B. Relationship to Other Programs RELATIONSHIP TO THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM As a result of P.L. 99-198, households in which all members receive AFDC are automatically (categorically) eligible for food stamps, as long as they meet food stamp employment-related requirements and certain other food stamp rules. About 80 percent of AFDC recipients actually receive food stamps. The amount of the AFDC payment that a family receives is considered as countable income for purposes of determining the amount of the food stamp benefit that a family is entitled to receive, with the result that one dollar of AFDC reduces the food stamp benefit by $.30. Because the food stamp benefit is reduced by $.30 for each additional dollar of AFDC income, a State must spend $1.43 to effectively increase the family's total income by $1. The food stamp law was amended in 1985 (P.L. 99-198) to allow States to operate projects under which households including one or more members who are recipients of AFDC, SSI, or Medicaid benefits will be eligible for food stamps regardless of the food stamp program income and asset requirements, as long as the household income does not exceed 130 percent of the Federal poverty level. Benefits to these households are to be based on the size of the household and (1) the AFDC benefit, (2) the Medicaid income eligibility standard, or (3) at State option, the AFDC or Medicaid standards of need. The Secretary of Agriculture must adjust the benefits received by these households to ensure that the average benefit by household size is not less than the average that would have been provided under regular food stamp benefit determination rules. There can be no more than five Statewide projects and not more than five projects in political subdivisions of States. The processing of applications for, and determinations of eligibility to receive, benefits under the food stamp and AFDC programs are to be simplified and unified to the extent practicable for households participating in the projects. The food stamp program is generally administered at the local level by the same personnel who administer the AFDC program. RELATIONSHIP TO MEDICAID All AFDC recipients are automatically (categorically) eligible for Medicaid. AFDC recipients may retain categorical Medicaid eligibility for a period of time after losing AFDC eligibility in certain specific circumstances. A provision in the Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984 required States to continue to provide Medicaid benefits for four months to families that lose AFDC eligibility as the result (wholly or partly) of increased collection of support payments under the Child Support Enforcement program. (The family must have received AFDC in at least three of the six months immediately preceding the month of ineligibility.) The law also requires the continuation of Medicaid benefits for families that lose AFDC benefits because of earnings. A "work transition" provision in P. L. 98-369 (Deficit Reduction Act of 1984) requires States to continue Medicaid benefits for nine months for families that lose AFDC eligibility due solely to the 4 and 12 month time limitations on the $30 plus one-third and the $30 disregards that are applied to earned income. States may provide Medicaid for an additional 6 months to families that would be eligible for AFDC if these disregards were applied. Finally, States must also provide for a continuation of Medicaid benefits for a period of four months in the case of a family that loses benefits as a result of increased hours of, or increased income from, employment. This provision would apply to a family that loses AFDC because of earnings that are at a level that would make the family ineligible even if the one-third disregard were used in determining its eligibility for an AFDC benefit. It would also apply to a family receiving AFDC on the basis of the unemployment of the principal earner if the family becomes ineligible because the principal earner works more than 100 hours in a month. (See Part IV for additional information on the Medicaid program.) RELATIONSHIP TO THE SSI PROGRAM The AFDC statute provides that, if an individual is receiving benefits under the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, that individual may not be considered a member of an AFDC family for purposes of determining the amount of the benefits of the family, and the individual's income and resources may not be counted as income and resources for purposes of the AFDC family. C. Trends in AFDC Enrollment The number of individuals on the AFDC rolls grew rapidly during the 1960's, from 3 million in 1960 to 8.5 million in 1970. The growth continued in the early 1970's, reaching a peak of 11.3 million in 1975. The program enrollment dipped in the second half of the 1970's, but began growing again in 1980. It dipped again in 1982 as the result of program reductions enacted in 1981. The rolls have shown low to moderate growth in the years since then. The average monthly number of recipients in 1986 was 11 million, still below the peak number of 11.3 million in 1975. (See tables A-6 and A-7.) D. Characteristics of Recipients The characteristics of AFDC recipients have changed over time. In general, AFDC families have become smaller, many of the mothers are younger, and more recipient children are of preschool age. Specifically, in 1983, 56 percent of AFDC mothers were under age 30, compared with 41 percent in 1969. In 1984, about 74 percent of AFDC families had either one or two children. In 1969, about 50 percent had either one or two children. In 1984, 44 percent of AFDC cases included only one child, compared to 27 percent of AFDC cases with one child in 1969. In 1984, 43 percent of AFDC children were under age 6, compared to 33 percent in 1969. The basis of eligibility of AFDC children has also been changing. In 1984, about 46 percent of children were eligible on the basis of illegitimacy, compared with 28 percent in 1969. (See table A-13.) According to the most recent data available (1984), 41 percent of AFDC caretaker relatives were white, 42 percent were black, and 13 percent were Hispanic. The basis of eligibility for AFDC children breaks down as follows: incapacity-4 percent; unemployment-9 percent; death-2 percent; divorce or separation-36 percent; no marital tie-46 percent; and other or unknown-3 percent. The median number of months a family was on AFDC was 26. Of the approximately 3.7 million adults on the AFDC rolls in 1984, about 60 percent were exempt from participation in work programs. About 73 percent of those exempt were exempt because they were caring for a child under age six. About 7 percent were exempt because of age or poor health. Characteristics of AFDC families vary significantly among the States. These variations reflect both a difference in the characteristics of the general population, and in the relative generosity of State benefit levels. Examples of AFDC characteristic differences among States include: Shelter arrangement of AFDC families.-About 28 percent of AFDC families in the State of Massachusetts either live in public housing or receive some form of HUD rent subsidy. Only 7 percent of families in Wyoming have these kinds of housing subsidies. The average for the Nation is 17 percent. About 32 percent of AFDC families in South Carolina live in shared living arrangements, compared to negligible numbers of families in such States as California and Massachussetts. The National average is about 5 percent. (See table A-15.) AFDC families by race of caretaker relative.-Eighty-nine percent of AFDC family caretaker relatives in the State of Iowa are white, compared to 11 percent in Mississippi. The National average is 40 percent. In New Mexico, 60 percent of caretaker relatives are Hispanic, while many States have very low or negligible numbers of Hispanics. The National average is 12 percent. About 50 percent of South Dakota's caretaker relatives are native Americans, compared to 1 percent for the Nation. Ninety-six percent of caretaker relatives in the District of Columbia are black, compared to a National average of 41 percent. (See table A-17.) AFDC families by reason for deprivation of youngest child.-In the District of Columbia, the percentage of families whose youngest child is eligible for AFDC because the mother is not married is 75, compared to 24 percent in West Virginia. The National average is 51 percent. (See table A-20.) Female adult recipients by age. -About 47 percent of Delaware's female adult recipients are age 19-25, compared to 28 percent in New York. The National average is 36 percent. (See table A-21.) The above statistics are illustrative of the differences that exist in State AFDC populations. Tables A-14 to A-24 show selected characteristics for each State. These tables include data obtained from the integrated (AFDC, food stamps and Medicaid) quality control review schedules on cases selected for review during the months of Federal fiscal year 1984. A more complete set of characteristics tables, as well as an analysis of the data, is expected to be published shortly by the Department of Health and Human Services. (Because of some instances of small sample size and of coding errors, State-specific data should be used with caution.) Using longitudinal data, researchers have attempted to describe the length of AFDC "spells," and the reasons why families enter and leave the AFDC rolls. The data that have generally been used for these purposes are derived from the Panel Study on Income Dynamics (PSID). The Congressional Budget Office has prepared a paper that discusses the findings that have been made, and describes the PSID, including its limitations for purposes of analyzing AFDC recipiency. The CBO paper is included in Part X of this doc ument. E. AFDC Foster Care The AFDC foster care program, which had long been a part of the general program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children under title IV-A of the Social Security Act, was amended by the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. This legislation continued AFDC foster care as a required Federal matching grant program, but transferred the program to a new part E of title IV. It provided linkages between the foster care and child welfare services (title IV-B) programs to encourage less reliance on foster care placements and greater use of preventive and family reunification services. The legislation made other changes intended to help prevent inappropriate placements or long-term stays in foster care. (Tables A-25 and A-26 give data relating to numbers of foster care children and expenditures.) F. Emergency Assistance States are also eligible to receive Federal matching funds for emergency assistance to needy families with children. Twenty-five States and the District of Columbia elected to operate emergency assistance programs in fiscal year 1986. The statute provides limits on the length of time during which this type of assistance may be furnished, specifying that aid may not be furnished for a period in excess of 30 days in any 12-month period. Eligible families include those with a needy child under the age of 21 only where (1) the child is without available resources, (2) the payments, care, or services involved are necessary to avoid destitution of the child, and (3) the destitution or need for living arrangements did not arise because the child or relative with whom he is living refused to accept employment or training. Assistance may be in the form of money payments, payments in kind, or such other payments as the State may specify, as well as medical care or other types of remedial care, and other services specified by the Secretary of HHS. The statute specifically authorizes emergency assistance to migrant workers with families. The Federal matching rate is 50 percent. In 1986 the average monthly caseload for all States participating in the program was 33,311. Federal payments totalled $87 million. Most of the expenditures were in the States of California, Massachusetts and New York. (See table A-27 for State-by-State data.) |