Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors

Fourteenth Report to Congress

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
This report was written and compiled by Gilbert Crouse and Annette Waters of the 

Office of Human Services Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation, with assistance from Susan Hauan, Suzanne Macartney and Kendall 

Swenson.

For online versions of this report, see

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators-rtc/index.cfm

Office of Human Services Policy

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 404E

200 Independence Ave., S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20201
i

Table of Contents

 Executive Summary

I. Introduction and Overview

Organization of Report

Measuring Welfare Dependence

Data Sources

x

I-1

I-1

I-2

I-8

II. Indicators of Dependence

Indicator 1. Degree of Dependence

Indicator 2. Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force

 Attachment

Indicator 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance

Indicator 4. Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs

Indicator 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Indicator 6. Dependence Transitions

Indicator 7. Program Spell Duration

Indicator 8. Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment

Indicator 9. Long Term Receipt

Indicator 10. Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells

II-1

II-3

II-8

II-11

II-17

II-21

II-23

II-25

II-28

II-30

II-32

III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

Economic Security Risk Factors

ECON 1. Poverty Rates

ECON 2. Deep Poverty Rates

ECON 3. Research Supplemental Poverty Measure

ECON 4. Poverty Rates with Various Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income

ECON 5. Poverty Spells

ECON 6. Child Support

ECON 7. Food Insecurity

III-1

III-3

III-5

III-7

III-9

III-11

III-13

III-15

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors

WORK 1. Labor Force Attachment

WORK 2. Employment among the Low-Skilled

WORK 3. Earnings of Low-Skilled Workers

WORK 4. Educational Attainment

WORK 5. Adult Alcohol and Substance Abuse

WORK 6. Adult and Child Disability

WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18

III-17

III-19

III-21

III-25

III-27

III-29

III-31

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors

BIRTH 1. Nonmarital Births

BIRTH 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

BIRTH 3. Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates

BIRTH 4. Never-Married Family Status

III-33

III-35

III-37

III-39
ii

Appendices

A. Program Data

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

Needy Families (TANF)

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

B. Alternative Definition of Dependence Based on Income from

TANF and SNAP

A-1

B-1

C. Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

D. Technical Notes

E. The Methodology Behind Poverty Measurement

C-1

D-1

E-1
iii

List of Figures

Chapter I

SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1993 - 2012

SUM 2a. Number Poor under 18 years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959 – 2013

SUM 2b. Number & Percent of Children Receiving SNAP (Food Stamps), 1980 – 2012

Chapter II

IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2012

IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status: 2012

IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program: 2012

IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF by Age: 1975-2012

IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by Select 

Demographic and Economic Characteristics and the Poverty Rate: 1975 – 2012

IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012

IND 4. Participation Rates in the AFDC/TANF, SNAP and SSI Programs: Selected Years

IND 5. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, SNAP 

and SSI: 2012

IND 6. Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income 

from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Race and Ethnicity

IND 7. Percentage of TANF, SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 

2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

IND 8. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering 

Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients by Years of Receipt during the 1999 – 2008 

Period

IND 10a. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2008 – 2012 Period

IND 10b. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2008 – 2012 Period

Chapter III

ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age: 1959-2013

ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level: 1975 -

2013

ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty Measures 

by Demographic Characteristics: 2013

ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various MeansTested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979 - 2012
iv

ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP Panel 

by Length of Spell

ECON 6. Poverty Rates for Custodial Mothers by Marital Status and Receipt of Child Support: 

2011 

ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2012

WORK 1. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race and Ethnicity: 

2012

WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who

Were Employed at Any Time during Year by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 Years of 

High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High 

School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 1960-2012

WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 2012

WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2012

BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2012

BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity: 1940-

2012

BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2012

BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2012

BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head by Race

and Ethnicity: 1982-2012

Appendix A

TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2012 Dollars

SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2013

SNAP 2. Distribution of Food Stamps/SNAP Benefits by Percent of the Poverty Guideline: 

1987-2013

SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 19742013

Appendix D

D-1 Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987 – 2012
v

List of Tables

Chapter I

SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years

Chapter II

IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2012

IND 1c. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status and Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

IND 1d. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources: Selected Years

IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program and 

Selected Characteristics: 2012

IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants: 1993-

2012

IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF by Age: 1970-

2012

IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP by Age: 1975-2012

IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012

IND 4a. Number and Percentage of Eligible Families Participating in the AFDC/TANF Cash 

Assistance Program: Selected Years

IND 4b. Number and Percentage of Eligible Households Participating in the SNAP: Selected 

Years

IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program by Selected 

Characteristics: 1993-2012

IND 5a. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

IND 5b. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Means-Tested Assistance 

Programs: 1993-2012

IND 6a. Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income 

from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Selected Characteristics

IND 6b. Dependency Status of All Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income from 

Means-Tested Assistance in Previous Year

IND 7a. Percentage of TANF, SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 

2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics
vi

IND 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering 

Programs during Selected SIPP Panels by Length of Spell

IND 8a. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering 

Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

IND 8b. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons Entering 

Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Selected Years

IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients across Four Ten-Year Time Periods by 

Years of Receipt and Selected Characteristics

IND 10a. Percentage of Single Mother AFDC/TANF Spell Exits Associated with Specific 

Events: Selected Periods

IND 10b. Percentage of Single Mother AFDC/TANF Spell Entries Associated with Specific 

Events: Selected Periods

Chapter III

ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age and Family Type: Selected Years

ECON 2. Number and Percentage of Total Population below 50, 75, 100 and 125 Percent of 

Poverty Level: Selected Years

ECON 3. Poverty in 2010 and 2013: Official Poverty Measure and Supplemental Poverty Measure

ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various MeansTested Transfers Counted as Income: Selected Years

ECON 5a. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP Panel 

by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

ECON 5b. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during SIPP Panels by Length 

of Spell 

ECON 6. Poverty Rates of Families by Sex, Marital Status, and Receipt of Child Support: 2011

ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected 

Characteristics: 2012 

ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2012

WORK 1a. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

WORK 1b. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants: Selected Years

WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education Who

Were Employed by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less Than 4 of Years 

of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012
vii

WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of High 

School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1979-2012

WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: Selected 

Years

WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 1999-

2012

WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

WORK 7. Employment Status of Women with Children under 18 Years of Age: 1975-2012

BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: Selected Years

BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity: 

Selected Years

BIRTH 3. Births per Thousand Unmarried Teen Women by Age and Race: 1950-2012

BIRTH 4. Number and Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female 

Head by Race and Ethnicity: Selected Years

Appendix A

TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Caseloads: 1962-2013

TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various 

Population Groups: 19702013

TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2013

TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970-2013

TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending: 1997-2013

TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962-2012

TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families: Selected Years 1969-2012

TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Cash Benefits by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978-2013

TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs with 2013 Total Family 

Assistance Grants Awarded under PRWORA

TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State: October 1989 to December 2013 Peak

TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years 

TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years

TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years
viii

TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965-2013

TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2013

SNAP 1. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Caseloads: Selected Years 1962-2013

SNAP 2. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Expenditures: Selected Years 1975-2013

SNAP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp/SNAP Households: Selected Years 1980-2013

SNAP 4. Value of Food Stamp/SNAP Issued by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975-2013

SNAP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp/SNAP Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years

SNAP 6. Food Stamp/SNAP Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years

SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974-2013

SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates: 1974-2013

SSI 3. Federally Administered SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974-2013

SSI 4. Average Monthly Federally Administered SSI Benefits: 1975-2013

SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments by Eligibility 

Category: 1974-2013

SSI 6. Characteristics of Federally Administered SSI Recipients by Selected Characteristics: 

Selected Years 1980-2013

SSI 7. Total Federally Administered SSI Payments by State: Calendar Year 2013

SSI 8. State Recipiency Rates for Federally Administered SSI Payments by Age: 1996 and 2013

SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates as Percent of Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years: 

1975-2013
ix

Appendix B

B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various 

Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2012

B-2. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various 

Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1995-2012

Appendix C

C-1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women within Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity: 

1940-2012

C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2012

C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race and Ethnicity and State: 

1994 and 2012

C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by State: Selected Years 1960-2012

C-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by Race and Ethnicity and State: Selected Years

x

Executive Summary

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 requires the Department of Health and Human Services to prepare 

annual reports to Congress on indicators and predictors of welfare dependence. The 2015 report on 

Welfare Indicators and Risk Factors provides indicators and risk factors through 2012 for most indicators, 

reflecting changes that have taken place since the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996. As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act, the 

report focuses on benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, formerly 

the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program; the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP, formerly Food Stamps); and the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. 

HIGHLIGHTS

Dependence1and Economic Well-Being

 The dependency rate rises and falls with economic cycles. The dependency rate fell during the 

economic expansions of the mid- to late-1990s to 3.0 percent in 2000. After 2000 it began to 

increase. With the onset of the Great Recession, which lasted from December 2007 to June 

2009, the dependency rate increased to 5.3 percent in 2010. In 2012, the dependency rate was 

5.1 percent. 

 Welfare dependency is beginning to come down. In 2012, 5.1 percent of the total population 

received more than half of their total family income from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI, following a 

recent high of 5.3 percent in 2010 (see Indicator 1). 

 SNAP benefits provided the most support. The value of SNAP benefits received constitutes a 

larger share of program benefit income among the welfare dependent population than does cash 

benefits from the TANF or SSI programs. SNAP is an important support for families, including 

working families, to help them weather economic distress. The majority of SNAP recipients 

are in families with someone in the labor force (see Indicator 2). 

 More people became independent. Transitions out of dependence from one year to the next 

have improved since 2010 (see Indicator 6). Of those defined as welfare dependent in 2011, 

27.6 percent were no longer dependent in 2012. This compares with 24.1 percent who 

transitioned out of dependency in 2010. Year-to-year transitions out of welfare dependence were 

lowest in 1994, when only 20.2 percent of those defined as dependent in 1993 were no longer 

dependent in 1994. 

 Poverty decreased, especially for children. In 2013, 14.5 percent of the population was poor, 

down from 15.1 percent in 2010 (see Economic Security Risk Factor 1). Poverty decreased for 

children even more prominently, from 22.0 percent in 2010 to 19.9 percent in 2013, and 

especially among younger children under age six who have experienced a 3.1 percentage point 

drop in poverty rates since 2010. Prior to 2010, the poverty rate had increased for the full 

population and among children between 2000 and 2004, and again between 2006 and 2010, a 

period that included the Great Recession.

 Program benefits reduced poverty. Accounting for the value of a broader set of program benefits 

received by families would reduce the number of individuals counted as living in poverty 

according to the official poverty measure (see Economic Risk Factor 4). In 2012, means-tested 

cash transfers reduced the poverty rate by 0.7 percentage points, and the combined effect of food 

and housing assistance, the EITC, and federal taxes would be to reduce the percentage of the 

population in official poverty by an additional 3.6 percentage points.

 

1 Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP (see Chapter 1). 
xi

Program Recipiency

 Receipt of program benefits increased. In 2012, 23.6 percent of the total population received or 

lived with a family member who received a benefit of any amount from TANF, SNAP, or SSI at 

some point during the year (see SUM 1). While falling between 1994 and 2000, this annual 

recipiency rate across the three programs began to rise after 2000, and increased more rapidly 

during and in the immediate years following the Great Recession. The 2012 rate is higher than 

pre-recession rates, reflecting increased participation in the SNAP and SSI programs since the 

Great Recession (see Indicator 3).

 Program benefits are responsive to economic conditions. To a significant extent, the trends in 

dependency and annual program benefit receipt correlated with worsening economic 

conditions. The increase in SNAP recipiency between 2005 and 2012 reflects its intended 

responsiveness to economic changes, expanding to meet increased need when the economy is 

in recession. SNAP is an important support for families especially those with ties to the labor 

force – 64.7 percent of SNAP recipients are in families with labor force participants (see 

Indicator 2). About half (53.7 percent)2of recent SNAP entrants remain on the program for a 

year or less (see Indicator 7). As the economy continues to improve, SNAP is projected to 

respond as designed, with fewer people needing to access the program. In 2014, SNAP 

participation began to decrease (Table SNAP 1) and the Congressional Budget Office’s latest 

projections show that average monthly participation will decline steadily over the next ten 

years.

3

 Changes in program caseloads impact dependency rates. Trends in the annual recipiency rate 

across all three programs presented in this report reflect well-documented changes in TANF, 

SNAP, and SSI caseloads over the past two decades (see Indicator 3). For example, the 

percentage of individuals receiving TANF cash assistance in an average month fell from 5.4 

percent in 1993 to 1.4 percent in 2007. Between 2008 and 2012 the percentage of the total 

population receiving TANF fluctuated from 1.3 to 1.5 percent. SNAP recipiency in an average 

month fell in the latter half of the 1990s from 10.4 percent in 1994 to 6.0 percent in 2000. Since 

2000, SNAP recipiency in an average month increased to 14.6 percent in 2012. Conversely, SSI 

recipiency rates were relatively flat between 1993 and 2012, fluctuating between 2.3 and 2.6 

percent.

 Long-term recipiency is rare. Longitudinal measures show that program spells typically are short 

(see Indicator 7). For example, 79.6 percent of all TANF spells and 53.7 percent of all new SNAP 

spells lasted one year or less.

Connections to Employment

 The majority of mothers in the U.S. are in the labor force (see Employment and Work-Related 

Risk Factor 7). Of particular note is the sharp increase in labor force participation rates for nevermarried mothers, rising from 52.5 percent in 1992 to a peak of 75.3 percent in 2002. In 2012 the 

rate was 71.5 percent. The report does not report the labor force participation of fathers. 

 Families who use TANF or SNAP benefits also tend to be in the labor force. In an average month 

in 2012, 56.7 percent of TANF recipients lived in families with labor force connections and 64.7 

percent of those receiving SNAP benefits lived in families with at least one family member in the 

labor force, including unemployed individuals looking for work. The comparable figure for SSI 

recipients was 39.1 percent (see Indicator 2). Between 2005 and 20124there has been an 

 

2

These estimates differ from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.

3 See Congressional Budget Office Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – January 2015 Baseline, https://www.cbo.gov/publication/44211.

4 See the 2008 Indicators of Welfare Dependence Report online at: http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/indicators08/index.shtml for the 2005 numbers.
xii

increase in the percentage of recipients in families having at least one person in the labor force. 

Between 2005 and 2012, the percentage of recipients in families with at least one person in the 

labor force increased from 52.3 to 56.7 percent for TANF recipients, from 55.3 to 64.7 percent for 

SNAP recipients, and from 38.9 to 39.1 percent for SSI recipients.

 Families who receive TANF don’t stay out of work for long. Most spells of TANF receipt with no 

family labor force connection are not long (see Indicator 8). In the most recent time period (2008 

to 2012), 56.4 percent of TANF spells where no one in the family was in the labor force lasted 

four months or less and 86.4 percent lasted 12 months or less. These proportions have grown 

since the early 1990s (1993 to 1995) from 42.6 percent and 69.0 percent, respectively.

Nonmarital Births and Never-Married Family Status as Risk Factors 

 Nonmarital births have risen since the 1940s (see Birth 1). In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to 

unmarried women. Beginning in 1960, this percentage began to increase, reaching 32.6 percent 

by 1994. Since 2008 the rate has remained steady at approximately 40.7 percent. Nonmarital 

births to teens 15 – 19 years of age as a percentage of all births have declined from 9.7 percent 

in 1996 to 6.9 percent in 2012 (see Birth 2).

 Many more children live with only their (single) mother than ever before. The percentage of all 

children living in families with a never-married female head has grown over time (see Nonmarital 

Birth Risk Factor 4). In 2012, 11.7 percent of all children lived in a never-married, single-mother 

family, up from 2.9 percent in 1980. 

MEASURMENT

Use of welfare programs, like poverty, is a continuum, with variations in degree and duration. Families 

may be more or less reliant if larger or smaller shares of their total resources are derived from welfare 

programs. The amount of time over which families receive benefits from welfare programs might also be 

considered in assessing their degree of dependence. 

Although recognizing the difficulties inherent in defining and measuring dependence, a bipartisan 

Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators proposed that: a family is defined as dependent on welfare if more 

than 50 percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP 

(formerly Food Stamps) and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. 

Given data limitations, we are not able to identify which program benefits may be associated with 

recipient work activities. Thus, the definition of welfare dependence used in this report may characterize 

more individuals as welfare dependent than the Board had intended. We follow the Board’s proposal as 

closely as possible by adopting the following definition of possible welfare dependence among individuals 

in families5for use in this report: welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that 

receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI.

The report provides a number of key indicators of welfare dependence, recipiency, and labor force 

attachment. Also included is a broader set of risk factors associated with welfare receipt and potential 

dependence organized into three categories: 1) economic security measures, 2) measures related to 

employment and barriers to employment, and 3) measures of nonmarital childbearing. The key economic 

security risk factors include and supplement measures of poverty and well-being and are useful to ensure 

that predictors of receipt are not assessed in isolation. Measures related to employment and barriers to 

employment also may be useful since families must generally receive an adequate income from 

employment in order to avoid welfare programs without severe deprivation. Trends in nonmarital births 

are provided since the lower family incomes of single-parent families affects the need for and use of 

welfare programs. Historically a large percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients first became parents outside 

of marriage.

 

 

5 Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in 

this report.
xiii

DATA SOURCES AND TOPICS

This report uses data from the Current Population Survey (CPS) and administrative data for the TANF 

cash assistance program, SNAP, and the SSI program to provide updated measures through 2012 for the 

key dependence indicators in Chapter II. Other measures in Chapters II and III are based on the Survey 

of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) and other data 

sources. To provide a greater program context, the report has five appendices that provide additional 

historical as well as subnational data on major welfare programs, alternative measures of dependence 

and nonmarital births, as well as background information on several data and technical issues.

Unless otherwise noted, dollar values are reported in current dollars. 
I-1

Chapter I. Introduction and Overview

This 2015 report provides data on measures of welfare recipiency, dependence, and predictors of welfare 

dependence. The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-432) directed the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) to publish an annual report on welfare dependency. The Welfare Indicators 

Act further specified that a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators be established to provide 

advice and recommendations to the Secretary on the development of indictors and the development and 

presentation of annual reports required under the legislation. The Board assisted the Secretary in 

defining welfare dependence, developing indicators of welfare dependence, recipiency and associated 

risk factors, and choosing appropriate data.

The purpose of this report is to address questions concerning the extent to which American families 

depend on income from welfare programs. Under the Welfare Indicators Act, HHS was directed to 

address the rate of welfare dependence, the degree and duration of welfare recipiency and dependence, 

and predictors of welfare dependence. The Act further specified that analyses of means-tested 

assistance should include benefits under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program 

(which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program),6the Supplemental 

Security Income (SSI) program, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (formerly the 

Food Stamp Program).7 In this report we include information on cash assistance under the TANF and 

SSI programs and the cash value of food assistance benefits under SNAP. The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 included provisions that would change (in most cases temporarily) 

some aspects of these three programs; these changes are discussed below. 

This 2015 report, the fourteenth in the series, provides updated measures through 2012 for dependency 

measures based on the Current Population Survey (CPS), Annual Social and Economic Supplement. 

Data are available through 2012 for the Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) measures 

(based on the 2008 to 2012 SIPP panel) and through 2008 for the Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

(PSID) measures. 

Organization of Report

This introductory chapter provides an overview of the specific summary measure of welfare dependence 

proposed by a bipartisan Advisory Board8and how this measure was adopted for use in this report series. 

It also discusses summary measures of poverty, following the Advisory Board’s recommendation that 

dependence measures not be assessed in isolation from other measures of economic well-being. The 

introduction concludes with a discussion of data sources used for the report.

Chapter II of this report, Indicators of Dependence, presents ten indicators of welfare dependence and 

recipiency. These indicators include dependence measures based on total income from all three 

programs – TANF, SNAP, and SSI – as well as measures of recipiency for each of the three programs 

considered separately. Labor force participation among families receiving welfare and benefit receipt 

across multiple programs are also shown. The second half of the chapter includes longitudinal data on 

transitions on and off welfare programs and spells of program recipiency, including spells of TANF receipt 

among persons in families that have no attachment to the labor market. Also, this section includes a 

measure of long-term program receipt of up to 10 years, and a measure of events associated with the 

beginning and ending of program spells. 

 

6The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) repealed the Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

(AFDC) program and created a block grant program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in its place. The mandatory start date for 

TANF was July 1, 1997, but most states made the transition from AFDC before that date. Throughout the report we use AFDC/TANF to refer to cash 

assistance benefits received under these two programs.

7 The Food, Conservation and Energy Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-246) re-named the Food Stamp Program as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program (SNAP) as of October 1, 2008. The name change had no effect on the type of benefits or how they are made available to eligible households. 

8 The first annual report was produced under the oversight of a bipartisan Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators, which assisted the Secretary in 

defining welfare dependence, developing indicators of welfare dependence, and choosing appropriate data. Under the terms of the original authorizing 

legislation, the Advisory Board was terminated in October 1997, prior to the submission of the first annual report.
I-2

Chapter III, Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt, focuses on predictors of welfare 

dependence – risk factors believed to be associated with welfare receipt. These predictors are shown in 

three different groups:

(1) Economic security – including various measures of poverty, the effect of receipt of child 

support on poverty rates, and food insecurity – is important in predicting dependence because 

families with fewer economic resources are more likely to rely on welfare programs for their 

support. 

(2) Measures of the work status and potential barriers to employment of adult family members 

also are critical, because families must generally receive an adequate income from employment 

in order to avoid dependence without severe deprivation. 

(3) Finally, data on nonmarital births are important. According to SIPP data (see Indicator 10b) 

25.4 percent of single mother TANF entries were associated with a new child being added to the 

family during the 2008-2012 period. 

Additional data and technical notes are presented in four appendices. Appendix A provides basic 

program data on each of the main welfare programs and their recipients, including historical trends and 

subnational estimates. Appendix B shows how dependence is affected by the inclusion of benefits from 

the SSI program; Appendix C includes additional data on non-marital childbearing; Appendix D provides 

background information on several data and technical issues; and Appendix E explains the methodology 

behind calculating the poverty rate and the supplemental poverty rate. The main welfare programs in 

Appendix A include the following:

 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program provides monthly cash 

benefits and services to eligible families with children and is run directly by the states. Prior 

to 1996 welfare cash benefits were provided through the Aid to Families with Dependent 

Children (AFDC) program. Data on cash benefits under the TANF and AFDC programs are 

provided in Appendix A, with AFDC data provided from 1962 through June 1997, and TANF 

data from July 1997 through 2013. 

 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides monthly benefits to 

individuals living in families or alone, provided their income and assets are below limits set in 

federal law. Prior to October 1, 2008, these food assistance benefits were provided through 

the Food Stamp Program. Appendix A provides historical data on food assistance from 

1962 to 2013. 

 The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program provides monthly cash payments to 

elderly, blind or disabled individuals or couples whose income and assets are below levels 

set in federal law. Though the majority of recipients are adults, disabled children also are 

eligible. Historical data from 1974 through 2013 are provided in Appendix A. 

Measuring Welfare Dependence

This report focuses on welfare “dependence” as well as welfare “recipiency.” While recipiency can be 

defined based on the presence of benefits from TANF, SNAP, or SSI during a given time period, 

dependence is a more complex concept. Welfare dependence, like poverty, is a continuum, with 

variations in degree and in duration. Families may be more or less dependent if larger or smaller shares 

of their total resources are derived from welfare programs. The amount of time over which a family 

depends on welfare might also be considered in assessing its degree of dependence. Nevertheless, a 

summary measure of dependence to be used as an indicator for policy purposes must have some fixed 

parameters that allow one to determine which families should be counted as dependent, just as the 

poverty line defines who is poor under the official standard. The definition of dependence proposed by 

the Advisory Board for this purpose is as follows: A family is dependent on welfare if more than 50 

percent of its total income in a one-year period comes from TANF (which replaced AFDC), SNAP 

(formerly Food Stamps), and/or SSI, and this welfare income is not associated with work activities. In 
I-3

following the Board’s proposal, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among individuals 

in families9for use in this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than 

half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP, and/or SSI.

No definition of welfare dependence is without its limitations. The Advisory Board recognized that no 

single measure could capture fully all aspects of dependence and that their proposed measure should be 

examined in concert with other indicators of well-being. While the Board’s proposal would count 

unsubsidized and subsidized employment and work required to obtain benefits as work activities, existing 

data sources do not permit distinguishing between welfare income associated with work activities and 

non-work-related welfare benefits. As a result, the data shown in this report may overstate the incidence 

of dependence as conceptualized by the Advisory Board. In fiscal year 2012, 43.2 percent of all TANF 

adult recipients participated in some type of work activity during the reporting month compared with 7 

percent in 1992.

10 

Also, any definition of dependence represents an arbitrary choice of a percentage of income from welfare 

beyond which families will be considered dependent. But using a single point – in this case 50 percent –

yields a relatively straightforward measure that can be tracked easily over time, and is likely to be 

associated with any large changes in total dependence, however defined.

Figure SUM 1 and Table SUM 1 show the trend for the welfare dependency rate adopted for this report. 

Also, for comparison purposes, we include an annual “recipiency” measure that shows the proportion of 

all individuals in families that receive any benefits at any point during the year from TANF, SNAP, and/or 

SSI. Note that this measure of annual recipiency differs from average monthly recipiency rates presented 

elsewhere in this report (for example in Indicator 3 and Appendix A), where annual rates tend to be higher 

given the broader time period for observing benefit receipt than rates for one particular month or for an 

“average” month. See Appendix D for further discussion of annual and monthly measures in this report. 

Annual dependency and recipiency rates follow fairly similar trends and even before the Personal 

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 was passed, welfare 

recipiency and dependency were both in decline. The overall drop in the recipiency rates during the 

1990s is consistent with decreases in TANF participation, low unemployment, lower poverty rates, and 

overall economic expansion. The subsequent rise in the welfare program recipiency rate after 2000 

coincided with recessions in the early and then late 2000s, and is associated more with increases in SSI 

and SNAP receipt than TANF, where caseloads continue a general downward trend (see Indicator 3 for 

further information on trends in average monthly recipiency rates for each of the three programs). 

 

9 The unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this report is “individuals” rather than families or households. Appendix D provides more information 

on the use of individuals as the unit of analysis.

10 Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families, Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients, Fiscal Year 

2012. This 43.2 percent includes subsidized employment and work preparation activities (including subsidized jobs, on-the-job training, work 

experience or community services). The earnings of those in unsubsidized employment would be correctly captured as income from work in national 

surveys. Any welfare benefits associated with work experience, community service programs or other work activities, however, would be counted as 

income from welfare in most national surveys, a classification incompatible with the Advisory Board’s proposed definition.
I-4

Figure SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: 1993-2012

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year. 

Dependency is defined as living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. Dependency

rates would be lower if adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012,

analyzed using the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

The Great Recession, that officially began in late 2007 and lasted through mid-2009, reversed declines in 

welfare recipiency experienced in the late 1990s and exacerbated an upward trend in recipiency rates 

that began in 2001. As shown in Figure SUM 1, the annual dependency rate fell to a low of 3.0 percent in 

2000 and the annual recipiency rate declined to 12.5 percent. By 2010, the dependency rate hit a recent 

peak of 5.3 percent before decreasing to 5.1 percent in 2012. The welfare recipiency rate reached 22.7 

percent in 2010 and increased to 23.6 percent in 2012. 

In 2012, as in previous years, general patterns in welfare receipt are apparent. Recipiency and 

dependency rates are higher for Non-Hispanic Blacks and Hispanics of any race than they are for NonHispanic Whites, as shown in Table SUM 1. Recipiency and dependence are also higher for young 

children than they are for adults, and they are higher for individuals in female-headed families than they 

are for those in married-couple families. For those living in married-couple families, welfare recipiency 

rates increased from 8.8 percent in 2007 to 15.4 percent in 2012, a 6.6 percentage point increase. 

Hispanics of any race show a 12.6 percentage point increase in recipiency rates between 2007 and 2012. 

Adults age 65 and older experienced smaller increases in welfare recipiency than did other demographic 

groups. Their welfare recipiency rate increased from 10.6 percent to 13.7 percent over the 2007 to 2012 

period, a 3.1 percentage point increase.

Another factor affecting dependence is the time period observed. The summary measures shown in 

Figure SUM 1 and Table SUM 1 focus on recipiency and dependency rates measured on an annual, 

cross-sectional basis. Longitudinal measures of program receipt (both annual and monthly) show that 

program spells are typically short and long-term recipiency is rare (see Chapter II). Indicator 7, for 

example, shows that 79.6 percent of all TANF spells and 53.7 percent of all new SNAP spells lasted one 

year or less, with 50.5 percent and 28.7 percent, respectively, lasting four months or less. Over a longer 

period of time, Indicator 9 shows that among individuals receiving TANF at some point over a ten-year 

period ending in 2008, 8.0 percent received some TANF benefits during six or more years. Another fifth 

(20.5 percent) were recipients in three to five years, and more than two-thirds (71.5 percent) received 

TANF in only one or two years during this period. 

16.6 17.2 16.9

16.0

14.8

13.5 13.3

12.5 12.6 13.2

14.1

15.0

15.3 15.6 15.8

17.1

19.9

22.7 23.1 23.6

5.9 5.8 5.3 5.2

4.5

3.8 3.3 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.5 4.0 4.6

5.3 5.2 5.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2012

Recipiency Rate

Dependency Rate

(In percent)
I-5

Table SUM 1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates: Selected Years

1993 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Recipiency Rates (Rates of Any Amount of AFDC/TANF, SNAP or SSI)

All Persons 16.6 16.0 14.8 13.5 13.3 12.5 13.2 15.0 15.6 15.8 17.1 19.9 22.7 23.1 23.6

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 10.3 9.9 9.7 8.6 8.4 8.2 8.8 10.1 10.6 10.4 11.4 13.3 15.7 16.3 16.5

 Non-Hispanic Black 38.0 35.6 30.2 29.6 29.8 27.0 27.7 32.4 32.0 33.4 34.1 37.6 40.7 39.7 41.2

 Hispanic 34.6 32.0 28.0 24.5 23.4 21.0 21.7 22.6 23.8 24.6 27.6 32.9 36.9 36.4 37.2

Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 30.5 28.2 25.1 22.4 21.5 19.8 21.4 24.6 25.7 27.0 28.9 34.3 38.1 38.0 39.5

 Children ages 6-10 24.9 24.2 21.2 20.0 19.8 18.0 18.8 22.2 23.2 23.9 26.2 30.4 34.7 34.8 36.5

 Children ages 11-15 22.1 21.1 19.4 17.0 17.3 16.3 16.8 20.5 21.5 22.5 23.1 27.4 31.3 32.0 32.6

 Women ages 16-64 16.4 16.0 14.7 13.6 13.6 12.5 13.4 15.0 15.7 15.6 16.9 19.8 22.6 23.3 23.5

 Men ages 16-64 11.5 11.7 11.1 10.0 9.6 9.2 10.3 11.6 12.0 12.1 13.5 16.0 18.6 19.2 19.6

 Adults ages 65 and over 11.2 10.3 10.2 9.9 10.0 10.4 9.7 10.0 10.6 10.6 11.4 11.3 12.3 12.9 13.7

Family Categories

Persons in:

 Married-couple families 10.5 9.6 8.7 8.3 7.9 7.2 7.5 8.6 8.9 8.8 9.9 12.5 15.0 14.6 15.4

 Female-headed families 47.8 46.0 41.6 37.5 39.9 37.1 37.7 42.6 44.3 45.0 47.3 50.4 54.2 55.0 56.1

 Male-headed families 27.6 25.3 24.3 19.7 19.3 21.8 21.2 21.9 25.8 26.4 27.3 33.1 34.3 34.9 37.3

 Unrelated persons 9.7 11.5 11.9 10.9 10.0 10.1 11.5 12.7 12.6 12.4 14.1 15.5 18.0 20.0 19.3

Dependency Rates (More than 50 Percent of Income from AFDC/TANF, SNAP and/or SSI)

All Persons 5.9 5.2 4.5 3.8 3.3 3.0 3.2 3.7 3.7 3.5 4.0 4.6 5.3 5.2 5.1

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.1 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.2 3.3 3.1

 Non-Hispanic Black 17.8 13.8 11.4 10.5 9.1 7.7 8.7 10.0 9.5 9.4 10.2 11.1 12.5 12.3 12.0

 Hispanic 11.8 10.9 9.1 6.6 5.4 4.5 4.9 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.7 7.1 8.0 7.7 7.4

Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 13.9 11.2 9.3 7.8 6.2 6.0 6.0 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.6 9.1 9.5 10.2 9.6

 Children ages 6-10 11.2 9.5 8.4 6.7 6.1 5.1 5.1 6.0 5.7 5.3 6.3 7.5 8.4 8.4 8.3

 Children ages 11-15 9.3 8.1 7.4 5.7 4.5 4.0 4.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.3 6.3 7.1 7.1 7.1

 Women ages 16-64 5.9 5.2 4.6 3.9 3.5 3.0 3.4 3.7 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.8 5.5 5.7 5.5

 Men ages 16-64 2.7 2.7 2.5 2.1 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.4 2.5 2.3 2.8 3.2 4.0 3.7 3.7

 Adults ages 65 and over 2.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.4 2.3 2.5

Family Categories

Persons in:

 Married-couple families 1.8 1.7 1.4 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8

 Female-headed families 25.7 21.1 18.4 15.0 13.6 11.4 11.7 13.8 13.2 12.6 13.4 14.6 16.4 16.2 15.8

 Male-headed families 6.8 5.4 5.6 4.2 3.0 4.4 3.8 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.7 6.4 6.5 5.9 5.8

 Unrelated persons 3.8 4.2 4.2 4.2 3.4 3.8 4.1 4.5 4.7 4.3 5.2 5.8 6.8 6.8 6.9

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year. Dependency is defined as 

living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. Dependency rates would be lower if 

adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. Spouses are not present in the male-headed and female-headed family categories. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. 

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample 

size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.
I-6

Measuring Economic Well-Being

To assess the social impacts of any change in dependence, changes in the level of poverty should be 

considered. This report focuses on the official poverty rate, the most common poverty measure. 

Additional measures of poverty and need also are included under the Economic Risk Factors found in 

Chapter III.

Figure SUM 2a. Number Poor under 18 Years of Age & Poverty Rate, 1959–2013

Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, “Income and Poverty in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 and data published 

online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2013/index.html.

As shown in Figure Sum 2a, the child poverty rate for all persons under 18 is 19.9 percent in 2013 (see 

Table ECON 1 for further details). This is down from the recent peak of 22.0 percent in 2010, just after 

the end of the Great Recession. Earlier historical trends in child poverty rates also generally have 

followed similar patterns to broader economic expansions and contractions.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and Welfare Benefits

On February 13, 2009, Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA (Public 

Law 111-5) in response to the economic crisis, often referred to as “the Great Recession”. The Recovery 

Act had three immediate goals: create new jobs and save existing ones; spur economic activity and 

invest in long-term growth; and foster levels of accountability and transparency in government spending. 

The Recovery Act intended to achieve these goals by providing $787 billion in: tax cuts and benefits for 

working families and businesses; funding for federal contracts, grants and loans11; and funding for 

entitlement programs. The SNAP, TANF, and SSI entitlements all were temporarily impacted by the 

ARRA legislation.

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)

Households are eligible to receive SNAP benefits based on household income, assets, and certain basic 

expenses. ARRA increased benefits for all households and temporarily expanded program eligibility for 

jobless adults12. The USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), the agency that administers SNAP at the 

Federal level, reported that in fiscal year 2008, the year prior to ARRA, an estimated 39 million people13

 

11 http://www.recovery.gov/About/Pages/The_Act.aspx

12 USDA, Economic Research Service, Report Number 116, “Food Security Improved Following the 2009 ARRA Increase in SNAP Benefits.” 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err116.aspx and FNS Key Data, Nation Data Bank, Table 2, 2008 and 2012.

13 Note that while these participation rates are for individuals, Indicator 4 shows the participation rates for households.

27.3

22.3 22.7 22.0

19.9 17.6

13.9

15.7 16.3

14.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1959 1964 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

Rate (percent)

Number (millions)

Number in poverty

Poverty rate
I-7

were eligible for SNAP benefits in a typical month and 27 million (71 percent) took-up the program. By 

2012, 51 million people were eligible for SNAP and 42 million participated in the program resulting in a 

participation or “take-up” rate of 83.1 percent14. According to SNAP administrative data, the SNAP 

caseload increased from 28.2 million participants in 2008 to 46.6 million in 2012, an increase of 65.2

percent. In an average month in fiscal year 2012 (ending September 30, 2012), SNAP provided benefits 

to 14.8 percent of the population. The average benefit in 2012 was $133.41 per person per month and 

the total Federal expenditure for the program was $78.4 billion. 

ARRA increased SNAP benefit levels for all households. Maximum benefits increased by 13.6 percent, 

or $80 per month for a family of four15. Because SNAP benefit amounts are based on household net 

income, the ARRA benefit increase was effectively a constant dollar increase for each household size. 

Therefore, the percentage increase was greater for households that had some net income and were 

therefore eligible for less than the maximum benefit. For example, prior to ARRA, a household of four 

with a monthly net income of $980 qualified for $294 in SNAP benefits—half the maximum benefit for a 

household of that size. Under ARRA, that household received $374 in SNAP benefits—an increase of 

27.2 percent. Households with no income net of allowable deductions received the maximum SNAP 

benefit, $588 before ARRA, and $668 after ARRA, for a household of four. 

Figure SUM 2b. Number & Percent of Children Receiving SNAP (Food Stamps), 1980–2012

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Households: Fiscal 

Year 2012 and earlier reports, http://www.fns.usda.gov/characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-households-fiscal-year-2012; U.S.

Census Bureau, http://www.census.gov/popest/data/index.html; calculations by ASPE.

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

The Recovery Act provided up to $5 billion in supplemental funding to the Emergency Contingency Fund 

(Emergency Fund), which is administered by the Office of Family Assistance within the Administration for 

Children and Families16. The funds were intended to provide additional revenue to States, territories, and 

 

14 Sources: SNAP Program Operations data, SNAP QC data, and CPS ASEC data for the years shown. 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Trends2010-2012.pdf 

15 http://www.ers.usda.gov/amberwaves/June11/features/foodsecuritysnap.htm

16 Catalogue for Domestic Assistance, ARRA – Emergency Contingency Fund for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) State Program.

https://www.cfda.gov/index?s=program&mode=form&tab=step1&id=82b17b73ae63786a4dd9d3e212008aa8

15.5

21.0

27.8

9.9

14.4

20.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

Rate (percent)

Number (millions)

Number receiving

 SNAP

Percent receiving

 SNAP
I-8

tribes that had an increase in caseloads and basic assistance expenditures, or had an increase in 

expenditures related to short-term benefits or subsidized employment. The funds were awarded on a 

first-come, first-served basis, and were used in the same way that the annual Federal TANF block grants 

funds were spent, except a jurisdiction could not transfer the funds to other ACF block grant programs. 

States, tribes, and territories were eligible to receive the funds through September 30, 2010. Emergency 

Funds were reimbursed to these jurisdictions for 80 percent of the cost of increased spending in three 

areas: basic assistance, non-recurrent short-term benefits, and subsidized employment for low-income 

parents and youth.

Supplemental Security Insurance (SSI) 

The ARRA provided a one-time payment of $250 to adult Social Security beneficiaries and SSI recipients, 

except those receiving Medicaid in care facilities. To receive the payment, the person had to be eligible 

for Social Security or SSI during the months of November 2008, December 2008 or January 2009. 

The Recovery Act also provided a one-time payment to Veterans Affairs (VA) and Railroad Retirement 

Board (RRB) beneficiaries. The VA and RRB were responsible for paying individuals under their 

respective programs. However, if someone received Social Security and SSI, VA or RRB benefits, he or 

she would receive only one $250 payment. 

Data Sources

The primary data sources for this report are the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Survey of Income 

and Program Participation (SIPP), the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and administrative data 

for the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs. Wherever possible, the current report includes updated 

estimates for indicators and risk factors through 2012.

For our key measures of receipt, dependency and poverty at a single point in time, the report primarily 

uses the Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the CPS, which measures income, poverty, and 

benefit receipt across a broad range of social safety net programs over an annual accounting period. 

This allows for estimating and tracking measures that combine the three welfare programs specified in 

the Welfare Indicators Act and that compare the levels of program benefits received by families with 

levels of other family income sources. The release of CPS data is timely and CPS data have the added 

benefit that they may be analyzed with the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3) to correct for the 

underreporting of welfare program receipt and benefits that is often present in survey data. TRIM3 is a 

microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Welfare caseloads in TRIM3 are based on CPS data, adjusted 

upward to ensure that total estimates of recipients across multiple social welfare programs equal the total 

counts from administrative data. To maintain consistency in data trends in this report, we present 

estimates based on CPS data analyzed by TRIM3 beginning in 1993, the first year the TRIM3 

microsimulation model became available.

For indicators and risk factors that capture the monthly dynamics of welfare receipt over time, we use the 

SIPP. The SIPP collects monthly survey data on income and program participation among individuals 

and families across the country in panels that last roughly three to four years. While the CPS collects 

data on the incidence of welfare program receipt and poverty in a given year, the SIPP allows us to 

present monthly data on how long individuals and families receive welfare assistance and how long they 

remain poor over a time span of several years. The current report includes updated estimates for the 

SIPP measures based on newly available data from the 2008 SIPP panel, spanning from 2008 to 2012. 

The Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is another source of data used in this report. Like the SIPP 

it provides longitudinal data, but over a much longer time period than the three- to four-year time period of 

each SIPP panel. With annual data on program receipt since 1968, the PSID provides vital data for 

measuring longer-term welfare use over periods of up to 10 years. Because the PSID indicators cover 

time spans as long as a decade, they are updated less frequently than the CPS-based and SIPP-based 

measures.

This report also draws upon administrative data for the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs. These data are 

largely reported in Appendix A. Like the CPS data, administrative data are available with minimal time 
I-9

lags; for the current report, administrative data are generally available through fiscal year (FY) 2012. To 

the extent possible, TANF administrative data are reported in a consistent manner with data from the 

earlier AFDC program, as noted in the footnotes to the tables in Appendix A. Assistance under locally 

designed TANF programs encompasses a diverse set of cash and non-cash benefits designed to support 

families in making a transition to work, and so direct comparisons between AFDC receipt and TANF 

receipt should be made with caution. This issue also affects reported data on AFDC and TANF receipt in 

national data sets such as the CPS, SIPP, and PSID.

For further technical information about the data presented in the report please see Appendix D.
I-10
II-1

Chapter II. Indicators of Dependence

Chapter II presents summary data related to indicators of dependence. These indicators differ from other 

welfare statistics because of their emphasis on welfare dependence, rather than simply welfare receipt. 

As discussed in Chapter I, the Advisory Board on Welfare Indicators suggested that families be 

considered dependent if more than 50 percent of their total income in a one-year period comes from cash 

assistance through the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program (which replaced the 

Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program), Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP, formerly Food Stamps), and/or Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. Furthermore, this 

welfare income was not to be associated with work activities. Existing data from administrative records 

and national surveys, however, do not generally distinguish welfare benefits received in conjunction with 

work from benefits received without work. Thus, it was not possible to construct one single indicator of 

dependence that captured fully the Advisory Board’s recommendation; that is, one indicator based on the 

percentage of income from means-tested assistance only if this income is not associated with work 

activities. As discussed in Chapter I, we adopt the following definition of welfare dependence among 

individuals in families17 for use in this report:

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that receive more than 

half of their total family income in one year from TANF, SNAP and/or SSI.

The ten indicators in Chapter II were selected to provide information about the range and depth of 

dependence as proposed by the Advisory Board, including indicators that measure the presence of 

employment activities. This chapter focuses on recipients of three major means-tested cash and 

nutritional assistance programs: cash assistance through the AFDC and TANF programs, benefits under 

the Food Stamp Program and the SNAP, and SSI benefits for elderly and disabled recipients. For some 

indicators, summary data and characteristics are provided for all recipients, not just those defined as 

welfare-dependent. While a number of indicators focus on the percentage of recipients’ income from 

means-tested assistance, other indicators focus on presence of work activities at the same time as 

welfare receipt. 

Indicator Summary

Indicator 1: Degree of Dependence. This indicator focuses most closely on those individuals who meet 

the Advisory Board’s proposed definition of “dependence.” In addition to examining individuals with more 

than 50 percent of their annual family income from AFDC/TANF cash assistance, Food Stamps/SNAP, 

and/or SSI benefits, it shows various levels of dependency. This indicator also shows the average 

percentage of income from means-tested assistance and earnings received by families with various levels 

of income relative to the poverty level. 

Indicator 2: Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force Attachment. This indicator looks 

further at the relationship between receipt of means-tested assistance and participation in the labor force

and identifying labor force status by welfare receipt. This is an important issue because of the significant 

number of low-income individuals that receive a combination of means-tested assistance and earnings 

from the labor force.

Indicator 3: Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance. This indicator paints yet another picture of 

dependence by measuring average monthly recipiency rates, that is, the percentage of the population 

that receives AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP or SSI in an average month. Administrative data for the 

AFDC/TANF, SNAP and SSI programs make these figures readily available over time, allowing a better 

sense of historical trends than is available from the more specialized indicators of dependence.

 

17 Appendix D provides more information on the use of individuals, rather than families or households, as the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in 

this report.
II-12

Indicator 4: Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs. While means-tested public 

assistance programs can serve those that meet each program’s requirements, not all eligible individuals 

and households participate in the programs. This indicator uses AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP and 

SSI administrative data and microsimulation models to reflect “take-up rates” – the number of families that 

actually participate in the programs as a percentage of those who are estimated to be legally eligible.

Indicator 5: Multiple Program Receipt. Depending on their circumstances, individuals may choose a 

variety of different means-tested assistance “packages.” This indicator looks at the percentage of 

individuals receiving AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP and SSI in a month, examining how many rely on 

just one of these programs, and how many rely on a combination of two or more programs.

Indicator 6: Dependence Transitions. This indicator uses data from the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP) to look at whether individuals dependent on welfare in one year make the transition 

out of dependence in the following year. 

Indicator 7: Program Spell Duration. This indicator uses data from the Survey of Income and Program 

Participation (SIPP). One critical aspect of dependence is how long individuals receive means-tested 

assistance. This indicator provides information on short, medium and long spells of welfare receipt for 

each of the three major means-tested programs – AFDC/TANF, the SNAP, and SSI.

Indicator 8: Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment. This indicator is concerned with 

dynamics of welfare receipt among persons in families with no attachment to the labor market. It differs 

from Indicator 7 in that it provides information on spells of TANF receipt during months where no one in 

the family worked or was officially unemployed.

Indicator 9: Long Term Receipt. Many individuals who leave welfare programs cycle back on after an 

absence of several months. Thus it is important to look beyond individual program spells, measured in 

Indicator 7, to examine the cumulative amount of time individuals receive assistance over a period of 

several years.

Indicator 10: Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of Program Spells. To gain a better 

understanding of welfare dynamics, it is important to go beyond measures of spell duration and examine 

information regarding the major events in people’s lives that are correlated with the beginnings or endings 

of program spells. This measure focuses on receipt of TANF. 
II-3

INDICATOR 1. Degree of Dependence 

Figure IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 2012

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP benefits. Total >50% includes all persons with more than 50 percent of their total 

annual family income from these means-tested programs. Income includes cash income and the value of SNAP benefits. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.

 Figure IND 1a shows the percentage of persons 

in families with varying degrees of total income 

that derived from means-tested assistance 

programs in 2012.

 The majority of persons (76.4 percent) lived in 

families that received no income from meanstested assistance programs in 2012. 

 Twenty-four (23.6) percent of all persons lived in 

families that received means-tested assistance. 

Five (5.1) percent of persons lived in families 

that received more than half of their income from 

means-tested assistance programs. These 

persons would be considered welfare dependent 

under the definition of dependence used in this 

report.18 

 Table IND 1a shows the percentage of persons 

in families with varying degrees of reliance on 

income from means-tested assistance programs 

by selected demographic characteristics. 

Among racial and ethnic groups, Non-Hispanic 

Blacks were more likely to be welfare dependent 

(12.0 percent) than were Non-Hispanic Whites 

(3.1 percent) or Hispanics of any race (7.4

percent). 

 

18 For a discussion on defining welfare dependence, please see 

“Measuring Welfare Dependence” in Chapter I.

 Among age categories, children, particularly 

from birth to 5 years of age, were more likely to 

live in families that were welfare dependent than 

were persons age 16 and older.

 Among family types, persons living in femaleheaded families were more likely to be welfare 

dependent than those in other family categories. 

 Table IND 1b shows trends in welfare 

dependence between 1993 and 2012. Welfare 

dependence was highest in 1993 at 5.9 percent. 

Welfare dependence declined between 1993 

and 2000. After 2000, the downward trend in 

welfare dependence reversed. Dependency

increased from 3.0 percent in 2000 to 5.3 

percent in 2010, before beginning to decline 

again with 5.1 percent of the population defined 

as welfare dependent in 2012.

76.4

14.3

4.2

5.1

0% > 0% and <= 25% > 25% and <=50% Total > 50%
II-4

Table IND 1a. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

0% > 0% and 

<= 25%

> 25% and 

<= 50%

> 50% and 

<= 75%

> 75% and 

<= 100%

Total 

> 50%

All Persons 76.4 14.3 4.2 1.7 3.4 5.1

 Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 83.5 10.8 2.6 1.0 2.1 3.1

 Non-Hispanic Black 58.8 20.9 8.3 3.4 8.6 12.0

 Hispanic 62.8 22.6 7.3 2.7 4.6 7.4

 Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 60.5 21.4 8.5 3.6 6.0 9.6

 Children ages 6-10 63.5 20.0 8.2 3.3 5.0 8.3

 Children ages 11-15 67.4 19.0 6.5 2.9 4.3 7.1

 Women ages 16-64 76.5 14.0 4.0 1.6 3.9 5.5

 Men ages 16-64 80.4 12.9 3.0 1.1 2.6 3.7

 Adults ages 65 and over 86.3 9.1 2.1 0.7 1.7 2.5

 Family Categories

 Persons in married-couple families 84.6 11.0 2.5 0.8 1.0 1.8

 Persons in female-headed families 43.9 28.0 12.3 5.8 10.0 15.8

 Persons in male-headed families 62.7 24.7 6.7 2.1 3.7 5.8

 Unrelated persons 80.7 10.3 2.1 1.0 5.9 6.9

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP. Total >50% includes all persons with more than 50 percent of their total annual family 

income from these means-tested programs. Income includes cash income and the value of SNAP benefits. Spouses are not present in the femaleheaded and male-headed family categories. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. 

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample 

size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model. 

Table IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1993-2012

0% > 0% and

<= 25%

> 25% and 

<= 50%

> 50% and 

<= 75%

> 75% and 

<= 100%

Total 

> 50%

1993 83.4 7.8 3.0 1.8 4.1 5.9

1994 82.8 8.4 3.1 1.8 4.0 5.8

1995 83.2 8.5 3.1 1.8 3.5 5.3

1996 84.0 7.8 3.1 1.9 3.3 5.2

1997 85.3 7.7 2.5 1.5 3.1 4.5

1998 86.5 7.3 2.5 1.3 2.5 3.8

1999 86.7 7.7 2.3 1.1 2.2 3.3

2000 87.5 7.3 2.2 1.0 2.0 3.0

2001 87.4 7.3 2.2 1.0 2.1 3.1

2002 86.8 7.8 2.3 1.0 2.1 3.2

2003 85.9 8.2 2.4 1.1 2.4 3.6

2004 85.0 8.8 2.5 1.1 2.5 3.7

2005 84.7 8.9 2.6 1.1 2.7 3.8

2006 84.4 9.3 2.6 1.1 2.6 3.7

2007 84.1 9.7 2.8 1.1 2.3 3.4

2008 82.9 10.3 2.8 1.1 2.8 4.0

2009 80.1 11.4 3.9 1.5 3.1 4.6

2010 77.3 13.2 4.2 1.7 3.6 5.3

2011 76.9 13.8 4.1 1.7 3.5 5.2

2012 76.4 14.3 4.2 1.7 3.4 5.1

Note: Means-tested assistance includes TANF, SSI and SNAP. Total >50% includes all persons with more than 50 percent of their total annual family 

income from these means-tested programs. Income includes cash income and the value of SNAP benefits.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.
II-5

Figure IND 1b. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status: 2012

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. Other income is non-means-tested, non-earnings income such 

as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3

microsimulation model.

 Figure IND 1b shows sources of income 

by poverty status in 2012. There is a 

clear association between poverty 

status and receiving income from 

means-tested assistance programs. 

 Persons in families with incomes below 

the poverty line received 42.6 percent of 

their income from earnings and 38.2

percent from means-tested assistance 

programs. Persons in families with 

incomes at 200 percent or more of the 

poverty line received 85.7 percent of 

their income from earnings and 0.2 

percent of their income from meanstested assistance programs. 

 The percentage of family income that 

comes from earnings is inversely 

proportional to overall family income 

relative to the poverty line. For 

example, the percentage of income 

received from earnings for persons in 

families living in deep poverty (below 50 

percent of the poverty line) was 22.7 

percent compared to 42.6 percent for all 

poor persons in 2012.

● Table IND 1c shows sources of income 

by poverty status for various 

demographic groups. On average, 

persons in married-couple families and 

male heads of household receive higher 

proportions of their family income from 

earnings than do female heads of 

households.

 Table IND 1d shows the percentage of 

income from various sources across 

selected years. The percentage of 

income received from earnings for 

persons in families with incomes below 

the poverty line increased from 40.4 

percent in 1995 to 49.5 percent in 2000. 

In 2012, the rate had decreased to 42.6

percent. 

 Over the same time period, the 

percentage of income from meanstested programs among persons in poor 

families decreased from 41.3 percent in 

1995 to 30.3 percent in 2000. In 2012, 

the rate increased to 38.2 percent.

63.5

38.2

15.0 0.2 1.8

13.8

19.1

22.4

14.1 14.9

22.7

42.6

62.6

85.7 83.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

<50% of poverty <100% of poverty <200% of poverty 200%+ of poverty All income levels

 TANF, SSI and SNAP Other income Earnings

(In percent)
II-6

Table IND 1c. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources by Poverty Status and Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

<50% Poverty <100% of 

Poverty

<200% of 

Poverty

200%+ of 

Poverty

All

Persons

All Persons

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 63.5 38.2 15.0 0.2 1.8

 Earnings 22.7 42.6 62.6 85.7 83.3

 Other income 13.8 19.1 22.4 14.1 14.9

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 59.8 36.7 12.1 0.1 0.9

 Earnings 23.1 37.5 57.0 84.5 82.6

 Other income 17.0 25.7 30.9 15.4 16.4

 Non-Hispanic Black

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 69.7 47.3 23.4 0.5 5.1

 Earnings 17.9 33.5 54.9 85.6 79.4

 Other income 12.4 19.2 21.7 13.9 15.5

 Hispanic

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 61.3 33.0 14.1 0.6 4.1

 Earnings 27.4 54.9 74.5 90.8 86.6

 Other income 11.3 12.1 11.4 8.7 9.4

Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 67.2 41.8 19.2 0.2 3.5

 Earnings 22.4 46.3 70.8 94.5 90.3

 Other income 10.4 11.9 10.0 5.3 6.1

 Children ages 6-10

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 67.1 40.6 18.4 0.2 3.1

 Earnings 20.9 46.2 70.6 93.9 90.2

 Other income 12.0 13.2 11.0 5.9 6.7

 Children ages 11-15

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 65.7 40.2 16.8 0.2 2.6

 Earnings 20.9 44.9 69.4 92.7 89.3

 Other income 13.4 14.9 13.8 7.2 8.1

 Women ages 16-64

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 62.9 38.7 15.4 0.2 1.6

 Earnings 22.5 42.2 65.6 89.2 87.0

 Other income 14.6 19.2 19.0 10.5 11.3

 Men ages 16-64

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 57.2 34.3 12.7 0.2 1.2

 Earnings 27.4 45.8 68.9 90.6 88.9

 Other income 15.5 19.9 18.4 9.1 9.9

 Adults ages 65 and over

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 53.7 31.3 8.9 0.3 1.2

 Earnings 7.5 7.3 11.8 42.8 39.7

 Other income 38.8 61.3 79.3 56.9 59.1

Family Categories

 Persons in married-couple families

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 57.7 31.1 10.6 0.2 0.9

 Earnings 28.1 54.3 71.7 86.7 85.6

 Other income 14.2 14.6 17.7 13.2 13.5

 Persons in female-headed families

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 70.6 46.5 25.5 1.0 8.7

 Earnings 16.8 35.4 53.9 81.3 72.7

 Other income 12.7 18.1 20.6 17.7 18.6

 Persons in male-headed families

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 61.5 39.3 16.2 0.7 3.4

 Earnings 27.1 43.6 64.2 86.5 82.5

 Other income 11.4 17.2 19.6 12.9 14.0

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. Other income is non-means-tested, non-earnings income 

such as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive. 

Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed family categories. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 

2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the 

total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native 

Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.
II-7

Table IND 1d. Percentage of Total Income from Various Sources: Selected Years

< 50% 

Poverty

<100% of

Poverty

<200% of 

Poverty

200%+ of 

Poverty

1995

 AFDC, SSI and Food Stamps 65.9 41.3 14.2 0.3

 Earnings 22.5 40.4 64.8 85.4

 Other income 11.6 18.3 21.0 14.3

1998

 AFDC, SSI and Food Stamps 58.9 32.0 10.6 0.2

 Earnings 27.0 47.9 67.8 85.3

 Other income 14.1 20.1 21.6 14.5

2000

 TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 54.3 30.3 9.8 0.2

 Earnings 30.5 49.5 68.7 86.7

 Other income 15.2 20.3 21.5 13.0

2004

 TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.4 31.1 10.4 0.2

 Earnings 25.7 48.2 67.2 86.8

 Other income 15.9 20.7 22.4 13.0

2005

 TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.5 32.5 10.4 0.2

 Earnings 25.3 46.6 68.2 86.6

 Other income 16.2 20.8 21.4 13.2

2006

 TANF, SSI and Food Stamps 58.2 31.4 10.4 0.2

 Earnings 27.7 48.3 68.6 86.5

 Other income 14.1 20.3 21.0 13.3

2009

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 62.0 35.8 13.6 0.2

 Earnings 25.2 44.2 62.8 85.8

 Other income 12.8 20.0 23.6 14.0

2010

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 64.6 38.1 14.9 0.2

 Earnings 21.7 41.7 61.7 85.6

 Other income 13.6 20.3 23.4 14.2

2011

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 65.4 37.8 14.5 0.2

 Earnings 21.2 42.4 62.5 85.7

 Other income 13.5 19.8 23.0 14.1

2012

 TANF, SSI and SNAP 63.5 38.2 15.0 0.2

 Earnings 22.7 42.6 62.6 85.7

 Other income 13.8 19.1 22.4 14.1

Note: Total income is total annual family income, including the value of SNAP benefits. Other income is non-means-tested, non-earnings income 

such as child support, alimony, pensions, Social Security benefits, interest and dividends. Poverty status categories are not mutually exclusive.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2012, analyzed using the 

TRIM3 microsimulation model.
II-8

INDICATOR 2. Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance and Labor Force 

Attachment 

Figure IND 2. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by

Program: 2012

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 

35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes those who usually worked less than 35 hours per week. “Looking for work” 

includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off and/or looking for work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of 

individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family member in the same month. Also note that lower family employment rates are 

reported in TANF administrative data, which are limited to the employment of family members in the TANF assistance unit and employment reported to 

welfare agencies (see Table TANF 7 in Appendix A).

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3

microsimulation model.

 Figure IND 2 shows the percentage of 

recipients in families with labor force 

participants by program in 2012. Of recipients 

across the three programs, SNAP recipients 

were most likely to live in families with labor 

force participants (64.7 percent), including 

37.3 percent in families with at least one fulltime worker. This was followed by TANF 

recipients where 56.7 percent lived in families 

with labor force participants, including 23.5 

percent of TANF recipients living with a fulltime worker.

 In 2012, SSI recipients were more likely to live 

in families with no labor force participants 

(60.9 percent) than were TANF recipients 

(43.3 percent) or SNAP recipients (35.3 

percent). 

 Table IND 2a shows the percentage of 

recipients in families with labor force 

participants by program and demographic 

characteristics. Among TANF, SNAP, and 

SSI recipients, Hispanics were more likely 

than other groups to live in families with at 

least one full-time worker (27.8, 48.6 and 32.9 

percent, respectively, for each program).

● Table IND 2b shows additional information on 

the percentage of AFDC/TANF recipients 

living in families with labor force participants 

over time.

43.3

35.3

60.9

14.6

11.0

5.5

18.6

16.5

8.1

23.5

37.3

25.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

TANF SNAP SSI

 At least one full-time worker

 At least one person part-time, no full-time participants

 At least one person looking, no part-time or full-time participants

 No one in labor force

(In percent)
II-9

Table IND 2a. Percentage of Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants by Program and 

Selected Characteristics: 2012

At least one in labor force, no one full time

No one in

labor force

At least one 

looking,

no one 

working

At least one 

part-time,

no one fulltime

Total with at 

least one in 

labor force, no 

one full-time

At least

one 

full-time 

worker

TANF All Persons 43.3 14.6 18.6 33.2 23.5

 Non-Hispanic White 42.4 15.0 19.5 34.4 23.2

 Non-Hispanic Black 47.8 19.2 14.9 34.0 18.2

 Hispanic 40.1 10.3 21.7 32.0 27.8

 Children ages 0-5 42.6 13.9 16.9 30.8 26.7

 Children ages 6-10 45.0 13.1 18.2 31.3 23.7

 Children ages 11-15 43.4 13.6 21.5 35.1 21.6

 Women ages 16-64 43.3 16.5 19.4 35.9 20.8

 Men ages 16-64 41.8 16.8 16.9 33.7 24.5

 Adults ages 65 and over NA NA NA NA NA

 Persons in married-couple families 24.6 11.8 18.9 30.7 44.7

 Persons in female-headed families 49.1 15.7 18.7 34.5 16.4

 Persons in male-headed families 43.4 12.5 16.0 28.5 28.0

 Unrelated persons 68.6 6.7 19.5 26.2 5.2

SNAP All Persons 35.3 11.0 16.5 27.4 37.3

 Non-Hispanic White 39.3 10.6 16.6 27.2 33.5

 Non-Hispanic Black 36.9 14.0 16.7 30.6 32.5

 Hispanic 26.8 8.5 16.1 24.6 48.6

 Children ages 0-5 24.2 9.8 18.2 28.0 47.8

 Children ages 6-10 24.3 9.7 18.0 27.7 48.0

 Children ages 11-15 24.7 10.6 18.8 29.3 46.0

 Women ages 16-64 37.1 11.5 17.6 29.1 33.7

 Men ages 16-64 36.7 14.0 15.3 29.2 34.1

 Adults ages 65 and over 81.6 4.0 5.2 9.2 9.2

 Persons in married-couple families 20.4 9.0 15.7 24.7 54.9

 Persons in female-headed families 34.5 11.6 20.1 31.7 33.9

 Persons in male-headed families 28.6 14.2 15.2 29.4 42.0

 Unrelated persons 69.9 12.0 10.2 22.1 7.9

SSI All Persons 60.9 5.5 8.1 13.6 25.5

 Non-Hispanic White 65.8 5.1 7.5 12.6 21.6

 Non-Hispanic Black 66.2 6.2 7.3 13.5 20.3

 Hispanic 52.0 5.1 10.0 15.1 32.9

 Children ages 0-5 33.0 10.7 7.3 18.0 48.9

 Children ages 6-10 40.3 12.6 8.8 21.5 38.2

 Children ages 11-15 41.4 8.3 15.6 23.9 34.7

 Women ages 16-64 67.9 5.4 7.2 12.5 19.5

 Men ages 16-64 63.3 5.0 8.2 13.1 23.5

 Adults ages 65 and over 61.7 3.5 7.7 11.2 27.1

 Persons in married-couple families 35.5 5.9 11.4 17.2 47.3

 Persons in female-headed families 52.7 8.1 10.6 18.7 28.6

 Persons in male-headed families 46.8 8.6 8.4 17.1 36.1

 Unrelated persons 93.9 2.1 3.0 5.1 1.0

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 

35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes those who usually worked less than 35 hours per week. “Looking for work” 

includes individuals who are unemployed, laid off and/or looking for work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of 

individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family member in the same month. Spouses are not present in the female-headed and 

male-headed family categories.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. 

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample 

size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.
II-10

Table IND 2b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients in Families with Labor Force Participants: 

1993-2012

In the Labor Force

No One in LF Total

At Least One in LF, 

No One FT

At Least One

FT Worker

1993 57.0 43.0 24.2 18.8

1994 54.8 45.2 24.8 20.4

1995 50.6 49.4 24.3 25.1

1996 50.1 49.9 25.6 24.3

1997 47.6 52.4 28.0 24.4

1998 44.3 55.7 25.8 29.9

1999 40.8 59.2 24.1 35.1

2000 41.2 58.8 24.1 34.7

2001 38.7 61.3 26.0 35.3

2002 39.8 60.1 25.8 34.3

2003 47.4 52.6 24.1 28.5

2004 48.0 51.9 23.8 28.1

2005 47.7 52.3 25.4 26.9

2006 46.6 53.4 21.2 32.2

2007 46.4 53.6 23.4 30.2

2008 45.6 54.4 27.2 27.2

2009 43.3 56.7 30.7 26.0

2010 43.5 56.5 31.4 25.1

2011 41.0 59.0 35.2 23.8

2012 43.3 56.7 33.2 23.5

Note: Recipients are limited to those individuals or family members directly receiving benefits in a month. Full-time workers are those who usually work 

35 hours or more per week. Part-time labor force participation includes part-time workers and those who are unemployed, laid off and/or looking for 

work. This indicator measures, on an average monthly basis, the combination of individual benefit receipt and labor force participation by any family 

member in the same month. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994 - 2012, analyzed using the 

TRIM3 microsimulation model.
II-11

INDICATOR 3. Rates of Receipt of Means-Tested Assistance

Figure IND 3a. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF: 1975-2012

Note: See Appendix A, Tables TANF 2, TANF 12 and TANF 14, for more detailed data on recipiency rates, including recipiency rates by calendar 

year. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories. Tribal 

TANF recipients also are excluded. Child recipients include a small number of dependents ages 18 and older who are students. The average number 

of adult and child recipients in 1998 and 1999 are estimated using data from the National Emergency TANF Data Files and thereafter using the 

National TANF Data Files. Beginning in 2000, the data include both TANF and SSP (Separate State Program) recipients who have comprised as 

much as 11 percent of total recipients. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Population 

denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).

 Figure IND 3a shows the percentage of the 

population who received income from the 

AFDC program or the TANF program by age 

group from 1975 to 2012.

 Table IND 3a shows the number and 

percentage of the population receiving 

AFDC/TANF by age between 1970 and 

2012. In 1993, 5.4 percent of the population 

received income from AFDC. In 2012 the 

TANF recipiency rate was 1.4 percent, a 

sharp decline from pre-welfare reform levels. 

 AFDC/TANF recipiency rates have been 

higher and have had more pronounced 

changes over time for children than for 

adults. Between 1993 and 2012, 

AFDC/TANF receipt among children 

decreased from 13.9 percent to 4.5 percent

in 2012. During the same period, adult 

recipients decreased from 2.3 percent to 0.5 

percent. 

All persons

Adults

Children

5.0

5.4

1.4

2.1

2.3

0.5

11.5 11.8

13.9

4.5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2009 2012

(In percent)
II-12

Table IND 3a. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving AFDC/TANF by Age: 

1970-2012

Total Recipients Adult Recipients Child Recipients

Fiscal Year

Number 

(thousands) Percent Number 

(thousands) Percent Number (thousands) Percent

1970 7,188 3.5 1,863 1.4 5,325 7.6

1971 9,281 4.5 2,516 1.8 6,765 9.7

1972 10,345 4.9 2,848 2.0 7,497 10.8

1973 10,760 5.1 2,984 2.1 7,776 11.3

1974 10,591 5.0 2,935 2.0 7,656 11.3

1975 10,854 5.0 3,102 2.1 7,753 11.5

1976 11,171 5.1 3,271 2.2 7,900 11.9

1977 10,933 5.0 3,230 2.1 7,703 11.8

1978 10,485 4.7 3,128 2.0 7,357 11.4

1979 10,146 4.5 3,068 1.9 7,071 11.0

1980 10,422 4.6 3,225 2.0 7,197 11.3

1981 10,979 4.8 3,491 2.1 7,488 11.8

1982 10,233 4.4 3,396 2.0 6,838 10.9

1983 10,467 4.5 3,548 2.1 6,919 11.1

1984 10,677 4.5 3,652 2.1 7,025 11.2

1985 10,630 4.5 3,589 2.0 7,041 11.2

1986 10,810 4.5 3,637 2.1 7,173 11.4

1987 10,878 4.5 3,625 2.0 7,254 11.5

1988 10,734 4.4 3,536 2.0 7,198 11.4

1989 10,741 4.4 3,503 1.9 7,238 11.4

1990 11,263 4.5 3,643 2.0 7,620 11.9

1991 12,391 4.9 4,016 2.1 8,375 12.8

1992 13,423 5.2 4,335 2.3 9,087 13.7

1993 13,943 5.4 4,520 2.3 9,424 13.9

1994 14,033 5.3 4,554 2.3 9,479 13.8

1995 13,480 5.1 4,323 2.2 9,157 13.2

1996 12,477 4.6 3,921 2.0 8,556 12.2

1997 10,779 4.0 3,106 1.5 7,673 10.8

1998 8,653 3.1 2,469 1.2 6,184 8.7

1999 7,068 2.5 1,838 0.9 5,231 7.3

2000 6,218 2.2 1,687 0.8 4,531 6.3

2001 5,673 2.0 1,503 0.7 4,171 5.7

2002 5,576 1.9 1,477 0.7 4,099 5.6

2003 5,452 1.9 1,415 0.7 4,037 5.5

2004 5,316 1.8 1,358 0.6 3,957 5.4

2005 5,064 1.7 1,276 0.6 3,788 5.2

2006 4,699 1.6 1,164 0.5 3,535 4.8

2007 4,099 1.4 962 0.4 3,138 4.2

2008 3,949 1.3 927 0.4 3,022 4.1

2009 4,217 1.4 1,021 0.4 3,197 4.3

2010 4,531 1.5 1,138 0.5 3,393 4.6

2011 4,554 1.5 1,150 0.5 3,405 4.6

2012 4,432 1.4 1,110 0.5 3,322 4.5

Note: See Appendix A, Tables TANF 2, TANF 12 and TANF 14, for more detailed data on recipiency rates, including recipiency rates by calendar 

year. Recipients are expressed as the fiscal year average of monthly caseloads from administrative data, excluding recipients in the territories. Tribal 

TANF recipients also are excluded. Child recipients include a small number of dependents ages 18 and older who are students. The average number 

of adult and child recipients in 1998 and 1999 are estimated using data from the National Emergency TANF Data Files and thereafter using the 

National TANF Data Files. Beginning in 2000, the data include both TANF and SSP (Separate State Program) recipients who have comprised as 

much as 11 percent of total recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance. Population 

denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).
II-13 II-13

Figure IND 3b. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP by Select 

Demographic and Economic Characteristics and the Poverty Rate: 1975 – 2012

Note: See Appendix A, Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient totals exclude the territories and are the 

fiscal year averages of monthly caseloads from administrative data. From 1975 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food 

Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp Program in 1975. From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants 

averaged only 88 thousand.

Source: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Policy Support, Characteristics of 

Supplemental Nutrition Households, Fiscal Year 2012, No. SNAP-14-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf), and unpublished data from the USDA National Data Bank. Individual age groups 

do not sum exactly to total recipients. The population denominators for the percentage in each category are from U.S. Census Bureau (available 

online at http://www.census.gov).

● Figure IND 3b shows the percentage of the 

population who received Food Stamps/ 

SNAP by age category from 1975 to 2012. 

● In 1993, 10.4 percent of the total population 

received SNAP benefits. By 2012, the rate 

had increased to 14.6 percent (see Table 

IND 3b). 

● Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for adults 

ages 60 and over has always been lower 

than the rates of receipt for children and 

adults ages 18 – 59. 

● The percentage of older adults receiving 

SNAP benefits was at or below 5.0 percent 

for the period 1980 – 2009. The rate began 

to increase in 2010 in response to the Great 

Recession. By 2012 the rate had increased 

to 6.8 percent. 

 Table IND 3b shows the number and 

percentage of the population receiving Food 

Stamps/SNAP by age group from 1975 to 

2012. While the levels are different, the 

trend in Food Stamp/SNAP recipiency for 

children and adults 18 – 59 years of age are 

similar over the time period.

 As with AFDC/TANF, Food Stamp/SNAP 

recipiency rates have been higher over time 

for children than for adults. Between 1980 

and 2012, the percentage of all children who 

received SNAP benefits was at least double 

that of the adult recipiency rate. Among 

adults ages 18 – 59 years old, 11.9 percent 

received SNAP benefits compared to 27.8 

percent of children under 18 in 2012.

7.6

14.6

4.9

6.8

5.6

11.9

15.5

27.8

18.7

20.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

(In percent)

Children

All persons

Adults 18-59

Adults 60 & over

Below 130% Poverty
II-14

Table IND 3b. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SNAP benefits: 1975-2012

Total

Poor Total Recipients Adult RecipientsAges 60 and over

Adult Recipients

Ages 18 to 59

Child Recipients

Ages 0 to 18

Fiscal

Year

Number

(thousands)

Number

(thousands)

Percent Number

(thousands) Percent ‡ Number(thousands) Percent ‡ Number(thousands) Percent ‡

1975 25,877 16,320 7.6 – – – – – –

1976 24,975 17,033 7.8 – – – – 9,126 13.8 

1977 24,720 15,604 7.1 – – – – – –

1978 24,497 14,405 6.5 – – – – – –

1979 26,072 15,942 7.1 – – – – – –

1980 29,272 19,253 8.5 1,741 4.9 7,186 5.6 9,876 15.5 

1981 31,822 20,655 9.0 1,845 5.0 7,811 6.0 9,803 15.5 

1982 34,398 20,391 8.8 1,641 4.4 7,838 6.0 9,591 15.3 

1983 35,303 21,668 9.3 1,654 4.4 8,960 6.7 10,910 17.4 

1984 33,700 20,796 8.8 1,758 4.5 8,521 6.3 10,492 16.8 

1985 33,064 19,847 8.3 1,783 4.5 8,258 6.1 9,801 15.8 

1986 32,370 19,381 8.1 1,631 4.1 7,895 5.7 9,844 15.7 

1987 32,221 19,072 7.9 1,589 3.9 7,684 5.5 9,771 15.5 

1988 31,745 18,613 7.6 1,500 3.7 7,506 5.3 9,351 14.8 

1989 31,528 18,777 7.6 1,582 3.8 7,560 5.3 9,429 14.9 

1990 33,585 20,020 8.0 1,511 3.6 8,084 5.6 10,127 15.8 

1991 35,708 22,599 8.9 1,593 3.8 9,190 6.3 11,952 18.3 

1992 38,014 25,371 9.9 1,687 3.9 10,550 7.2 13,349 20.1 

1993 39,265 26,957 10.4 1,876 4.3 11,214 7.5 14,196 21.0 

1994 38,059 27,439 10.4 1,955 4.5 11,615 7.7 14,391 21.0 

1995 36,425 26,579 10.0 1,920 4.4 11,105 7.3 13,860 20.0 

1996 36,529 25,495 9.5 1,891 4.3 10,769 7.0 13,189 18.8 

1997 35,574 22,820 8.4 1,831 4.1 9,373 6.0 11,847 16.7 

1998 34,476 19,748 7.2 1,635 3.6 7,760 4.9 10,520 14.7 

1999 32,791 18,114 6.5 1,696 3.7 7,079 4.4 9,332 13.0 

2000 31,581 17,054 6.0 1,700 3.7 6,612 4.0 8,743 12.1 

2001 32,907 17,262 6.1 1,658 3.6 6,778 4.1 8,820 12.1

2002 34,570 19,003 6.6 1,684 3.6 7,625 4.5 9,688 13.3

2003 35,861 20,898 7.2 1,786 3.7 8,503 5.0 10,605 14.5

2004 37,040 23,447 8.0 1,917 3.9 9,753 5.7 11,771 16.0

2005 36,950 24,841 8.4 2,044 4.1 10,390 6.0 12,404 16.8 

2006 36,460 25,555 8.6 2,226 4.4 12,758 7.3 12,579 17.0 

2007 37,276 25,887 8.6 2,263 4.3 13,030 7.5 12,695 17.1 

2008 39,829 27,751 9.1 2,517 4.7 14,145 8.0 13,472 18.1 

2009 43,569 32,842 10.7 2,724 4.9 16,181 9.1 15,589 21.0 

2010 46,343 39,703 12.8 3,117 5.4 18,102 10.2 18,484 24.9

2011 46,247 44,086 14.1 3,765 6.4 20,430 11.4 19,892 26.9

2012 46,496 45,956 14.6 4,150 6.8 21,342 11.9 20,463 27.8

Note: See Appendix A, Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 6 for more detailed data on recipiency rates. Recipient totals exclude the territories and are the 

fiscal year averages of monthly caseloads from administrative data. From 1975 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food 

Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the Food Stamp Program in 1975. From 1975 to 1983 the number of FFAP participants 

averaged only 88 thousand.

‡

Percent of persons in age group.

Source: Recipient data by age from U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition and Evaluation, 

Characteristics of Supplemental Nutrition Households, Fiscal Year 2012, No. SNAP-14-CHAR and earlier reports (available online at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2012Characteristics.pdf), and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank. Individual age 

groups do not sum exactly to total recipients. Total poor persons and the population denominators for the percentage in each category are from U.S. 

Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).
II-15

Figure IND 3c. Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012

Note: Population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the U.S. Census Bureau's July 1 population estimates for the current 

and the following year. See Appendix A, Tables SSI 2, SSI 8 and SSI 9 for more detailed data on SSI recipiency rates.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013, (available online at 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy). Population denominators for the percentage in each category are from the U.S. Census Bureau (available online at 

http://www.census.gov).

 Figure IND 3c shows the percentage of the 

population who received income assistance 

from the SSI program by age category from 

1975 through 2012. 

 Table IND 3c shows the percentage of the 

population and number of persons receiving 

SSI by age group between 1975 and 2012.

 Unlike the recipiency rates for AFDC/TANF 

and Food Stamps/SNAP, overall recipiency 

rates for SSI show less variation over time. 

After decreasing from 1975 to the early 

1980s, the proportion of the total population 

that received SSI increased from 1.7 percent 

in 1985 to 2.4 percent in 1994. The rate has 

stayed consistent and is 2.6 percent in 2012.

 Elderly adults (ages 65 and older) have 

higher recipiency rates than any other age 

group. The gap, however, has narrowed as 

the percentage of adults aged 65 and older 

receiving SSI has declined from 10.9 

percent in 1975 to 4.7 percent in 2012. 

 The proportion of children receiving SSI 

increased between 1977 and 1996, rising 

from .2 percent to 1.4 percent. The trend 

then reversed and decreased and child SSI 

receipt hovered at 1.2 percent through 2001. 

Beginning in 2002, the rate began to 

increase and in 2012 it was 1.8 percent.

2.0

2.6

10.9

4.7

1.3

2.4

0.2

1.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1975 1978 1981 1984 1987 1990 1993 1996 2000 2001 2006 2009 2012

(In percent)

Children

All persons

Adults 18-64

Adults 65 & over
II-16

Table IND 3c. Number and Percentage of the Total Population Receiving SSI by Age: 1975-2012

 Total Recipients Adult Recipients

Ages 65 & over

Adult Recipients

Ages 18-64

Child Recipients

Ages 0-17

Date

Number

(thousands) Percent Number(thousands) Percent Number(thousands) Percent Number(thousands) Percent

Dec 1975 4,314 2.0 2,508 10.9 1,699 1.3 107 0.2 

Dec 1976 4,236 1.9 2,397 10.2 1,714 1.3 125 0.2 

Dec 1977 4,239 1.9 2,353 9.7 1,738 1.3 147 0.2 

Dec 1978 4,217 1.9 2,304 9.3 1,747 1.3 166 0.3 

Dec 1979 4,150 1.8 2,246 8.8 1,727 1.3 177 0.3 

Dec 1980 4,142 1.8 2,221 8.6 1,731 1.3 190 0.3 

Dec 1981 4,019 1.7 2,121 8.0 1,703 1.2 195 0.3 

Dec 1982 3,858 1.7 2,011 7.4 1,655 1.2 192 0.3 

Dec 1983 3,901 1.7 2,003 7.3 1,700 1.2 198 0.3 

Dec 1984 4,029 1.7 2,037 7.2 1,780 1.2 212 0.3 

Dec 1985 4,138 1.7 2,031 7.1 1,879 1.3 227 0.4 

Dec 1986 4,269 1.8 2,018 6.9 2,010 1.4 241 0.4 

Dec 1987 4,385 1.8 2,015 6.8 2,119 1.4 251 0.4 

Dec 1988 4,464 1.8 2,006 6.6 2,203 1.5 255 0.4 

Dec 1989 4,593 1.9 2,026 6.5 2,302 1.5 265 0.4 

Dec 1990 4,817 1.9 2,059 6.5 2,450 1.6 309 0.5 

Dec 1991 5,118 2.0 2,080 6.5 2,642 1.7 397 0.6 

Dec 1992 5,566 2.2 2,100 6.4 2,910 1.8 556 0.8 

Dec 1993 5,984 2.3 2,113 6.4 3,148 2.0 723 1.1 

Dec 1994 6,296 2.4 2,119 6.3 3,335 2.1 841 1.2 

Dec 1995 6,514 2.4 2,115 6.2 3,482 2.1 917 1.3 

Dec 1996 6,634 2.4 2,110 6.2 3,568 2.2 955 1.4 

Dec 1997 6,495 2.4 2,054 6.0 3,562 2.1 880 1.2 

Dec 1998 6,566 2.4 2,033 5.9 3,646 2.1 887 1.2 

Dec 1999 6,557 2.3 2,019 5.8 3,691 2.1 847 1.2 

Dec 2000 6,602 2.3 2,011 5.7 3,744 2.1 847 1.2 

Dec 2001 6,688 2.3 1,995 5.6 3,811 2.1 882 1.2 

Dec 2002 6,788 2.3 1,995 5.6 3,878 2.2 915 1.3 

Dec 2003 6,902 2.4 1,990 5.5 3,953 2.2 959 1.3 

Dec 2004 6,988 2.4 1,978 5.4 4,017 2.2 993 1.4 

Dec 2005 7,114 2.4 1,995 5.4 4,083 2.2 1,036 1.4 

Dec 2006 7,236 2.4 2,004 5.3 4,152 2.2 1,079 1.5 

Dec 2007 7,360 2.4 2,017 5.3 4,222 2.2 1,121 1.5 

Dec 2008 7,521 2.5 2,034 5.2 4,333 2.3 1,154 1.6 

Dec 2009 7,677 2.5 2,026 5.1 4,451 2.3 1,200 1.6 

Dec 2010 7,912 2.6 2,041 5.0 4,632 2.4 1,239 1.7

Dec 2011 8,113 2.6 2,059 4.9 4,777 2.4 1,277 1.7

Dec 2012 8,263 2.6 2,082 4.7 4,869 2.4 1,312 1.8

Note: December population figures used as the denominators are obtained by averaging the U.S. Census Bureau's July 1 population estimates for the 

current and the following year. See Appendix A, Tables SSI 2, SSI 8 and SSI 9 for more detailed data on SSI recipiency rates.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation and Statistics, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013, (available online at 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2013/index.html). Population denominators for the percentage in each category are from the 

U.S. Census Bureau (available online at http://www.census.gov).
II-17

INDICATOR 4. Rates of Participation in Means-Tested Assistance Programs

Figure IND 4. Participation Rates in the AFDC/TANF

1

, SNAP and SSI Programs: Selected Years

1Unlike the AFDC, SNAP and SSI programs, TANF is a block grant program for which there is no individual entitlement. One of the main goals of 

TANF is to move people from cash assistance to self-sufficiency.

Note: AFDC/TANF and SSI participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) that uses CPS data to simulate program eligibility and 

participation for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements 

and revisions to the CPS. Most notably, since 1994 the model has been revised to more accurately estimate SSI participation among children, and in 1997 

and 1998 the model was adjusted to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. For TANF, in contrast to editions prior to 2004, this table includes 

families receiving assistance under Separate State Programs (SSPs). Note that families subject to full-family sanctions are counted as nonparticipating 

eligible families due to modeling limitations. Although the coverage rate estimates take into account the number of families who lost aid due to the time limit 

(and do not count such families in the denominator of the coverage rate estimate), they do not make any allowance for families staying off TANF to 

conserve their time-limited assistance months. Also, the numbers of eligible and participating families include the territories and pregnant women without 

children, even though these two small groups are excluded from the TRIM model. The numbers shown here implicitly assume that participation rates for the 

territories and for pregnant women with no other children are the same as for all other eligibles. In 2004 the methods for identifying potential child-only units 

capture the fact that non-parent caretakers generally have a choice of whether or not to be included in the TANF unit. TRIM now excludes those caretakers 

whose income would make the unit ineligible, increasing the number of potential child-only units.

SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate program eligibility. SNAP 

caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small changes in the methodology over time, due to model 

improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. 

The estimates for previous years show higher estimates of eligibles and lower participation rates relative to the revised estimate for 1994 and estimates for 

subsequent years. The two estimates for 1999 are due to re-weighting of the March 2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for 

determining SNAP eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 

1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the estimates for FY 2000 – FY 2009. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:

Fiscal Years 2010 and 2012 available online at . http://www.fns.usda.gov/trends-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-participation-rates-fiscalyear-2010-fiscal-year and unpublished tabulations from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

 Figure IND 4 shows the participation rates in 

the TANF, SNAP, and SSI programs for 

selected years. This indicator examines the 

average monthly number of participating 

families, households, or adults as a 

percentage of the estimated eligible 

population. It is a contrast to Indicator 3, 

which examines participants as an average 

monthly (December for SSI) percentage of 

the total population (recipiency rates). 

 In 2012, 32.4 percent of families estimated 

as eligible for TANF assistance and 64.1

percent of households estimated as eligible 

for SSI are estimated to have received 

benefits in an average month. Eighty-seven

(87.2) percent of households estimated as 

eligible for SNAP are estimated to have 

enrolled and received benefits in an average 

month. 

80.2

32.6 32.4

87.2

62.0 64.1

20

40

60

80

100

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

In percent

 1976 2012

AFDC/TANF Families

Cash Assistance

SNAP/Food Stamps

Households

SSI

Adult Units
II-18

Table IND 4a. Number and Percentage of Eligible Families Participating in the AFDC/TANF Cash 

Assistance Program: Selected Years

Calendar Year

Eligible Families

(millions)

Participating Families

(millions)

Participation Rate

(percent)

1981 4.8 3.8 80.2

1983 4.7 3.7 77.7

1985 4.7 3.7 79.3

1987 4.9 3.8 76.7

1988 4.8 3.7 78.4

1989 4.5 3.8 83.6

1990 4.9 4.1 82.2

1992 5.6 4.8 85.7

1993 6.1 5.0 81.7

1994 (revised) 6.1 5.0 82.1

1995 5.7 4.8 84.3

1996 5.6 4.4 78.9

1997 (adjusted) 5.4 3.7 69.2

1998 (adjusted) 5.5 3.1 55.8

1999 5.1 2.6 52.3

2000 4.4 2.3 51.8

2001 4.6 2.2 48.0

2002 4.5 2.2 48.1

2003 4.8 2.2 45.7

2004 5.1 2.2 42.0

2005 5.1 2.1 40.4

2006 4.9 2.1 39.0

2007 4.8 1.9 36.0

2008 5.2 1.7 33.0

2009 5.7 1.8 32.3

2010 5.7 1.9 33.7

2011 5.6 1.9 33.9

2012 5.7 1.9 32.4

Note: AFDC/TANF participation rates are estimated by an Urban Institute model (TRIM3) that uses CPS data to simulate AFDC/TANF eligibility and 

participation for an average month, by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model 

improvements and revisions to the CPS. In contrast to editions prior to 2004, this table includes families receiving assistance under Separate State 

Programs (SSPs). Note that families subject to full-family sanctions are counted as nonparticipating eligible families due to modeling limitations. 

Although the coverage rate estimates take into account the number of families who lost aid due to the time limit (and do not count such families in the 

denominator of the coverage rate estimate), they do not make any allowance for families staying off TANF to conserve their time-limited assistance 

months. Also, the numbers of eligible and participating families include the territories and pregnant women without children, even though these two 

small groups are excluded from the TRIM model. The numbers shown here implicitly assume that participation rates for the territories and for pregnant 

women with no other children are the same as for all other eligibles. In 2004 the methods for identifying potential child-only units capture the fact that 

non-parent caretakers generally have a choice of whether or not to be included in the TANF unit. TRIM now excludes those caretakers whose income 

would make the unit ineligible, increasing the number of potential child-only units.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, caseload tabulations and unpublished tabulations 

from the TRIM3 microsimulation model.

 Between 1981 and 1996, participation rates 

in the AFDC program ranged from 76.7 

percent (in 1987) to 85.7 percent (in 1992). 

From 1996 to 2012, participation rates in 

TANF have declined. In 1996, 78.9 percent 

of eligible families participated in the 

AFDC/TANF program. By 2012, 32.4

percent of eligible families participated in the 

TANF program. 19

 

19 Note that TANF is a flexible program with a flexible funding 

stream. As such, states provide substantial “non assistance” services 

and benefits that would not be included in the cash assistance 

caseload counts used to derive these participation rate estimates. 

 Since welfare reform, there has been a 

notable decline in the number of eligible 

families participating in the TANF program.20

 

Over the years families also may have received cash benefits or 

other services through general assistance and other solely statefunded programs that are separate from the TANF program and are 

not shown here. 

20 As discussed in the note to Table IND 4a above, the model for 

estimating participation in the TANF cash assistance program does 

take into account benefits from separate state programs (SSPs) that 

are used to meet Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements.
II-19

Table IND 4b. Number and Percentage of Eligible Households Participating in SNAP: Selected Years

Date

Eligible Households

(millions)

Participating Households

(millions)

Participation Rate

(percent)

September 1976 16.3 5.3 32.6 

February 1978 14.0 5.3 37.8 

August 1980 14.0 7.4 52.5 

August 1982 14.5 7.5 51.5 

August 1984 14.2 7.3 51.6 

August 1986 15.3 7.1 46.5 

August 1988 14.9 7.0 47.1 

August 1990 14.5 8.0 54.9 

August 1991 15.6 9.2 59.1 

August 1992 16.6 10.2 61.6 

August 1993 17.0 10.9 64.0 

August 1994 17.0 11.0 64.6 

September 1994 (revised) 15.3 10.7 69.6 

September 1995 15.0 10.4 69.2 

September 1996 15.3 9.9 65.1 

September 1997 14.7 8.4 57.5 

September 1998 14.0 7.6 54.2 

September 1999 13.7 7.3 53.0 

Fiscal Year 1999 14.5 7.5 51.6 

Fiscal Year 2000 14.2 7.1 50.2 

Fiscal Year 2001 15.1 7.3 48.0 

Fiscal Year 2002(a) 16.7 8.0 47.6 

Fiscal Year 2002(b) 16.0 8.0 49.7 

Fiscal Year 2003 17.1 8.9 52.1 

Fiscal Year 2004 17.5 10.0 57.1 

Fiscal Year 2005 17.7 10.7 60.6 

Fiscal Year 2006 17.1 11.2 65.3 

Fiscal Year 2007 17.5 11.4 65.5 

Fiscal Year 2008 18.0 12.3 68.4 

Fiscal Year 2009 20.3 14.7 72.2 

Fiscal Year 2010 23.3 17.4 74.6

Fiscal Year 2011 23.5 19.2 81.8

Fiscal Year 2012 23.2 20.2 87.2

Note: SNAP eligible households are estimated from a Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. model that uses CPS data to simulate the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility. SNAP caseload data are from USDA, FNS program operations caseload data. There have been small 

changes in the methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. Notably, the model was revised in 1994 to produce 

more accurate and lower estimates of eligible households. The estimates for previous years show higher estimates of eligibles and lower participation 

rates relative to the revised estimate for 1994 and estimates for subsequent years. The two estimates for 1999 are due to re-weighting of the March 

2000 – 2003 CPS files to Census 2000 and revised methodologies for determining SNAP eligibility. The original estimate (September 1999) is 

consistent methodologically with estimates from September 1994 – September 1998, while the revised estimate (FY 1999) is consistent with the 

estimates for FY 2000 – FY 2006. The FY 2011 estimates are not based upon a revised methodologically consistent with prior estimates.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Trends in Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Participation Rates:

Fiscal Years 2010 to 2012 available online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/trends-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-participation-rates-fiscal-year2010-fiscal-year.

 Table IND 4b shows the average monthly 

number and percentage of eligible 

households participating in Food 

Stamps/SNAP for selected years. Since 

fiscal year 2002, the participation rate for 

SNAP has increased from 47.6 percent in 

fiscal year 2002 to 87.2 percent in fiscal year 

2012.

 Between fiscal years 1999 and 2012

households eligible for the Food 

Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance 

Program increased from 14.5 to 23.2 million 

households (a 60.0 percent increase). 

 Over the same period caseloads grew from 

7.5 to 20.2 million households (by a 170 

percent increase), with notable increases 

occurring since Fiscal Year 2008.

 During the mid to late 1990s, there was a 

35.5 percent drop in SNAP caseloads, from 

a peak of 11 million households in 1994 to 

7.1 million households in 2000. This decline 

in caseloads occurred during a time when 

both the eligible population and the program 

participation rates were decreasing. 

Beginning in 2002 these were both 

increasing.
II-2019

Table IND 4c. Percentage of Eligible Adult Units Participating in the SSI Program by Selected 

Characteristics: 1993-2012

All Adult Units

One-Person Units

Aged Disabled Married-Couple Units

1993 62.0 57.0 71.0 37.0

1994 65.0 58.4 73.0 43.9

1995 69.1 64.9 74.0 52.2

1996 66.6 60.4 73.5 46.7

1997 71.1 62.7 79.4 49.1

1998 70.7 63.6 77.9 48.1

1999 74.3 65.8 83.3 47.8

2000 75.8 70.9 82.3 49.9

2001 69.7 64.4 75.9 45.7

2002 70.4 61.9 78.3 47.9

2003 68.2 62.3 73.8 47.6

2004 65.7 63.3 69.2 46.0

2005 67.7 63.4 73.5 41.1

2006 68.8 69.1 72.5 39.9

2007 66.8 61.6 72.3 43.0

2008 65.6 67.3 68.0 39.8

2009 64.6 64.8 67.4 40.0

2010 65.1 65.8 67.4 41.5

2011 67.3 67.3 70.3 40.1

2012 64.1 58.2 69.9 37.5

Note: SSI participation rates are estimated using the TRIM3 microsimulation model that uses CPS data to simulate SSI eligibility for an average month, 

by calendar year. There have been small changes in estimating methodology over time, due to model improvements and revisions to the CPS. In 

particular, the model was revised in 1997 and 1998 to more accurately exclude ineligible immigrants. Thus the increased participation rate in 1997 is 

partly due to a revision in estimating methodology. In 2004 the TRIM methods for identifying individuals eligible for SSI due to disability were improved 

resulting in more eligibles for this category. Still it is important to note that the TRIM model utilizes the limited information on disability status available 

from the Current Population Survey and thus may be underestimating the eligible non-elderly adult population resulting in participation rates that are too 

high. For example unpublished tabulations from the Social Security Administration based on data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation 

suggest that the rate of SSI participation among eligible non-elderly adults may be somewhere between a low estimate of around 40 percent and a high 

estimate of 80 percent – a fairly wide range. Also note that the figures for married-couple units are based on very small sample sizes–for example, 

married-couple units were only about 7.5 percent of the eligible adult units and 5.1 percent of the units receiving SSI in the average month of 1998. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3

microsimulation model.

 Table IND 4c shows the average monthly 

number and percentage of eligible adult

units participating in the SSI program by 

select demographic categories. After rising 

to 75.8 percent of adults estimated to be 

eligible for SSI in 2000, the SSI participation 

rate has decreased to 64.1 percent of those 

estimated to be eligible for SSI in 2012. 

This rate is higher than recent TANF rates 

(32.4 percent) but is lower than the SNAP 

participation rate of 87.2 percent (see 

Tables IND 4a and IND 4b).

 For aged adults in one-person units, the 

estimated SSI participation rate increased 

from 57.0 percent in 1993 to a high of 70.9 

percent in 2000. The estimated SSI 

participation rate among aged one-person 

units was 58.2 percent in 2012.
II-21

INDICATOR 5. Multiple Program Receipt

Figure IND 5. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs – TANF, 

SNAP and SSI: 2012

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; TANF and SNAP receipt are based on the full recipient 

unit. Recipients are defined as those individuals who receive SSI or live in a family that receives either TANF or SNAP benefits. In practice, 

individuals typically do not receive both TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.

 Figure IND 5 shows the percentage of those 

receiving benefits from TANF, SNAP, or SSI 

or a combination of benefits from these 

programs in 2012. Eighty-three (83.0) 

percent of all individuals received no 

benefits from means tested programs, while 

17.0 percent did. Of those who received 

any benefits from the three programs,76.7

percent of recipients received only SNAP 

benefits, 7.2 percent of recipients received 

both TANF and SNAP benefits, and 9.5

percent of recipients received SSI and 

SNAP.

 Table IND 5a shows the percentage of the

population receiving assistance from TANF, 

SNAP, and SSI by demographic 

characteristics. About five (4.5) percent of 

children from birth to 5 years lived in families 

that received both TANF and SNAP. 

 Among family categories, persons in femaleheaded families were more likely than those 

living in other types of families to receive support 

from multiple means-tested assistance 

programs.

 Table IND 5b shows the percentage of the 

population receiving assistance from multiple 

means-tested assistance programs between 

1993 and 2012. Reliance on TANF and SNAP 

together has decreased over time. In 1993, 4.8 

percent of the population received AFDC and 

food stamps. In 2012, the percent that received 

both TANF and SNAP decreased to 1.2 percent. 

Reliance on SNAP and SSI was 1.0 percent in 

1993 and in 2012 it was 1.6 percent.

TANF

0.7

SNAP

76.7

SSI

5.9

TANF & SNAP

7.2

SNAP & SSI

9.5

Non-recipients

83.0

Recipients

17.0

(In percent)
II-22

Table IND 5a. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Programs by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP receipt are based on the full 

recipient unit. In practice, individuals do not tend to receive both AFDC/TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs. 

The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from any one program in an average month (shown here) is lower than the percentage residing in 

families receiving assistance at some point over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II). Spouses 

are not present in the female-headed and male-headed family categories.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. 

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample 

size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.

Table IND 5b. Percentage of Recipients Receiving Assistance from Multiple Means-Tested 

Assistance Programs: 1993-2012

Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs

AFDC/TANF FS/SNAP SSI AFDC/TANF & SNAP SNAP & SSI

1993 12.6 0.6 5.2 1.1 4.8 1.0

1994 12.8 0.5 5.3 1.2 4.6 1.1

1995 12.3 0.4 5.0 1.2 4.5 1.1

1996 12.0 0.3 5.3 1.2 4.0 1.1

1997 10.2 0.4 4.3 1.3 3.1 1.0

1998 9.0 0.4 3.9 1.4 2.4 0.9

1999 8.5 0.4 3.8 1.3 2.0 1.0

2000 8.1 0.2 3.8 1.4 1.7 1.0

2001 8.1 0.3 3.9 1.4 1.5 1.0

2002 8.5 0.3 4.5 1.3 1.4 1.0

2003 9.7 0.2 5.5 1.3 1.6 1.0

2004 10.3 0.2 6.1 1.2 1.6 1.1

2005 10.2 0.2 6.2 1.3 1.5 1.2

2006 10.4 0.2 6.5 1.3 1.3 1.2

2007 10.6 0.2 6.8 1.3 1.2 1.2

2008 11.4 0.2 7.7 1.2 1.2 1.2

2009 13.5 0.2 9.6 1.1 1.3 1.4

2010 16.3 0.2 12.2 1.0 1.3 1.5

2011 16.8 0.2 12.7 1.0 1.3 1.6

2012 17.0 0.1 13.0 1.0 1.2 1.6

Note: Categories are mutually exclusive. SSI receipt is based on individual receipt; AFDC/TANF and Food Stamps/SNAP receipt are based on the full 

recipient unit. In practice, individuals do not tend to receive both AFDC/TANF and SSI; hence, no individual receives benefits from all three programs. 

The percentage of individuals receiving assistance from any one program in an average month (shown here) is lower than the percentage residing in 

families receiving assistance at some point over the course of a year (shown in Table SUM 1 in Chapter I and Table IND 1a in Chapter II). 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.

Any Receipt One Program Only Two Programs

TANF SNAP SSI TANF & SNAP SNAP & SSI

All Persons 17.0 0.1 13.0 1.0 1

.

2

1.2 1.6

 Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 12.0 0.1 9.5 0.7 0

.

5

0.5 1.3

 Non-Hispanic Black 32.7 0.2 24.1 1.4 3

.

3

3.3 3.7

 Hispanic 24.8 0.3 18.9 1.7 2

.

4

2.4 1.6

 Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 33.3 0.5 27.0 0.6 4

.

5

4.5 0.7

 Children ages 6-10 30.6 0.4 24.5 0.8 3

.

6

3.6 1.3

 Children ages 11-15 26.4 0.4 20.8 0.9 3

.

1

3.1 1.2

 Women ages 16-64 15.9 0.1 12.3 0.8 1

.

0

1.0 1.8

 Men ages 16-64 12.5 0.0 9.8 0.9 0

.

3

0.3 1.5

 Adults ages 65 and over 10.2 0.0 5.4 2.3 0

.

0

0.0 2.6

 Family Categories

 Persons in married-couple families 9.8 0.1 8.1 0.7 0

.

4

0.4 0.5

 Persons in female-headed families 43.5 0.3 32.3 1.7 5

.

8

5.8 3.3

 Persons in male-headed families 24.9 0.1 19.3 1.7 1

.

4

1.4 2.3

 Unrelated persons 16.3 0.0 11.4 1.2 0

.

0

0.0 3.6
II-23

INDICATOR 6. Dependence Transitions

Figure IND 6. Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of 

Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Race and Ethnicity

(In percent)

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI. While only affecting a small number of cases, General 

Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in families with more than 50 percent of 

total annual family income from these means-tested programs. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

 Figure IND 6 shows the 2012 dependency 

status of persons who were welfare 

dependent in 2011 by race and ethnicity. 

Welfare dependence is defined as 

receiving more than half of one’s total 

family income in the year from TANF, 

SNAP, and/or SSI. For further discussion 

of defining welfare dependency, see 

Chapter I. 

 Of recipients who received more than 50 

percent of their total family income from 

TANF, SNAP and/or SSI in 2011, 

approximately three-quarters across three 

racial and ethnic groups (71.3 percent of 

Non-Hispanic Whites, 72.6 percent of NonHispanic Blacks, and 73.1 percent of 

Hispanics) also were welfare dependent in 

2012. 

 Table IND 6a shows the 2012 dependency 

status of persons who were welfare 

dependent in 2011 by demographic groups. 

Women ages 16 – 64 had a higher 

dependency rate (76.2 percent) than men 

(70.4 percent), and children less than 5 

years old also had a higher dependency 

rate (70.5 percent) than those ages 11 – 15 

(66.7 percent). 

 Table IND 6b shows the dependency status 

of all persons who received more than 50 

percent of their family income from meanstested assistance programs in the previous 

year. While most remain dependent from 

one year to the next, this has lessened 

some with a 7.4 percentage point decrease 

in remaining dependent from the previous 

year to the current year from 1994 to 2012. 

1.2

1.8 0.2 1.2

26.5

26.9 27.3 25.7

72.4 71.3 72.6 73.1

0

20

40

60

80

100

All persons Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

No aid Up to 50% Over 50%
II-24

Table IND 6a. Dependency Status in 2012 of Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of 

Income from Means-Tested Assistance in 2011 by Selected Characteristics

Percentage of Persons Receiving

Persons Receiving More than 50 Percent of Income from 

Assistance in 2011

Total 

(thousands)

No aid

in 2012

Up to 50%

in 2012

Over 50% 

in 2012

All Persons 9,834 1.2 26.5 72.4

 Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 3,619 1.8 26.9 71.3

 Non-Hispanic Black 3,410 0.2 27.3 72.6

 Hispanic 2,011 1.2 25.7 73.1

 Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 1,278 2.1 27.4 70.5

 Children ages 6-10 1,068 1.1 33.4 65.6

 Children ages 11-15 1,015 0.0 33.3 66.7

 Women ages 16-64 3,665 0.5 23.3 76.2

 Men ages 16-64 2,266 2.2 27.4 70.4

 Adults ages 65 and over 488 0.6 13.9 85.4

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance 

income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in families with more than 50 percent of total annual family 

income from these means-tested programs. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific 

Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Individual age categories do not add to total because of a small number of people not reporting age.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

Table IND 6b. Dependency Status of All Persons Who Received More than 50 Percent of Income 

from Means-Tested Assistance in Previous Year

Percentage of Persons Receiving

Total 

(thousands)

 No aid in 

second year

Up to 50% in 

second year

Over 50% in 

second year

Transitions from:

1993 to 1994 14,810 1.6 18.6 79.8

1994 to 1995 13,986 2.7 18.8 78.5

1997 to 1998 9,672 3.1 28.8 68.1

1998 to 1999 8,163 2.9 27.1 70.0

2001 to 2002 6,258 1.5 29.2 69.3

2002 to 2003 6,023 2.6 25.8 71.6

2004 to 2005 7,682 4.1 31.7 64.2

2005 to 2006 7,339 2.4 24.2 73.5

2006 to 2007 6,969 2.4 20.9 76.7

2009 to 2010 8,344 1.7 22.4 75.9

2010 to 2011 9,481 2.2 25.5 72.3

2011 to 2012 9,834 1.2 26.5 72.4

Note: Means-tested assistance is defined as AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI. Individuals are defined as dependent if they reside in

families with more than 50 percent of total annual family income from these means-tested programs. While only affecting a small number of cases, 

General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income in all years and veterans’ pension benefits are included in means-tested assistance 

income for receipt and dependence estimates prior to 2001. Because full calendar year data for 1995 were not available for all SIPP respondents, 

some transitions between 1994 and 1995 were based on twelve-month periods that do not correspond exactly to calendar years. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels. 
II-25

INDICATOR 7. Program Spell Duration 

Figure IND 7. Percentage of TANF, SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during 

the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the 

observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. Program spells are defined as those starting 

during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2011). This estimate differs from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data 

is tabulated. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey 

of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

 Figure IND 7 shows the percentage of 

TANF, SNAP, and SSI spells by spell 

length categories for persons entering 

programs in the late 2000s. Between 

2008 and 2012, brief spells lasting four 

months or less accounted for 50.5 

percent of TANF spells, 28.7 percent of 

SNAP spells, and 33.0 percent of SSI 

spells.

 Eighty (79.6) percent of all TANF spells,

over half of SNAP spells (53.7 percent) 

and 54.0 percent of SSI spells lasted one 

year or less. 

 Table IND 7a shows the percentage of 

program spells for persons entering 

programs during the 2008 – 2012 period 

by length of spell and demographic 

characteristics. Among child recipients 

of TANF, most children experienced 

shorter spells of receipt (less than 4 

months) rather than longer spells of 

receipt (greater than 20 months).

Adults 65 years and older had the 

longest spells of SSI receipt (55.9

percent lasted more than 20 months). 

Children ages 6 – 10 had the longest 

spells of SNAP receipt (42.4 percent

lasted more than 20 months). Children 

ages 11 – 15 had the longest spells of 

TANF receipt (21.9 percent lasted more 

than 20 months).

 Table IND 7b shows how the percentage 

of program spells of varying lengths for 

persons entering programs during 

selected periods has changed. Spells of 

TANF receipt were shorter in the 2000s 

than in the early 1990s. For instance, 

11.3 percent of TANF spells for persons 

entering TANF between 2008 and 2012

lasted 20 months or longer as compared 

to 34.4 percent of AFDC spells beginning 

between 1992 and 1994. 

50.5

28.7

33.0

29.1

25.0

21.0

9.2 11.0

8.3

11.3

35.3

37.8

0

25

50

75

TANF SNAP SSI

Spells <=4 months Spells 5-12 months Spells 13-20 months Spells >20 months

(In percent)
II-26

Table IND 7a. Percentage of TANF, SNAP and SSI Spells for Persons Entering Programs during the 

2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

Program Spells <=4 

Months

Spells 5-12 

Months

Spells 13-20 

Months

Spells >20 

Months

TANF All Recipients 50.5 29.1 9.2 11.3

Non-Hispanic White 50.1 30.2 7.7 12.0

Non-Hispanic Black 53.7 25.5 9.4 11.5

Hispanic 47.3 32.4 10.2 10.2

Children ages 0-5 41.9 34.4 11.3 12.4

Children ages 6-10 44.0 30.8 12.8 12.4

Children ages 11-15 46.2 28.3 3.6 21.9

Adults ages 16-64 55.7 27.5 9.5 7.4

Adults ages 65 and over 60.3 26.3 0.0 13.4

SNAP All Recipients 28.7 25.0 11.0 35.3

Non-Hispanic White 27.1 27.3 10.3 35.3

Non-Hispanic Black 28.8 22.5 10.3 38.4

Hispanic 30.0 24.0 12.8 33.2

Children ages 0-5 20.0 28.3 10.3 41.4

Children ages 6-10 21.7 25.2 10.7 42.4

Children ages 11-15 26.3 25.7 10.5 37.4

Adults ages 16-64 30.5 25.2 11.5 32.9

Adults ages 65 and over 36.7 16.6 8.6 38.1

SSI All Recipients 33.0 21.0 8.3 37.8

Non-Hispanic White 32.1 20.1 5.4 42.4

Non-Hispanic Black 34.6 23.8 11.0 30.6

Hispanic 36.6 18.7 7.1 37.7

Children ages 0-5 46.2 29.7 8.8 15.3

Children ages 6-10 46.6 29.9 8.8 14.8

Children ages 11-15 42.7 23.7 8.8 24.9

Adults ages 16-64 29.9 19.9 7.6 42.5

Adults ages 65 and over 21.3 12.3 10.5 55.9

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Program spells are 

defined as those starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2012). Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, 

American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.21

.

 

21 These estimates differ from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.
II--2627

Table IND 7b. Percentage of AFDC/TANF, Food Stamps/SNAP, and SSI Spells for Persons Entering 

Programs during Selected SIPP Panels by Length of Spell

Period Program Spells <=4

Months

Spells 5-12

Months

Spells 13-20

Months

Spells >20

Months

1992 – 1994 AFDC 30.4 24.7 10.5 34.4

Food Stamps 33.4 24.9 10.2 31.5

SSI 25.7 8.9 4.8 60.6

1993 – 1995 AFDC 30.7 25.4 12.5 31.4

Food Stamps 33.1 26.8 10.1 30.0

SSI 24.0 7.9 4.7 63.4

1996 – 1999 AFDC/TANF 46.6 29.2 11.5 12.7

Food Stamps 43.1 27.7 9.3 19.8

SSI 34.1 19.2 9.1 37.6

2001 – 2003 TANF 49.6 23.7 10.0 16.8

Food Stamps 35.9 24.4 8.9 30.7

SSI 27.9 21.4 7.3 43.5

2004 – 2007 TANF 43.8 29.9 12.2 14.1

Food Stamps 33.1 29.0 9.1 28.8

SSI 24.2 19.8 9.1 47.0

2008 – 2012 TANF 50.5 29.1 9.2 11.3

SNAP 28.7 25.0 11.0 35.3

SSI 33.0 21.0 8.3 37.8

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the 

observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. Program spells are defined as those starting 

during the 2004 SIPP panel (2004 – 2007). 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

These estimates differ from some USDA data because of methodological differences in the way that the data is tabulated.
II-28

INDICATOR 8. Welfare Spell Duration with No Labor Force Attachment

Figure IND 8. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons 

Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. Due to the length of the 

observation period, actual spell lengths for spells that lasted more than 20 months cannot be observed. TANF spells with no family labor force 

attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel for persons who received TANF and lived in families with no labor force 

participants in each month.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

 Figure IND 8 shows the percentage of TANF 

spells with no family labor force attachment 

for persons entering the TANF program 

between 2008 and 2012 by length of spell.22

 Welfare spells with no family labor force 

attachment are measured as consecutive 

months that a person received TANF 

benefits and lived in a family with no labor 

force participants. Welfare spells with no 

family labor force attachment may end when 

a person leaves the TANF program or when 

a person remains on TANF but at least one 

person in the family enters the labor market.

 

22 Indicators 7 and 8 provide similar information; however, the 

percentages of spell lengths differ because the two Indicators are 

computed differently. Indicator 7 shows spells for all recipients while 

Indicator 8 restricts welfare spells to recipients in families without any 

labor force participants. This difference results in a higher 

percentage of spells longer than 20 months in Indicator 7, where 

TANF employment may be combined, and compared to Indicator 8 

where no one in the family may be in the labor force at any time 

during the spell.

 Fifty-six (56.4) percent of welfare spells with 

no family labor force attachment lasted four 

months or less as measured in the Survey of 

Income and Program Participation. 

 Table IND 8a shows the percentage of 

TANF spells with no family labor force 

attachment by spell length for different 

demographic groups. The percentage of 

spells ending in four months or less was 

smaller for Non-Hispanic Whites (44.9

percent) than it was for Non-Hispanic Blacks 

(68.0 percent) and Hispanics (54.5 percent).

56.4

30.0

5.9

7.8

Spells <=4 months Spells 5-12 months Spells 13-20 months Spells >20 months
II-29

Table IND 8a. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons 

Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months

All Persons 56.4 30.0 5.9 7.8

 Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 44.9 35.1 11.4 8.5

 Non-Hispanic Black 68.0 22.2 2.7 7.1

 Hispanic 54.5 35.1 4.9 5.5

 Age Categories

 Children ages 0-15 53.8 31.8 4.9 9.4

 Adults ages 16-64 59.3 27.9 7.4 5.4

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no 

family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2012) for persons who received TANF and lived 

in families with no labor force participants in each month.

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

Table IND 8b. Percentage of TANF Spells with No Family Labor Force Attachment for Persons 

Entering Programs during the 2008 SIPP Panel by Selected Years 

Spells <=4 Months Spells 5-12 Months Spells 13-20 Months Spells >20 Months

1993 – 1995 42.6 26.4 8.5 22.5

1996 – 1999 54.2 28.3 9.3 8.3

2001 – 2003 56.1 23.0 10.6 10.2

2004 – 2007 51.6 25.0 9.4 14.0

2008—2012 56.4 30.0 5.9 7.8

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. TANF spells with no 

family labor force attachment are defined as those spells starting during the 2008 SIPP panel (2008 – 2012) for persons who received TANF and lived 

in families with no labor force participants in each month.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

 Table IND 8b shows the percentage of 

TANF spells with no family labor force 

attachment for persons entering the program 

during selected periods by spell length. In 

the late 2000s and early 2010s, 56.4 percent 

of TANF spells with no family labor force 

attachment ended within four months and 

86.4 percent ended within a year. This 

compares to 42.6 percent and 69.0 percent, 

respectively, in the early 1990s.

 The percentage of spells with no family labor 

force attachment lasting more than 20 

months was higher in the early 1990s than 

in the late 2000s and early 2010s (22.5 

percent compared to 7.8 percent, 

respectively). 
II-30

INDICATOR 9. Long Term Receipt

Figure IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients by Years of Receipt in the 1999 – 2008 Period

Note: The base for the percentages consists of mothers who received at least $1 of AFDC/TANF in any year in the ten-year period. Child recipients 

are defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This indicator measures years of recipiency over the specified ten-year time periods and does 

not take into account years of recipiency that may have occurred before or after each ten-year period. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public release data files, 1999-2008. 

 Figure IND 9 shows the percentage of 

AFDC/TANF recipients by years of receipt 

between 1999 and 2008. Among all 

persons receiving AFDC/TANF at some 

point within the ten-year period, 71.5 percent 

received assistance in only one or two of 

these years. In contrast, 1.1 percent 

received assistance in 9 or 10 of the years. 

 Table IND 9 shows the percentage of 

AFDC/TANF recipients with varying years of 

receipt across four ten-year time periods by 

demographic characteristics. Long spells of 

welfare receipt were more common in earlier 

time periods than they were in later time 

periods. For example, for the 1969 – 1978 

time period, 12.8 percent of AFDC recipients 

received benefits in at least 9 of the 10 

years as compared to 1.1 percent of TANF 

recipients for the 1999 - 2008 time period. 

 Among child recipients, for the 1969 – 1978 

time period, 17.3 percent of children birth to 

age 5 lived in families that received 

AFDC/TANF in 9 – 10 years as compared to 

2.4 percent for the 1999 - 2008 time period. 

 Short spells of TANF receipt were more 

prevalent in the 1999 - 2008 period 

compared to earlier periods. Between 1999 

- 2008, 71.5 percent of TANF recipients 

received benefits in only one or two years 

compared to 47.9 percent in the 1989 to 

1998 period, 44.6 percent in the 1979 –

1988 period, and 43.6 percent in the 1969 –

1978 period.

 Among racial groups, the percentage of 

Non-Hispanic Black recipients receiving 

TANF benefits for 9 – 10 years has 

decreased from a high of 18.4 percent in the 

1979 – 1988 period to a low of 2.9 percent in 

the 1999 – 2008 period. For the 1999 –

2008 period, the data show that there were 

no Non-Hispanic White recipients receiving 

TANF for 9 – 10 years as compared to 10.2 

percent in the 1969-1978 period.

71.5

20.5

6.9

1.1

1 - 2 Years 3 - 5 Years 6 - 8 Years 9 - 10 Years
II-31

Table IND 9. Percentage of AFDC/TANF Recipients across Four Ten-Year Time Periods by Years of 

Receipt and Selected Characteristics 

All Persons All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5

1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008 1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008

Years received 

AFDC/TANF

 1-2 years 43.6 44.6 47.9 71.5 33.3 36.8 40.4 73.0

 3-5 years 23.1 25.0 31.5 20.5 28.3 25.0 27.1 18.4

 6-8 years 20.5 17.3 12.4 6.9 21.1 18.4 17.3 6.2

 9-10 years 12.8 13.1 8.2 1.1 17.3 19.8 15.2 2.4

Non-Hispanic 

Whites All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5

1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008 1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008

Years received 

AFDC/TANF

 1-2 years 51.0 54.0 51.3 76.4 41.4 47.4 50.9 78.2

 3-5 years 21.1 21.2 36.8 18.0 29.1 23.3 31.3 15.2

 6-8 years 17.7 15.1 7.4 5.6 16.8 15.5 8.7 5.2

 9-10 years 10.2 9.7 4.5 0.0 12.7 13.8 9.1 1.4

Non-Hispanic 

Blacks All Recipients Child Recipients Ages 0-5

1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008 1969-1978 1979-1988 1989-1998 1999-2008

Years received 

AFDC/TANF

 1-2 years 30.2 31.2 44.1 62.6 19.4 20.8 33.0 60.0

 3-5 years 26.1 29.1 25.4 25.5 28.8 27.7 23.3 25.1

 6-8 years 26.2 21.3 18.0 9.0 28.3 23.0 24.4 9.1

 9-10 years 17.5 18.4 12.5 2.9 23.5 28.5 19.3 5.8

Note: The base for the percentages consists of mothers who received at least $1 of AFDC/TANF in any year in the ten-year period. Child recipients are 

defined by age in the first year of the 10-year period. This indicator measures years of recipiency over the specified ten-year time periods and does not take 

into account years of recipiency that may have occurred before or after each ten-year period. 

Due to small sample size, Hispanics, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the estimates 

for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, public release data files, 1969-2008,
II-32

INDICATOR 10. Events Associated with the Beginning and Ending of 

Program Spells

Figure IND 10a. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Exits during the 2008 - 2012 Period

Note: Welfare exits are defined as moving from receipt to non-receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an event 

was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare exit. In 

general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are that 

“Increase in other Household Earnings” was limited to cases when there were increases in household earnings without an increase in recipient 

earnings, and “Increase in Adults (not marriage)” was limited to cases where the adult joining the household was not marrying the head of the 

household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government 

benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans’ payments and Workers Compensation. An increase in 

earnings must be an increase of at least $50 per month. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category 

"None of above in recent past" represents the percentage of all spells ending during the period that were not associated with any of the events 

measured. 

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or 

exit. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2012).

 Figure IND 10a shows events associated 

with single mother TANF exits during the 

2008 SIPP panel. Welfare exits were most 

often associated with an increase in 

recipient earnings. Thirty-seven (37.3) 

percent of welfare spells that ended during 

the 2008 to 2012 time period were 

associated with an increase in the recipient’s 

earnings. Twenty (19.7) percent of welfare 

exits were associated with an increase in the 

earnings of other household members. 

 Twenty-nine (28.5) percent of welfare exits

among single mothers during the 2008 –

2012 time period were not associated with 

any of the events listed above within the 

time period observed.

 Table IND 10a shows the events associated 

with welfare exits among single mother 

recipients for selected years. Increases in 

recipient earnings are the most common 

event associated with welfare exits, but exits 

associated with recipient earnings increases 

have decreased over time. For the 1993 –

1995 time period, 54.8 percent of exits were 

associated with an increase in recipient 

earnings, yet for the 2008 – 2012 time 

period 37.3 percent were associated with 

increases in recipient earnings.

 

28.5

4.3

6.1

19.8

1.9

4.2

3.3

8.9

19.7

37.3

0 10 20 30 40

None of above in recent past

Moved across state lines

Ended work limitation

Increase in number of adults (not marriage)

Married

Last child left or turned 19

Became recipient of other government benefits

Became SSI recipient

Increase in other household earnings

Increase in own earnings

Percent
II-33

Table IND 10a. Percentage of Single Mother AFDC/TANF Spell Exits Associated with Specific 

Events: Selected Periods

Spell Ended Spell Ended Spell Ended Spell Ended Spell Ended

1993-1995 1996-1999 2001-2003 2004-2006 2008-2012

Increase in own earnings 54.8 60.6 49.9 48.6 37.3

Increase in other household earnings 10.3 12.2 14.5 16.6 19.7

Became SSI recipient 1.6 5.9 5.1 4.2 8.9

Became recipient of other government benefits 2.2 2.6 2.9 0.7 3.3

Last child left or turned 19 5.6 2.4 1.6 3.3 4.2

Married 5.4 2.1 2.3 1.9 1.9

Increase in number of adults (not marriage) 17.6 12.4 12.8 14.2 19.8

Ended work limitation 3.0 10.9 8.8 5.2 6.1

Moved across state lines 2.4 1.4 2.8 4.4 4.3

None of above in recent past 24.0 19.0 24.7 27.3 28.5

Note: Welfare exits are defined as moving from receipt to non-receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an event 

was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare exit. In 

general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are that 

“Increase in other Household Earnings” was limited to cases when there were increases in household earnings without an increase in recipient 

earnings, and “Increase in Adults (not marriage)” was limited to cases where the adult joining the household was not marrying the head of the 

household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government 

benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans payments and Workers Compensation. An increase in 

earnings must be an increase of at least $50 per month. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category 

"None of above in Recent Past" represents the percentage of all spells ending during the period that were not associated with any of the events 

measured. 

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). Thus, the estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or 

exit. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

 Welfare exits associated with increases in 

other household earnings have increased 

over time. For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 

10.3 percent of welfare exits were related to 

increases in other household earnings, 

compared to 19.7 percent for the 2008 –

2012 time period. 

 Welfare exits associated with marriage also 

declined over the two time periods. For the 

1993 – 1995 time period, 5.4 percent of exits 

were related to marriage, for the 2008 –

2012 time period, the rate was 1.9 percent. 
II-34

Figure IND 10b. Events Associated with Single Mother TANF Entries during the 2008 - 2012 Period

Note: Welfare entries are defined as moving from non-receipt to receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an 

event was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare 

entry. In general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are 

that “Other Household Earnings Decreased” was limited to cases when there were decreases in household earnings without a decrease in recipient 

earnings, and “Decrease in Number of Adults (not divorce)” was limited to cases where the adult leaving the household was not married to the head of 

the household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government 

benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans payments and Workers Compensation. A decrease in earnings 

must be a decrease of at least $50 per month. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category "None of 

above in recent past" represents the percentage of all spell beginnings during the period that were not associated with any of the events measured. 

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or 

exit. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel.

 Figure IND 10b shows the events 

associated with the beginning of TANF 

spells among single mother recipients in the 

2008 – 2012 time period. A decrease in 

earnings was the most common event 

associated with welfare entries. For spells 

beginning between 2008 and 2012, 31.2

percent were associated with a decrease in 

the recipient’s earnings and 21.5 percent 

were associated with a decrease in the 

earnings of other household members. 

 Changes in household composition also 

were associated with the beginning of 

welfare spells. Twenty-five (25.4) percent of 

welfare entries were associated with a new 

child joining the family while 17.0 percent of 

TANF entries were the result of a decrease 

in the number of adults in a household not 

due to divorce. Four percent of TANF 

entries were associated with divorce or 

separation. 

 Twenty-six (26.4) percent of welfare entries 

were not associated with any of the events 

listed above within the time period observed. 

26.4

4.3

5.2

17.0

4.0

25.4

6.7

4.6

21.5

31.2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

None of above in recent past

Moved across state lines

Onset of work limitation

Decrease in number of adults (not divorce)

Divorced/separated from spouse

New child in family

Lost other government benefits (own)

Lost SSI benefits (own)

Other household earnings decreased

Recipients’ earnings decreased

Percent
II-35

Table IND 10b. Percentage of Single Mother AFDC/TANF Spell Entries Associated with Specific 

Events: Selected Periods

Spell Began Spell Began Spell Began Spell Began Spell Began

1993-1995 1996-1999 2001-2003 2004-2006 2007-2012

Recipients’ earnings decreased 57.1 48.1 46.7 43.8 31.2

Other household earnings decreased 24.0 19.6 17.2 19.2 21.5

Lost SSI benefits (own) 1.4 5.1 4.4 5.2 4.6

Lost other government benefits (own) 8.1 5.1 6.1 4.7 6.7

New child in family 22.0 22.0 27.5 28.9 25.4

Divorced/separated from spouse 8.7 6.7 4.3 5.8 4.0

Decrease in number of adults (not divorce) 19.2 17.8 14.7 19.8 17.0

Onset of work limitation 7.2 10.9 11.5 10.4 5.2

Moved across state lines 1.7 1.4 2.2 4.7 4.3

None of above in recent past 8.8 17.4 20.6 19.4 26.4

Note: Welfare entries are defined as moving from non-receipt to receipt between two successive SIPP interviews (conducted 4 months apart); an 

event was associated with a welfare transition if the event was observed within two interviews (i.e., 8 months) of the interview marking the welfare 

entry. In general, events are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive, and transition events may sum to more than 100 percent. Two exceptions are 

that “Other Household Earnings Decreased” was limited to cases when there were decreases in household earnings without a decrease in recipient 

earnings, and “Decrease in Number of Adults (not divorce)” was limited to cases where the adult leaving the household was not married to the head of 

the household. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included within AFDC/TANF income. Other government 

benefits include Unemployment Insurance, Foster Care, Railroad Retirement, veterans’ payments and Workers Compensation. A decrease in 

earnings must be a decrease of at least $50 per month. A work limitation is defined as a condition that limits the kind or amount of work. The category 

"None of above in Recent Past" represents the percentage of all spell beginnings during the period that were not associated with any of the events 

measured. 

Spells of welfare receipt and associated events are measured using monthly data from the SIPP. In the 2003 Indicators of Welfare Dependence

volume (and earlier volumes), events associated with the beginning and ending of program spells were measured using annual data from the Panel 

Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). The estimates shown above are not comparable to estimates reported in volumes prior to 2003.

Events sum to more than 100 percent because the same household could experience more than one event associated with a specific welfare entry or 

exit. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.

 Table IND 10b shows the events associated 

with the beginning of welfare spells among 

single mother recipients by selected time 

periods. 

 Decreases in a recipient’s earnings has 

been the most common event associated 

with welfare entries over time. 

 For the 1993 – 1995 time period, 57.1 

percent of AFDC spell entries were 

associated with a decrease in recipient 

earnings. The percentage was 31.2 percent 

for the 2008– 2012 time period. 

 The percentage of welfare entries not 

associated with any events has increased 

over time. Twenty-six (26.4) percent of 

welfare entries were not associated with any 

of the events listed above in the 2008 –

2012 time period, compared to 8.8 percent 

observed in the 1993-1995 period.

A decrease in other household members’ 

earnings also was related to the beginning 

of welfare spells. For the 1993 – 1995 time 

period, 24.0 percent of welfare entries were 

associated with a decrease in other 

household members’ earnings. For the 

2008 – 2012 time period, 21.5 percent of 

welfare entries were associated with a 

decrease in other household members’ 

earnings.

 A new child in the family was the third 

consistently common reason for welfare 

spells entries. Adding a child to the family 

was associated with 25.4 percent of spells 

beginning during 2008-2012 and 22.0 

percent of spells beginning in the 1993-1995 

period.

III-1

Chapter III. Predictors and Risk Factors Associated with Welfare Receipt

The Welfare Indicators Act requires the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to identify and 

set forth not only indicators of welfare dependence and welfare duration but also predictors and causes of 

welfare receipt. However, research has not established clear and definitive causes of welfare receipt and 

dependence. Instead, it has identified a number of risk factors associated with welfare use. For the 

purposes of this report, the terms “predictors” and “risk factors” are used somewhat interchangeably.

Following the recommendation of the Advisory Board, this chapter includes a wide range of possible 

predictors and risk factors. As research advances, some of the “predictors” included in this chapter may 

turn out to be simply correlates of welfare receipt, some may have a causal relationship, some may be 

consequences, and some may have predictive value. 

The predictors/risk factors included in this chapter are grouped into three categories: economic security 

risk factors, employment-related risk factors, and risk factors associated with nonmarital childbearing. 

Economic Security Risk Factors (ECON) 

The first group includes seven measures associated with economic security. This group encompasses 

five measures of poverty, as well as measures of child support receipt, and food insecurity. The tables 

and figures illustrating measures of economic security are labeled with the prefix ECON throughout this 

chapter. 

Poverty measures are important predictors of dependence, because families with fewer economic 

resources are more likely to be dependent on means-tested assistance. In addition, poverty and other 

measures of deprivation, such as food insecurity, are important to assess in conjunction with the 

measures of dependence outlined in Chapter II. 

Reductions in caseloads and dependence can reduce poverty, to the extent that such reductions are 

associated with greater work activity and higher economic resources for former welfare families. 

However, if former welfare families are left with fewer economic resources, reductions in welfare 

caseloads may not lead to decreases in poverty.

Several aspects of poverty are examined in this chapter. Those that can be updated annually using the 

Current Population Survey include: overall poverty rates (ECON 1); the percentage of individuals in deep 

poverty (ECON 2), and poverty rates using alternative definitions of income (ECON 3 and 4). The chapter 

also includes data on the length of poverty episodes or spells (ECON 5).

This chapter also includes data on poverty rates for custodial parents (ECON 6). Receipt of child support 

is associated with reduced poverty among custodial parents. Household food insecurity (ECON 7) is an 

important measure of deprivation that, although correlated with general income poverty, provides an 

alternative measure of tracking the incidence of material hardship and need, and how it may change over 

time. 

Employment and Work-Related Risk Factors (WORK)

The second grouping, labeled with the WORK prefix, includes seven factors related to employment and 

barriers to employment. These measures include data on overall labor force attachment and employment 

and earnings for low-skilled workers, levels of educational attainment and school drop-out rates, as well 

as data on barriers to work. The latter category includes incidence of adult and child disabilities. 

Employment and earnings provide many families with an escape from dependence. It is important, 

therefore, to look both at overall labor force attachment (WORK 1), and at employment and earnings for 

those with low education levels (WORK 2 and WORK 3). The economic condition of the low-skill labor 

market is a key predictor of the ability of men and women to support families without receiving meanstested assistance.
III-2

Indicator WORK 4 focuses on educational attainment. Individuals with less than a high school education 

have the lowest amount of human capital and are at the greatest risk of being poor, despite their work 

effort.

Measures of barriers to employment provide indicators of potential work limitations, which may be 

predictors of greater dependence. Substance abuse (WORK 5) and disabling conditions among children 

and adults (WORK 6) all have the potential of limiting the ability of the adults in the household to work. 

The labor force participation of women with children (WORK 7) is also a predictor of dependence.

Nonmarital Birth Risk Factors (BIRTH)

The final group of risk factors addresses nonmarital childbearing. The tables and figures in this 

subsection are labeled with the BIRTH prefix. This category includes long-term time trends in nonmarital 

births (BIRTH 1), nonmarital teen births (BIRTH 2 and BIRTH 3), and children living in families with nevermarried parents (BIRTH 4). Children living in families with never-married mothers are at risk of becoming 

dependent as adults, and it is therefore important to track changes in the size of this vulnerable 

population. 

As noted above, the predictors/risk factors included in this chapter do not represent an exhaustive list of 

measures. They are merely a sampling of available data that address in some way the question of how a 

family is faring on the scale of deprivation and well-being. Such questions are a necessary part of the 

discussion on dependence as researchers continue to assess the effects of welfare reform.
III-3

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 1. Poverty Rates 

Figure ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age: 1959-2013

Note: All persons under 18 include related children (own children, including stepchildren and adopted children, plus all other children in the household 

who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), unrelated individuals under 18 (persons who are not living with any relatives), and 

householders or spouses under age 18.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-

249, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.

 Figure ECON 1 shows the percentage of 

persons in poverty by age from 1959 to 

2013. The official poverty rate was 14.5 

percent in 2013, down from 15.1 percent in 

2010. Prior to 2010, poverty rates had 

increased from 11.3 percent in 2000 to 15.1 

percent in 2010, a time period that included 

the Great Recession. 

 All persons under 18 had a poverty rate of 

19.9 percent in 2013, down from 22.0 

percent in 2010. In all years after 1959, the 

child poverty rate was higher than the 

overall poverty rate.

 Table ECON 1 shows the percentage of 

persons in poverty by age and family type 

for selected years. In 2013, the poverty rate 

for the elderly (persons ages 65 and over) 

was 9.5 percent and the poverty rate for 

other adults (persons ages 18 to 64) was 

13.6 percent. 

 Related children from birth to age five have 

had the highest poverty rate among all age 

groups throughout the last four decades. In 

2013, 22.2 percent of related children from 

birth to age 5 lived below the poverty line, 

though this is down from 25.3 percent in 

2010. 

 The poverty rates for persons in both 

married-couple families and female-headed 

families have decreased since the 1960s. In 

1959, 18.2 percent of persons in marriedcouple families and 49.4 percent of persons 

in female-headed families were poor. By 

2013, 6.8 percent of persons in marriedcouple families and 33.2 percent of persons 

in female-headed families were poor. 

22.4

14.5

15.3

22.2

27.3

19.9

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1959 1964 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

(In percent)

All persons under 18

All persons

Related children 0-5
III-4

Table ECON 1. Percentage of Persons in Poverty by Age and Family Type: Selected Years

 Related Children All Persons

Calendar 

Year Ages 0-5 Ages 6-17 Total Under 18 18 to 64 65 & over

In marriedcouple 

families

In femaleheaded 

families 

1959 NA NA 22.4 27.3 17.0 35.2 18.2 49.4 

1963 NA NA 19.5 23.1 NA NA 14.9 47.7 

1966 NA NA 14.7 17.6 10.5 28.5 10.3 39.8 

1969 15.3 13.1 12.1 14.0 8.7 25.3 7.4 38.2 

1973 15.7 13.6 11.1 14.4 8.3 16.3 6.0 37.5 

1976 17.7 15.1 11.8 16.0 9.0 15.0 6.4 37.3 

1979 17.9 15.1 11.7 16.4 8.9 15.2 6.3 34.9 

1980 20.3 16.8 13.0 18.3 10.1 15.7 7.4 36.7 

1981 22.0 18.4 14.0 20.0 11.1 15.3 8.1 38.7 

1982 23.3 20.4 15.0 21.9 12.0 14.6 9.1 40.6 

1983 24.6 20.4 15.2 22.3 12.4 13.8 9.3 40.2 

1984 23.4 19.7 14.4 21.5 11.7 12.4 8.5 38.4 

1985 22.6 18.8 14.0 20.7 11.3 12.6 8.2 37.6 

1986 21.6 18.8 13.6 20.5 10.8 12.4 7.3 38.3 

1987 22.3 18.3 13.4 20.3 10.6 12.5 7.2 38.1 

1988 21.8 17.5 13.0 19.5 10.5 12.0 6.6 37.2 

1989 21.9 17.4 12.8 19.6 10.2 11.4 6.7 35.9 

1990 23.0 18.2 13.5 20.6 10.7 12.2 6.9 37.2 

1991 24.0 19.5 14.2 21.8 11.4 12.4 7.2 39.7 

1992 25.7 19.4 14.8 22.3 11.9 12.9 7.7 38.5 

1993 25.6 20.0 15.1 22.7 12.4 12.2 8.0 38.7 

1994 24.5 19.5 14.5 21.8 11.9 11.7 7.4 38.6 

1995 23.7 18.3 13.8 20.8 11.4 10.5 6.8 36.5 

1996 22.7 18.3 13.7 20.5 11.4 10.8 6.9 35.8 

1997 21.6 18.0 13.3 19.9 10.9 10.5 6.4 35.1 

1998 20.6 17.1 12.7 18.9 10.5 10.5 6.2 33.1 

1999 18.4 15.7 11.9 17.1 10.1 9.7 5.9 30.5 

2000 17.8 14.7 11.3 16.2 9.6 9.9 5.5 27.9 

2001 18.2 14.6 11.7 16.3 10.1 10.1 5.7 28.6 

2002 18.5 15.3 12.1 16.7 10.6 10.4 6.1 28.8 

2003 19.8 15.9 12.5 17.6 10.8 10.2 6.2 30.0 

2004 20.0 16.0 12.7 17.8 11.3 9.8 6.4 30.5 

2005 20.0 15.7 12.6 17.6 11.1 10.1 5.9 31.1 

2006 20.0 15.4 12.3 17.4 10.8 9.4 5.7 30.5 

2007 20.8 16.0 12.5 18.0 10.9 9.7 5.8 30.7 

2008 21.3 17.1 13.2 19.0 11.7 9.7 6.7 31.4 

2009 23.8 18.2 14.3 20.7 12.9 8.9 7.2 32.5 

2010 25.3 19.6 15.1 22.0 13.8 8.9 7.7 34.3 

2011 24.5 19.9 15.0 21.9 13.7 8.7 7.4 34.2 

2012 24.4 19.8 15.0 21.8 13.7 9.1 7.5 33.9 

2013 22.2 18.2 14.5 19.9 13.6 9.5 6.8 33.2

Note: All persons under 18 include related children (own children, including stepchildren and adopted children, plus all other children in the household

who are related to the householder by birth, marriage, or adoption), unrelated individuals under 18 (persons who are not living with any relatives), and 

householders or spouses under age 18.

In 1959-1987, persons in married-couple families include a small number of persons in male-headed families with no spouse present. In 1988, the first 

year for which we have separate data for these families, poor persons in male-headed families with no spouse present comprised just over 8 percent of 

the combined total of all persons below the poverty level. 

Spouses are not present in the female-headed family category. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-

249, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.
III-5

29.9

38.5 40.9 43.1 43.8

75 78 82 85 89 93 97 01 05 09 13

Year

Percent of Poor in Deep Poverty

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 2. Deep Poverty Rates

Figure ECON 2. Percentage of Total Population below 50, 100 and 125 Percent of Poverty Level: 

1975 - 2013

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-

249, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.]

 

 Figure ECON 2 shows the percentage of the 

population below 50, 100, and 125 percent 

of the poverty level over time. The 

percentage of the population in “deep 

poverty” (with incomes below 50 percent of 

the federal poverty level) was 6.3 percent in 

2013, compared to an overall poverty rate of 

14.5 percent.

 Less than five (4.7) percent of the population 

was “near-poor;” they had incomes at or 

above 100 percent but below 125 percent of 

the federal poverty level in 2013.

 Table ECON 2 shows the number and 

percentage of the population below 50, 75, 

and 125 percent of the poverty level for 

selected years. In general, the percentage 

of the population with incomes below 50 

percent of the poverty level has followed a 

pattern that reflects the trend in the overall 

poverty rate. 

 The percentage of people below 50 percent 

of the poverty level rose in the late 1970s 

and early 1980s to 5.9 percent, and then 

after falling, has risen past its 1993 peak of 

6.2 percent. The rates for 100 percent and 

125 percent of the poverty level followed a 

similar pattern with more pronounced peaks 

and valleys.

 Over the past three decades, the proportion 

of the poverty population in “deep poverty” 

has increased substantially. The 

percentage of the poverty population in deep 

poverty went from a low of 29.9 percent in 

1975 to 43.8 percent in 2013. 

0

5

10

15

20

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

Below 50 percent Below 100 percent Below 125 percent

0

5

10

15

20

25

1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Below 50% Below 100% Below 125%

(In percent)

17.6

12.3

3.7

20.3

15.2

5.9

20.0

15.1

6.2

17.1

12.7

5.4

19.2

14.5

6.3
III-6

Table ECON 2. Number and Percentage of Total Population below 50, 75, 100 and 125 Percent of 

Poverty Level: Selected Years

Total Below 50 Percent Below 75 Percent Below 100 Percent Below 125 Percent

Population Number

(thousands)

 Percent Number

(thousands) Percent Number(thousands) Percent Number(thousands) Percent Year (thousands)

1959 176,600 NA NA NA NA 39,500 22.4 54,900 31.1

1961 181,300 NA NA NA NA 39,600 21.9 54,300 30.0

1963 187,300 NA NA NA NA 36,400 19.5 50,800 27.1

1965 191,400 NA NA NA NA 33,200 17.3 46,200 24.1

1967 195,700 NA NA NA NA 27,800 14.2 39,200 20.0

1969 199,500 NA NA 14,600 7.3 24,100 12.1 34,700 17.4

1971 204,600 NA NA NA NA 25,600 12.5 36,500 17.8

1973 207,600 NA NA NA NA 23,000 11.1 32,800 15.8

1975 210,900 7,700 3.7 15,400 7.3 25,900 12.3 37,200 17.6

1976 212,300 7,000 3.3 14,900 7.0 25,000 11.8 35,500 16.7

1977 213,900 7,500 3.5 15,000 7.0 24,700 11.6 35,700 16.7

1978 215,700 7,700 3.6 14,900 6.9 24,500 11.4 34,200 15.8

1979 222,900 8,600 3.8 16,300 7.3 26,100 11.7 36,600 16.4

1980 225,000 9,800 4.4 18,700 8.3 29,300 13.0 40,700 18.1

1981 227,200 11,200 4.9 20,700 9.1 31,800 14.0 43,700 19.3

1982 229,400 12,800 5.6 23,200 10.1 34,400 15.0 46,500 20.3

1983 231,700 13,600 5.9 23,600 10.2 35,300 15.2 47,200 20.3

1984 233,800 12,800 5.5 22,700 9.7 33,700 14.4 45,300 19.4

1985 236,600 12,400 5.2 22,200 9.4 33,100 13.6 44,200 18.7

1986 238,600 12,700 5.3 22,400 9.4 32,400 14.0 43,500 18.7

1987 241,000 12,500 5.2 21,700 9.0 32,200 13.4 43,000 17.9

1988 243,500 12,700 5.2 21,400 8.8 31,700 13.0 42,600 17.5

1989 246,000 12,000 4.9 20,700 8.4 31,500 12.8 42,700 17.3

1990 248,600 12,900 5.2 22,600 9.1 33,600 13.5 44,800 18.0

1991 251,200 14,100 5.6 24,400 9.7 35,700 14.2 47,500 18.9

1992 256,500 15,500 6.1 26,200 10.2 38,000 14.8 50,600 19.7

1993 259,300 16,000 6.2 27,200 10.5 39,300 15.1 51,800 20.0

1994 261,600 15,400 5.9 26,400 10.1 38,100 14.5 50,400 19.3

1995 263,700 13,900 5.3 24,500 9.3 36,400 13.8 48,800 18.5

1996 266,200 14,400 5.4 24,800 9.3 36,500 13.7 49,300 18.5

1997 268,500 14,600 5.4 24,200 9.0 35,600 13.3 47,900 17.8

1998 271,100 13,900 5.1 23,000 8.5 34,500 12.7 46,000 17.0

1999 276,200 12,900 4.7 21,800 7.9 32,800 11.9 45,000 16.3

2000 278,900 12,600 4.5 20,900 7.5 31,600 11.3 43,600 15.6

2001 281,500 13,400 4.8 22,000 7.8 32,900 11.7 45,300 16.1

2002 285,300 14,100 4.9 23,100 8.1 34,600 12.1 47,100 16.5

2003 287,700 15,300 5.3 24,500 8.5 35,900 12.5 48,700 16.9

2004 290,600 15,700 5.4 25,000 8.6 37,000 12.7 49,700 17.1

2005 293,100 15,900 5.4 25,200 8.6 37,000 12.6 49,300 16.8

2006 296,500 15,400 5.2 25,200 8.5 36,500 12.3 49,700 16.8

2007 298,700 15,600 5.2 25,100 8.4 37,300 12.5 50,900 17.0

2008 301,000 17,100 5.7 27,400 9.1 39,800 13.2 53,800 17.9

2009 303,800 19,000 6.3 30,100 9.9 43,600 14.3 56,800 18.7

2010 306,100 20,500 6.7 32,100 10.5 46,300 15.1 60,700 19.8

2011 308,500 20,400 6.6 31,800 10.3 46,200 15.0 60,900 19.8

2012 310,600 20,400 6.6 32,300 10.4 46,500 15.0 61,200 19.7

2013 313,000 19,900 6.3 31,300 10.0 45,300 14.5 60,200 19.2

Note: In previous editions of this report, the number of persons below 50 percent and 75 percent of poverty for 1969 were calculated based on data 

from the 1970 decennial census. In this report the estimate of the number of persons below 75 percent of poverty for 1969 comes from Current 

Population Survey data published in Current Population Reports, Series P60-76. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-

249, and data published online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html.
III-7

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 3. Research Supplemental Poverty 

Measure

Figure ECON 3. Percentage of Persons in Poverty Using the Official and Supplemental Poverty 

Measures by Demographic Characteristics: 2013

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2014.

Note: Estimates for Black persons include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates 

for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons 

but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific 

Islanders are included in all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013" Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-251.

 Figure ECON 3 shows a comparison of the 

percentage of persons in poverty using the

official poverty measure and the Census 

Bureau’s supplemental poverty measure by 

selected demographic characteristics.23

 The supplemental poverty measure yields 

poverty rates that are similar to the official 

poverty measure overall. In 2013, 15.5

percent of all persons were poor under the 

supplemental poverty measure and 14.6

percent of all persons were poor under the 

official poverty measure.

 

23 The U.S. Census Bureau developed the supplemental poverty 

measure based on the 2010 recommendations of an Interagency 

Technical Working Group, which drew on the earlier 

recommendations of the 1995 National Academy of Sciences Panel 

on Poverty and Family Assistance.

 The supplemental and official poverty rates 

show some differences by age and other 

characteristics. In 2013, the supplemental 

poverty rate among children was 4.0

percentage points lower than the official 

rate, partly because it takes into account 

non-cash benefits that many children 

receive. Conversely, the supplemental 

poverty rate among the elderly in 2013 was 

5.1 percentage points higher than the official 

rate, in part due to out-of-pocket health 

costs for these persons.

 Table ECON 3 provides greater detail on the 

supplemental and official poverty measures.

14.6

20.4

13.6

9.5

23.7

27.3

9.7

6.7

28.6

15.5 16.4 15.4 14.6

26.0

24.7

10.7 9.5

28.5

0

6

12

18

24

30

36

All persons Children

under 18

Adults 18

to 64

Adults 65

and over

Hispanic Black Non-Hispanic

white

 In marriedcouple unitsIn femalehouseholder

units Offical poverty measure SPM poverty measure

(In percent)
III-8

Table ECON 3. Poverty in 2010 and 2013: Official Poverty Measure and Supplemental Poverty 

Measure

Official Poverty Rates SPM Poverty Rates

2010 2013 Change 2010 2013 Change

Demographic characteristics:

All individuals 15.1 14.6 -0.5 16.0 15.5 -0.5

Children under age 18 22.0 20.4 -1.6 18.0 16.4 -1.6

Individuals ages 18 — 64 13.6 13.6 0.0 15.2 15.4 0.2

Individuals age 65 and older 8.9 9.5 0.6 15.8 14.6 -1.2

Hispanic 26.5 23.7 -2.8 27.7 26.0 -1.7

Black 27.4 27.3 -0.1 25.4 24.7 -0.7

Asian 12.2 10.5 -1.7 16.6 16.4 -0.2

White, non-Hispanic 9.9 9.7 -0.2 11.0 10.7 -0.3

Foreign-born 19.9 18.1 -1.8 25.1 23.8 -1.3

In married-couple units 7.6 6.7 -0.9 9.8 9.5 -0.3

In female-householder units 28.7 28.6 -0.1 29.0 28.5 -0.5

Employment and insurance:

All workers 7.3 7.3 0.0 9.1 9.8 0.7

Full-time/year-round workers 2.7 2.7 0.0 4.8 5.4 0.6

With private health insurance 4.8 5.2 0.4 7.5 8.2 0.7

With public health insurance, no private 37.6 34.1 -3.5 31.5 28.5 -3.0

Not insured 29.2 27.0 -2.2 30.5 29.1 -1.5

Geographic areas:

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) 14.9 14.3 -0.6 16.6 15.9 -0.7

Non-metropolitan Areas 16.5 16.2 -0.3 12.8 13.2 0.4

West 15.3 14.8 -0.5 19.3 18.7 -0.6

South 16.8 16.2 -0.6 16.3 15.9 -0.4

Northeast 12.9 12.8 -0.1 14.5 14.3 -0.2

Midwest 14.0 13.0 -1.0 13.1 12.5 -0.6

Poverty by threshold:

0 — 50 % of the poverty threshold 6.8 6.5 -0.3 5.4 5.2 -0.2

50 — 100 % of the poverty threshold 8.4 8.1 -0.3 10.7 10.3 -0.4

100 — 200 % of the poverty threshold 18.8 19.4 0.6 31.8 31.4 -0.4

Data: U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2014.

Note: Estimates for Black persons include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates 

for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons 

but are not shown under any race category. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, "The Research Supplemental Poverty Measure: 2013," Tables 1 & 6, Current Population Reports, Series P60-251.

.

 Compared to the official poverty measure, 

the Research Supplemental Poverty 

Measure (SPM) makes changes to how 

income is measured by: counting the value 

of federal in-kind benefits available to 

satisfy basic food, clothing, shelter, and 

utility needs; subtracting income and 

payroll taxes; adding refundable tax credits 

received; and subtracting other necessary 

expenses such as the cost of child care, 

other work expenses, child support 

payments, and out-of pocket medical 

expenditures. 

 The SPM also makes changes to the 

poverty thresholds by: using the 33rd 

percentile of out-of-pocked expenditures on 

basic needs; varying thresholds based on 

home ownership/rental status; adjusting the 

thresholds for geographic differences in the 

cost of living; and using a five-year moving 

average of expenditures on basic needs to 

account for inflation and changes in 

expenditure patterns. The Census Bureau 

provides adjusted official poverty estimates 

(that include unrelated children under age 

15) for the exclusive purpose of 

comparison with the Supplemental Poverty 

Measure. Therefore the official poverty 

estimates may not match the SPM 

estimates. See Appendix E for more 

details.
III-9

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 4. Poverty Rates with Various

Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income

Figure ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various 

Means-Tested Transfers Counted as Income: 1979-2012

Note: The four measures of income are as follows: (1) “Cash income plus all social insurance” is earnings and cash income, plus social security, 

workers compensation, disability, unemployment, public and private pensions, veterans benefits and other social insurance cash transfers. It does not 

include means-tested cash transfers; (2) “Plus means-tested cash transfers” is the official Census Bureau income definition, which includes meanstested cash transfers, primarily AFDC/TANF and SSI; (3) “Plus food and housing benefits” counts the cash value of means-tested food and housing 

benefits as income; and (4) “Plus EITC and federal taxes” is the most comprehensive income measure used. It adds the refundable Earned Income 

Tax Credit (EITC) to income, while subtracting federal payroll and income taxes. The fungible value of Medicare and Medicaid is not included in any of 

the income measures. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2012, analyzed by the 

Congressional Budget Office. 

 Figure ECON 4 shows the percentage of the 

population below the official poverty line with 

various means-tested transfers counted as 

income for the years 1979 to 2012. The 

official poverty rate – using the official income 

definition, which includes means-tested cash 

transfers (primarily TANF and SSI) in addition 

to pre-transfer cash income and social 

insurance cash transfers – was 15.0 percent 

in 2012. Without cash welfare (TANF and 

SSI), the 2012 poverty rate would be 15.7

percent.

 Adding non-cash, means-tested transfers 

(food and housing benefits including SNAP) to

the official income definition has the effect of 

lowering the percentage of people with 

incomes below the official poverty line. 

Including the value of food and housing 

benefits in total income would reduce the 

poverty rate to 12.9 percent in 2012.

 When income is defined to include all of the 

previously mentioned benefits plus the Earned 

Income Tax Credit (EITC) and the effect of 

federal taxes, the percentage of people below 

the official poverty line would decrease to 11.4

percent in 2012. Federal taxes and the EITC 

have had the net effect of reducing poverty 

rates following the EITC expansions in 1993 

and 1995.

 Table ECON 4 shows the percentage of the 

population below the official poverty line with 

various means-tested transfers counted as 

income for selected years. The combined 

effect of means-tested cash transfers, food 

and housing benefits, the EITC, and federal 

taxes was to reduce the poverty rate in 2012 

by 4.3 percentage points. Net reductions in 

poverty rates were smaller during the 1981 -

1982 recession, and higher in the mid-1990s, 

largely due to expansions in the EITC.

15.7

15.0

12.9

11.4

8

10

12

14

16

18

1979 1983 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

Cash income plus all social insurance

Plus Means-Tested Cash transfers

(official poverty rate)

Plus food and housing benefits

Plus EITC, federal taxes, food, and housing

(In percent)
III-10

Table ECON 4. Percentage of Total Population Below the Official Poverty Line with Various MeansTested Transfers Counted as Income: Selected Years 

Cash income plus 

all social insurance

Plus means-tested 

cash transfers

(official poverty 

measure)

Plus food and 

housing benefits

Plus EITC and 

federal taxes

Reduction in 

poverty rate

1979 12.8 11.6 9.7 10.0 2.8

1981 14.9 13.9 12.2 13.2 1.7

1983 16.0 15.2 13.7 14.7 1.3

1986 14.5 13.6 12.2 13.1 1.4

1989 13.8 12.8 11.2 11.8 2.0

1992 15.6 14.5 12.9 13.0 2.6

1995 14.9 13.8 12.0 11.5 3.4

1998 13.5 12.7 11.3 10.4 3.1

2000 12.0 11.3 10.1 9.5 2.5

2001 12.5 11.7 10.5 9.8 2.7

2002 12.8 12.1 10.9 10.0 2.8

2003 13.2 12.5 11.2 10.4 2.8

2004 13.5 12.7 11.5 10.5 3.0

2005 13.3 12.6 11.2 10.3 3.0

2006 13.0 12.3 11.0 10.0 3.0

2007 13.2 12.5 11.1 10.1 3.1

2008 13.9 13.2 11.7 10.1 3.8

2009 15.1 14.3 12.4 10.5 4.6

2010 15.8 15.1 13.0 11.3 5.0

2011 15.8 15.0 12.9 11.2 4.6

2012 15.7 15.0 12.9 11.4 4.3

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1980-2012, analyzed by the 

Congressional Budget Office. 

The four measures of income are as follows: 

(1) “Cash income plus all social insurance” is 

earnings and cash income, plus social security, 

workers compensation, disability, 

unemployment, public and private pensions, 

veterans benefits and other social insurance 

cash transfers. It does not include means-tested 

cash transfers; 

(2) “Plus means-tested cash transfers” is the 

official Census Bureau income definition, which 

includes means-tested cash transfers, primarily 

AFDC/TANF and SSI; 

(3) “Plus food and housing benefits” counts the 

cash value of means-tested food and housing 

benefits as income; and 

(4) “Plus EITC and federal taxes” is the most 

comprehensive income measure used. It adds 

the refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

to income, while subtracting federal payroll and 

income taxes. The fungible value of Medicare 

and Medicaid is not included in any of the 

income measures. 
III-11

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 5. Poverty Spells

Figure ECON 5. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP 

Panel by Length of Spell

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2012).

 Figure ECON 5 shows the percentage of 

poverty spells that are of various lengths for 

persons who became poor during the 2008 - 

2012 period. Forty-six (45.7) percent of 

poverty spells that began between 2008 and 

2012 ended within 4 months. Almost threequarters (72.5 percent) of poverty spells 

during this period ended within one year 

while 17.7 percent of spells lasted more than 

20 months. 

 Table ECON 5a shows the percentage of 

poverty spells for persons entering poverty 

during the 2008 - 2012 period by length of 

spell and demographic characteristics. 

 Among racial and ethnic groups, a larger 

percentage of Non-Hispanic Whites had 

short spells of poverty (48.3 percent) than 

Non-Hispanic Blacks (39.9 percent) or 

Hispanics of any race (44.0 percent). A 

larger percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks

(23.1 percent) had poverty spells greater

than 20 months than did Non-Hispanic 

Whites (15.1 percent) and Hispanics of any 

race (19.9 percent). 

 When examining long spells of poverty,

greater than 20 months by age group, 

children 0 - 5 years of age had the highest 

rate (21.9 percent) and men 16-64 years of 

age had the lowest rate (14.9 percent).

45.7

26.8

9.8

17.7

 Spells <= 4 months Spells 5-12 months Spells 13-20 months Spells > 20 months
III-12

Table ECON 5a. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during the 2008 SIPP 

Panel by Length of Spell and Selected Characteristics

Spells

<=4 Months

Spells

5-12 Months

Spells 

13-20 Months

Spells >20

Months

All Persons 45.7 26.8 9.8 17.7

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 48.3 27.3 9.3 15.1

 Non-Hispanic Black 39.9 26.6 10.5 23.1

 Hispanic 44.0 25.6 10.5 19.9

Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 years 42.4 25.7 10.0 21.9

 Children ages 6-10 years 44.0 26.1 9.4 20.5

 Children ages 11-15 years 45.2 28.2 9.9 16.7

 Women ages 16-64 years 45.7 26.5 10.2 17.7

 Men ages 16-64 years 48.1 27.4 9.6 14.9

 Adults ages 65 years and over 41.3 24.0 8.3 26.3

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 2008 panel (2008 – 2012).

Table ECON 5b. Percentage of Poverty Spells for Persons Entering Poverty during Selected SIPP 

Panels by Length of Spell

Spells

<=4 Months

Spells 

5-12 Months

Spells 

13-20 Months

Spells

>20 Months

1993 – 1995 47.3 28.1 8.9 15.7

1996 – 1999 51.3 29.0 8.3 11.4

2001 – 2003 49.2 27.7 7.7 15.5

2004 – 2007 47.8 26.7 12.2 13.4

2008 – 2012 45.7 26.8 9.8 17.7

Note: Spell length categories are mutually exclusive. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, and 2008 panels.
III-13

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 6. Child Support 

Figure ECON 6. Poverty Rates for Custodial Mothers by Marital Status and Receipt of Child 

Support: 2011

Note: Data are for mothers with custody. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, 2012.

● Figure ECON 6 shows poverty rates for 

custodial mothers by marital status and 

receipt of child support. The poverty rates of 

custodial mothers are correlated with their 

marital status. 

● The poverty rate for all custodial mothers 

was 31.9 percent in 2011. When factoring in 

current marital status, currently married 

custodial mothers had a poverty rate of 17.9 

percent. Previously married custodial 

mothers had a poverty rate of 27.8 percent, 

and never married mothers had a poverty 

rate of 43.6 percent. 

● Receipt of child support is correlated with

the poverty status of custodial parents. For 

all custodial mothers who did not receive 

child support, their poverty rate was 33.9 

percent. Custodial mothers who received 

child support had a poverty rate of 28.2

percent—5.7 percentage points lower than 

custodial mothers who did not receive child 

support.

● Receipt of child support is also correlated 

with the poverty status of custodial fathers.

There are four times as many custodial 

mothers as there are custodial fathers, and 

in general custodial fathers have a lower 

poverty rate than custodial mothers. Yet 

regardless of sex, receipt of child support is 

associated with a lower poverty rate. 

Custodial fathers who received child support 

had a lower poverty rate in 2011 than did 

those custodial fathers who did not receive 

child support, 13.4 percent and 16.7 percent 

respectively.

 

(In percent)

33.9

28.2

43.6

27.8

17.9

31.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

Custodial mothers Married Previously married Never married With child support Without child support
III-14

Table ECON 6. Poverty Rates of Families by Sex, Marital Status, and Receipt of Child Support: 

2011

Mothers Fathers

Parents with legal custody Percent of Total

Total 81.8 18.2

Percentage in poverty

All parents with legal custody 31.9 16.2

 Married 17.9 10.5

 Previously married 27.8 12.6

 Never married 43.6 28.0

 Received child support last year 28.2 13.4

 Received no child support last year 33.9 16.7

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, 2012.
III-15

ECONOMIC SECURITY RISK FACTOR 7. Food Insecurity

Figure ECON 7. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 2012

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. 

Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping 

strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries 

or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating 

patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2012.

 Figure ECON 7 shows the percentage of 

households that were food secure, had low 

food security, and had very low food security 

in 2012. The majority of U.S. households 

(85.5 percent) were food secure in 2012; 

that is, they had consistent, dependable 

access to enough food for active, healthy 

living.

 Fifteen (14.5) percent of U.S. households 

experienced low food security, including 5.7 

percent who were classified as having very 

low food security. Very low food security is 

defined as having reduced food intake and 

having normal eating patterns disrupted due 

to a lack of resources. After increasing from 

2007 to 2008, the percentage of households 

reporting low and very low food security has 

remained virtually unchanged from 2008 to 

2012. 

 Table ECON 7a shows the percentage of 

households classified by food security status 

and by selected demographic 

characteristics. Households with elderly 

were more food secure (91.2 percent) than 

were households with children under six 

(79.5 percent) or households with children 

under 18 (80.0 percent).

 Food insecurity increases as poverty 

increases. Ninety-three (93.2) percent of 

households above 185 percent of the 

poverty level were food secure while 61.8 

percent of households below 130 percent of 

the poverty level were food secure. Among 

poor households, 59.1 percent were food 

secure. 

 Married-couple households with children 

were less likely to experience food insecurity 

than were female-headed households with 

children. Thirteen percent (13.2) percent of 

married-couple households with children 

were food insecure in 2012 compared to 

35.4 percent of female-headed households 

with children. 

 Table ECON 7b shows the percentage of 

households classified by food security status 

between 1998 and 2012. The percentage of 

households with food insecurity (both low 

and very low food insecurity) has ranged 

from a low of 10.1 percent in 1999 to a high 

of 14.9 percent in 2011.

85.5

8.8

5.7

Food secure Low food security Very low food security
III-16

Table ECON 7a. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status and Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

Food Secure

Food Insecurity 

All Low Very Low

All Households 85.5 14.5 8.8 5.7

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 88.8 11.2 6.6 4.6

 Non-Hispanic Black 75.4 24.6 14.3 10.4

 Hispanic 76.7 23.3 15.8 7.4

Age Categories 

 Households with children under 6 79.5 20.5 15.1 5.5

 Households with children under 18 80.0 20.0 14.0 6.0

 Households with elderly 91.2 8.8 5.3 3.5

Family Categories

 Married-couple households with children 86.8 13.2 9.9 3.3

 Female-headed households with children 64.6 35.4 22.7 12.7

 Male-headed households with children 76.4 23.6 17.3 6.3

Household Income-to-Poverty Ratio

 Under 1.00 59.1 40.9 22.7 18.2

 Under 1.30 61.8 38.2 21.5 16.7

 Under 1.85 65.7 34.3 19.8 14.5

 1.85 and over 93.2 6.8 4.5 2.3

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. 

Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping 

strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries 

or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating 

patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources. Spouses are not present in the female-headed and male-headed 

household categories. 

Race and ethnicity categories for households are determined by the race and ethnicity of the reference person for the household. Persons of Hispanic 

ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported 

more than one race are included in the total for all households but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all households but are not shown separately.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2012. 

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err108.aspx. Data are from the Current Population Survey, Food Security 

Supplement.

Table ECON 7b. Percentage of Households Classified by Food Security Status: 1998-2012

Food Secure

Food Insecurity 

All Low Very Low

1998 88.2 11.8 8.1 3.7

1999 89.9 10.1 7.1 3.0

2000 89.5 10.5 7.3 3.1

2001 89.3 10.7 7.4 3.3

2002 88.9 11.1 7.6 3.5

2003 88.8 11.2 7.7 3.5

2004 88.1 11.9 8.0 3.9

2005 89.0 11.0 7.1 3.9

2006 89.1 10.9 6.9 4.0

2007 88.9 11.1 7.0 4.1

2008 85.4 14.6 8.9 5.7

2009 85.3 14.7 9.0 5.7

2010 85.5 14.5 9.1 5.4

2011 85.1 14.9 9.2 5.7

2012 85.5 14.5 8.8 5.7

Note: Food secure households had consistent access to enough food for active, healthy lives for all household members at all times during the year. 

Households with low food security obtained enough food to avoid substantial disruptions in eating patterns and food intake, using a variety of coping 

strategies, such as eating less varied diets, participating in Federal food assistance programs, or getting emergency food from community food pantries 

or emergency kitchens. Households with very low food security reported reduced food intake of some household members and their normal eating 

patterns were disrupted because of the lack of money and other resources. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Household Food Security in the United States, 2012. 
III-17

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 1. Labor

Force Attachment

Figure WORK 1. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Race and 

Ethnicity: 2012

Note: Full-time, full-year workers (FT/FY) are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given 

year. Part-time labor force participation includes those working for some portion of the year but less than full-time, full-year. Looking for work includes 

individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force 

participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any 

race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are 

included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians 

and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2013.

 Figure WORK 1 shows the percentage of 

persons in families with labor force 

participants by race and ethnicity. In 2012, 

Hispanics were more likely to live in families 

with at least one full-time, full-year labor 

force participant (70.5 percent) than were 

Non-Hispanic Whites (68.1 percent) or NonHispanic Blacks (59.6 percent).

 In 2012, 4.3 percent of Non-Hispanic Blacks 

lived in families with at least one person 

actively looking for work but no one working, 

compared to 1.3 percent for Non-Hispanic 

Whites and 1.9 percent for Hispanics. 

 Table WORK 1a shows the percentage of 

persons in families with labor force 

participants by demographic characteristics. 

Among family types, persons living in 

married-couple families were more likely 

than persons living in other family types to 

live with at least one full-time, full-year labor 

force participant. 

 Table WORK 1b shows the percentage of 

persons in families with labor force 

participants for select years between 1990 

and 2012. The percentage of persons living 

in families with a full-time, full-year labor 

force participant increased from 67.6 

percent in 1992 to 73.3 percent in 2000. In 

2012, 67.9 percent of persons lived in 

families with a full-time, full-year worker.

(In percent)

16.0 16.3

9.5

1.3 4.3

1.9

14.6

19.8

18.2

68.1

59.6

70.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

At least one full-time worker

At least one person part-time, no full-time participants

At least one person looking, no full-time participants

No one in labor force
III-18

Table WORK 1a. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

At least one full-time 

worker

At least one person 

part time, no full time 

participants

At least one person 

looking, no full time 

participants

No one in labor force

All Persons 67.9 15.8 1.9 14.4

Racial/Ethnic Categories

 Non-Hispanic White 68.1 14.6 1.3 16.0

 Non-Hispanic Black 59.6 19.8 4.3 16.3

 Hispanic 70.5 18.2 1.9 9.5

Age Categories

 Children ages 0-5 73.8 17.5 2.5 6.1

 Children ages 6-10 74.8 16.6 2.2 6.4

 Children ages 11-15 76.2 15.8 2.1 5.9

 Women ages 16-64 73.4 16.1 1.9 8.6

 Men ages 16-64 76.9 14.6 1.7 6.7

 Adults ages 65 and over 23.7 16.7 1.5 58.1

Family Categories

 Persons in married families 77.2 11.9 0.8 10.1

 Persons in female-headed families 56.1 24.6 4.8 14.6

 Persons in male-headed families 55.8 26.1 4.5 13.6

 Unrelated persons 48.8 18.7 2.3 30.3

Note: Full-time, full-year (FT/FY) workers are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given 

year. Part-time labor force participation includes those working for some portion of the year but less than full-time, full-year. Looking for work includes 

individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force 

participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of labor force participation in Indicator 2. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any 

race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Persons who reported more than one race are 

included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians 

and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. 

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2013.

Table WORK 1b. Percentage of Persons in Families with Labor Force Participants: Selected Years

No One in LF 

During Year

At Least One in LF

No One FT/FY

At Least One 

FT/FY Worker

1990 13.7 17.6 68.7

1992 14.4 18.1 67.6

1994 14.1 17.1 68.8

1996 13.6 16.1 70.3

1998 13.3 14.6 72.1

1999 12.6 14.4 73.1

2000 12.8 13.8 73.3

2001 13.3 14.4 72.4

2002 13.4 14.6 72.0

2003 13.8 15.0 71.2

2004 13.9 14.4 71.7

2005 13.7 14.1 72.2

2006 13.6 13.7 72.8

2007 13.5 14.1 72.5

2008 13.7 16.0 70.4

2009 14.0 18.2 67.8

2010 14.4 18.2 67.4

2011 14.9 17.2 67.9

2012 14.4 17.7 67.9

Note: Full-time, full-year workers (FT/FY) are defined as those who usually worked for 35 or more hours per week, for at least 50 weeks in a given 

year. Part-time and part-year labor force participation includes part-time workers and individuals who are unemployed, laid off, and/or looking for work 

for part or all of the year. This indicator represents annual measures of labor force participation, and thus cannot be compared to monthly measures of 

labor force participation in Indicator 2.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1991-2013.
92.8

89.9

86.2

74.6

57.8

79.7

50

60

70

80

90

100

1972 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

55.8

61.4

65.8

49.7 54.3

55.0

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1972 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

III-19

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 2. Employment

among the Low-Skilled 

Figure WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education 

Who Were Employed at Any Time during Year by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

Note: All data include both full and partial year employment for the given calendar year. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning 

in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, 

Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2013.

 Figure WORK 2 shows the employment rate 

of workers ages 18 to 65 with a high school 

education or less by gender and race and 

ethnicity between 1968 and 2012. This 

measure of low skill is based only on 

educational attainment and does not take 

into account other skills based on work 

experience, training or other credentials. 

 Employment rates for women with a high 

school education or less increased during 

the 1980s and 1990s. By the 2000s, 

however, the employment rate for women 

with no more than a high school education 

started to decline for all three groups shown. 

In 2012, the rate was 61.4 percent for NonHispanic White women, 55.0 percent for 

Non-Hispanic Black women, and 54.3 

percent for Hispanic women of any race. 

 Beginning in the 1970s, the employment 

rates for men with a high school education 

or less declined and the employment rates 

for Non-Hispanic White and Non-Hispanic 

Black men with a high school education or 

less began to diverge. In 2012, 74.6 percent 

of Non-Hispanic White men as compared to 

57.8 percent of Non-Hispanic Black men 

with a high school education or less were 

employed. 

 Over the time period, Hispanic men with a 

high school education or less have had 

employment rates similar to Non-Hispanic 

White men. In 2012, 79.7 percent of 

Hispanic men with a high school education 

or less were employed compared to 74.6 

percent of Non-Hispanic White men.

.

(In percent) Women (In percent) 

s

Hispanic

Non-Hispanic

Black

Non-Hispanic

White

Non-Hispanic

Black

1968 1968

Men

Non-Hispanic

White

Hispanic
III-20

Table WORK 2. Percentage of Persons Ages 18 to 65 with No More than a High School Education 

Who Were Employed by Race and Ethnicity: 1968-2012

Women Men

Non-Hispanic 

White

Non-Hispanic 

Black Hispanic

Non-Hispanic 

White

Non-Hispanic

Black Hispanic

1968 55.8 65.8 NA 92.8 89.9 NA

1969 56.1 64.9 NA 92.1 89.2 NA

1971 55.2 59.4 NA 90.9 86.1 NA

1972 55.6 58.1 NA 91.1 84.3 NA

1975 58.3 57.2 49.7 88.2 78.8 86.2

1977 61.4 57.6 52.2 88.3 78.1 89.2

1979 62.9 58.9 55.0 88.5 78.7 89.4

1980 64.1 57.6 53.7 88.0 75.2 86.8

1981 64.0 57.5 53.0 87.4 74.5 87.6

1982 62.7 56.6 51.1 85.6 71.1 85.3

1983 63.5 55.3 51.7 84.8 70.2 85.2

1984 65.0 58.9 54.0 86.5 71.9 83.9

1985 66.0 59.4 52.9 86.1 74.6 83.9

1986 66.8 61.0 54.0 86.4 74.3 86.5

1987 67.3 59.9 54.0 86.7 73.9 85.6

1988 68.0 61.4 54.6 86.3 74.0 87.8

1989 68.8 61.1 55.8 87.7 75.3 86.6

1990 68.5 60.7 55.0 87.7 75.6 85.4

1991 68.3 61.0 54.6 86.4 73.9 85.0

1992 67.8 57.8 53.3 85.7 71.5 83.7

1993 68.6 60.0 52.2 84.6 71.2 83.5

1994 69.0 60.9 53.3 85.0 69.1 83.2

1995 69.6 60.1 53.9 85.9 70.1 83.3

1996 70.2 64.1 55.4 85.9 70.3 84.0

1997 69.9 66.6 56.9 85.3 72.0 85.0

1998 70.4 67.1 57.1 85.3 71.8 85.5

1999 71.4 68.4 58.8 84.5 72.0 86.4

2000 70.6 67.7 61.0 84.7 72.7 86.4

2001 69.8 64.8 59.2 83.4 69.9 85.5

2002 69.5 64.4 57.5 82.5 67.3 85.1

2003 66.9 65.2 56.9 81.1 65.7 84.6

2004 66.3 62.9 56.1 80.8 66.7 84.9

2005 66.3 63.3 56.1 80.7 66.3 85.6

2006 66.5 63.2 56.8 80.6 65.6 86.4

2007 66.1 62.4 56.0 80.3 65.8 85.6

2008 65.6 61.3 57.2 79.0 64.5 83.6

2009 63.4 57.1 55.6 76.7 60.0 80.1

2010 61.2 55.6 53.7 74.4 57.8 78.3

2011 61.0 55.9 54.7 74.4 57.3 78.4

2012 61.4 55.0 54.3 74.6 57.8 79.7

Note: All data include both full and partial year employment for the given calendar year. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning 

in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, 

Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately. Hispanic origin was not available until 1975.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1969-2013.
III-21

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 3. Earnings of LowSkilled Workers

Figure WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with Less than 4 

Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

Note: Data are adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Full-time workers usually work at least work 35 hours per week. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. 

Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 Figure WORK 3a shows the trend in median 

weekly wages in 2012 dollars of low-skilled 

women and men (those with less than four 

years of high school education) working fulltime by race and ethnicity. This measure of 

low skill is based only on educational 

attainment and does not take into account 

other skills based on work experience, 

training or other credentials. 

 In 2012, White women with less than four 

years of high school education working fulltime had median weekly earnings of $389 

compared to $377 for similar Black women 

and $369 for similar Hispanic women of any 

race.

 Among men working full-time with less than 

four years of high school education, White 

men had median weekly earnings of $515

compared to $446 for Black men and $486

for Hispanic men of any race in 2012. There 

has been a narrowing of the median weekly 

earnings gap between White men and both 

Black men and Hispanic men over time.

 Table WORK 3a shows the detailed 

estimates of median wages for low-skilled 

women and men working full time by race 

and ethnicity. 

 Men who were working full-time and had 

less than four years of high school education 

have had consistently higher median weekly 

earnings than similar women, though men 

have experienced greater declines in 

median weekly earnings over time between 

1980 and 2012 than have women.

447

389

420 

377 

398

369

300

350

400

450

500

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2012

(In 2012 $)

White Black

Women

Hispanic

748

515

584 

446 

603

486

400

500

600

700

800

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2012

(In 2012 $)

White

Black

Men

Hispanic
III-22

Table WORK 3a. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with less than 4 

Years of High School Education by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1979-2012

Women Men

White Black Hispanic2 White Black Hispanic2

1979 $461 $428 $419 $786 $625 $625 

1980 447 420 398 748 584 603 

1981 437 413 410 725 582 570 

1982 433 403 403 705 556 556 

1983 438 418 387 694 556 549 

1984 433 406 389 679 538 536 

1985 423 401 374 671 541 535 

1986 428 404 373 679 554 535 

1987 424 408 396 661 561 534 

1988 422 405 388 651 545 507 

1989 428 390 386 655 528 517 

1990 418 401 380 625 529 503 

1991 420 400 374 599 509 482 

1992 1418 410 — 587 511 —

1993 419 416 — 581 510 —

1994 404 385 361 546 497 454 

1995 401 390 354 545 478 445 

1996 396 399 362 537 479 452 

1997 399 392 370 541 476 452 

1998 405 394 372 558 490 458 

1999 405 401 370 558 517 475 

2000 413 410 391 553 544 486 

2001 417 403 400 555 522 503 

2002 421 407 394 553 519 506 

2003 419 410 398 547 533 498 

2004 413 402 385 556 513 496 

2005 406 405 385 554 482 494 

2006 410 415 375 551 484 485 

2007 413 420 385 546 504 481 

2008 409 413 389 543 486 511 

2009 411 425 386 547 492 509 

2010 408 429 389 521 498 473 

2011 408 399 390 512 463 466 

2012 389 377 369 515 446 486 

Note: Full-time workers usually work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

1

Beginning in 1992, data on educational attainment have been based on the "highest diploma or degree received," rather than the "number of years of 

school completed." Data for 1994 forward are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years due to a redesign of the Current Population 

Survey. Data for 2000-2002 have been revised to incorporate population controls from Census 2000 and new industry and occupational classification 

systems. The earnings data presented in this table may differ slightly from other published estimates due to methodological differences in calculating 

medians.

2

For 1992 and 1993, earnings data by educational attainment are not available for persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity age 25 and over. Beginning 

in 2003, data refer to persons who selected this race group only; previously, persons identified a group as their main race. In addition, persons whose 

ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as by race. 

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
III-23

Figure WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of 

High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1980-2012

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data are adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS. Persons of 

Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. Due to small 

sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are not shown separately.

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

 Figure WORK 3b shows the trend in median 

weekly wages in 2012 dollars for women 

and men with four years of high school 

education but no college who are working 

full-time by race and ethnicity. This 

measure of low skill is based only on 

educational attainment and does not take 

into account other skills based on work 

experience, training or other credentials. 

 In 2012, White women with four years of 

high school education and no college who 

were working full-time had median weekly 

earnings of $581 compared to $499 for 

similar Black women and $501 for similar 

Hispanic women of any race. There has 

been relatively little change in these median 

weekly wages over time.

 Among men working full-time with four years 

of high school education and no college, 

median weekly earnings of White men were 

$760 compared to $604 for Black men and 

$624 for Hispanic men of any race. Median 

weekly earnings among men in all three 

racial and ethnic groups shown have 

declined over time since 1980.

 Throughout the 1980 – 2012 time period, 

there is a notable and persistent gap 

between women and men’s wages. Men 

consistently earn higher median weekly 

wages than women, though the gap has 

narrowed over time. 

 There also is a racial and ethnic gap in 

median weekly wages among full time 

workers who have four years of high school 

education but no college, where White 

persons earn more than Black persons and 

Hispanic persons of any race. Among 

women, this racial and ethnic wage gap has 

increased over time. 

572

493

501

400

450

500

550

600

650

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2011

544

581

509 

499 

519

501

400

450

500

550

600

650

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2012

(In 2012 $)

White

Black

Women

Hispanic

902

760

735 

604 

783

624

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2012

(In 2012 $)

White

Black

Men

Hispanic
III-24

Table WORK 3b. Median Weekly Wages of Women and Men Working Full-Time with 4 Years of 

High School Education with No College by Race and Ethnicity (2012 Dollars): 1979-2012

Women Men

White Black Hispanic2 White Black Hispanic2

1979 $556 $520 $526 $939 $751 $828 

1980 544 509 519 902 735 783 

1981 538 506 519 897 713 784 

1982 554 508 531 885 688 772 

1983 556 502 531 878 694 749 

1984 559 513 542 869 679 743 

1985 559 510 524 863 652 721 

1986 568 521 525 866 659 714 

1987 571 522 516 859 665 702 

1988 571 515 528 855 660 698 

1989 559 517 524 845 642 675 

1990 551 498 527 822 615 670 

1991 559 504 517 809 607 657 

1992 1560 498 — 799 592 —

1993 564 491 — 794 602 —

1994 561 473 507 794 595 631 

1995 554 475 483 794 607 634 

1996 554 478 480 797 591 615 

1997 561 476 485 815 612 638 

1998 577 508 512 831 628 662 

1999 577 505 509 836 640 664 

2000 584 519 511 822 664 659 

2001 597 522 532 824 670 655 

2002 609 528 523 827 654 656 

2003 613 550 526 826 657 661 

2004 612 564 535 826 641 643 

2005 601 520 519 808 630 632 

2006 589 526 494 813 627 657 

2007 588 528 527 807 617 656 

2008 579 519 518 798 629 652 

2009 604 540 538 804 639 645 

2010 596 524 524 786 634 630 

2011 592 511 519 772 619 628 

2012 581 499 501 760 604 624 

Note: Full-time workers work at least 35 hours per week. Data adjusted to constant 2012 dollars by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS.

1

Beginning in 1992, data on educational attainment have been based on the "highest diploma or degree received," rather than the "number of years of 

school completed." Data for 1994 forward are not directly comparable with data for 1993 and earlier years due to a redesign of the Current Population 

Survey. Data for 2000-2002 have been revised to incorporate population controls from Census 2000 and new industry and occupational classification 

systems. The earnings data presented in this table may differ slightly from other published estimates due to methodological differences in calculating 

medians.

2

For 1992 and 1993, earnings data by educational attainment are not available for persons of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity age 25 and over. Beginning 

in 2003, data refer to persons who selected this race group only; previously, persons identified a group as their main race. In addition, persons whose 

ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race and, therefore, are classified by ethnicity as well as by race. 

Source: Current Population Survey, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
III-25

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 4. Educational 

Attainment

Figure WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 

1960-2012

Note: Completing the GED is not considered completing high school for this table. Beginning with data for 1992, a new survey question results in 

different categories than for prior years. Data shown as “High school graduate, no college” were previously from the category “High school, 4 years” 

and are now from the category “High school graduate.” Data shown as “One to three years of college” were previously from the category “College 1 

to 3 years” and are now the sum of the categories: “Some college” and two separate “Associate degree” categories. Data shown as “Four or more 

years of college” were previously from the category “College 4 years or more,” and are now the sum of the categories: “Bachelor's degree,” 

“Master's degree,” “Doctorate degree” and “Professional degree.”

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States, 2013),” Current Population Reports and earlier reports.

 Figure WORK 4 shows educational 

attainment for adults 25 years and older 

between 1960 and 2012. Table WORK 4 

shows the corresponding point estimates for 

select years. 

 The percentage of the population 25 years 

and older completing four or more years of 

college has increased between 1960 and 

2012, rising from 7.7 percent to 30.9

percent. The percentage of the population 

25 years and older with some college but 

less than four years increased from 8.8 

percent in 1960 to 26.3 percent in 2012. 

 The percentage of the population 25 years 

and older without at least a high school 

education has declined over the past 50 

years, from 59.0 percent in 1960 to 12.4

percent in 2012.

 The percentage of the population 25 years 

and older receiving a high school education 

(but no post secondary education) was 24.6 

percent in 1960 and rose to 38.9 percent in 

1988. Since 1988, this figure has fallen to 

30.4 percent in 2012 due (in part) to 

increased college attendance. 

59.0

12.4

24.6

30.4

8.8

26.3

7.7

30.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1964 1968 1972 1976 1980 1984 1988 1992 1996 2000 2004 2008 2012

(In percent)

Not a High School Graduate

1 to 3 Years of College

High School Graduate, No College

Four or More Years of College

1960
III-26

Table WORK 4. Percentage of Adults Ages 25 and over by Level of Educational Attainment: 

Selected Years

Not a High High School Graduate, One to Three Four or More

Year School Graduate No College Years of College Years of College

1940 75.9 14.1 5.4 4.6 

1950 66.7 20.1 7.1 6.0 

1960 59.0 24.6 8.8 7.7 

1965 51.0 30.7 8.9 9.4 

1970 44.8 34.0 10.2 11.0 

1975 37.5 36.2 12.4 13.9 

1980 31.4 36.8 14.9 17.0 

1981 30.3 37.6 15.1 17.1 

1982 29.0 37.9 15.3 17.7 

1983 27.9 37.7 15.6 18.8 

1984 26.7 38.4 15.8 19.1 

1985 26.1 38.2 16.3 19.4 

1986 25.3 38.4 16.9 19.4 

1987 24.4 38.7 17.1 19.9 

1988 23.8 38.9 17.0 20.3 

1989 23.1 38.5 17.3 21.1 

1990 22.4 38.4 17.9 21.3 

1991 21.6 38.6 18.4 21.4 

1992 20.6 36.0 22.1 21.4 

1993 19.8 35.4 23.0 21.9 

1994 19.1 34.4 24.3 22.2 

1995 18.3 33.9 24.8 23.0 

1996 18.3 33.6 24.6 23.6 

1997 17.9 33.8 24.5 23.9 

1998 17.2 33.8 24.7 24.4 

1999 16.6 33.3 24.8 25.2 

2000 15.9 33.1 25.4 25.6 

2001 15.9 32.3 25.7 26.2 

2002 15.9 32.1 25.3 26.7 

2003 15.4 32.0 25.3 27.2 

2004 14.8 32.0 25.5 27.7 

2005 14.8 32.2 25.4 27.7 

2006 14.5 31.7 25.7 28.0

2007 14.3 31.6 25.3 28.7

2008 13.4 31.2 26.0 29.4

2009 13.3 31.1 26.1 29.5

2010 12.9 31.2 26.0 29.9

2011 12.4 30.7 26.4 30.4

2012 12.4 30.4 26.3 30.9

Note: Completing the GED is not considered completing high school for this table. Beginning with data for 1992, a new survey question results in 

different categories than for prior years. Data shown as “High school graduate, no college” were previously from the category “High school, 4 years” 

and are now from the category “High school graduate.” Data shown as “One to three years of college” were previously from the category “College 1 to 

3 years” and are now the sum of the categories: “Some college” and two separate “Associate degree” categories. Data shown as “Four or more years 

of college” were previously from the category “College 4 years or more,” and are now the sum of the categories: “Bachelor's degree,” “Master's 

degree,” “Doctorate degree” and “Professional degree.” 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2013. 

http://www.census.gov/hhes/socdemo/education/data/cps/2013/tables.html and earlier reports.
III-27

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK RISK FACTOR 5. Adult Alcohol and

Substance Abuse

Figure WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by 

Age: 2012

Note: Cocaine and marijuana use is defined as use during the past month. “Binge alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same 

occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days. “Heavy alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of five 

or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users are also binge alcohol users. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2012.

 Figure WORK 5 shows the percentage of 

adults who used cocaine, marijuana, and 

who abused alcohol by age group in 2012. 

 Adults 18 to 25 years of age were more 

likely than older adults to report marijuana, 

binge alcohol or heavy alcohol use in the

prior month. For example, 18.7 percent 

reported using marijuana in the past month 

during 2012, compared with 11.3 percent of 

adults 26 to 34 years of age and 3.9 percent 

of adults 35 years and over.

 The percentage of adults reporting binge 

alcohol use was larger than the percentages 

for all other reported behaviors across all 

age groups shown. 

 Table WORK 5 shows the percentage of 

adults who used cocaine or marijuana or 

abused alcohol from 1999 through 2012.

 Marijuana use has been trending upward for 

all age groups. Levels of cocaine use are 

low compared to use of marijuana and 

alcohol for all age groups. Since 1999, 

heavy alcohol use and binge alcohol use 

has fluctuated across all the age groups but 

it remains highest amongst 18-25 years old 

and lowest amongst those 35 years and 

older. 

1.1

18.7

39.5

12.7

1.2

11.3

35.6

9.4

0.5

3.9

19.0

5.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

Cocaine use Marijuana use Binge alcohol use Heavy alcohol use

Ages 18-25 Ages 26-34 Ages 35 and over

(In percent)
III-28

Table WORK 5. Percentage of Adults Who Used Cocaine or Marijuana or Abused Alcohol by Age: 

1999-2012

Cocaine Marijuana Binge Alcohol Use Heavy Alcohol Use

Ages 

18-25

Ages 

26-34

Ages 35 

& over

Ages 

18-25

Ages 

26-34

Ages 35 

& over

Ages 

18-25

Ages 

26-34

Ages 35 

& over

Ages 

18-25

Ages 

26-34

Ages 35 

& over

1999 1.7 1.2 0.4 14.2 5.4 2.2 37.9 29.3 16.0 13.3 7.5 4.2

2000 1.4 0.8 0.3 13.6 5.9 2.3 37.8 30.3 16.4 12.8 7.6 4.1

2001 1.9 1.1 0.5 16.0 6.8 2.4 38.7 30.1 16.2 13.6 7.8 4.2

2002 2.0 1.2 0.6 17.3 7.7 3.1 40.9 33.1 18.6 14.9 9.0 5.2

2003 2.2 1.5 0.6 17.0 8.4 3.0 41.6 32.9 18.1 15.1 9.4 5.1

2004 2.1 1.4 0.5 16.1 8.3 3.1 41.2 32.2 18.5 15.1 9.4 5.3

2005 2.6 1.3 0.6 16.6 8.6 3.0 41.9 32.9 18.3 15.3 9.6 4.7

2006 2.2 1.7 0.6 16.3 8.5 3.2 42.2 34.2 18.4 15.6 10.0 5.1

2007 1.7 1.4 0.6 16.4 7.9 3.0 41.8 35.1 18.9 14.7 9.7 5.3

2008 1.5 1.5 0.4 16.5 8.8 3.2 41.0 36.4 18.8 14.5 10.6 5.3

2009 1.4 1.0 0.5 18.1 9.6 3.4 41.7 36.3 19.2 13.7 10.1 5.3

2010 1.5 1.1 0.3 18.5 10.5 3.4 40.6 36.5 18.6 13.6 10.3 5.1

2011 1.4 0.8 0.3 19.0 10.2 3.6 39.8 35.7 18.4 12.1 10.5 4.6

2012 1.1 1.2 0.5 18.7 11.3 3.9 39.5 35.6 19.0 12.7 9.4 5.4

Note: Cocaine and marijuana use is defined as use during the past month. “Binge alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same 

occasion on at least one day in the past 30 days. “Heavy alcohol use” is defined as drinking five or more drinks on the same occasion on each of five 

or more days in the past 30 days; all heavy alcohol users are also binge alcohol users.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2000-2012.
III-29

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 6. Adult and Child 

Disability

Figure WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting an Activity Limitation by 

Selected Characteristics: 2012

Note: Work disability is defined as limitations in or the inability to work as a result of a physical, mental or emotional health condition. Individuals are 

identified as having long-term care needs if they need the help of others in handling either personal care needs (eating, bathing, dressing, getting in or 

out of bed, getting around the home, or driving) or routine needs (household chores, shopping, getting around for business or other purposes). 

Disability program recipients include persons covered by Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Special 

Education Services, Early Intervention Services and/or disability pensions.

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see 

definition above; (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in 

the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special 

Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental or emotional problems. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2012.

 Figure WORK 6 shows the percentage of 

non-elderly adults and children reporting an 

activity limitation by race and ethnicity in 

2012. Non-elderly adults were more likely 

than children to have an activity limitation, 

12.1 percent compared to 8.9 percent.

 Table WORK 6 shows the percentage of the 

non-elderly population reporting a disability 

by selected demographic characteristics. 

While non-elderly adults were more likely 

than children to report an activity limitation, a 

higher percentage of children (7.9 percent) 

than adults (6.1 percent) were actually 

recipients of disability program benefits in 

2012. 

 For both non-elderly adults and children, the 

percentage of Non-Hispanic Blacks with an 

activity limitation was higher than the 

percentages for Non-Hispanic Whites and 

Hispanics. 

 Among adults ages 18 – 64, rates of work 

disability were lower for Hispanics (6.1

percent) than they were for Non-Hispanic 

Whites (10.0 percent) and Non-Hispanic 

Blacks (12.3 percent).

12.1

12.8

16.4

8.5 8.9

9.5

10.2

7.3

0

3

6

9

12

15

18

All Persons Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

 Adults 18-64 Children 0-17

(In percent)
III-30

Table WORK 6. Percentage of the Non-Elderly Population Reporting a Disability by Selected 

Characteristics: 2012

Disability

Activity Work Long-Term Program

Limitation Disability Care Needs Recipient

All Persons

 Adults ages 18-64 12.1 9.3 2.6 6.1

 Children ages 0-17 8.9 NA NA 7.9

Racial/Ethnic Categories (Adults Ages 18-64)

 Non-Hispanic White 12.8 10.0 2.6 6.1

 Non-Hispanic Black 16.4 12.3 3.4 10.1

 Hispanic 8.5 6.1 1.9 4.2

Racial/Ethnic Categories (Children Ages 0-17)

 Non-Hispanic White 9.5 NA NA 8.4

 Non-Hispanic Black 10.2 NA NA 8.9

 Hispanic 7.3 NA NA 6.4

Note: Work disability is defined as limitations in or the inability to work as a result of a physical, mental or emotional health condition. Individuals are 

identified as having long-term care needs if they need the help of others in handling either personal care needs (eating, bathing, dressing, getting in or 

out of bed, getting around the home, or driving) or routine needs (household chores, shopping, getting around for business or other purposes). 

Disability program recipients include persons covered by Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Special 

Education Services, Early Intervention Services and/or disability pensions.

Respondents were defined as having an activity limitation if they answered positively to any of the questions regarding: (1) work disability (see 

definition above); (2) long-term care needs (see definition above); (3) difficulty walking; (4) difficulty remembering; (5) for children under 5, limitations in 

the amount of play activities they can participate in because of physical, mental or emotional problems; (6) for children 3 and over, receipt of Special 

Educational or Early Intervention Services; and, (7) any other limitations due to physical, mental or emotional problems. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the National Health Interview Survey, 2012.
III-31

EMPLOYMENT AND WORK-RELATED RISK FACTOR 7. Labor Force 

Participation of Women with Children under 18

Figure WORK 7. Labor Force Participation of Women with Children under 18: 1975-2012

Note: The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate 

includes only those women who are employed. The population of mothers with children under age 18 includes those 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement, March 2013 and earlier reports.

 Figure WORK 7 shows the labor force 

participation rates for mothers with children 

under 18 years of age by marital status 

between 1975 and 2012. In 2012, regardless 

of marital status, the majority of mothers in the 

U.S. were engaged in the labor force. 

 Between 1975 and 2012, labor force 

participation rates for never-married mothers 

with children under 18 markedly increased—

rising from 42.2 percent in 1975 to 71.5

percent in 2012. 

 Historically, divorced, widowed and separated 

mothers have had the highest rates of labor 

force participation among mothers. In 1975, 

62.8 percent of divorced, widowed or 

separated mothers were in the labor force, 

rising to 80.2 percent in 2012.

 The labor force participation rate of married 

mothers with children under 18 followed an 

upward trend increasing from 44.9 percent in 

1975 to 71.1 percent in 1997, before 

decreasing some to 68.5 percent in 2012. 

 Table WORK 7 shows both the labor force 

participation rate and the employment rate of 

mothers with children under 18 years of age 

between 1975 and 2012.

 The employment rate for all mothers 

increased over the time period up until 2000 

and has since reached a plateau. In 2012, 

the employment rate for married mothers with 

a spouse present was 65.0 percent, the 

employment rate for divorced, widowed and 

separated mothers was 71.8 percent, and the 

employment rate for never-married mothers 

was 59.6 percent.

44.9

68.5

62.8

80.2

42.2

71.5

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

(In percent)

Married, Spouse Present 

Divorced, Separated or Widowed 

Never-Married

1975
III-32

Table WORK 7. Employment Status of Women with Children under 18 Years of Age: 1975-2012

Labor Force Participation Rate

(percent of population)

Employment Rate

(percent of population)

Married,

Spouse Present

Divorced, 

Separated or 

Widowed

Never

Married

Married,

Spouse Present

Divorced, 

Separated or 

Widowed

Never

Married

1975 44.9 62.8 42.2 40.5 54.9 32.1 

1976 46.1 64.3 46.2 42.4 56.9 36.3 

1977 48.2 66.4 43.4 44.6 58.7 29.6 

1978 50.2 68.1 51.1 47.0 61.2 38.9 

1979 51.9 67.8 54.4 48.6 61.4 42.6 

1980 54.1 69.9 52.0 50.9 63.4 39.9 

1981 55.7 70.5 52.3 52.1 63.0 38.3 

1982 56.3 71.1 50.4 51.6 62.3 36.2 

1983 57.2 70.1 49.8 52.4 58.5 34.5 

1984 58.8 72.7 50.7 54.9 63.4 36.3 

1985 60.8 72.9 51.6 56.8 64.0 39.3 

1986 61.3 74.1 52.9 57.6 66.3 37.8 

1987 63.8 74.0 54.1 60.4 66.5 40.2 

1988 65.0 72.8 51.6 61.9 66.9 40.0 

1989 65.6 72.0 54.7 63.1 66.0 43.1 

1990 66.3 74.2 55.3 63.5 67.9 45.1 

1991 66.8 72.7 53.6 63.2 66.1 44.0 

1992 67.8 73.2 52.5 63.9 65.3 43.4 

1993 67.5 72.1 54.4 64.2 65.9 44.0 

1994 69.0 73.1 56.9 65.6 65.9 45.8 

1995 70.2 75.3 57.5 67.1 69.1 47.9 

1996 70.0 77.0 60.5 67.6 72.1 49.3 

1997 71.1 79.1 68.1 68.6 72.0 56.6 

1998 70.6 79.7 72.5 68.0 74.3 61.5 

1999 70.1 80.4 73.4 68.0 75.4 64.8 

2000 70.6 82.7 73.9 68.5 78.5 65.8 

2001 70.4 83.1 73.5 68.0 78.7 64.6 

2002 69.6 82.1 75.3 66.7 75.6 65.8 

2003 69.2 82.0 73.1 66.3 74.7 63.2 

2004 68.2 80.7 72.6 65.4 75.0 63.1 

2005 68.1 79.8 72.9 66.0 74.4 62.0 

2006 68.4 80.4 71.5 66.2 75.4 62.5 

2007 69.3 80.0 71.4 67.4 75.2 63.7 

2008 69.4 79.3 71.0 67.1 74.6 62.9 

2009 69.8 79.2 72.0 66.0 70.3 60.9 

2010 69.7 79.2 70.1 65.3 70.4 57.4

2011 69.1 79.8 70.0 65.0 70.3 56.8

2012 68.5 80.2 71.5 65.0 71.8 59.6

Notes: The labor force participation rate includes all women who are employed, laid off or unemployed but looking for work. The employment rate 

includes only those women who are employed. The population of mothers with children under age 18 includes those 16 years of age and older.

Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and 

Economic Supplement, March 2012 and earlier reports.
IIIIII-33-33

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 1. Nonmarital Births

Figure BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: 1940-2012

Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 

2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

 Figure BIRTH 1 shows the percentage of 

births that were nonmarital by age group 

from 1940 to 2012 and Table BIRTH 1 

shows corresponding estimates for selected 

years. Changes in nonmarital births reflect 

changes in the rate at which unmarried 

women have children, the rate at which 

married women have children and the rate 

at which women marry. The percentage of 

children born outside of marriage to women 

of all ages has increased over the past 70 

years. In 1940, 3.8 percent of births were to 

unmarried women. By 2012, the percentage 

had increased to 40.7 percent. 

 Teen births, as shown in Figure BIRTH 1 

and Table BIRTH 1, show nonmarital teen 

births as a percentage of all teen births. In 

1940, 14.0 percent of births to teens were 

nonmarital. While the percentage of all teen 

births that are nonmarital has increased 

since the mid-1960s, growth in the 

percentage slowed in the mid- to late-1990s 

before rising to 88.8 percent in 2012.

 Over the past 15 years, the percentage of 

nonmarital births among all births to women 

20 to 24 years of age increased by 40.7

percent from 45.6 percent in 1996 to 64.8

percent in 2012 This compares to an 

increase of 16.4 percent in the percentage 

of nonmarital births among teen births over 

the same period. 

 Since 1994, the percentage of births that are 

nonmarital remains steady among Black 

teens and all Black women. Among White 

teens and all White women, the trend 

continues upward (see Table C-1 in 

Appendix C for nonmarital birth data by age 

and race).

14.0

88.8

3.7

64.8

3.8

40.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2012

(In percent)

All teens

Ages 20-24

All women
III-34

Table BIRTH 1. Percentage of Births that are Nonmarital by Age: Selected Years

Year Under 15 15-17 Years 18-19 Years All Teens 20-24 Years All Women

1940 64.5 NA NA 14.0 3.7 3.8 

1945 70.0 NA NA 18.2 4.7 4.3 

1950 63.7 22.6 9.4 13.9 3.8 4.0 

1955 66.3 23.2 10.3 14.9 4.4 4.5 

1960 67.9 24.0 10.7 15.4 4.8 5.3 

1965 78.5 32.8 15.3 21.6 6.8 7.7 

1970 80.8 43.0 22.4 30.5 8.9 10.7 

1975 87.0 51.4 29.8 39.3 12.3 14.3 

1980 88.7 61.5 39.8 48.3 19.4 18.4 

1981 89.2 63.3 41.4 49.9 20.4 18.9 

1982 89.2 65.0 43.0 51.4 21.4 19.4 

1983 90.4 67.5 45.7 54.1 22.9 20.3 

1984 91.1 69.2 48.1 56.3 24.5 21.0 

1985 91.8 70.9 50.7 58.7 26.3 22.0 

1986 92.5 73.3 53.6 61.5 28.7 23.4 

1987 92.9 76.2 55.8 64.0 30.8 24.5 

1988 93.6 77.1 58.5 65.9 32.9 25.7 

1989 92.4 77.7 60.4 67.2 35.1 27.1 

1990 91.6 77.7 61.3 67.6 36.9 28.0 

1991 91.3 78.7 63.2 69.3 39.4 29.5 

1992 91.3 79.2 64.6 70.5 40.7 30.1 

1993 91.3 79.9 66.1 71.8 42.2 31.0 

1994 94.5 84.1 70.0 75.9 44.9 32.6 

1995 93.5 83.7 69.8 75.6 44.7 32.2 

1996 93.8 84.4 70.8 76.3 45.6 32.4 

1997 95.7 86.7 72.5 78.2 46.6 32.4 

1998 96.6 87.5 73.6 78.9 47.7 32.8 

1999 96.5 87.7 74.0 79.0 48.5 33.0 

2000 96.5 87.7 74.3 79.1 49.5 33.2 

2001 96.3 87.8 74.6 79.2 50.4 33.5 

2002 97.0 88.5 75.8 80.2 51.6 34.0

2003 97.1 89.7 77.3 81.6 53.2 34.6

2004 97.4 90.3 78.7 82.6 54.8 35.8

2005 98.0 90.9 79.7 83.5 56.2 36.9 

2006 98.3 91.9 80.6 84.4 57.9 38.5 

2007 98.8 93.3 82.2 85.7 59.6 39.7

2008 99.1 93.7 83.5 86.8 60.9 40.6

2009 99.0 94.2 84.2 87.4 62.1 41.0

2010 99.3 95.0 85.1 88.2 63.1 40.8

2011 99.1 95.3 85.7 88.6 64.0 40.7

2012 99.0 95.4 86.0 88.8 64.8 40.7

Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. 

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 

2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.
III-35

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 2. Nonmarital Teen Births

Figure BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity:

1940 ─ 2012

Note: Trends in nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring 

nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are 

tabulated by the race of the child. 

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 

48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

 Figure BIRTH 2 shows the percentage of all 

births to unmarried teens 15 to 19 years of 

age by race and ethnicity, and Table BIRTH 

2 shows corresponding estimates for 

selected years between 1940 and 2012. 

Unlike BIRTH 1, which showed nonmarital 

teen births as a percentage of all teen births, 

BIRTH 2 shows births to unmarried teens as 

a percentage of births to all women. This 

percentage is affected by several factors: 

the age distribution of women, the marriage 

rate among teens, the birth rate among 

unmarried teens and the birth rate among all 

other women. 

 The percentage of all births that were to 

unmarried teens declined over the last five 

years, from 8.2 in 2003 to 6.9 percent in 

2012. 

 Among Black women, the percentage of all 

births that were nonmarital teen births 

decreased to 11.9 percent in 2012. This 

was the lowest percentage since 1969, the 

first year in which data on Black women 

were tabulated separately. 

 Among White women, the percentage of all 

births that were to unmarried teens 

decreased to 6.2 percent in 2012. 

 Among Hispanic women, the percentage of 

all births that were to unmarried teens 

increased from a low of 9.8 percent in 1990 

to a high of 12.1 percent in 1998; since 2008 

the rate has been decreasing. The rate in 

2012 was 9.9 percent.

1.7

6.9

0.8

6.2

11.9

9.8 9.9

7.3

0

5

10

15

20

25

1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2006 2012

(In percent)

Non-White

Black

White

All races

Hispanic
III-36

Table BIRTH 2. Percentage of All Births to Unmarried Teens Ages 15 to 19 by Race and Ethnicity:

Selected Years

Year All Races White Black Hispanic

1940 1.7 0.8 NA NA

1950 1.6 0.6 NA NA

1955 1.7 0.7 NA NA

1960 2.0 0.9 NA NA

1965 3.3 1.6 NA NA

1970 5.1 2.6 18.8 NA

1975 7.1 3.7 24.2 NA

1980 7.3 4.4 22.2 NA

1981 7.1 4.5 21.5 NA

1982 7.1 4.5 21.2 NA

1983 7.2 4.6 21.2 NA

1984 7.1 4.6 20.7 NA

1985 7.2 4.8 20.3 NA

1986 7.5 5.1 20.1 NA

1987 7.7 5.3 20.0 NA

1988 8.0 5.6 20.3 NA

1989 8.3 5.9 20.6 NA

1990 8.4 6.1 20.4 9.8 

1991 8.7 6.4 20.4 10.3 

1992 8.7 6.5 20.2 10.3 

1993 8.9 6.8 20.2 10.6 

1994 9.7 7.5 21.1 12.1 

1995 9.6 7.6 21.1 11.7 

1996 9.6 7.7 20.9 11.5 

1997 9.7 7.8 20.5 11.9 

1998 9.7 7.9 19.9 12.1 

1999 9.5 7.8 19.1 11.9 

2000 9.1 7.6 18.3 11.5 

2001 8.7 7.3 17.5 11.0 

2002 8.5 7.2 16.7 10.8 

2003 8.2 7.1 16.2 10.7 

2004 8.3 7.2 16.0 10.9 

2005 8.3 7.2 15.8 11.0 

2006 8.6 7.4 16.1 11.3 

2007 8.8 7.7 16.3 11.5 

2008 8.9 7.8 16.2 11.7 

2009 8.7 7.6 15.6 11.6 

2010 8.1 7.2 14.5 11.1 

2011 7.4 6.6 13.1 10.4 

2012 6.9 6.2 11.9 9.9 

Note: Trends in nonmarital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring 

nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are 

tabulated by the race of the child. 

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Due to small sample size, American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately. 

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 

48 (16), 2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, 

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.
III-37

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 3. Nonmarital Teen Birth Rates 

 Figure BIRTH 3a. Births per 1,000 Unmarried

 Teens Ages 15 to 17 by Race: 1960-2012

 Figure BIRTH 3b. Births per 1,000 Unmarried

 Teens Ages 18 and 19 by Race: 1960-2012

Note: Rates are per 1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital 

status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated 

by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child. 

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Prior to 1969, race data were available for Whites and Non-Whites only.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 

2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.

 Figures BIRTH 3a and 3b show births per 

thousand unmarried teens between the ages 

of 15 to 17 and 18 to 19 from 1960 to 2012. 

Table BIRTH 3 shows corresponding 

estimates for selected years between 1950 

and 2012. 

 The birth rate per thousand unmarried teens 

ages 15 to 17 decreased in 2012 for both 

Black and White teens. The rate for Black 

teens ages 15 to 17 has been cut by more

than two-thirds from 79.9 per thousand in 

1991 to 22.0 per thousand in 2012. The 

2012 rate is lower than in any other year 

since 1969, the first year in which data on 

Black women were collected. 

 The birth rates of unmarried teens in the 

older age group (18 and 19 years) showed a 

decrease in 2012. For Black teens ages 18 

and 19, the birth rate fell from a high of 

147.7 per thousand in 1991 to a low of 100.4 

per thousand in 2003 before again 

decreasing to 73.2 births per thousand in 

2012.

 Prior to 1994, birth rates among unmarried 

White teens in both age groups rose steadily 

for over four decades. For White teens 15 

to 17 years of age, the birth rate increased 

from 3.4 births per thousand unmarried 

teens in 1950 to 23.9 births per thousand 

unmarried teens in 1994. Subsequently their 

rate has generally followed a downward

trend to 12.4 per thousand in 2012. For 18 

to 19 year olds, the rate increased from 8.5 

births per thousand unmarried teens in 1950 

to 55.8 births per thousand unmarried teens 

in 1994. Until 2008 their rate fluctuated 

between 50 and 54 but by 2012 had 

declined to 41.4 per thousand.

 While birth rates among unmarried Black 

teens remain high compared to rates for 

unmarried White teens, the gap between 

Black and White teens narrowed during the 

1990s and 2000s.

11.1 13.7

4.4 12.4

22.0

58.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2012

(Rate per 1,000)

Non-White

Black

White

All races

25.0

45.8

11.4

41.4

73.2

112.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2012

(Rate per 1,000)

Non-White

Black

White

All races
III-38

Table BIRTH 3. Births per Thousand Unmarried Teen Women by Age and Race: 1950-2012

Ages 15 to 17 Ages 18 and 19

Year All Races White Black All Races White Black

1950 9.9 3.4 NA 18.3 8.5 NA

1955 11.1 3.9 NA 23.6 10.3 NA

1960 11.1 4.4 NA 25.0 11.4 NA

1965 12.5 5.0 NA 25.8 13.9 NA

1966 13.1 5.4 NA 25.6 14.1 NA

1967 13.8 5.6 NA 27.6 15.3 NA

1968 14.7 6.2 NA 29.6 16.6 NA

1969 15.2 6.6 72.0 30.8 16.6 128.4

1970 17.1 7.5 77.9 32.9 17.6 136.4

1971 17.5 7.4 80.7 31.7 15.8 135.2

1972 18.5 8.0 82.8 30.9 15.1 128.2

1973 18.7 8.4 81.2 30.4 14.9 120.5

1974 18.8 8.8 78.6 31.2 15.3 122.2

1975 19.3 9.6 76.8 32.5 16.5 123.8

1976 19.0 9.7 73.5 32.1 16.9 117.9

1977 19.8 10.5 73.0 34.6 18.7 121.7

1978 19.1 10.3 68.8 35.1 19.3 119.6

1979 19.9 10.8 71.0 37.2 21.0 123.3

1980 20.6 12.0 68.8 39.0 24.1 118.2

1981 20.9 12.6 65.9 39.0 24.6 114.2

1982 21.5 13.1 66.3 39.6 25.3 112.7

1983 22.0 13.6 66.8 40.7 26.4 111.9

1984 21.9 13.7 66.5 42.5 27.9 113.6

1985 22.4 14.5 66.8 45.9 31.2 117.9

1986 22.8 14.9 67.0 48.0 33.5 121.1

1987 24.5 16.2 69.9 48.9 34.5 123.0

1988 26.4 17.6 73.5 51.5 36.8 130.5

1989 28.7 19.3 78.9 56.0 40.2 140.9

1990 29.6 20.4 78.8 60.7 44.9 143.7 

1991 30.8 21.7 79.9 65.4 49.4 147.7 

1992 30.2 21.5 77.2 66.7 51.2 146.4 

1993 30.3 21.9 75.9 66.2 52.0 140.0 

1994 31.7 23.9 73.9 69.1 55.8 139.6 

1995 30.1 23.3 67.4 66.5 54.7 129.2 

1996 28.5 22.3 62.6 64.9 53.5 127.2 

1997 27.7 22.0 59.0 63.9 52.9 124.8 

1998 26.5 21.5 55.0 63.6 53.1 121.5 

1999 25.0 20.7 50.0 62.3 52.9 115.8 

2000 23.9 19.7 48.3 62.2 53.1 115.0 

2001 22.0 18.1 43.8 60.6 52.1 110.2 

2002 20.8 17.5 39.9 58.6 51.0 104.1 

2003 20.3 17.2 38.1 57.6 50.4 100.4 

2004 20.1 17.1 37.0 57.7 50.4 100.9 

2005 19.7 16.8 35.4 58.4 50.9 101.6 

2006 20.4 17.4 36.6 61.8 53.9 107.8 

2007 20.8 18.0 36.3 63.9 55.9 109.1 

2008 20.6 18.0 35.5 61.9 54.2 104.4 

2009 19.3 16.9 32.6 58.2 51.1 96.8 

2010 16.8 15.1 27.6 52.0 46.9 83.6 

2011 14.9 13.4 24.7 48.2 43.4 77.4 

2012 13.7 12.4 22.0 45.8 41.4 73.2 

Note: Rates are per 1,000 unmarried women in specified group. Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital 

status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring non-marital births when marital status is not reported. Beginning in 1980, data are tabulated 

by the race of the mother. Prior to 1980, data are tabulated by the race of the child. 

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other 

Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940-1999,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16), 

2000; “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.
III-39

NONMARITAL BIRTH RISK FACTOR 4. Never-Married Family Status

Figure BIRTH 4. Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married Female Head 

by Race and Ethnicity: 1982-2012

Note: Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons and their spouses). Inmates of 

institutions also are excluded. Children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator. Based on Current Population 

Survey (CPS) data.

Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Persons who reported more than one race are 

included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians 

and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown separately.

Source of CPS data: U.S. Census Bureau, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 

418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Table 

C3, http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013C.html.

 Figure BIRTH 4 shows the percentage of all 

children living in families with a nevermarried female head of household by race 

and ethnicity from 1980 to 2012. Table 

BIRTH 4 shows corresponding estimates for 

selected years between 1960 and 2012. 

The percentage of children living in families 

with never-married female heads increased 

from 4.6 percent in 1982 to 11.7 percent in 

2012. 

 The percentage of White children living in 

families headed by never-married women 

has increased more than fourfold over the 

past 25 years, from 1.6 percent in 1982 to 

7.0 percent in 2012.

 Among Hispanics of all races, the 

percentage of children living with a nevermarried female head of household more 

than doubled over the past 25 years, from 

5.7 percent in 1982 to 13.4 percent in 2012.

 The percentage of Black children living in 

families with a never-married female head of 

household has been higher than the 

percentages for other groups throughout the 

time period. In 2012, 36.5 percent of Black 

children lived in families with a nevermarried female head of household 

compared to 7.0 percent for White children 

and 13.4 percent for Hispanic children.

2.9

11.7

1.0

7.0

14.5

36.5

4.0

13.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010

(In percent)

Black

White

All races

Hispanic

2012
III-40

Table BIRTH 4. Number and Percentage of All Children Living in Families with a Never-Married 

Female Head by Race and Ethnicity: Selected Years

Number of Children (thousands) Percentage

Year All Races White Black Hispanic2 All Races White Black Hispanic

1960 221 49 173 NA 0.4 0.1 2.2 NA

1970 527 110 442 NA 0.8 0.2 5.2 NA

1975 1,166 296 864 NA 1.8 0.5 9.9 NA

1980 1,745 501 1,193 210 2.9 1.0 14.5 4.0 

1981 1,807 527 1,245 202 3.0 1.0 15.0 4.0 

198212,768 793 1,947 291 4.6 1.6 22.7 5.7 

1983 3,212 958 2,203 357 5.3 1.9 24.9 6.7 

1984 3,131 959 2,109 357 5.2 1.9 23.9 6.5 

1985 3,496 1,086 2,355 391 5.8 2.2 26.6 6.7 

1986 3,606 1,174 2,375 451 5.9 2.4 26.6 7.2 

1987 3,985 1,385 2,524 587 6.5 2.8 28.2 9.2 

1988 4,302 1,482 2,736 600 7.0 3.0 30.4 9.2 

1989 4,290 1,483 2,695 592 6.9 2.9 29.6 8.7 

1990 4,365 1,527 2,738 605 7.0 3.0 29.6 8.7 

1991 5,040 1,725 3,176 644 8.0 3.4 33.3 9.0 

1992 5,410 2,016 3,192 757 8.4 3.9 33.1 10.3 

1993 5,511 2,015 3,317 848 8.5 3.9 33.6 11.3 

1994 6,000 2,412 3,321 1,083 9.0 4.5 32.9 12.0 

1995 5,862 2,317 3,255 1,017 8.7 4.3 32.3 10.8 

1996 6,365 2,563 3,567 1,161 9.4 4.8 34.4 12.0 

1997 6,598 2,788 3,575 1,242 9.7 5.1 34.3 12.4 

1998 6,700 2,850 3,644 1,254 9.8 5.2 35.1 12.2 

1999 6,736 2,826 3,643 1,297 9.8 5.2 35.3 12.2 

2000 6,591 2,881 3,413 1,255 9.5 5.3 32.9 11.4 

2001 6,736 3,002 3,481 1,397 9.8 5.5 33.2 11.9 

2002 6,872 3,048 3,573 1,400 9.9 5.6 33.4 11.5 

2003 7,006 3,029 3,451 1,495 10.0 5.6 33.3 11.9 

2004 7,218 3,113 3,541 1,577 10.3 5.8 34.1 12.0

2005 7,413 3,284 3,617 1,627 10.6 6.0 35.5 12.0

2006 7,443 3,263 3,557 1,677 10.6 6.0 35.0 12.0

2007 6,945 2,928 3,501 1,569 9.8 5.4 33.2 10.8

2008 7,236 2,994 3,707 1,649 10.2 5.5 35.6 11.0

2009 7,450 3,254 3,642 1,918 10.5 6.0 35.3 12.2

2010 7,543 3,440 3,548 1,987 10.5 6.3 34.0 12.2

2011 8,080 3,706 3,732 2,233 11.3 6.8 36.2 13.3

2012 8,356 3,686 3,797 2,281 11.7 7.0 36.5 13.4

Note: Data are for all children under 18 who are not family heads (excludes householders, subfamily reference persons and their spouses). Inmates of 

institutions also are excluded. 

Children who are living with neither of their parents are excluded from the denominator. Based on Current Population Survey (CPS) except 1960 

which is based on decennial census data. 

1 In 1982, improved data collection and processing procedures helped to identify parent-child subfamilies (See Current Population Reports, P-20, 399, 

Marital Status and Living Arrangements: March 1984). Some of the increase between 1981 and 1982 is a result of these changes.

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample 

size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately. Nonwhite data are shown for Black in 1960.

2 Race categories include those of Hispanic ethnicity. Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race.

Source of 1960 data: U.S. Census Bureau, 1960 Census of Population, PC(2)-4B, “Persons by Family Characteristics,” Tables 1 and 19

Source of CPS data: U.S. Census Bureau, “Marital Status and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Series P20-212, 287, 365, 380, 399, 

418, 423, 433, 445, 450, 461, 468, 478, 484, 491, 496, 506, 514 and “America’s Families and Living Arrangements,” Current Population Reports, Table 

C3, http://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/cps2013C.html.
Appendix A

Program Data
A-1

Appendix A. Program Data

The Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 specifies that the annual welfare indicators reports shall include 

analyses of families and individuals receiving assistance under three means-tested benefit programs: 

 The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program authorized under part A of title IV 

of the Social Security Act (which replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 

program in 1996);

 The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program under the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as amended 

(which was renamed from the Food Stamp Program by Section 4001(b) of the Food, 

Conservation, and Energy Act (P.L. 110-234) in October 2008;

 The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program under title XVI of the Social Security Act. 

This chapter includes information on these three programs, derived primarily from administrative data 

reported by state and federal agencies instead of the national survey data presented in previous 

chapters. National caseloads and expenditure trend information on each of the three programs is 

included, as well as state-by-state trend tables and information on the characteristics of program 

participants. 
A-2

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

(AFDC)

The Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program — originally named the Aid to Dependent 

Children program — was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable 

states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or 

care because their fathers or mothers were absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or 

unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated 

an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal 

limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. 

States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates 

that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons 

who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set 

limits. 

During the 1990s, the federal government increasingly used its authority under section 1115 of the Social 

Security Act to waive portions of the federal requirements under AFDC. This allowed states to test such 

changes as expanded earned income disregards, family caps, education and adult oversight 

requirements for underage single mothers, increased work requirements and stronger sanctions for 

failure to comply with them, time limits on benefits, and expanded access to transitional benefits such as 

child care and medical assistance. As a condition of receiving waivers, states were required to conduct 

rigorous evaluations of the impacts of these changes on the welfare receipt, employment, and earnings of 

participants.

Public Law 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 

(PRWORA), replaced AFDC, AFDC administration, the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training 

(JOBS) program and the Emergency Assistance (EA) program with a block grant called the Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Key elements of TANF include a lifetime limit of five 

years (60 months)24 on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive assistance funded with 

federal funds, work participation rate requirements that states must meet, and broad state flexibility on 

program design. Spending through the TANF block grant is capped and funded at $16.5 billion per year, 

States also must meet a “maintenance of effort (MOE) requirement” by spending on needy families at 

least 75 percent of the amount of state funds used in FY 1994 on these programs (80 percent if they fail 

work participation rate requirements). 

TANF gives states wide latitude in spending both federal TANF funds and state MOE funds. Without any 

federal limitations, each state has the flexibility to define “need”, set their own benefit levels, determine 

who is a member of the assistance unit, and establish income and resource limits for all benefits and 

services allowable under TANF (including cash assistance). TANF funds may be used in any way that 

supports one of the four statutory purposes of TANF: to provide assistance to needy families so that 

children can be cared for at home; to end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by 

promoting job preparation, work and marriage; to prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock 

pregnancies; and to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. 

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

States had the option of beginning their TANF programs as soon as PRWORA was enacted in August 

1996, and a few states began TANF programs as early as September 1996. All states were required to 

implement TANF by July 1, 1997. Because states implemented TANF at different times, the FY 1997 

data reflect a combination of the AFDC and TANF programs. In some states, limited data are available 

for FY 1997 because states were given a transition period of six months after they implemented TANF 

before they were required to report data on the characteristics and work activities of TANF participants. 

Because of the greatly expanded range of activities allowed under TANF, a substantial portion of TANF 

funds are being spent on activities other than cash payments to families. Table TANF 4 in this Appendix 

 

24 However, some states also use the 20 percent hardship exemption or state funds to provide continued assistance for some families that reach the 

60-month time limit.
A-3

which tracks overall expenditure trends includes only those TANF funds spent on “cash and work-based 

assistance” and “administrative costs,” not on work activities, supportive services, or other allowable uses 

of funds. Spending on these other activities is detailed in Table TANF 5. Note that TANF administrative 

costs include funds spent administering all activities, not just cash and work-based assistance. 

(Administrative costs under AFDC had included a small amount of funds for administering AFDC child 

care programs; such programs, and the costs of administering them, were transferred to the Child Care 

and Development Fund as part of PRWORA.)

There also is potential for discontinuity between the AFDC and the TANF caseload figures. For example, 

under TANF there is no longer a separate “Unemployed Parent” (UP) program, as there was under 

AFDC. While a separate work participation rate is calculated for two-parent families, this population is not 

identical to the UP caseload under AFDC. Even in the TANF era, the population subject to the two-parent 

rate changed. Before the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, families with two adult recipients were generally 

subject to the two-parent rate; after the Act, the focus was on families with two work-eligible individuals 

(effective FY 2007). It also is possible that a limited number of families will be considered recipients of 

TANF assistance, even if they do not receive a monthly cash benefit. The vast majority of families 

receiving “assistance”25 are, in fact, receiving cash payments.

Another data issue concerns the treatment of families who receive cash and other forms of assistance 

under Separate State Programs (SSPs), funded by MOE dollars rather than federal TANF funds. Under 

TANF, some states use SSP programs to serve specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families, 

families because they were subject to a 90 percent work requirement, which many states considered 

unachievable, and families who have exhausted their time limits). From FY 1997 through FY 2006, such 

families were not subject to federal time limits, and states did not have to include them in calculating their 

work participation rates. As of October 2006, such families are included in the work participation rate 

calculation. Starting with the 2004 edition, this Indicators report adds recipients in SSPs into the caseload 

totals26 (the split between TANF and SSP caseloads is shown in Table TANF 3, nationally, and in Table 

TANF 15, by state). Native Americans served through state TANF and SSP programs are included in 

these caseload counts, but families served through TANF programs operated by Tribal governments are 

excluded. Expenditures for SSPs are shown in Table TANF 5.

AFDC/TANF Program Data

The following tables and figures present data on caseloads, expenditures, and recipient characteristics of 

the AFDC and TANF programs. Trends in national caseloads and expenditures are shown in Figures 

TANF 1 and TANF 2, and the first set of tables (Tables TANF 1 through 6). These are followed by 

information on characteristics of AFDC/TANF families (Table TANF 7)27 and a series of tables presenting 

state-by-state data on trends in the AFDC/TANF program (Tables TANF 8 through 15). These data 

complement the data on trends in AFDC/TANF recipiency and participation rates shown in Tables IND 3a 

and IND 4a in Chapter II. 

More information about the TANF program, including caseload data, expenditure data, work participation 

rate data and TANF Reports to Congress, can be found at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf.

 

25 States are allowed to use TANF funds on a variety of services, including employment and training services, domestic violence services, child care, 

transportation, and other support services. Families receiving such services, however, generally should not be counted as recipients of TANF 

“assistance.” Under the final regulations for TANF, “assistance” primarily includes payments directed at ongoing basic needs. It includes payments 

when individuals are participating in community service and work experience (or other work activities) as a condition of receiving payments (e.g., 

workfare). In addition, the definition also includes certain child care and transportation benefits when families are not employed. It excludes, however, 

such things as: non-recurrent, short-term benefits; services without a cash value, such as education and training, case management, job search, and 

counseling; and benefits such as child care and transportation when provided to employed families.

26 States began submitting caseload data on SSPs in FY 2000.

27 Family characteristics in Table TANF 7 may differ from those reported in Chapter II because the administrative data focus on the assistance unit, 

whereas the survey-based data in Chapter II often use a broader family unit definition. For example, grandparents, adult siblings, aunts, uncles, and 

other adult relatives living in the same household as the recipient children may be excluded from the assistance unit and thus the administrative data, 

yet be included in survey data on the family in which the TANF recipient resides. 
A-4

Figure TANF 1. AFDC/TANF Families Receiving Income Assistance

Note: “Basic Families” are single-parent families and two-parent families in which one of the parents is incapacitated and “UP Families” are two-parent 

cases who are needy due to the unemployment of the principal earner and receiving benefits under AFDC Unemployed Parent programs that operated 

in certain states before FY 1991 and in all states after October 1, 1990. The AFDC Basic and UP programs were replaced by TANF as of July 1, 1997 

under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. The decrease in number of families receiving assistance during 

the 1981-82 recession stems from changes in eligibility requirements and other policy changes mandated by OBRA 1981. The decrease in number of 

families receiving assistance beginning in 1996 is attributed to welfare reform and the introduction of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families 

block grant. Beginning in 2000, “Total Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is December 2013. Beginning in 2000, “Total 

Families” includes TANF and SSP families. Last data point plotted is December 2013. 

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance.

Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Jan-61 Jan-65 Jan-69 Jan-73 Jan-77 Jan-81 Jan-85 Jan-89 Jan-93 Jan-97 Jan-01 Jan-05 Jan-09 Jan-13

(In millions) Dec-69 Nov-73 Jan-80 Jul-82 Jul-90 PRWORA Mar-01 Dec-07

Nov 70 Mar-75 Jul-80 Nov-82 Apr-91 Jul-97 Nov-01 Jun-09

Total AFDC

families

AFDC Basic

families Total TANF

families

TANF

2-parent

families

AFDC UP

families
A-5

Figure TANF 2. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Benefit per Recipient in Constant 2012 Dollars

Note: See Table TANF 6 for underlying data. Comparison of trends in the average monthly AFDC/TANF benefit per recipient in constant dollars with 

the weighted average maximum benefit in constant 2012 dollars since 1988 indicates that the cause of the decline in the average monthly benefit has 

been the erosion of the real value of the maximum benefit due to inflation. This is due to the fact that the current value of the maximum benefits has 

increased less than the cost of living in most states since the late1980s.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance Characteristics and 

Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: TANF Annual Report to Congress selected years; Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics, 1992 & 1993

and earlier years along with unpublished data. 

207

271

157

100

150

200

250

300

1962 1965 1969 1973 1976 1979 1982 1985 1988 1991 1994 1997 2000 2003 2006 2009 2012

(In 2012 $)

0
A-6

Table TANF 1. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Caseloads: 1962-2013

Average Monthly Number 

(thousands)

Children as a 

Percent of Total 

Recipients

Average 

1Number 

of Children 

per Family

 Total

 Families

AFDC UP 1

Two-Parent 

Families

TANF

Two-Parent 

Families

Total 

Recipients

Child 

Fiscal Year Recipients

1962........... 924 48 NA 3,593 2,778 77.3 3.0

1964........... 984 60 NA 4,059 3,043 75.0 3.1

1966........... 1,074 62 NA 4,472 3,369 75.3 3.1

1968........... 1,310 67 NA 5,349 4,013 75.0 3.1

1970........... 1,906 78 NA 7,415 5,484 74.0 2.9

1972........... 2,918 134 NA 10,632 7,698 72.4 2.6

1974........... 3,170 93 NA 10,845 7,825 72.2 2.5

1975........... 3,357 100 NA 11,067 7,952 71.9 2.4

1976........... 3,575 135 NA 11,386 8,054 70.7 2.3

1977........... 3,593 149 NA 11,130 7,846 70.5 2.2

1978........... 3,539 128 NA 10,672 7,492 70.2 2.1

1979........... 3,496 114 NA 10,318 7,197 69.8 2.1

1980........... 3,642 141 NA 10,597 7,320 69.1 2.0

1981........... 3,871 209 NA 11,160 7,615 68.2 2.0

1982........... 3,569 232 NA 10,431 6,975 66.9 2.0

1983........... 3,651 272 NA 10,659 7,051 66.1 1.9

1984........... 3,725 287 NA 10,866 7,153 65.8 1.9

1985........... 3,692 261 NA 10,813 7,165 66.3 1.9

1986........... 3,748 254 NA 10,997 7,300 66.4 1.9

1987........... 3,784 236 NA 11,065 7,381 66.7 2.0

1988........... 3,748 210 NA 10,920 7,325 67.1 2.0

1989........... 3,771 193 NA 10,934 7,370 67.4 2.0

1990........... 3,974 204 NA 11,460 7,755 67.7 2.0

1991........... 4,374 268 NA 12,592 8,513 67.6 1.9

1992........... 4,768 322 NA 13,625 9,226 67.7 1.9

1993........... 4,981 359 NA 14,143 9,560 67.6 1.9

1994........... 5,046 363 NA 14,226 9,611 67.6 1.9

1995........... 4,871 335 NA 13,660 9,280 67.9 1.9

1996........... 4,543 301 NA 12,645 8,671 68.6 1.9

19972......... 3,937 256 NA 10,935 7,781271.222.02

1998........... 3,200 NA 162 8,790 6,273 71.4 2.0

1999........... 2,674 NA 125 7,188 5,319 74.0 2.0

2000........... 2,356 NA 132 6,324 4,598 72.7 2.0

2001........... 2,200 NA 119 5,761 4,233 73.5 1.9

2002........... 2,195 NA 118 5,656 4,149 73.3 1.9

2003........... 2,181 NA 116 5,518 4,075 73.9 1.9

2004........... 2,161 NA 114 5,377 3,993 74.3 1.8

2005........... 2,090 NA 108 5,118 3,818 74.6 1.8

2006........... 1,960 NA 98 4,741 3,565 75.2 1.8

2007........... 1,754 NA 62 4,138 3,165 76.5 1.8

2008........... 1,693 NA 63 3,982 3,044 76.5 1.8

2009........... 1,796 NA 86 4,254 3,222 75.7 1.8

2010........... 1,911 NA 101 4,573 3,421 74.8 1.8

2011........... 1,921 NA 104 4,600 3,435 74.7 1.8

2012........... 1,876 NA 94 4,476 3,352 74.9 1.8

2013........... 1,751 NA 83 4,102 3,091 75.3 1.8

Note: Beginning in 2000, all caseload numbers include SSP families. AFDC-UP was limited to two-parent families where the principal earner was 

unemployed. Two-parent families in which a parent was incapacitated were part of the AFDC-Basic caseload.

1

The AFDC Unemployed Parent program was replaced when the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed 

AFDC and set up the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program no later than July 1, 1997.

2Based on data from the AFDC reporting system that were available only for the first 9 months of the fiscal year.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports).
A-7

Table TANF 2. Number of AFDC/TANF Recipients, and Recipients as a Percentage of Various 

Population Groups: 1970-2013

Calendar

 Year 1

Total Recipients in 

the States & DC

(thousands)

Child Recipients 

in the States & DC

(thousands)

Recipients as a 

Percent of Total 

Population 2

Recipients as a 

Percent of Poverty 

Population 3

Child Recipients as 

a Percent of Total 

Child Population 2

Child Recipients as a 

Percent of Children in 

Poverty 3

1970 8,303 6,104 4.0 32.7 8.7 58.5

1971 10,043 7,303 4.8 39.3 10.5 69.2

1972 10,736 7,766 5.1 43.9 11.2 75.5

1973 10,738 7,763 5.1 46.7 11.3 80.5

1974 10,621 7,637 5.0 45.4 11.2 75.2

1975 11,131 7,928 5.2 43.0 11.8 71.4

1976 11,098 7,850 5.1 44.4 11.8 76.4

1977 10,856 7,632 4.9 43.9 11.7 74.2

1978 10,387 7,270 4.7 42.4 11.2 73.2

1979 10,140 7,057 4.5 38.9 11.0 68.0

1980 10,599 7,295 4.7 36.2 11.5 63.2

1981 10,893 7,397 4.7 34.2 11.7 59.2

1982 10,161 6,767 4.4 29.5 10.8 49.6

1983 10,569 6,967 4.5 29.9 11.1 50.1

1984 10,643 7,017 4.5 31.6 11.2 52.3

1985 10,672 7,073 4.5 32.3 11.3 54.4

1986 10,850 7,206 4.5 33.5 11.5 56.0

1987 10,841 7,240 4.5 33.6 11.5 56.4

1988 10,728 7,201 4.4 33.8 11.4 57.8

1989 10,798 7,286 4.4 34.3 11.5 57.9

1990 11,497 7,781 4.6 34.2 12.1 57.9

1991 12,728 8,601 5.0 35.6 13.2 60.0

1992 13,571 9,189 5.3 35.7 13.8 60.1

1993 14,007 9,460 5.4 35.7 14.0 60.2

1994 13,970 9,448 5.3 36.7 13.8 61.8

1995 13,242 9,013 5.0 36.4 13.0 61.5

1996 12,156 8,355 4.5 33.3 11.9 57.8

1997 10,224 7,07743.7 28.7 10.0 50.1

1998 8,215 5,781 3.0 23.8 8.1 42.9

1999 6,709 4,836 2.4 20.5 6.7 39.4

2000 6,043 4,415 2.1 19.1 6.1 38.1

2001 5,631 4,140 2.0 17.1 5.7 35.3

2002 5,534 4,073 1.9 16.0 5.6 33.6

2003 5,424 4,024 1.9 15.1 5.5 31.3

2004 5,283 3,935 1.8 14.3 5.4 30.2

2005 4,975 3,726 1.7 13.5 5.1 28.9

2006 4,537 3,428 1.5 12.4 4.6 26.7

2007 4,038 3,093 1.3 10.8 4.2 23.2

2008 3,972 3,036 1.3 10.0 4.1 21.6

2009 4,331 3,268 1.4 9.9 4.4 21.2

2010 4,553 3,405 1.5 9.8 4.6 20.9

2011 4,512 3,378 1.4 9.8 4.6 20.9

2012 4,358 3,270 1.4 9.4 4.4 20.3

2013 4,002 3,024 1.3 8.8 4.1 20.6

1

Total recipients here are the monthly average for the calendar year in order to compare with the calendar year counts of the poverty populations used 

to compute the recipiency rates. From 2000 onward, total recipients includes SSP recipients as well as TANF recipients and likewise for child 

recipients. See Table IND 3a for fiscal year recipiency rates.

2 Population numbers used as denominators are resident population. See Current Population Reports, Series P25-1106 

3

For poverty population data see Current Population Reports, Series P60-231 (available online at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).

4 Estimated based on the ratio of children recipients to total recipients for January through June of 1997.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance and U.S. Census 

Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 (available online 

at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).
A-8

Table TANF 3. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2000-2013

[In thousands]

TANF SSP Total

Fiscal Year Families

2000 2,265 91 2,356

2001 2,117 82 2,200

2002 2,065 129 2,195

2003 2,032 149 2,181

2004 1,987 174 2,161

2005 1,920 170 2,090

2006 1,805 155 1,960

2007 1,699 55 1,754

2008 1,628 65 1,693

2009 1,727 70 1,796

2010 1,848 69 1,917

2011 1,864 58 1,922

2012 1,754 123 1,876

2013 1,641 110 1,751

All Recipients

2000 5,943 380 6,324

2001 5,423 338 5,761

2002 5,149 508 5,656

2003 4,967 551 5,518

2004 4,784 593 5,377

2005 4,549 569 5,118

2006 4,222 520 4,742

2007 3,961 177 4,138

2008 3,782 199 3,982

2009 4,041 213 4,254

2010 4,371 222 4,593

2011 4,417 186 4,603

2012 4,107 370 4,476

2013 3,782 320 4,102

Child Recipients

2000 4,370 228 4,598

2001 4,025 202 4,227

2002 3,841 308 4,149

2003 3,731 344 4,075

2004 3,617 376 3,993

2005 3,459 360 3,818

2006 3,237 328 3,565

2007 3,050 115 3,165

2008 2,914 130 3,044

2009 3,084 139 3,223

2010 3,289 146 3,435

2011 3,316 122 3,437

2012 3,107 245 3,352

2013 2,885 206 3,091

Note: States may spend their State maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds within the TANF program or in "Separate State programs" (SSPs) that are not 

subject to many of the TANF requirements, including work requirements until FY 2007. See Table TANF 15 for SSPs by state

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at 

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_current.htm).
A-9

Table TANF 4. Total AFDC/TANF Expenditures on Cash Benefits and Administration: 1970 – 2013

[In millions of dollars]

Federal Funds

(Current Dollars)

State Funds

(Current Dollars)

Total

(Current Dollars)

Total

(Constant 2013 Dollars1)

Fiscal Year Benefits Admin Benefits Admin Benefits Admin Benefits Admin

1970 $2,187 $572 2$1,895 $309 $4,082 $881 2$22,283 $4,809

1972 3,612 240 32,942 241 6,554 481 333,075 2,427

1974 4,071 379 3,300 362 7,371 740 32,906 3,304

1975 4,625 552 3,787 529 8,412 1,082 34,228 4,403

1976 5,258 541 4,418 527 9,676 1,069 36,855 4,072

1977 5,626 595 4,762 583 10,388 1,177 36,832 4,173

1978 5,724 631 4,898 617 10,621 1,248 35,329 4,151

1979 5,825 683 4,954 668 10,779 1,350 32,964 4,129

1980 6,448 750 5,508 729 11,956 1,479 32,916 4,072

1981 6,928 835 5,917 814 12,845 1,648 32,134 4,123

1982 6,922 878 5,934 878 12,857 1,756 30,101 4,111

1983 7,332 915 6,275 915 13,607 1,830 30,445 4,094

1984 7,707 876 6,664 822 14,371 1,698 30,884 3,649

1985 7,817 890 6,763 889 14,580 1,779 30,256 3,692

1986 8,239 993 6,996 967 15,235 1,960 30,891 3,974

1987 8,914 1,081 7,409 1,052 16,323 2,133 32,240 4,213

1988 9,125 1,194 7,538 1,159 16,663 2,353 31,730 4,481

1989 9,433 1,211 7,807 1,206 17,240 2,417 31,491 4,415

1990 10,149 1,358 8,390 1,303 18,539 2,661 32,393 4,649

1991 11,165 1,373 9,191 1,300 20,356 2,673 34,040 4,470

1992 12,258 1,459 9,993 1,378 22,250 2,837 36,315 4,630

1993 12,270 1,518 10,016 1,438 22,286 2,956 35,466 4,704

1994 12,512 1,680 10,285 1,621 22,797 3,301 35,518 5,143

1995 12,019 1,770 10,014 1,751 22,032 3,521 33,532 5,360

1996 11,065 1,633 9,346 1,633 20,411 3,266 30,301 4,848

1997 4

9,748 1,273 7,799 1,098 17,547 2,371 25,423 3,435

1998 7,518 1,231 7,096 1,028 14,614 2,259 20,866 3,226

1999 6,475 1,407 6,975 884 13,449 2,291 18,865 3,213

2000 5,444 1,570 5,736 1,032 11,180 2,302 15,202 3,538

2001 4,772 1,598 5,390 1,042 10,163 2,639 13,391 3,478

2002 4,554 1,633 4,854 983 9,408 2,617 12,215 3,398

2003 5,820 1,592 4,398 859 10,219 2,451 12,960 3,108

2004 4,717 1,471 5,652 828 10,368 2,300 12,853 2,851

2005 5,193 1,507 5,546 870 10,739 2,377 12,890 2,853

2006 4,926 1,525 4,980 886 9,906 2,411 11,467 2,791

2007 4,533 1,553 4,583 955 9,116 2,508 10,310 2,837

2008 4,755 1,523 3,894 1,054 8,649 2,577 9,366 2,791

2009 4,504 1,572 4,820 911 9,324 2,483 10,130 2,698

2010 6,889 1,602 3,810 885 10,699 2,487 11,431 2,657

2011 5,255 1,475 4,350 829 9,604 2,304 9,996 2,398

2012 5,003 1,397 3,979 857 8,982 2,254 9,128 2,291

2013 4,485 1,409 4,253 882 8,738 2,291 8,738 2,291

Note: Benefits do not include emergency assistance payments and have not been reduced by child support collections. Foster care payments are 

included from 1971 to 1980. State funds for benefits include benefits under Separate State Programs. Beginning in fiscal year 1984, the cost of 

certifying AFDC households for food stamps is shown in the food stamp program’s appropriation under the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

Administrative costs include: Work Program, ADP, FAMIS, Fraud Control, Child Care administration (through 1996), SAVE and other State and local 

administrative expenditures.

1 Constant dollar adjustments to 2013 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year price index.

2

Includes expenditures for services.

3 Administrative expenditures only.

4

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Under PRWORA, spending categories are not entirely equivalent to those under AFDC: 

e.g., administrative expenses under TANF do not include IV-A child care administration (which accounted for 4 percent of 1996 administrative expense).

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource-library/search?tag=5287.
A-10

Table TANF 5. Federal and State TANF Program and Other Related Spending: 

2000 – 2013

[In millions of current dollars]

Fiscal

Year

Cash & WorkBased 

Assistance Work Activities Child Care

TransportationAdministration SystemsOther 

Expenditures

Total

Expenditures

Federal TANF Grants

2000 5,444 1,606 1,553 496 1,328 242 2,715 13,384 

2001 4,772 1,983 1,583 522 1,375 223 4,325 14,782 

2002 4,554 2,121 1,572 339 1,339 294 4,368 14,588 

2003 5,820 1,937 1,698 434 1,307 285 4,772 16,254 

2004 4,717 1,613 1,427 354 1,220 251 4,811 14,393 

2005 5,193 1,702 1,279 393 1,277 230 4,089 14,164 

2006 4,926 1,681 1,238 341 1,294 231 3,859 13,570 

2007 4,532 1,678 1,168 354 1,317 236 4,352 13,637 

2008 4,755 1,696 1,622 399 1,305 219 4,478 14,474 

2009 4,504 1,778 1,787 420 1,365 207 5,118 15,179 

2010 6,889 2,578 1,426 445 1,396 206 5,125 18,065 

2011 5,255 1,928 1,352 412 1,313 162 4,761 15,183 

2012 5,003 1,627 1,233 361 1,230 167 4,498 14,120

2013 4,485 1,517 1,110 373 1,237 172 5,258 14,152

State Maintenance of Effort Expenditures in the TANF AND Separate State Programs

2000 5,736 895 1,966 166 939 93 1,601 11,398

2001 5,390 713 1,765 133 958 84 1,694 10,737

2002 4,854 606 1,932 245 918 65 2,206 10,827

2003 4,398 662 1,770 109 799 60 2,288 10,086

2004 5,652 540 1,924 138 772 56 2,346 11,429

2005 5,546 465 1,918 130 822 48 2,488 11,416

2006 4,980 683 2,304 131 844 42 3,039 12,024

2007 4,583 661 2,549 119 904 51 4,418 13,285

2008 3,894 574 2,614 110 999 55 5,410 13,656

2009 4,820 581 2,347 127 837 74 6,614 15,399

2010 3,810 723 2,644 108 835 50 7,020 15,191

2011 4,350 720 2,606 82 781 48 6,855 15,441

2012 3,979 536 2,431 88 813 44 6,857 14,748

2013 4,253 517 2,529 77 838 44 6,738 14,995

Total Expenditures

2000 11,180 2,501 3,519 663 2,267 335 4,316 24,781 

2001 10,163 2,696 3,347 655 2,333 306 6,019 25,520 

2002 9,408 2,727 3,504 584 2,258 359 6,574 25,414 

2003 10,219 2,599 3,468 543 2,106 345 7,060 26,340 

2004 10,368 2,154 3,350 492 1,992 307 7,157 25,821 

2005 10,739 2,167 3,197 523 2,099 278 6,577 25,580 

2006 9,906 2,364 3,542 472 2,138 273 6,898 25,594 

2007 9,115 2,338 3,717 474 2,221 287 8,770 26,922 

2008 8,649 2,270 4,236 510 2,304 274 9,888 28,130 

2009 9,324 2,359 4,134 547 2,202 281 11,732 30,578 

2010 10,699 3,302 4,069 554 2,230 256 12,145 33,255

2011 9,604 2,648 3,958 494 2,094 210 11,616 30,624

2012 8,982 2,163 3,664 449 2,043 211 11,355 28,867

2013 8,738 2,034 3,639 450 2,075 216 11,995 29,147

Note: Administration and Systems, shown separately here in Table TANF 5, can be combined to show total administrative costs, as in Table TANF 4.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/resource-library/search?tag=5287).
A-11

Table TANF 6. Trends in AFDC/TANF Average Monthly Payments: 1962 – 2012

Monthly Benefit per Recipient Average Number 

of Persons per 

Family

Monthly Benefit

per Family

(not reduced by Child Support)

Weighted Average 1

Maximum Benefit

(per 3-person Family)

Fiscal Year

Current

 Dollars 

 2012 

Dollars

Current

 Dollars 

 2012 

Dollars

Current

 Dollars 

 2012 

Dollars

1962 $31 $207 3.9 $121 $803 NA NA 

1964 32 206 4.1 131 850 NA NA 

1966 35 218 4.2 146 909 NA NA 

1967 36 220 4.1 150 910 NA NA 

1968 40 232 4.1 162 948 NA NA 

1969 43 244 4.0 173 974 $186 2

$1,051

1970 46 246 3.9 178 957 194 21,044

1971 48 246 3.8 180 927 201 2

1,034

1972 51 255 3.6 187 929 205 2

1,020

1973 53 252 3.5 187 891 213 2

1,015

1974 57 249 3.4 194 851 229 2

1,005

1975 63 253 3.3 209 836 243 973

1976 71 265 3.2 226 845 257 962

1977 78 271 3.1 241 840 271 946

1978 83 271 3.0 250 819 284 930

1979 87 262 3.0 257 773 301 905

1980 94 255 2.9 274 741 320 867

1981 96 236 2.9 277 681 326 802

1982 103 237 2.9 300 692 331 761

1983 106 234 2.9 311 684 336 740

1984 110 233 2.9 322 680 352 743

1985 112 229 2.9 329 672 369 754

1986 115 230 2.9 339 676 383 764

1987 123 239 2.9 359 699 393 765

1988 127 238 2.9 370 694 403 755

1989 131 236 2.9 381 685 413 742

1990 135 232 2.9 389 668 420 722

1991 135 222 2.9 388 638 424 698

1992 136 219 2.9 389 624 419 672

1993 131 206 2.8 373 584 414 649

1994 134 205 2.8 376 577 416 637

1995 134 201 2.8 377 564 418 627

1996 135 196 2.8 374 547 419 612

1997 3

130 186 2.8 362 516 418 597

1998 130 183 2.7 358 503 429 603

1999 133 183 2.7 357 493 450 621

2000 130 174 2.7 349 467 446 597

2001 134 174 2.6 351 455 448 581

2002 141 180 2.6 364 465 452 578

2003 140 175 2.5 354 442 455 568

2004 145 177 2.5 360 440 462 564

2005 151 178 2.4 370 437 468 553

2006 154 175 2.4 372 424 489 557

2007 160 178 2.4 377 419 499 555

2008 163 173 2.4 383 408 511 544

2009 164 175 2.4 389 415 507 543

2010 164 172 2.4 392 412 517 543

2011 162 165 2.4 387 396 502 514

2012 157 157 2.4 375 375 506 506

Note: AFDC benefit amounts have not been reduced by child support collections. Constant dollar adjustments to 2012 level were made using a CPI-URS fiscal-year price index.

1

The maximum benefit for a 3-person family in each state is weighted by that state’s share of total AFDC/TANF families.

2 Estimated based on the weighted average benefit for a 4-person family.

3

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 repealed the AFDC program as of July 1, 1997 and replaced it with the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. Beginning in 1997, average monthly benefits are calculated from case-level data rather 

than by dividing aggregate expenditures on cash assistance by aggregate caseloads, as in the past. This change was necessary due to uncertainty 

about the extent to which states may be reporting non-cash basic assistance as well as cash assistance in the expenditure data formerly used to 

calculate average cash benefits.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, unpublished data and 

Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: TANF Annual Report to Congress selected years.
A-12

Table TANF 7. Characteristics of AFDC/TANF Families: Selected Years 1969 – 2012

May March Fiscal year 1

1969 1979 1983 1988 1992 1996 2000 2005 2010 2012

Avg. Family Size (persons) 4.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.3 

Number of Child Recipients

 One 26.6 42.3 43.4 42.5 42.5 43.9 44.2 49.2 50.4 50.9

 Two 23.0 28.1 29.8 30.2 30.2 29.9 28.4 27.2 27.6 26.9 

 Three 17.7 15.6 15.2 15.8 15.5 15.0 15.3 13.6 12.8 12.7 

 Four or More 32.5 13.9 10.1 9.9 10.1 9.2 10.1 8.0 7.4 7.6 

 Unknown NA NA 1.5 1.7 0.7 1.3 2.0 1.9 1.8 1.9 

Families with No Adult in Asst. Unit 10.1 14.6 8.3 9.6 14.8 21.5 34.4 45.5 46.3 46.7 

 Child-Only Families 2– – – – – – 32.7 42.6 44.0 44.1 

Families with Non-Recipients 33.1 NA 36.9 36.8 38.9 49.9 – – – – 

Median Months on AFDC/TANF 

 Since Most Recent Opening 23.0 29.0 26.0 26.3 22.5 23.6 – – – – 

Presence of Assistance

 Living in Public Housing 12.8 NA 10.0 9.6 9.2 8.8 17.7 18.4 13.1 11.7

 Participating in Food Stamp or

 Donated Food Program 52.9 75.1 83.0 84.6 87.3 89.3 79.9 81.5 82.4 84.5

Presence of Income

 With Earnings NA 12.8 5.7 8.4 7.4 11.1 23.6 319.5 320.5 320.5 3

 No Non-AFDC/TANF Income 56.0 80.6 86.8 79.6 78.9 76.0 71.6 375.3 375.1 375.7 3

Adult Employment Status (percent of adults) 

 Employed – – – – 6.6 11.3 26.4 23.2 22.3 22.9 

 Unemployed – – – – – – 49.2 50.4 46.8 49.6 

 Not in Labor Force – – – – – – 24.3 26.4 30.9 27.6 

Adult Women's employment status (percent of adult female recipients):4

 Full-time job 8.2 8.7 1.5 2.2 2.2 4.7 – – – – 

 Part-time job 6.3 5.4 3.4 4.2 4.2 5.4 – – – – 

Marital Status (percent of adults)

 Single – – – – – – 65.3 68.8 70.0 72.6

 Married – – – – – – 12.4 10.7 14.4 12.8 

 Separated – – – – – – 13.1 11.8 9.6 8.9 

 Widowed – – – – – – 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 

 Divorced – – – – – – 8.5 8.1 5.5 5.4 

Basis for Child's Eligibility (percent children):

 Incapacitated 11.7 5

5.3 3.4 3.7 4.1 4.3 – – – – 

 Unemployed 4.6 5

4.1 8.7 6.5 8.2 8.3 – – – – 

 Death 5.5 5

2.2 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.6 – – – – 

 Divorce or Separation 43.3 5

44.7 38.5 34.6 30.0 24.3 – – – – 

 Absent, No Marriage Tie 27.9 5

37.8 44.3 51.9 53.1 58.6 – – – – 

 Absent, Other Reason 3.5 5

5.9 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.4 – – – – 

 Unknown – – 1.7 – 0.9 0.6 – – – – 

Note: Figures are percentages of families/cases unless noted otherwise.

1 Percentages are based on the average monthly TANF caseload during the year. Hawaii and the territories are not included in 1983. Data after 1986 

include the territories and Hawaii. Unlike most of the figures in this report, this table does not include families from Separate State Programs (SSP). 

2 Adults that live in TANF families with children are sometimes excluded from the assistance unit because they have been sanctioned, receive disability 

income from Supplemental Security Income (SSI), have been time-limited, do not qualify based on citizenship requirements, or are non-parental 

caretakers such as relatives or other adults taking responsibility for the children.

3 Presence of income is measured as a percentage of adult recipients (not families) in 1998 and subsequent years.

4

For years prior to 1983, data are for mothers only.

5 Calculated on the basis of total number of families.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, unpublished data and 

Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients: TANF Annual Report to Congress selected years.
A-13

Table TANF 8. AFDC/TANF Cash Benefits by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1978 – 2013

[In millions of current dollars]

1978 1986 1988 1990 1994 1998 2000 2005 2010 2013

Alabama $78 $68 $62 $62 $92 $44 $36 $47 $49 $ 46

Alaska 17 46 54 60 113 77 55 41 40 39

Arizona 30 79 103 138 266 145 107 160 105 -22

Arkansas 51 48 53 57 57 26 34 18 16 13

California 1,813 3,574 4,091 4,955 6,088 4,128 3,643 3,504 3,971 3,248

Colorado 74 107 125 137 158 80 48 75 71 71

Connecticut 168 223 218 295 397 305 166 126 93 81

Delaware 28 25 24 29 40 24 20 19 13 13

Dist. of Columbia 91 77 76 84 126 97 72 66 53 59

Florida 145 261 318 418 806 357 234 184 187 173

Georgia 103 223 266 321 428 313 180 117 48 48

Hawaii 83 73 77 99 163 153 141 82 73 64

Idaho 21 19 19 20 30 6 3 7 6 7

Illinois 699 886 815 839 914 771 269 122 72 81

Indiana 118 148 167 170 228 104 87 113 92 29

Iowa 107 170 155 152 169 104 79 76 70 54

Kansas 73 91 97 105 123 41 43 65 50 27

Kentucky 122 104 143 179 198 147 104 105 130 102

Louisiana 97 162 182 188 168 103 58 51 41 26

Maine 51 84 80 101 108 80 73 90 98 65

Maryland 166 250 250 296 314 192 196 124 124 139

Massachusetts 476 471 558 630 730 442 336 332 337 340

Michigan 780 1,248 1,231 1,211 1,132 589 386 412 546 207

Minnesota 164 322 338 355 379 276 193 137 96 94

Mississippi 33 74 85 86 82 60 18 27 20 17

Missouri 152 209 215 228 287 180 139 125 113 101

Montana 15 37 41 40 49 30 21 20 18 15

Nebraska 38 62 56 59 62 41 41 54 35 28

Nevada 8 16 20 27 48 39 28 33 42 43

New Hampshire 21 20 21 32 62 39 32 35 44 27

New Jersey 489 509 459 451 531 372 222 441 266 304

New Mexico 32 51 56 61 144 104 113 75 96 53

New York 1,689 2,099 2,140 2,259 2,913 2,149 1,554 1,762 1,668 1,606

North Carolina 138 138 206 247 353 211 140 108 75 59

North Dakota 14 20 22 24 26 22 12 11 8 5

Ohio 441 804 805 877 1,016 546 368 316 506 302

Oklahoma 74 100 119 132 165 72 78 33 24 20

Oregon 148 120 128 145 197 141 34 105 208 156

Pennsylvania 726 389 747 798 935 523 573 407 202 272

Rhode Island 59 79 82 99 136 117 105 72 40 42

South Carolina 52 103 91 96 115 52 91 73 46 35

South Dakota 18 15 21 22 25 14 10 12 16 13

Tennessee 77 100 125 168 215 108 146 121 134 108

Texas 122 281 344 416 544 315 248 181 107 75

Utah 41 55 61 64 77 50 40 45 37 23

Vermont 21 40 40 48 65 47 39 36 17 21

Virginia 136 179 169 177 253 123 186 143 123 101

Washington 175 375 401 438 610 450 312 262 373 202

West Virginia 53 109 107 110 126 52 49 43 43 31

Wisconsin 260 444 506 440 425 145 7 115 130 134

Wyoming 6 16 19 19 21 7 9 7 11 2

United States $10,621 $15,236 $16,663 $18,543 $22,798 $14,614 $11,180 $10,739 $10,785 $ 8,799

Note: Benefits refers to total federal and state cash benefits paid, (see Table TANF 4) but does not include emergency assistance or contingency fund 

payments. Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, ACF-196 

TANF Report and ACF-231 AFDC Line by Line Report, also see TANF Tables 4 and 5.
A-14

Table TANF 9. Comparison of Federal Funding for AFDC and Related Programs with

2013 Total Family Assistance Grants Awarded Under PRWORA

[In millions of current dollars]

State

FY 1996 

Grants for 

AFDC, EA & 

JOBS 1

FY 2013 Family

Assistance 

Grants 2

FY 2013

Contingency

Fund Awards 3

FY 2013

Total 

Awards

Change 

from

FY 1996 Level

To FY 2013

Percent

Increase from

FY 1996 Level

Alabama $79.0 $93.3 — $93.3 $14.3 $18

Alaska 60.7 45.3 — 45.3 -15.4 -25

Arizona 200.6 200.1 19 218.7 18.1 9

Arkansas 54.3 56.7 5 61.7 7.4 14

California 3,545.6 3,659.4 — 3,659.4 113.8 3

Colorado 138.9 136.1 12 148.0 9.0 6

Connecticut 221.1 266.8 — 266.8 45.7 21

Delaware 30.2 32.3 3 35.1 4.9 16

Dist. of Columbia 77.1 92.6 8 100.7 23.6 31

Florida 504.7 562.3 — 562.3 57.6 11

Georgia 301.2 330.7 — 330.7 29.5 10

Hawaii 98.4 98.9 9 107.6 9.2 9

Idaho 31.3 30.4 — 30.4 -0.9 -3

Illinois 593.8 585.1 — 585.1 -8.8 -1

Indiana 121.4 206.8 — 206.8 85.4 70

Iowa 129.3 131.0 — 131.0 1.7 1

Kansas 86.9 101.9 — 101.9 15.0 17

Kentucky 171.6 181.3 — 181.3 9.6 6

Louisiana 122.4 164.0 — 164.0 41.6 34

Maine 73.2 78.1 — 78.1 4.9 7

Maryland 207.6 229.1 20 249.1 41.5 20

Massachusetts 372.0 459.4 40 499.5 127.5 34

Michigan 581.5 775.4 — 775.4 193.9 33

Minnesota 239.3 263.4 — 263.4 24.1 10

Mississippi 68.6 86.8 — 86.8 18.2 26

Missouri 207.9 217.1 19 236.0 28.2 14

Montana 39.2 38.0 — 38.0 -1.1 -3

Nebraska 56.2 57.5 — 57.5 1.3 2

Nevada 41.2 43.9 4 47.7 6.5 16

New Hampshire 36.0 38.5 — 38.5 2.5 7

New Jersey 353.4 404.0 — 404.0 50.7 14

New Mexico 129.9 110.6 10 120.2 -9.7 -7

New York 2,332.7 2,442.9 214 2,656.6 323.9 14

North Carolina 311.9 301.4 26 327.8 15.9 5

North Dakota 24.5 26.4 — 26.4 1.9 8

Ohio 564.5 728.0 — 728.0 163.5 29

Oklahoma 125.1 145.3 — 145.3 20.2 16

Oregon 146.4 166.8 14 181.3 34.8 24

Pennsylvania 780.1 719.5 — 719.5 -60.6 -8

Rhode Island 82.9 95.0 — 95.0 12.2 15

South Carolina 99.4 100.0 9 108.7 9.3 9

South Dakota 19.7 21.3 — 21.3 1.5 8

Tennessee 178.9 191.5 17 208.3 29.3 16

Texas 437.1 486.3 43 528.8 91.7 21

Utah 68.0 75.6 — 75.6 7.6 11

Vermont 42.4 47.4 — 47.4 5.0 12

Virginia 134.6 158.3 — 158.3 23.6 18

Washington 393.2 380.5 32 413.0 19.8 5

West Virginia 95.1 110.2 — 110.2 15.0 16

Wisconsin 241.6 313.9 26 340.3 98.7 41

Wyoming 14.4 18.5 — 18.5 4.1 28

United States $15,067 $ 16,306 $ 529 $ 16,835 $ 1,767 12

1

Includes Administration and FAMIS but excludes IV-A child care. AFDC benefits include the Federal share of child support collections to be 

comparable to the Family Assistance Grant. The 1996 figures have been revised since earlier versions of this report, to reflect upward revisions in 

states' reports of expenditures on the JOBS program.

2

The FY 2013 Family Assistance Grants differs from the previous edition and does not include the Tribal Family Assistance Grants. Supplemental 

Grants have been zeroed out since FY 2012.

3

Includes Contingency Fund Grants but not penalties assessed nor does it include Emergency Contingency Funds.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Financial Services.
A-15

Table TANF 10. AFDC/TANF Caseload by State: October 1989 to December 2013 Peak

[In thousands]

State

Peak 

Caseload Oct 

‘89 to Dec ‘13

Date Peak 

Occurred 

Oct ’89 to Dec ‘13

Sept ’96

AFDC

Caseload

Dec ‘13 TANF 

& SSP 

Caseload

Percent 

Decline1from 

Sept ’96 to

Dec ‘13

Percent 

Decline from 

the Peak to 

Dec ‘13

Alabama 52.3 Mar-93 40.7 18.4 55 65 

Alaska 13.4 Apr-94 12.3 3.4 72 74 

Arizona 72.8 Dec-93 61.8 14.0 77 81 

Arkansas 27.1 Mar-92 22.1 6.4 71 76 

California 933.1 Mar-95 870.3 533.1 39 43 

Colorado 43.7 Dec-93 33.6 17.3 49 61 

Connecticut 61.9 Mar-95 57.1 14.3 75 77 

Delaware 11.8 Apr-94 10.5 4.8 54 59 

Dist. of Columbia 27.5 Apr-94 25.1 4.4 83 84 

Florida 259.9 Nov-92 200.3 53.1 73 80 

Georgia 142.8 Nov-93 120.9 16.5 86 88 

Hawaii 23.4 Jun-97 21.9 8.9 59 62 

Idaho 9.5 Mar-95 8.4 1.8 78 81 

Illinois 243.1 Aug-94 217.8 20.4 91 92 

Indiana 76.1 Sep-93 49.7 11.2 77 85 

Iowa 40.7 Apr-94 31.1 16.1 48 60 

Kansas 30.8 Aug-93 23.4 7.6 68 75 

Kentucky 84.0 Mar-93 70.4 29.5 58 65 

Louisiana 94.7 May-90 66.5 6.2 91 94 

Maine 24.4 Aug-93 19.7 26.6 -35 -9 

Maryland 81.8 May-95 68.9 21.3 69 74 

Massachusetts 115.7 Aug-93 84.3 71.0 16 39 

Michigan 233.6 Apr-91 167.5 30.3 82 87 

Minnesota 66.2 Jun-92 57.2 22.3 61 66 

Mississippi 61.8 Nov-91 45.2 9.3 80 85 

Missouri 93.7 Mar-94 79.1 32.2 59 66 

Montana 12.3 Mar-94 9.8 3.5 64 72 

Nebraska 17.2 Mar-93 14.4 6.4 56 63 

Nevada 16.3 Mar-95 13.2 11.9 10 27 

New Hampshire 11.8 Apr-94 8.9 6.1 32 49 

New Jersey 132.6 Nov-92 100.8 28.9 71 78 

New Mexico 34.9 Nov-94 33.0 13.2 60 62 

New York 463.7 Dec-94 412.7 153.1 63 67 

North Carolina 134.1 Mar-94 107.5 18.6 83 86 

North Dakota 6.6 Apr-93 4.7 1.4 71 79 

Ohio 269.8 Mar-92 201.9 64.4 68 76 

Oklahoma 51.3 Mar-93 35.3 7.3 79 86 

Oregon 43.8 Apr-93 28.5 43.8 -53 0 

Pennsylvania 212.5 Sep-94 180.1 69.7 61 67 

Rhode Island 22.9 Apr-94 20.5 5.8 72 75 

South Carolina 54.6 Jan-93 42.9 11.8 73 78 

South Dakota 7.4 Apr-93 5.7 3.2 44 56 

Tennessee 112.6 Nov-93 96.2 50.9 47 55 

Texas 287.5 Dec-93 238.8 38.5 84 87 

Utah 18.7 Mar-93 14.0 4.4 69 77 

Vermont 10.3 Apr-92 8.7 3.1 64 70 

Virginia 76.0 Apr-94 60.5 28.9 52 62 

Washington 104.8 Feb-95 96.8 42.7 56 59 

West Virginia 41.9 Apr-93 37.6 8.9 76 79 

Wisconsin 82.9 Jan-92 49.9 27.5 45 67 

Wyoming 7.1 Aug-92 4.3 0.4 91 95 

United States 5,098 Mar-94 4293 1,654.2 61 68 

Note: these data do not include Tribal TANF families (about 15,000 in number in FY 2011). This makes little difference nationally, but in States like 

Wyoming, New Mexico, and Arizona, their exclusion under TANF overstates the real decline from AFDC years.

1Negative values denote percent increase.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, available online at 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports. 
A-16

Table TANF 11. Average Monthly AFDC/TANF Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In thousands]

1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Percent Change

1995-05 2005-13

Alabama 78 123 180 130 118 46 48 51 48 -59 -2

Alaska 5 8 15 20 37 22 12 9 10 -67 -20

Arizona 40 51 51 124 190 87 99 70 37 -48 -63

Arkansas 30 45 85 71 63 29 19 19 16 -70 -16

California 528 1,148 1,387 1,902 2,680 1,574 1,256 1,416 1,355 -53 8

Colorado 42 66 77 102 109 29 38 29 40 -65 3

Connecticut 59 83 139 120 171 73 53 34 29 -69 -45

Delaware 12 20 32 21 25 13 13 15 14 -48 8

Dist. of Columbia 20 40 85 49 73 47 43 20 17 -41 -59

Florida 106 204 256 370 622 158 112 107 95 -82 -16

Georgia 71 198 221 293 383 129 91 38 35 -76 -61

Guam 1 2 5 4 8 10 11 3 3 42 -70

Hawaii 14 25 60 44 66 75 31 28 27 -52 -14

Idaho 10 16 21 17 24 2 3 3 3 -86 -15

Illinois 262 368 672 636 696 256 98 62 46 -86 -53

Indiana 48 73 157 154 189 103 136 89 27 -28 -80

Iowa 44 64 104 98 101 54 52 56 45 -48 -14

Kansas 36 53 68 77 80 32 46 38 20 -42 -56

Kentucky 81 129 167 175 189 89 75 61 62 -60 -18

Louisiana 104 202 213 282 251 75 37 24 17 -85 -55

Maine 19 36 60 56 60 32 32 38 60 -46 84

Maryland 80 131 212 186 223 77 64 59 53 -71 -18

Massachusetts 94 208 350 263 274 102 104 111 150 -62 44

Michigan 162 253 685 655 598 207 215 179 85 -64 -60

Minnesota 51 76 135 171 180 116 87 52 52 -52 -41

Mississippi 83 115 173 179 144 34 35 26 21 -76 -39

Missouri 107 140 199 211 254 131 118 94 85 -54 -28

Montana 7 13 19 29 34 13 12 10 7 -64 -39

Nebraska 16 30 35 43 41 28 33 21 16 -19 -52

Nevada 5 12 12 23 41 16 19 26 27 -54 42

New Hampshire 4 9 22 16 28 14 15 13 15 -47 4

New Jersey 104 286 459 309 316 138 114 79 76 -64 -33

New Mexico 30 51 53 57 104 72 45 52 37 -56 -17

New York 517 1,052 1,100 981 1,256 724 490 388 397 -61 -19

North Carolina 111 124 198 223 313 100 68 47 39 -78 -42

North Dakota 8 11 13 16 14 8 7 5 4 -49 -50

Ohio 183 266 513 632 612 245 179 237 137 -71 -24

Oklahoma 73 95 89 112 124 36 28 21 17 -77 -38

Oregon 31 75 102 89 104 39 44 78 113 -57 153

Pennsylvania 303 426 629 521 596 250 253 126 179 -58 -30

Puerto Rico 202 223 168 190 168 92 42 36 36 -75 -14

Rhode Island 24 38 52 46 61 50 35 17 15 -44 -58

South Carolina 30 52 153 111 129 41 43 43 29 -66 -33

South Dakota 11 16 20 19 17 7 6 7 6 -65 6

Tennessee 76 129 162 211 276 147 191 161 126 -31 -34

Texas 91 214 308 611 743 342 214 115 91 -71 -57

Utah 22 33 37 45 46 23 23 19 11 -50 -53

Vermont 5 12 23 22 27 16 13 7 9 -54 -29

Virgin Islands 1 2 3 3 5 3 1 1 1 -69 -11

Virginia 46 87 166 151 184 75 87 84 69 -53 -21

Washington 71 109 154 228 286 168 144 170 110 -50 -24

West Virginia 116 93 77 111 105 32 31 22 20 -71 -36

Wisconsin 45 79 213 237 209 40 49 51 63 -77 29

Wyoming 4 5 7 14 15 1 1 1 1 -96 28

United States 4,323 7,415 10,597 11,460 13,659 6,324 5,118 4,573 4,102 -63 -20

Note: Recipients in 2000 and beyond include both TANF and SSP recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports).
A-17

Table TANF 12. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Total Population by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In percent]

1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013

Percent Change

1995-05 2005-13

Alabama 2.2 3.6 4.6 3.2 2.7 1.0 1.1 1.0 -56 -7

Alaska 1.8 2.6 3.7 3.7 6.1 3.6 1.8 1.3 -70 -27

Arizona 2.6 2.9 1.9 3.4 4.3 1.7 1.7 0.6 -55 -67

Arkansas 1.5 2.3 3.7 3.0 2.5 1.1 0.7 0.5 -70 -21

California 2.9 5.7 5.8 6.3 8.5 4.6 3.5 3.5 -57 1

Colorado 2.2 3.0 2.6 3.1 2.8 0.7 0.8 0.7 -67 -9

Connecticut 2.1 2.7 4.5 3.6 5.1 2.1 1.5 0.8 -69 -46

Delaware 2.4 3.6 5.4 3.2 3.4 1.7 1.6 1.5 -51 -2

Dist. of Columbia 2.5 5.3 13.3 8.1 12.6 8.2 7.4 2.7 -40 -64

Florida 1.8 3.0 2.6 2.8 4.3 1.0 0.6 0.5 -83 -23

Georgia 1.6 4.3 4.0 4.5 5.2 1.6 1.0 0.4 -78 -66

Hawaii 1.9 3.2 6.2 3.9 5.5 6.1 2.5 1.9 -56 -20

Idaho 1.4 2.2 2.2 1.6 2.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 -88 -25

Illinois 2.5 3.3 5.9 5.6 5.8 2.1 0.8 0.4 -86 -54

Indiana 1.0 1.4 2.9 2.8 3.2 1.7 2.2 0.4 -14 -81

Iowa 1.6 2.3 3.6 3.5 3.5 1.9 1.8 1.5 -43 -17

Kansas 1.6 2.4 2.9 3.1 3.1 1.2 1.7 0.7 -36 -58

Kentucky 2.5 4.0 4.6 4.7 4.9 2.2 1.8 1.4 -60 -22

Louisiana 2.9 5.6 5.0 6.7 5.7 1.7 0.8 0.4 -85 -55

Maine 1.9 3.6 5.4 4.5 4.8 2.5 2.5 4.5 -45 83

Maryland 2.2 3.3 5.0 3.9 4.4 1.5 1.2 0.9 -71 -22

Massachusetts 1.8 3.7 6.1 4.4 4.5 1.6 1.6 2.2 -58 38

Michigan 2.0 2.9 7.4 7.0 6.2 2.1 2.1 0.9 -60 -60

Minnesota 1.4 2.0 3.3 3.9 3.9 2.3 1.7 1.0 -53 -44

Mississippi 3.6 5.2 6.9 6.9 5.3 1.2 1.2 0.7 -75 -41

Missouri 2.4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.7 2.3 2.0 1.4 -52 -31

Montana 1.0 1.9 2.4 3.6 3.9 1.4 1.3 0.7 -63 -43

Nebraska 1.1 2.0 2.2 2.7 2.5 1.6 1.9 0.9 -20 -54

Nevada 1.2 2.4 1.5 1.9 2.6 0.8 0.8 1.0 -65 24

New Hampshire 0.7 1.2 2.4 1.5 2.4 1.1 1.1 1.2 -45 2

New Jersey 1.5 4.0 6.2 4.0 3.9 1.6 1.3 0.9 -63 -35

New Mexico 3.0 5.0 4.1 3.8 6.0 4.0 2.4 1.8 -59 -23

New York 2.9 5.8 6.3 5.4 6.8 3.8 2.5 2.0 -60 -21

North Carolina 2.2 2.4 3.4 3.4 4.3 1.2 0.8 0.4 -79 -49

North Dakota 1.2 1.7 2.0 2.4 2.2 1.2 1.2 0.5 -45 -56

Ohio 1.8 2.5 4.8 5.8 5.5 2.2 1.6 1.2 -68 -24

Oklahoma 3.0 3.7 2.9 3.6 3.7 1.0 0.8 0.4 -75 -43

Oregon 1.6 3.6 3.9 3.1 3.3 1.1 1.2 2.9 -54 133

Pennsylvania 2.6 3.6 5.3 4.4 4.9 2.0 2.1 1.4 -54 -31

Rhode Island 2.7 4.0 5.5 4.6 6.0 4.7 3.2 1.4 -43 -57

South Carolina 1.2 2.0 4.9 3.2 3.4 1.0 1.0 0.6 -68 -40

South Dakota 1.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 2.3 0.9 0.8 0.8 -64 -3

Tennessee 2.0 3.3 3.5 4.3 5.2 2.6 3.2 1.9 -34 -39

Texas 0.9 1.9 2.1 3.6 3.9 1.6 0.9 0.3 -73 -63

Utah 2.2 3.1 2.5 2.6 2.3 1.0 0.9 0.4 -52 -60

Vermont 1.4 2.6 4.4 3.9 4.6 2.7 2.0 1.4 -53 -29

Virginia 1.0 1.9 3.1 2.4 2.8 1.1 1.2 0.8 -52 -28

Washington 2.4 3.2 3.7 4.7 5.2 2.8 2.3 1.6 -53 -32

West Virginia 6.4 5.3 4.0 6.2 5.7 1.8 1.7 1.1 -67 -37

Wisconsin 1.1 1.8 4.5 4.8 4.0 0.8 0.9 1.1 -73 25

Wyoming 1.1 1.5 1.4 3.1 3.0 0.2 0.1 0.1 -96 13

United States 2.1 3.5 4.6 4.5 5.1 2.2 1.7 1.3 -63 -25

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC recipients in each state during the given fiscal year expressed as a percent of the 

total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerators are from Table TANF 11.

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state available online at 

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html.
A-18

Table TANF 13. Average Number of AFDC/TANF Child Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In thousands]

1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Percent Change

1995-05 2005-13

Alabama 62 96 129 93 87 37 37 38 35 -57 -5

Alaska 4 6 10 13 24 15 8 6 7 -65 -20

Arizona 31 39 38 87 130 66 73 53 26 -44 -64

Arkansas 23 34 62 51 45 22 14 14 11 -68 -22

California 391 816 932 1,294 1,833 1,163 1,002 1,104 1,076 -45 7

Colorado 33 50 53 69 74 22 28 22 28 -63 2

Connecticut 43 62 97 81 114 50 37 24 21 -68 -44

Delaware 9 15 22 14 17 9 10 9 9 -42 -12

Dist. of Columbia 16 31 59 34 51 34 32 14 13 -36 -59

Florida 85 160 184 264 432 124 91 86 78 -79 -14

Georgia 54 150 161 206 269 101 74 34 31 -72 -59

Guam 1 1 4 3 5 1 2 3 2 -66 33

Hawaii 10 18 40 29 43 50 21 19 18 -52 -14

Idaho 7 11 14 11 16 2 3 2 3 -83 -4

Illinois 202 283 473 436 478 193 78 55 38 -84 -51

Indiana 36 55 111 105 129 74 102 66 23 -21 -77

Iowa 32 46 69 64 66 36 34 38 31 -49 -7

Kansas 28 41 49 52 55 23 31 25 15 -42 -53

Kentucky 58 93 118 117 128 64 56 48 49 -56 -13

Louisiana 79 157 156 199 173 59 31 20 15 -82 -53

Maine 14 26 40 35 38 22 22 25 33 -42 52

Maryland 61 100 145 124 152 56 47 43 39 -69 -18

Massachusetts 71 153 228 168 176 73 72 75 101 -59 40

Michigan 119 190 460 427 398 153 157 129 63 -60 -60

Minnesota 39 58 91 110 121 81 61 39 39 -49 -36

Mississippi 66 93 128 129 106 27 26 19 15 -75 -40

Missouri 82 106 135 139 175 94 81 64 58 -54 -28

Montana 6 10 13 19 22 9 8 7 5 -62 -34

Nebraska 12 23 25 29 29 20 23 17 13 -21 -42

Nevada 4 9 8 16 29 12 14 20 20 -50 38

New Hampshire 3 7 15 11 18 10 10 9 10 -44 2

New Jersey 79 209 318 213 213 102 81 56 54 -62 -33

New Mexico 23 39 35 37 67 51 32 37 28 -52 -15

New York 380 759 759 658 811 491 343 282 284 -58 -17

North Carolina 83 94 141 152 211 76 54 40 33 -75 -39

North Dakota 6 8 9 10 10 5 5 4 3 -46 -45

Ohio 136 198 348 414 415 180 136 171 111 -67 -18

Oklahoma 55 71 65 77 86 28 22 17 14 -74 -35

Oregon 23 52 65 60 71 29 33 54 75 -53 127

Pennsylvania 217 307 432 345 403 184 179 94 128 -56 -28

Puerto Rico 161 166 118 130 114 64 29 24 23 -74 -22

Rhode Island 18 27 36 30 41 34 24 12 10 -40 -59

South Carolina 24 40 109 80 96 32 32 33 22 -67 -30

South Dakota 8 12 15 13 12 5 5 6 6 -59 9

Tennessee 58 99 115 144 190 107 136 116 92 -28 -33

Texas 68 162 225 428 522 252 172 99 80 -67 -54

Utah 16 23 24 31 31 16 17 12 8 -46 -52

Vermont 4 8 14 14 17 10 8 5 6 -52 -24

Virgin Islands 1 2 2 2 3 2 1 1 1 -69 -15

Virginia 35 66 116 104 128 55 61 59 50 -52 -18

Washington 50 76 97 148 184 115 101 118 74 -45 -26

West Virginia 80 65 58 68 67 22 22 16 15 -67 -33

Wisconsin 34 60 142 158 146 34 39 40 47 -73 20

Wyoming 3 4 5 9 10 1 0 1 1 -95 17

United States 3,242 5,483 7,320 7,755 9,280 4,598 3,818 3,421 3,091 -59 -19

Note: From FY 2000 onward, TANF child recipients include both TANF and SSP child recipients.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at 

www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/programs/tanf/data-reports).
A-19

Table TANF 14. AFDC/TANF Recipiency Rates for Children by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1965 – 2013

[In percent]

1965 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2013 Percent Change

1995-05 2005-13

Alabama 4.6 7.7 11.1 8.8 8.0 3.3 3.4 3.2 -58 -5

Alaska 3.1 5.0 8.0 7.4 12.6 7.9 4.4 3.5 -65 -22

Arizona 4.8 6.0 4.8 8.6 11.0 4.8 4.7 1.6 -56 -66

Arkansas 3.1 5.2 9.3 8.2 7.0 3.2 2.1 1.6 -70 -24

California 6.0 12.3 14.6 16.2 20.9 12.6 10.6 11.7 -49 10

Colorado 4.4 6.4 6.5 7.8 7.6 2.0 2.4 2.3 -69 -4

Connecticut 4.4 6.1 11.8 10.8 14.4 6.0 4.4 2.6 -70 -40

Delaware 4.7 7.5 13.4 8.7 9.6 4.8 4.9 4.2 -49 -13

Dist. of Columbia 6.0 13.8 40.9 30.7 44.6 30.1 28.4 12.0 -32 -61

Florida 4.3 7.6 7.8 8.8 12.9 3.4 2.3 1.9 -82 -16

Georgia 3.2 9.1 9.8 11.8 14.0 4.6 3.1 1.2 -77 -61

Hawaii 3.6 6.5 14.5 10.5 14.2 17.1 7.2 5.8 -51 -17

Idaho 2.7 4.2 4.7 3.6 4.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 -85 -11

Illinois 5.3 7.5 14.6 14.8 15.3 6.0 2.4 1.3 -84 -48

Indiana 2.0 3.0 6.9 7.3 8.7 4.7 6.5 1.5 -26 -77

Iowa 3.2 4.7 8.4 8.8 9.1 4.9 4.8 4.3 -48 -8

Kansas 3.5 5.4 7.5 7.9 8.0 3.2 4.5 2.0 -44 -54

Kentucky 4.9 8.3 10.9 12.4 13.1 6.5 5.6 4.8 -57 -14

Louisiana 5.5 11.3 11.8 16.5 14.1 4.8 2.7 1.3 -81 -51

Maine 3.9 7.7 12.5 11.5 12.4 7.3 7.6 12.8 -40 70

Maryland 4.6 7.3 12.4 10.6 12.0 4.1 3.4 2.9 -72 -15

Massachusetts 3.8 8.1 15.3 12.4 12.3 4.8 4.9 7.2 -60 47

Michigan 3.7 5.8 16.7 17.4 15.7 5.9 6.3 2.8 -60 -55

Minnesota 2.9 4.2 7.7 9.4 9.8 6.3 4.9 3.1 -51 -36

Mississippi 7.0 11.1 15.7 17.6 14.0 3.5 3.4 2.1 -76 -39

Missouri 5.2 6.9 9.9 10.6 12.7 6.6 5.7 4.2 -55 -27

Montana 2.0 4.0 5.7 8.4 9.5 3.7 3.8 2.4 -60 -35

Nebraska 2.3 4.4 5.5 6.8 6.5 4.3 5.1 2.8 -22 -44

Nevada 2.5 5.2 3.8 5.0 7.3 2.3 2.3 3.0 -67 28

New Hampshire 1.4 2.6 5.8 3.9 6.2 3.1 3.3 3.8 -46 16

New Jersey 3.4 8.8 16.0 11.7 10.8 4.9 3.9 2.7 -65 -30

New Mexico 5.2 9.5 8.5 8.3 13.5 10.0 6.5 5.4 -52 -15

New York 6.3 13.0 16.2 15.4 17.9 10.5 7.5 6.7 -58 -12

North Carolina 4.4 5.3 8.5 9.3 11.7 3.9 2.5 1.4 -78 -43

North Dakota 2.3 3.6 4.7 6.0 5.7 3.4 3.6 1.8 -39 -49

Ohio 3.6 5.3 11.2 14.9 14.6 6.2 4.9 4.2 -67 -13

Oklahoma 6.4 8.5 7.6 9.1 9.8 3.1 2.5 1.5 -74 -39

Oregon 3.3 7.4 9.0 8.1 8.8 3.4 3.9 8.7 -56 124

Pennsylvania 5.5 8.0 13.8 12.3 13.9 6.3 6.3 4.7 -55 -24

Rhode Island 5.9 9.1 14.7 13.4 17.1 13.5 10.1 4.7 -41 -53

South Carolina 2.3 4.2 11.6 8.7 10.1 3.1 3.1 2.1 -69 -33

South Dakota 3.1 5.0 7.1 6.7 6.0 2.7 2.6 2.7 -57 2

Tennessee 4.2 7.5 8.9 11.8 14.5 7.7 9.5 6.2 -35 -34

Texas 1.7 4.1 5.2 8.7 9.7 4.3 2.7 1.1 -72 -59

Utah 3.7 5.4 4.4 4.9 4.5 2.3 2.1 0.9 -52 -59

Vermont 2.7 5.4 9.9 9.5 11.5 7.0 5.9 4.9 -50 -15

Virginia 2.2 4.1 7.9 6.8 7.9 3.1 3.4 2.7 -58 -20

Washington 4.7 6.5 8.5 11.3 13.0 7.6 6.7 4.7 -49 -30

West Virginia 12.2 11.2 10.4 15.7 15.7 5.5 5.6 3.8 -64 -32

Wisconsin 2.2 3.8 10.5 12.1 10.8 2.5 2.9 3.6 -73 24

Wyoming 2.1 3.2 3.4 7.0 7.5 0.7 0.4 0.4 -95 4

United States 4.4 7.6 11.3 11.9 13.4 6.3 5.2 4.2 -61 -19

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of AFDC child recipients in each State during the given fiscal year as a percent of the 

resident population under 18 years of age as of July 1 of that year. The numerators are from Table TANF 13.

Sources: U. S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population by state and age available online at

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html.
A-20

Table TANF 15. TANF and Separate State Program (SSP) Families and Recipients: 2013

[In thousands]

Families All Recipients Child Recipients

TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total TANF SSP Total

Alabama 19.8 – 19.8 47.7 – 47.7 35.4 – 35.4

Alaska 3.6 – 3.6 9.6 – 9.6 6.5 – 6.5

Arizona 16.3 – 16.3 37.1 – 37.1 26.4 – 26.4

Arkansas 7.0 – 7.0 15.7 – 15.7 11.2 – 11.2

California 563.8 – 563.8 1,355.3 – 1,355.3 1,076.5 – 1,076.5

Colorado 15.1 – 15.1 39.5 – 39.5 28.2 – 28.2

Connecticut 14.8 – 14.8 29.2 – 29.2 20.5 – 20.5

Delaware 5.0 – 5.0 14.1 – 14.1 8.6 – 8.6

D.C. 

ColCColumbia

6.7 – 6.7 17.4 – 17.4 13.3 – 13.3

Florida 53.6 – 53.6 94.6 – 94.6 77.9 – 77.9

Georgia 17.8 – 17.8 35.0 – 35.0 30.7 – 30.7

Guam 1.3 – 1.3 3.2 – 3.2 2.4 – 2.4

Hawaii 9.3 – 9.3 27.1 – 27.1 17.9 – 17.9

Idaho 1.8 – 1.8 2.8 – 2.8 2.6 – 2.6

Illinois 20.9 – 20.9 46.2 – 46.2 38.2 – 38.2

Indiana 12.4 0.6 13.0 25.3 1.5 26.8 22.1 1.3 23.4

Iowa 15.1 2.7 17.7 37.9 7.2 45.0 26.8 4.6 31.4

Kansas 8.5 – 8.5 20.5 – 20.5 14.7 – 14.7

Kentucky 30.5 – 30.5 61.8 – 61.8 49.0 – 49.0

Louisiana 7.5 – 7.5 17.0 – 17.0 14.6 – 14.6

Maine 6.9 21.4 28.3 15.1 44.6 59.7 10.1 23.1 33.2

Maryland 22.0 0.0 22.0 53.0 0.0 53.0 38.8 0.0 38.8

Massachusetts 48.0 18.7 66.6 91.8 58.6 150.4 60.6 40.2 100.9

Michigan 36.6 – 36.6 84.9 – 84.9 62.9 – 62.9

Minnesota 21.4 1.8 23.3 46.5 5.3 51.8 35.9 3.5 39.4

Mississippi 10.1 – 10.1 21.2 – 21.2 15.5 – 15.5

Missouri 32.1 3.3 35.4 77.0 8.4 85.4 53.0 5.1 58.1

Montana 3.2 – 3.2 7.5 – 7.5 5.5 – 5.5

Nebraska 5.6 1.1 6.7 12.8 3.4 16.1 10.8 2.3 13.1

Nevada 10.5 0.0 10.5 26.9 0.0 26.9 20.0 0.0 20.0

New Hampshire 3.5 2.7 6.3 7.5 7.8 15.4 5.3 5.0 10.3

New Jersey 31.9 – 31.9 75.7 – 75.7 54.3 – 54.3

New Mexico 15.0 – 15.0 37.4 – 37.4 27.7 – 27.7

New York 120.7 36.0 156.7 276.2 120.8 397.0 203.8 80.6 284.3

North Carolina 20.1 – 20.1 39.0 – 39.0 32.8 – 32.8

North Dakota 1.4 – 1.4 3.6 – 3.6 2.9 – 2.9

Ohio 68.6 – 68.6 137.1 – 137.1 111.1 – 111.1

Oklahoma 7.8 – 7.8 17.2 – 17.2 14.4 – 14.4

Oregon 25.0 18.5 43.5 60.6 51.9 112.5 41.3 33.5 74.8

Pennsylvania 72.6 – 72.6 178.6 – 178.6 128.2 – 128.2

Puerto Rico 13.0 – 13.0 35.7 – 35.7 22.7 – 22.7

Rhode Island 6.1 – 6.1 14.7 – 14.7 10.0 – 10.0

South Carolina 12.7 – 12.7 29.0 – 29.0 22.5 – 22.5

South Dakota 3.2 – 3.2 6.4 – 6.4 5.5 – 5.5

Tennessee 51.5 0.7 52.2 123.9 2.6 126.4 90.4 1.5 91.9

Texas 40.6 – 40.6 91.3 – 91.3 79.5 – 79.5

Utah 4.2 0.2 4.4 10.1 0.6 10.8 7.5 0.4 7.9

Vermont 3.3 0.6 3.8 7.2 1.7 8.9 5.1 1.0 6.1

Virgin Islands 0.4 – 0.4 1.3 – 1.3 0.9 – 0.9

Virginia 29.4 1.8 31.1 64.1 4.6 68.7 46.9 2.9 49.8

Washington 47.2 – 47.2 109.8 – 109.8 74.5 – 74.5

West Virginia 9.0 – 9.0 19.7 – 19.7 14.5 – 14.5

Wisconsin 25.9 0.4 26.3 61.9 1.3 63.1 46.2 0.8 47.0

Wyoming 0.4 – 0.4 0.7 – 0.7 0.6 – 0.6

U.S. Total 1,641 110 1,751 3,782 320 4,102 2,885 206 3,091

Note: Some states provide cash and other forms of assistance to specific categories of families (e.g., two-parent families) under Separate State 

Programs (SSPs) funded out of Maintenance of Effort (MOE) dollars rather than federal TANF funds.

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (available online at 

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/data-reports/caseload/caseload_current.htm).
A-21

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), 

administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food and Nutrition Service, is the largest 

food assistance program in the country, reaching more poor individuals over the course of a year than 

any other public assistance program. Unlike many other public assistance programs, SNAP has few 

categorical requirements for eligibility, such as the presence of children, elderly, or disabled individuals in 

a household. As a result, the program offers assistance to a large and diverse population of needy 

persons, many of whom are not eligible for other forms of assistance.

SNAP was designed primarily to supplement the food purchasing power of eligible low-income 

households so they can buy a nutritionally adequate low-cost diet. Participating households are expected 

to be able to devote 30 percent of their counted monthly cash income (after adjusting for various 

deductions) to food purchases. SNAP benefits then make up the difference between the household’s 

expected contribution to its food costs and an amount judged to be sufficient to buy an adequate low-cost 

diet. This amount, the maximum SNAP benefit level, is derived from USDA’s lowest-cost food plan, the 

Thrifty Food Plan (TFP).

The federal government is responsible for virtually all of the rules that govern the program, and, with 

some variations, these rules are nationally uniform, as are the benefit levels. Nonetheless, states, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, through their local welfare offices, have primary 

responsibility for the day-to-day administration of the program. They determine eligibility, calculate

benefits, and issue SNAP allotments. The authorizing legislation provides 100 percent federal funding of 

SNAP benefits. States and other jurisdictions have responsibility for about half the cost of state and local 

SNAP agency administration. 

In addition to the regular SNAP program, the legislation authorizes alternative programs in Puerto Rico, 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. The largest of these, the Nutrition Assistance 

Program in Puerto Rico, was funded under a federal block grant of $2.0 billion in 2012. Unless noted 

otherwise, SNAP caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix exclude costs for the Nutrition 

Assistance Program (NAP) in Puerto Rico. (Prior to 2004, editions of this Appendix included NAP, but 

caseload and expenditure data in this Appendix are now limited to SNAP, to be consistent with data 

published by the USDA.) 

SNAP is available to nearly all financially needy households. To be eligible for SNAP benefits, a 

household must meet eligibility criteria for gross and net income, asset holdings, work requirements, and 

citizenship or immigration status. The SNAP benefit unit is the household. Generally, individuals living 

together constitute a household if they customarily purchase and prepare meals together. The income, 

expenses and assets of the household members are combined to determine program eligibility and 

benefit allotment.

Certain households are categorically eligible for SNAP and therefore not subject to income or asset limits, 

but must still meet SNAP nonfinancial eligibility criteria and have a low enough income, after deductions, 

to qualify for a benefit. Households are categorically eligible if all of their members receive SSI, cash or 

in-kind TANF benefits, or General Assistance. States have options on which in-kind TANF programs 

confer categorical eligibility.

Monthly income is the most important determinant of household eligibility. Except for categoricallyeligible households, or households containing elderly or disabled members, gross income cannot exceed 

130 percent of poverty. After certain amounts are deducted for living expenses, working expenses, 

dependent care expenses, excess shelter expenses, child support payment, and - for elderly/disabled 

households - medical expenses, net income cannot exceed 100 percent of poverty. Non categoricallyeligible households also must not have more than $2,000 in assets comprised of cash, savings, stocks 

and bonds, and in some states some vehicles. Households with an elderly or disabled member can have 

up to $3,250 in countable assets. (The resource limits are indexed to inflation and rounded down to the 

nearest $250 increment each fiscal year.)
A-22

All nonexempt adult applicants for SNAP must register for work. To maintain eligibility, they must accept 

a suitable job, if offered one, and fulfill any work, job search, or training requirements established by the 

SNAP office. Nondisabled adults between the ages of 18 and 50 living in households without children are 

restricted to three months of SNAP benefits during any 36-month period, unless they work or participate 

in qualified work-related activities at least 20 hours per week. This time limit can be waived for 

participants living in States or parts of States with high unemployment who apply for a waiver, and a 

limited number of nondisabled childless adults can be exempted from the time limits at a State’s 

discretion. Participation is restricted for certain groups, including students, strikers, and people who are 

institutionalized. Legal immigrants who are disabled, under age 18, were admitted as refugees or 

asylees, or have at least five years of legal US residency are eligible; all other noncitizens are not.

SNAP benefits are a function of a household’s size, its net monthly income, and maximum monthly 

benefit levels. Allotments are not taxable and SNAP purchases may not be charged sales tax. Receipt of 

SNAP benefits does not affect eligibility for benefits provided by other welfare programs, although some 

programs use SNAP participation as a “trigger” for eligibility and others take into account the general 

availability of SNAP in deciding what level of benefits to provide. 

SNAP Program Data

The following six tables and accompanying figure provide information about the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program: 

 Tables SNAP 1 and SNAP 2 and Figure SNAP 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend 

data on SNAP as discussed below;

 Table SNAP 3 presents some demographic characteristics of the SNAP caseload; and

 Tables SNAP 4 through SNAP 6 present some state-by-state trend data on the SNAP through 

fiscal year 2012. 

SNAP Caseload Trends (Table SNAP 1). Average monthly SNAP participation was 46.6 million persons 

in fiscal year 2012, excluding the participants in Puerto Rico’s block grant. This is an increase over the 

fiscal year 2000 record-low average of 17.2 million participants and exceeds the previous peak of 27.5 

million recipients in fiscal year 1994. See also Table IND 3b and Table IND 4b in Chapter II for further 

data trends in SNAP caseload, specifically, SNAP recipiency and participation rates.

Considerable research has demonstrated that the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program is 

responsive to economic changes, with participation increasing in times of economic downturns and 

decreasing in times of economic growth (see Figure SNAP 1). Economic conditions alone did not explain 

the caseload growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s, however. Studies suggest that a variety of factors 

contributed to this caseload growth, including a weak economy and higher rates of unemployment, 

expansions in Medicaid eligibility, the legalization of 3 million undocumented immigrants, and longer 

participation spells (McConnell, 1991; Gleason, 1998).

The decline in participation from 1994 to 2000 was caused by several factors, according to studies of this 

period. Part of the decline is associated with the strong economy in the second half of the 1990s. 

However, participation fell more sharply than expected during this period of sustained economic growth. 

Some of the decline reflected restrictions on the eligibility of noncitizens and time limits for unemployed 

nondisabled childless adults. Participation fell most rapidly among the following three groups: 

noncitizens and their US-born children, unemployed nondisabled childless adults, and persons receiving 

cash welfare benefits. As people left the welfare rolls, many also stopped participating in SNAP, even 

while remaining eligible (Genser, 1999; Wilde et al., 2000; Gleason et al., 2001; Kornfeld, 2002).
A-23

The increase in SNAP participation from 2000 to 2005 occurred during a period when unemployment 

increased from four percent to five percent, eligibility was restored to many legal immigrants, states

expanded categorical eligibility and liberalized the treatment of vehicles, and efforts were made to 

streamline program administration and improve access for vulnerable populations. Driven to an even 

larger extent by the 2007-2009 recession, by 2012 the SNAP take-up rate (the percent of eligible 

households) is estimated to be 87.2 percent. During the recession, the poverty rate increased from 12.5 

percent in 2007 to 14.3 percent in 2009 (see Indicator ECON 1). Between 2000 and 2012, SNAP 

participation increased by 13.1 million households (see Table IND 4b). Part of this increase was 

associated with an increase in the number of eligible households and part was associated with an

increased participation rate among those households that were eligible. In 2014, SNAP participation has 

begun to decrease (see Table SNAP 1).

SNAP Expenditures. Trends in Food Stamps/SNAP expenditures for selected years between 1975 –

2013 are shown in Table SNAP 2. Since 2008 total federal costs have grown every year reflecting the 

increase in participation during that period due to the “Great Recession”. In 2008, total federal costs were 

$40.7 billion. By 2013 total federal costs had increased to $79.9 billion (in 2013 dollars). Benefit levels 

have also increased due to the “Great Recession” rising from $110.70 in 2008 to $133.10 per person in

2013. Benefit levels were highest in 2010 at $143.00 per person (in 2013 dollars). Note that the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 temporarily increased SNAP benefits (through 

November 1, 2013), which impacted both SNAP expenditures and average benefit amounts, both of 

which have subsequently declined. 

SNAP Household Characteristics. As shown in Table SNAP 3, the proportion of SNAP households 

with earnings has increased from 19.0 percent in 1980 to 31.0 percent in 2012. At the same time, the 

proportion of households with income from AFDC/TANF has declined from 42.0 percent in 1984 to 7.0

percent in 2012 following the dramatic decline in AFDC/TANF caseloads. A large percentage of all SNAP 

households have children although the proportion has declined from over 60.0 percent in 1980 to 45.0

percent in 2012. Eight-three percent of households have gross incomes below the federal poverty 

guidelines in 2012.

More information about SNAP, including program data can be found at 

http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap.
A-24

Figure SNAP 1. Persons Receiving Food Stamps/SNAP: 1962–2013

Note: Total participants includes persons receiving assistance in Guam and the Virgin Islands. Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined 

by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Annual poverty data have been converted to monthly data by linear interpolation to correspond to the 

monthly Food Stamps/SNAP data. 

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutritionassistance-program-snap and unpublished data from the Food Stamps National Data Bank; U.S. Census Bureau, , “Income, Poverty, and Health 

Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249 and earlier reports (the population below 130 percent of 

poverty level income for 1962-2001 estimated by ASPE).

Figure SNAP 2. Distribution of Food Stamps/SNAP Benefits by Percent of the Poverty Guideline

1987–2013 (In constant 2013 dollars1)

Note: Shaded areas are periods of recession as determined by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

1 Constant dollar adjustments to 2013 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year average price index.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm, www.fns.usda.gov/characteristicssupplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-households-fiscal-year-2013 and earlier reports. 

0

20

40

60

80

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013

Food Stamps/SNAP benefits (billions)

131% or more

101 to 130%

51 to 100%

50% or less

Jul-90 PRWORA Mar-01 Dec-07

Apr-91 Jul-97 Nov-01 Jun-09

6.6

46.8

64.0

56.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Jan-61 Jan-65 Jan-69 Jan-73 Jan-77 Jan-81 Jan-85 Jan-89 Jan-93 Jan-97 Jan-01 Jan-05 Jan-09 Jan-13

(In millions)

Including Puerto Rico

Without Puerto Rico

Dec-69 Nov-73 Jan-80 Jul-82 Jul-90 Mar-01 Dec-07

Nov 70 Mar-75 Jul-80 Nov-82 Apr-91 Nov-01 Jun-09

130% poverty

population
A-25

Table SNAP 1. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Caseloads: Selected Years 1962–2013

Food Stamp Participants/SNAP Ratio of Participants to: Ratio of Child Participants to:

Fiscal

Year

Including 

Territories 1

(thousands)

Excluding 

Territories 

(thousands)

Children

Excld. Terr. 

(thousands)

Total 

Population 2

(percent)

130% Poverty 

Level 

Population 2

(percent)

Total Child 

Population 2

(percent)

130% Poverty 

Level Child 

Population 2

(percent)

1962 6,554 6,554 NA 3.5 11.7 NA NA 

1965 5,167 5,167 NA 2.7 10.6 NA NA 

1970 8,340 8,317 NA 4.1 22.1 NA NA 

1975 317,064 16,320 NA 7.6 41.3 NA NA 

1976 18,549 17,033 9,126 7.8 45.0 13.8 62.4

1977 17,064 15,604 NA 7.1 41.1 NA NA 

1978 16,001 14,405 NA 6.5 39.7 NA NA 

1979 417,653 15,942 NA 7.1 41.1 NA NA 

1980 21,082 19,253 9,876 8.5 44.7 15.5 62.3

1981 22,430 20,655 9,803 9.0 44.6 15.5 57.9

1982 21,717 20,391 9,591 8.8 41.6 15.3 52.9

1983 21,625 20,095 10,910 8.6 40.6 17.4 59.0

1984 20,854 20,796 10,492 8.8 43.6 16.8 59.6

1985 19,899 19,847 9,801 8.3 42.6 15.7 57.4

1986 19,429 19,381 9,844 8.1 41.2 15.7 58.5

1987 19,113 19,072 9,771 7.9 42.1 15.5 57.9

1988 18,645 18,613 9,351 7.6 41.4 14.8 56.5

1989 18,806 18,778 9,429 7.6 41.8 14.9 56.4

1990 20,049 20,020 10,127 8.0 42.5 15.8 57.2

1991 22,625 22,599 11,952 8.9 45.3 18.3 63.6

1992 25,407 25,371 13,349 9.9 47.8 20.1 68.6

1993 26,987 26,957 14,196 10.4 49.5 21.0 69.3

1994 27,474 27,439 14,391 10.4 51.7 21.0 71.8

1995 26,619 26,579 13,856 10.0 51.7 20.0 71.4

1996 25,543 25,495 13,195 9.5 49.1 18.8 68.6

1997 22,858 22,820 11,848 8.4 45.3 16.7 63.5

1998 19,791 19,748 10,520 7.2 40.7 14.7 58.9

1999 18,183 18,114 9,331 6.5 38.1 13.0 55.2

2000 17,194 17,156 8,743 6.1 37.2 12.1 54.3

2001 17,318 17,282 8,820 6.1 36.0 12.1 53.2

2002 19,096 19,059 9,688 6.6 38.1 13.3 57.0

2003 21,250 21,222 10,605 7.3 41.2 14.5 60.4

2004 23,811 23,819 11,771 8.1 45.9 16.1 67.5

2005 25,628 25,677 12,404 8.7 48.7 16.9 70.3

2006 26,549 26,631 12,579 8.9 51.3 17.1 70.7

2007 26,316 26,426 12,695 8.8 49.3 17.2 68.8

2008 28,223 28,181 13,472 9.3 49.9 18.2 69.6

2009 33,490 33,442 15,589 10.9 55.9 21.0 76.6

2010 40,302 40,245 18,484 13.0 63.7 24.9 86.9

2011 44,709 44,645 19,892 14.3 69.5 26.9 92.6

2012 46,609 46,541 20,463 14.8 71.8 27.8 95.6

2013 47,636 47,563 20,633 15.0 74.5 28.0 101.7

2014 46,536 46,461 NA 14.6 NA NA NA 

1

Total participants includes all participating states, the District of Columbia, and the territories (including Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982–a separate 

Nutrition Assistance Grant for Puerto Rico was begun in July 1982). From 1962 to 1983 the number of participants includes the Family Food 

Assistance Program (FFAP) that was largely replaced by the FSP in 1975. The FFAP participants (as of December) for the seven years shown during 

the period from 1962 to 1974 were respectively: 6,411; 4,742; 3,977; 3,642; 3,002; 2,441; and 1,406 (all in thousands). From 1975 to 1983 the 

number of FFAP participants averaged only 88 thousand. 

2

Includes all participating states and the District of Columbia only–the territories are excluded from both numerator and denominator. Population 

numbers used as denominators are the resident population and the 130 poverty level population.

3

The first fiscal year in which food stamps were available nationwide.

4

The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/characteristics-supplemental-nutrition-assistance-programhouseholds-fiscal-year-2012 and unpublished data from the USDA National Data Bank, the House Ways and Means Committee, 1996 Green Book, 

and U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013,” Current Population Reports, Series P60-249

and earlier reports (the population below 130 percent of poverty level income for 1962-2001 estimated by ASPE).
A-26

Table SNAP 2. Trends in Food Stamp/SNAP Expenditures: Selected Years 1975–2013

Total Federal Cost

(Benefits + Administration) Benefits Administration1

Total Program 

Cost

Average Monthly Benefit 

per Person

Fiscal Year Current Dollars 2013 Dollars2 Federal Federal State & 

Local Current Dollars 2013 Dollars2

(millions) (millions] (millions) (millions) (millions) (millions)

1975 $4,619 $18,793 $4,386 $233 $175 $4,794 $21.40 $87.10

1980 9,206 25,346 8,721 486 375 9,581 34.50 95.00

1981 11,225 28,082 10,630 595 504 11,729 39.50 98.80

1982 10,837 25,371 10,208 628 557 11,394 38.60 90.40

1983 11,847 26,507 11,152 695 612 12,459 43.00 96.20

1984411,579 24,883 10,696 883 805 12,384 42.70 91.80

1985 11,703 24,286 10,744 960 871 12,574 45.00 93.40

1986 11,638 23,599 10,605 1,033 935 12,573 45.50 92.30

1987 11,604 22,920 10,500 1,104 996 12,600 45.80 90.50

1988 12,317 23,454 11,149 1,168 1,080 13,397 49.80 94.80

1989 12,902 23,566 11,670 1,232 1,101 14,003 51.70 94.40

1990 15,447 26,991 14,143 1,304 1,174 16,621 58.80 102.70

1991 18,747 31,350 17,316 1,432 1,247 19,994 63.80 106.70

1992 22,462 36,661 20,906 1,557 1,375 23,837 68.60 112.00

1993 23,653 37,641 22,006 1,647 1,572 25,225 68.00 108.20

1994 24,493 38,161 22,749 1,745 1,643 26,136 69.00 107.50

1995 24,620 37,472 22,764 1,856 1,748 26,368 71.30 108.50

1996 24,331 36,121 22,440 1,891 1,842 26,173 73.20 108.70

1997 21,508 31,162 19,549 1,959 1,904 23,412 71.30 103.30

1998 18,988 27,112 16,890 2,098 1,988 20,976 71.10 101.50

1999 17,821 24,996 15,769 2,052 1,874 19,695 72.30 101.40

2000 17,054 23,189 14,983 2,071 2,086 19,140 72.60 98.70

2001 17,789 23,440 15,547 2,242 2,233 20,022 74.80 98.60

2002 20,637 26,794 18,256 2,381 2,397 23,034 79.70 103.50

2003 23,816 30,207 21,404 2,412 2,633 26,449 83.90 106.40

2004 27,099 33,593 24,619 2,480 2,645 29,744 86.20 106.90

2005 31,072 37,296 28,568 2,504 2,713 33,785 92.90 111.50

2006 32,903 38,087 30,187 2,716 2,866 35,769 94.80 109.70

2007 33,174 37,519 30,373 2,800 2,947 36,120 96.20 108.80

2008 37,640 40,761 34,608 3,031 3,202 40,842 102.20 110.70

2009553,620 58,260 50,360 3,260 3,394 57,014 125.30 136.10

2010568,284 72,956 64,702 3,582 3,448 71,731 133.80 143.00

2011575,687 78,773 71,811 3,876 3,433 79,120 133.80 139.30

2012578,455 79,732 74,619 3,836 3,565 82,020 133.40 135.60

2013579,929 79,929 76,066 3,863 3,578 83,508 133.10 133.10

Note: Total federal cost and the cost of benefits does include food stamps in Puerto Rico from 1975 to 1982 but does not include the funding for the Puerto Rico 

nutrition assistance grant from the last quarter of FY 1982 (when it replaced Puerto Rico’s food stamp program) to the present. (Puerto Rico’s nutrition assistance 

grant was $778 million in 1983 and rose to $2.0 billion in 2013.)

1 Amounts include the federal share of state administrative and Employment and Training costs and certain direct federal administrative costs. They do not 

generally include approximately $60 million in food stamp-related federal administrative costs budgeted under a separate appropriation account (although 

estimates prior to 1989 do include estimates of food stamp related federal administrative expenses paid out of other Agriculture Department accounts). State and 

local costs are estimated based on the known federal shares and represent an estimate of all administrative expenses of participating states.

2 Constant dollar adjustments to 2013 level were made using a CPI-U-RS fiscal year average price index. These tabulations differ from USDA data because the 

data are rounded to the nearest $.10 in this table.

3

The fiscal year in which the food stamp purchase requirement was eliminated, on a phased-in basis.

4 Beginning 1984 USDA took over from DHHS the administrative cost of certifying public assistance households for food stamps.

5

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 temporarily increased SNAP benefits (through November 1, 2013), which impacted both SNAP 

expenditures and average benefit amounts. 

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service unpublished data (available at online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm) and 

www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/2013-state-activity.pdf.
A-27

Table SNAP 3. Characteristics of Food Stamp/SNAP Households: Selected Years 1980–2013

Year 1

1980 1984 1988 1990 1996 1998 2000 2005 2010 2013

Distribution of Households 

 by Gross Income (as percentage of Poverty Guideline)

 Below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level. NA NA 37 39 42 37 33 40 43 43

 Between 50% and 100% of the Federal

 Poverty Level

NA NA 55 53 50 53 56 49 42 40

 Between 100% and 130% of the Federal

 Poverty Level

10 6 8 8 8 9 10 10 11 12

 Above 130% of the Federal Poverty Level 2 1 * * 1 1 1 2 4 5 

Distribution of Benefits 

 by Gross Monthly Income (as percentage of Poverty Guideline)

 Below 50% of the Federal Poverty Level. NA NA 54 56 57 57 54 57 55 56

 Between 50% and 100% of the Federal

 Poverty Level

NA NA 43 41 39 40 42 38 37 36

 Between 100% and 130% of the Federal

 Poverty Level

NA NA 3 3 3 3 4 5 6 7

 Above 130% of the Federal Poverty Level NA NA * * * * * * 1 1 

Percent of Households

 With AFDC/TANF Income................. NA 42 42 42 37 31 26 15 8 7

 With SSI Income................................. 18 18 20 19 24 28 32 26 21 20

With Children........................................ 60 61 61 60 60 58 54 54 49 45

 And Female Heads of Household........ NA 47 50 51 50 47 44 44 NA NA 

 With No Spouse Present ............. NA NA 39 37 43 41 38 36 NA NA 

With Elderly Members 3...................... 23 22 19 18 16 18 21 17 16 17

Average Household Size....................... 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.3 2.2 2.1

1

Data were gathered in August in the years 1980-84 and during the summer in the years from 1986 to 1994. Reports from 1995 to the present are 

based on fiscal year averages.

2

Public assistance income includes: AFDC/TANF, SSI, and general assistance.

3

These data refer to single-parent female heads with only one adult in the household but does not include households with more than one adult, not 

married, that are headed by a female (such as a single mom with teenage children, one of whom is 18).

4 Elderly members and heads of household include those of age 60 or older.

§§ The total percentage of households with public assistance income is approximately equal to the sum of those with AFDC/TANF and SSI income 

with some small percentage of households receiving both due to having individual members eligible for different forms of assistance (in 1996 just under 

6 percent of households received assistance from multiple sources).

* Less than 0.5 percent.

Sources: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Office of Analysis, Nutrition, and Evaluation, Characteristics of Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Households, Fiscal Year 2012, Report No. SNAP-14-CHAR (available online at

http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/ops/Characteristics2013.pdf and earlier reports.
A-28

Table SNAP 4. Value of Food Stamps/SNAP Issued by State: Selected Fiscal Years 1975–2013

[In millions of current dollars] Percent Change

1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 1995-05 2005-13

Alabama $103 $246 $328 $441 $344 $616 $1,226 $1,415 40 130

Alaska 6 27 25 50 46 80 159 190 61 136

Arizona 41 97 239 414 240 634 1,588 1,648 53 160

Arkansas 78 122 155 212 206 401 686 732 89 82

California 361 530 968 2,473 1,639 2,315 5,692 7,558 -6 227

Colorado 44 71 156 217 127 313 688 824 45 163

Connecticut 36 59 72 169 138 223 570 708 32 217

Delaware 6 21 25 47 31 65 171 235 39 260

Dist. of Columbia 31 41 43 92 77 103 196 235 12 128

Florida 207 421 609 1,307 771 1,598 4,417 5,906 22 270

Georgia 129 264 382 700 489 1,048 2,565 3,189 50 204

Guam 2 15 15 24 36 54 97 118 121 120

Hawaii 23 60 81 177 166 156 358 494 -12 217

Idaho 11 29 40 59 46 103 300 347 76 237

Illinois 238 394 835 1,056 777 1,400 2,784 3,378 33 141

Indiana 58 154 226 382 268 627 1,291 1,461 64 133

Iowa 28 54 109 142 100 220 526 587 55 167

Kansas 12 38 96 144 83 180 403 474 25 163

Kentucky 135 211 334 413 337 611 1,186 1,333 48 118

Louisiana 148 243 549 629 448 979 1,286 1,480 56 51

Maine 31 60 63 112 81 162 356 367 44 126

Maryland 76 140 203 365 199 320 878 1,179 -12 268

Massachusetts 75 171 207 315 182 363 1,166 1,395 15 284

Michigan 124 263 663 806 457 1,099 2,809 2,912 36 165

Minnesota 40 62 165 240 165 275 625 771 15 180

Mississippi 110 199 352 383 226 463 847 993 21 115

Missouri 82 142 312 488 358 736 1,361 1,429 51 94

Montana 11 18 41 57 51 89 177 192 56 115

Nebraska 11 25 59 77 61 120 238 265 56 121

Nevada 10 15 41 91 57 129 415 535 42 315

New Hampshire 11 22 20 44 28 51 152 163 14 222

New Jersey 125 226 289 506 304 437 1,030 1,419 -14 224

New Mexico 48 81 117 196 140 251 542 679 28 170

New York 209 726 1,086 2,065 1,361 2,136 4,985 5,621 3 163

North Carolina 122 234 282 495 403 856 2,072 2,491 73 191

North Dakota 5 9 25 32 25 45 95 86 38 91

Ohio 253 382 861 1,017 520 1,155 2,734 2,923 14 153

Oklahoma 38 73 186 315 208 440 900 959 40 118

Oregon 56 80 168 254 198 456 1,067 1,250 79 174

Pennsylvania 175 373 661 1,006 656 1,105 2,333 2,748 10 149

Rhode Island 18 31 42 82 59 79 238 303 -4 286

South Carolina 121 181 240 297 249 566 1,256 1,382 90 144

South Dakota 8 18 35 40 37 61 153 165 55 168

Tennessee 115 282 372 554 415 942 1,966 2,128 70 126

Texas 314 514 1,429 2,246 1,215 2,659 5,447 5,934 18 123

Utah 12 22 71 90 68 141 367 378 57 168

Vermont 9 18 22 46 32 45 124 150 -2 233

Virgin Islands 6 19 18 28 21 21 43 57 -24 174

Virginia 63 158 247 450 263 500 1,213 1,442 11 189

Washington 70 90 229 417 241 539 1,387 1,679 29 211

West Virginia 56 87 192 253 185 258 487 504 2 95

Wisconsin 29 68 180 220 129 317 1,000 1,198 44 278

Wyoming 3 6 21 28 19 27 52 57 -2 111

United States $4,386 $8,721 $14,186 $22,764 $14,983 $28,568 $64,702 $76,066 25 166

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include amounts for Puerto Rico of $366 and $828 million respectively.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2004 to 2013 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplementalnutrition-assistance-program-snap) and unpublished data from the Food Stamp National Data Bank.
A-29

Table SNAP 5. Average Number of Food Stamp/SNAP Recipients by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In thousands] Percent Change

1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 1995-05 2005-13

Alabama 365 583 454 525 396 559 805 915 6 64

Alaska 15 29 25 45 38 56 76 91 22 64

Arizona 143 196 317 480 259 550 1,018 1,111 15 102

Arkansas 267 301 235 272 247 374 467 505 37 35

California 1,455 1,493 1,937 3,175 1,831 1,992 3,239 4,159 -37 109

Colorado 150 163 221 252 156 246 405 508 -2 107

Connecticut 155 170 133 226 165 204 336 425 -10 108

Delaware 26 52 33 57 32 62 113 153 8 149

Dist. of Columbia 122 103 62 94 81 89 118 145 -6 63

Florida 647 912 781 1,395 882 1,382 2,603 3,556 -1 157

Georgia 498 627 536 816 559 921 1,591 1,948 13 111

Guam 6 22 12 16 22 27 37 46 66 67

Hawaii 75 102 77 125 118 94 138 189 -25 102

Idaho 39 61 59 80 58 93 194 227 16 143

Illinois 926 903 1,013 1,151 817 1,158 1,646 2,040 1 76

Indiana 392 353 311 470 300 556 813 926 18 66

Iowa 115 141 170 184 123 207 340 420 12 103

Kansas 58 90 142 184 117 178 270 317 -4 78

Kentucky 472 468 458 520 403 570 778 872 10 53

Louisiana 510 569 727 711 500 808 826 940 14 16

Maine 126 139 94 132 102 153 230 249 16 63

Maryland 261 324 255 399 219 289 561 771 -28 167

Massachusetts 365 453 347 410 232 368 749 888 -10 141

Michigan 619 813 917 971 603 1,048 1,776 1,776 8 69

Minnesota 167 171 263 308 196 260 430 553 -16 113

Mississippi 376 496 499 480 276 435 576 669 -9 54

Missouri 300 335 431 576 423 766 901 930 33 21

Montana 38 43 57 71 59 81 114 129 14 59

Nebraska 49 66 95 105 82 117 163 180 12 53

Nevada 32 32 50 99 61 122 278 361 24 197

New Hampshire 44 50 31 58 36 52 104 117 -10 124

New Jersey 490 605 382 551 345 392 622 876 -29 123

New Mexico 157 185 157 239 169 241 357 440 1 83

New York 1,291 1,759 1,548 2,183 1,439 1,755 2,758 3,170 -20 81

North Carolina 466 582 419 614 488 800 1,346 1,704 30 113

North Dakota 19 25 39 41 32 42 60 57 2 34

Ohio 854 865 1,089 1,155 610 1,007 1,607 1,825 -13 81

Oklahoma 171 209 267 375 253 424 582 622 13 47

Oregon 201 197 216 289 234 429 705 818 49 90

Pennsylvania 848 980 952 1,173 777 1,043 1,575 1,785 -11 71

Rhode Island 86 87 64 93 74 76 139 180 -19 136

South Carolina 410 426 299 364 295 521 797 876 43 68

South Dakota 33 43 50 50 43 56 95 104 12 85

Tennessee 397 624 527 662 496 850 1,224 1,342 28 58

Texas 1,133 1,167 1,880 2,558 1,333 2,442 3,552 4,042 -5 66

Utah 46 54 99 119 82 133 247 252 12 89

Vermont 44 46 38 59 41 45 86 101 -24 122

Virgin Islands 16 34 18 23 16 14 20 27 -41 102

Virginia 257 384 346 546 336 488 786 941 -11 93

Washington 253 248 340 476 295 508 956 1,113 7 119

West Virginia 242 209 262 309 227 262 341 351 -15 34

Wisconsin 148 215 286 320 193 346 715 857 8 148

Wyoming 10 14 28 34 22 25 35 38 -24 49

United States 17,192 21,082 20,049 26,619 17,194 25,718 40,302 47,636 -3 85

Note: The totals for 1975 and 1980 include recipients in Puerto Rico of 810 thousand and 1.86 million respectively.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service (2000 to 2013 data published online at www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplementalnutrition-assistance-program-snap) and unpublished data from the National Data Bank.
A-30

Table SNAP 6. Food Stamp/SNAP Recipiency Rates by State: Selected Fiscal Years

[In percent]

Percent Change

1975 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013 1995-05 2005-13

Alabama 9.9 14.9 11.2 12.2 8.9 12.2 16.8 18.9 -27 113

Alaska 4.0 7.1 4.5 7.5 6.0 8.3 10.7 12.4 -21 107

Arizona 6.3 7.1 8.6 10.8 5.0 9.4 15.9 16.8 -54 234

Arkansas 12.4 13.1 10.0 10.7 9.2 13.4 16.0 17.1 -14 85

California 6.8 6.3 6.5 10.0 5.4 5.6 8.7 10.8 -46 101

Colorado 5.8 5.6 6.7 6.6 3.6 5.3 8.0 9.6 -45 168

Connecticut 5.0 5.5 4.0 6.8 4.8 5.8 9.4 11.8 -29 144

Delaware 4.5 8.7 5.0 7.8 4.1 7.3 12.5 16.5 -48 303

Dist. of Columbia 17.2 16.1 10.3 16.2 14.1 15.3 19.6 22.4 -13 59

Florida 7.6 9.3 6.0 9.6 5.5 7.7 13.8 18.2 -43 231

Georgia 9.8 11.4 8.2 11.1 6.8 10.3 16.4 19.5 -39 187

Hawaii 8.4 10.6 6.9 10.4 9.7 7.2 10.1 13.5 -7 38

Idaho 4.6 6.4 5.8 6.8 4.5 6.5 12.4 14.1 -34 214

Illinois 8.2 7.9 8.8 9.6 6.6 9.2 12.8 15.8 -31 141

Indiana 7.3 6.4 5.6 8.0 4.9 8.9 12.5 14.1 -39 186

Iowa 4.0 4.8 6.1 6.4 4.2 7.0 11.2 13.6 -34 223

Kansas 2.5 3.8 5.7 7.1 4.3 6.5 9.4 11.0 -39 153

Kentucky 13.6 12.8 12.4 13.4 10.0 13.6 17.9 19.8 -26 99

Louisiana 13.1 13.5 17.2 16.2 11.2 17.7 18.2 20.3 -31 82

Maine 11.8 12.3 7.6 10.6 8.0 11.6 17.3 18.7 -25 136

Maryland 6.3 7.7 5.3 7.9 4.1 5.2 9.7 13.0 -48 215

Massachusetts 6.3 7.9 5.8 6.7 3.6 5.7 11.4 13.3 -45 264

Michigan 6.8 8.8 9.8 10.0 6.1 10.4 18.0 17.9 -40 196

Minnesota 4.2 4.2 6.0 6.6 4.0 5.1 8.1 10.2 -40 157

Mississippi 15.7 19.6 19.4 17.6 9.7 15.0 19.4 22.4 -45 131

Missouri 6.2 6.8 8.4 10.7 7.5 13.2 15.0 15.4 -29 104

Montana 5.1 5.5 7.1 8.1 6.6 8.6 11.5 12.7 -19 93

Nebraska 3.2 4.2 6.0 6.3 4.8 6.7 8.9 9.6 -24 100

Nevada 5.2 4.0 4.1 6.2 3.0 5.0 10.3 12.9 -52 329

New Hampshire 5.3 5.4 2.7 5.0 2.9 4.0 7.9 8.8 -42 202

New Jersey 6.7 8.2 4.9 6.8 4.1 4.5 7.1 9.8 -40 141

New Mexico 13.5 14.1 10.3 13.9 9.3 12.5 17.3 21.1 -33 127

New York 7.2 10.0 8.6 11.8 7.6 9.2 14.2 16.1 -36 113

North Carolina 8.4 9.9 6.3 8.4 6.0 9.2 14.1 17.3 -28 186

North Dakota 2.9 3.9 6.1 6.4 5.0 6.5 8.9 7.9 -22 59

Ohio 7.9 8.0 10.0 10.3 5.4 8.8 13.9 15.8 -48 194

Oklahoma 6.2 6.9 8.5 11.3 7.3 12.0 15.5 16.2 -35 120

Oregon 8.6 7.5 7.6 9.1 6.8 11.9 18.4 20.8 -25 205

Pennsylvania 7.1 8.3 8.0 9.6 6.3 8.4 12.4 14.0 -34 121

Rhode Island 9.2 9.1 6.4 9.2 7.1 7.1 13.2 17.1 -23 142

South Carolina 14.1 13.6 8.5 9.7 7.3 12.2 17.2 18.3 -24 150

South Dakota 4.8 6.2 7.2 6.8 5.7 7.2 11.7 12.3 -17 117

Tennessee 9.3 13.6 10.8 12.4 8.7 14.2 19.3 20.7 -30 138

Texas 9.0 8.1 11.0 13.5 6.4 10.7 14.1 15.3 -53 140

Utah 3.7 3.7 5.7 5.9 3.6 5.4 8.9 8.7 -38 138

Vermont 9.1 8.9 6.8 10.1 6.7 7.3 13.7 16.1 -33 141

Virginia 5.1 7.2 5.6 8.2 4.7 6.4 9.8 11.4 -42 141

Washington 7.0 6.0 6.9 8.7 5.0 8.1 14.2 16.0 -43 220

West Virginia 13.1 10.7 14.6 16.9 12.6 14.4 18.4 18.9 -26 51

Wisconsin 3.2 4.6 5.8 6.2 3.6 6.2 12.6 14.9 -42 315

Wyoming 2.7 3.0 6.2 6.9 4.5 5.0 6.2 6.5 -34 44

United States 7.6 8.4 8.0 10.0 6.1 8.7 13.0 15.0 -39 147

Note: Recipiency rate refers to the average monthly number of food stamp recipients in each state during the particular fiscal year expressed 

as a percent of the total resident population as of July 1 of that year. The numerator is from Table FSP 5 and the denominator is the Census 

Bureau’s estimate of state population.

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, Office of Food and Nutrition Service, (2000 to 2013 data 

published online at http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap and data from the U.S. Census Bureau 

(population by state available online at http://www.census.gov).
A-31

Supplemental Security Income

The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Program is a means-tested, federally administered income 

assistance program authorized by title XVI of the Social Security Act. Established in 1972 (Public Law 

92-603) and begun in 1974, SSI provides monthly cash payments in accordance with uniform, nationwide 

eligibility requirements to needy aged, blind and disabled persons. To qualify for SSI payments, a person 

must satisfy the program criteria for age, blindness, or disability, along with applicable income, resource, 

citizenship, and other criteria. Children may qualify for SSI if they are under age 18 and meet the 

applicable SSI disability or blindness, in addition to the criteria mentioned above. Individuals and married 

couples are eligible for SSI if their countable incomes fall below the federal maximum monthly SSI benefit 

levels of $710 for an individual and $1,066 for a married couple (if both are eligible) effective January

2013. SSI eligibility is restricted to qualified persons who have countable resources/assets of not more 

than $2,000, or $3,000 for a couple.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) administers the SSI program. Since its inception, SSI has been 

viewed as the “program of last resort.” Therefore, SSA helps recipients obtain any other public 

assistance that they are eligible to receive before providing SSI benefits. After evaluating all other 

income, SSI pays what is necessary to bring an individual to the statutorily prescribed income “floor.” 

Prior to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), no 

individual could receive both SSI payments and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) 

benefits. If eligible for both, the individual had to choose which benefit to receive. Generally, the AFDC 

agency encouraged individuals to file for SSI and, once the SSI payments had started, the individual was 

removed from the AFDC filing unit. Since states have the authority to set TANF eligibility standards and 

benefit levels under PRWORA, there is no federal prohibition against individuals receiving both TANF 

benefits and SSI. 

With the exception of California, which converted the value of SNAP benefits to cash payments that are 

included in the state supplementary payment, SSI recipients may be eligible to receive SNAP. If all 

household members receive SSI, the household is categorically eligible for SNAP and does not need to 

meet SNAP’s financial eligibility standards. If SSI beneficiaries live in households in which other 

household members do not receive SSI benefits, the household must meet the net income eligibility 

standard of SNAP to be eligible for SNAP benefits. 

SSI Program Data

The following tables and figures provide SSI program data:

 Tables SSI 1 through SSI 5 and Figure SSI 1 present national caseload and expenditure trend 

data on the SSI program;

 Table SSI 6 presents demographic characteristics of the SSI caseload;

 Tables SSI 7 through SSI 9 present state-by-state trend data on the SSI program through fiscal 

year 2013. 

SSI Caseload Trends (Tables SSI 1 and SSI 2 and Figure SSI 1). From 1990 to 1995, the number of 

federally administered SSI recipients increased from 4.8 million to 6.5 million, an average growth rate of 

about 6 percent per year. Between 1995 and 2000, the number of beneficiaries fluctuated between 6.5 

and 6.6 million persons. Between 2000 and 2013, the caseload increased from 6.6 to 8.4 million 

beneficiaries, an average annual growth rate of 1.8 percent. Table SSI 1 presents information on the total 

number of persons receiving SSI

payments in December of each year from 1974 through 2013, and also presents recipients by eligibility

category (aged, blind, and disabled) and by type of recipient (child, adults ages 18-64, and adults ages 65 

or older). See also Tables IND 3c and IND 4c in Chapter II for further data on trends in recipiency and 

participation.
A-32

The composition of the SSI caseload has been shifting over time, as shown in Table SSI 1. The number 

of beneficiaries eligible because of age has been declining steadily, from a high of 2.3 million persons in 

December 1975 to a low of 1.16 million persons in December 2013. At the same time, there has been 

growth in blind and disabled beneficiaries, from 1.7 million in December 1974 to 7.2 million in December 

2013. Moreover, the number of disabled children has increased over time from 309,000 in December 

1990 to 1.3 million in December 2013. 

Several factors have contributed to the growth of the Supplemental Security Income program. Expansions 

in disability eligibility (particularly for mentally impaired adults and for children), increased outreach, 

overall growth in immigration, and transfers from state programs were among the key factors identified in 

a 1995 study by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). GAO concluded that three groups – adults 

with mental impairments, children, and non-citizens – accounted for nearly 90 percent of the SSI 

program’s growth in the early 1990s. The growth in disabled children beneficiaries is generally believed 

to be due to outreach activities, the Supreme Court decision in the Zebley case, expansion of the medical 

impairment category, and reduction in reviews of continuing eligibility.28

SSI Expenditures (Tables SSI 3 through SSI 5). The total amount of federally administered SSI benefits 

has increased over the past six years from $44.4 billion (inflation adjusted) in 2005 to over $53.9 billion in 

2013, as shown in Table SSI 3. Average monthly federally administered benefits per person were $529

in 2013, up (1.0 percent) from 2005 inflation adjusted benefit level of $524. For more details see Table 

SSI 4.

SSI Recipient Characteristics (Table SSI 6). Over the last 20 years, the percentage of aged SSI 

recipients has dramatically decreased, while the percentage of disabled recipients has increased 

substantially. As shown in Table SSI 6, the proportion of SSI aged recipients has decreased from 43.6

percent in 1980 to 13.8 percent in 2013. During the same period, the percentage of disabled recipients 

increased from 54.5 percent in 1980 to 85.4 percent in 2013.

More information about the SSI program, including research and statistics, and Annual Statistical 

Supplements, can be found at http://www.socialsecurity.gov/policy/.

 

28 The GAO study estimated that 87,000 children were added to the SSI caseload after the Individualized Functional Assessment (IFA) for children was 

initiated.
A-33

Figure SSI 1. SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2013

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

0.1

1.3

1.5

4.9

2.4

2.1

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

1974 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

Children

Adults 18-64

Adults 65 & older

(Millions)
A-34

Figure SSI 2. Percent SSI Recipients by Age: 1974 – 2013

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013 (available at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/index.html).

10.8

4.6

1.2

2.5

0.1

1.8

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1974 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

Children under 18

Adults 18-64

Adults 65 & older

(In percent)
A-35

Table SSI 1. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments: 1974 – 2013

[In thousands]

Eligibility Category Type of Recipient

Blind and Disabled

Adults

Date Total Children

Age 65 or 

Aged Total Blind Disabled 18-64 Older 

Dec 1974 3,996 2,286 1,710 75 1,636 71 11,503 2,422 

Dec 1975 4,314 2,307 2,007 74 1,933 107 1,699 2,508 

Dec 1976 4,236 2,148 2,088 76 2,012 125 1,714 2,397 

Dec 1977 4,238 2,051 2,187 77 2,109 147 1,737 2,353 

Dec 1978 4,217 1,968 2,249 77 2,172 166 1,747 2,304 

Dec 1979 4,150 1,872 2,278 77 2,201 177 1,727 2,246 

Dec 1980 4,142 1,808 2,334 78 2,256 190 1,731 2,221 

Dec 1981 4,019 1,678 2,341 79 2,262 195 1,703 2,121 

Dec 1982 3,858 1,549 2,309 77 2,231 192 1,655 2,011 

Dec 1983 3,901 1,515 2,386 79 2,307 198 1,700 2,003 

Dec 1984 4,029 1,530 2,499 81 2,419 212 1,780 2,037 

Dec 1985 4,138 1,504 2,634 82 2,551 227 1,879 2,031 

Dec 1986 4,269 1,473 2,796 83 2,713 241 2,010 2,018 

Dec 1987 4,385 1,455 2,930 83 2,846 251 2,119 2,015 

Dec 1988 4,464 1,433 3,030 83 2,948 255 2,203 2,006 

Dec 1989 4,593 1,439 3,154 83 3,071 265 2,302 2,026 

Dec 1990 4,817 1,454 3,363 84 3,279 309 2,450 2,059 

Dec 1991 5,118 1,465 3,654 85 3,569 397 2,642 2,080 

Dec 1992 25,566 1,471 4,095 85 4,010 556 2,910 2,100 

Dec 1993 5,984 1,475 4,509 85 4,424 723 3,148 2,113 

Dec 1994 6,296 1,466 4,830 85 4,745 841 3,335 2,119 

Dec 1995 6,514 1,446 5,068 84 4,984 917 3,482 2,115 

Dec 1996 6,614 1,413 5,201 82 5,119 955 3,568 2,090 

Dec 1997 6,495 1,362 5,133 81 5,052 880 3,562 2,054 

Dec 1998 6,566 1,332 5,234 80 5,154 887 3,646 2,033 

Dec 1999 6,557 1,308 5,249 79 5,169 847 3,691 2,019 

Dec 2000 6,602 1,289 5,312 79 5,234 847 3,744 2,011 

Dec 2001 6,688 1,264 5,424 78 5,346 882 3,811 1,995 

Dec 2002 6,788 1,252 5,537 78 5,459 915 3,878 1,995 

Dec 2003 6,902 1,233 5,670 77 5,593 959 3,953 1,990 

Dec 2004 6,988 1,211 5,777 76 5,701 993 4,017 1,978 

Dec 2005 7,114 1,214 5,900 75 5,825 1,036 4,083 1,995 

Dec 2006 7,236 1,212 6,024 73 5,951 1,079 4,152 2,004 

Dec 2007 7,360 1,205 6,155 72 6,083 1,121 4,222 2,017 

Dec 2008 7,521 1,203 6,317 70 6,247 1,154 4,333 2,034 

Dec 2009 7,677 1,186 6,491 69 6,421 1,200 4,445 2,026 

Dec 2010 7,912 1,184 6,728 69 6,629 1,239 4,632 2,041 

Dec 2011 8,113 1,182 6,931 69 6,862 1,277 4,777 2,059 

Dec 2012 8,263 1,156 7,107 68 7,039 1,312 4,869 2,082 

Dec 2013 8,363 1,157 7,206 68 7,139 1,322 4,934 2,108 

1

Includes students 18-21 in 1974 only.

2

The jump in benefits in 1992 is due to retroactive payments resulting from the Sullivan v. Zebley decision.

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2009 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2013/).
A-36

Table SSI 2. SSI Recipiency Rates by Age: 1974 – 2013

All Recipients Adults 18-64 Child Elderly Recipients (Persons 65 & Older)

as a Percent as a Percent Recipients as a Percent of

of Total of 18-64 as a Percent All Persons All Elderly

Date Population 1 Population 1of All Children 165 & Older 1 Poor 2

Dec 1974 1.9 1.2 0.1 10.8 78.5 

Dec 1975 2.0 1.3 0.2 10.9 75.6 

Dec 1976 1.9 1.3 0.2 10.2 72.3 

Dec 1977 1.9 1.3 0.2 9.7 74.1 

Dec 1978 1.9 1.3 0.3 9.3 71.3 

Dec 1979 1.8 1.3 0.3 8.8 61.0 

Dec 1980 1.8 1.2 0.3 8.6 57.4 

Dec 1981 1.7 1.2 0.3 8.0 55.1 

Dec 1982 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.4 53.6 

Dec 1983 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.3 55.3 

Dec 1984 1.7 1.2 0.3 7.2 61.2 

Dec 1985 1.7 1.3 0.4 7.1 58.8 

Dec 1986 1.8 1.3 0.4 6.9 58.0 

Dec 1987 1.8 1.4 0.4 6.7 56.6 

Dec 1988 1.8 1.5 0.4 6.6 57.6 

Dec 1989 1.9 1.5 0.4 6.5 60.3 

Dec 1990 1.9 1.6 0.5 6.5 56.3 

Dec 1991 2.0 1.7 0.6 6.5 55.0 

Dec 1992 2.2 1.8 0.8 6.4 53.5 

Dec 1993 2.3 2.0 1.1 6.4 56.3 

Dec 1994 2.4 2.1 1.2 6.3 57.9 

Dec 1995 2.4 2.1 1.3 6.2 63.7 

Dec 1996 2.4 2.1 1.4 6.1 61.0 

Dec 1997 2.4 2.1 1.2 6.0 60.8 

Dec 1998 2.4 2.1 1.2 5.9 60.0 

Dec 1999 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.8 62.7

Dec 2000 2.3 2.1 1.2 5.7 60.5 

Dec 2001 2.3 2.2 1.2 5.6 58.4 

Dec 2002 2.3 2.2 1.3 5.6 55.8 

Dec 2003 2.4 2.2 1.3 5.5 56.0 

Dec 2004 2.4 2.2 1.3 5.4 57.3 

Dec 2005 2.4 2.2 1.4 5.4 55.4 

Dec 2006 2.4 2.2 1.5 5.3 59.1 

Dec 2007 2.4 2.2 1.5 5.3 56.7 

Dec 2008 2.5 2.3 1.5 5.2 55.6 

Dec 2009 2.5 2.3 1.6 5.1 59.0 

Dec 2010 2.5 2.4 1.7 5.0 57.4 

Dec 2011 2.6 2.4 1.7 4.9 56.9 

Dec 2012 2.6 2.5 1.8 4.7 53.0 

Dec 2013 2.6 2.5 1.8 4.6 49.8 

1

Population numbers used for the denominators are Census Bureau resident population estimates adjusted to the December date by averaging the 

July 1 population of the current year with the July 1 population of the following year (resident population estimates by age are available online at 

www.census.gov).

2

For the number of persons (65 years of age and older living in poverty) used as the denominator, see Current Population Reports, Series P60-249.

Note: Numerators for these ratios are from Table SSI 1. Rates computed by DHHS. 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, “Income, Poverty, and Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: 2013," Current Population Reports, Series P60-

249 (available online at www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html).
A-37

Table SSI 3. Federally Administered SSI Benefits and Administration: 1974 – 20131

[In millions of dollars]

Total Benefits Federal State Administrative

Calendar Year 2013 Dollars 2 Current Dollars Payments Supplementation

Costs

(fiscal year)

1974 $21,238 $5,097 $3,833 $1,264 $285

1975 21,996 5,716 4,314 1,403 399

1976 21,472 5,900 4,512 1,388 500

1977 20,984 6,134 4,703 1,431 527

1978 20,880 6,372 4,881 1,491 539

1979 20,541 6,869 5,279 1,590 611

1980 20,765 7,715 5,866 1,848 668

1981 20,538 8,357 6,518 1,839 717

1982 20,176 8,705 6,907 1,798 780

1983 20,303 9,134 7,423 1,711 846

1984 21,511 10,073 8,281 1,792 864

1985 22,194 10,750 8,777 1,973 956

1986 23,810 11,741 9,498 2,243 1,023

1987 24,700 12,592 10,029 2,563 977

1988 25,364 13,405 10,734 2,671 976

1989 26,412 14,561 11,606 2,955 1,052

1990 27,874 16,133 12,894 3,239 1,075

1991 30,016 17,996 14,765 3,231 1,230

1992 35,271 21,682 18,247 3,435 1,426

1993 38,085 23,991 20,722 3,270 1,468

1994 39,310 25,291 22,175 3,116 1,780

1995 41,036 27,037 23,919 3,118 1,978

1996 41,768 28,252 25,265 2,988 1,953

1997 41,056 28,371 25,457 2,913 2,055

1998 41,971 29,408 26,405 3,003 2,304

1999 42,090 30,106 26,805 3,301 2,493

2000 41,490 30,672 27,290 3,381 2,321

2001 42,323 32,166 28,706 3,460 2,397

2002 43,661 33,719 29,899 3,820 2,522

2003 43,941 34,693 30,688 4,005 2,656

2004 44,477 36,065 31,887 4,179 2,806

2005 44,431 37,236 33,058 4,178 2,795

2006 44,930 38,889 34,736 4,153 2,916

2007 46,293 41,205 36,884 4,321 2,857

2008 46,566 43,040 38,656 4,385 2,820

2009 50,601 46,592 42,629 3,964 3,316

2010 51,491 48,195 44,605 3,589 3,629

2011 51,289 49,520 46,000 3,521 3,931

2012 52,831 52,075 48,770 3,305 3,881

2013 53,900 53,900 50,625 3,275 3,789

1

Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year.

2

Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS for calendar years.

Note: This table differs from earlier versions; because of variations across states in reported numbers of recipients and payment amounts of SSI stateadministered state supplements, information on state-administered state supplements is no longer published by SSA.

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report and Annual Report of the SSI Program, 

http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/.
A-38

Table SSI 4. Average Monthly Federally Administered SSI Benefits: 1975 – 2013 1

[In millions of dollars]

Total Benefits Federal State

Date 2013 Dollars 2 Current Dollars Payments Supplementation

Dec 1975 $409 $106 $91 $62

Dec 1976 407 112 96 67

Dec 1977 400 117 101 67

Dec 1978 400 122 107 111

Dec 1979 446 149 119 95

Dec 1980 436 162 138 95

Dec 1981 433 176 155 92

Dec 1982 438 189 168 91

Dec 1983 454 204 182 94

Dec 1984 451 211 189 99

Dec 1985 450 218 194 99

Dec 1986 472 233 205 116

Dec 1987 468 238 208 114

Dec 1988 464 245 215 121

Dec 1989 466 257 224 128

Dec 1990 478 276 242 128

Dec 1991 487 292 260 120

Dec 1992 491 302 275 105

Dec 1993 500 315 290 100

Dec 1994 505 325 302 94

Dec 1995 509 335 313 99

Dec 1996 508 344 322 99

Dec 1997 507 351 328 102

Dec 1998 513 359 336 102

Dec 1999 515 369 342 111

Dec 2000 512 379 351 113

Dec 2001 518 394 366 114

Dec 2002 528 407 377 128

Dec 2003 528 417 384 138

Dec 2004 528 428 395 138

Dec 2005 524 439 407 156

Dec 2006 525 455 423 156

Dec 2007 526 468 437 157

Dec 2008 517 478 447 156

Dec 2009 542 499 476 125

Dec 2010 535 501 479 124

Dec 2011 520 502 481 119

Dec 2012 526 518 500 122

Dec 2013 529 529 510 121

1

Payments and adjustments during the respective year but not necessarily accrued for that year.

2

Data adjusted for inflation by ASPE using the CPI-U-RS for calendar years.

Note: This table differs from earlier versions because of variations across states in reported numbers of recipients and payment amounts of SSI stateadministered state supplements, information on state-administered state supplements is no longer published by SSA.

Source: Social Security Administration, SSI Annual Statistical Report, 2013 (available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/ssi_asr/2013/.
A-39

Table SSI 5. Number of Persons Receiving Federally Administered SSI Payments by

Eligibility Category: 1974 - 2013

[In thousands]

Month and year Total 1 Federal SSI

Federally 

Administered State 

Supplementation

State 

Supplementation 

Only

Jan 1974.................................... 3,216 2,956 1,480 260 

Dec 1975.................................... 4,314 3,893 1,684 421 

Dec 1976.................................... 4,236 3,799 1,638 437 

Dec 1977.................................... 4,238 3,778 1,658 460 

Dec 1978.................................... 4,217 3,755 1,681 462 

Dec 1979.................................... 4,150 3,687 1,684 462 

Dec 1980.................................... 4,142 3,682 1,685 460 

Dec 1981.................................... 4,019 3,590 1,625 429 

Dec 1982.................................... 3,858 3,473 1,550 384 

Dec 1983.................................... 3,901 3,590 1,558 312 

Dec 1984.................................... 4,029 3,699 1,607 331 

Dec 1985.................................... 4,138 3,799 1,661 339 

Dec 1986.................................... 4,269 3,922 1,723 348 

Dec 1987.................................... 4,385 4,019 1,807 366 

Dec 1988.................................... 4,464 4,089 1,885 375 

Dec 1989.................................... 4,593 4,206 1,950 387 

Dec 1990.................................... 4,817 4,412 2,058 405 

Dec 1991.................................... 5,118 4,730 2,204 389 

Dec 1992.................................... 5,566 5,202 2,372 364 

Dec 1993.................................... 5,984 5,636 2,536 348 

Dec 1994.................................... 6,296 5,965 2,628 331 

Dec 1995.................................... 6,514 6,194 2,518 320 

Dec 1996.................................... 6,614 6,326 2,421 288 

Dec 1997.................................... 6,495 6,212 2,372 283 

Dec 1998.................................... 6,566 6,289 2,412 277 

Dec 1999.................................... 6,557 6,275 2,441 282 

Dec 2000.................................... 6,602 6,320 2,481 282 

Dec 2001.................................... 6,688 6,410 2,520 278 

Dec 2002.................................... 6,788 6,505 2,462 283 

Dec 2003.................................... 6,902 6,614 2,467 288 

Dec 2004.................................... 6,988 6,695 2,498 293 

Dec 2005.................................... 7,114 6,819 2,242 295 

Dec 2006.................................... 7,236 6,939 2,269 297 

Dec 2007.................................... 7,360 7,061 2,302 298 

Dec 2008.................................... 7,521 7,219 2,344 301 

Dec 2009.................................... 7,677 7,423 2,339 254 

Dec 2010.................................... 7,912 7,656 2,386 257 

Dec 2011.................................... 8,113 7,866 2,389 246 

Dec 2012.................................... 8,263 8,040 2,216 223 

Dec 2013.................................... 8,363 8,144 2,228 220 

1

Total equals the sum of "Federal SSI" and "State supplementation only."

Source: Number of persons receiving payments obtained from Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social 

Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014 (available online at http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2014/index.html).
A-40

Table SSI 6. Characteristics of Federally Administered SSI Recipients by Selected 

Characteristics: Selected Years, 1980-2013

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2013

Total

Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 under 18 5.5 5.5 6.4 14.1 12.8 14.6 15.7 15.8 

 18-64 40.9 45.4 50.9 53.5 56.7 57.4 58.5 59.0 

 65 or older 53.6 49.1 42.7 32.5 30.5 28.0 25.8 25.2 

Sex

 Male 34.4 35.2 37.2 41.7 41.5 43.1 45.3 46.6 

 Female 65.5 64.8 62.8 58.3 58.5 56.9 54.7 53.4 

Selected Sources of Income

 Earnings 3.2 3.8 4.7 4.3 4.4 3.8 3.3 3.1 

 Social Security 51.0 49.4 45.9 37.9 36.1 35.2 34.1 33.2 

 No other income 34.8 34.5 36.4 45.0 54.4 55.3 56.8 57.5 

Noncitizens NA 5.1 9.0 12.1 10.5 9.6 7.9 6.7

Eligibility Category

 Aged 43.6 36.4 30.2 22.2 19.5 17.1 15.0 13.8 

 Blind 1.9 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.2 1.1 0.9 0.8 

 Disabled 54.5 61.7 68.1 76.5 79.3 81.9 84.2 85.4 

Aged

Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 65-69 14.0 14.9 19.4 20.0 15.6 15.1 15.3 16.3 

 70-79 51.5 45.6 41.3 45.4 50.0 46.8 43.3 42.3 

 80 or older 34.5 39.5 39.2 34.5 34.5 38.1 41.4 41.4 

Sex

 Male 27.3 25.5 25.1 27.2 29.0 31.4 33.4 34.4 

 Female 72.6 74.5 74.9 72.8 71.0 68.6 66.6 65.6 

Noncitizens NA 9.7 19.4 31.8 28.5 28.3 25.6 22.6 

Blind and Disabled

Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

 18-64 80.2 77.7 80.0 83.7 83.8 84.1 84.4 83.9 

 65 or older 19.8 22.3 20.0 16.3 16.2 16.0 15.6 16.0 

Sex1

 Male 39.8 40.8 42.4 41.7 44.5 41.2 43.1 44.4 

 Female 60.2 59.2 57.6 58.3 55.5 58.8 56.9 55.6 

Noncitizens NA 2.4 4.6 6.3 6.2 5.7 4.8 4.2 

Children

Ages 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 

Under 5 11.7 NA NA 15.2 15.5 15.5 15.7 14.1 

 5-9 20.9 NA NA 28.4 28.5 27.3 29.4 29.9 

 10-14 28.8 NA NA 32.7 36.2 35.3 34.3 35.8 

 15-17 21.7 NA NA 17.9 19.8 22.0 20.5 20.2 

 18-212

16.8 14.3 9.3 5.9 — — — — 

Sex

 Male NA NA NA 63.3 63.8 65.4 66.2 66.7 

 Female NA NA NA 36.7 36.2 34.6 33.8 33.3 

Note: Data are for December of the year.

1

For 1980-1992 male-female classification reflects all blind and disabled, both children and adults; thereafter, it is based on adults only.

2

In this table, students 18-21 are classified as children prior to 1998.

Source: Social Security Administration, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2013 and prior years (available online at 

www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2013/).
A-41

Table SSI 7. Total Federally Administered SSI Payments by State: Calendar Year 2013

[In thousands]

Federally administered

State Total Federal Federal SSI state supplementation

Total $53,899,898 $50,624,771 $3,275,127

Alabama 1,090,520 1,090,520 —

Alaska 76,537 76,537 —

Arizona 747,469 747,469 —

Arkansas 695,246 695,246 —

California 9,439,771 6,977,616 2,462,155

Colorado 449,877 449,877 —

Connecticut 393,294 393,294 —

Delaware 104,184 103,264 920

District of Columbia 185,037 179,951 5,086

Florida 3,339,620 3,339,620 —

Georgia 1,594,068 1,594,068 —

Hawaii 167,554 150,751 16,804

Idaho 186,199 186,199 —

Illinois 1,796,098 1,796,098 —

Indiana 815,007 815,007 —

Iowa 301,503 295,236 6,267

Kansas 304,993 304,993 —

Kentucky 1,174,499 1,174,499 —

Louisiana 1,115,504 1,115,504 —

Maine 224,176 224,176 —

Maryland 772,568 772,568 —

Massachusetts 1,162,786 1,162,786 —

Michigan 1,820,379 1,801,534 18,844

Minnesota 600,653 600,653 —

Mississippi 757,491 757,491 —

Missouri 886,130 886,130 —

Montana 112,281 111,284 996

Nebraska 164,800 164,800 —

Nevada 305,327 298,494 6,833

New Hampshire 119,951 119,951 —

New Jersey 1,128,754 1,045,568 83,185

New Mexico 388,406 388,406 —

New York 4,773,593 4,144,301 629,293

North Carolina 1,422,918 1,422,918 —

North Dakota 47,530 47,530 —

Ohio 2,031,274 2,031,274 —

Oklahoma 612,588 612,588 —

Oregon 527,687 527,687 —

Pennsylvania 2,502,347 2,469,158 33,189

Rhode Island 207,777 206,708 1,070

South Carolina 721,975 721,975 —

South Dakota 86,481 86,481 —

Tennessee 1,146,579 1,146,579 —

Texas 3,908,394 3,908,394 —

Utah 193,167 193,066 101

Vermont 97,032 86,647 10,385

Virginia 939,470 939,470 —

Washington 991,949 991,949 —

West Virginia 495,061 495,061 —

Wisconsin 725,263 725,263 —

Wyoming 40,690 40,690 —

 Other: N. Mariana Islands 7,443 7,443 —

1

Columns may not add to totals since the totals may include a small amount of payments not distributed by jurisdiction.

Source: Social Security Administration, Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, Social Security Bulletin, Annual Statistical Supplement, 2014

(available online at www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/).
A-42

Table SSI 8. State Recipiency Rates for Federally Administered SSI Payments by Age: 1996 & 2013

[In percent]

Rate for Children 0-17 Rate for Adults 18-64 Rate for Adults 65 & Over

Percent Percent Percent

Change Change Change

State 1996 2013 1996-13 1996 2013 1996-13 1996 2013 1996-13

Alabama 2.8 2.6 -5 3.1 4.0 27 9.7 3.9 -60

Alaska 0.6 0.7 21 2.8 1.8 -35 5.5 4.8 -14

Arizona 1.1 1.3 17 0.6 1.7 209 3.5 2.7 -22

Arkansas 2.9 4.3 49 1.1 3.8 238 8.5 3.3 -61

California 0.9 1.3 43 2.9 2.6 -10 13.0 11.7 -10

Colorado 1.0 0.8 -21 0.9 1.4 52 3.6 2.5 -32

Connecticut 0.7 1.1 53 1.0 1.7 74 2.5 2.6 3

Delaware 1.5 1.8 21 0.7 1.8 145 2.8 1.8 -38

District of Columbia 2.8 3.8 35 1.5 4.0 163 7.6 6.1 -19

Florida 1.8 2.6 43 2.8 2.2 -21 5.1 4.9 -4

Georgia 1.5 1.8 20 1.8 2.5 36 9.2 4.3 -54

Hawaii 0.3 0.6 62 1.5 1.8 17 6.1 4.0 -36

Idaho 1.1 1.3 24 0.3 2.2 531 2.3 1.8 -23

Illinois 1.6 1.4 -10 1.1 2.1 97 3.9 3.6 -9

Indiana 1.4 1.6 16 1.6 2.2 36 2.0 1.5 -27

Iowa 1.0 1.2 13 1.4 1.9 36 2.1 1.5 -29

Kansas 1.3 1.3 5 1.0 1.9 82 2.1 1.7 -19

Kentucky 2.5 2.9 14 1.3 4.8 274 8.3 5.0 -39

Louisiana 3.2 3.3 2 2.5 3.9 57 10.2 5.2 -49

Maine 0.9 1.6 72 3.2 3.4 4 4.0 2.3 -43

Maryland 1.1 1.4 30 0.9 1.9 104 4.4 3.2 -27

Massachusetts 1.2 1.7 42 1.1 2.7 152 5.9 4.7 -19

Michigan 1.7 1.9 17 1.2 3.1 155 3.3 2.8 -14

Minnesota 0.9 1.1 16 1.7 1.8 7 2.6 2.6 1

Mississippi 3.4 3.3 -3 0.9 4.3 361 14.2 5.7 -60

Missouri 1.6 1.7 10 3.4 2.7 -21 3.7 2.1 -43

Montana 1.1 1.2 10 1.6 2.1 34 2.4 1.8 -24

Nebraska 1.0 0.9 -11 1.1 1.7 58 2.1 1.6 -21

Nevada 0.8 1.4 71 1.0 1.5 51 3.6 3.2 -10

New Hampshire 0.7 1.0 44 0.8 1.8 112 1.5 1.0 -31

New Jersey 1.2 1.3 12 0.7 1.8 162 4.6 4.4 -5

New Mexico 1.4 1.9 37 1.2 3.0 157 8.1 5.6 -31

New York 1.9 2.1 11 1.4 2.9 113 8.9 8.5 -4

North Carolina 1.8 1.9 9 1.9 2.4 27 7.3 3.1 -58

North Dakota 0.8 0.6 -19 1.8 1.3 -27 2.9 1.5 -47

Ohio 2.0 1.9 -2 0.8 3.0 283 2.7 2.4 -10

Oklahoma 1.4 1.9 38 2.0 2.8 41 5.2 2.6 -49

Oregon 0.9 1.3 45 1.4 2.3 62 2.6 2.7 6

Pennsylvania 1.6 2.8 77 0.9 3.0 246 3.6 3.1 -14

Rhode Island 1.3 2.2 72 1.6 3.2 101 4.9 4.3 -12

South Carolina 2.0 1.9 -5 1.3 2.6 100 8.2 3.0 -63

South Dakota 1.4 1.2 -11 2.0 1.8 -10 3.5 2.4 -30

Tennessee 1.9 1.7 -10 1.4 3.1 127 7.8 3.4 -57

Texas 1.1 2.1 93 1.9 2.1 12 8.6 5.8 -32

Utah 0.7 0.6 -10 1.1 1.2 10 2.0 1.8 -13

Vermont 1.0 1.4 44 0.7 2.9 312 4.8 2.5 -48

Virginia 1.5 1.3 -14 1.0 1.8 89 5.6 3.1 -45

Washington 0.9 1.1 28 1.5 2.3 51 3.4 3.5 3

West Virginia 2.1 2.2 3 0.9 5.1 471 5.3 3.7 -30

Wisconsin 1.6 1.7 6 2.1 2.2 1 2.7 1.9 -29

Wyoming 0.9 0.8 -14 1.6 1.4 -16 1.9 1.1 -43

 Total 1.5 1.8 22 2.2 2.5 16 6.2 4.7 -24

Note: Recipiency rates for 2013 are the ratios of the number of SSI recipients (in the respective age groups) as of the month of December to the 

estimated population in the respective age group as of the month of July; calculations by DHHS. 

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2013 and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population 

by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).
A-43

Table SSI 9. SSI Recipiency Rates as Percent of Population by State: Selected Years 1975 – 2013

[In Percent]

State 1975 1980 1985 1990 1996 22001 22007 22013 2

Alabama 4.0 3.4 3.3 3.3 3.9 3.6 3.6 3.7

Alaska 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 1.2 1.4 1.7 1.8

Arizona 1.2 1.1 1.0 1.2 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.8

Arkansas 4.1 3.4 3.1 3.2 3.8 3.2 3.4 3.8

California 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.4 3.4

Colorado 1.4 1.0 0.9 1.1 1.5 1.2 1.2 1.4

Connecticut 0.8 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.7

Delaware 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.8

District of Columbia 2.2 2.4 2.5 2.7 3.7 3.5 3.8 4.2

Florida 1.9 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.8

Georgia 3.3 2.8 2.6 2.5 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.6

Hawaii 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9

Idaho 1.1 0.8 0.8 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.6 1.9

Illinois 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.6 2.3 2.0 2.0 2.2

Indiana 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.9

Iowa 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.6

Kansas 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.5 1.7

Kentucky 2.8 2.6 2.7 3.1 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.4

Louisiana 3.9 3.2 2.9 3.2 4.2 3.7 3.8 3.9

Maine 2.3 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.2 2.3 2.5 2.8

Maryland 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.7 2.0

Massachusetts 2.3 2.2 1.9 2.0 2.7 2.6 2.8 2.8

Michigan 1.3 1.2 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.8

Minnesota 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.7

Mississippi 5.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 5.2 4.5 4.2 4.2

Missouri 2.1 1.7 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.1 2.4

Montana 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.8

Nebraska 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.3 1.2 1.3 1.5

Nevada 1.0 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.7

New Hampshire 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.5

New Jersey 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.7 1.8 2.0

New Mexico 2.3 1.9 1.8 2.1 2.7 2.6 2.9 3.1

New York 2.2 2.1 2.0 2.3 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.6

North Carolina 2.7 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.4

North Dakota 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.2

Ohio 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.4 2.3 2.1 2.2 2.7

Oklahoma 3.0 2.2 1.8 1.9 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.5

Oregon 1.1 0.8 1.0 1.1 1.5 1.6 1.7 2.1

Pennsylvania 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.6 2.2 2.4 2.7 3.0

Rhode Island 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.7 2.6 2.7 2.9 3.2

South Carolina 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.4 2.5

South Dakota 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.6 1.8

Tennessee 3.2 2.8 2.7 2.9 3.4 2.8 2.6 2.8

Texas 2.2 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.2 2.0 2.3 2.5

Utah 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.9 0.9 1.1

Vermont 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.8 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.5

Virginia 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 2.0 1.8 1.8 1.9

Washington 1.5 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.7 1.7 1.9 2.2

West Virginia 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.3

Wisconsin 1.4 1.4 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.6 1.7 2.0

Wyoming 0.7 0.4 0.5 0.8 1.2 1.2 1.1 1.2

 Total 12.0 1.8 1.7 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.7

1

The number of SSI recipients used to calculate the total recipiency rate includes a certain number of recipients whose State is unknown. For 1975, 

1985, and 1992, the numbers of unknown (in thousands) were 256, 14, and 71 respectively.

2

For 1975-92 the percentages are calculated as the average number of monthly SSI recipients over the total population of each State in July of that 

year. For 1994-2009 the number of recipients is from the month of December; calculations by DHHS.

Source: Social Security Administration, Supplemental Security Income, Annual Statistical Report, 2013, and U.S. Census Bureau (resident population 

by state available online at www.census.gov/population/estimates/state/).
Appendix B

Alternative Definition of Dependence Based on Income from

TANF and SNAP
B-1

Appendix B. Alternative Definition of Dependence Based on Income

from TANF and SNAP

As directed by the Welfare Indicators Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-432), this report on Welfare Indicators 

and Risk Factors focuses on dependence on three programs: the Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program, formerly the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program; the 

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) formerly the Food Stamp Program; and the 

Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. We adopt the following definition of welfare dependence 

for this report: 

Welfare dependence is the proportion of all individuals in families that 

receive more than half of their total family income in one year from TANF, 

SNAP and/or SSI.

This appendix examines an alternative definition of dependence that considers TANF and SNAP alone, 

excluding SSI. As shown in Table B-1, the rate of dependency would have been lower – 3.0 percent – in 

2012 if based on income from TANF and SNAP, as opposed to 5.1 percent when counting income from 

all three programs (TANF, SNAP, and SSI). 

There also is variation across age groups in the programs upon which individuals are dependent. The 

elderly depend more on SSI than on TANF and SNAP; whereas 2.5 percent of elderly persons are 

dependent when counting the three major types of means-tested assistance, few, 0.5 percent, are 

dependent when the definition is limited to TANF and SNAP. In contrast, children are primarily 

dependent on TANF and SNAP.

Dependence on AFDC/TANF and SNAP receipt has generally declined since 1995 but there is a 

noteworthy uptick in 2008 given the “Great Recession” of 2007-2009. Dependence on SSI receipt alone 

has remained relatively stable overall as shown in Table B-2. The difference between the standard 

definition (based on all three programs) and the alternative definition (based on TANF and SNAP only) 

has varied over time. In 1995, over two-thirds (67.9 percent) of individuals who were dependent under 

the standard definition also were dependent under the alternative definition shown in this appendix. By 

2012, the proportion had dropped to 58.8 percent. 
B-2

Table B-1. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various 

Means-Tested Assistance Programs by Selected Characteristics: 2012

TANF, SSI & SNAP TANF & SNAP SSI Only

All Persons 5.1 3.0 1.5 

Racial/Ethnic Categories

Non-Hispanic White 3.1 1.8 1.0 

Non-Hispanic Black 12.0 6.7 3.6 

Hispanic 7.4 4.7 1.8 

Age Categories

Children ages 0-5 9.6 7.0 1.4 

Children ages 6-10 8.3 5.4 1.5 

Children ages 11-15 7.1 4.7 1.2 

Women ages 16-64 5.5 3.2 1.7 

Men ages 16-64 3.7 1.9 1.3 

Adults ages 65 and over 2.5 0.5 1.6 

Family Categories

Persons in married families 1.8 1.0 0.4 

Persons in female-headed families 15.8 10.0 3.6 

Persons in male-headed (no spouse) families 5.8 2.6 2.1 

Unrelated persons 6.9 3.5 3.2 

Note: Income is measured as total family income. 

Persons of Hispanic ethnicity may be of any race. Beginning in 2002, estimates for Whites and Blacks are for persons reporting a single race only. 

Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for all persons but are not shown under any race category. Due to small sample 

size, American Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the total for all persons but are not shown 

separately.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.

Table B-2. Percentage of the Total Population with More than 50 Percent of Income from Various 

Means-Tested Assistance Programs: 1995-2012

TANF, SSI & SNAP TANF & SNAP SSI Only

1995 5.3 3.6 1.1

1998 3.8 2.1 1.3

1999 3.3 1.7 1.2

2000 3.0 1.5 1.2

2001 3.1 1.4 1.3

2002 3.2 1.5 1.3

2003 3.6 1.9 1.3

2004 3.7 2.0 1.3

2005 3.8 2.1 1.4

2006 3.7 1.9 1.4

2007 3.5 1.8 1.3

2008 4.0 2.1 1.4

2009 4.6 2.7 1.4

2010 5.3 3.2 1.4

2011 5.2 3.2 1.4

2012 5.1 3.0 1.5

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1996-2012, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model.
B-3
Appendix C

Additional Nonmarital Birth Data
C-1

Appendix C. Additional Nonmarital Birth Data

Table C-1. Percentage of Births to Unmarried Women within Age Groups by Race and Ethnicity:

Selected Years 1940-2012

White Black1 Hispanic2

Total Age Age Total Total Age Age Total Total Age Age Total

Teens 315 - 17 18 - 19 Women Teens 15 - 17 18 - 19 Women Teens 15 - 17 18 - 19 Women

1940 7 – – 2 36 – – 17 – – – – 

1945 10 – – 2 41 – – 18 – – – – 

1950 6 10 5 2 37 48 28 18 – – – – 

1955 7 10 5 2 42 52 33 20 – – – – 

1960 7 12 5 2 43 54 34 22 – – – – 

1965 12 17 9 4 51 63 39 26 – – – – 

1970 17 25 14 6 64 76 52 38 – – – – 

1975 23 33 17 7 78 87 68 49 – – – – 

1980 34 45 27 11 86 93 80 56 42 51 36 24 

1985 45 58 38 15 91 96 86 61 – 61 46 30 

1990 57 68 51 20 92 96 89 67 62 68 54 37 

1991 59 70 53 22 93 96 90 68 64 69 56 38 

1992 61 71 55 23 93 96 90 68 65 69 57 39 

1993 63 72 57 24 93 96 91 69 66 69 58 40 

1994 68 78 62 25 95 98 93 70 73 77 65 43 

1995 68 77 62 25 95 98 93 70 71 75 62 41 

1996 69 79 63 26 96 98 94 70 71 75 63 41 

1997 71 82 65 26 96 98 94 69 76 80 66 41 

1998 72 83 67 26 96 98 94 69 77 82 67 42 

1999 73 83 67 27 96 98 94 69 76 82 67 42 

2000 73 83 68 27 96 98 94 69 76 82 67 43 

2001 73 83 68 28 96 99 94 68 75 81 67 42 

2002 75 85 70 28 96 99 94 68 77 83 69 44 

2003 77 86 72 29 96 99 95 68 80 85 71 45 

2004 78 87 74 31 96 99 95 69 81 86 73 46

2005 79 88 75 32 96 99 95 69 83 87 75 48

2006 80 89 76 33 97 99 95 70 84 89 76 50

2007 82 90 78 35 97 99 96 71 86 90 78 51

2008 83 92 79 36 97 99 96 72 88 92 80 53

2009 84 92 80 36 97 99 96 72 89 94 81 53

2010 85 94 81 36 97 99 97 72 87 94 82 53

2011 85 94 82 36 97 99 97 72 87 94 83 53

2012 85 94 82 36 97 99 96 72 87 94 84 53

Note: Trends in non-marital births may be affected by changes in the reporting of marital status on birth certificates and in procedures for inferring nonmarital births when marital status is not reported. In particular, the increases from 1993 to 1994 to a great extent reflect improvements in the 

completeness of reporting of nonmarital births in two states, Michigan and Texas. 

1 From 1940 to 1965, the percentage of births to unmarried Black women (shown in italics) includes all unmarried Non-white. 

2 Persons of Hispanic origin may be of any race. Data for Hispanics have been available only since 1980, with 22 states reporting in 1980, 

representing 90 percent of the Hispanic population. Hispanic birth data were reported by 23 states and the District of Columbia in 1985; 48 states and 

the District of Columbia in 1990; 49 states and the District of Columbia in 1991 and 1992; and all 50 states and the District of Columbia since 1993.

3 Teens under 15 included in Total Teens but not shown separately.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births of Hispanic Parentage, 1980,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 32, No. 6 Supplement; “Births 

of Hispanic Parentage, 1985,” Monthly Vital Statistics Report, Vol. 36, No. 11 Supplement; “Nonmarital Childbearing in the United States, 1940 - 1999,” 

National Vital Health Statistics Reports, Vol. 48 (16); “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), and earlier reports. 

Additional calculations by ASPE staff.
C-2

Table C-2. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by State: Selected Years 1960-2012

1960 1970 1980 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Alabama 11 14 22 30 34 34 36 42 43

Alaska 5 9 16 26 30 33 36 38 37

Arizona NA 9 19 33 38 39 43 45 46

Arkansas NA 13 20 29 33 36 40 45 45

California NA NA 21 32 32 33 36 41 40

Colorado NA 9 13 21 25 25 27 24 23

Connecticut NA NA 18 27 31 29 32 37 38

Delaware 9 15 24 29 35 38 44 47 47

Dist of Columbia 20 38 56 65 66 60 56 55 51

Florida 9 14 23 32 36 38 43 48 48

Georgia NA NA 23 33 35 37 41 46 45

Hawaii 5 10 18 25 29 32 36 38 38

Idaho NA NA 8 17 20 22 23 27 27

Illinois 6 13 23 32 34 35 37 41 40

Indiana 4 8 16 26 32 35 40 43 43

Iowa 2 7 10 21 25 28 32 34 35

Kansas 3 7 12 22 26 29 34 38 37

Kentucky 5 8 15 24 29 31 36 41 41

Louisiana 9 15 23 37 42 46 48 53 53

Maine 3 7 14 23 28 31 35 41 42

Maryland NA NA 25 30 33 35 37 42 41

Massachusetts NA NA 16 25 26 27 30 35 34

Michigan 4 11 16 26 34 33 37 42 42

Minnesota 3 8 11 21 24 26 30 33 33

Mississippi 14 17 28 40 45 46 49 55 55

Missouri 6 11 18 29 32 35 38 40 40

Montana NA NA 13 24 26 31 35 36 36

Nebraska NA 8 12 21 24 27 31 34 33

Nevada 4 11 13 25 42 36 41 44 45

New Hampshire NA 6 11 17 22 25 27 33 35

New Jersey 4 10 21 24 28 29 31 35 36

New Mexico NA NA 16 35 43 46 51 52 52

New York NA NA 24 33 38 37 39 42 41

North Carolina 9 12 19 29 31 33 38 42 41

North Dakota 3 7 9 18 24 28 32 33 32

Ohio 4 NA 18 29 33 35 39 44 44

Oklahoma NA 8 14 25 30 34 39 42 42

Oregon 3 7 15 26 29 30 33 36 35

Pennsylvania 4 10 18 29 32 33 37 42 42

Rhode Island 3 7 16 26 31 35 39 45 46

South Carolina 12 15 23 33 37 40 43 48 48

South Dakota 3 7 13 23 28 33 36 38 39

Tennessee 9 12 20 30 33 35 40 44 44

Texas 5 9 13 18 30 31 38 42 42

Utah 2 4 6 14 16 17 18 19 19

Vermont NA NA 14 20 25 28 32 39 41

Virginia 8 11 19 26 29 30 32 36 35

Washington 3 9 14 24 27 28 31 33 33

West Virginia 6 6 13 25 31 32 37 44 45

Wisconsin 3 8 14 24 27 29 32 37 37

Wyoming 2 7 8 20 26 29 33 34 34

United States 5 11 18 28 32 33 37 41 41

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013 and

earlier reports.
C-3

Table C-3. Percentage of Births that are to Unmarried Women by Race and Ethnicity and State:

1994 and 2012

Non-Hispanic

All races White Black Hispanic†

State 1994 2012 1994 2012 1994 2012 1994 2012

Alabama 35 43 16 28 71 75 19 27

Alaska 29 37 21 24 41 51 29 36

Arizona 38 46 25 31 65 65 51 57

Arkansas 33 45 20 35 74 80 31 50

California 36 40 23 24 63 68 46 53

Colorado 25 23 18 17 57 42 44 34

Connecticut 31 38 18 24 70 68 65 66

Delaware 35 47 22 36 74 72 50 63

Dist. of Columbia 69 51 10 6 81 77 59 64

Florida 36 48 24 37 69 70 34 51

Georgia 36 45 18 28 68 71 23 50

Hawaii 28 38 15 24 19 24 44 49

Idaho 19 27 17 23 42 38 25 45

Illinois 34 40 18 27 79 80 38 52

Indiana 32 43 26 37 78 79 42 53

Iowa 25 35 23 31 75 72 37 51

Kansas 26 37 21 31 67 71 39 53

Kentucky 28 41 23 38 73 75 25 52

Louisiana 43 53 21 35 73 80 30 55

Maine 28 42 28 42 45 35 23 51

Maryland 34 41 18 26 64 63 39 55

Massachusetts 27 34 19 26 63 56 62 63

Michigan 35 42 23 32 79 80 42 53

Minnesota 24 33 20 26 75 60 46 56

Mississippi 45 55 18 33 75 82 21 55

Missouri 33 40 24 33 79 77 34 52

Montana 26 36 20 30 29 53 30 48

Nebraska 25 33 20 27 74 69 39 51

Nevada 35 45 27 33 70 72 44 54

New Hampshire 22 35 21 35 33 42 37 50

New Jersey 28 36 13 19 68 69 48 60

New Mexico 42 52 23 31 60 55 49 58

New York 38 41 19 26 70 69 61 65

North Carolina 32 41 17 26 68 72 29 51

North Dakota 23 32 19 26 24 45 26 42

Ohio 33 44 25 36 78 79 50 60

Oklahoma 30 42 23 35 70 73 31 48

Oregon 29 35 27 32 72 60 35 49

Pennsylvania 33 42 23 32 80 79 63 67

Rhode Island 32 46 24 37 70 69 58 67

South Carolina 37 48 19 32 67 78 28 51

South Dakota 28 39 20 28 21 51 33 56

Tennessee 33 44 21 34 75 79 26 51

Texas 29 42 18 27 63 66 31 51

Utah 16 19 13 13 52 45 37 42

Vermont 25 41 25 41 32 35 34 44

Virginia 29 35 18 24 64 67 38 51

Washington 26 33 23 27 56 48 35 51

West Virginia 30 45 29 44 76 75 22 55

Wisconsin 27 37 20 29 82 84 46 56

Wyoming 28 34 25 29 42 54 45 52

United States 33 41 21 29 71 72 43 54

† Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013 and earlier 

reports.
C-4

Table C-4. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by State: Selected Years 1960-2012

[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

State 1960 1970 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2012

Alabama 104 90 68 64 71 69 61 48 44 39

Alaska 128 103 64 56 65 55 49 40 38 35

Arizona 112 79 65 67 76 74 68 59 42 37

Arkansas 116 93 75 73 80 72 66 59 53 46

California 103 69 53 53 71 67 47 39 32 27

Colorado 97 67 50 48 55 52 51 42 33 25

Connecticut 54 44 31 31 39 39 31 23 19 15

Delaware 100 73 51 51 55 55 48 40 31 25

Dist. of Columbia 132 116 62 72 93 85 53 42 45 39

Florida 117 86 59 58 69 60 51 42 32 28

Georgia 117 101 72 68 76 70 63 52 41 34

Hawaii 77 66 51 48 61 49 46 37 33 28

Idaho 102 66 59 47 51 49 43 36 33 28

Illinois 63 63 56 51 63 58 48 39 33 28

Indiana 100 75 57 52 59 57 49 42 37 33

Iowa 73 53 43 35 41 38 34 31 29 24

Kansas 94 65 57 52 56 52 46 40 39 34

Kentucky 108 86 72 63 68 62 55 48 46 42

Louisiana 113 84 76 72 74 70 62 47 48 43

Maine 93 65 47 42 43 34 29 24 21 19

Maryland 100 69 43 46 53 47 41 32 27 22

Massachusetts 51 40 28 29 35 33 26 20 17 14

Michigan 80 69 45 43 59 49 40 32 30 26

Minnesota 64 44 35 31 36 33 30 26 23 19

Mississippi 121 103 84 76 81 79 70 58 55 46

Missouri 99 72 58 54 63 55 49 42 37 32

Montana 97 62 48 44 48 42 37 35 35 29

Nebraska 82 54 45 40 42 38 38 33 31 27

Nevada 118 94 59 55 73 73 63 52 39 33

New Hampshire 76 55 34 32 33 30 23 18 16 14

New Jersey 58 50 35 34 41 38 32 24 20 17

New Mexico 127 79 72 73 78 74 66 61 53 48

New York 57 51 35 36 44 42 33 26 23 20

North Carolina 104 88 58 57 68 63 59 47 38 32

North Dakota 68 44 42 36 35 33 27 27 29 27

Ohio 84 65 52 50 58 53 46 38 34 30

Oklahoma 112 83 75 69 67 64 60 53 50 47

Oregon 88 58 51 43 55 50 43 33 28 24

Pennsylvania 67 53 41 40 45 41 34 29 27 24

Rhode Island 56 43 33 36 44 40 34 28 22 20

South Carolina 109 89 65 63 71 63 58 49 43 37

South Dakota 83 49 53 46 47 41 38 37 35 33

Tennessee 103 88 64 61 72 67 60 53 43 39

Texas 115 85 74 72 75 76 69 61 52 44

Utah 86 56 65 50 49 41 38 31 28 23

Vermont 74 54 39 36 34 28 23 17 18 16

Virginia 103 76 48 46 53 48 41 34 27 23

Washington 88 60 47 45 53 48 39 31 27 23

West Virginia 87 72 68 54 57 53 47 42 45 44

Wisconsin 64 46 40 39 43 38 35 30 26 22

Wyoming 112 71 79 59 56 48 42 43 39 35

United States 89 68 53 51 60 56 48 40 34 29

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Births: Final Data for 2012,” National Vital Statistics Reports, Vol. 62 (9), December 30, 2013 and earlier

reports available online at http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/nvsr.htm.
C-5

Table C-5. Birth Rates of Teens 15-19 Years by Race and Ethnicity and State: Selected Years 

[Births per 1,000 women in specified group]

All races Non-Hispanic White Non-Hispanic Black Hispanic

†

State 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012 1990 2000 2012

Alabama 71 61 39 55 49 33 106 82 49 34 107 59

Alaska 65 49 35 53 32 21 ‡ ‡ 38 ‡ 74 32

Arizona 76 68 37 51 39 21 124 79 42 123 115 52

Arkansas 80 66 46 66 56 40 132 98 63 ‡ 103 53

California 71 47 27 43 23 12 109 58 33 112 79 40

Colorado 55 51 25 39 31 16 112 84 32 111 114 48

Connecticut 39 31 15 20 15 7 108 65 25 122 90 43

Delaware 55 48 25 35 31 18 121 87 36 ‡ 103 39

Dist. of Columbia 93 53 39 11 ‡ * 123 77 55 89 80 60

Florida 69 51 28 51 37 22 138 85 44 60 59 28

Georgia 76 63 34 56 47 26 117 82 42 73 132 50

Hawaii 61 46 28 38 21 23 ‡ ‡ 26 133 99 53

Idaho 51 43 28 46 36 23 ‡ ‡ 30 119 105 51

Illinois 63 48 28 37 26 16 146 96 53 95 90 42

Indiana 59 49 33 52 42 29 124 92 53 65 95 48

Iowa 41 34 24 38 30 20 119 89 51 80 97 58

Kansas 56 46 34 49 37 28 135 89 49 86 100 64

Kentucky 68 55 42 64 52 41 116 84 48 ‡ 92 53

Louisiana 74 62 43 53 43 33 113 92 57 21 40 52

Maine 43 29 19 43 29 19 ‡ ‡ 26 ‡ ‡ ‡

Maryland 53 41 22 36 27 13 97 68 33 46 63 45

Massachusetts 35 26 14 24 16 8 94 53 23 121 87 46

Michigan 59 40 26 41 30 18 132 81 54 94 81 45

Minnesota 36 30 19 30 21 12 156 93 40 79 105 52

Mississippi 81 70 46 56 51 39 113 93 55 ‡ 52 43

Missouri 63 49 32 50 41 28 145 92 50 46 80 48

Montana 48 37 29 39 30 23 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 39

Nebraska 42 38 27 35 30 19 137 87 57 82 105 60

Nevada 73 63 33 61 42 22 133 83 47 108 110 47

New Hampshire 33 23 14 ‡ 23 13 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ 33

New Jersey 41 32 17 19 13 6 105 69 33 80 70 38

New Mexico 78 66 48 51 39 28 100 68 31 97 85 56

New York 44 33 20 25 19 12 86 55 30 82 64 36

North Carolina 68 59 32 51 43 23 107 80 42 106 146 56

North Dakota 35 27 27 29 21 19 ‡ ‡ 50 ‡ ‡ 64

Ohio 58 46 30 47 38 24 130 94 55 74 80 47

Oklahoma 67 60 47 na 51 41 na 85 56 na 97 67

Oregon 55 43 24 51 35 19 112 74 33 114 103 45

Pennsylvania 45 34 24 32 24 16 128 84 49 126 91 57

Rhode Island 44 34 20 32 22 11 137 66 31 130 92 49

South Carolina 71 58 37 54 44 29 101 79 48 67 96 52

South Dakota 47 38 33 35 27 21 ‡ ‡ 42 ‡ ‡ 66

Tennessee 72 60 39 61 50 33 122 91 52 41 120 58

Texas 75 69 44 49 41 26 117 78 44 104 104 62

Utah 49 38 23 44 31 17 ‡ 51 32 115 106 53

Vermont 34 23 16 35 24 17 ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡

Virginia 53 41 23 40 30 18 100 70 36 56 71 36

Washington 53 39 23 47 31 17 98 58 25 113 101 53

West Virginia 57 47 44 57 46 45 74 68 44 ‡ ‡ ‡

Wisconsin 43 35 22 30 24 14 177 113 59 90 98 50

Wyoming 56 42 35 51 36 30 ‡ ‡ ‡ 94 81 53

United States 60 48 29 43 33 21 116 79 44 100 87 46

† Women of Hispanic origin may be of any race.

‡

 Rates not deemed to be reliable due to small number of births or number of women in the group.

Source: National Center for Health Statistics, “Trends in Characteristics of Births by State: United States, 1990, 1995, 2000-2002,” National Vital 

Statistics Reports, Vol. 52 (19), May 2004; and National and State Patterns of Teen Births in the United States, Vol. 23 (4), August 20, 2014.
Appendix D

Technical Notes
D-1

Appendix D. Technical Notes

Age Categories

Most of the indicators in Chapter II are shown by age categories, generally children ages 0 to 15, adults 

ages 16 to 64, and adults 65 and older. Youth 16, 17 and 18 years of age are often classified with adults 

because they are considered potential members of the labor force in many labor force statistics. 

Indicators based on program administrative data (Indicator 3) and many of the risk factors presented in 

Chapter III, however, use published data that generally define “children” to include all individuals less than 

18 years of age.

Race and Ethnicity

Most of the data sources allow analysis of the indicators and predictors of welfare dependence across

several racial/ethnic categories. Where the data are available, statistics are shown for three racial/ethnic 

groups – Non-Hispanic White, Non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic. Due to small sample size, American 

Indians/Alaska Natives, Asians and Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders are included in the totals for 

all persons but are not shown under separate race categories. In some instances, however, data are 

shown for “Whites” and “Blacks,” rather than for “Non-Hispanic Whites” and “Non-Hispanic Blacks;” in 

such cases these racial categories include individuals of Hispanic Origin. Footnotes to the tables provide 

further documentation of issues related to race and ethnicity.

Estimates based on 2002 (and more recent) Current Population Survey (CPS) and Survey of Income and 

Program Participation (SIPP) data are affected by a change in the survey questionnaire that allows 

individuals to report one or more races. This change was implemented to comply with the 1997 

Standards for Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity. In 2000, the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) published guidelines for implementing these new standards. To accommodate the race 

categories under the new standards, CPS and SIPP estimates for racial/ethnic categories beginning in 

2002 are for persons who are Non-Hispanic White (and no other race), Non-Hispanic Black (and no other 

race) and Hispanic (of any race). Persons who reported more than one race are included in the total for 

all persons but are not shown under any race category.

Family Structure Categories

For the primary measure of dependency, as well as selected indicators and many of our risk factor 

measures, estimates are provided for individual persons by family structure (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, 

Indicator 2, Indicator 5, ECON 3, ECON 7, and WORK 1). For these measures, the entire population is 

subdivided into the following four groups:

 Persons in Married-Couple Families

 Persons in Female-Headed Families

 Persons in Male-Headed Families

 Unrelated Persons

Two additional measures use a subset of the above categories (see Indicator 4, and ECON 1).

Annual and Monthly Measures

There are differences between monthly and annual observation of benefit receipt. The measures of 

annual recipiency (that is, any receipt over the course of a year) shown in Figure and Table SUM 1 are 
D-2

higher than the more traditional measures of recipiency in an average month, as shown in several other 

indicators and in Appendix A. The annual recipiency measures in Figure and Table SUM 1 are not only 

higher because they include any receipt from at least one of three welfare programs (while average 

monthly administrative data focus on receipt from only one program), they also are higher because they 

capture program receipt received in as little as one month during a given year, whereas average monthly 

recipiency rates, by definition, average across all the months in a given year. 

Our key measure of dependency for the report, following the Advisory Board’s proposal, also measures 

the level of benefit receipt among AFDC/TANF, SNAP and SSI on an annual basis (see Figure and Table 

SUM1 and Indicator 1), as does our long term AFDC/TANF receipt measure (Indicator 9). These 

measures capture any benefit receipt during the year, which differs from several other “annual” indicators 

in Chapter II that present average monthly estimates for each given year (see Indicators 2, 3, 4 and 5).

The report includes several monthly longitudinal measures that analyze monthly observations for 

individuals and families across multiple years. These measures are based on the SIPP and provide 

information on the number of consecutive months receiving welfare benefits (see Indicators 7 and 8) and 

the number of consecutive months poor (see ECON 5) during multi-year time periods. 

Note that annual estimates provided throughout the report represent calendar years except where 

explicitly noted as fiscal years. Please see footnotes to each table in the report for further technical 

information and documentation of time period measurement issues.

Unit of Analysis 

The individual, rather than the family or household, is the unit of analysis for most of the statistics in this 

report. The individual’s dependency status, however, is based on total family income, taking into account 

means-tested assistance, earnings and other sources of income for all individuals in the family.29 The 

introductory chapter of this report and our dependence indicators in Chapter II, for example, show the 

percentage of individuals that are dependent (see SUM 1, Indicator 1, and Indicator 6) according to 

annual total family income (including annual total family benefit receipt). This is similar to estimates of the 

number of individuals who are poor, which are based on the characteristics and total income of the family 

in which they live (see ECON 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6).

Recipiency status also is based on total annual family benefit receipt and income in some instances; in 

SUM 1, for example, recipients are individuals in families where at least one family member receives

assistance from AFDC/TANF, SNAP or SSI at some point in the year. In most other indicators, however, 

recipiency is measured as the direct receipt of a benefit by an individual in a month (see Indicators 7 and 

8), an average month across a given year (see Indicators 2, 3, 4, and 5) or at some point within a year 

(see Indicators 6 and 9). Note that the differences between individual and family measures of recipiency 

are largest in the SSI program, which provides benefits to individuals and couples, not to families.

 

29 Family is generally defined as following the broad U.S. Census Bureau definition of family – all persons residing together that are related by birth, 

marriage, or adoption.
D-3

Spells

Spells of program recipiency (Indicator 7), spells of welfare receipt with no attachment to the labor market 

(Indicator 8) and spells of poverty (ECON 5) are limited to those spells that begin during the SIPP panel 

of observation. Spells separated by only 1 month are not considered separate spells. If an individual has 

two or more spells of dependency, receipt, or poverty, each is counted separately in the analysis.

Data Source for Dependency Measure 

Beginning with the 2001 report, there was a shift to using CPS rather than SIPP data for our main welfare 

dependency measure (as well as several other indicators and predictors of welfare recipiency and 

dependence). This change was necessary because CPS data are updated annually, while SIPP updates 

are available less frequently. 

The CPS data have been widely used to measure trends since the welfare reform legislation of 1996. 

However, because the CPS does not collect income information in the same detail as the SIPP, it has 

been subject to criticism for higher levels of underreporting of income, particularly welfare income. To 

address this concern, our measure of dependency (as well as some of the other indicators in this report) 

are based on CPS data that have been analyzed by the Transfer Income Model (TRIM3), a 

microsimulation model developed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. Although its primary purpose is to simulate program eligibility and 

the impact of policy proposals, the TRIM3 model also has been used to correct for underreporting of 

welfare receipt and benefits. Welfare caseloads in TRIM3 are based on CPS data, adjusted upward to 

ensure that total estimates of recipients equal the total counts from administrative data. To maintain 

consistency in data trends, we present estimates based on CPS data analyzed by TRIM3 beginning in 

1993, the first year the TRIM3 microsimulation model became available.

As shown in Figure D-1, the overall measures of dependency and recipiency have not been greatly 

affected by the change in data sources. Both data sources show a decline in dependence between 1996 

and 1999 and increases in dependence during the 2000s. Still, readers are cautioned against comparing 

measures for 1987-1995 from the SIPP data in the first three annual reports with the measures for 1993 

and later from the TRIM3-adjusted CPS data.
D-4

Figure D-1. Recipiency and Dependency Rates from Two Data Sources: 1987 – 2012

Note: Recipiency is defined as living in a family with receipt of any amount of AFDC/TANF, SSI or SNAP during the year. Dependency is defined as 

living in a family having more than 50 percent of annual family income from AFDC/TANF, SSI and/or SNAP. Dependency rates would be lower if 

adjusted to exclude welfare assistance associated with working. While only affecting a small number of cases, General Assistance income is included 

within AFDC/TANF income and veterans’ pension benefits are included in means-tested assistance income for SIPP-based receipt and dependency 

estimates prior to 2001.

Source: Unpublished tabulations from the Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic Supplement, 1994-2011, analyzed using the TRIM3 

microsimulation model, and unpublished tabulations from the Survey of Income and Program Participation, 1987, 1990, 1992, 1993, 1996, 2001, 2004, 

and 2008 panels.

14.9

22.5

4.7 3.8

23.6

5.1

0.0

6.0

12.0

18.0

24.0

1987 1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2009 2012

Recipiency rate (SIPP) Dependency rate (SIPP)

Recipiency rate (CPS/TRIM) Dependency rate (CPS/TRIM)

1987 

(In percent)
Appendix E

The Methodology Behind Poverty Measurement
E-1

Appendix E. The Methodology behind Poverty Measurement

How is Official Poverty Measured?

Official poverty is calculated by comparing families’ incomes to a specific dollar value, which is called a 

poverty threshold. Thresholds differ by family size, but for any particular family, values are the same for 

all 50 states. If a family’s yearly income falls below the poverty threshold then each person in the family is 

counted as poor. The official poverty measure looks only at cash income such as earnings, TANF, or 

Social Security payments. Only pre-tax income is counted against the poverty threshold. That is, taxes 

and tax credits are not considered when calculating official poverty. The 2013 official poverty threshold 

for a family of four, with two adults and two children, was $23,600.

Absolute dollar value thresholds, reflecting consumption at one point in time, were developed in 1963 and 

1964 by Mollie Orshansky, an economist in the Social Security Administration. Two tools were necessary, 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) food plans and costs and the 1955 Household Food 

Consumption Survey. USDA food plans provided the dollar amounts necessary to feed a family at a 

minimal level.30 Orshansky estimated the poverty thresholds by multiplying the cost of a minimal diet by 

three. Subsequently thresholds were adjusted for family size and composition and each year since 1964 

the threshold values have been updated for inflation.31

As a widely-used barometer, the official poverty measure offers a consistent metric by which to view 

changes in poverty over time. The official poverty measure has been criticized over the years for not 

reflecting families’ current circumstances. Some families receive government benefits but these are not 

counted by the official measure. For example, in-kind benefits such as SNAP and WIC are not counted as 

income. By this logic, poverty may be overstated. Alternatively, the official measure ignores 

nondiscretionary expenses, such as payroll and Social Security taxes, work-related expenses and 

medical care costs. Such expenses reduce the amount of income that families can use for subsistence 

needs. Thus poverty could be understated. These and related criticisms led to the development of a 

research supplemental poverty measure described in detail in the next section. 

Poverty status is based on family relationships and household residence. Therefore, for some groups 

poverty status cannot be determined. Excluded groups include foster children, and those living in college 

dormitories, institutional group quarters, or military barracks. The new supplemental poverty measure is 

inclusive of foster children and unmarried partners.

Introducing the Supplemental Poverty Measure

An alternative poverty measure emerged from decades of research by poverty scholars and government 

agencies called the Supplemental Poverty Measure, or SPM. Following many years of debate and 

discussion among experts, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) released a report in 1995 outlining 

recommendations for improving the nation’s measure of poverty.32 In the 15 years following the NAS 

report, researchers at the Census Bureau, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and elsewhere experimented 

with implementing and refining these recommendations. In 2011, the Census Bureau began formally 

releasing estimates of poverty levels under the SPM based on the results of this exploratory research, as 

well as recommendations produced under an Interagency Technical Working Group in 2010.33 2

The official poverty measure continues to serve as a benchmark for program eligibility and remains the 

official source of poverty statistics for the U.S. The SPM does not replace the official poverty measure but 

it is a critical tool for understanding the impact of the social safety net for those struggling to meet basic 

needs. 

 

30 USDA food plans were: Liberal, Moderate, Low-cost, and Economy. The economy food plan was intended for “temporary or emergency use when 

funds are low.” For detail see “The Development of the Orshansky Poverty Thresholds and Their Subsequent History as the Official U.S. Poverty 

Measure” by Gordon M. Fisher. 1992.

31 The poverty thresholds were calculated separately for farm and non-farm families until 1980.

32 Citro, Constance F.and Robert T. Michael. (Eds.) 1995. Measuring Poverty: A New Approach. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

33 U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Observations from the Interagency Technical Working Group on Developing a Supplemental Poverty Measure. 

Available at www.census.gov/hhes/povmeas/