How has the TANF Caseload Changed Over Time?

1 Brie f# Has the TANf Caseload Changed over Time? Pamela J. Loprest The national Caseload declined by 50 percent between 1997 and 2011, but specific state Caseload reductions ranged from 25 to 80 percent. The TANF take-up rate (the percentage of eligible families receiving assistance) has declined continuously since 1996, dropping to a low of 36 percent in 2007. Nonassistance expenditures such as emergency payments, child care, transporta-tion and other support services accounted for 70 percent of TANF funds in 2009,but recipients of these supports are not counted in the TANF Caseload . over half of TANF cases are now child only, meaning adults in the household are not receiving assistance because they are ineligible or not the child s Assistance for NeedyFamilies (TANF) caseloads haveplummeted since the program wasenacted in brief summa-rizes changes to the Caseload during thisperiod of decline and explores factors thathave contributed to Caseload the demographic characteristicsof adults receiving benefits have been similar over time , the Caseload has shifted,with the percentage of child-only cases rising to about 50percent, while the percentage of single-parent and two-parentcases has such as the economy and theearned income tax credit (EITC)

2 Played a keyrole in Caseload decline, but TANF policy hashad a substantial impact. Specific TANF policies such as financial incentives, sanctions,and time limits help explain changes in case-load exits and entries and overall Caseload in state TANF policies and otherstate characteristics contribute to wide differ-ences in program outcomes across the TANF case-loads remain low, even in arecession, weneed moreresearch on whyfewer eligiblefamilies aretaking up TANF benefits than didso Assistance for Needy familiesProgram researchSynthesis brief Series

3 How Has the TANf Caseload Changed over time ? 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 Number of families (in millions) 01234560 1 2 3 4 5 6 TANF Passage DRA Passage AFDC/TANF Enrollment figure 1. families receiving TANf, 1979 2011 Sources: Administration for Children and Families (TANF/SSP/AFDC enrollment), National Bureau of Economic Research (recessions).

4 What is the Size and Shape of the Caseload ? In an average month in 1997, million families ( million individuals) were receiving TANF. This number had fallen to million by 2011, a decline of 50 percent (figure 1).2 The steepest enrollment decline happened in the first five years of the pro gram, with gradual declines continuing until the recent recession began in 2007. The number of families increased during the recent recession, from million at the beginning of the recession in December 2007 to a peak of million in December 2010, an increase of 17 percent. The national Caseload remains lower than it was in 2005 before the recession. State Caseloads Vary TANF caseloads have declined steeply in most states (table 1), but state experiences vary.

5 Five states have seen Caseload reduc tions of less than 25 percent,3 while other states including Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, and Wyoming have had case load declines of over 80 percent. The national Caseload has become increasingly concentrated in several states. In 2010, California accounted for 30 percent of all TANF cases and New York and Ohio another 8 and 5 percent, respectively. Variation in state Caseload declines may stem from a range of factors, including differences in state TANF policies and other state policies, and from differences in state economies. The flexibility of the TANF program allows states to set different policies that in turn can increase or decrease participation. Other state policies such as more generous housing assistance or state earned income credits can also influence TANF participation.

6 Stronger economies make work a more feasible alter native to TANF. Participation rates Have Declined TANF Caseload decline can be attributed both to more families leaving TANF and to fewer eligible families participating. The take up rate gauges the number of families receiving TANF assistance relative to the number eligible for benefits. This rate has declined from a high of 86 percent in 1992 to 79 percent in 1996 to 36 percent in 2007, the most recent year While boom economic times in the late 1990s may have reduced eligibility, take up rates among eli gibles declined even during this period and continued to decline. A similar decreasing trend has occurred in the percentage of poor families with children receiving The steep decline in program participation sug gests that many families are choosing not to receive TANF assistance, do not know they are eligible, find it difficult to enroll, or are being otherwise diverted.

7 Nonassistance and State Actions Affect the Caseload Counts TANF Caseload data count only the number of individuals receiving TANF cash assis tance. States also fund other services and supports through TANF, technically called nonassistance, and recipients of these are not counted as part of the TANF Caseload . Nonassistance includes support services to low income employed families such as child care and transportation assistance, work subsidies paid to employers, and employment services for families not receiv ing cash assistance. Nonassistance funds can also be used for other programs that help low income families, such as state EITC and state child welfare services. TANF diversion payment programs are another form of nonassistance.

8 These pro grams provide applicants eligible for TANF lump sum payments, typically worth one to four months of regular benefits, in lieu of enrolling them in TANF cash assistance. Diversion programs aim to keep families 2. How Has the TANf Caseload Changed over time ?

9 Table 1. Change in families receiving TANf, 1997 2010 fY 2010 Caseload % change from fY 1997 fY 2010 Caseload % change from fY 1997 Alabama 21,221 Montana 3,752 Alaska 3,305 Nebraska 8,661 Arizona 32,473 Nevada 10,271 Arkansas 8,547 New Hampshire 6,173 California 576,150 New Jersey 33,471 Colorado 11,521 New Mexico 19,797 Connecticut 17,268 New York 155,530 Delaware 5,157 North Carolina 24,471 Dist. of Columbia 8,745 North Dakota 2,035 Florida 58,267 Ohio 103,030 Georgia 20,572 Oklahoma 9,420 Hawaii 9,725 Oregon 30,207 Idaho 1,731 Pennsylvania 51,883 Illinois 22,188 Rhode Island 7,445 Indiana 36,214 South Carolina 18,481 Iowa 21,570 South Dakota 3,231 Kansas 14,588 Tennessee 62,253 Kentucky 30,209 Texas 50,618 Louisiana 10,593 Utah 6,817 Maine 14,778 Vermont 3,163 Maryland 24,543 Virginia 37,163 Massachusetts 53,914 Washington 69,125 Michigan 68,233 West Virginia 9,737 Minnesota 23,837 Wisconsin 21,982 Mississippi 12,092 Wyoming 327 Missouri 38,902 Total 1,910,680 Source: Families Receiving TANF from Administration for Children and Families.

10 With specific short term cash needs ( , cash to repair a car or pay the rent to fore stall eviction) from entering the TANF cash assistance program. In 2010, 34 states had formal diversion payment In most states, families that receive the diver sion payment are ineligible to receive TANF cash assistance for a set number of months. Nonassistance has grown dramatically as a percentage of TANF spending. The share of program funds going to nonassistance has risen from 27 percent in 1997 to 70 percent in 2009. 7 Changes in the TANF Caseload reflect only the number of households receiving cash assistance and do not take into account the number of people receiving nonassistance. States report the amount of funds spent on nonassistance activities but not the number of recipients receiving nonassistance benefits and services.