State Policies on Immigrant Eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Released: 2004-04-23T00:00:00

Background

Introduction

Immigrant eligibility for major public assistance programs is an ongoing issue in Congress. (1) Prior to 1996, legal permanent residents (LPRs) were eligible for federal public assistance underterms comparable to citizens, and states were not permitted to restrict access to federal programs onthe basis of immigration status. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity ReconciliationAct of 1996 ( P.L. 104-193 ) -- the original law authorizing the Temporary Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) program -- dramatically changed noncitizen eligibility for public assistance. Itrestricted the eligibility of LPRs, refugees, asylees, and other noncitizens for means-tested public aid. These provisions ranged from categorical eligibility bars to new rules governing aliens with sponsorsand their sponsors' responsibilities. (2) Aliens in theUnited States without authorization, commonlyreferred to as "illegal aliens," remained ineligible federal public assistance.

Although the federal government retains exclusive responsibility for immigration policy, federal law now permits states to differentiate among types of noncitizens when setting welfare policy. The1996 welfare reform act gave states several options of placing further restrictions on noncitizeneligibility. It also gave them options of expanding benefits to noncitizens. (3) As Congress considersthe reauthorization of the welfare reform law, the issue of state options to restrict or expandassistance to noncitzens arises.

After outlining the options states have to cover noncitzens under TANF and presenting data on the number of LPRs in each state, this report studies whether and which states have exercised theseoptions regarding noncitizen eligibility for TANF. It investigates how states are funding theassistance provided to noncitizens, and also analyzes TANF receipt by state.

Current Federal Eligibility Policy

Under current law, noncitizens' eligibility for TANF largely depends on their immigration status and whether they arrived (or were on a program's rolls) before August 22, 1996, the enactmentdate of P.L. 104-193 . The TANF eligibility policies laid out by the 1996 welfare reform act remainessentially unchanged for noncitizens entering after its enactment. The basic federal rules are asfollows: (4)

LPRs who entered the United States after August 22, 1996, are barred from TANF for five years, after which their coverage becomes a state option. (5)

LPRs with a substantial work history -- generally 10 years (40 quarters) ofwork documented by Social Security or other employment records -- or a military connection (activeduty military personnel, veterans, and their families) are eligible for TANF.

Refugees and asylees are eligible for TANF for five years after entering theUnited States. (6) After this five-year term, refugeesand asylees may be eligible, at state option, forTANF. (7)

Nonimmigrants (e.g., temporary alien residents) and unauthorized aliens (i.e., illegal aliens) are barred from TANF, as they were barred from its predecessor, Aid for Families with DependentChildren.

Legal Permanent Residents by State

The state residential patterns of the almost 14.5 million aliens who became LPRs in the United States from FY1988 through FY2002 provide a gauge of the relative effect of these policies acrossthe states. Although a substantial number of people who are currently LPRs came to the UnitedStates before 1988, many others who came prior to 1988 have become U.S. citizens. All LPRs areeligible to become citizens through the naturalization process after they have lived here for five yearsas LPRs (three years in the case of spouses of U.S. citizens). (8) Estimates of the naturalization raterange from 30% to 49%, and the median number of years between becoming an LPR andnaturalizing as a U.S. citizen varies from eight to 10 years (for those who opt to naturalize). (9)

Immigrants are concentrated in several states; indeed over half of all new LPRs from FY1988 through FY2002 indicated that they intended to live in just three states: California, New York, andTexas. (10) As Table 1 presents,California dominates with 4,561,693 new LPRs, which is 31.5% ofall new LPRs during this period. New York follows with 2,001,439 new LPRs (13.8%). Interestingly, both California and New York had a slightly smaller percentage of all new LPRsduring the 1997-2002 period (26.1% and 12.8%, respectively) than during 1988-1996 period (34.4%and 14.3%, respectively), suggesting a somewhat wider dispersion of new LPRs to other states. Almost 80% of all new LPRs reported their intended state of residence in one of 10 states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington,and Maryland. The only other states with more than 1% of all new LPRs reporting intendedresidence are: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia, Connecticut, and Ohio.

Table 1. Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) Admitted FY1988-FY2002 by State of Intended Residence

Source: CRS analysis of Department of Homeland Security, Office of Immigration Statistics data.

The LPR data in Table 1 has several limitations, the most obvious being that "intended residence" does not take into account people who subsequently move. The data also, as notedearlier, do not include LPRs who arrived before 1988 and do not exclude LPRs who have sincebecome U.S. citizens.

State Policies and Funding

Options Under TANF

States may permit or prohibit participation by LPRs who entered the United States before enactment of the welfare law (August 22, 1996) from TANF. LPRs entering the United States afterAugust 22, 1996, are barred for five years from all benefits under TANF, food stamps, Medicaid(except emergency medical assistance), and the Social Services block grant. LPRs ineligible forTANF, however, may receive state-funded benefits if they meet other program requirements. Afterfive years, the decision as to whether LPRs may participate in TANF (as well as Medicaid and theSocial Services block grant) rests with the states. Many states, as discussed below, offer publicassistance to LPRs not eligible for federally financed benefits.

The five-year bar discussed previously does not apply to refugees and asylees. Refugees and asylees who meet the other program criteria are eligible for TANF benefits for five years. After thisperiod of time, refugees and asylees are eligible for TANF at state option, provided they areotherwise eligible for TANF.

State Policies in 2000 and 2002

During the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) conducted the State Noncitizen Eligibility Survey (SNES), a two-phase survey of state eligibilitypolicies on noncitizen eligibility for public assistance as of December 2000 and December 2002. CRS sent questionnaires to state officials responsible for TANF in all 50 states and outlying areas. The nine states and four outlying areas that did not respond to the TANF portion of SNES areindicated in the following tables as "NR" for no response. If a state official responded to the survey,but did not answer a particular question on the survey, it is noted as "skip." (11)

As of December 2002, 34 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they were exercising the option to provide TANF to LPRs after the five-year bar ends. Thirty-five states and Washington,D.C. reported that they have exercised the option to provide TANF to LPRs present in the UnitedStates before August 1996. Table 2 summarizes two major options that states may exercise onLPReligibility for TANF and whether they opted for these policies in 2000 and 2002. As Table 2 indicates, there was no noteworthy change in state policies from 2000 to 2002.

Table 2. Summary of State Policies on LPR Eligibility for TANF: 2000 and 2002

Source: CRS analysis of the State Noncitizen Eligibility Survey (SNES), Jan. 2003.

As Table 3 indicates, 34 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they provide TANF to asylees and refugees who were residing in the United States at the time of the welfare reform act'spassage in 1996. Only 27 states and Washington, D.C., however, reported that they provide TANFto asylees and refugees who have surpassed the five-year limit for TANF and two reported that theydid not. It is important to note that several states skipped this question on the survey. Only WestVirginia reported a change in policy of providing TANF in 2000 but not in 2002 to asylees andrefugees who were residing in the United States at the time of the welfare reform act's passage.

Table 3. Summary of State Policies on Asylee and RefugeeEligibility for TANF: 2000 and 2002

Source: CRS analysis of the State Noncitizen Eligibility Survey (SNES), Jan. 2003.

Funding Sources for Noncitizens

A total of 27 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they used their own funds as well as federal funds in 2000 and 2002 to cover the costs of providing TANF to those LPRs who were in theUnited States prior to the passage of the 1996 welfare reform act. Twenty-six states and the U.S.Virgin Islands reported that they used their own funds as well as federal funds in 2000 and 2002 tocover the costs of providing TANF to those LPRs who were excluded (e.g., barred first five yearsin U.S.) or whose eligibility had expired (e.g., refugees after five years in U.S.). Presumably, thoseLPRs barred from federal TANF (e.g., first five years in the U.S.) were covered by state funds, andfederal funds were used to cover those LPRs whom the states had the option to cover federally (e.g.,refugees after five years in U.S.). As Table 4 indicates only 22 states reported that they optedtoprovide TANF to those LPRs in the United States prior to the passage of the 1996 welfare reformact as well as those LPRs who were excluded or whose eligibility had expired.

Table 4. Use of State and Federal Funding for Optional TANF Assistance to Noncitizens by State, 2000 and 2002

Source: CRS analysis of the State Noncitizen Eligibility Survey (SNES), Jan. 2003.

An important source of funding for state assistance to noncitizens comes from the "maintenance of effort" (MOE) requirement. MOE refers to the amount of the state's own money it must spendto comply with the TANF requirement that the states must continue to spend at least 75% of the totalthey spent in 1994 for the specific programs that were folded into the TANF block grant. Nationally,the MOE funds total $10.4 billion, as compared to $16.5 billion in TANF grants. Among the varietyof authorized uses for MOE funds are expenditures for persons ineligible for TANF because of thecitizenship and immigrant rules. (12)

As of December 2002, 17 states reported using their state MOE money to provide public assistance to newly arriving LPRs who are barred from federal TANF for the first five years, as listedin Table 5 . Six states reported using their state MOE money in 2002 to provide TANF to LPRswhohad exhausted their eligibility or were currently barred: California, Colorado, Florida, New York,Utah, and Washington. Eight states reported contributing their state MOE money in 2002 to aseparate program for those LPRs who were excluded (e.g., barred first five years) or whose eligibilityhad expired (e.g., refugees after five years): California, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Pennsylvania,Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Table 5. State Use of MOE Funds in 2002 to Assist Noncitizens During Periods of Federal Ineligibility and Optional State Eligibility

Source: CRS analysis of the State Noncitizen Eligibility Survey (SNES), Jan. 2003.

Noncitizen Receipt of TANF

Trends Over Time

As an annual percentage of total adult TANF recipients, noncitizens who received Aid for Families with Dependent Children (the predecessor of TANF) rose from 7.0% in FY1989 to 12.3%in FY1996. The percent of noncitizen adults receiving TANF dropped slightly to 11.7% in 1999 andultimately fell to 8.0% in 2001, the most recent year data are available. That many states haveexercised one or more options to extend coverage to certain classes of LPRs has mitigated the effectsof the federal bars enacted in 1996. This trend in receipt of TANF, which does not includenoncitizens assisted by the separate state programs noted above , is illustrated in Figure 1 .

Trends by State

California tops the list of states, with 16.9% of its 278,069 TANF recipients who were noncitizens in 2001, as Table 6 presents. Calculated in terms of percentage of all adultnoncitizensreceiving TANF, Californians comprised 41.8% of adult noncitizens in the United States on TANFin 2001. New York followed California with 12.3% of its 189,299 recipients who were adultnoncitizens or 20.7% of noncitizens in the United States on TANF. Texas and Minnesota weredistant third and fourth places with 7.4% and 5.2% respectively of adult noncitizens in the UnitedStates on TANF, with 8.9% and 16.8% of their states' caseload respectively who were noncitizens. Data presented in Table 6 do not include noncitizens assisted by the separate state programs inCalifornia, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Table 6. Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients Who Are Noncitizens by State, FY2001

Source: CRS presentation of data from National TANF Datafile as of May 15, 2002.

Generally, states with larger shares of LPRs were more likely to have expanded state-level TANF policies for noncitizens as well as have a greater percentage of their caseload who werenoncitizens. There were, however, some exceptions as noted above. The level of immigrantenrollment in assistance programs is affected by the restrictions imposed under the 1996 welfarereform law, by states' choices to extend or deny coverage when given the option and, to somedegree, by individuals' perception of their eligibility status and their election to participate or not. Among the public at large, confusion remains over what classes of noncitizens are eligible for whichprograms, in part because the 1996 welfare law used the phrase "qualified alien" -- not a term inimmigration law -- that encompasses a variety of classes of noncitizens who must meet additionalspecified conditions. Moreover, despite narrowly drawn regulations from the former Immigrationand Naturalization Service (now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Departmentof Homeland Security) on what constitutes "public charge," many believe that receiving publicbenefits may adversely affect a noncitizen's immigration status or potential to sponsor immigrationpetitions for family members. These factors may be inhibiting participation among eligibleimmigrants.