WELFARE REFORM: FAMILY CAPS IN THE TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES PROGRAM

CRS Report for Congress
Welfare Reform: Family Caps in the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program
Updated July 23, 1998
Shirene Hansotia
Analyst in Social Legislation
and
Carmen Solomon-Fears
Specialist in Social Legislation
Education and Public Welfare Division


Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT
This report examines family cap policies implemented by states under the Temporary
Assistance for Needy families (TANF) block grant program. Most of the 22 states that have
implemented a family cap policy stipulate that no additional TANF benefits will be provided
for children born to a woman who is already receiving TANF benefits. This report describes
family cap policies of the states and their plans to reduce nonmarital births, provides some
background on the family cap approach, discusses findings from a couple of studies on the
effect of family caps on childbearing, and describes some of the legal issues concerning family
caps. In addition, it provides a detailed discussion of family cap policies and nonmarital birth
strategies for each of the 22 states (Appendix A). It also presents three tables (in Appendix
B) that show the effect of a TANF family cap on combined TANF and food stamp benefits,
by state (for the states with a TANF family cap rule), for a mother who has a second child
after enrollment in TANF; and for one who has a third child after enrollment in TANF. This
report will not be updated unless there is a significant change in the way most states are
implementing the family cap policy or there is a significant increase in the number of states
operating a family cap policy.



Welfare Reform: Family Caps in the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families Program
Summary
P.L. 104-193, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996 (PRWORA), signaled the end of an era. No longer would income-
eligible single-parent families be guaranteed cash welfare benefits. Under the new
system, federal funds are sent to the states in the form of block grants, giving states
almost complete control over program eligibility and benefits.
Under the prior program of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC),
a family generally automatically received increased benefits when an additional child
was born into the family unit. Concerned about the growth in non-marital births and
mounting welfare costs, early versions of the welfare reform legislation included a
measure to deny benefit increases under AFDC for children born to mothers already
receiving benefits. This feature became known as the “family cap.”
AFDC law required states to obtain a waiver in order to implement a family cap
policy. PRWORA, enacted into law on August 22, 1996, replaced the AFDC
program with a Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant.
States were given until July 1, 1997 to implement TANF, and no longer had to apply
for waivers from the federal government to implement family cap policies.
P.L. 104-193 was silent on the issue of family caps, and thus allowed for
variations in the implementation of such measures. States have subsequently
approved several versions of the family cap. Since New Jersey became the first state
to enact a family cap measure in January 1992, 21 other states have followed. An
analysis of the effects of a family cap on TANF recipients illustrates that benefits are
lower, in comparison to what would have been available under prior law, by varying
degrees depending on the state. This lower amount of cash aid is partially offset by
an increase in food stamp benefits.
Research completed to date on the ramifications of enacting a family cap
supports the views of both opponents and proponents of the measure. Some
opponents of the family cap maintain that its existence is just one of a myriad of
complex economic and non-economic factors weighed by single mothers in their
decisions to become pregnant, bring a pregnancy to term or abort a pregnancy. Some
proponents of family cap policies argue that it promotes parental responsibility and
reduces the welfare burden on taxpayers. They contend that early data indicate that
the family cap has helped reduce the number of women on assistance who give birth
to additional children.
In 1997, the state of Indiana was sued by welfare recipients and their excluded
children over the constitutionality of the family cap. The results of this legal battle are
yet to be determined. Also, the family cap is again being challenged in the New Jersey
courts. In addition, On June 16, 1998, Representative Christopher Smith introduced
H.R. 4066, a bill that would prohibit states from implementing a family cap policy for
TANF families.



Contents
Background .................................................... 1
Current Family Cap Rules.........................................4
Variation in State Initiatives....................................6
Role of Food Stamps.........................................6
Effect of Family Caps on TANF Benefits..............................6
Legal Questions Regarding Family Cap...............................8
Research on Family Caps..........................................9
New Jersey Study...........................................9
Arkansas Study............................................10
Georgia Data..............................................10
Appendix A: Summary of State Family Cap Provisions and Plans to Reduce
Nonmarital Births..............................................12
Arizona .................................................. 12
Arkansas ................................................. 12
California ................................................. 12
Connecticut ............................................... 13
Delaware ................................................. 13
Florida ................................................... 13
Georgia .................................................. 14
Idaho .................................................... 14
Illinois ................................................... 15
Indiana ................................................... 15
Maryland ................................................. 16
Massachusetts ............................................. 16
Mississippi ................................................ 16
Nebraska ................................................. 16
New Jersey...............................................17
North Carolina.............................................17
North Dakota..............................................17
Oklahoma ................................................ 18
South Carolina.............................................18
Tennessee ................................................ 18
Virginia .................................................. 19
Wisconsin ................................................ 19
Appendix B: Effect of a Family Cap on Combined Monthly TANF and Food
Stamp Benefits, By State.........................................20



List of Tables
Table 1. States With Family Caps...................................5
Table 2. Effects of a Family Cap on Combined Monthly (January 1998) TANF
and Food Stamp Benefits for a Mother who Bears a Second Child
while Receiving TANF, by State...............................20
Table 3. Effects of a Family Cap on Combined Monthly (January 1998) TANF
and Food Stamp Benefits for a Mother who Bears a Third Child while
Receiving TANF, by State....................................22
Table 4. Combined TANF and Food Stamp Benefits as a Percent of Federal
Poverty Guidelines..........................................24



Welfare Reform: Family Caps in the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families Program
Background
President Clinton reopened the debate on welfare reform during the 1992
Presidential campaign with his pledge to “end welfare as we know it.” The President,
however, did not send a welfare proposal to Congress during 1993. Instead, in
November 1993, House Republicans forged ahead with their own welfare proposal
(H.R. 3500) which included a provision that prohibited the payment of Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits for a new baby born to a woman
already receiving AFDC benefits. The President’s legislative proposal, submitted in
June 1994 (H.R. 4605, S.2224) included a less restrictive provision that gave states
the option to limit AFDC benefits for women giving birth to subsequent children while
receiving AFDC assistance.
In September 1994, House Republicans included a family cap requirement in
their “Contract With America” (that was signed by all but 57 Republican candidates
for House seats). The election of a Republican Congress in November 1994 focused
more attention on the welfare proposal outlined in the Republican Contract with
America. The welfare reform provisions of the House Republicans’ Contract with
America were introduced as H.R. 4 (the Personal Responsibility Act) on January 4,
1995. The family cap measure was viewed by many members of the Republican-led
104th Congress as a way to provide a disincentive for women receiving welfare
benefits to give birth to additional children, and more generally, as a way to reduce
out-of-wedlock births.
Concomitant with the congressional debate, many states did not wait for federal
welfare reform, instead they went forward with their own demonstrations to promote
self-sufficiency of welfare families. By August of 1995, 15 states had received federal
waivers that allowed them to implement a family cap.
During the 1995 welfare reform debate, moderate and conservative Senate
Republicans disagreed over whether to deny federal funding for cash benefits to
children born to welfare recipients (i.e., the House-passed version of the family cap
provision, H.R. 4). On September 13, 1995, 20 Republican Senators joined the 46
Democratic Senators in supporting Senator Dominici’s amendment to strike the family
cap requirement. The amendment passed by a vote of 46-34. Senator Gramm
warned that removing the restriction would “perpetuate a system that subsidizes



illegitimacy, which gives cash bonuses to people who have more and more children
on welfare.”1
After vetoing two bills containing welfare reform legislation (in December 1995
and January 1996) because of their other provisions, President Clinton signed H.R.

3734, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,


into law (P.L. 104-193) on August 22, 1996. PRWORA ended the AFDC and related
programs and replaced them with a new block grant program called Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). TANF provides states with greater flexibility
to design their own programs for families with children. In the end, PRWORA was
silent with respect to the family cap. Thus, states now have total discretion over
whether or not to have a family cap policy.
Under the former AFDC program, all states paid greater benefits for larger
families, at least up to a family size of six. This meant that in all states, a family of
five would receive a larger check than a family of four, and so on. At some point,
however, this incremental increase in benefits ceased, meaning that a family of eight
received in most states the same amount of benefits as a family of 12. (The amount
of incremental benefit increases given to families also varied from state to state.)
The family cap generally is defined as not increasing TANF benefits simply
because a woman has another child while receiving TANF benefits. Thus, under a
family cap policy, the TANF benefit amount is based on the size of the family at the
time of enrollment into the program, which means that the birth of one or more
children after enrollment has no effect on the TANF benefit payment. Therefore,
under a family cap policy, families of the same size may be treated differently if the
mother has more children while she is already receiving TANF benefits.
The family cap has been one of the most controversial aspects of the welfare
reform efforts undertaken by the states. Various groups have lined up either in
support of the policy or in opposition to it.
Proponents of a family cap assert that the welfare system of the past provided
the wrong incentives and rewards, leading many women irresponsibly to opt to have
additional children in order to gain more benefits. They argue that a family cap
promotes parental responsibility and reduces the welfare burden on taxpayers. They
contend that a family cap policy sends out the message that mothers and fathers, not
taxpayers, need to take personal responsibility for providing the financial support
needed to take care of their children. The Republican-led House of Representatives
made the family cap part of its “Contract With America” and included it in the various
versions of its welfare reform legislation. Other supporters include conservative
organizations such as the Family Research Council. When women on welfare were
asked about the family cap, 67% said they felt it was fair and 86% said it promoted2
responsibility. Another survey conducted by Public Agenda found that 53% of
welfare recipients said that “not increasing benefits when mothers on welfare have


1 1995 Congressional Quarterly (CQ) Almanac. p. 7-49.
2 These data were obtained from: The Washington Post. New Jersey Officials Say Birth Rate
Drop Not Linked to Welfare Benefits Cap, September 12, 1997, p. A22.

more children” is absolutely essential to improving welfare. In addition, 46% of
welfare recipients who were asked whether a hypothetical woman who has a second
baby out-of-wedlock should receive welfare benefits said yes she should receive the3
same benefits as before. According to a spokesman for Georgia Governor Zell
Miller, Georgia has saved about $3 million a year since the first version of its family
cap policy was implemented and has sent out the message that the state would not
pick up the bill for women who have additional children while already receiving
welfare assistance.
Some of the coalitions that have formed to fight the family cap have brought
together groups that have not traditionally been in agreement on other issues. A
coalition of disparate groups emerged during 1995 and 1996 to fight the family cap
measure. This union brought together groups of liberals and conservatives, advocates
of pro-life and pro-choice, civil rights organizations and religious groups. Opponents
of the family cap argue that the measure will lead to an increase in abortions, that it
is ultimately most harmful to children because it denies them adequate financial
support, and that it opens the door to potentially coercive policies that may restrict
women’s reproductive choices. Such diverse groups as Feminists for Life, the Child
Welfare League of America, Planned Parenthood, NOW, the ACLU, the National
Governor’s Association, the National Conference of State Legislators, and the U.S.
Conference of Mayors united to oppose a mandatory family cap. When women on
welfare were asked about the family cap, about 50% said they felt the policy hurt
children and 37% said it interfered with a woman’s right to have a baby.4 Another
survey conducted by Public Agenda found that 21% of welfare recipients who were
asked whether a hypothetical woman who has a second baby out-of-wedlock should
receive welfare benefits said yes she should receive additional welfare benefits.5 New
Jersey plaintiffs who have filed a law suit against the family cap policy cite violations
of equal protection under the state constitution, arguing that two classes of children
are being treated differently based exclusively on the timing of their births. They also
claim that the policy violates women’s state constitutional right to privacy by
interfering with their reproductive choices.
Whereas P.L. 104-193 was silent with respect to the family cap, it explicitly
provides incentives for states to reduce levels of out-of-wedlock births (also referred
to as nonmarital births). P.L. 104-193 authorizes (and appropriates) $1 billion over

5 years for performance bonuses to reward states that achieve the goals of the Act,


including reduced nonmarital pregnancies, provides $400 million over 4 years in
bonus payments to states (i.e., the top five states) that reduce their nonmarital birth
rates and abortion rates, requires the Secretary of the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS) to annually rank states on their performance in reducing
nonmarital birth ratios, and authorizes entitlement funding for abstinence education


3 Public Agenda. The Values We Live By: What Americans Want From Welfare Reform,
by Steve Farkas and Jean Johnson with Will Friedman and Ali Bers. April 24, 1996. p. 42
and 44.
4 These data were obtained from: The Washington Post. New Jersey Officials Say Birth Rate
Drop Not Linked to Welfare Benefits Cap, September 12, 1997, p. A22.
5 Public Agenda. The Values We Live By: What Americans Want From Welfare Reform,
by Steve Farkas and Jean Johnson with Will Friedman and Ali Bers. April 24, 1996. p. 42.

for teenagers. The 1996 welfare law also requires states to submit a TANF state plan
to DHHS that includes an outline of how the state intends to establish goals and take
action to prevent and reduce the incidence of nonmarital pregnancies, and establish
numerical goals for reducing the nonmarital births (without a commensurate increase
in the number of abortions). Under the only comparable provision in prior law, states
were required to provide family planning services to any AFDC recipient who
requested them, in order to prevent or reduce the incidence of births out of wedlock.
Appendix A includes a brief description of state efforts to reduce nonmarital births as
presented in their TANF state plans.
On June 16, 1998, Representative Christopher Smith introduced H.R. 4066, a
bill that would prohibit states from implementing a family cap policy for TANF
families. According to Representative Smith, the two most predictable outcomes of
the family cap policy are a likely increase in the number of babies aborted by indigent
women and the further impoverishment of children born to women on welfare.6
Current Family Cap Rules
The majority of the 22 states that have adopted a family cap measure stipulate
that no additional benefits will be provided for children born 10 months after the
family begins receiving assistance. Connecticut and Florida pay reduced benefits
rather than zero benefits for additional children. New Jersey and Arizona increase
earnings disregards for families subject to the family cap to encourage them to
substitute earnings for the loss in benefits. This allows recipients to keep a larger
portion of their earned income and still be eligible for TANF benefits. The two states
increase the disregard by an amount equal to the benefit increment that would have
been awarded for the new baby if no family cap were in place. Idaho and Wisconsin
have taken yet another path, opting to award a flat benefit to the family regardless of
family size.
Most of the “family cap” states make exceptions for children that were conceived
as a result of incest or sexual assault. Several states make exceptions if the child is
the firstborn of a minor included in the welfare grant (thus, the grandchild of the
grantee).


6 Congressional Record. Tuesday, June 16, 1998. Remarks of Representative C. Smith. p.
E1142.

Table 1. States With Family Caps
PartialStandardHigher earned
No increase inincrease incash benefitincome
cash benefitscash benefitsregardlessdisregards for
for additionalfor additionalof familyfamilies with a
State children children size cap
ArizonaXX
ArkansasX
CaliforniaX
ConnecticutX
DelawareX
FloridaX
GeorgiaX
IdahoX
IllinoisX
IndianaX
MarylandX
MassachusettsX
MississippiX
NebraskaX
New JerseyXX
North CarolinaX
North DakotaX
OklahomaX
South CarolinaX
TennesseeX
VirginiaX
WisconsinX
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) based on state law information
and information in TANF state plans provided to the Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS).



Variation in State Initiatives
P.L. 104-193, PRWORA, did not address family caps, leaving it up to individual
states to decide whether or not they wanted to implement such a measure. Fifteen
states had a family cap in place prior to PRWORA, and seven more added a cap after
that legislation. Some states, including Wisconsin, Georgia, and Delaware have made
changes to their family cap measures since they were first implemented under federal
waivers under AFDC. Wisconsin changed from having a family cap to a fixed benefit
structure regardless of family size. Under AFDC, Georgia exempted a woman from
the family cap policy for a 24-month grace period from the initial receipt of benefits.
Georgia dropped that period from 2 years to 10 months after TANF was in place.
Delaware has taken a tougher stance on first time minor mothers who are included in
their mother’s TANF assistance unit than other states by including them in their family
cap penalties. This means that the mother of a minor who has a child does not receive
an increased TANF benefit based on the birth of her new grandchild. Several states
have exempted that group of mothers. Maryland mandated that the amount of
benefits that would have previously gone to assist an additional child must now go to
a third party social service organization to be used for child-specific in-kind services
(not cash). Oklahoma law stipulates that instead of an incremental benefit increase,
a voucher in the amount of the incremental benefit be given to the mother of the new
baby. The voucher is to be used for infant and toddler clothing, food, and other
articles of necessity for the infant and toddler. Idaho treats families with earnings
differently than families without earned income.
Role of Food Stamps
In general, food stamp eligibility rules make TANF families automatically eligible
for food stamp benefits.
The goal of the Food Stamp program is to increase recipients’ food purchasing
power. Unlike other forms of welfare assistance, the Food Stamp program sets a
national benefit level (that varies with family size, household income, shelter costs,
and child care expenses). In FY1997, monthly food stamp benefits averaged $71 per
recipient and are expected to average $74 per person in FY1998.
The effects of a family cap are to a certain extent lessened because TANF
families are entitled to receive food stamps. As a result, when TANF benefits are not
increased with the birth of an additional child, food stamps automatically increase in
recognition of a larger family size.
Effect of Family Caps on TANF Benefits
Generally under state family cap provisions, the family’s TANF benefit would
not be increased with the birth of a new baby. This means that the TANF benefit for
the family would remain the same (assuming other things are unchanged). Thus, the
family would have to stretch the unchanged TANF cash income to meet the needs of
any additional child or children born to the family.



Table 2 in Appendix B shows the maximum monthly amount a three-person
family would receive with and without a family cap rule. Compared with what she
would have gotten under a system without a family cap, it shows that implementation
of the family cap would result in a reduction of the potential TANF benefit of a
mother with two children, one of whom was born after she began receiving TANF,
by between 11% (Connecticut) and 31% (North Dakota). In combination with the
increased benefits from food stamps, the TANF family cap would result in between
a 4% (Mississippi) and 15% (North Dakota) decline in combined TANF and food
stamp benefits, compared with a system without a family cap, depending on the state.
In the median state (based on the TANF benefit for a three-person family), TANF
benefits were less than pre-family cap benefits by $68 per month for a mother with
two children. This is a 20.1% reduction in potential monthly TANF benefits. If food
stamps are taken into account, combined TANF and food stamp benefits would drop
by $48 per month because of the family cap. This is 8% less in monthly combined
benefits than what would have been provided in a system without a family cap.
Table 3 in appendix B shows the maximum monthly amount that a four-person
family would receive with and without a family cap rule. Compared with what she
would have gotten under a system without a family cap, it shows that implementation
of the family cap would result in a reduction of the potential benefit of a mother with
three children, one of whom was born after she began receiving TANF, by between

7% (Connecticut) and 19% (Oklahoma), depending on the state in which she lives.


In combination with food stamps, the TANF family cap would result in between a 3%
(North Carolina) and 8% (California) decline in combined TANF and food stamp
benefits, compared with a system without a family cap, depending on the state. In the
median state (based on the TANF benefit for a four-person family), TANF benefits
were less than pre-family cap benefits by $69 per month for a mother with three
children; a 17% reduction of the potential monthly TANF benefit. If food stamps are
taken into account, combined TANF and food stamp benefits would drop by $49 per
month because of the family cap. This is 6.7% less in monthly combined benefits than
a system without a family cap.
Table 4 in appendix B shows combined TANF and food stamp benefits as a
percent of federal poverty guidelines, by state, without the family cap and with the
family cap rule. A TANF mother living in the median state, ranked by benefit level,
whose second child was born while she was receiving TANF, would have combined
TANF and food stamp income equal to 52.6% of the federal poverty guidelines
($13,650 for a family of 3 in 1998) without a family cap rule, versus 48.7% under the
family cap rule. A TANF mother living in the median state, ranked by benefit level,
whose third child was born while she was receiving TANF, would have combined
TANF and food stamp income equal to 53.5% of the federal poverty guidelines
($16,450 for a family of four in 1998) without a family cap rule, versus 50.0% under
the family cap rule.



Legal Questions Regarding Family Cap
The family cap has been legally challenged in New Jersey and Indiana. The latest
challenge to the New Jersey family cap provision was filed in September 1997 in the
case Sojourner A. v. The New Jersey Department of Human Services. NOW Legal
Defense and Education Fund and the Newark New Jersey law firm of Gibbons, Del
Deo, Dolan, Griffinger and Vecchione, joined the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) of New Jersey to represented the New Jersey plaintiffs. The plaintiffs cited
violations of equal protection under the state constitution, and argued that two classes
of children are being treated differently based exclusively on the timing of their births.
The suit also argued that the policy violates women’s state constitutional right to7
privacy by interfering with their reproductive choices.
According to data from the New Jersey Department of Human Services, the
agency that administers the welfare plan for New Jersey, as of December 1997, more
than 25,000 mothers with newborns have been denied additional assistance as a result
of the family cap policy which was implemented in October 1992. The
implementation of the family cap provision has been upheld by a federal district court
and the 3rd Circuit appellate court.8
The family cap also was challenged at the state level in Indiana in June 1997.
The Indiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union filed a complaint in state
court arguing that the state policy violates plaintiffs’ federal constitutional right to
family integrity and privacy. The suit also argues that the policy penalizes children for
their parents’ behavior, thereby violating federal and state constitutional due process
requirements. In addition, the plaintiffs assert that the voucher system, which
provides recipients with one-half of the amount they would have received without the
cap, was not properly implemented, thereby violating federal and state due process
requirements.9 A request for summary judgment is scheduled to be heard in
September 1998. Indicating their pessimism about a favorable outcome, some
members of the Indiana ACLU have indicated that the decision will likely be appealed
to the State Court of Appeals immediately after the September decision.


7 NOW Legal Defense Fund: 99 Hudson St. 12th Floor, New York, NY 10013. See also:
American Civil Liberties Union Freedom Network. News and Events. NOW LDEF, ACLU
File Lawsuit in NJ Court on Behalf of 20,000 Poor Children. September 8, 1997.
8 C.K. v. Shalala, 883 F.Supp. 991 (D.N.J. May 04, 1995); Judgment Affirmed by C .K. v.
New Jersey Dept. of Health and Human Services, 92 F.3d 171, (3rd Cir. 1996).
9 Welfare Law Center, 1997. Indiana Family Cap Suit Filed. Excerpt from Welfare Law
Bulletin. New York: Welfare Law Center.

Research on Family Caps
Since the 1960s, much of the research conducted on welfare has focused on its
effects on family structure. This, according to many researchers, is because most exits
and entrances to the welfare rolls are due to changes in family structure, rather than10
changes in labor supply or earnings. An increase in the number of families
maintained by women alone was one of the major changes in family composition in
the 1970s and 1980s.
While there has been much research on the effect of cash welfare on family
structure, there are only two studies that specifically examine the effect of a family cap
on childbearing. In New Jersey, after starting with an experimental design (i.e.,
control group and experimental group), researchers ended up using a less definitive11
quasi-experimental pre-post comparison design. The Arkansas study used the
experimental design approach. Findings in the New Jersey study indicate that the
family cap, in certain circumstances, appears to exert a small impact on birth rates.
Whereas, findings in the Arkansas study indicate that the existence of a family cap has
no impact on births. These studies and their findings are discussed in greater detail
below.
New Jersey Study
The State of New Jersey, the first to implement a family cap, commissioned
Rutgers University to conduct an evaluation on the effect of the state’s policy on the
rate of out-of-wedlock births and the abortion rate. The Rutgers study was done for
the New Jersey Department of Human Services under the terms of the HHS waiver
authorizing the state to conduct the Family Development Program (FDP), a welfare
demonstration program that included the family cap. Under the New Jersey child
exclusion measure, the state denies the incremental increase in benefits to any child
who is conceived and born into a family already receiving cash assistance.
The study, using a quasi-experimental pre-post comparison design, compared
birth rates among New Jersey AFDC households from December 1990 to December
1996. Researchers from Rutgers concluded that the family cap has had no effect on
births to women that were the designated welfare payee of the assistance unit.


10 Moffitt, Robert. Incentive Effects of the U.S. Welfare System: A Review. Journal of
Economic Literature, v. XXX, no. 1, March 1992.
11 Researchers conducting both the New Jersey and Arkansas studies suggested that the use
of a classical experimental design may not always be appropriate for the assessment of social
experiments. They note that there are simply too many conditions that are not under the
control of the welfare agency that can contaminate any attempt at experimentation. For
instance, both studies indicated that many participants did not know whether they were in the
control group or the experimental group, further many in the control group thought that the
family cap applied to them. Thus, the results obtained from the control group would not be
a reliable comparison. Others caution that using multivariate statistical techniques to examine
birth rates and abortions also has drawbacks. They note that multivariate statistical methods
are very sensitive to the assumptions and restrictions imposed by the statistical model used.
Thus, the reader should be cautious in accepting the findings of these studies as conclusive.

However, they found that the family cap “does appear to exert a small effect on birth
rates, decreasing births by about 140 per year over what would be expected due to
trend and population composition changes,”if all persons in the cash welfare
assistance unit are included in the analysis. If only children born to the payee are
considered, the study shows that the family cap has no effect on first generation son-
daughter births. The study reports that births to welfare payees were decreased by
about 50 per year over what would have been expected. The researchers also found
that the family cap “does appear to exert a small but non-trivial effect on abortion
rates, adding about 240 abortions per year over what would be expected due to trend
and population composition changes.”12 (There were 31,860 abortions in New Jersey
in 1996.)
According to a recent New York Times article, New Jersey officials have
rejected the abortion-related findings of the Rutgers study and characterized the
report as a draft that needs substantial revision.13
Arkansas Study
A classical experimental-design study conducted by the University of Arkansas
at Little Rock School of Social Work reported on the Arkansas Welfare Waiver
Demonstration Project (AWWDP), which was implemented in July 1994 and
concluded in June 1997. It found “no evidence in the effectiveness of a family cap on
AFDC benefits to influence the birth of additional children to mothers who receive
AFDC.” The study examined members of an experimental group consisting of
welfare recipients who were subject to the family cap policy, and a control group
consisting of welfare recipients whose benefits were determined based on the state’s
AFDC program. The study found “no statistically significant difference between the
control and experimental groups” with respect to birth rates. Furthermore, when
questioned about what level of benefits would influence the decision to have another
child, 94% of the fertile experimental group and 82% of the fertile control group14
answered, “none.”
Georgia Data
In Georgia, Department of Human Resources officials had estimated that 14,765
women on welfare would give birth every year without the cap. They predicted the


12 Report on the Impact of New Jersey’s Family Development Program: Results from a Pre-
Post Analysis of AFDC Case Heads from 1990-1996, by Michael J. Camasso, Carol Harvey,
Radha Jagannathan, and Mark Killingsworth [all with Rutgers University]. Submitted to the
U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families and the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. December, 1997. p. i-ii and 136-139.
13 New York Times. June 8, 1998. Report Tying Abortion to Welfare is Rejected, by Tamar
Lewin.
14 Arkansas Welfare Waiver Demonstration Project, Final Report, July 1994-June 1997,
conducted by the University of Arkansas at Little Rock, School of Social Work. Principal
Investigators, Carolyn Turturro, Brent Benda, and Howard Turney; Research Associates,
James Chastain, Christy Pollock, Lynne Osborn, and John Knott. June 15, 1997. 114p.

cap would reduce births 10%. But the effect has been more striking, a 32% reduction
in births. Even so, 9,987 women subject to the benefit cap have given birth since

1996. Skeptics of the study argue that far stronger social forces mitigate the policy.


They claim that a woman’s poverty and poor education are more likely to influence
her behavior than the fear of losing an additional $42 a month.15


15 Online Athens. April 20, 1998. Welfare Caps Has Had Impact on Number of Births, by
Lawrence Viele.

Appendix A: Summary of State Family Cap Provisions
and Plans to Reduce Nonmarital Births
Arizona
The state, with some exceptions, will eliminate the incremental increase in cash
welfare benefits resulting from the birth of an additional child(ren) to a family. The
family maximum TANF payment will be capped at the family maximum applicable
prior to the birth of the child. The child will be included in the standard of need and
will be considered a TANF recipient for other purposes, including Medicaid eligibility.
This provision will not apply to births resulting from cases of sexual assault or
incest; to the firstborn (including all children in the case of a multiple birth) of minors
included in a TANF grant; to children born within 10 months of the date the caretaker
relative is informed that the family is subject to this provision; or in the case of a
parent who has not received TANF for a minimum of 12 consecutive months, and the
child is born (1) no earlier than the 22 months after the parent left TANF and (2) no
later than the end of the 10th month after the parent returns to TANF.
The state plan specifies that Arizona’s overall numerical goal for the year 2005
is to “reduce out-of-wedlock births to no more than 37.5% (30,770 births).” The
current (1995) out-of-wedlock birth rate is 38.2%. The state plan provides
projections of the number of childbearing women in the state and assumes a constant
rate of birth. Teen pregnancy prevention goals were also established.
Arkansas
The cash assistance amount is not increased due to the addition of a newborn to
a family already receiving aid.
Arkansas’ state plan does not establish numerical goals, but it does set out a five
component approach to “unmarried birth prevention.” The five components are:
abstinence programs using funding in the welfare reform act; improved access to
family planning services statewide; community-based efforts in targeted counties;
media campaign with emphasis on 11-24 year olds; and, a state-level steering
committee to coordinate the efforts.
California
The cash assistance amount is not increased for any child born to a family that
has received aid continuously for 10 months. The state allows exemptions for
children conceived as a result of rape, incest, and failure of certain contraceptive
methods.
California’s plan for decreasing out-of-wedlock births includes four components,
and is referred to as the “Partnership for Responsible Parenting.” These components
are: community challenge grants to support community-based strategies to reduce
teen and unwed pregnancies; a media campaign; a mentoring initiative; and a vertical
prosecution program regarding statutory rape, under which the same prosecutor is



allowed to follow to a specific case all the way through the judicial process. The plan
also notes that the state has a “goal of reducing the incidence of pregnancies among
females ages 17 and younger.” California’s state plan does not include numerical
goals for reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Connecticut
Children born more than 10 calender months after the later of (i) November 1,
1996 or (ii) the date of the family’s application for TANF, receive less than a full cash
assistance benefit increase. They receive only $50 per month, this represents about
one-half of the average increase for an additional child under the previous policy. The
benefit cap will not apply when: the additional child was conceived as a result of
sexual assault as defined by state policy and as determined by the preponderance of
the evidence; to children who are the first-born (including all children in the case of
a multiple birth) of minors included in an TANF grant; to a child who does not reside
with his or her parent; or if the parent did not receive TANF assistance either in the
9th or 10th calender month before the birth of the child, or in the case of premature
births (as verified by a physician) and the mother was not on assistance during the
month of conception.
The Connecticut Teen Pregnancy Coordinating Council, a permanent group
created by state law, funds seven pregnancy prevention programs. A component is
being added that requires grantees to incorporate into their programs the
responsibility of young males. In its Teenage Pregnancy Prevention initiative, the
Department of Social Services continued to target six urban areas: New Haven, New
Britain, New London, Waterbury, Norwalk, and Stamford, as well as rural
northeastern Connecticut. Connecticut’s goal is to reduce births to 23 per 1,000 girls
aged 10 to 17 by the year 2000.
Delaware
The cash assistance amount is not increased due to the birth of an additional
child. The state allows exceptions when the child was conceived as a result of incest
or sexual assault; the children do not reside with their parents; or the child reenters
the household. Under TANF, the family cap will apply to children who are the
firstborn of minors included in the AFDC grant, that is, to the new baby who is the
adult mother’s grandchild.
The state plan describes the family planning goals of the Department for 1997-
2000 which are to “increase the percentage of adolescents choosing abstinence” and
to reduce “the rate of unintended pregnancies to residents aged 15-44 by 3%.” The
state aims to reduce the rate of pregnancies to residents under age 15 by 5% per year,
and the rate of pregnancies for adolescents aged 15-19 by 5% per year. Delaware
also aims to reduce the repeat pregnancy rate among adolescents under age 19.
Florida
The state provides limited temporary assistance to an existing temporary
assistance case due to the birth of a child when the birth occurs more than 10 months



after the implementation date, or for new cases, 10 months after the application or
reapplication for temporary assistance. (If a case has been closed for less than 6
months, re-applicants are considered existing cases.)
For the first child born while receiving assistance, temporary assistance shall be
50% of the maximum available amount for an individual. For a second or subsequent
child born while receiving assistance, no additional temporary assistance shall be
provided.
The state allows exceptions for program participants who are victims of rape or
incest; children who are the firstborn, including all children in the case of multiple
births, of minors included in a temporary assistance group who as a minor become
first-time parents; a child whose parental custody has been legally transferred; a child
who no longer is able to live with his or her parents as a result of the death of the
child’s parents, the incapacity of the child’s parents as documented by a physician
such that the parent(s) are unable to care for the child; legal transfer of the custody
of the child to another individual; or incarcerated parents.
Florida has established numerical goals for out-of-wedlock births. The ratio of
out-of-wedlock births to total births in Florida was 35.96% in 1996. Florida’s goal
for 1997 was to reduce that ratio to 34.82%, for 1998 the goal is 34.38% and for
1999 the goal is 34.03% and continues a yearly decline such that in 2005 the ratio of
out-of-wedlock births to total births is 32.13%. Florida asserts that programs and
strategies to reduce out-of-wedlock births and teenage pregnancies must be founded
on voluntary principles. The state believes that the use of family planning services
cannot be a condition for receiving public assistance.
Georgia
The cash assistance amount is not increased for a child born 10 or more months
after the family has received, or applied for, assistance. This provision does not apply
to a child born as a result of a verifiable rape or incest.
Georgia’s state plan indicates that the Department of Human Resources (DHR)
Interdivisional Teen Pregnancy Prevention Committee will expand its strategies and
goals for reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, with a special emphasis on teen
pregnancies. It also says that after-school programs which provide youth with
enrichment opportunities, tutoring, self-esteem, and other positive alternatives to early
parenting will be supported and expanded. Georgia’s state plan does not include
numerical goals for reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Idaho
The state provides a flat grant amount to families with no earnings, regardless
of family size. Thus, although the state does not have an explicit family cap policy,
for families with no earnings, the benefit payment of $276 (regardless of family size)
is in effect an implicit family cap. For families with earnings, benefits increase with
family size and the implicit family cap ceases.



Idaho’s state plan indicates that its objective is to reduce to no more than 30%
the proportion of all pregnancies that are unintended. It is also noted in the plan that
the state plans to work on improving practices to determine paternity.
Illinois
The state does not increase cash assistance payments to families when a child is
born unless one of the following circumstances exist: the baby is born during the 9
calendar months following the month of application; if the conception occurred in a
month the family received either AFDC or TANF in Illinois, the payment increases
only if the family did not receive AFDC or TANF for 9 consecutive months any time
following the conception; the baby is the first child of a child in the assistance unit; or
the conception occurred as a result of a documented incest or forcible rape.
Unless one of the exceptions applies, the baby will be added to the family unit
and be eligible for all services available to Illinois TANF program family members.
However, the assistance payment will not increase. Instead, such families will be
targeted to receive economic self-sufficiency services under TANF and Child Support
Enforcement.
The Illinois state plan describes an effort to focus pregnancy prevention on three
target populations: teens, TANF recipients, and all Illinois residents in an effort to
address out-of-wedlock births. The Illinois state plan does not include numerical
goals for reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Indiana
The cash assistance amount is not increased due to the birth of a child when the
birth occurs more than 10 calendar months after the later of (i) July 1, 1995 or (ii) the
date the family qualifies for TANF. At county option, a monthly voucher in the
amount of one-half the grant amount which would be available to an otherwise
eligible child may be authorized for children who are not eligible for a cash benefit as
provided herein.
The family cap will not apply when: the additional child was conceived as a
result of incest, rape, or conduct that is a crime under Indiana Code section 35-42-4-

3; to children who are firstborn (including all children in the case of a multiple birth)


of minors included in a cash assistance grant who become first-time minor parents; to
a child who does not reside with his or her parent; to a child that was conceived in a
month the family was not receiving TANF; or to children with a substantial physical
or mental disability.
The additional child and any individuals who are required to be included in the
assistance unit will be included in the need standard for purposes of determining
TANF eligibility and will be a TANF recipient and eligible for Medicaid. All TANF
applicants and recipients will be offered family planning services at the time of each
application and review of eligibility.



The Indiana state plan highlights the statewide project, RESPECT, to encourage
abstinence to reduce teen pregnancy; the Teen Parent Program to keep teen parents
in school; and coordination efforts with other agencies and programs focused on teen
parents. The plan also indicated that there will be at least one statewide conference
on encouraging men to take responsibility for their children. Indiana is in the process
of establishing numeric goals for reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Maryland
The cash assistance amount is not increased due to the birth of an additional
child if the family is already receiving benefits. The amount of the withheld benefit
is to be paid to a third party affiliated with a nonprofit organization to be used for
child-specific items (not cash).
Maryland notes that its primary effort is to prevent unintended pregnancies. The
state expects to target different age groups over time, and to target at least six
counties and Baltimore City since out-of-wedlock births are more prevalent in these
areas. Maryland’s state plan does not yet include numeric goals for 1998 and beyond
for reducing out-of-wedlock births.
Massachusetts
The cash assistance amount is not increased for additional children born to
TANF recipients.
The Massachusetts state plan indicates that the state will implement a sex and
health education curriculum which incorporates teen pregnancy prevention for gradesth
Kindergarten through 12, and that it plans to develop approaches to reduce father
absence. The Massachusetts state plan does not include numerical goals for reducing
out-of-wedlock births.
Mississippi
The cash assistance amount is not increased for additional children born after the
initial 10 months of benefits (unless there is a 12-month consecutive break in TANF
benefits).
Mississippi’s state plan indicates that the state will establish a task force with
public and private organizations to review the incidence and circumstances of
out-of-wedlock births. The state is in the process of establishing numeric goals to
reduce out-of-wedlock births.
Nebraska
Women who give birth to an additional child(ren) while receiving benefits will
not receive an increased TANF allotment.



Nebraska’s state plan indicates that the state will emphasize teenage pregnancy
prevention. Nebraska is in the process of establishing numeric goals to reduce out-of-
wedlock births.
New Jersey
The level of cash assistance benefits payable to an assistance unit with dependent
children will not increase as a result of the birth of a child during the period in which
the assistance unit is eligible for benefits, or during a temporary period in which the
assistance unit is ineligible for benefits because of a penalty imposed on them for
failure to comply with benefit eligibility requirements, after which the assistance unit
is again eligible for benefits. This provision does not apply to medical assistance, nor
does it apply to an individual in an assistance unit with dependent children who gives
birth to a child fewer than 10 months after applying for and receiving cash assistance
benefits nor to the birth of a child that occurs as a result of rape or incest.
Each employed person in the assistance unit subject to the family cap provision
is entitled to the earned income disregards mentioned earlier and after application of
the earned income disregards, the total countable income must be subtracted from the
eligibility standard for the assistance unit size, adjusted to include any person for
whom cash assistance has not been received due to the application of the family cap
provision.
New Jersey’s state plan did not include numeric goals for reducing out-of-
wedlock births nor a description of their program to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
North Carolina
The cash assistance amount is not increased due to an additional birth while the
family is receiving assistance.
North Carolina’s state plan did not include numeric goals for reducing out-of-
wedlock births nor a description of their program to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
North Dakota
Effective July 1, 1998, TANF benefits will not increase because of the birth of
a new baby to a TANF recipient.
The North Dakota state plan indicates that the state will educate young men on
the consequences of fathering a baby (stressing financial duty and child support
enforcement laws). The state plans to include family planning in the job assessment
process, and ask parents directly whether they want more children. It plans to
develop a “training” package on preventing non-marital pregnancies for all children
receiving TANF benefits that are aged 13 and up. The plan indicates that the state’s
goal is to reduce nonmarital births by 2% yearly.



Oklahoma
The state provides no additional benefits for recipients who give birth while on
assistance. Vouchers are given out instead of cash to help the family pay for food,
clothing, and other necessity items for the new baby during the time it is an “infant
and toddler.”
Oklahoma’s state plan indicates that the state will target teenagers in its efforts
to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Oklahoma plans to reduce the unintended births in

1996-1997 by 1%.


South Carolina
The state does not increase cash benefits for an eligible family as a result of a
child born to that parent 10 or more months after the family begins to receive Family
Independence benefits. This requirement does not apply if the state determines that
the child was conceived as a result of rape or incest.
The state may provide benefits for a child born after 10 months in the form of
vouchers that may be used to pay for goods and services as determined by the state,
that permit the child’s mother to participate in education, training and employment
related activities.
South Carolina’s state plan indicates that the state intends to develop a program
to: (1) delay parenting and/or a second teenage pregnancy; (2) facilitate coordination
of services with other service providers involved in the effort to prevent teenage
pregnancy; (3) strengthen the capacity of families in recognizing and meeting the
needs of youth and teen parents through improved teen/parent communication; (4)
serve as a catalyst for community action by increasing the awareness and capabilities
of community based organizations to design and implement their own efforts in the
area of pregnancy prevention; and (5) assist and encourage youth to stay in school,
with the goal of ultimately becoming gainfully employed. South Carolina is in the
process of establishing numeric goals to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
Tennessee
The cash assistance amount is not increased due to the birth of a child when the
birth occurs more than 10 calendar months after the later of (i) October 1, 1996 or (ii)
the date of the family’s application for TANF. A caretaker must provide a physician’s
statement to overcome the presumption that a child born more than 10 months after
the application or implementation of demonstration was conceived prior to such date.
The family cap does not apply when: the additional child was conceived as a
result of a verified rape or incest; to children who are the firstborn (including all
children in the case of a multiple birth) of minors included in a TANF grant who
become first-time minor parents; to a child who does not reside with his or her parent;
or to a child that was conceived in a month the assistance unit was not receiving
TANF.



The additional child will be included in the need standard for purposes of
determining TANF eligibility and the income of the child, including child support, will
be applied against the need standard and the fill-the-gap budgeting method in
determining the TANF payment for the family. The child will be considered a TANF
recipient for all other purposes including Medicaid coverage.
Tennessee’s state plan indicates that the state plans to emphasize teenage
pregnancy prevention in its effort to reduce out-of-wedlock births. Tennessee is in
the process of establishing numeric goals to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
Virginia
The state does not provide an increased cash assistance benefit for additional
children born to women on assistance.
Virginia’s state plan indicates that the state will continue current initiatives to
reduce the rate of nonmarital births and teen pregnancy. They include the Virginia
fatherhood campaign, which directs messages to older men about responsible
decision-making; and community-based teen prevention programs, including
co-educational and male-dedicated programs. Virginia is in the process of
establishing numeric goals to reduce out-of-wedlock births.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin Works, or W-2, does not relate payments to family size. In the case
of a new child born more than 10 months after the eligibility determination, the
mother is not required to work for 12 weeks, but those 3 months do count toward the

60-month lifetime limit (unless the child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault).


Wisconsin’s state plan did not include numeric goals for reducing out-of-
wedlock births nor a description of its program to reduce out-of-wedlock births.



Appendix B: Effect of a Family Cap on Combined Monthly TANF and Food Stamp Benefits,
By State
Table 2. Effects of a Family Cap on Combined Monthly (January 1998) TANF and Food Stamp Benefits
for a Mother who Bears a Second Child while Receiving TANF, by State
Mother with two childrenDifference-with and without family cap
Mother with one child(Second child born while mother is on TANF)
Without family capWith family capDollar differencePercent loss
in
Food Food Food Food combined
TANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalin TANFbenefits
620Arizona $275 $181 $456 $347 $257 $604 $275 $278 $553 ($72) $21 ($51) -20.75% -8.44%
Arkansas 162 215 377 204 300 504 162 312 474 (42) 12 (30) -20.59% -5.95%
iki/CRS-98-California 456 127 583 565 191 756 456 224 680 (109) 33 (76) -19.29% -10.05%Connecticut 513 110 623 636 170 806 563 192 755 (73) 22 (51) -11.48% -6.33%
g/w
s.orDelaware 270 183 453 338 259 597 270 280 550 (68) 21 (47) -20.12% -7.87%
leakFlorida 241 191 432 303 270 573 241 288 529 (62) 18 (44) -20.46% -7.68%
://wikiGeorgia 235 193 428 280 277 557 235 290 525 (45) 13 (32) -16.07% -5.75%
httpIdaho2761814572762785542762785540 00 0.00%0.00%
Illinois 278 180 458 377 248 625 278 277 555 (99) 29 (70) -26.26% -11.20%
Indiana 229 195 424 288 274 562 229 292 521 (59) 18 (41) -20.49% -7.30%
Maryland 304 173 477 388 244 632 304 270 574 (84) 26 (58) -21.65% -9.18%
Massachusetts 474 122 596 565 191 756 474 219 693 (91) 28 (63) -16.11% -8.33%
Mississippi 96 235 331 120 325 445 96 332 428 (24) 7 (17) -20.00% -3.82%
Nebraska 293 176 469 364 252 616 293 273 566 (71) 21 (50) -19.51% -8.12%
New Jersey322167489424234658322264586(102)30(72)-24.06%-10.94%
North Carolina236193429272279551236290526(36)11(25)-13.24%-4.54%
North Dakota340162502490214704340259599(150)45(105)-30.61%-14.91%
Oklahoma 225 196 421 292 273 565 225 293 518 (67) 20 (47) -22.95% -8.32%
South Carolina160216376201300501160313473(41)13(28)-20.40%-5.59%
Tennessee 142 221 363 185 305 490 142 318 460 (43) 13 (30) -23.24% -6.12%
Virginia 294 176 470 354 255 609 294 273 567 (60) 18 (42) -16.95% -6.90%



Mother with two childrenDifference-with and without family cap
Mother with one child(Second child born while mother is on TANF)
Without family capWith family capDollar differencePercent loss
in
Food Food Food Food combined
TANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalin TANFbenefits
Wisconsin67362735673159832673159832 00000
Mediann.a.n.a.n.a.338260598270280550 (68)20(48)-20.12%-7.87%
Minimumn.a.n.a.n.a.12032544596332428 (24)7(17)-20.00%-3.77%
Maximumn.a.n.a.n.a.636170806563192755 (73)22(51)-11.48%-6.34%
Note: This table only presents information on states with a family cap policy. It includes Idaho and Wisconsin, states which provide the same amount of TANF
benefits to all families (with no countable income), regardless of family size. This is viewed as an implicit family cap policy. The table uses the parameters median,
620minimum, and maximum to characterize TANF benefits. The food stamp figures are based on the appropriate TANF benefit. For example, the median TANF
benefit, among the 22 states with a family cap policy, for a mother with two children was $338 in January 1998. This was the amount that was received by a three-
person family living in Delaware. If the mother had the second child while she was already receiving TANF, her benefit would drop to $270 per month. This
iki/CRS-98-represents a $68 drop in monthly TANF benefits, a decrease of 20.12%. If her food stamp benefits are included, her combined benefits would have dropped from$598 to $550. This represents a $47 drop in monthly combined benefits, a decrease of 7.87%. The parameter labeled “minimum” denotes the lowest TANF benefit
g/wamong the states presented in the table, for a three-person family. The parameter labeled “maximum” denotes the highest TANF benefit among the 20 states with
s.oran explicit family cap policy, for a three-person family.
leak
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).


://wiki
http

Table 3. Effects of a Family Cap on Combined Monthly (January 1998) TANF and Food Stamp Benefits
for a Mother who Bears a Third Child while Receiving TANF, by State
Mother with three childrenDifference-with and without family cap
Mother with two children(Third child born while mother is on TANF)
Without family capWith family capDollar differencePercent loss
in
Food Food Food Food combined
TANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalTANFstampsTotalin TANFbenefits
Arizona $347 $257 $604 $418 $322 $740 $347 $344 $691 ($71) $22 ($49) -16.99% -6.62%
Arkansas 204 300 504 247 374 621 204 387 591 (43) 13 (30) -17.41% -4.83%
California 565 191 756 673 246 919 565 278 843 (108) 32 (76) -16.05% -8.27%
Connecticut 636 170 806 741 225 966 686 242 928 (55) 17 (38) -7.42% -3.93%
620Delaware 338 259 597 407 326 733 338 346 684 (69) 20 (49) -16.95% -6.68%
Florida 303 270 573 364 339 703 303 357 660 (61) 18 (43) -16.76% -6.12%
Georgia 280 277 557 330 349 679 280 364 644 (50) 15 (35) -15.15% -5.15%
iki/CRS-98-Idaho2762785542763656412763656410 00 0%0%
g/w
s.orIllinois 377 248 625 414 324 738 377 335 712 (37) 11 (26) -8.94% -3.52%
leakIndiana 288 274 562 346 344 690 288 361 649 (58) 17 (41) -16.76% -5.94%
Maryland 388 244 632 468 307 775 388 331 719 (80) 24 (56) -17.09% -7.23%
://wikiMassachusetts 565 191 756 651 252 903 565 278 843 (86) 26 (60) -13.21% -6.64%
http
Mississippi120325445144405549120412532(24)7 (17)-16.67%-3.10%
Nebraska364252616435317752364339703(71)22 (49)-16.32%-6.52%
New Jersey424234658488301789424321745(64)20 (44)-13.11%-5.58%
North Carolina272279551297359656272366638(25)7 (18)-8.42%-2.74%
North Dakota490214704528289817490301791(38)12 (26)-7.20%-3.18%
Oklahoma292273565361339700292360652(69)21 (48)-19.11%-6.86%
South Carolina201300501242375617201387588(41)12 (29)-16.94%-4.70%
Tennessee185305490226380606185392577(41)12 (29)-18.14%-4.79%
Virginia354255609410325735354342696(56)17 (39)-13.66%-5.31%
Wisconsin67315983267324691967324691900 00%0%
Median n.a. n.a. n.a. 407 326 733 338 346 684 (69) 20 (49) -16.95% -6.68%
Minimum n.a. n.a. n.a. 144 405 549 120 412 532 (24) 7 (17) -16.67% -3.10%
Maximum n.a. n.a. n.a. 741 225 966 686 242 928 (55) 17 (38) -7.42% -3.93%



Note: This table only presents information on states with a family cap policy. It includes Idaho and Wisconsin, states which provide the same amount of TANF
benefits to all families (with no countable income), regardless of family size. This is viewed as an implicit family cap policy. The table uses the parameters median,
minimum, and maximum to characterize TANF benefits. The food stamp figures are based on the appropriate TANF benefit. For example, the median TANF
benefit, among the 22 states with a family cap policy, for a mother with three children was $407 in January 1998. This was the amount that was the received by
a four-person family living in Delaware. If the mother had the third child while she was already receiving TANF, her benefit would drop to $338 per month. This
represents a $69 drop in monthly TANF benefits, a decrease of 16.95%. If her food stamp benefits are included, her combined benefits would have dropped from
$733 to $685. This represents a $49 drop in monthly combined benefits, a decrease of 6.68%. The parameter labeled “minimum” denotes the lowest TANF benefit
among the states presented in the table, for a four-person family. The parameter labeled “maximum” denotes the highest TANF benefit among the states presented
in the table, for a four-person family.
Source: Table prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS).


620
iki/CRS-98-
g/w
s.or
leak
://wiki
http

Table 4. Combined TANF and Food Stamp Benefits
as a Percent of Federal Poverty Guidelines
Two childrenThree children
second child bornthird child born
while mother is on TANFwhile mother is on TANF
Without With Without With
One Childfamily capfamily capfamily capfamily cap
Arizona 50.4% 53.1% 48.6% 54.0% 50.4%
Arkansas 41.7% 44.3% 41.7% 45.3% 43.1%
California 64.5% 66.5% 59.8% 67.0% 61.5%
Connecticut 68.9% 70.9% 66.4% 70.5% 67.7%
Delaware 50.1% 52.5% 48.4% 53.5% 49.9%
Florida 47.8% 50.4% 46.5% 51.3% 48.1%
Georgia 47.3% 49.0% 46.2% 49.5% 47.0%
Idaho 50.5% 48.7% 48.7% 46.8% 46.8%
Illinois 50.7% 54.9% 48.8% 53.8% 51.9%
Indiana 46.9% 49.4% 45.8% 50.3% 47.3%
Maryland 52.8% 55.6% 50.5% 56.5% 52.4%
Massachusetts 65.9% 66.5% 60.9% 65.9% 61.5%
Mississippi 36.6% 39.1% 37.6% 40.0% 38.8%
Nebraska 51.9% 54.2% 49.8% 54.9% 51.3%
New Jersey54.1%57.8%51.5%57.6%54.3%
North Carolina47.4%48.4%46.2%47.9%46.5%
North Dakota55.5%61.9%52.7%59.6%57.7%
Oklahoma 46.6% 49.7% 45.5% 51.1% 47.6%
South Carolina41.6%44.0%41.6%45.0%42.9%
Tennessee 40.1% 43.1% 40.4% 44.2% 42.1%
Virginia 52.0% 53.5% 49.8% 53.6% 50.8%
Wisconsin 81.3% 73.1% 73.1% 67.0% 67.0%
Median 50.5% 52.6% 48.7% 53.5% 50.0%
Minimum 36.7% 39.1% 37.7% 40.0% 38.8%
Maximum 81.3% 73.2% 73.2% 70.5% 67.7%
Note: The 1998 federal poverty guidelines are:
For a mother with one child, $10,850 in all states except Alaska ($13,570) and Hawaii ($12,480).
For a mother with two children, $13, 650 in all states except Alaska ($17,070) and Hawaii ($15,700).
For a mother with three children, $16,450 in all states except Alaska ($20,570) and Hawaii ($18,920).
Source: Table prepared by Congressional Research Service (CRS).