{ "id": "R44724", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "number": "R44724", "active": true, "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "versions": [ { "source": "EveryCRSReport.com", "id": 458046, "date": "2017-01-03", "retrieved": "2017-01-06T19:14:35.463397", "title": "Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF): Size of the Population Eligible for and Receiving Cash Assistance", "summary": "The reduction of the number of families with children receiving cash assistance since the mid-1990s is perhaps the signature indicator used to propose that the 1996 welfare reform law was successful in reducing welfare dependency. The law ended the cash assistance program for needy families with children, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), and replaced it with the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. TANF is a broad-based block grant that helps fund state cash assistance programs for needy families with children, but it also funds a wide range of benefits and services addressing both the effects and root causes of child poverty.\nThe cash assistance caseload declined particularly rapidly in the years immediately following enactment of the 1996 welfare reform law. In 1995, an estimated 17.6 million people received AFDC cash at some time during the year; by 2000, the number of people receiving cash assistance had declined to 7.9 million. The period from 1995 to 2000 also saw declines in child poverty and increased work among single mothers (who had headed most AFDC families). Following 2000, child poverty increased and work among single mothers declined somewhat. However, the cash assistance caseload continued to decline, reaching 5.7 million people in 2007 and increasing only slightly in response to the recent recession to 5.8 million people in 2012.\nThe decline in the cash assistance caseload generally resulted from fewer eligible people taking up TANF benefits. In 1995, 82% of those eligible for AFDC received assistance. The share of those eligible for TANF who received it fell to 47% in 2000, 34% in 2007, and 28% in 2012. While there were almost 12 million fewer individuals who received TANF in 2012 than received AFDC in 1995, the size of the population estimated as eligible to receive TANF in 2012 was 1.4 million persons lower than the population eligible for AFDC in 1995 (20.2 million versus 21.6 million).\nMost of those eligible but not receiving AFDC or TANF were poor, with some in deep poverty (family incomes less than half the poverty threshold). Over the 1995 to 2012 period, an increasing number of adults who failed to take up benefits were non-workers and had no other workers in their families. The decline in the share of people eligible for cash assistance also meant that TANF had a smaller impact in ameliorating poverty\u2014particularly among children in deep poverty\u2014than did AFDC. In 2012, there were 3.1 million children in deep poverty that met TANF eligibility criteria but did not receive TANF assistance. The comparable number of children in deep poverty eligible for but not receiving AFDC in 1995 was 0.5 million. In 2012, TANF reduced the rate of deep poverty among children from 9.5% to 8.4%. In 1995, AFDC reduced the rate of deep poverty among children from 11.3% to 6.5%.\nThis analysis raises several policy questions, the key one being whether caseload reduction per se is an indicator of the success of welfare reform. The drafters of the 1996 welfare reform law wanted TANF to be \u201ctemporary and provisional.\u201d However, TANF assistance was increasingly forgone or otherwise not received by those eligible for it, even amongst the poorest of families. While low-income families receive other government benefits such as food assistance and (if they have earners) refundable tax credits, these benefits do not provide ongoing cash assistance to meet basic needs. TANF has a number of structural features that give states the incentive to have policies that seek to reduce caseloads. For example, its \u201cwork participation standards\u201d can be met partially or wholly through caseload reduction rather than through engaging recipients in work or activities. TANF could be altered to lessen some of the incentives that states have to reduce caseloads. Policymakers might also look outside of TANF, to altering some existing programs or providing different forms of aid to provide ongoing support for needy families with children.", "type": "CRS Report", "typeId": "REPORTS", "active": true, "formats": [ { "format": "HTML", "encoding": "utf-8", "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44724", "sha1": "131bc2e52326eb4a762412e5b647548a05ed76de", "filename": "files/20170103_R44724_131bc2e52326eb4a762412e5b647548a05ed76de.html", "images": null }, { "format": "PDF", "encoding": null, "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44724", "sha1": "a8c0b678a37280f0ad5d0abe63d0c0172e219bee", "filename": "files/20170103_R44724_a8c0b678a37280f0ad5d0abe63d0c0172e219bee.pdf", "images": null } ], "topics": [] } ], "topics": [ "Domestic Social Policy" ] }