# Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41917 ## Record - **Collection:** Congressional research report - **Document type:** CRS Report - **Published:** November 21, 2014 - **Citation:** R41917 ## Text Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of FemaleHeaded Families with Children: 1987-2013 (name redacted) Specialist in Social Policy November 21, 2014 Congressional Research Service 7-.... www.crs.gov R41917 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Summary Eighteen years have passed 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 27 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 a historical low, the poverty rate among single mothers increased in step with two recessions. By 2010, the official poverty rate for single mothers had reached a post-2000 high, and remained at that level through 2012, before falling somewhat in 2013. In 2013, the official poverty level was still below pre-1996 welfare reform levels, despite two recessions since 1996. Using a more comprehensive income definition than that used by the official poverty measure indicates that the increase in poverty among single mothers and their children over the past 13 years has been substantially mitigated by Food Stamp/SNAP benefits and work-related refundable tax credits—benefits not captured by the “official” poverty measure. Use of an expanded income poverty measure that includes these benefits highlights effects of congressional action that helped reduce child poverty amidst, and subsequent to, the most severe recession since the Great Depression. The role of work-conditioned benefits, and the provision of traditional cash welfare, will likely continue to garner attention, in part contingent on the nature and pace of economic recovery, and federal and state budget pressures. Congressional Research Service Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Contents Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1 A Road Map ..................................................................................................................................... 2 Female-Headed Families with Children—A Policy Concern .......................................................... 3 Policy Landscape on the Eve of 1996 Welfare Reform ................................................................... 6 Welfare Dependency as a Political Theme ................................................................................ 7 EITC Expansions—“Making Work Pay” .................................................................................. 8 TANF and Other Policies in the Post-AFDC Era ............................................................................ 9 Other Federal and State Policies that Encourage Work ........................................................... 10 Child Support Enforcement ..................................................................................................... 11 Policies Addressing Marriage and Childbearing ..................................................................... 12 Policy Responses to Changing Economic Conditions ................................................................... 12 Tax Rebates, Reductions, and Credits ..................................................................................... 13 Unemployment Insurance Benefits ......................................................................................... 14 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP/Food Stamp) Benefits .......................... 15 Other Social Policies ............................................................................................................... 15 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children ............................ 16 Number of Families Headed by Single Mothers ..................................................................... 19 Incidence of Poverty by Mothers’ Marital Status .................................................................... 20 Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt among Single Mothers ..................................................... 21 Work, Poverty, and Cash Welfare Receipt of Single Mothers ................................................. 22 Single Mothers’ Employment ........................................................................................................ 23 Unemployment Rates Across the Business Cycle ................................................................... 25 Poor Single Mothers’ Work and Welfare Status ...................................................................... 26 Receipt of Selected Benefits by “Earnings Poor” Female-Headed Families with Children .......... 28 Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) .......................................................................................... 28 Supplemental Security Income (SSI) ...................................................................................... 29 Unemployment Insurance (UI) Benefits.................................................................................. 30 Food Stamp/Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) Benefits .......................... 30 Additional Child Tax Credit (ACTC) ...................................................................................... 31 Anti-Poverty Effects of Cash Income, Taxes, and Transfers on Poverty—Female-Headed Families with Children ............................................................................................................... 31 Addition of Income from Sources Not Included in the “Official” U.S. Poverty Measure ................................................................................................................................ 34 Effect of Earnings and Other Non-welfare Cash Income on Poverty...................................... 34 Effect of Cash Welfare on Poverty .......................................................................................... 35 The Invisible Safety Net—Effect on Poverty of Counting Selected Income Sources Not Included in the “Official” Poverty Measure .................................................................. 35 Effect of Food Stamp/SNAP Benefits on Poverty............................................................. 35 Net Effect of the EITC on Poverty .................................................................................... 36 Effect of the ACTC on Poverty ......................................................................................... 37 Effect of Federal Economic Stimulus and Recovery Payments and Making Work Pay Tax Credits on Poverty ............................................................................................ 37 Effect of Unrelated Household Members’ Income on Poverty ......................................... 37 Congressional Research Service Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Comparison of the Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Poverty, by Single Mothers’ Work Status ........................................................................................................... 37 Single Mothers Who Worked During the Year—Figure 14 .............................................. 38 Single Mothers Who Did Not Work During the Year—Figure 15 .................................... 42 Trend in Poverty among Children in Female-Headed Families under Selected Income Measures ..................................................................................................................................... 43 Discussion/Conclusion................................................................................................................... 44 The Invisible Safety-Net—Benefits not Officially Counted Toward Poverty Reduction ................................................................................................................ 45 Transformation of Income Safety-Net Programs Toward Work-Conditioned Support ........... 45 Cash Welfare’s Residual Safety-Net Role ............................................................................... 47 Living Arrangements as an Alternative to Welfare ........................................................... 47 Illness or Disability Among Nonworking Single Mothers ................................................ 49 The Work-Based Income Safety Net in Times of Recession and Recovery ............................ 53 Single Mothers’ Attachment to the Work-Based Safety Net ............................................. 53 The Work-Based “Safety Net” and the Role of Traditional Welfare ................................. 54 Figures Figure 1. Children’s Poverty Status by Family Living Arrangement, 2013..................................... 4 Figure 2. Number of Recipients and Cases Receiving Cash Assistance Under ADC, AFDC, 1960 to 1994 .................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 3. Number of Recipients and Cases Receiving Cash Assistance Under ADC, AFDC, and TANF, 1960 to 2013 ................................................................................................ 17 Figure 4. Poverty Rate of Children Under Age 18 in Female-Headed Households (No Spouse Present), 1960 to 2013.................................................................................................... 18 Figure 5. Number of Single-Mother Families, by Mothers’ Marital Status, 1987 to 2013 ............ 20 Figure 6. Poverty Rates by Mothers’ Marital Status, 1987 to 2013 ............................................... 21 Figure 7. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt, 1987 to 2013................................ 22 Figure 8. Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status Among Single Mothers, 1987 to 2013 .................... 23 Figure 9. Employment Rates of Single and Married Mothers, by Age of Youngest Child, March 1988 to March 2014 ........................................................................................................ 24 Figure 10. Unemployment Rate of Women Maintaining Families, January 1987 through October 2014 .............................................................................................................................. 25 Figure 11. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status During the Year, 1987 to 2013 .......... 27 Figure 12. Receipt of Selected Benefits by “Earnings Poor” Female-Headed Families with Children, 1987 to 2013 ....................................................................................................... 29 Figure 13. Effects of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status of Single Mothers, 1987 to 2013 ................................................................ 33 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 2013 ............................................................................................................................... 40 Congressional Research Service Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 2013 ............................................................................................................................................ 41 Figure 16. Poverty Among Children in Female-Headed Families Under Alternative Measures, 1987 to 2013 ........................................................................................... 44 Figure 17. Single Mothers’ Living Arrangements, by Mothers’ Work and Welfare Status............ 49 Figure 18. Single Mothers Who Did Not Work During the Year, by Self-Reported Reason for Not Working .......................................................................................................................... 50 Figure 19. Nonworking Single Mothers with Self-Reported “Illness or Disability” as the Primary Reason for Not Working, by Cash Welfare Recipiency Status ..................................... 52 Figure 20. Single Mothers’ Job Attachment,1987 to 2013 ............................................................ 54 Figure B-1. AFDC/TANF Cases: CPS Estimates Versus Administrative Caseload Counts (Annual Monthly Average), 1987 to 2013 .................................................................................. 63 Tables Table B-1. AFDC/TANF Cases: CPS Versus Administrative Caseload Counts, Annual Monthly Average, 1987 to 2013 ................................................................................................. 64 Table C-1. Children’s Family Living Arrangements and Poverty Status, 1987 to 2013 ................ 66 Table C-2. Number of Recipients and Cases Receiving Cash Assistance Under ADC, AFDC, and TANF, 1960 to 2013 ................................................................................................ 74 Table C-3. Poverty Among Related Children Under Age 18, All Children and Children in Female-Headed Households (No Spouse Present) 1960 to 2013 ............................................... 76 Table C-4. Mothers with Related Children Under Age 18, by Poverty and Marital Status, 1987 to 2013 ............................................................................................................................... 78 Table C-5. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt, 1987 to 2013 ............................. 80 Table C-6. Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status Among Single Mothers, 1987 to 2013 ................. 81 Table C-7. Employment Rates of Single and Married Mothers, by Age of Youngest Child, March 1988 to March 2014 ............................................................................................. 82 Table C-8. Monthly Unemployment Rate of Women Who Maintain Families, January 1987 to October 2014 ................................................................................................................. 83 Table C-9. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status During the Year, 1987 to 2013.......... 84 Table C-10. Receipt of Selected Benefits by Female-Headed Families with Children, All Families and “Earnings Poor” Families, 1987 to 2013 ............................................................... 85 Table C-11. Effect of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status, All Single Mothers, 1987 to 2013.............................................................. 88 Table C-12. Effect of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status, Single Mothers Who Worked at Any Time During the Year, 1987 to 2013 ........................................................................................................................................ 90 Table C-13. Effect of Earnings, Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status, Single Mothers Who Did Not Work at Any Time During the Year, 1987 to 2013 ............................................................................................................................... 92 Congressional Research Service Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Table C-14. Single Mothers’ Living Arrangements, by Mothers’ Work and Welfare Status, 1987 to 2013 ............................................................................................................................... 94 Table C-15. Single Mothers’ Work Status During the Year and Self-Reported Reason for Not Working, by Cash Welfare (AFDC/TANF/GA SSI) Receipt, 1987 to 2013 ....................... 99 Table C-16. Poverty Status of Children in Female-Headed Families Under Selected Income Measures, 1987 to 2013 ............................................................................................... 107 Table C-17. Single Mothers’ Job Attachment, 1987 to 2013 ....................................................... 109 Appendixes Appendix A. From Mothers’ Pensions to TANF—A Brief History ............................................... 56 Appendix B. Cash Welfare Under-Reporting on the CPS ............................................................. 63 Appendix C. Support Tables .......................................................................................................... 66 Contacts Author Contact Information......................................................................................................... 111 Congressional Research Service Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Introduction Eighteen years have passed 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, at least 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 27 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 1 Most data presented in this report are based on CRS analysis of 27 years of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey (CPS/ASEC). The CPS/ASEC is the principal source for annual income, poverty, and health insurance coverage estimates issued by the Census Bureau. The annual survey is a supplement to the monthly CPS conducted for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) used in deriving monthly labor force statistics, such as the national unemployment rate. Estimates from the annual supplement, (continued...) Congressional Research Service 1 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 27-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 have been 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 27-year period from 1987 to 2013. Trends in the incidence of poverty and cash welfare receipt and work among single mothers are presented, as are trends in 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, has 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. (...continued) conducted in February through April, represent characteristics at the time of the survey, and income, poverty, and health insurance status in the previous year. The analysis is limited to survey data collected from 1988 through 2014 (the most recent available), representing income and poverty status from 1987 through 2013. The CPS/ASEC analysis in this report is limited to the past 27 years due to relative consistency in design and content of the CPS/ASEC over the period. 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 comparatively little study, nor have they emerged as a matter of policy concern, as have single mothers and their children. Congressional Research Service 2 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 appendixes. 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 2013, under the official U.S. poverty measure,4 about one-fifth of all children were poor (19.8%), but among children living in single-mother families, well over two-fifths (44.1%) were poor, compared to about one in ten children (9.5%) living in married-couple families (See Figure 1).5 In 2013, one in four children (25.6%) lived in female-headed families, but children in such families accounted for well over half (57.0%) of all poor children (see bottom panel of Figure 1). About one in eight children (12.9%) live in families headed by single mothers who have never been married; about half of all such children were poor in 2013 (52.6%), and they accounted for about one third (34.3%) of all poor 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 2013, a family consisting of a single mother with one child was considered poor if its annual pre-tax cash income was less than $16,057, and if she had two children, she and her children would be considered poor if her family income was below $18,769. In turn, a married couple with one child would be considered poor if the family’s income was less than $18,751, and if they had two children, if its income was less than $23,707. 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. Congressional Research Service 3 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 1. Children’s Poverty Status by Family Living Arrangement, 2013 Share of Children by Family Living Arrangements All Children Poor Children Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. Table C-1 for supporting data. Congressional Research Service 4 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 Cash Assistance Under ADC, AFDC, 1960 to 1994 (Annual monthly average, in millions) Millions 15 Recipients 14 13 12 11 10 Children 9 8 7 6 5 Cases Adults 4 3 2 1 0 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 Year Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Family Assistance (OFA). See Table C-2 for supporting data. Note: Includes enrollment in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 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 Congressional Research Service 5 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 a 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).7 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. In addition, eligibility and funding for child care were 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 numbers of cases and persons receiving AFDC remained relatively level during the 1970s and most of the 1980s, but 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 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 (name redacted) (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. Congressional Research Service 6 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 George 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: Welfare was never meant to be a lifestyle. It was never meant to be a habit. It was never supposed to be passed from generation to generation like a legacy. It’s time to replace the assumptions of the welfare state and help reform the welfare system. States throughout the country are beginning to operate with new assumptions that when ablebodied people receive Government assistance, they have responsibilities to the taxpayer: A responsibility to seek work, education, or job training; a responsibility to get their lives in order; a responsibility to hold their families together and refrain from having children out of wedlock; and a responsibility to obey the law. We are going to help this movement. Often, State reform requires waiving certain Federal regulations. I will act to make that process easier and quicker for every State that asks for our help.10 In September 1992, during a presidential campaign speech, candidate William J. Clinton pledged, if elected, to “end welfare as we know it.” As reported in the New York Times, he stated: The changing face of welfare and the changing nature of it, and the enormous barriers of people moving from welfare to a productive life deserve special attention ... Especially now that most people on welfare are young women and their little children.... By the time we’re through, we shouldn’t have a welfare program in America ... We ought to have a helping hand program followed by a jobs program.11 The previous day, the Clinton campaign began airing a campaign ad in which the candidate stated his plan to “end welfare as we know it”: For so long, Government has failed us, and one of its worst failures has been welfare. I have a plan to end welfare as we know it, to break the cycle of welfare dependency. We’ll provide education, job training and child care, but even those who are able must go to work, either in the private sector or in public service.... It’s time to make welfare what it should be—a second chance, not a way of life.”12 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. Congressional Research Service 7 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Nearly 20 welfare reform bills would be introduced in the 103rd Congress,13 but it was not until June 1994, before the mid-term elections, that President Clinton would unveil his welfare reform proposal, the Work and Responsibility Act of 1994 (S. 2224, H.R. 4605). 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 wideranging 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: Isn't it time for the government to encourage work rather than rewarding dependency? The Great Society has had the unintended consequence of snaring millions of Americans into the welfare trap. Government programs designed to give a helping hand to the neediest of Americans have instead bred illegitimacy, crime, illiteracy, and more poverty. Our Contract with America will change this destructive social behavior by requiring welfare recipients to take personal responsibility for the decisions they make. Our Contract will achieve what some thirty years of massive welfare spending has not been able to accomplish: reduce illegitimacy, require work, and save taxpayers money.14 The Contract’s welfare proposal, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995, was introduced as H.R. 4 on January 4, 1995, the first day of the 104th Congress. 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 George 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. 13 “House GOP Offers Descriptions Of Bills To Enact ‘Contract’.” In CQ Almanac 1994, 50th 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. Congressional Research Service 8 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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.19 Additionally, 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 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 (name redacted). 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 (name redacted). 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 2013 were 42% below the (continued...) Congressional Research Service 9 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 States may use both federal and state MOE dollars for a wide range of activities, other than the provision of “cash assistance.”21 In FY2013, 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 about two-fifths (41%) of total TANF spending in FY2013. 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 FY2013, 16% 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 31 states (includes the District of Columbia) 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 2012, 24 states and the District of Columbia had SEITCs, and in 22 of those jurisdictions the credit was fully refundable.24 (...continued) 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 2013, only 26%. In 1988, the maximum benefit ranged from a low of 14.6% of FPL (Alabama) to 82.1% of FPL (California). By 2013, the maximum benefit ranged from a low of 10.4% of FPL (Mississippi) to a high of 48.5% of FPL (New York). Author’s calculations based on data from U.S. Congress, House Committee on Ways and Means, 2008 Green Book, Section 7—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, 111th Cong., Table 7-22, pp. 49-50, available on the internet at http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/110/tanf.pdf; and Erika Huber, David Kassabian, and Elissa Cohen, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2013, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, September 2014, Table L5, Maximum Monthly Benefit for A Family of Three with No income, 1996-2013 (July), pp. 224-225 http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413208-Welfare-Rules-Databook.pdf. 21 See CRS Report RL32760, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: Responses to Frequently Asked Questions, by (name redacted). 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 2012 see Policy Basics: State Earned Income Tax Credit, Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, (continued...) Congressional Research Service 10 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 they 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 child support collected 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 (...continued) December 2012, http://www.cbpp.org/files/policybasics-seitc.pdf. 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 (name redacted) ; CRS Report RL34203, Child Support Enforcement Program Incentive Payments: Background and Policy Issues, by (name redacted) (archived report); and CRS Report R41431, Child Well-Being and Noncustodial Fathers, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted). 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 non-welfare families to help finance their CSE programs. Congressional Research Service 11 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 directly to families. In FY2013, the CSE program collected $28.0 billion in child support payments from noncustodial parents and served nearly15.6 million child support cases. Of the $28.0 billion collected in child support payments, about 93% went to families, 5% went to state and federal governments, and nearly 2% 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 toward achieving these goals. TANF’s Four Goals “(1) Provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” Since TANF became law, a number of federal, state, and local initiatives have been undertaken in the attempt to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote responsible fatherhood and healthy marriage. Policy initiatives seek to reduce the incidence of teenage pregnancy through abstinence education, comprehensive sex education programs, and youth programs. Other programs focus on promoting healthy marriage, generally through public advertising campaigns on the value of marriage, and more targeted efforts at providing “social skills” education and training (e.g., marriage education, conflict resolution, and relationship skills) to couples interested in marriage or who are already married. Responsible fatherhood programs are intended to connect or reconnect children to their noncustodial parents, with the hope of improving the prospects of children being raised in single-parent families. Policy Responses to Changing Economic Conditions It is useful to view the policy changes discussed above in the context of prevailing economic conditions. Over the 27 years examined, the country experienced three economic recessions. The first, lasting eight months (July 1990 to March 1991) and 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 eight-month recession (March to November of 2001), which occurred well after passage and state implementation of new welfare reform rules. More recently, the economy suffered from what has been marked as the longest and deepest recession in the post-World War II era, lasting some 18 months from its official beginning to end (December 2007 to June 2009). In response, Congress passed a wide range of provisions under economic stimulus 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 (name redacted). Congressional Research Service 12 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 and recovery legislation to bolster the economy and to help support low- and middle-income families and individuals. Tax Rebates, Reductions, and Credits A number of policy interventions were undertaken in response to the most recent recession to both stimulate the economy and 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, under the Making Work Pay (MWP) tax credit, of up to $400 for single and head-of-household tax filers and up to $800 for joint filers in 2009 and 2010 by reducing FICA tax withholding. Congress legislated a payroll (FICA) “tax holiday” (P.L. 111-312), temporarily reducing the employee share of Social Security taxes from 6.2% to 4.2% for 2011. In 2011, for a single working parent with one child, earning poverty level wages ($15,504), her payroll taxes would be reduced from $961 to $651, a tax savings of $310. The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 (P.L. 112-96) extended the tax reduction through 2012. 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 Credit28 (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 expanded eligibility, temporarily, 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 of $3,000 may have been eligible for the credit, and eligible for the full $1,000 credit once her earned income reached $9,667.29 Absent 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 $19,217.30 28 For a discussion see CRS Report R41873, The Child Tax Credit: Current Law and Legislative History, by (name reda cted). 29 $3,000 + ($1,000/.15) = $9,667. 30 $12,550 + ($1,000/.15) = $19,217. Congressional Research Service 13 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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) extended the ARRA ACTC provisions through tax year 2012. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (H.R. 8, as amended by the Senate, and signed into law by the President on January 2, 2013), among other things, extends ARRA’s ACTC provisions for another five years, through 2017. 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 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. The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 extends these provisions through 2017. 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.31 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 2008.32 Under the EB and EUC08 programs, Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits have been extended from a maximum of 26 weeks under the UC program 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.33 It provided a temporary supplemental benefit increase of $25 per week under all UC programs (UC, EB, EUC08, and others34), 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 31 For a thorough discussion of the UI system, see CRS Report RL33362, Unemployment Insurance: Programs and Benefits, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). 32 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. 33 See CRS Report R40368, Unemployment Insurance Provisions in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, by (name redacted); and CRS Report RS21356, Taxation of Unemployment Benefits, by (name redacted). 34 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. Congressional Research Service 14 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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: 1. permit former part-time workers to seek part-time work; 2. permit voluntary separations from employment for compelling family reasons, which must include (i) domestic violence, (ii) illness or disability of an immediate family member, and (iii) the need to accompany a spouse who is relocating for employment; 3. provide extended compensation to UC recipients in qualifying training programs for high-demand occupations; or 4. provide dependents’ allowances to UC recipients with dependents. Upon accepting the federal incentive payments, states are required to maintain the adopted changes after the incentive payments expire. The above provisions could especially assist single mothers whose job attachment has been sporadic or limited to part-time employment due to competing family responsibilities. 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 2009.35 ARRA 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%. ARRA SNAP benefit increases reverted back to annual adjustment based on food-price inflation in November 2013, 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.36 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.37 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 35 See CRS Report R41374, Reducing SNAP (Food Stamp) Benefits Provided by the ARRA: P.L. 111-226 and P.L. 111296, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted) (archived). 36 CRS Report R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, by (name redacted) et al. (archived). Also see CRS Report R41078, The TANF Emergency Contingency Fund, by (name redacted). 37 CRS Report R40211, Human Services Provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, op. cit. Congressional Research Service 15 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 enforcement programs may help states’ efforts to establish and maintain absent parents’ child support obligations. Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of FemaleHeaded Families with Children A dramatic transformation in single mothers’ welfare, work, and poverty status has occurred over the 27-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 a 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 postwelfare reform era. Figure 3 completes the administrative data series presented earlier (Figure 2) through 2013. The figure shows a dramatic decline in the number of recipients (total, adults and children) receiving AFDC/TANF after having reached a historical peak in 1993. In 1993, 14.2 million persons were receiving AFDC in the average month; by 2008, the number receiving TANF had fallen to 4 million, a decline of 10.2 million persons from 2003—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. Accompanying the economic recovery, the number of recipients has fallen slightly since 2010, reaching 4.0 million in 2013—the same level as its 2008 pre-recession low. Congressional Research Service 16 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 3. Number of Recipients and Cases Receiving Cash Assistance Under ADC, AFDC, and TANF, 1960 to 2013 (Annual Monthly Average, in Millions) Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) from Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Office of Family Assistance (OFA). See Table C-2 for supporting data. Note: Includes enrollment in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 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. From 2001 and later, includes enrollment in Separate State Programs (SSP) under state Maintenance of Effort (MOE) requirements. Moreover, since welfare reform, poverty among children living in female-headed households38 has 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, which represents the largest 10-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 47.7% in 2011,and since falling to 45.8% in 2013—still well above its 2001 low of 39.3%. 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. 38 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. Congressional Research Service 17 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 4. Poverty Rate of Children Under Age 18 in Female-Headed Households (No Spouse Present), 1960 to 2013 (Percent poor) Source: Figure prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Census Bureau historical series, available at http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/historical/people.html, “Table 10. Related Children in Female Householder Families, by Poverty Status.” See Table C-3 for supporting data. 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.39 In contrast to these efforts, the remainder of this report provides a descriptive analysis of U.S. 39 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. Congressional Research Service 18 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 27 years. Number of Families Headed by Single Mothers Over the 27-year period examined, the number of single-mother families increased from 8.2 million in 1987 to a peak of 11.5 million in 2011, falling somewhat since, to 11.0 million in 2013 (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 1.8 million, or 17%. From 1993 through 2000, the number of single mothers remained fairly stable, ranging between 9.7 million and 10.1 million. From 2000 to 2011, the number of single mothers increased by 1.5 million (from 9.7 million to 11.5 million, respectively). (The number of single mothers fell somewhat in 2013, to 11.0 million.) 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 2011, the number of never-married single mothers more than doubled, increasing from 2.7 million to 5.8 million over the period. The number of single mothers in 2013, 5.6 million, was only slightly below its 2011 peak of 5.8 million. In contrast, the number of separated mothers (no spouse present), and the number of divorced mothers in 2013, was only slightly above their 1987 number, while the number of widowed mothers in 2013 was well below the number in 1987. Moreover, in 2013 the number of married-couple families with children was just slightly below their number in 1987 (not shown in the figure, see Table C-4). Congressional Research Service 19 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 5. Number of Single-Mother Families, by Mothers’ Marital Status, 1987 to 2013 (Number in millions) Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-4 for supporting data. 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 a historical low for the 27-year period of 31.8% in 2000 (Figure 6). Since 2000, poverty rates for single mothers have increased, but they 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 eight-month recession (March to November 2001), and continued to drift upwards until increasing more sharply, to 39.5% in 2010, consequent to a deep 18-month recession (December 2007 to June 2009). The poverty rate for single-mother families fell from 39.8% in 2012 to 38.0% in 2013. 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 historical 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.) Congressional Research Service 20 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 6. Poverty Rates by Mothers’ Marital Status, 1987 to 2013 (Percent poor) Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-4 for supporting data. Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt among Single Mothers CPS data show an increase in cash welfare receipt (AFDC, TANF, or General Assistance (GA)40) among single mothers during the late 1980s and early 1990s and a decrease in the mid- to late1990s. The CPS data generally correspond to the caseload’s rise and fall, documented by administrative program data, but underestimate the caseload statistics to some extent.41 Figure 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 795,000 in 2013—77% below that of 1993 (the bottom-shaded portion of the figure).42 The CPS/ASEC data show very little if any take-up in 40 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. 41 See Appendix B, which compares CPS estimates to AFDC/TANF caseload counts. 42 Administrative caseload statistics show the caseload as peaking in March 1994, with nearly 5.1 million cases. In (continued...) Congressional Research Service 21 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 2010, no increase from 2010 to 2011, and a slight decline from 2011 to 2013. From 1993 to 2013, the number of poor single mothers who reported receiving no cash welfare increased from 1.722 million in 1993 to 3.605 million in 2013, more than doubling over the period (the middle-shaded area of the figure). Figure 7. Single Mothers: Poverty and Cash Welfare Receipt, 1987 to 2013 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-5 for supporting data. 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 2013. The figure shows that since 1993, the share of single mothers who worked at some time (...continued) December 2007, at the onset of the recession, the caseload stood at 1.691 million, or only about one-third the level of its March 1994 peak. By December 2010, the caseload had increased somewhat from that of two years earlier, to 1.936 million, a 14.3% increase. In December 2011, the caseload was down slightly from a year earlier, at 1.862 million, and in December 2013, down further, to 1.654 million. Congressional Research Service 22 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 2013 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-6 for supporting data. 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 2014. 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. Congressional Research Service 23 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 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 fell to a recent low of 49.6% in March 2010, and in March 2014 stood at 54.9%. Single mothers with a youngest child age 3 to 5 also experienced marked employment gains over the mid-to-late 1990s. Their employment rate grew from a 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 fell to a recent low of 59.7% in March 2010—13.0 percentage points below its March 2000 peak, with over two-thirds of the decline having occurred since March 2007. By March 2014, the employment rate for this group of single mothers had rebounded to 66.0%. 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 1988-2014 period. In March 2014, the employment rate of single mothers with school-age children stood at 73.0%—6.1 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 2014 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-7 for supporting data. Congressional Research Service 24 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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, reaching a high of 13.4% in July and August 2010. The annual average unemployment rate for women maintaining families was 12.3% in 2010, and 12.4% in 2011, and the poverty rate among single mothers essentially leveled off over those two years. Since then, their annual average unemployment rate has fallen, to 11.4% in 2012, and 10.5% in 2013. Comparing the most recent unemployment statistics for women maintaining families, their annual average unemployment rate for the first 10 months of 2014 (8.8%) is well below that of the same period in 2013 (10.5%), providing encouragement that the poverty rate for single mothers and their children will show continued improvement in 2014, when estimates become available in late summer 2015. However, given the pace of economic recovery, official poverty among single mothers and their children may be expected to remain above pre-recession levels for some years to come. Figure 10. Unemployment Rate of Women Maintaining Families, January 1987 through October 2014 (Rates not seasonally adjusted) Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data. See Table C-8 for supporting data. 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. Congressional Research Service 25 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 (19941996), 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 2010. 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 in 2010 had dropped to 51%, a full 13 percentage points below its 1999 peak. In 2014, 54% of poor single mothers worked at some time during the year. Congressional Research Service 26 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 11. Poor Single Mothers: Work and Welfare Status During the Year, 1987 to 2013 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-9 for supporting data. 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 9% in 2013 (one-fifth its 1991 rate), and has shown little change since, despite the recession. The share who worked without relying on cash welfare increased from a recent low of 25% in 1993 to a recent pre-recession high of 49% in 2007—essentially doubling over the period—after which the share fell to 45% in 2010 and 2011 consequent to the recession. The share has since rebounded in 2012 (48%) and 2013 (49%). The share of poor single mothers who combined work and welfare over the year has fallen by nearly three-quarters, from about 20% in 1996 to about 5% in 2013—one quarter of its 1996 level. 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 2013, tripling over the period. 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.43 43 See Appendix B on CPS under-reporting. Congressional Research Service 27 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 27-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, or taxes paid (e.g., federal and state income taxes, FICA payroll taxes). 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 for 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 toward work. In 1993, about 44% of “earnings poor” female-headed families with children were 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; caution should be exercised in attempting to interpret this phenomena, as it appears to be an aberration that is not readily explainable.44 44 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 (continued...) Congressional Research Service 28 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 Figure 12. Receipt of Selected Benefits by “Earnings Poor” Female-Headed Families with Children, 1987 to 2013 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C10 for supporting data. 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 “earnings poor” 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.45 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 (...continued) estimates for income year 2003. It’s uncertain whether model changes may have contributed the sudden aberration in trend of estimated EITC receipt. 45 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. Congressional Research Service 29 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 to be 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,46 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 27-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 in 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). UI receipt increased markedly after 2007, consequent to the recession. In 2007, 4.7% of “earnings poor” single mothers reported receiving UI benefits; by 2010, the share had increased by nearly three times, with 13.5% reporting UI receipt. The unemployment rate among earnings-poor single mothers has since dropped to 8.0%, in 2013. The higher incidence of UI receipt among these mothers consequent to the most recent recession reflects both the severity of the recession and congressional response to it, whereby the duration for which the unemployed may receive UI benefits had been extended through the end of 2013.47 Increased employment among single mothers subsequent to 1996 welfare reform likely led to more mothers being covered in UI in the most recent recession than in previous ones. 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 a historical 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 historical 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 46 Ibid., p. 86. For further discussion, see CRS Report RL34340, Extending Unemployment Compensation Benefits During Recessions, by (name redacted) and (name redacted). 47 Congressional Research Service 30 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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. By 2013, 64.0% of “earnings poor” single-mother families received SNAP benefits—12.8 percentage points above its pre-recession low (51.2% in 2007). 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 in 2004. As discussed earlier (in “Tax Rebates, Reductions, 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 discernible 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, first taking effect in 2009. In 2013, estimated receipt of ACTC by “earnings poor” single-mother families, at 45.9%, remained well above its pre-ARRA level. 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 for 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. Anti-Poverty Effects of Cash Income, Taxes, and Transfers on Poverty—Female-Headed Families with Children 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 48 49 As with the EITC, ACTC estimates are Census Bureau model-based estimates. The order in which income components are added can influence the measured marginal effect of each. Congressional Research Service 31 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 the 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. Congressional Research Service 32 Figure 13. Effects of Earnings,Transfers, and Taxes on Family Poverty and Household Low-Income Status of Single Mothers, 1987 to 2013 Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on analysis of U.S. Census Bureau 1988 to 2014 Current Population Survey (CPS) Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) data. See Table C-11 for supporting data. * Census Bureau estimates of Economic Stimulus Payments received in 2008, Economic Recovery Payments received in 2009, and Making Work Pay (MWP) tax credits received in 2009 and 2010. CRS-33 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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, and it does not take into account taxes families might pay in the form of federal payroll (FICA) taxes and federal and state income taxes. In this section, some of the weaknesses of the current “official” poverty measure are addressed, by sequentially adding a number of other income sources to, and subtracting selected taxes from, cash income to develop a more comprehensive income measure for assessing poverty than that offered by the “official” poverty income measure. 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, and the Making Work Pay (MWP) tax credit in 2009 and 2010. A cautionary note is in order with regards to assessing the effects tax credits such as the EITC and ACTC have on family income and poverty. The effects of the credits shown in the CPS/ASEC are estimates of the amount of the EITC and/or ACTC benefits families would have been eligible to receive based on their calendar year (i.e., tax year) income. However, while the tax credits’ effects are shown for the depicted year in which the credits are earned, families would not actually receive the credits until early in the following year, after filing their federal income tax forms. Finally, the bottom-most line of Figure 13 shows the effects of counting all income in the household in which the single mother lives, not just that of her related family members, and compares it to “household low-income thresholds.” The household low-income thresholds used here are scaled the same way as Census Bureau family income poverty thresholds, but are based on household (rather than family) size and composition. It is important to note that official poverty measurement is based on a family concept, which assumes that family members share income and economies of scale that result from shared living arrangements. It is generally agreed among researchers that assumptions regarding income sharing and shared economies of scale among related family members, who have ties based on blood, marriage, and adoption, do not apply to the same extent among unrelated household members. Consequently, these estimates of household low-income status likely overstate the effect of household income on reducing poverty among families headed by single mothers. 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 a historical low for the 27-year period. Their “earned-income poverty rate” rose consequent to two recessions, reaching 44.3% in 2004, and rose again from 44.7% in 2007 to 50.1% in 2010. Adding other cash income, except cash welfare Congressional Research Service 34 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 (second line down), to family earnings reduces poverty in 1993 from 56.2% (top line) to 47.4% (line 2), and in 2013 from 47.6% to 38.3%. 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 2013, in only six states 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.50 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 38.3% to 38.0% in 2013. 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 the wake of the recent recession, than in any previous period. 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 by about 2 to 3 percentage points over most of the period (compare the reduction in poverty from line 3 to line 4). In 2009, SNAP benefits nearly offset the rise in pre-tax cash income poverty (i.e., the “official” poverty measure) from 2008. Whereas on a pretax 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). In 2010, SNAP benefits continued to play an important role in reducing poverty among 50 Alaska, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Minnesota, and Virginia. See. Erika Huber, David Kassabian, and Elissa Cohen, Welfare Rules Databook: State TANF Policies as of July 2013, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC, September 2014, Table IV.A.6, Maximum Income for Ongoing Eligibility for a Family of Three, July 2013, pp. 176177 http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/413208-Welfare-Rules-Databook.pdf. Congressional Research Service 35 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 single mothers and their families, reducing poverty from 39.5% under the “official” measure to 35.8% when SNAP benefits are added to family cash income. However, unlike 2009, SNAP benefits in 2010 and 2011 did little to alter the trend toward increased poverty being driven by unemployment’s effect on earned-income poverty (top line). After counting SNAP benefits, the poverty rate among single mothers increased from 33.5% to 35.8% from 2009 to 2010, where it essentially remained unchanged for the next two years. In 2013, single mothers’ post-SNAP benefit poverty rate fell to 34.3%, 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 (in “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 and remaining in place through October 2013. Net Effect of the EITC on Poverty The EITC has had a comparatively large poverty-reducing effect on single mothers and their families since legislative expansions to the credit from 1993 took effect. The poverty reducing effect of the EITC51 is shown net of FICA, federal, and state income taxes (including refundable state tax credits) (line 5), when added to family cash income and Food Stamp/SNAP benefits (line 4). As discussed earlier (in “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 net of taxes was nearly six times greater in 2013 than in 1993.52 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. 51 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. 52 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 (1.8%) reduction. In 2013, the EITC reduced poverty from 34.3% to 30.7%, a 3.6 percentage point (10.5%) reduction. Congressional Research Service 36 Welfare, Work, and Poverty Status of Female-Headed Families with Children: 1987-2013 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 earl [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR41917. Public record. Not legal advice.