CRS Reviews Current State of Welfare Policy

It is almost 15 years since repeal of what was the nation's major cash welfare program assisting low-income families with children, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and its replacement with a block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This report focuses on trends in the economic well-being of female-headed families with children, the principal group affected by the replacement of AFDC with TANF. Female-headed families and their children are especially at risk of poverty, and children in such families account for well over half of all poor children in the United States. For these reasons, single female-headed families continue to be of particular concern to policymakers. The report details trends in income and poverty status of these families, prior and subsequent to enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law and other policy changes. The report focuses especially on welfare dependency and work engagement among single mothers, a major dynamic that welfare reform and accompanying policy changes have attempted to affect. It also examines the role of programs other than TANF in providing support to single female-headed families with children.

CRS analysis of 23 years of U.S. Census Bureau data shows that there has been a dramatic transformation with regard to welfare, work, and poverty status of single mothers. The period has seen a marked structural change in the provision of benefits under a number of programs that contribute to the fabric of the nation's "income safety net." In turn, single mothers' behavior has changed markedly over the period; more mothers are working and fewer are relying on cash welfare to support themselves and their children.

In the years immediately preceding 1996 welfare reform, and in the years since, the nation's income safety net has been transformed into one supporting work. Cash-welfare work requirements, the end of cash welfare as an open-ended entitlement by limiting the duration that individuals may receive federally funded benefits, and expanded earnings and family income supplements administered through the federal income tax system have helped to change the dynamics between work and welfare. The transformed system has helped to both reduce single mothers' reliance on traditional cash welfare and reduce poverty among their children.

Poverty under the official U.S. poverty measure, which is based on pre-tax cash income, shows that since 2000, which marked an historical low, the poverty rate among single mothers has increased in step with two recessions. In 2009, the official poverty rate for single mothers, at a post-2000 high, was still below pre-1996 welfare reform levels despite two recessions. Using a more comprehensive income definition than that used by the official poverty measure indicates that poverty among single mothers and their children in 2009, rather than having increased since 2000, was at or near a 23-year low when Food Stamp/SNAP benefits and work-related refundable tax credits are taken into account. These programs' anti-poverty effects go unnoticed under the official U.S. measure. Congressional action in response to the recession, which increased SNAP benefits and extended the reach of refundable tax credits, contributed to a decline in poverty among single mothers and their children. Use of an expanded income poverty measure highlights effects of congressional action that helped reduce child poverty amidst the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression. Some of the provisions that helped to reduce child poverty are due to expire at the end of 2012.

The role of work-conditioned benefits, and the provision of traditional cash welfare, will likely come under increased attention given the slow pace of economic recovery, the federal and state budget deficits, and a dearth of jobs.

                            Contents

It is almost 15 years since repeal of what was the nation's major cash welfare program assisting low-income families with children, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, and its replacement with a block grant of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). This report focuses on trends in the economic well-being of female-headed families with children, the principal group affected by the replacement of AFDC with TANF. Female-headed families and their children are especially at risk of poverty, and children in such families account for well over half of all poor children in the United States. For these reasons, single female-headed families continue to be of particular concern to policymakers. The report details trends in income and poverty status of these families, prior and subsequent to enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law and other policy changes. The report focuses especially on welfare dependency and work engagement among single mothers, a major dynamic that welfare reform and accompanying policy changes have attempted to affect. It also examines the role of programs other than TANF in providing support to single female-headed families with children.

Since at least the first White House Conference on Children in 1909 (Conference on the Care of Dependent Children), and the subsequent creation of the Children's Bureau in 1912, the federal government has been concerned with the social conditions of children. The Conference was an impetus for states' enactment of state or locally financed mothers' pensions (also referred to as widows' pensions and/or mothers' aid), which provided minimal cash support to mothers made destitute, usually due to a husband's death. Mothers' aid was intended to help keep the mother at home to care for her children, as an alternative to institutionalization or adoption. As part of the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program introduced federal involvement in helping provide financial aid, or "public assistance," to aid dependent children, basically as a supplement to states' mothers' pension programs. Federal involvement in attempting to address the problem of child poverty associated with the loss of parental support grew over the next 61 years, at which point the AFDC program, formerly named ADC, was repealed and replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF).

Two dominant, often conflicting, themes have pervaded public discourse and policy responses to providing public assistance to poor families with children. One has been to help improve the economic and social well-being of children who, through no fault of their own, live in poor circumstances. The other has been reducing welfare dependency. A persistent challenge has been how public policy and programs can address the first theme of reducing child poverty without undermining the second by encouraging welfare dependency. A major goal of social policy over at least the past 45 years, since passage of the 1967 Social Security Act welfare amendments, has been to reduce welfare dependency and, as a consequence, child poverty, by encouraging work. This report focuses on the results of efforts to attain these goals, focusing on female-headed families with children.

CRS analysis of 23 years of U.S. Census Bureau data¹ presented in this report shows a dramatic transformation in single mothers' welfare, work, and poverty status over the period. The period examined encompasses a fundamental transformation in the provision of income support through cash welfare to a system promoting and supplementing work. The period has been marked by three recessions, one in the pre-welfare reform era (1990-1991), and two after (2001; 2007-2009); the latter was so severe that it has come to be identified by many as "The Great Recession."² Policy interventions to both stimulate the economy and protect those most vulnerable in response to the most recent recession are examined in the context of their effects on families headed by single mothers. The 23-year period examined provides for a range of insights about social programs' and policies' effects, under varying economic conditions, on families headed by single mothers -- a group at considerable risk of poverty.³

A Road Map

The body of the report begins with a brief discussion as to why female-headed families with children are a focus of policy concern. Most directly, children living in such families are many times more likely to be poor than children in married-couple families. Moreover, the families in which they reside are especially likely to depend on public assistance (i.e., welfare) for at least part of their financial support.

The dual goals of reducing child poverty and breaking the bonds of welfare dependency have proven to be an enduring, and often vexing, policy challenge. The report briefly describes the policy landscape prior to 1996 welfare reform and policy changes that have occurred since -- especially those that were undertaken in response to the recent recession. A brief, 100-year historical perspective as to how past policy efforts attempted to address the dual problems of child poverty and welfare dependency is presented in Appendix A.

The report then turns to an empirical analysis of trends in single mothers' work, welfare, and poverty status over the 23-year period from 1987 to 2009. Trends in the incidence of poverty and cash welfare receipt and work among single mothers are presented, as are trends in the cash welfare receipt (ADC, AFDC, and TANF) and other selected benefits. Particular attention is paid to the role of selected income sources on poverty reduction among single-mother families, overall and by whether or not mothers worked during the year. Some sources of income are not included in the "official" U.S. poverty measure, which is based on pre-tax cash income. The analysis shows that the inclusion of other income sources not included in the official measure, such as Food Stamp or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits and refundable federal income tax credits, have a significant effect on poverty reduction among single mothers and their children. The inclusion of such benefits yields a very different picture as to the apparent trend in poverty, especially when viewed in the context of the most recent recession.

A final section of the report offers a concluding discussion. It highlights the transformation from income safety net to work-conditioned support, and cash welfare's resulting residual safety net role. It assesses the effectiveness of income safety net programs in reducing poverty among female-headed families, especially in the context of the recent recession and selected congressional action.

The report contains three appendices. Appendix A provides a brief history of the AFDC program -- the precursor to TANF. Appendix B examines under-reporting of cash welfare on the CPS/ASEC relative to administrative benchmarks. Appendix C provides data underlying the figures presented in the body of the report.

Female-Headed Families with Children -- A Policy Concern

Two dominant, often conflicting, themes have pervaded public discourse and policy responses to providing public assistance to poor families with children. One has been to help improve the economic and social well-being of children who, through no fault of their own, live in poor circumstances. The other has been to reduce welfare dependency and to promote parental responsibility and family self sufficiency. A persistent challenge has been how public policy and programs can address the first theme of reducing child poverty without undermining the second by encouraging welfare dependency.

Children living in families headed by single mothers with no spouse present are especially at risk of being poor. In 2009, under the official U.S. poverty measure,⁴ about one-fifth of all children were poor (20.5%), but among children living in single-mother families, over two-fifths (43.4%) were poor, compared to about one-in-nine children (10.9%) living in married-couple families (See Figure 1).⁵ In 2009, one-in-four children (25.2%) lived in female-headed families, but children in such families accounted for over half (53.5%) of all poor children (see bottom panel of Figure 1). About one-in-nine children (11.7%) live in families headed by single mothers who have never been married; over half of all such children were poor in 2009 (51.8%), and they accounted for three children out of 10 (29.5%) who were poor.

 

Figure 1. Children's Poverty Status by Family Living Arrangement,

 

2009

 

 

 

 

Share of Children by Family Living Arrangements

 

 

 

Figure 2 shows the number of recipients (total, children, and adults) and cases (families, and child-only cases) receiving cash assistance under AFDC (ADC, prior to 1962) from 1960 to 1994, the eve of the 1996 welfare reform debate. The AFDC caseload was comprised almost entirely of women with no husband present and their children.

 

Figure 2. Number of Recipients and Cases Receiving Assistance

 

Under AFDC, 1960 to 1994

 

 

(Annual monthly average, in millions)

 

 

 

The surge in recipients and cases over the course of the 1960s reflects a variety of factors, including the baby boom generation entering adulthood; an increase in the number and share of children living in female-headed families with a high likelihood of being poor; a rediscovery of poverty in the United States and resultant efforts to address its causes and consequences; and outreach efforts by government and organizations to aid the poor by helping to ensure that they were treated fairly and received benefits to which they were entitled. Additionally, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, U.S. Supreme Court rulings overturned a number of state practices that had denied providing assistance to entitled individuals. Thus, AFDC caseload growth over the period reflected both a growth in the number of persons legally entitled to receive benefits and also an increasing likelihood that legally entitled individuals would be granted benefits. From 1966 to 1971, the number of AFDC recipients would more than double, from 4.5 million to 10.2 million persons. By one estimate, by 1971 90% of families eligible to receive AFDC were participating in the program, compared to only about 33% in the early 1960s.⁶ As the AFDC caseload was increasing, Congress began taking action in an attempt to restrict its growth. Among its provisions, amendments to the Social Security Act in 1967 sought to restrict AFDC caseload growth through the establishment of work and training requirements for adult recipients, and an effort to freeze federal matching payments to states with additional caseload growth attributable to cases with an absent parent (i.e., other than widows, or disabled parents). (See Appendix A for brief history of the AFDC program.)

Policy Landscape on the Eve of 1996 Welfare Reform

A variety of welfare reforms were already beginning to be implemented by states in the years preceding the more sweeping reforms that would be allowed under the 1996 welfare reform law. The Family Support Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-485) extended work requirements (which could include work preparation activities such as education and training) for mothers with a child as young as six to mothers with a child as young as three and, at a state's option, extended work requirements to mothers with a child as young as age one. A number of states experimented with changes to welfare policy under waiver authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).⁷Among the features of state programs tested under waiver authority were efforts to strengthen work requirements, experiments requiring a "work first" approach rather than "training first, followed by work," time limits, strengthened sanctions for noncompliance with welfare rules, and capping of welfare benefits for a new baby conceived or born while a mother was receiving welfare. In addition, eligibility and funding for child care was expanded, helping to make work possible for mothers who otherwise might have difficulty finding affordable child care. The Family Support Act expanded eligibility for child care assistance in the form of transitional child care assistance for families working their way off AFDC, as well as for families "at risk" of qualifying for AFDC. In 1990, federally funded child care assistance was extended to low-income families generally, not just those receiving or at risk of receiving welfare, under the Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG).

The number of cases and persons receiving AFDC remained relatively level during the 1970s and most of the 1980s, but it began to rise again in 1989 just prior to the onset of an eight-month long economic recession that was marked as beginning in July 1990⁸ (see Figure 2, above). From 1988 to 1994, the number of persons receiving AFDC would increase by 30% -- a much larger increase than might be expected from the recession alone.⁹ The caseload increase contributed to new calls for welfare reform -- and welfare reform would once again move into the policy spotlight.

Welfare Dependency as a Political Theme

In his January 1992 State of the Union Address before a joint session of Congress, President G. H. W. Bush, who would be running for a second term as president, expressed his intention to make it quicker and easier for states to restructure their welfare programs through the federal waiver process:

Three months later, House Republicans announced their Contract with America just six weeks before the mid-term elections. The document, unveiled on September 27, 1994, included wide-ranging provisions, including changes to House rules, and legislative proposals to address 10 policy domains ranging from fiscal responsibility, crime, national security, and job creation to welfare reform, among others. In the introduction to the welfare reform provisions, the Contract viewed the issue as follows:

EITC Expansions -- "Making Work Pay"

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), first introduced in 1975, was meant to help offset social security (FICA¹⁵) taxes paid by workers with lower earnings. Since then, the EITC has become an important policy tool in helping to encourage work. Legislated expansions to the credit over the years have increased the size and scope of the credit, extending its reach to higher earned income levels. As a supplement to families with low earnings, the EITC not only helps offset FICA payroll taxes and federal income taxes families would otherwise pay, but it also helps to offset some of the "implicit taxes" families face as public assistance benefits are reduced when their income increases. As a refundable tax credit, the EITC provides payments to qualified individuals with no federal income tax liability. Over the period examined in this report, the EITC was expanded both under the G.H.W. Bush Administration in 1990 (phased-in in 1991 and 1992), and early in the first term of the Clinton Administration in 1993 (phased-in from 1994 through 1996). By 1996, the expanded EITC was providing a "work bonus" to families with children, amounting to as much as 34 cents on each dollar earned for a low-income family with one child, and as much as 40 cents for a family with two or more. The EITC expansions early in President Clinton's first term were the centerpiece of part of a policy of "making work pay" -- that people who work shouldn't be poor -- and a critical first step towards the President's campaign promise to "end welfare as we know it" by moving people off public cash assistance and into work.

TANF and Other Policies in the Post-AFDC Era

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), signed into law in 1996 as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, P.L. 104-193), replaced the 61-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, a federal entitlement program to low-income families with children. TANF eliminated the federal entitlement to assistance that existed under AFDC, replacing an open-ended matching grant program with a fixed-dollar block grant program (with the possible addition of recession-related contingency funds). States must maintain spending levels equal to 75% of what they spent on AFDC at the time the program was repealed -- a provision known as State Maintenance of Effort (MOE). Adults must be engaged in approved "work activities" within two years of initial TANF receipt, subject to sanction for noncompliance. Under TANF, federal work participation standards (i.e., "work-requirements") apply to states' TANF caseloads. As such, states are required to have 50% of families, and 90% of two-parent families, engaged in "work" or they will be at risk of having their block grant reduced.¹⁶ TANF gives states increased flexibility to design programs to assist needy families with children compared to its predecessor program, but with fixed federal dollars. A major goal of TANF is to end dependence of needy families on government assistance by limiting the time they may receive assistance and by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage. TANF law imposes a maximum five-year lifetime limit on receipt of federally funded assistance,¹⁷ and allows states to impose shorter limits than the maximum.

States have implemented a wide range of policy options and program approaches in the design of their TANF programs. Many of their programs have evolved from approaches first experimented with under federal waiver authority in the pre-TANF era. Cash welfare under the AFDC program was an entitlement, though states were allowed to set income-eligibility levels and the size of cash benefits, which, under the program, varied widely among them. Since passage of TANF, states' cash welfare programs have evolved over time, becoming more complex and diverging from the cash assistance rules in place under AFDC. States' TANF policies vary widely in determining who is eligible for assistance, the benefits they receive, the behavioral requirements recipients must meet, and the duration they may receive assistance. States' cash welfare policies are described elsewhere.¹⁸ Since the passage of TANF, most states have increased financial work incentives for families receiving cash assistance by allowing families to keep more of their cash welfare benefit as their earnings increase.¹⁹Additionally, as was the case before welfare reform, most states have allowed inflation to substantially erode the real value of welfare benefits over time, diminishing the value of welfare relative to work.²⁰

States may use both federal and state MOE dollars for a wide range of activities, other than the provision of "cash assistance."²¹ In FY2009, only 28% of total federal TANF and state (MOE) dollars under the program went toward basic cash assistance. When administrative costs and work activities are added to basic cash assistance -- the three spending categories most commonly associated with "welfare" -- those expenditures accounted for less than half (42%) of total TANF spending in FY2009. States have also redirected funds previously used to provide cash assistance to pay for child care, either directly or by transferring funds to the child care block grant. In FY2009, 18% of all TANF funds used were either expended on child care or transferred to the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF). TANF is also a major contributor to the child welfare system, which provides foster care, adoption assistance, and services to families with children who either have experienced or are at risk of experiencing child abuse or neglect. It should be noted that among state and federal TANF spending, only those dollars provided as "cash assistance" are included as income for poverty measurement purposes, although dollars expended for other purposes, such as child care, may help to indirectly reduce poverty by making it "affordable" for a parent to work.

Other Federal and State Policies that Encourage Work

In addition to policy changes described above, a variety of other policies implemented at both the federal and state levels have served to reward work. Over the period examined in this report, the minimum wage was increased six times -- three times in the pre-welfare reform era and three times since.²² Moreover, in 29 states state minimum wages exceeded the federal minimum wage in one or more years over the period.²³ Many states have implemented state earned income tax credits (SEITC), which piggyback on the federal EITC. In most cases, states structure their SEITC as a percentage of the federal EITC. In tax year 2000, for example, 14 states and the District of Columbia had SEITCs, and in 10 of those jurisdictions, the credit was fully refundable. By tax year 2010, 23 states and the District of Columbia had SEITCs, and in 19 of those jurisdictions the credit was fully refundable.²⁴

Child Support Enforcement²⁵

The Child Support Enforcement (CSE) program was enacted in 1975 as a federal-state program (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act). The CSE program is funded with both state and federal dollars. The federal government bears the majority of CSE program expenditures and provides incentive payments to the states for success in meeting CSE program goals.²⁶

The CSE program provides seven major services on behalf of children: (1) locating absent parents, (2) establishing paternity, (3) establishing child support orders, (4) reviewing and modifying child support orders, (5) collecting child support payments, (6) distributing child support payments, and (7) establishing and enforcing support for children's medical needs.

The CSE program has the potential to impact more children and for longer periods of time than most other federal programs. In many cases, the CSE program may interact with parents and children for 18 years.

One of the original purposes of the CSE program was to recover from noncustodial parents some of the costs of providing cash welfare to their children's families. Families receiving cash assistance must assign (legally turn-over) to the state their rights to child support collections. These collections are split between the federal government and the states to recover the costs of providing cash assistance. States have options to pay some or all of such collections to families directly, but are not required to do so.

Over the last 10-15 years, the CSE program has expanded its mission beyond its initial welfare cost-recovery goal to focus on providing its clients with more effective and efficient CSE services and fostering parental responsibility. The 1996 welfare reform law established some new systems for tracking down and enforcing the obligations of noncustodial parents to pay child support. It also established a "family first" policy, sending more collected child support on behalf of families that formerly received cash assistance directly to the family. These policy changes, combined with the decline in cash assistance rolls, have resulted in the bulk of CSE collections going directly to families. In FY2010, the CSE program collected $26.6 billion in child support payments from noncustodial parents and served 15.9 million child support cases. Of the $26.5 billion collected in child support payments, about 93% went to families, 6% went to state and federal governments, and 1% consisted of medical support payments or fees paid to states.

Policies Addressing Marriage and Childbearing²⁷

Among TANF's four stated goals, three relate directly to marriage and childbearing (italics added, below). States may spend TANF funds on a wide range of activities for cash welfare recipients and other families towards achieving these goals.

Policy Responses to Changing Economic Conditions

It is useful to view the policy changes discussed above in context of prevailing economic conditions. Over the 23 years examined, the country experienced three economic recessions. The first, lasting 8 months (July 1990 to March 1991), occurring well before welfare reform, was followed by the longest period of economic expansion in the post-World War II era. The expansion ended with a second 8-month long recession (March to November of 2001), well after passage and state implementation of new welfare reform rules. More recently the economy is recovering from the longest and deepest recession in the post-World War II era, having lasted 18 months (from December 2007 to June 2009). The unemployment rate, after having peaked at 10.1% in 2009, has only slowly improved, and is not expected to approach a "natural level" until 2016.²⁸ Given the depth and duration of the most recent recession, Congress passed a wide range of provisions under economic stimulus and recovery legislation to bolster the economy and to help support low- and middle-income families and individuals.

Tax Rebates and Credits

A number of policy interventions were undertaken in response to the most recent recession, to both stimulate the economy, as well as to cushion the most economically vulnerable. Under provisions in the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-185), single and head-of-household tax filers, such as single mothers, who had filed federal income taxes in 2007 became eligible to receive a minimum tax rebate in 2008 of $300 ($600 for married joint filers) if their 2007 earned income (plus any Social Security benefits, tier 1 railroad retirement, and veteran's disability payments) was at least $3,000, and up to $600 ($1,200 for married joint filers) to the extent of their 2008 tax liability. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (P.L. 111-5) provided rebates of up to $400 for single and head-of-household tax filers, and up to $800 for joint filers, in 2009, by reducing FICA tax withholding.

The Emergency and Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (P.L. 110-343) included a provision that temporarily lowered the income limit for receipt of the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit²⁹ (CTC), which is administered by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) as the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC), to distinguish it from the nonrefundable portion of the CTC. Refundable credits, such as the ACTC and EITC, extend benefits to tax filers even though they owe no taxes. For the 2008 tax year, EESA effectively lowered the ACTC refundable income limit from $12,050, to $8,500. ARRA further temporarily expanded eligibility for the ACTC to tax filers with earnings of $3,000 or more for tax years 2009 and 2010. The refundable income limits set a lower threshold at which tax filers may begin to receive the refundable ACTC. A tax filer with a qualifying child could receive a "refund" amounting to 15 cents on every dollar earned above the refundable income threshold, up to a maximum credit amount of $1,000 per qualifying child. Under the EESA, a single mother with earned income of $12,050 became eligible for an ACTC of $532.50 in 2008, whereas absent the EESA provisions she would have received nothing. In 2009, under the ARRA provisions, a single parent with one child and having annual earnings in excess over $3,000 may be eligible for the credit, and eligible for the full $1,000 credit once her earned income reaches $9,667.³⁰Absent the legislative changes noted above, she would not have begun to become eligible for the credit until her earned income exceeded $12,550, and would not have been eligible for the full $1,000 credit until her income reached $19,217.³¹

Under ARRA certain ACTC provisions were set to expire at the end of the 2010 tax year. Among other things, expiring provisions would have caused the maximum allowable credit to revert from $1,000 to $500 per qualifying child, and for credit refundability to extend only to families with three or more qualifying children. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312) extends the ARRA ACTC provisions through tax year 2012.

ARRA also temporarily raised the EITC credit rate for tax years 2009 and 2010 from 40% for families with two or more qualifying children to 45% for families with three or more qualifying children. In 2009, for a single parent with three or more children, the maximum available credit under ARRA increased to $5,657, from what otherwise would have been $5,028 absent ARRA. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312) extended the ARRA EITC provisions through tax year 2012.

Unemployment Insurance Benefits

Unemployment Compensation (UC) under the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system typically provides up to 26 weeks of unemployment compensation covering a portion of lost wages to qualified covered workers who become eligible due to job loss.³² Under the permanent Extended Benefits (EB) program, unemployment compensation may be extended for an additional 13 or 20 weeks to workers in qualifying states with high unemployment. Both UC and EB payments to workers are funded jointly through federal and state taxes on employers. Additionally, as in some past recessions, Congress funded a temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation program (EUC08, P.L. 110-252), which began in 2008.³³ Under the EB and EUC08 programs, Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits have been extended from a maximum 26 weeks under the UC program, up to a maximum of 60 to 99 weeks, depending on states' circumstances.

Additionally, ARRA made several changes to Unemployment Compensation (UC) to assist individuals who become unemployed.³⁴ It provided a temporary supplemental benefit increase of $25 per week under all UC programs (UC, EB, EUC08, and others³⁵), payable until July 2010, and excluded $2,400 in UC benefits from gross income under the federal income tax for 2009. ARRA also provided $7 billion in incentives to states to modify their basis for computing UC benefits and for extending benefits to currently ineligible individuals. Two-thirds of the $7 billion available to states is contingent on states first adopting an alternative method of determining eligibility for individuals who do not qualify under the regular method, based on their wage and employment history. The states could then be eligible for the remaining two-thirds of the $7 billion if they adopt at least two of the following four provisions:

Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamp) Benefits

ARRA raised maximum benefit amounts under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp program), effective in April 2009.³⁶ARRA effectively increased maximum monthly SNAP benefits by 13.6%, as a replacement for annual benefit adjustments based on annual food-price inflation. As a result, average household benefits (typically less than the maximum) were boosted by more than 15%. Under current funding levels, ARRA SNAP benefit increases are projected to be maintained until October 31, 2013, at which time SNAP benefit adjustments will revert back to annual adjustment based on food-price inflation, as specified in SNAP law.

Other Social Policies

ARRA also included provisions that added a new temporary "emergency contingency fund" under TANF for FY2009 and FY2010, which allowed states receiving extra federal grants to cover 80% of increased recession-related costs in those two years.³⁷ Recession-related costs are defined as increased basic assistance (for states with increased basic assistance caseloads), nonrecurrent short-term benefits, or subsidized employment expenditures.

Other ARRA provisions may also directly help single mothers.³⁸ For example, expanded funding for child care for low-income working families might help single mothers secure and retain employment, and increased federal incentive payments to states to run effective child support enforcement programs may help states' efforts to establish and maintain absent parents' child support obligations.

Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children

A dramatic transformation in single mothers' welfare, work, and poverty status has occurred over the 23-year period examined in this report. The period has seen a marked structural change in the provision of benefits under a number of programs that contribute to the fabric of the nation's "income safety net." In turn, single mothers' behavior has changed markedly over the period, in part response to structural changes to income "safety net" programs, with more mothers working, and fewer relying on cash welfare to support themselves and their children in the post welfare reform era, than before.

Figure 3 completes the administrative data series presented earlier (Figure 2) through 2010. The figure shows a dramatic decline in the number of recipients (total, adults and children) receiving AFDC/TANF after having reached an historic peak in 1993. In 1993, 14.2 million persons were receiving ADFC in the average month; by 2008, the number receiving TANF had fallen to 4 million, a decline of 10.2 million persons from 2003, comprised of 6.5 million fewer children and 3.7 million fewer adults. In 2008, the number of persons receiving cash aid under TANF was the lowest since 1963, when 3.9 million received assistance under AFDC. Reflecting the effects of the most recent recession, the number of persons receiving TANF has increased from 4.0 million in 2008, to 4.6 million in 2010.

 

Figure 3. Number of Recipients and Cases Receiving Assistance

 

Under ADC, AFDC, and TANF, 1960 to 2010

 

 

(Annual Monthly Average, in Millions)

 

 

 

Note: Separate estimates for children and adults are not available from 1997 to 1999 due to changes in state reporting requirements during the transition from AFDC to TANF.

Moreover, since welfare reform, poverty among children living in female-headed households³⁹has also fallen significantly. Figure 4 shows that the incidence of poverty among children in female-headed households fell from 55.4% in 1991, to 39.3% by 2001, representing the largest ten-year decline in poverty among such children since that which commenced in the early 1960s. The poverty rate of children in female-headed families has risen consequent to two recessions since 2001, reaching a recent high of 44.4% in 2009. Since 1996 welfare reform, progress appears to have been largely sustained in both reducing welfare dependency and poverty among children in female-headed families, in spite of the recent recession.

 

Figure 4. Poverty Rate of Children Under Age 18

 

in Female-Headed Households (No Spouse Present), 1960 to 2009

 

 

(Percent poor)

 

 

 

Notes: Estimates are for children in female-headed "households," which differs somewhat from the CRS definition of female-headed "families" used later in this report based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.

The remainder of this report focuses primarily on single mothers, as single mothers have been a primary focus of social policy. Untangling the effects of demographic factors, the economy, welfare policy and other policy interventions on single mothers' work behavior, welfare receipt, income, and poverty status, is beyond the scope of this report. Others have attempted to parcel out these effects with mixed success and differing conclusions as to the relative impacts of each.⁴⁰ In contrast to these efforts, the remainder of this report provides a descriptive analysis of U.S. Census Bureau CPS/ASEC data, with the goal of increasing understanding of changes in single mothers' welfare, work, income and poverty status that have occurred over the past 23 years.

Number of Families Headed by Single Mothers

Over the 23-year period examined, the number of single-mother families increased from 8.2 million in 1987 to 11.0 million in 2009 (Figure 5). The total number of single mothers increased from 8.4 million in 1989 to about 9.9 million in 1993, an increase of 1.5 million, or 17%. From 1993 through 2000, the number of single mothers remained fairly stable, ranging between 9.7 million and 10.1 million. Since 2000, the number of single mothers has increased by 1.3 million, from 9.7 million in 2000 to 11.0 million in 2009. The overall increase in single-mother families has largely been due to an increase in single mothers who have never been married. From 1987 to 2009, the number of never-married single mothers increased from 2.7 million to 5.2 million, an increase of 2.5 million, or 94%, over the period. In contrast, the number of separated mothers (no spouse present) increased by 232,000, a 13% increase, and the number of divorced mothers increased by 203,000, a 6% increase; the number of widowed mothers fell by 175,000, a 30% decrease. In contrast, the number of married-couple families with children increased by 406,000, a 2% increase, over the period (not shown in the figure).

 

Figure 5. Number of Single-Mother Families, by Mothers' Marital

 

Status, 1987 to 2009

 

 

(Number in millions)

 

 

 

Incidence of Poverty by Mothers' Marital Status

The incidence of poverty among families headed by single mothers fell substantially from a peak of 45.4% of all single-mother families in 1992 and 1993 to an historic low for the 23-year period of 31.8% in 2000 (Figure 6). Since 2000, poverty rates for single mothers have increased, but still remain well below levels of the early 1990s. The poverty rate among single-mother families rose to 34.9% by 2004, consequent to an 8 month-long recession (March to November 2001 and continued to drift upwards, until more sharply increasing, to 37.6% in 2009, consequent to a deep 18 month-long recession (December 2007 to June 2009). Poverty rates are highest among never-married mothers, followed by separated mothers (no spouse present) and widowed and divorced mothers. Poverty rates of single mothers are several times that of married mothers. Poverty rates for never-married, separated, and divorced mothers fell substantially over the 1990s, reaching historic lows by the beginning of the next decade. (Note: the wide variability in the poverty rate among widowed mothers over the period reflects sample variation relating to the comparatively small sample of such mothers represented on the CPS/ASEC.)

 

Figure 6. Poverty Rates by Mothers' Marital Status, 1987

 

to 2009

 

 

(Percent poor)

 

 

 

Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt Among Single Mothers

CPS data show an increase in cash welfare receipt (AFDC, TANF, or General Assistance (GA)⁴¹) among single mothers during the late 1980s and early 1990s and a decrease in the mid-to late 1990s. The CPS data generally correspond to the caseload rise and fall documented by administrative program data, but underestimate the caseload statistics to some extent.⁴²Figure 7 shows that the number of single mothers in families reporting receipt of cash welfare on the CPS increased from 2.5 million in 1989 to 3.4 million in 1993, an increase of 900,000, or 36%, over the four-year period. Compared to 1993, the peak year of welfare receipt, the number of single mothers reporting cash welfare was down to under 1 million (967,000) in 2009 -- a 72% decline from 1993 (the bottom-shaded portion of the figure).⁴³The CPS/ASEC data show very little if any take-up in receipt of cash welfare by single mothers in response to the most recent recession, and little if any take-up in cash welfare in response to the one preceding it. This differs from the administrative data presented earlier (Figure 3) which showed a modest increase in the TANF caseload from 2008 to 2009. From 1993 to 2009, the number of poor single mothers who reported receiving no cash welfare increased from 1.722 million in 1993 to 3.408 million in 2009, nearly doubling over the period (the middle-shaded area of the figure).

 

Figure 7. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt,

 

1987 to 2009

 

 

 

Note: Welfare is cash welfare in the form of AFDC, TANF, or state General Assistance.

Work, Poverty, and Cash Welfare Receipt of Single Mothers

Figure 8 provides an overview of single mothers' welfare, work and poverty status from 1987 to 2009. The figure shows that since 1993, the share of single mothers who worked at some time during the year has increased markedly and that the share who received cash welfare (AFDC, TANF, or GA) has declined significantly, as has the share who are poor under the official poverty definition. The figure illustrates that while both cash welfare recipiency rates and poverty rates for single mothers have generally fallen since 1993, single mothers' welfare recipiency rate has fallen faster than their poverty rate. More recently, since 2000, the poverty rate of single mothers has increased, but cash welfare receipt has not -- a growing share of single mothers are poor under the official poverty measure, but receive no cash welfare assistance. This suggests that TANF and other policies implemented in the mid-1990s (e.g., EITC expansion) may have had a lasting behavioral impact on reducing the incidence of cash welfare receipt among families headed by single mothers.

 

Figure 8.Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status Among Single Mothers,

 

1987 to 2009

 

 

 

Note: Welfare is cash welfare in the form of AFDC, TANF, or state General Assistance.

Single Mothers' Employment

While welfare receipt has declined, dramatic gains in single mothers' employment have occurred since 1993. Figure 9 shows employment rates of single and married mothers by age of youngest child in March, from 1988 to 2010. The chart shows that gaps that had existed between single and married mothers' employment have been virtually eliminated in recent years, with single mothers now being as, and in some cases more, likely than their married counterparts to be working.

Over the period, the increase in employment among single mothers with young children has been most dramatic. Among mothers with a child under the age of 3, their employment rate increased from a recent low of 35.1% in March 1993 to a high of 59.1% in March 2000, a 24 percentage point increase over the period. Their employment rate fell to 53.7% in March 2005 but rebounded to 57.0% in March 2006, marking a recent high; it has since fallen, to 52.9% in March 2009. Single mothers with a youngest child aged 3-5 also experienced marked employment gains over the mid-to-late 1990s. Their employment rate grew from a recent low of 54.1% in March 1992, to 72.7% by March 2000, an 18.6 percentage point increase over the period. In March 2008, their employment rate stood at 68.5%, but by March 2010 had fallen to 59.7% -- 13 percentage points below its March 2000 peak, with over two-thirds of the decline having occurred since March 2007. Single mothers whose youngest child was of school age (age 6-17) had employment rates about equal to those of their married counterparts over the 1988-2010 period. In March 2010, the employment rate of single mothers with school age children stood at 70.7% -- 8.4 percentage points below a peak employment rate of 79.1% in 2001.

 

Figure 9. Employment Rates of Single and Married Mothers, by Age

 

of Youngest Child, March 1988 to March 2010

 

 

 

Unemployment Rates Across the Business Cycle

Based on Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, the unemployment rate of women maintaining families has increased from a recent low of 6.2% in August 2007, just prior to the recession's onset, to 11.7% in June 2009, the recession's official end-date (see Figure 10). Over a year past the recession's end, the unemployment rate of women maintaining families rose further, to a most recent high of 13.4% in July and August 2010. The annual average unemployment rate among women maintaining families increased from 6.5% in 2007, to 8.0% in 2008, 11.5% in 2009, and to 12.3% in 2010. Whereas poverty estimates for 2010 won't be available until the fall of 2011, persistently high unemployment rates among women maintaining families in 2010 suggest that the incidence of "official" poverty among single mothers and their children in 2010 may eclipse that experienced in 2009. Given the pace of economic recovery, poverty among single mothers and their children may remain above pre-recession levels for some years to come.

 

Figure 10. Unemployment Rate of Women Maintaining Families,

 

January 1987 through June 2011

 

 

(Rates not seasonally adjusted)

 

 

 

Notes: Economic recessions: July 1990 to March 1991, March to November 2001, and December 2007 to June 2009. Economic recessions are defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Business Cycle Dating Committee.

Poor Single Mothers' Work and Welfare Status

There is a greater likelihood today than in years past that a poor single mother will be working, rather than receiving welfare. Changes in poor mothers' participation in work and welfare status first became evident in the early-to-mid 1990s, with rates of employment increasing after 1992 (solid green line, Figure 11) and rates of welfare receipt declining after 1993 (solid orange line, Figure 11). A crossover point was reached by 1996, when the chances that a poor single mother would be working exceeded the chances that she would be receiving welfare. The initial decline in welfare receipt, and increase in work among poor single mothers coincides with an economy recovering from recession, a phasing in of expanded EITC benefits that encouraged work (1994 - 1996), increased experimentation among states attempting to transform their cash welfare programs through the section 1115 waiver process, and increased political messaging that national welfare was looming on the horizon. The trend of declining welfare receipt and increased work intensified further, after passage of national welfare reform legislation in 1996.

Figure 11 shows that the share of poor single mothers who received cash welfare at any time during the year fell from just over 60% in the 1987-1993 period, to 17% in 2007 and 2009. Welfare receipt among poor single mothers began to decline significantly after 1993, and even more so after 1996. Similarly, the share of poor single mothers who were working at any time during the year increased from around 44% in 1992, to a peak of 64% in 1999, but has dropped since, to 52% in 2009.

The share of poor single mothers who relied on cash welfare without working dropped from a peak of 43% in 1991, to a low of 10% in 2007 (a 77% drop from the 1991 rate). The share who worked without relying on cash welfare has increased from a recent low of nearly 25% in 1993, to 46% in 2009. Poor single mothers who combined work and welfare over the year has fallen by well over two-thirds from 1996 (20%) to 2009 (6%).

 

Figure 11. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status During

 

the Year, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

Poor single mothers who reported that they neither worked nor received cash welfare during the year (the dashed blue line in Figure 11) has increased from a low of about 12% in 1991 to 37% in 2009. This surprising combination may reflect a mix of circumstances, including income support from unrelated household members (which is not included in the official poverty measure), including cohabiting partners, and other means of support from outside the household not captured on the CPS. It may also reflect income reporting problems on the CPS, especially with regard to welfare income.⁴⁴

Receipt of Selected Benefits by "Earnings Poor" Female-Headed Families with Children

As shown above, cash welfare receipt among female-headed families with children has dramatically declined in the post-1996 welfare reform era, with the decline having begun in the years just prior to the passage and subsequent implementation of reform. Figure 12 shows recipiency rates among female-headed families with children with earnings below their families' poverty thresholds, for six income "safety-net" program categories: AFDC, TANF or General Assistance (GA); Supplemental Security Income (SSI); Unemployment Insurance Benefits; Food Stamp/SNAP benefits; the EITC; and the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit, the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC). The analysis is restricted to "earnings poor" families, as earnings are the primary means by which most families with working age members support themselves. Earnings (along with other income) deemed insufficient to provide for a family's basic needs (i.e., poverty level income) and the reasons associated with insufficient earnings (or other income) are often used in determining eligibility for need-tested and other programs.

Over the 23-year period examined, there has been a marked change in the provision of benefits among the six programs, reflecting a structural change in aspects of the "income safety net." It is important to note that the "official" U.S. poverty measure does not include in-kind benefits, such as Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, nor does it include tax transfers, in the form of the EITC, or ACTC. Among the six program categories examined, only AFDC/TANF/GA, SSI, and UI are included in the "official" poverty measure. As will be shown later, this has important implications as to how one assesses the role of income support policies, especially in the post 1996 welfare reform era and over the course of the most recent recession and recovery.

Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC)

Figure 12 shows a substantial increase in EITC from 1993 to 1999, as mothers with comparatively low earnings prospects turned away from cash public assistance towards work. In 1993, about 44% of "earnings poor" female-headed families with children are estimated to have received the EITC, by 1999, 64% of such families were estimated to have received it. In contrast, over the same period, cash welfare receipt in the form of AFDC, TANF, or GA fell from about 56% to 31%. EITC benefit increases that phased in between 1993 and 1996 may have served to lure some single mothers away from welfare, in part evidenced by increased work seen earlier in Figure 9. Additionally, states' use of AFDC waivers to strengthen work requirements and sanctions for noncompliance in the pre-welfare reform years, may have served to increase work participation and consequent EITC receipt. TANF's provisions further encouraged work and accompanying EITC eligibility over welfare. The figure shows a marked decrease in estimated EITC receipt in 2003 and 2004, and then a rebound in 2005 -- these years are marked by a dashed-line, as caution should be exercised in attempting to interpret this phenomena, as it appears to be an aberation that is not readily explainable.⁴⁵

 

Figure 12. Receipt of Selected Benefits by "Earnings Poor"

 

Female-Headed Families with Children, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

Notes: "Earnings poor" families are those whose annual earned income is below their poverty income threshold. Other sources of income received by these families might subsequently lift their total income above poverty.

Supplemental Security Income (SSI)

Receipt of SSI among families headed by single mothers increased over the first half of the 1990s, as shown in Figure 12. In 1988, 7% of families headed by single mothers reported receiving SSI; by 1996, 12.6% of such families were reporting SSI receipt. The populations served by AFDC and SSI overlap somewhat. Some persons may be eligible for both programs, but individuals cannot receive benefits under both, although families can.⁴⁶ In contrast to AFDC and TANF, individuals applying for SSI must pass an often strict and lengthy disability determination process in order to qualify. SSI benefits are higher than those available under AFDC and TANF. Additionally, SSI benefits are fully federally funded, though some states provide supplementary benefits on top of the federal SSI benefit. In contrast, AFDC benefits were jointly funded by states and the federal government, through federal matching dollars, and under TANF through a fixed-dollar federal block grant. As such, if all other things were equal, both individuals and states would do better financially by shifting persons potentially eligible for TANF to SSI, assuming the person was unlikely able to become gainfully employed. Several administrative changes to SSI made it easier for children to be ruled eligible for the program during the early 1990s,⁴⁷ which could have contributed to increased SSI receipt among families, including those headed by single mothers.

Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits

Receipt of Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits among families headed by earnings poor single mothers has risen concurrent and consequent to the three economic recessions that occurred over the 23-year period examined (Figure 12). With each recession, UI receipt among these families has increased over that of the previous recession. For example, in the aftermath of the 1990-1991 recession, 7.5% of all earnings poor single mother families reported UI receipt in 1992; following the 2000 recession, 9.6% reported UI receipt 2002; and in the most recent recession, 11.4% reported UI receipt. The higher incidence of UI receipt in 2002 than in 1992 most probably reflects a higher incidence of UI eligibility in the more recent period, due to increased employment of single mothers, as the two recessions were of equal length, and the unemployment rate among women maintaining families was slightly lower in 2002 than in 1992 (see Figure 10, shown earlier). The higher incidence of UI receipt in 2009 most likely reflects both the severity of the recession, as well as increased UI coverage among single mothers as a result of having better established work histories than in previous years.

Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits

Food Stamp/SNAP benefit receipt is depicted by the green line in Figure 12. The figure shows that Food Stamp/SNAP receipt reached an historic peak among earnings poor single mother families in 1993 (69.3%), subsequent to the 1990-1991 recession. Food Stamp receipt for this group of families reached an historic low in 2002, with 48.3% reporting benefit receipt. The comparatively low rate of Food Stamp receipt in 2002, compared to earlier periods, may in part be attributable to the decline of such families on AFDC/TANF, as persons who enrolled in those programs were generally enrolled in Food Stamps automatically through administrative processes. The figure shows a modest rise in Food Stamp receipt from 2002 to 2005, subsequent to the 2000 recession, and a more substantial rise from 2007 to 2009, consequent to the most recent recession. Still, the SNAP benefit receipt rate among the depicted families in 2009 (60.2%) was nearly identical to that of Food Stamps in 1989, even though economic conditions in 2009 were much worse.

Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC)

Finally, the figure shows estimated receipt of the Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) among depicted families.⁴⁸ Census Bureau estimates of ACTC receipt on the CPS are first available beginning in 2004. As discussed earlier ("Tax Rebates and Credits"), the Emergency and Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) (P.L. 110-343), temporarily lowered the income threshold for receipt of the ACTC in tax year 2008. There appears to be no discernable effect of the provision from 2007 to 2008 in the CPS/ASEC estimates for depicted families. However, the figure shows that estimated ACTC receipt more than doubled from 2008 (21.5%) to 2009 (45.8%). This large increase in ACTC eligibility reflects changes in The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (P.L. 111-5) which lowered the ACTC income threshold to $3,000, and took effect in 2009.

Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Single Mothers' Poverty Status

As shown earlier in Figure 6, single mothers' poverty status has improved since 1993. Changes in the economy and changes in welfare policy and other programs, such as the EITC, have both direct and indirect effects on income and poverty. However, the official U.S. poverty measure counts only family pre-tax cash income (excluding capital gains and lump sum or one-time payments) against families' poverty thresholds (which vary by family size and composition) to determine whether a family is counted as poor. The "official" U.S. poverty definition does not include the value of in-kind benefits, such as Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, or public housing subsidies, nor does it include the effects of taxes or tax credits such as the EITC and the ACTC. Inclusion of in-kind benefits and refundable tax credits, net of taxes families pay, provides a more comprehensive income definition than the official poverty income definition. Failing to include them can have important implications as to how one assesses the role of income support policies, especially in the post 1996 welfare reform era, and over the course of the most recent recession and recovery. Additionally, other unrelated household members may contribute to the family's economic well-being, but determining the extent to which resources are shared among unrelated household members is difficult.

Figure 13 shows the marginal effects of income from a number of sources on poverty. Components of family income are sequentially added and measured against families' poverty thresholds, as one moves from the top line of the chart to subsequent lines below.⁴⁹ Starting with the top line, the effect on poverty of family earnings alone is depicted. Poverty measures based on earned income alone give an indication of the labor market's effect on poverty, in context of other sources of income individuals, families, and households might receive. Moving to the second line down, the effect of earnings plus all other cash income other than cash welfare (AFDC, TANF, or state General Assistance) is shown. Adding cash welfare, the third line down, to those income sources shown above, completes the accounting of pre-tax cash income that is used under the "official" U.S. poverty definition.

 

Figure 13. Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family

 

Poverty and Household Low-Income Status of

 

Single Mothers, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

^* Census Bureau estimates of Economic Stimulus Payments received in 2008 and Economic Recovery Payments received in 2009.

Addition of Income from Sources Not Included in the "Official" U.S. Poverty Measure

As noted above, the "official" U.S. poverty definition is based on families' pre-tax cash income. It excludes a number of benefits families receive, such as Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, and refundable tax credits, such as the EITC and ACTC, nor does it take into account taxes families might pay, in the form of federal payroll (FICA) taxes and federal and state income taxes. A congressionally commissioned study, issued in 1995 by a National Academy of Sciences (NAS) expert panel proposed major changes to the way in which poverty is measured in the U.S.⁵⁰ After 15 years of study, the Department of Commerce Economic and Statistics Administration, under an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sponsored initiative, announced that the Census Bureau, in coordination with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), will develop a Supplemental Poverty Measure (SPM), using NAS panel recommendations and subsequent research as a framework.⁵¹The proposed measure will supplement, rather than replace, the current poverty measure, which will continue to be deemed the "official" statistical measure of poverty in the United States. Among features of the proposed SPM is that it would include a number of in-kind and tax benefits in the measure. The Census Bureau has yet to release a regular poverty series based on the SPM, due to lack of funding. Absent the availability of an alternate, supplemental, measure to the official one, the following poverty estimates include income sources in addition to those used under the official measure, and compares those combined sources to the official poverty income thresholds.

In addition to the income sources used by the "official" poverty measure, a number of other income sources are sequentially added to estimate their anti-poverty effects under more comprehensive income definitions. For example, the market value of Food Stamp/SNAP benefits is added to pre-tax cash income, to assess their antipoverty effects. Next, the EITC is added in, net of any FICA, federal, and state income taxes (including state refundable tax credits). The poverty reducing effect of the ACTC is then assessed, followed by economic stimulus and recovery payments families may have received in 2008 and 2009, respectively.

Effect of Earnings and Other Non-Welfare Cash Income on Poverty

Figure 13 shows that between 1993 and 2000, single mothers' poverty, based on family earnings alone (top line), fell from 56.2% to 40.8%, reaching an historic low for the 23-year period. Their "earned-income poverty rate" rose consequent to two recessions, reaching 44.3% in 2004, and rising again from 44.7% in 2007 to 48.3% in 2009. Adding other cash income, except cash welfare (second line down), to family earnings, reduces poverty in 1993 from 56.2% (top line) to 47.4% (line 2), and in 2009 from 48.3% to 38.0%.

Effect of Cash Welfare on Poverty

Cash welfare benefits have only a small impact on the poverty rate, as these benefits generally are not sufficient, even when combined with other cash income, to lift families above the federal poverty threshold. In the vast majority of states the level of earnings or other cash income at which states' cash welfare benefits under AFDC/TANF become unavailable for a family are well below the poverty line. For example, in July 2009, in only five states and the District of Columbia could a single mother with two children have earnings at or above the poverty line and still continue to receive TANF cash assistance after one year of benefit receipt.⁵² Consequently, cash welfare benefits have little impact on the poverty rate. The addition of cash welfare (line 3, representing the official income definition for measuring poverty) reduces poverty only slightly: from 47.4% (line 2) to 45.2% (line 3) in 1993, and from 38.0% to 37.6% in 2009. Nonetheless, cash welfare benefits can have a significant impact on the level of poor families' incomes, affecting the degree to which their incomes fall below the poverty income standard. This impact is not captured by changes in the poverty rate as shown in Figure 13.

The Invisible Safety Net -- Effect on Poverty of Counting Selected Income Sources Not Included in the "Official" Poverty Measure

As noted above, the "official" U.S. poverty measure counts only families' pre-tax cash income for purposes of poverty determination. Inclusion of selected benefits, such as food assistance, in the form of Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, the refundable EITC, and the partially refundable ACTC, allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the role of government policy in addressing vulnerable families income needs.

Effect of Food Stamp/SNAP Benefits on Poverty

SNAP benefits played a substantively larger role in reducing poverty among single mothers and their families in 2009, in the wake of the past recession, than in any year earlier. The fourth line from the top in Figure 13 shows the effect on the poverty rate of single mothers by counting the value of Food Stamp/SNAP benefits. The line shows that Food Stamps/SNAP reduced the poverty rate of single mothers from about 2 to 3 percentage points over most of the period (compare the reduction in poverty from line 3 to line 4). In 2009, however, SNAP benefits nearly offset the rise in pre-tax cash income poverty (i.e., the "official" poverty measure) from 2008. Whereas on a pre-tax cash-only basis, poverty among single mothers and their families increased from 33.8% in 2008 to 37.6% in 2009 (line 3), SNAP benefits, when added to cash income, caused the poverty rate of single mothers to remain essentially level over the two years (33.% in 2008, and 33.5% in 2009).

The increased role of SNAP benefits in addressing the rising cash income deficiency of single mothers in the wake of the recent recession, reflects not only an increase in the take-up rate of SNAP benefits by low-income families headed by single mothers, seen earlier in Figure 12, but also the legislatively enacted increase of SNAP benefit payments to needy households under ARRA. As noted earlier (section entitled: "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamp) Benefits" ), ARRA SNAP provisions resulted in an average 15% increase in monthly SNAP benefits going into effect in April 2009.

Net Effect of the EITC on Poverty

The EITC has had a comparatively large poverty reducing effect on single mothers and their families since 1993 legislative expansions to the credit took effect. The poverty reducing effect of the EITC⁵³ is shown net of FICA, federal, and state income taxes (including refundable state tax credits) (line5), when added to family cash income and Food Stamp/SNAP benefits (line 4). As discussed earlier (section entitled: "EITC Expansions -- 'Making Work Pay'"), a major expansion of the EITC, passed by Congress in 1993 and phased in between 1994 and 1996, increased the amount of the EITC work bonus families might receive. The anti-poverty effectiveness of the EITC was six times greater in 2009 than in 1993.⁵⁴ In combination with Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, the EITC has kept the poverty rate of single mothers and their families level since 2004, whereas under the official measure, poverty is shown to have increased.

As receipt of the EITC is conditioned on earnings, the growing impact of the EITC in part reflects the rise in work rates among single mothers. Among those who are working and poor (before counting the EITC), the EITC helps lift the income of some above the poverty line. Although the EITC expansion provided additional income to low-income families who were already working, it may also have helped induce increased employment among family heads with low to moderate earnings potential, and thus contributed to the lower levels of poverty based on earned income alone, that have been evidenced since 1993 (shown as the top line in the chart).

Note too, that to the extent that changes in cash welfare programs in recent years have encouraged work (such as work requirements and increased earnings disregards), these changes may have had a direct effect on poverty by increasing the incidence of work (earnings), which in turn resulted in expanded EITC receipt among single mothers.

Effect of the ACTC on Poverty

The Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) (the refundable portion of the Child Tax Credit) can provide a refund to tax filers with one or more qualified children, even if they have no federal income tax liability. Overall, tax filers may receive a Child Tax Credit (CTC) up to $1,000 per qualifying child. If the CTC is greater than the amount of income tax owed, the tax filer may be eligible to claim the ACTC. As noted earlier (section entitled: "Tax Rebates and Credits"), The Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (ESSA, P.L. 110-343) reduced the ACTC's refundable income limit from $12,050 to $8,500 for 2008. ARRA (P.L. 111-5) further reduced the credit's refundable income limit from a scheduled $12,550 in 2009, to $3,000 for 2009 and 2010.

As shown above (Figure 13), the lowered ACTC refundable income limit for 2009 resulted in a marked reduction in poverty among single mothers and their families, reducing their poverty rate from 29.6%, before counting the credit (5^thline down), to 27.9% after counting the credit (6^thline down). Prior to the legislative changes discussed above, most poor families were beyond the credit's reach. Moreover, ARRA provisions, when combined with EITC, SNAP benefits, and cash income, resulted in a net decline in poverty from 2008 to 2009, which sharply contrasts the observed increase in poverty based on cash income alone (line 3).

Effect of Federal Economic Stimulus and Economic Recovery Payments on Poverty

In addition to the changes to the EITC and ACTC made as part of legislative action to stimulate the economy, the Census Bureau provides estimates of economic stimulus payments families may have received in 2008, and economic recovery payments in 2009 (see earlier discussion, "Tax Rebates and Credits"). The effects of economic stimulus and economic recovery payments in 2008 and 2009 on single mothers' poverty status are shown above (Figure 13). When added to line 6, above, economic stimulus payments in 2008 reduced single mothers' poverty rate from 29.4% to 28.3% in 2008, and from 27.9% to 27.3% in 2009.

When all taken together, the ACTC and economic stimulus and recovery payments resulted in net reductions in poverty among single mothers and their families from 2007 to 2008, and from 2008 to 2009. Consequently, whereas poverty under the "official" pre-tax cash definition increased for single mothers from 2008 to 2009, under a more comprehensive definition which includes Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, the effects of the EITC (net of taxes), the ACTC, and economic stimulus and recovery payments, their incidence of poverty actually declined. Moreover, whereas the "official" poverty rate for single mothers and their families of 37.6% in 2009 was 5.8 percentage points above its all-time low of 31.8%, in 2000, their poverty rate based on a more comprehensive income definition that takes Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, taxes and refundable tax credits, and economic recovery payments into account, was 27.3% in 2009, just 1/2 of a percentage point above its all-time low of 26.8% in 2000.

Effect of Unrelated Household Member's Income on Poverty

The household low-income line (bottom line, Figure 13) shows that if all household members' income is counted, as though shared equally among household members, the poverty rate among single mothers would drop by at most 3 to 4 percentage points over the 1987 to 2009 period. Using the household, as opposed to the family, as the economic unit for determining poverty reduces the post in-kind transfer, post-tax, poverty rate in 1993 from 40.7% to 36.8% and, in 2009, from 27.3% to 23.1%. Again, this is most likely an overstatement of the possible effect that shared household living arrangements might have on single mothers' poverty status because of the uncertainty about the extent to which such income is actually shared.

Comparison of the Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Poverty, by Single Mothers' Work Status

The analysis above examines the effects of earning, transfers, taxes, and other income on families headed by single mothers. Here, the effects are broken out by whether or not mothers worked at any time during the year. There is a stark contrast in the incidence of poverty among single mothers who worked at any time during a year, and those who did not. Moreover, selected income "safety-net" programs have quite different effects in reducing poverty among the two groups, as shown in Figure 14 and Figure 15, respectively. The figures show, for example, that mothers who worked at any time during the year were less likely to be poor based on their earnings alone than mothers who did not work based on total household income.

Single Mothers Who Worked During the Year -- Figure 14

Effects of Selected Cash Income Sources on Poverty

• Among single mothers who worked during the year, their incidence of poverty based on earned income alone was at a low in 2000, and has increased markedly since 2005 (top line).

• Cash income from sources other than UI and cash welfare (second line down) has had a relatively consistent effect of reducing their poverty rate from that measured by earnings alone, ranging from 6 to 8 percentage points over the 23-year period.

• UI benefits in 2009 reduced their poverty rate by about 1 percentage point, which was about the same as in 2002, the previous peak year of UI poverty reduction.

• Adding in SSI benefits has little effect on poverty reduction among this group, largely by virtue that mothers worked during the year, and were consequently unlikely to have had an SSI qualifying disability (although, other members of their family might).

• AFDC, TANF and GA have very little impact on poverty reduction among single mothers who worked in recent years, but had more measurable effects in the first part of the 23-year period, when poor mothers were more likely to combine work with welfare (refer back to Figure 11).

• Based on the "official" poverty measure which takes into account most sources of pre-tax cash income families receive, the poverty rate among single mothers in 2009 was 2.8 percentage points higher than in 2001 -- an historic low for the period.

• Food Stamp and SNAP benefit receipt have had a sizeable effect on poverty reduction, and in 2009 reversed the trend in poverty based on cash income alone.

• The EITC (net of FICA and federal and state income taxes) has contributed to substantial reductions in poverty among working single mothers, especially after 1993 legislated expansions to the credit began taking effect. In 2009, net EITC among working single mothers reduced their post SNAP benefit poverty rate by 5.5 percentage points, from 22.5% to 17.0%.

• ARRA's reduction of the ACTC's refundable income limit to $3,000, effective in 2009, is readily apparent by the substantially larger decrease in poverty resulting from the credit, than in earlier years. In 2009, the ACTC accounted for an additional 2.1 percentage point reduction in poverty beyond that of the post-EITC poverty level.

• After including the ACTC, the incidence of poverty among single mothers with any work during the year reached an historic low in 2009, in spite of the effect of the recession on official poverty, which in that same year was at an eight-year high.

• In 2009, after taking into account SNAP benefits, net EITC, the ACTC, and Economic Stimulus and Recovery Payments, the poverty rate of single mothers who worked sometime during the year was 14.2%, a full 12 percentage points below the "official" measure (26.2%) and 3.1 percentage points below its 2002 level of 17.3%.

• If the income of all unrelated household members is included as income, the poverty rate among working single mothers is estimated at 11.2% in 2009, which compares to an "official" poverty rate of 26.2%.

• Note that working mothers could also incur work-related expenses (e.g., child care, transportation, uniforms) that are not accounted for here. Inclusion of such expenses, if available, would result in somewhat higher poverty rates than those shown here.

Figure 14. Single Mothers Who Worked at Any Time During the Year:

 

Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and

 

Household Low-Income Status, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

^* Census Bureau estimates of Economic Stimulus Payments received in 2008 and Economic Recovery Payments received in 2009.

Single Mothers Who Did Not Work During the Year -- Figure 15

• The top-most line indicates that even though single mothers themselves did not work during the year, and thus had no earnings, other related family members may have worked, accounting for an "earnings-only" poverty level around 90% in the pre welfare reform era (1996 and earlier), and around 85% since 2000.

• The next line down, which includes most all other sources of income other than UI benefits and cash welfare, shows a somewhat greater reduction in poverty in the TANF era (about 10 percentage points), than in the pre welfare reform era (about 5 percentage points). In part, this may be due to a somewhat greater tendency of nonworking single mothers to be living in "extended" families (i.e., living with family members other than just their children) in the post welfare reform era, than before. For example, in 1996, 24% of nonworking single mothers lived in extended family settings, but by 2000, 33% were living in such settings.⁵⁵

• The figure shows UI benefits, when added to earnings and other cash income from the line above, accounted for a 2 percentage point reduction in poverty in 2009, over twice the effect in 2002, the previous peak year of UI poverty reduction for this group.

• Comparing the relative effects of SSI and TANF/AFDC/GA on poverty over the period, SSI has assumed a greater role in poverty reduction among nonworking single mothers in the TANF, than in the pre-TANF, era, and the role of TANF in reducing poverty among this group is substantially less than what it was under AFDC.

• Examining just the trend in "official" poverty among nonworking single mothers, their poverty rate in the post welfare reform era has averaged 8 percentage points below what it was under AFDC. In 2002, which marked an historic low poverty rate for this group, their poverty rate (66.9%) was nearly 14 percentage points below their peak rate of 80.8% in 1991. In 2009, 69.9% of nonworking single mothers were poor -- still well below their pre welfare reform levels.

• Food Stamp/SNAP benefits appear to have had a somewhat smaller effect on poverty reduction among nonworking single mothers in the post-welfare reform era (2.7 percentage point reduction, on average) than earlier (about 3.6 percentage point reduction, on average, in the pre welfare reform era). However, in 2009, reflecting ARRA's SNAP benefit provisions, discussed earlier ("Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamp) Benefits"), SNAP benefits reduced poverty for this group from the "official" poverty rate of 69.9%, to 64.7%, a 5.2 percentage point reduction.

• In that these mothers did not work during the year, the figure shows refundable and partially refundable tax provisions have had very little measurable effect on poverty reduction for this group; nor have economic stimulus or recovery payments. In fact, the after-tax poverty line is at times above the Food Stamp/SNAP line, indicating that some poor families had members with a tax liability, net of any credits.

• If the income of all unrelated household members is included as income, the poverty rate among nonworking single mothers is estimated at 55.1% in 2009. Counting unrelated household members' income reduced poverty among nonworking single mothers by 9.6 percentage points in 2009, compared to 3.6 percentage points in 1987. This largely reflects what has been a growing tendency of nonworking single mothers to be living with other unrelated household members. In 2009, for example, 20% of nonworking single mothers were living with other unrelated family members, of which over four-fifths were designated as "cohabiting partners" (see Table C-14). In comparison, about 9% of nonworking single mothers lived with unrelated family members in 1987.⁵⁶

Figure 15. Single Mothers Who Did Not Work During the Year:

 

Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and

 

Household Low-Income Status, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

^* Census Bureau estimates of Economic Stimulus Payments received in 2008 and Economic Recovery Payments received in 2009.

Discussion/Conclusion

CRS analysis of 23 years of U.S. Census Bureau data presented in this report shows a dramatic transformation in single mothers' welfare, work, and poverty status over the period. The period has seen a marked structural change in the provision of benefits under a number of programs that contribute to the fabric of the nation's "income safety net." In turn, single mothers' behavior has changed markedly over the period, with more mothers working, and fewer relying on cash welfare to support themselves and their children, in part in response to structural changes to income "safety-net" programs. Poverty under the official U.S. poverty measure, which is based on pre-tax cash income, shows that since 2000, which marked an historic low, the poverty rate among single mothers increased in step with two recessions. By 2009, the official poverty rate for single mothers had reached a post-2000 high, but in spite of two recessions, was still below pre-1996 welfare reform levels. Using a more comprehensive income definition than that used by the official poverty measure indicates that poverty among single mothers and their children in 2009, rather than having increased since 2000, was at or near a 23-year low when Food Stamp/SNAP benefits and work-related refundable tax credits are taken into account. In particular, congressional action in response to the recession, which increased SNAP benefits and extended the reach of refundable tax credits, contributed to a decline in poverty among single mothers and their children in the midst of the recession.

Transformation of Income Safety-Net Programs Toward Work-Conditioned Support

Since the eve of 1996 welfare reform, work-conditioned requirements for individuals' receipt of government assistance have become more prevalent. Prior to 1996-welfare reform, federal law (The Family Support Act of 1988; P.L. 100-485) had extended work requirements (which included work preparation activities, such as education and training) to mothers receiving AFDC to mothers with a child as young as three, and at state option, to mothers with a child as young as age one. Child care funding was increased to make it possible for mothers to go to work. A number of states experimented with changes to their welfare programs under waivers of federal rules, granted by DHHS. Among the features tested under waiver authority were efforts to strengthen work requirements, experiments to test models of facilitating the transition from welfare to work, and the use of sanctions for noncompliance with welfare rules, among others. Expansions to the EITC, under both President G.H.W. Bush, and Clinton, increased the financial rewards of work, through earnings supplements administered through the tax system. The EITC helped to offset the welfare income loss, or implicit tax, that mothers might face as they moved from welfare to work.

The 1996 welfare reform law repealed the 61-year-old AFDC program, replacing it with TANF. TANF ended the entitlement of low-income families with children to federal assistance. It limits the provision of federal assistance under the program to five years⁵⁷ -- states are allowed to set shorter time limits. Under TANF, states no longer receive an open-ended federal matching grant, as they did under AFDC, but rather a fixed dollar block grant (with the possible addition of recession-related contingency funds). Adults must be engaged in approved "work activities" within two years of initial TANF receipt, subject to sanction for noncompliance. Under TANF, federal work participation standards (i.e., "work-requirements") apply to states' TANF caseloads, and adult recipients are required to be engaged in work, or work-related activities after two years of benefit receipt. TANF has provided states increased flexibility and limited federal requirements, compared to AFDC, but with fixed federal dollars.

Since 1996 welfare reform, cash welfare support for "earnings poor" mothers and their children has contracted, whereas work-based support has increased. The EITC, for example, has a direct effect on poverty reduction, by encouraging work, increasing earnings, and reducing reliance on cash welfare. One estimate suggests that single mothers employment in 1996 was 7 percentage points higher than it would have been otherwise, absent the EITC.⁵⁸ This "work/earnings inducing" effect of EITC among single mothers is captured in official poverty statistics, as part of families' earnings, but the credit itself -- the earnings supplement which induces work and earnings -- is not. Likewise, the ACTC may also have a potential work inducing effect among single mothers, but, like the EITC, the effects of the credit itself on poverty reduction are not measured under the official poverty income definition. Additionally, through earnings, working individuals not only gain potential access to tax benefits, such as the EITC and ACTC, which with full-time work exceeds cash welfare assistance they might have received by not working, but also earn credit towards insurance coverage under Unemployment Insurance, as well as Social Security retirement, disability, and death benefits for themselves, their dependents, and survivors.

The report shows that receipt of cash welfare (AFDC, TANF, or General Assistance) has declined substantially among single mothers since the passage of TANF, and their engagement in work has increased (Figure 8). The transformation from welfare dependency to work appears to have begun in the years immediately preceding 1996 welfare reform, as the economy prospered, and as a number of work supports (e.g., EITC, and child care assistance) were strengthened. Moreover, under the official U.S. poverty measure, the poverty rate of single mothers (Figure 6), and that of their children (Figure 4), has consistently been lower since welfare reform, than before. Prior to TANF, poor single mothers were more likely to be receiving cash welfare (AFDC or GA) than to be working; after passage of TANF, just the opposite was true: poor single mothers were more likely to be working than receiving cash welfare (TANF or GA) (Figure 11).

TANF and other work-promoting policies have helped to reduce poverty among single mothers and their children through increased earnings. Based on earnings alone, poverty among single mothers who worked reached an historic low for the period, in 2000 (Figure 14), as did their poverty rate based on total pre-tax cash income, under the "official" U.S. poverty measure. Following the 2000 recession, poverty among working single mothers increased slightly, and much more so since 2007, in step with the 2007-2009 recession.

Cash Welfare's Residual Safety-Net Role

Welfare reform ended the provision of cash assistance as an entitlement, by replacing AFDC with a fixed dollar block grant for the provision of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Under TANF, a greater share of funds goes toward services (child care, social services) either directly, or through transfers to other programs (CCDBG, Title XX Social Services) than towards direct cash support. While many of these services may help to reduce dependency, and promote self-sufficiency through work, receipt of cash assistance has shrunk markedly in the TANF era. While TANF caseloads increased modestly in 2009 and 2010 in response to the recession, they are at a fraction of what they were at their peak, just prior to 1996 welfare reform, and reflect levels not seen in over 40 years.

The marked decline in cash welfare caseloads since the eve of 1996 welfare reform, reflects an apparent behavioral shift among many single mothers with respect to work and welfare, with more selecting the former than the later. A restructuring of income safety-net programs to support work is likely to have contributed to single mothers' changed behavior. The EITC appears to be an import component of the restructured safety net, as it encourages work, even among mothers whose earnings prospects at initial job entry are low. In most states, full time work at the minimum wage provides income sufficient for a mother to work her way off of cash welfare. In lieu of cash welfare, a single mother working full time at the minimum wage will receive the EITC. Additionally, in 2009 through 2012, due to legislative changes relating to the recession and recovery, she will be eligible for the ACTC, which provides additional income support for her children.

Living Arrangements as an Alternative to Welfare

Cash welfare receipt and poverty among single mothers is lower since TANF's enactment than before. Some of this effect appears to be due to an increase in work among single mothers. However, even among nonworking mothers, their receipt of cash assistance and incidence of poverty under the official measure is lower since welfare reform. It appears that other family members' earnings and other cash income has contributed to the lower poverty rates of nonworking single mothers in the post-AFDC era (see the earlier discussion, "Single Mothers Who Did Not Work During the Year -- Figure 15") .

In spite of policies to increase work among single mothers, not all single mothers work, and lack of work contributes significantly to the likelihood that they and their children will be poor. However, poor non-working single mothers are much less likely to be receiving cash welfare assistance under TANF than they did under AFDC (Figure 11). In the post-AFDC era, nonworking single mothers are somewhat more likely to live in extended family settings than before.⁵⁹ It appears that living with other relatives helps to reduce their reliance on welfare and incidence of poverty under the official poverty measure. Moreover, nonworking single mothers are considerably more likely (more than twice as likely) to live with other unrelated family members in the post-AFDC era than before, although income of these unrelated household members is not taken into account in determining poverty status.⁶⁰

These alternative living arrangements might help provide an alternative to cash welfare receipt for some single mothers. Figure 16 suggests that this statement has some bearing. The figure depicts single mothers by their work and welfare status, according to whether they live independently with just their children, or whether they live with others, either in an extended family household with other family members than just her children, or with one or more other, unrelated, persons, including a cohabiting partner. The figure shows that among mothers who worked, or received welfare during the year, the majority (roughly 65% to 70%) lived independently over the period; a minority (roughly 30% to 35%) lived with others (extended family and/or one or more unrelated persons). Interestingly, both mothers who worked, as well as those who received welfare, were equally as likely to live independently, as not, over the period.

 

Figure 16. Single Mothers' Living Arrangements,

 

by Mothers' Work and Welfare Status

 

 

1987 to 2009

 

 

 

In contrast, nonworking single mothers, as a group, are less likely than their working counterparts to live independently than mothers who work or receive welfare during the year. In the pre-1996 welfare reform era, nonworking single mothers were slightly less likely to live independently (roughly 65% to 60%), than their working counterparts (roughly 70% to 65%) or those who received welfare (also, roughly 70% to 65%). Note that some of these nonworking mothers may also have received cash welfare during the year, as evidenced earlier in Figure 8. Welfare receipt among nonworking single mothers may have contributed to their ability to live independently, apart from other relatives or nonrelatives. While many single mothers selected work as an alternative to welfare in the years immediately following 1996 welfare reform, others appear to have found alternative living arrangements instead. In 1996, 62% of nonworking single mothers were living independently, three years later, only 52% were. Most of this change in living arrangements was due to an increase in nonworking single mothers' increased tendency to live in extended family households, with other relatives (see Table C-14), with the share increasing from 24% in 1996, to 33% by 1999, and then ebbing to 27% by 2001. In more recent years, at least since 2005, nonworking single mothers have shown a greater tendency to be living with other nonrelatives, of which most are cohabiting partners (see Table C-14). Whereas in 1987, 65% of nonworking single mothers were living in independent households, by 2009, only about half (52%) were. In part, cash welfare in the pre-welfare reform era may have helped some single mothers to live in independent family settings. Stricter requirements and time limits in the post-reform era may have contributed to some mothers' consideration of living arrangements as an alternative to cash welfare receipt.

Illness or Disability Among Nonworking Single Mothers

Nonworking single mothers are much more likely to attribute illness or disability as the reason for not working in the post-welfare reform era, than before. This is consistent with the somewhat greater role of SSI relative to other cash welfare (AFDC/TANF/GA) since welfare reform. One conjecture is that single mothers who are most able to work, are doing so in the post-welfare reform era, and that with support from the EITC, even those with comparatively low earnings capacity (e.g., earnings poor), have sought work over welfare. Those remaining, who are not engaged in work, may be less able to work, as indicated by a higher self-reported incidence of illness or disability. In the pre-welfare reform era, roughly 10% of nonworking single mothers reported "illness or disability" as the primary reason for not working during the year (Figure 17), and roughly 70% reported "taking care of home or family" as the primary reason.⁶¹ In the post-welfare reform era, the share of nonworking single mothers who self-reported "illness or disability" as the reason for not working is about three times higher than before welfare reform; the share who reported "taking care of home or family" as the primary reason for not working has fallen from roughly 70% to about 50% since welfare reform.

 

Figure 17. Single Mothers Who Did Not Work During the Year,

 

by Self-Reported Reason for Not Working

 

 

1987 to 2009

 

 

 

Cash Welfare Receipt Among Ill or Disabled Nonworking Single Mothers

Whereas nonworking single mothers have a greater tendency to report illness or disability as the primary reason for having not worked during the year, cash safety-net programs in the form of AFDC/TANF and SSI appear to be assisting a smaller share of such mothers in the post-welfare reform era, than before. Moreover, the number of single mothers reporting illness or disability in 2009 has more than doubled since 1987 (see Figure 18). In the pre-welfare reform era, roughly 70% to 80% of nonworking single mothers who reported illness or disability as the reason for not working were being assisted by AFDC, SSI, or both -- in 2009, 50% were. The SSI program taken alone (not counting in combination with AFDC/TANF receipt) accounts for a considerably larger share of nonworking ill or disabled single mothers in the post-welfare reform era (roughly double) than before. In turn, the share reporting receipt of AFDC/TANF, either alone, or in combination with SSI, has fallen by more than half since welfare reform, with about 60% reporting AFDC in the pre-welfare reform era, and about 30% reporting TANF, after.

While a larger share of single mothers who are able to work appear to be engaged in work or looking for work in the post-welfare reform era than before, among the smaller residual who are not, a greater share report illness or disability as the primary reason for being out of the labor market. In 2009, of the 679,000 single mothers who reported no work during the year, roughly half (346,000) reported neither receiving SSI nor TANF/GA assistance. The nature of these mothers' reported illness or disability is not known, nor is it known whether they have sought and been denied government assistance. Whether and how these mothers might be falling through cracks in the income safety-net is a question of policy interest, and possible concern.

 

Figure 18. Nonworking Single Mothers with Self-Reported

 

"Illness or Disability" as the Primary Reason for Not Working,

 

by Cash Welfare Recipiency Status

 

 

1987 to 2009

 

 

 

 

Percentage Share

 

 

 

The Work-Based Income Safety Net in Times of Recession and Recovery

The official U.S. poverty measure provides little insight as to how the transformed work-based income safety net has performed since the expansions to EITC in the early 1990s, and 1996 welfare reform, in reducing poverty. As shown in the body of this report, a very different story from the one offered by the official poverty measure emerges by using an expanded income measure that includes the EITC, and more recently, the ACTC, refundable tax credits, and Food Stamp/SNAP assistance.

By the official measure, poverty would appear to have increased substantially among single mothers and their children from 2000, in step with two recessions. Official poverty among single mothers and their children, while having reached a recent peak in 2009, is still below that of the pre-1996 welfare reform. Given that single mothers unemployment rates in 2010 (shown earlier, in Figure 9) are above 2009 levels (average annual unemployment rate of 12.3% in 2010, compared to 11.5% in 2009) one would expect the official poverty rate for single mothers and their children to continue to rise in 2010 (see Table C-8).

The Invisible Safety-Net -- Benefits not Officially Counted Toward Poverty Reduction

While the provision of cash welfare has fallen dramatically under TANF, poor and lower-income families with earnings are more likely to receive assistance in the form of supplemental nutrition assistance, or refundable income credits administered through federal and state tax systems. Neither in-kind benefits, such as those provided through Food Stamps/SNAP, nor refundable credits, such as the EITC, or partially refundable ACTC, are counted as income under the official U.S. poverty measure, yet these three programs are among the ten largest, in terms of federal spending for people with low income.⁶² Clearly, these programs constitute important strands in the nation's income safety-net, yet they generally are not taken into account when assessing its strengths and weaknesses. Under an alternative, more comprehensive measure of poverty than the official one, which includes the net effects of refundable tax credits and Food Stamp/SNAP benefits, a quite different assessment of the effects of the safety net on poverty among single mothers and their children emerges.

While the Census Bureau publishes a number of alternative, experimental poverty measures, in addition to the official one, those measures are typically not released until several months after the release of the official measure. The alternative poverty measures typically do not receive the same focus by researchers and the public as does the official measure, in part due to the delay in their release, but also due to the numerous alternative measures that are released, each reflecting varying, often technical, assumptions. A proposed Supplemental Poverty Measure being jointly developed by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, under the direction of OMB, is intended to stand out among the alternative measures as the "preferred" alternative measure, to supplement the official measure. Among other things, the proposed Supplemental Poverty Measure would provide a more comprehensive gauge of the effects of income safety-net programs on poverty than the official measure.

Progress towards achieving the often elusive and conflicting dual goals of reducing child poverty and cash welfare dependency is only partially apparent under the official U.S. poverty measure, but much more so under an alternative, more comprehensive income measure. Under the official poverty measure, poverty among single mothers in 2009 (37.6%) was 5.8 percentage points above its historic low for the period (31.8% in 2000). In contrast, under a more comprehensive income measure which takes into account SNAP benefits, refundable tax credits (the EITC and ACTC) net of taxes, and economic stimulus and recovery payments, poverty among single mothers in 2009 (27.3%) fell to a near all-time low (26.6% in 2002), in spite of the severe 2007-2009 recession (Figure 13). Similarly, whereas the official poverty rate among children in female-headed families increased from 41.7% in 2008, to 43.4% in 2009, under a more comprehensive income definition, their poverty rate over the same period fell from 36.0% in 2008 to 32.1% in 2009 (see Figure 19).

 

Figure 19. Poverty Among Children in Female-Headed

 

Families Under Alternative Measures, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

The effects of congressional actions in response to the recent recession on poverty among single mothers and their children are especially telling under a more comprehensive income measure, but largely go unnoticed using the official measure. Congressional action in response to the recent recession appears to have helped counteract the rise in official poverty, and in 2009, to have resulted in a decline in poverty under a more comprehensive income definition than that offered by the official poverty measure. As noted earlier (section entitled: "Policy Responses to Changing Economic Conditions"), Congress extended and increased Unemployment Insurance benefits, expanded EITC payments to families with three or more children, expanded ACTC payments to lower-income families by lowering the credit's refundable income limit, increased SNAP benefits, and provided economic stimulus and recovery payments to families and individuals. Among these actions, only the UI benefit expansions would be captured under the official poverty measure.

The increased benefits under SNAP, EITC, and the ACTC are a temporary response to the recession, as were economic stimulus and recovery payments families received. ARRA's SNAP benefit increase is expected to last through FY2013. Similarly, ARRA expanded the EITC for families with three or more children, and extended the ACTC to lower income families through tax year 2010. The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-312) extended ARRA's EITC and ACTC provisions through tax year 2012, at which time they are scheduled to expire. Under the Census Bureau's official income and poverty measures the effects of these provisions will go unnoticed.

A work-based income safety net depends upon a strong economy and available jobs for those who are able and willing to work. The EITC, as an earnings supplement, and the ACTC, as a family income supplement, are only available to working individuals. Work-based safety net programs may still help those who were without a job, for part of the year, or who have a job, but work fewer hours than they would like. However, as support programs, income from the EITC and ACTC are provided as a lump sum at the beginning of the year following that in which they were earned. As such, the EITC and ACTC may not help a family meet its immediate income needs due to job loss, or limited work hours. UI benefits are available only to those with an established work history and who lose a job for qualifying reasons. Work-based safety net benefits are of no use to individuals who have not recently held a job, and cannot find one.

Single Mothers' Attachment to the Work-Based Safety Net

With an increased share of single mothers engaged in the labor market since welfare reform, the availability of work, and especially full-time work for those who want it, is of special concern, given the recent recession and slow pace of recovery. Full-time, full-year work among single mothers peaked in 2000, and has fallen twice since, in response to two recessions (2000, and 2007-2009) (see Figure 20). A high-water mark was reached in 2000 when over four-fifths (83%) of single mothers had a job at some point during the year. By 2009, the share of single mothers with some attachment during the year had fallen to about three-quarters (74%). Comparing the two years, 46% worked full-time full-year in 2000, whereas only about two-fifths (39%) did so in 2009. The share of single mothers who were marginally employed during the year for economic reasons -- they had a job at some time during the year, but for fewer hours or weeks than they desired -- has risen from 13% of all single mothers in 2000, to 19% in 2009. Among this group are those who were unemployed (i.e., without a job for part of the year and looked for work) as well as "discouraged" workers (i.e., those who were without a job for part of the year and did not look for work because they believed no jobs were available); it also includes mothers who worked less than full-time, but desired full-time work.

In 2009, 74% of single mothers had some attachment to a job, and thus potentially had some connection to the work-based safety net. All of these mothers -- those who worked full-time full-year, those who were marginally employed for economic reasons, and mothers who worked less than full-time full-year for personal reasons (i.e., taking care of home or family, going to school, ill or disabled, or retired/other) -- might potentially benefit from the EITC, or the ACTC, depending on their annual earnings. Among those who worked for part of the year, but experienced a period of unemployment, some might qualify for UI benefits, depending on their work history and the conditions under which they separated from a job. In addition to the 74% of mothers with some job attachment, another 5% of single mothers were unemployed for the entire year, or without a job and did not work because they believed no work was available. Some of these mothers might also qualify for UI benefits depending on their circumstances.

 

Figure 20. Single Mothers' Job Attachment, 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

Notes: Persons who worked for 50 weeks or more, and 35 or more hours per week, are designated as full-time, full-year workers. The unemployed are persons who were without a job and searched for work. Discouraged workers are persons who were without a job but did not search for work because they believed no jobs were available. Personal reasons for not working during the year, or working less than full-time, full-year, include taking care of a home or family, attending school, illness or disability, retired, or other.

Role of Traditional Welfare

Absent available jobs, single mothers may turn to the traditional cash welfare system (i.e., TANF), food assistance (SNAP), relatives and friends, for basic income support. In part contingent on the nature and pace of economic recovery, and federal and state budget pressures, funding for traditional welfare programs, as well as their structure⁶³ (e.g., time limits, work/participation requirements, education and training, and subsidized employment) may face increased attention, especially if the numbers of aid applicants increase given a dearth of jobs, and consequent lack of coverage under work-related safety net programs.

Mothers' Pensions to Aid to Dependent Children⁶⁴

Since at least the first White House Conference on Children in 1909 (Conference on the Care of Dependent Children), and the subsequent creation of the Children's Bureau in 1912, the federal government has been concerned with social conditions of children. The Conference was an impetus for states' enactment of state or locally financed mothers' pensions (also referred to as widows' pensions and or mothers' aid), which provided minimal cash support to mothers made destitute, usually due to a husband's death. Mothers' aid was intended to help keep mothers at home to supervise and care for their children, as an alternative to sending children to orphanages and/or putting them up for adoption, which was a common practice of the time.⁶⁵ Mothers' pensions largely went to widows, and payments were limited and restrictive (e.g., many states imposed rigid requirements as to the "character" of parents to assure that the child was living in a "suitable home" before granting aid; mothers were required to prove destitution,⁶⁶ and to agree to cease or limit employment upon receipt of a pension⁶⁷). Prior to the 1935 Act, most states had adopted mothers' pension laws.⁶⁸

As part of the Social Security Act of 1935, the federal Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program introduced federal involvement in helping provide financial aid, or "public assistance," to aid dependent children. The ADC program essentially provided federal dollars to help support states mothers' pension programs, that nearly all states had established. Under the 1935 Act, a "dependent child" was defined as "a child under the age of sixteen who has been deprived of parental support or care by reason of the death, continued absence from the home, or physical or mental incapacity of a parent," and is living with one or more relatives in his or their own home.⁶⁹ The ADC program provided payments to states for aid to dependent children with approved state plans; federal payments at the time were one-third of the sums expended by the state up to a capped monthly expenditure amount per dependent child.⁷⁰ The federal program had no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household, although this changed over time.⁷¹ In 1950, the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of the parent or other caretaker relative. In 1962, support of a second parent in a family who was incapacitated or unemployed was allowed, and the program's name was changed to the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC).

Under state administration, ADC, as well as the mothers' pension programs which preceded it, favored children of widows over others. Early evidence from the program indicated that over half of all children assisted were dependent because of the death of a parent, with most living with their widowed mother; most of the remainder were living with mothers who were "deserted, divorced, or separated," or were living in other settings in which the mother was not present; about 2% were living with an unmarried mother.⁷² The comparatively small share of unmarried mothers receiving ADC assistance in part reflected a program preference to serve widows, and some unmarried mothers were denied assistance by failing to meet "suitable home requirements." However, children of unmarried mothers at the time represented a relatively small share of all fatherless children in the early years of the ADC program. In 1938, children of unwed mothers represented an estimated 3.8% of all children in female-headed households in the U.S.⁷³ Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, extending Social Security benefits to widows and surviving children of deceased workers covered by the program, would have the effect of reducing the number of widows and their children from needing ADC, resulting in the program coming to primarily serve families in which fathers were absent due to divorce or abandonment. By 1961, widowed families would comprise only 7.7 percent of the ADC caseload, down from 43 percent in 1937.⁷⁴

Increased Federal Involvement

In 1938, three years after enactment of the ADC, eight states were still not participating in the program.⁷⁵ In 1939, the federal payment rate was raised from one-third to one-half of a raised maximum payment amount per child, effective January 1940. With increasing federal dollars, the federal government would help assure state participation in the program, while at the same time gaining greater leverage in influencing the provision of assistance at the state level.⁷⁶ By June 1940, all states, the District of Columbia, Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico were participating in programs providing child welfare services under the Social Security Act.⁷⁷ Over time, the federal share of AFDC expenditures would increase, reaching a minimum of 50% and a permitted maximum of 83% of total AFDC expenditures by 1965, effective January 1966, for states with an approved plan for medical assistance programs under Title IXX of the Social Security Act (i.e., Medicaid).⁷⁸

In 1961, the federal Bureau of Public Assistance (BPA), which ran the ADC program, issued a directive against states' and localities' use of "suitable home" rules, that had traditionally been used to keep children of unwed mothers out of the program. In 1966, the Bureau of Family Services, which had replaced the BPA in 1962, ordered that state plans for determining eligibility for AFDC "respect the rights of individuals. . . . and not result in practices that violate the individual's privacy or personal dignity, or harass him, or violate his constitutional rights." Implicitly, states that did not comply could risk losing federal matching funds.⁷⁹

Legal Challenges to Restrictive State Welfare Practices

Greater federal involvement and regulation of AFDC gave petitioners greater legal standing in federal court to challenge restrictive state welfare policies. While AFDC was an entitlement to eligible individuals, as defined by federal law, states still retained control in administering the program, which included determining eligibility of families applying for assistance. Although AFDC was an entitlement, practices of granting eligibility for the program varied widely among states and localities, as had been the case under the mothers' pensions in the pre-ADC era. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-452), the centerpiece of President Lyndon Johnson's "War on Poverty," focused national attention and federal assistance in helping to combat poverty. Among its provisions was the establishment of an Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO), which administered a number of programs under the act. Community Action Programs (CAP) were among OEO's programs, under which Community Action Agencies (CAAs) took root in local communities to help promote "maximum feasible participation" of the poor, intended to engage the poor in seeking solutions to poverty in their communities. OEO also set up legal services to aid the poor in local communities. At the same time, a burgeoning National Welfare Rights Organization (NWRO), independently began to advocate for the rights of the poor.⁸⁰ Growing political empowerment of the poor, combined with legal advocacy helped to overturn a number of restrictive state welfare policies by the U.S. Supreme Court. Such policies included "man-in-the-house" rules (King v. Smith, 392 U.S. 309 (1968)); long-term residency requirements (Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969)), and termination of assistance without a fair hearing (Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970)), among others. By one estimate, elimination of the residency requirements alone added some 800,000 persons to the AFDC rolls by 1970.⁸¹

Federal Efforts to Stem Rising Public Assistance Caseloads

Figure 2 depicts the number of recipients (children and adults) and welfare cases receiving assistance under AFDC (and ADC) from 1960 to 1994, the eve of the programs' repeal. While some federal efforts served to expand assistance caseloads, such as regulations and enforcement activities to promote states' administration of the program's individual entitlement provisions, and increasing federal matching payments to states, which shifted more of the financial burden of providing assistance from states to the federal government, other efforts would seek to restrain caseload growth and its underlying causes.

Expanding welfare caseloads were beginning to contribute to what some would refer to as a "welfare crisis," by the mid-1960s.⁸² Contributing to the "crisis" was a growing number of families potentially eligible for cash assistance, as the baby-boom generation began entering adulthood, as well as changing social behavior relating to marriage, divorce, and childbearing. As noted earlier, in 1961 families headed by widowed mothers accounted for only about 8% of ADC families; from 1961 to 1967, the share of families receiving AFDC who were headed by never-married mothers would increase from 21% to 28%.⁸³ In addition to an increasing number of potentially eligible families, an increasing share of such families applied for and were granted assistance during the 1960s, with the participation of eligible families in AFDC increasing "from perhaps 33 percent in the early 1960s to more than 90 percent in 1971.⁸⁴"

The Rise (and Fall) of Social Services as an Answer to Reducing Welfare Dependency

The 1939 extension of social benefits to widows and surviving children of deceased covered workers had the effect of reducing the number of widows and their children needing assistance under ADC, resulting in the program coming to primarily serve families in which fathers were absent due to divorce or abandonment. Changing social trends regarding marriage, divorce, and childbearing in the post World War II era, contributed to the ADC program's growth. Under 1956 amendments to the Social Security Act (P.L. 84-880), Congress permitted federal funding to reimburse states for 50% of the costs of providing social services to public assistance recipients. Among the legislation's stated purpose was to enable states to "furnish financial assistance and other services . . . to needy dependent children and the parents or relatives with whom they are living to help maintain and strengthen family life and . . . attain the maximum level of self-support and personal independence."

Under 1962 amendments, funding for social services was expanded, and the federal matching rate was increased to 75%. Expanded funds for social services and training of skilled welfare workers marked the advent of the "casework approach" for addressing the multiple problems that many public assistance recipients faced. In his statement at the signing of the 1962 Amendments, President Kennedy described it as "a new approach-stressing services in addition to support, rehabilitation instead of relief, and training for useful work instead of prolonged dependency . . . [the] objective is to prevent or reduce dependency and to encourage self-care and self-support to maintain family life where it is adequate and to restore it where it is deficient."⁸⁵

Increased case supervision by social workers was intended to identify and address problems aid recipients faced, leading to their "rehabilitation" and helping to move them toward self sufficiency. A major premise was that the provision of social servicers could break the bonds of dependency many welfare families faced, by addressing their underlying problems. Consequent to the increased emphasis on social services, income maintenance workers often came to serve the dual function of eligibility technician and social caseworker. In implementing the law, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), set caseload and supervisory standards to assure smaller workloads and time for workers to deal with clients.⁸⁶ The amendments also provided additional funds for training welfare personnel in assuming the additional casework functions associated with identifying clients' need for services, as well as brokering and/or providing those services. Provision of social services became an integrated function with the provision of cash aid. States provided a panoply of services within a broad, somewhat ill-defined, range of service categories (e.g., educational or vocational training, health care, improved financial functioning, maintaining family life and improving family functioning, maintaining and improving social relationships and community life, self-care services, self-support services). In order to receive reimbursement at the 75% federal matching rate, a case had to be considered a "service case" and had to be part of a caseload of designated size. States faced a financial incentive to provide social services as a result of the comparatively high federal matching rate, which contributed to burgeoning federal spending on social services in the early 1970s.⁸⁷

AFDC caseloads continued to rise through the course of the 1960s, in spite of increased funding for the provision of rehabilitative services. In 1972, HEW issued a mandate to states to separate the provision of services from the administrative function of determining eligibility for aid.⁸⁸ Under the mandate, social services would still be provided at the families' request, rather than on a routine basis. The 1974 Social Security Amendments created a new Title XX, which expanded eligibility for free or subsidized social services to the non-poor, but with a spending cap, rather than an open-ended matching grant. Title XX further severed the provision of social services from the provision of cash aid.

Federal Efforts to Constrain AFDC Caseload Growth Due to Absent Fathers

Under 1967 Social Security Act amendments, Congress attempted to restrain AFDC caseload growth resulting from children's fathers continued absence from the home. States were required to establish programs to determine paternity and to locate absent parents and secure support from them.⁸⁹ Additionally, Congress imposed a "freeze" on federal matching payments for AFDC, which would limit the availability of federal matching funds for children who were receiving AFDC due to continued absence of a parent from the home.⁹⁰ Under the provision, federal matching funds would not be available to states after July 1, 1969 for any increase above the January-March 1968 level in the proportion of the state's children under age 18 receiving AFDC on grounds of the continued absence of their father. Implementation of the provision was postponed, and subsequently repealed by Congress in 1969 before taking effect (P.L. 91-41).

Under 1974 amendments to the Social Security Act, a new part D⁹¹, Child Support and Establishment of Paternity, was added to title IV. Among Part D provisions, states were required to have plans for establishing paternity and establishing child support and were subject to loss of 5% of AFDC federal matching funds for failure to have "effective" programs. AFDC applicants and recipients were required to "cooperate" in identifying and locating children's fathers, and were required to assign child support rights to the state. Additionally, Part D required the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) to establish a separate organizational unit to monitor state programs and to operate a Parent Locator Service, making use of federal and state records.⁹²

Promoting Self-Sufficiency -- Work Incentives, Requirements, and Sanctions

In 1961, Congress permitted states to include a second, unemployed, parent as part of the assistance unit under AFDC, the Unemployed Parent (AFDC-UP) program, but were required to deny assistance if the unemployed parent refused to accept work without "good cause".⁹³ In 1962, Congress authorized federal funds for states to establish Community Work and Training (CWT) programs for federally aided adult recipients. CWT jobs were to pay at least an equivalent wage for the same type of work as prevailing in the community, or the minimum wage, if higher. States were required to deduct only "net" earnings from the grant of the working welfare recipient (i.e., after any reasonable work-related expenses) and were permitted to allow working welfare recipients to deduct any income set aside for identifiable needs of the dependent child.⁹⁴

Amendments of 1967 replaced CWT with the Work Incentive (WIN) program, a joint program between HEW and the Department of Labor (DOL), that required states to set up work and training programs for "appropriate" AFDC recipients.⁹⁵ The federal share of WIN spending was set at 80%, with states assuming the remainder. The 1967 amendments also required states to disregard a portion of AFDC adults' earnings -- the first $30 plus one-third of the remainder -- from income counted against the AFDC grant. Under prior law, other than a required deduction for work expenses from net earnings, the AFDC grant could be reduced by one dollar for every dollar earned. Under the 1967 provisions, the AFDC benefit would phase out more gradually, with a benefit reduction of 67 cents for each dollar earned during the month, in excess of $30. While providing a financial incentive for AFDC recipients to engage in work, the higher disregard would allow working recipients to stay on the program at higher income levels than otherwise, tending to have a potential countervailing influence on caseloads.

The 1967 amendments also signaled a shift in emphasis in the provision of services from "rehabilitative," personal "competence-enhancing," services, to work-related services, such as vocational training, job and work training referral, and child care, to promote self-sufficiency.⁹⁶

In 1971, Congress required that all AFDC parents register for work or training, except for mothers with a child under age 6. In 1981, Congress gave states the authority to design and test their own "welfare-to-work" programs. In 1988, the Family Support Act replaced the WIN program with the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program (JOBS). The program extended work requirements (which could include work preparation activities, such as education and training) from mothers with a child as young as six to mothers with a child as young as three and, at states' option, of extending work requirements to mothers with a child as young as age one. The act also required states to provide benefits to a second parent who was incapacitated or unemployed (AFDC-UP program).

A number of states experimented with changes to welfare policy under waiver authority granted to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).⁹⁷ Among the features of state programs tested under waiver authority were efforts to strengthen work requirements, experiments requiring a "work first" approach rather than "training first, followed by work," time limits, strengthened sanctions for noncompliance with welfare rules, and capping of welfare benefits for a new baby conceived or born while a mother was receiving welfare.

 

Figure B-1. AFDC/TANF Cases:

 

CPS Estimates Versus Administrative Caseload Counts

 

(Annual Monthly Average), 1987 to 2009

 

 

 

                      Table B-1. AFDC/TANF Cases:

² See, for example, Catherine Rampell, "'Great Recession': A Brief Etymology," New York Times (internet edition), March 11, 2009, available at http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/11/great-recession-a-brief-etymology/.

³ Single fathers and their children have received comparative little study, nor have they emerged as a matter of policy concern, as have single mothers and their children.

⁴ The official U.S. statistical poverty measure is based on families' annual pre-tax income relative to family poverty income thresholds, which vary by family size and composition. For example, in 2009, a family consisting of a single mother with one child was considered poor if its annual pre-tax cash income was less than $14,787, and if she had two children, she and her children would be considered poor if her family income was below $17,285. In turn, a married couple with one child would be considered poor if the family's income was less than $17,268, and if they had two children, if its income was less than $21,756.

⁵ The definition of "children" used here represents dependent children under the age of 18 who are related to another family member by birth or adoption. It excludes children who are unrelated to other household members, and excludes persons under the age of 18 who themselves have a dependent child residing with them.

⁶ James T. Patterson, America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900-1985 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), p. 179.

⁷ Section 1115 of the Social Security Act grants the Secretary authority to waive compliance of states with certain sections of the Social Security Act for state experiments or demonstrations that the Secretary judges to promote specific objectives of the act.

⁸ Economic recessions are defined by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Business Cycle Dating Committee.

⁹ For analyses of AFDC caseload growth over this period, see CRS Report 93-7, Demographic Trends Affecting Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Caseload Growth, by Thomas Gabe (archived report, available to congressional clients upon request ); also, Janice Peskin, Forecasting AFDC Caseloads, with an Emphasis on Economic Factors, Congressional Budget Office Staff Memorandum, July 1993; and, Rebecca Blank, "What Causes Public Assistance Caseloads to Grow?," Journal of Human Resources, vol. 36, no. 1 (Winter 2001), pp. 85-118.

¹⁰ Available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1992_public_papers_vol1_text&docid=pap_text-79.pdf.

¹¹ Gwen Ifill, "Clinton Presses Welfare Overhaul, Stressing Job Training and Work," New York Times, September 10, 1992, pp. A1, A19.

¹² Richard L. Berke, "The Ad Campaign -- Clinton: Getting People Off Welfare," New York Times, September 10, 1992, p. A-19.

¹³ "House GOP Offers Descriptions Of Bills To Enact 'Contract'." In CQ Almanac 1994, 50^th ed., 39-D-52-D. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1995, http://library.cqpress.com/cqalmanac/cqal94-843-25141-1102086.

¹⁴ "Welfare Reform," in Contract with America : the bold plan by Rep. Newt Gingrich, Rep. Dick Armey and the House Republicans to change the nation, ed. Ed Gillespie and Bob Schellhas (New York: Times Books, 1994), p. 65.

¹⁵ Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes.

¹⁶ A state's work participation requirement may be reduced for specified reasons (e.g., reductions in a state's caseload "caseload reduction credit," or states spent more than that required by TANF's MOE). See CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.

¹⁷ Up to 20% of the TANF caseload can be extended to receive assistance beyond five years due to "hardship," as defined by the states. See CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.

¹⁸ See, for example, the Urban Institute's Welfare Rules Database, on the Internet at http://anfdata.urban.org/wrd/WRDWelcome.cfm.

¹⁹ For a discussion of changes in work incentives under TANF compared to AFDC, see CRS Report RL30579, Welfare Reform: Financial Eligibility Rules and Cash Assistance Amounts under TANF, by Craig Abbey (archived report, available upon request).

²⁰ Maximum TANF benefits available for a family of three in the median state in July 2008 were 36% below the maximum level available to a family under AFDC in July 1988, after adjusting for the effects of price inflation. In July 1988, the maximum benefit level in the median state amounted to 45% of the Department of Health and Human Services Federal Poverty Guidelines (FPL), but by 2008, only 29%. In 1988, the maximum benefit ranged from a low of 14.6% of FPL (Alabama) to 82.1% of FPL (California). By 2008, the maximum benefit ranged from a low of 11.6% of FPL (Mississippi) to a high of 50.3% of FPL (Alaska). Author's estimates based on data from U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 2008 Green Book, Section 7 -- Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 111^thCong., Table 7-22, pp. 49-50, available on the internet at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/tanf.pdf; and Gretchen Rowe and Mary Murphy, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2008, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, August 2009, Table L5, Maximum Monthly Benefit for A Family of Three with No income, August 2009, pp. 184-185, http://anfdata.urban.org/databooks/Databook%202008%20FINAL.pdf.

²¹ See CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by Gene Falk.

²² The federal minimum wage increased from $3.35 per hour to $3.80 per hour, effective April 1990, to $4.25 per hour, effective April 1991, to $4.75 per hour, effective October 1996, $5.15 per hour, effective September 1997, $5.85 per hour, effective July 2007, and $6.65 per hour, effective July 2008. In July 2009, the minimum wage was increased to $7.25 per hour. For an analysis of possible effects of minimum wage increases on welfare participation, see Mark Turner, The Effects of Minimum Wages on Welfare Recipiency, paper presented at the National Association for Welfare Research and Statistics, August 1998.

²³ U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Changes in Basic Minimum Wages in Non-Farm Employment Under State Law: Selected Years 1968 to 2011, http://www.dol.gov/whd/state/stateMinWageHis.htm.

²⁴ For tax year 2010 see Erica Williams, Nicholas Johnson, and Jon Shure, State Earned Income Tax Credits: 2010 Legislative Update, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, December 9, 2010, http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2987. For earlier tax years, see http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/Content/Excel/state_eitc.xls.

²⁵ This section is based on CRS Report RS22380, Child Support Enforcement: Program Basics, by Carmen Solomon-Fears; CRS Report RL34203, Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues, by Carmen Solomon-Fears; and, CRS Report R41431, Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers, by Carmen Solomon-Fears, Gene Falk, and Adrienne L. Fernandes-Alcantara.

²⁶ The federal government reimburses each state 66% of all allowable expenditures on CSE activities. The federal government's funding is "open-ended" in that it pays its percentage of expenditures by matching the amounts spent by state and local governments with no upper limit or ceiling. The federal government also provides incentive payments to states to encourage them to operate effective programs. Federal law requires states to reinvest CSE incentive payments back into the CSE program or related activities. In addition to state and federal matching funds and incentive payments, states collect child support on behalf of families receiving AFDC/TANF to reimburse themselves (and the federal government) for the cost of AFDC/TANF cash payments to the family. Federal law requires families who receive AFDC/TANF cash assistance to assign their child support rights to the state in order to receive AFDC/TANF. In addition, such families must cooperate with the state if necessary to establish paternity and secure child support. CSE collections on behalf of families receiving AFDC/TANF cash benefits are used to reimburse state and federal governments for AFDC/TANF payments made to the family (i.e., child support payments go to the state instead of the family, except for amounts that states choose to "pass through" to the family as additional income that does not affect TANF eligibility or benefit amounts). Additionally, states may charge application fees and apply recovered costs from nonwelfare families to help finance their CSE programs.

²⁷ For a discussion of issues and policies and programs relating to this topic see CRS Report RL34756, Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions, by Carmen Solomon-Fears.

²⁸ The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that it will not be until 2016 that the U.S. unemployment rate will reach 5.3%, near what the agency estimates as the natural rate of unemployment of 5.2% (the rate of unemployment arising from all sources except fluctuations in aggregate demand). See Congressional Budget Office, The Budget and Economic Outlook: Fiscal Years 2011 to 2021, January 2011, p. XII, http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf.

²⁹ For a discussion see CRS Report RL34715, The Child Tax Credit, by Maxim Shvedov. ³⁰ $3,000 + ($1,000/.15) = $9,667. ³¹ $12,550 + ($1,000/.15) = $19,217.

³² For a thorough discussion of the UI system, see CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits, by Katelin P. Isaacs and Julie M. Whittaker.

³³ EUC08 benefits are fully federally funded out of the federal Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) and from general funds. Since originally passed into law, authorization for the EUC08 program has been extended a number of times -- most recently on December, 17, 2010, when the President signed P.L. 111-312, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, which extended the EUC08 program's authorization until January 3, 2012.

³⁴ See CRS Report R40368, Unemployment Insurance Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by Alison M. Shelton, and Julie M. Whittaker, and CRS Report RS21356, Taxation of Unemployment Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker.

³⁵ Other UC programs include unemployment benefits for former U.S. military service members (UCX program), Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) benefits, workers who lose their jobs because of international competition who receive additional or supplemental support through the Trade Adjustment Act (TAA) programs.

³⁶ See CRS Report R41374, Reducing SNAP (Food Stamp) Benefits Provided by the ARRA: P.L. 111-226 and P.L. 111296, by Joe Richardson, Jim Monke, and Gene Falk.

³⁷ CRS Report R40211 , Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by Gene Falk et al (archived). Also see CRS Report R41078, The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund, by Gene Falk.

³⁸ CRS Report R40211, op. cit.

³⁹ Estimates are for children in female-headed "households," which differs somewhat from the CRS definition of female-headed "families" used later in this report based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data.

⁴⁰ See, for example Council of Economic Advisors, Technical Report: The Effects of Welfare Policy and the Economic Expansion on Welfare Caseloads: An Update, A Report by the Council of Economic Advisors, Washington, DC, August 1999; James P. Ziliak, David N. Figlio, and Elizabeth E. Davis, et al., "Accounting for the Decline in AFDC Caseloads, Welfare Reform or the Economy?," The Journal of Human Resources, vol. XXXV, no. 3, pp. 570-586; Robert A. Moffitt, "The Effect of Pre-PRWORA Waivers on AFDC Caseloads and Female Earnings, Income, and Labor Force Behavior," in Economic Conditions and Welfare Reform, ed. Sheldon Danziger (Kalamazoo, Mich.: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 1999); June E. O'Neill and Anne M. Hill, Gaining Ground? Measuring the Impact of Welfare Reform on Welfare and Work, Manhattan Institute, Civic Report No. 17, New York, New York, 2001; Caroline Danielson and Jacob Alex Klerman, "Did Welfare Reform Cause the Caseload Decline," Social Service Review, vol. 82, no. 4 (December 2008), pp. 703-730.

⁴¹ The CPS/ASEC data groups any General Assistance individuals or families may have received with AFDC and TANF. GA programs are financed and administered at the state, county, or local level, and are generally used to meet the needs of people who are ineligible for federally funded cash assistance (e.g., AFDC/TANF, SSI) or are awaiting approval for such benefits. In 1998, 35 states and the District of Columbia had GA programs. See L. Jerome Gallagher, Cori E. Uccello, and Alicia B. Pierce, et al., State General Assistance Programs 1998, The Urban Institute, Assessing the New Federalism, Discussion Paper 99-01, Washington, DC, April 1999, http://www.urban.org/publications/409066.html.

⁴² See Appendix B, which compares CPS estimates to AFDC/TANF caseload counts.

⁴³ Administrative caseload statistics show the caseload as peaking in March 1994, with nearly 5.1 million cases. In December 2007, at the onset of the recession, the caseload stood at 1.653 million, or only about one-third the level of its March 1994 peak. By December 2009, the caseload had increased somewhat from that of two years earlier, to 1.860 million, a 12.5% increase.

⁴⁴ See Appendix B on CPS under-reporting.

⁴⁵ Email exchanges with Census Bureau contacts, relaying the author's findings, have not resulted in an attributable explanation for the sudden dip and recovery of EITC receipt among this subgroup of the population. EITC receipt is not directly reported on the CPS/ASEC. The Census Bureau estimates the EITC and other tax variables on the CPS/ASEC using a tax model. Beginning with the 2004 CPS, the Census Bureau implemented a new tax model, providing new tax estimates for income year 2003. It's uncertain whether model changes may have contributed the sudden aberration in trend of estimated EITC receipt.

⁴⁶ For example, a disabled child might qualify for SSI, while the parent could potentially qualify for AFDC, or vice versa if the parent were disabled. For a discussion, see David C. Stapleton, David C. Wittenburg, and Michael E. Fishman, et al., "Transitions from AFDC to SSI Before Welfare Reform," Social Security Bulletin, vol. 64, no. 1 (2001), pp. 84-114.

⁴⁷ Ibid., p. 86.

⁴⁸ As with the EITC, ACTC estimates are Census Bureau model-based estimates.

⁴⁹ The order in which income components are added can influence the measured marginal effect of each.

⁵⁰ For discussion, see CRS Report R41187, Poverty Measurement in the United States: History, Current Practice, and Proposed Changes, by Thomas Gabe. The NAS panel recommended that new means be developed for establishing poverty income thresholds, and that those thresholds be based on distributions of resources families have to spend on the basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter and utilities, plus a little bit more, for other goods and services. Among its recommendations, the NAS panel recommended that in-kind benefits, such as Food Stamps, among others not part of the current "official" poverty definition, be included in the family resource definition, as well as net taxes families pay or net tax credits they receive. Additionally, they recommended that work-related expenses (e.g., child care, work-related transportation) be subtracted from income.

⁵¹ See http://www.esa.doc.gov/news/2010/03/02/census-bureau-develop-supplemental-poverty-measure.

⁵² Alaska, California, Connecticut, Minnesota, and Virginia. See Gretchen Rowe, Mary Murphy, and Ei Yin Mon, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2009, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, August 2010, Table IV.A.5, Maximum Income for Ongoing Eligibility for A Family of Three, July 2009, pp. 140-141 http://anfdata.urban.org/databooks/Databook%202009%20FINAL.pdf.

⁵³ Note that the value of the EITC on the CPS is based on Census Bureau imputations, rather than actual reported tax credits. Also, the EITC is different from most sources of income, as most families receive the EITC as a lump sum refund at the beginning of year following that in which income used in determining the credit was earned.

⁵⁴ In 1993, the after-tax poverty rate (counting Food Stamps/SNAP) among single mothers dropped from 42.7% (line 4) to 41.9% (line 5), a 0.8 percentage point (1.9%) reduction. In 2009, the EITC reduced poverty from 33.5% to 29.6%, a 3.9 percentage point (11.6%) reduction.

⁵⁵ CRS estimates from the CPS/ASEC. About 25% of nonworking single mothers, on average, lived in extended families in the pre-TANF era (1987-1996), compared to about 28% in the TANF era.

⁵⁶ CRS estimates from the CPS/ASEC. Beginning with the 2007 CPS/ASEC cohabiting couples are identifiable based on self-report. In earlier years, cohabiting couples are identifiable indirectly by inference. The method used here, for CPS/ASEC years before 2007 is based on households with two unmarried adults, who are unrelated and of the opposite sex, and no other adults reside in the household.

⁵⁷ Up to 20% of the TANF caseload can be extended to receive assistance beyond five years due to "hardship," as defined by the states. See CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF Financing and Federal Requirements, by Gene Falk.

⁵⁸ Bruce D. Meyer and Dan T. Rosenbaum, "Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers," Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. CXVI, no. 3 (2001), pp. 1163-1114.

⁵⁹ On average, 25% lived in extended family settings in the 1987 to 1996 period. Just following welfare reform, the share living in extended families increased to 30% in 1998 and 33% in 1999, and then to an average of 28% from 2000 to 2009. Based on CRS estimates from U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2010 CPS/ASEC data. (See Table C-14 for supporting data.)

⁶⁰ In 2009, for example, 20% of nonworking single mothers were living with other unrelated family members, of which over four fifths were designated as "cohabiting partners." In comparison, about 9% of nonworking single mothers lived with unrelated family members in 1987. Based on CRS estimates from U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2010 CPS/ASEC data.

⁶¹ The self reporting of "illness or disability" on the CPS/ASEC as the reason for not working may also be suspect if, as a greater share of mothers have gone to work, the attribution of "taking care of home or family" as the reason for not working has become less socially acceptable for not working, especially among mothers who receive welfare benefits.

⁶² CRS Report R41625, Federal Benefits and Services for People with Low Income: Programs, Policy, and Spending, FY2008-FY2009, by Karen Spar.

⁶³ For a discussion of issues relating to the TANF, see CRS Report R41781, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Block Grant: Issues for the 112^th Congress, by Gene Falk.

⁶⁴ For summary of the legislative history of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children, see http://www.acf.hhs.govprograms/ofa/policy/legisum.htm. Also, CRS Report 84-546 EPW, Brief legislative History of Title IV-A of the Social Security Act: Grants to States for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), by Vee Burke, February 24, 1984 (archived report, available to congressional clients upon request).

⁶⁵ Mark H. Leff, "Consensus for Reform: The Mothers'-Pension Movement in the Progressive Era," The Social Service Review, vol. 47, no. 3 (September 1973), pp. 397-417.

⁶⁶ See Jane M. Hoey, "Aid to Families with Dependent Children," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Appraising the Social Security Program, vol. 202 (March 1939), pp. 76-78

⁶⁷ Mark H. Leff, op. cit., p. 402.

⁶⁸ Missouri and Illinois were the first states to establish mothers' pensions, in 1911. By 1913, 20 states had mothers' pensions, and by 1919, 39 states and the territories of Alaska and Hawaii had mothers' pensions. In 1931, every state except for Georgia and South Carolina had mothers' pensions. See Michael B. Katz, In the Shadow of the Poorhouse: A Social History of Welfare in America (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1996), p. 133.

⁶⁹ See Legislative History, Social Security Act of 1935, on the Internet at http://www.ssa.gov/history/35activ.html.

⁷⁰ The federal maximum payment amounted to $6 per month for the first child in a family, plus $4 per month for each additional child. The federal matching rate of state AFDC expenditures would grow over time.

⁷¹ See U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, A Brief History of the AFDC Program, available on the Internet at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/AFDC/baseline/1history.pdf.

⁷² Jane M. Hoey, "Aid to Families with Dependent Children," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Appraising the Social Security Program, vol. 202 (March 1939), pp. 76, 78.

⁷³ Linda Gordon, Pitied But Not Entitled: Single Mothers and the History of Welfare, 1890-1935 (New York: The Free Press, 1994), p. 21.

⁷⁴ Mimi Abramovitz, Regulating the Lives of Women: Social Welfare Policy form Colonial Times to Present (Boston: South End Press, 1988), p. 321.

⁷⁵ Ibid., p. 76.

⁷⁶ For an in depth discussion, see for example: Martha Derthick, The Influence of Federal Grants, Public Assistance in Massachusetts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

⁷⁷ See http://www.ssa.gov/history/1940.html.

⁷⁸ Under 1958 amendments to the Social Security Act, federal ADC payments to states were no longer based on individual assistance payments, but on total state expenditures, which were matched within an average payment per recipient. The federal matching percent could be no less than 50% and no greater than 65%. Under 1965 Amendments to the act, the federal matching rate grew to a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 83% of expenditures, which varied by state, depending on an inverse relationship of state per capita income relative to U.S. per capita income. See http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/policy/legisum.htm.

⁷⁹ James T. Patterson, America's Struggle Against Poverty, 1900-1985 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986), p. 181.

⁸⁰ Francis Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, Poor People's Movements, Why They Succeed, How They Fail (New York: Vintage Books, 1979), pp. 264-361.

⁸¹ Abramovitz, op. cit., p. 335.

⁸² See for example, Daniel P. Moynihan, The Politics of a Guaranteed Income: The Nixon Administration and the Family Assistance Plan (New York: Random House, 1973), p. 25.

⁸³ Ibid., p. 334.

⁸⁴ Patterson, op. cit., p. 179.

⁸⁵ John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, Statement by the President Upon Approving the Public Welfare Amendments Bill, July 26, 1962, The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA. Available on the Internet at http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8788.

⁸⁶ A case worker was to carry no more than 60 cases and no supervisor to have more than five workers. President's Commission on Income Maintenance Programs, Background Papers, 1970, pp. 299-309.

⁸⁷ See Martha Derthick, Uncontrollable Spending for Social Services Grants (Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution, 1975).

⁸⁸ For a brief discussion of the separation of social services from income maintenance, see Mark E. Courtney et al., "Comparing Welfare and Child Welfare Populations: An Argument for Rethinking the Safety Net," in Child Welfare Research: Advances for Practice and Policy, ed. Duncan Lindsey and Aron Shlonsky (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 273-275.

⁸⁹ Vee Burke, op. cit., p. 7.

⁹⁰ Ibid., p. 7. For a more detailed discussion see Library of Congress Legislative Reference Service Report (HV 84 D, ED-372), The Limitation on Federal Matching in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program -- The So-Called AFDC Freeze, by William Fullerton, April 1, 1969 (archived report, available by request).

⁹¹ The 1967 amendments also restructured title IV (Grants to States for Aid to Families with Dependent Children) of the act into parts: with Part A -- AFDC; Part B -- Child Welfare Services (a new part, transferred from title V, and revised; and a new Part C -- Work Incentive Program (WIN), discussed later. Vee Burke, op. cit., p. 6.

⁹² Ibid., pp. 7-8.

⁹³ Ibid., p. 4.

⁹⁴ Ibid., p. 4.

⁹⁵ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, A Brief History of the AFDC Program, available on the Internet at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/AFDC/baseline/1history.pdf.

⁹⁶ Mildred Rein, "Social Services as a Work Strategy," The Social Service Review, vol. 49, no. 4 (December 1975), pp. 515-538.

⁹⁷ Section 1115 of the Social Security Act, established in 1962, grants the Secretary authority to waive compliance of states with certain sections of the Social Security Act for state experiments or demonstrations that the Secretary judges to promote specific objectives of the act. For a discussion of waiver authority under this section, see U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, State Welfare Waivers: An Overview, available on the Internet at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/waiver2/waivers.htm.

⁹⁸ The CPS estimates are for all adults reporting receipt of AFDC or TANF during the year, converted to an estimate of an annual monthly average, based on the number of months over the year recipients reported receiving assistance. For a detailed discussion of cash welfare under-reporting on the CPS and other surveys see Richard Bavier, Accounting for increases in failure to report AFDC/TANF receipt, Office of Management and Budget, Unpublished manuscript, Washington, DC, 2000.