRST-CLASS MAIL 

POSTAGE & FEES PAID 

U.S. Census Bureau 

Permit No. G-58