State Policies on Immigrant Eligibility for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)

CRS Report for Congress
State Policies on Immigrant Eligibility for
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
April 23, 2004
Ruth Ellen Wasem
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

State Policies on Immigrant Eligibility for Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Summary
The eligibility of immigrants for major public assistance programs is an ongoing
issue in Congress. Prior to 1996, immigrants, i.e., legal permanent residents (LPRs),
were eligible for federal public assistance under terms comparable to citizens, and
states were not permitted to restrict access to federal programs on the basis of
immigration status. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) — the original law authorizing the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program — dramatically changed
noncitizen eligibility for public assistance. It restricted the eligibility of LPRs,
refugees, asylees, and other noncitizens for all means-tested public aid. Aliens in the
United States without authorization, commonly referred to as “illegal aliens,”
remained ineligible for federal public assistance. As Congress considers the
reauthorization of the welfare reform law, the issue of state options to restrict or
expand assistance to immigrants arises.
The 1996 welfare reform act gave states several options of placing further
restrictions on noncitizen eligibility or of expanding benefits to noncitizens. LPRs
who entered the United States after August 22, 1996, are barred from TANF for five
years, after which their coverage becomes a state option. This five-year bar,
however, does not apply to LPRs who entered the United States as refugees and
asylees. Refugees and asylees who meet the other program criteria are eligible for
TANF for the first five years they are in the United States. After this period of time,
refugees and asylees are only eligible for TANF at state option.
Many states have been exercising one or more of these options to extend
coverage to certain classes of LPRs. As of December 2002, 34 states reported that
they are exercising the option to provide TANF to LPRs after the five-year bar ends.
Thirty-five states reported that they have exercised the option to provide TANF to
LPRs present in the United States before August 1996. Furthermore, 34 states
reported that they provide TANF to asylees and refugees who were residing in the
United States at the time of the welfare reform act’s passage in 1996. Only 27 states,
however, reported that they provide TANF to asylees and refugees who have
surpassed the five-year limit for TANF.
In terms of funding, 27 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they used their
own funds as well as federal funds in 2000 and 2002 to cover the costs of providing
TANF to those LPRs who were in the United States prior to the passage of the 1996
welfare reform act. An important source of funding for state assistance to
noncitizens comes from the TANF “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement. In
2002, 17 states reported using their state MOE money to provide public assistance
to newly arriving LPRs who are barred from federal TANF for the first five years.
Six states reported using their state MOE money in 2002 to provide TANF to LPRs
who had exhausted their eligibility or were currently barred. Eight states reported
contributing their state MOE money in 2002 to a separate program for those LPRs
who were excluded or whose eligibility had expired. This report may be updated if
new data become available.

Contents
Background ......................................................1
In troduction ..................................................1
Current Federal Eligibility Policy.................................2
Legal Permanent Residents by State...............................3
State Policies and Funding...........................................5
Options Under TANF..........................................5
State Policies in 2000 and 2002...................................5
Funding Sources for Noncitizens..................................9
Noncitizen Receipt of TANF........................................13
Trends Over Time............................................13
Trends by State...............................................14
List of Figures
Figure 1. Noncitizens as a Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients,
FY1989-FY2001 .............................................14
List of Tables
Table 1. Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) Admitted FY1988-FY2002
by State of Intended Residence...................................4
Table 2. Summary of State Policies on LPR Eligibility for TANF:
2000 and 2002................................................6
Table 3. Summary of State Policies on Asylee and Refugee Eligibility
for TANF: 2000 and 2002......................................8
Table 4. Use of State and Federal Funding for Optional TANF
Assistance to Noncitizens by State, 2000 and 2002..................10
Table 5. State Use of MOE Funds in 2002 to Assist Noncitizens During
Periods of Federal Ineligibility and Optional State Eligibility...........12
Table 6. Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients Who Are Noncitizens
by State, FY2001.............................................15

State Policies on Immigrant Eligibility
for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF)
Background
Introduction
Immigrant eligibility for major public assistance programs is an ongoing issue
in Congress.¹ Prior to 1996, legal permanent residents (LPRs) were eligible for
federal public assistance under terms comparable to citizens, and states were not
permitted to restrict access to federal programs on the basis of immigration status.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-193) — the original law authorizing the Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) program — dramatically changed noncitizen eligibility for public
assistance. It restricted the eligibility of LPRs, refugees, asylees, and other
noncitizens for means-tested public aid. These provisions ranged from categorical
eligibility bars to new rules governing aliens with sponsors and their sponsors’
responsibilities.² Aliens in the United States without authorization, commonly
referred to as “illegal aliens,” remained ineligible federal public assistance.
Although the federal government retains exclusive responsibility for
immigration policy, federal law now permits states to differentiate among types of
noncitizens when setting welfare policy. The 1996 welfare reform act gave states
several options of placing further restrictions on noncitizen eligibility. It also gave
them options of expanding benefits to noncitizens.³ As Congress considers the

¹ For a full discussion of this debate, see CRS Report RL31114, Noncitizen Eligibility for
Major Federal Public Assistance Programs: Policies and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen
Wasem.
² See CRS Report RS21470, Noncitizen Eligibility For Major Federal Public Assistance
Programs: Legal Concepts, by Alison Smith.
³ Noncitizen is synonymous with alien and refers to all foreign-born persons in the United
States who have not become citizens. The two basic types of legal aliens are immigrants
and nonimmigrants. Immigrants are admitted as legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the
United States. Nonimmigrants — such as tourists, foreign students, and diplomats — are
admitted for a specific purpose and a temporary period of time. Illegal aliens or
unauthorized aliens are those noncitizens who either entered the United States
surreptitiously (i.e., entered without inspection), or who violated the terms of their
nonimmigrant visas. See CRS Report RS20916, Immigration and Naturalization
Fundamentals, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.

reauthorization of the welfare reform law, the issue of state options to restrict or
expand assistance to noncitzens arises.
After outlining the options states have to cover noncitzens under TANF and
presenting data on the number of LPRs in each state, this report studies whether and
which states have exercised these options regarding noncitizen eligibility for TANF.
It investigates how states are funding the assistance provided to noncitizens, and also
analyzes TANF receipt by state.
Current Federal Eligibility Policy
Under current law, noncitizens’ eligibility for TANF largely depends on their
immigration status and whether they arrived (or were on a program’s rolls) before
August 22, 1996, the enactment date of P.L. 104-193. The TANF eligibility policies
laid out by the 1996 welfare reform act remain essentially unchanged for noncitizens
entering after its enactment. The basic federal rules are as follows:⁴
^!LPRs who entered the United States after August 22, 1996, are
barred from TANF for five years, after which their coverage
becomes a state option.⁵
^!LPRs with a substantial work history — generally 10 years (40
quarters) of work documented by Social Security or other
employment records — or a military connection (active duty military
personnel, veterans, and their families) are eligible for TANF.
^!Refugees and asylees are eligible for TANF for five years after
entering the United States.⁶ After this five-year term, refugees and
asylees may be eligible, at state option, for TANF.⁷

⁴ CRS Report RL31114, Noncitizen Eligibility for Major Federal Public Assistance
Programs: Policies and Legislation, by Ruth Ellen Wasem, lays out these rules in more
detail — including special rules that apply to several limited noncitizen categories: certain
“cross-border” American Indians, Hmong/Highland Laotians, parolees and conditional
entrants, and cases of abuse.
⁵ This five-year ban on eligibility for new entrants also applies to a program closely related
to the Medicaid program — the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). It is
the only categorical noncitizen eligibility rule affecting SCHIP.
⁶ Refugee/asylee treatment is accorded to Cuban/Haitian entrants, certain aliens whose
deportation/removal is withheld for humanitarian purposes, Vietnam-born Amerasians
fathered by U.S. citizens, and victims of human trafficking. For those aliens who arrive in
the United States without one of these forms of humanitarian relief, the five-year period
begins after the date the aliens receive the status.
⁷ Refugees are admitted from abroad after it is determined that they would be persecuted
or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Asylees are aliens physically
present in the United States who, if returned to their country of origin, would be persecuted
or have a well-founded fear of persecution on account of race, religion, nationality,
membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

Nonimmigrants (e.g., temporary alien residents) and unauthorized aliens (i.e., illegal
aliens) are barred from TANF, as they were barred from its predecessor, Aid for
Families with Dependent Children.
Legal Permanent Residents by State
The state residential patterns of the almost 14.5 million aliens who became
LPRs in the United States from FY1988 through FY2002 provide a gauge of the
relative effect of these policies across the states. Although a substantial number of
people who are currently LPRs came to the United States before 1988, many others
who came prior to 1988 have become U.S. citizens. All LPRs are eligible to become
citizens through the naturalization process after they have lived here for five years as
LPRs (three years in the case of spouses of U.S. citizens).⁸ Estimates of the
naturalization rate range from 30% to 49%, and the median number of years between
becoming an LPR and naturalizing as a U.S. citizen varies from eight to 10 years (for
those who opt to naturalize).⁹
Immigrants are concentrated in several states; indeed over half of all new LPRs
from FY1988 through FY2002 indicated that they intended to live in just three states:
California, New York, and Texas.¹⁰ As Table 1 presents, California dominates with
4,561,693 new LPRs, which is 31.5% of all new LPRs during this period. New York
follows with 2,001,439 new LPRs (13.8%). Interestingly, both California and New
York had a slightly smaller percentage of all new LPRs during the 1997-2002 period
(26.1% and 12.8%, respectively) than during 1988-1996 period (34.4% and 14.3%,
respectively), suggesting a somewhat wider dispersion of new LPRs to other states.
Almost 80% of all new LPRs reported their intended state of residence in one of 10
states: California, New York, Texas, Florida, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts,
Virginia, Washington, and Maryland. The only other states with more than 1% of all
new LPRs reporting intended residence are: Pennsylvania, Michigan, Arizona,
Georgia, Connecticut, and Ohio.

⁸ To naturalize under U.S. immigration law, all LPRs must also show that they have good
moral character, demonstrate the ability to read, write, speak, and understand English, and
pass an examination on U.S. government and history.
⁹ See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2002 Yearbook of Immigration Statistics
(GPO, 2003); and CRS Report 95-298, Naturalization of Immigrants: Policy, Trends and
Issues, by Ruth Ellen Wasem.
¹⁰ U.S. Citizenship and Immigrant Services (formerly the Immigration and Naturalization
Service) asks all people as they become LPRs where they intend to live in the United States.

Table 1. Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) Admitted
FY1988-FY2002 by State of Intended Residence
^St^a^t^{e o}^f^int^e^nded^1988-1996^1997-2002^1988-2002
^res^idence^Num^b^er^Percent^N^um^ber^P^ercent^N^um^ber^P^ercent
^A^l^abam^a^17,601^0.2%^11,227^0.2%^28,828^0.2%
^A^l^as^k^a^10,643.00^0.1%^7,465^0.1%^18,108^0.1%
^A^rⁱ^z^on^a^133,625^1.4%^69,571^1.4%^203,196^1.4%
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^11,496^0.1%^9,985^0.2%^21,481^0.1%
^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^a³^,235,089^34.4%^1,326,604^26.1%^4,561,693^31.5%
^C^o^l^o^rado^71,185^0.8%^53,773^1.1%^124,958^0.9%
^C^oⁿⁿ^ectⁱ^c^u^t^89,596^1.0%^59,932^1.2%^149,528^1.0%
^D^e^l^a^w^a^re^9,776^0.1%^8,519^0.2%^18,295^0.1%
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^u^m^bⁱ^a^36,171^0.4%^16,192^0.3%^52,363^0.4%
^F^l^ori^d^a^648,690^6.9%^493,692^9.7%^1,142,382^7.9%
^G^e^orgⁱ^a^104,234^1.1%^87,236^1.7%^191,470^1.3%
^H^a^w^aⁱⁱ^71,475^0.8%^34,503^0.7%^105,978^0.7%
^Idah^o^19,020^0.2%^11,311^0.2%^30,331^0.2%
^Illin^ois^463,326^4.9%^239,973^4.7%^703,299^4.9%
^In^di^an^a^32,467^0.3%^28,421^0.6%^60,888^0.4%
^Iow^a^21,354^0.2%^19,873^0.4%^41,227^0.3%
^K^aⁿ^s^as^31,305^0.3%^22,396^0.4%^53,701^0.4%
^K^eⁿ^t^u^c^k^y^15,945^0.2%^17,711^0.3%^33,656^0.2%
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^34,723^0.4%^17,553^0.3%^52,276^0.4%
^Maiⁿ^e⁷^,890^0.1%^5,682^0.1%^13,572^0.1%
^Mary^l^aⁿ^d^144,367^1.5%^113,772^2.2%^258,139^1.8%
^Mas^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s^205,674^2.^2%^132,429^2.6%^338,103^2.3%
^Mi^chⁱ^g^an^119,002^1.3%^102,408^2.0%^221,410^1.5%
^Miⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^62,932^0.7%^54,529^1.1%^117,461^0.8%
^Mi^s^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^ppi^8,183^0.1%^6,095^0.1%^14,278^0.1%
^Mi^s^s^o^u^rⁱ^37,628^0.4%^34,228^0.7%^71,856^0.5%
^Mon^t^an^a⁴^,408^0.0%^2,386^0.0%^6,794^0.0%
^N^e^bras^k^a^15,592^0.2%^14,713^0.3%^30,305^0.2%
^N^e^v^a^da^50,070^0.5%^47,896^0.9%^97,966^0.7%
^N^e^w^H^a^m^p^s^hⁱ^r^e^11,111^0.1%^10,757^0.2%^21,868^0.2%
^N^e^w^Jers^ey^429,459^4.6%^268,024^5.3%^697,483^4.8%
^N^e^w^Mexⁱ^co^51,020^0.5%^19,833^0.4%^70,853^0.5%
^N^e^w^Y^o^rk^1,349,181^14.3%^652,258^12.8%^2,001,439^13.8%
^N^o^rt^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^62,719^0.7%^54,221^1.1%^116,940^0.8%
^N^o^rt^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^4,498^0.0%^3,075^0.1%^7,573^0.1%
^O^hⁱ^o^78,444^0.8%^60,604^1.2%^139,048^1.0%
^O^k^l^a^h^o^m^a^33,213^0.4%^20,113^0.4%^53,326^0.4%
^O^r^eg^on^73,736^0.8%^49,147^1.0%^122,883^0.8%
^Penⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a^140,673^1.5%^99,071^2.0%^239,744^1.7%
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d^27,553^0.3%^14,990^0.3%^42,543^0.3%
^S^o^u^t^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^19,852^0.2%^14,459^0.3%^34,311^0.2%
^S^o^u^t^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^3,974^0.0%^3,240^0.1%^7,214^0.0%
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^30,548^0.3%^26,580^0.5%^57,128^0.4%
^T^e^x^a^s^875,349^9.3%^390,238^7.7%^1,265,587^8.7%
^U^t^ah^30,153^0.3%^23,610^0.5%^53,763^0.4%
^V^e^rm^on^t⁵^,383^0.1%^4,408^0.1%^9,791^0.1%
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^158,771^1.7%^122,481^2.4%^281,252^1.9%
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^158,358^1.7%^115,897^2.3%^274,255^1.9%
^Wes^t^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^5,495^0.1%^3,131^0.1%^8,626^0.1%
^Wi^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ^41,962^0.4%^29,974^0.6%^71,936^0.5%
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g³^,092^0.0%^1,501^0.0%^4,593^0.0%

^St^a^t^{e o}^f^int^e^nded^1988-1996^1997-2002^1988-2002
^res^idence^Num^b^er^Percent^N^um^ber^P^ercent^N^um^ber^P^ercent
^G^u^am^20,954^0.2%^10,623^0.2%^31,577^0.2%
^N^.^Mari^an^{a Is}^l^aⁿ^d^s¹^,051^0.0%⁷²⁹^0.0%^1,780^0.0%
^Pu^ert^o^Rⁱ^co^67,192^0.7%^20,362^0.4%^87,554^0.6%
^U^.^S^.^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿ^Is^l^aⁿ^d^s^14,920^0.2%^7,218^0.1%^22,138^0.2%
^O^t^he^r^o^r^unkno^wⁿ⁴^,⁵¹⁸⁰^.⁰^%⁶⁵³⁰^.⁰^%⁵^,¹⁷¹⁰^.⁰^%
^T^o^tal⁹^,416,646^—^5,077,254^—^14,493,900^—
^Source:^{CRS an}^aly^s^{is o}^f^Dep^a^r^t^m^eⁿ^t^o^f^Ho^m^e^lan^d^Secu^r^ity^{, Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^I^m^mⁱ^g^r^atioⁿ^{Statistics d}^a^ta.
The LPR data in Table 1 has several limitations, the most obvious being that
“intended residence” does not take into account people who subsequently move. The
data also, as noted earlier, do not include LPRs who arrived before 1988 and do not
exclude LPRs who have since become U.S. citizens.
State Policies and Funding
Options Under TANF
States may permit or prohibit participation by LPRs who entered the United
States before enactment of the welfare law (August 22, 1996) from TANF. LPRs
entering the United States after August 22, 1996, are barred for five years from all
benefits under TANF, food stamps, Medicaid (except emergency medical assistance),
and the Social Services block grant. LPRs ineligible for TANF, however, may
receive state-funded benefits if they meet other program requirements. After five
years, the decision as to whether LPRs may participate in TANF (as well as Medicaid
and the Social Services block grant) rests with the states. Many states, as discussed
below, offer public assistance to LPRs not eligible for federally financed benefits.
The five-year bar discussed previously does not apply to refugees and asylees.
Refugees and asylees who meet the other program criteria are eligible for TANF
benefits for five years. After this period of time, refugees and asylees are eligible for
TANF at state option, provided they are otherwise eligible for TANF.
State Policies in 2000 and 2002
During the fall of 2002 and winter of 2003, the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) conducted the State Noncitizen Eligibility Survey (SNES), a two-phase survey
of state eligibility policies on noncitizen eligibility for public assistance as of
December 2000 and December 2002. CRS sent questionnaires to state officials
responsible for TANF in all 50 states and outlying areas. The nine states and four
outlying areas that did not respond to the TANF portion of SNES are indicated in the
following tables as “NR” for no response. If a state official responded to the survey,
but did not answer a particular question on the survey, it is noted as “skip.”¹¹

¹¹ While under contract with CRS, Shirin Kaleel conducted the State Noncitizen Eligibility
(continued...)

As of December 2002, 34 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they were
exercising the option to provide TANF to LPRs after the five-year bar ends. Thirty-
five states and Washington, D.C. reported that they have exercised the option to
provide TANF to LPRs present in the United States before August 1996. Table 2
summarizes two major options that states may exercise on LPR eligibility for TANF
and whether they opted for these policies in 2000 and 2002. As Table 2 indicates,
there was no noteworthy change in state policies from 2000 to 2002.
Table 2. Summary of State Policies on
LPR Eligibility for TANF: 2000 and 2002
^L^P^Rs^pres^{ent in the U.S. on or}
^{after A}^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996 an}^d
^L^P^Rs^pres^{ent in the U.S. before}^{federally barred from}^T^{ANF for}
^A^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996 el}ⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^{for T}^A^N^F^fⁱ^v^e^y^e^a^r^{s elig}^{ible f}^o^{r TANF a}^f^t^e^r
^S^t^{ate or ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^{at s}^t^{ate op}^ti^on^?^{the bar ex}^pired?
^areas²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²
^A^l^abam^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^A^l^as^k^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Am^erⁱ^c^{an Sam}^oa^NR^NR^NR^NR
^A^r^izon^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^C^a^lif^ornⁱ^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^C^o^lo^rad^o^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^C^oⁿⁿ^ecticu^t^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Delaw^a^re^NR^NR^NR^NR
^{District o}^f^C^o^lu^m^b^ia^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Florida^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Geo^r^gⁱ^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^G^uam^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Haw^aⁱⁱ^No^No^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^I^d^a^h^o^N^o^N^o^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^I^llin^oⁱ^s^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^In^di^an^a^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Io^w^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Kan^s^as^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^K^e^nt^uc^ky^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Main^e^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Mary^lan^d^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Massach^u^s^etts^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Mich^ig^an^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Minⁿ^e^so^ta^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Mⁱ^ssissip^pⁱ^No^No^Ye^s^Y^e^s
^Mⁱ^sso^urⁱ^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p

¹¹ (...continued)
Survey (SNES). On behalf of CRS, she contacted the designated TANF officials in all 50
states and outlying areas by mail, telephone, and — in many instances — by e-mail. The
state officials had the option of completing the SNES surveys by e-mail or fax. CRS also
extended the initial deadline of Dec. 31, 2002, for eight additional weeks to encourage as
many responses as possible.

^L^P^Rs^pres^{ent in the U.S. on or}
^{after A}^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996 an}^d
^L^P^Rs^pres^{ent in the U.S. before}^{federally barred from}^T^{ANF for}
^A^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996 el}ⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^{for T}^A^N^F^fⁱ^v^e^y^e^a^r^{s elig}^{ible f}^o^{r TANF a}^f^t^e^r
^S^t^{ate or ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^{at s}^t^{ate op}^ti^on^?^{the bar ex}^pired?
^areas²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²
^Mon^t^an^a^Y^es^Yes^N^o^N^o
^Neb^r^ask^a^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Nev^a^d^a^NR^NR^NR^NR
^New^Ham^p^sh^ire^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^New^J^e^rsey^NR^NR^NR^NR
^New^Mexⁱ^co^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^New^Yo^rk^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^No^rth^C^a^ro^lin^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^No^rth^Dak^o^ta^No^No^Yes^Y^es
^N^.^M^a^rⁱ^{ana Is}^l^ands^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Oh^io^No^No^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Ok^lah^o^m^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Oreg^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^NR^Yes
^P^e^nnsy^l^vaⁿⁱ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^Puer^{to Rico}^NR^NR^NR^NR
^R^h^o^d^e^Islan^d^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^So^ut^{h Ca}^r^o^lⁱⁿ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^So^ut^{h D}^a^ko^t^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Te^x^a^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^N^o^N^o
^Utah^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^U^.^{S. Vi}^r^gⁱⁿ^Is^l^ands^No^No^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Verm^oⁿ^t^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Virgⁱⁿ^ia^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^W^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^W^e^{st Virg}ⁱⁿ^ia^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Wⁱ^sc^oⁿ^sin^Y^e^s^Ye^s^Y^e^s^Ye^s
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g^N^o^N^o^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^Source:^C^R^S^an^aly^s^is^of^th^{e State Non}^c^iti^zen^Elig^ibility^Su^rv^ey^{(SNES), J}^aⁿ^.^2003.
As Table 3 indicates, 34 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they provide
TANF to asylees and refugees who were residing in the United States at the time of
the welfare reform act’s passage in 1996. Only 27 states and Washington, D.C.,
however, reported that they provide TANF to asylees and refugees who have
surpassed the five-year limit for TANF and two reported that they did not. It is
important to note that several states skipped this question on the survey. Only West
Virginia reported a change in policy of providing TANF in 2000 but not in 2002 to
asylees and refugees who were residing in the United States at the time of the welfare
reform act’s passage.

Table 3. Summary of State Policies on Asylee and
Refugee Eligibility for TANF: 2000 and 2002
^As^ylees^{and refugees}^pres^{ent in}
^th^{e U}^.^S^.^b^e^{fore A}^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996}^As^ylees^{and refugees}^{federally barred}
^elig^{ible f}^o^{r TANF a}^t^st^a^t^e^from^T^A^N^F^{after fi}^rs^{t fi}^{ve years}
^S^t^{ate ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^op^ti^on^?^elⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^{for T}^A^N^F^{at s}^t^{ate op}^ti^on^?
^areas²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²
^A^l^abam^a^Y^es^Yes^N^o^N^o
^A^l^as^k^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Am^erⁱ^c^{an Sam}^oa^NR^NR^NR^NR
^A^r^izon^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^A^r^ka^nsa^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Ski^p^Ski^p
^C^a^lif^ornⁱ^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Co^lo^r^a^d^o^Yes^Y^es^Sk^ip^Yes
^C^oⁿⁿ^ecticu^t^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Delaw^a^re^NR^NR^NR^NR
^{District o}^f^C^o^lu^m^b^ia^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Florida^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Geo^r^gⁱ^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^G^uam^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Haw^aⁱⁱ^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^I^d^a^h^o^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^I^llin^oⁱ^s^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^In^di^an^a^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Io^w^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Kan^s^as^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^K^e^nt^uc^ky^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Main^e^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Mary^lan^d^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Massach^u^s^etts^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Mich^ig^an^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Minⁿ^e^so^ta^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Mississip^pⁱ^Skip^Skip^Skip^Skip
^Mⁱ^sso^urⁱ^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^M^o^nt^aⁿ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^Neb^r^ask^a^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Nev^a^d^a^NR^NR^NR^NR
^New^Ham^p^sh^ire^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^New^J^e^rsey^NR^NR^NR^NR
^New^Mexⁱ^co^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^New^Yo^rk^Yes^Y^es^No^No
^No^rth^C^a^ro^lin^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^No^r^t^h^Dak^o^ta^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^N^.^M^a^rⁱ^{ana Is}^l^ands^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Oh^io^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Ok^lah^o^m^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Oreg^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^P^e^nnsy^l^vaⁿⁱ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^Puer^{to Rico}^NR^NR^NR^NR
^R^h^o^d^e^Islan^d^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^So^ut^{h Ca}^r^o^lⁱⁿ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p

^As^ylees^{and refugees}^pres^{ent in}
^th^{e U}^.^S^.^b^e^{fore A}^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996}^As^ylees^{and refugees}^{federally barred}
^elig^{ible f}^o^{r TANF a}^t^st^a^t^e^from^T^A^N^F^{after fi}^rs^{t fi}^{ve years}
^S^t^{ate ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^op^ti^on^?^elⁱ^gⁱ^b^l^e^{for T}^A^N^F^{at s}^t^{ate op}^ti^on^?
^areas²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²
^So^ut^{h D}^a^ko^t^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^T^e^xa^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^Utah^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^U^.^{S. Vi}^r^gⁱⁿ^Is^l^ands^Skip^Skip^Skip^Skip
^Verm^oⁿ^t^Y^es^Yes^S^kⁱ^p^S^kⁱ^p
^Virgⁱⁿ^ia^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^W^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^W^e^{st Vir}^gⁱⁿ^ia^Yes^N^o^S^kⁱ^p^S^kⁱ^p
^Wⁱ^sc^oⁿ^sin^Y^e^s^Ye^s^Y^e^s^Ye^s
^W^y^o^mⁱⁿ^g^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^Source:^C^R^S^an^aly^s^is^of^th^{e State Non}^c^iti^zen^Elig^ibility^Su^rv^ey^{(SNES), J}^aⁿ^.^2003.
Funding Sources for Noncitizens
A total of 27 states and Washington, D.C. reported that they used their own
funds as well as federal funds in 2000 and 2002 to cover the costs of providing
TANF to those LPRs who were in the United States prior to the passage of the 1996
welfare reform act. Twenty-six states and the U.S. Virgin Islands reported that they
used their own funds as well as federal funds in 2000 and 2002 to cover the costs of
providing TANF to those LPRs who were excluded (e.g., barred first five years in
U.S.) or whose eligibility had expired (e.g., refugees after five years in U.S.).
Presumably, those LPRs barred from federal TANF (e.g., first five years in the U.S.)
were covered by state funds, and federal funds were used to cover those LPRs whom
the states had the option to cover federally (e.g., refugees after five years in U.S.).
As Table 4 indicates only 22 states reported that they opted to provide TANF to
those LPRs in the United States prior to the passage of the 1996 welfare reform act
as well as those LPRs who were excluded or whose eligibility had expired.

Table 4. Use of State and Federal Funding for Optional
TANF Assistance to Noncitizens by State, 2000 and 2002
^B^o^{th federal and s}^t^{ate T}^ANF^B^o^{th federal and s}^t^{ate T}^ANF
^f^{unds used t}^o^a^ssist^no^ncit^izens^f^{unds used t}^o^a^ssist^no^ncit^izens
^pres^{ent in the U.S. before}^a^f^t^{er perio}^d^o^f^elig^ibilit^y^o^r^during
^A^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996}^{period of ex}^clus^ion
^S^t^{ate or ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^areas²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²
^A^l^abam^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^A^l^as^k^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Am^erⁱ^c^{an Sam}^oa^NR^NR^NR^NR
^A^r^izon^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Calif^o^rⁿⁱ^a^N^o^N^o^N^o^N^o
^Co^lo^r^a^d^o^Yes^Y^es^Sk^ip^No
^C^oⁿⁿ^ecticu^t^No^No^Yes^Y^es
^Delaw^a^re^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Distrⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^ia^Yes^Y^es^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Flo^r^id^a^N^o^N^o^N^o^N^o
^Geo^r^gⁱ^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^G^uam^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Haw^aⁱⁱ^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Yes^Y^es
^I^d^a^h^o^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^I^llin^oⁱ^s^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^In^di^an^a^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Io^w^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Kan^s^as^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^K^e^nt^uc^ky^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^Lo^ui^si^aⁿ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^Main^e^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Mary^lan^d^Yes^Y^es^No^No
^Massach^u^s^etts^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Mich^ig^an^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Minⁿ^e^so^ta^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Mississip^pⁱ^Skip^Skip^Skip^Skip
^Mⁱ^sso^urⁱ^N^o^N^o^Y^e^s^Ye^s
^Mon^t^an^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Neb^r^ask^a^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Nev^a^d^a^NR^NR^NR^NR
^New^Ham^p^sh^ire^N^R^N^R^N^R^N^R
^New^J^e^rsey^NR^NR^NR^NR
^New^Mexⁱ^co^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^New^Yo^rk^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^No^rth^C^a^ro^lin^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^No^r^t^h^Dak^o^ta^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^N^.^M^a^rⁱ^{ana Is}^l^ands^NR^NR^NR^NR
^Oh^io^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Ok^lah^o^m^a^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^Oreg^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^P^e^nnsy^l^vaⁿⁱ^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^Puer^{to Rico}^NR^NR^NR^NR
^R^h^o^d^e^Islan^d^No^No^Yes^Y^es
^So^ut^{h Ca}^r^o^lⁱⁿ^a^N^o^N^o^S^ki^p^S^ki^p

^B^o^{th federal and s}^t^{ate T}^ANF^B^o^{th federal and s}^t^{ate T}^ANF
^f^{unds used t}^o^a^ssist^no^ncit^izens^f^{unds used t}^o^a^ssist^no^ncit^izens
^pres^{ent in the U.S. before}^a^f^t^{er perio}^d^o^f^elig^ibilit^y^o^r^during
^A^u^gu^s^t^{22, 1996}^{period of ex}^clus^ion
^S^t^{ate or ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^areas²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰²
^So^ut^{h D}^a^ko^t^a^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^Y^e^s
^T^e^nne^sse^e^Y^e^s^Y^e^s^N^o^N^o
^T^e^x^a^s^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Utah^No^No^No^No
^U^.^{S. Vi}^r^gⁱⁿ^Is^l^ands^Skip^Skip^Yes^Y^es
^Verm^oⁿ^t^Y^es^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^Virgⁱⁿ^ia^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^W^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^W^e^{st Vir}^gⁱⁿ^ia^Yes^Y^es^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Wⁱ^sc^oⁿ^sin^N^o^N^o^N^o^N^o
^W^y^o^mⁱⁿ^g^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^Source:^C^R^{S an}^aly^s^is^of^th^{e State Non}^c^itizen^Elig^ibility^Su^rv^ey^{(SNES), J}^aⁿ^.^2003.
An important source of funding for state assistance to noncitizens comes from
the “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement. MOE refers to the amount of the
state’s own money it must spend to comply with the TANF requirement that the
states must continue to spend at least 75% of the total they spent in 1994 for the
specific programs that were folded into the TANF block grant. Nationally, the MOE
funds total $10.4 billion, as compared to $16.5 billion in TANF grants. Among the
variety of authorized uses for MOE funds are expenditures for persons ineligible for
TANF because of the citizenship and immigrant rules.¹²
As of December 2002, 17 states reported using their state MOE money to
provide public assistance to newly arriving LPRs who are barred from federal TANF
for the first five years, as listed in Table 5. Six states reported using their state MOE
money in 2002 to provide TANF to LPRs who had exhausted their eligibility or were
currently barred: California, Colorado, Florida, New York, Utah, and Washington.
Eight states reported contributing their state MOE money in 2002 to a separate
program for those LPRs who were excluded (e.g., barred first five years) or whose
eligibility had expired (e.g., refugees after five years): California, Georgia, Hawaii,
Maryland, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

¹² See CRS Report RL30723, Welfare Reform: Federal Grants and Financing Rules Under
TANF, by Gene Falk; and U.S. Congress, Committee on Ways and Means, 2004 Green
Book, Section 7, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” Mar. 17, 2004.

Table 5. State Use of MOE Funds in 2002 to
Assist Noncitizens During Periods of
Federal Ineligibility and Optional State Eligibility
^{During five-year}^Af^t^{er perio}^d^o^f^elig^ibilit^y^Af^t^{er perio}^d^o^f^elig^ibilit^y
^{federal bar from}^{or d}^u^rⁱⁿ^{g p}^eri^od^of^{or d}^u^rⁱⁿ^{g p}^eri^od^of
^TANF^a^ssist^e^d^e^x^c^l^usio^{n a}^ssist^e^d^by^st^a^t^e^e^x^c^l^usio^{n a}^ssist^e^d^by^st^a^t^e
^S^t^{ate or ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^by^using^st^a^t^e^M^O^{E m}^o^ney^co^nt^ribut^ed^M^O^{E m}^o^ney^co^nt^ribut^ed
^areas^MO^E^m^oⁿ^e^y^?^{to th}^{e T}^A^N^F^p^r^ogram^?^to^s^e^par^at^e^p^r^ogram^?
^A^l^abam^a^S^kⁱ^p^N^o^N^o
^A^l^ask^a^Sk^ip^No^No
^Am^erⁱ^c^{an Sam}^oa^NR^NR^NR
^Arⁱ^z^oⁿ^a^S^kⁱ^p^N^o^N^o
^A^r^ka^nsa^s^Ski^p^N^o^N^o
^C^a^lif^ornⁱ^a^Y^es^Yes^Y^es
^C^o^lo^rad^o^Yes^Y^es^No
^Co^nne^c^tⁱ^c^ut^Y^e^s^N^o^N^o
^Delaw^a^re^NR^NR^NR
^Distrⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^ia^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Flo^r^id^a^S^kip^Y^es^No
^Geo^r^gⁱ^a^Y^es^No^Yes
^G^uam^NR^NR^NR
^Haw^aⁱⁱ^Yes^N^o^Y^es
^I^d^a^h^o^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^I^llin^oⁱ^s^N^o^N^o^N^o
^In^di^an^a^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Io^w^a^Sk^ip^No^No
^Kan^s^as^Sk^ip^No^No
^K^e^nt^uc^ky^Ski^p^N^o^N^o
^Lo^ui^si^aⁿ^a^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^Main^e^N^R^N^R^N^R
^Mary^lan^d^Yes^N^o^Y^es
^Massach^u^s^etts^NR^NR^NR
^Mich^ig^an^NR^NR^NR
^Mⁱ^nne^so^t^a^Y^e^s^N^o^N^o
^Mⁱ^ssissip^pⁱ^Skip^Skip^Skip
^Misso^u^rⁱ^Y^es^No^No
^M^o^nt^aⁿ^a^S^ki^p^N^o^N^o
^Neb^r^ask^a^NR^NR^NR
^Nev^a^d^a^NR^NR^NR
^New^Ham^p^sh^ire^N^R^N^R^N^R
^New^J^e^rsey^NR^NR^NR
^New^Mexⁱ^co^No^No^No
^New^Yo^rk^Yes^Y^es^No
^Nort^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^N^o^N^o^N^o
^No^r^t^h^Dak^o^ta^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^N^.^M^a^rⁱ^{ana Is}^l^ands^NR^NR^NR
^Oh^io^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Ok^lah^o^m^a^Sk^ip^No^No
^Oreg^oⁿ^Yes^N^o^N^o
^P^e^nnsy^l^vaⁿⁱ^a^Y^e^s^N^o^Y^e^s
^Puer^{to Rico}^NR^NR^NR
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d^Y^e^s^N^o^N^o

^{During five-year}^Af^t^{er perio}^d^o^f^elig^ibilit^y^Af^t^{er perio}^d^o^f^elig^ibilit^y
^{federal bar from}^{or d}^u^rⁱⁿ^{g p}^eri^od^of^{or d}^u^rⁱⁿ^{g p}^eri^od^of
^TANF^a^ssist^e^d^e^x^c^l^usio^{n a}^ssist^e^d^by^st^a^t^e^e^x^c^l^usio^{n a}^ssist^e^d^by^st^a^t^e
^S^t^{ate or ou}^tl^yiⁿ^g^by^using^st^a^t^e^M^O^{E m}^o^ney^co^nt^ribut^ed^M^O^{E m}^o^ney^co^nt^ribut^ed
^areas^MO^E^m^oⁿ^e^y^?^{to th}^{e T}^A^N^F^p^r^ogram^?^to^s^e^par^at^e^p^r^ogram^?
^So^ut^{h Ca}^r^o^lⁱⁿ^a^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^So^ut^{h D}^a^ko^t^a^Ski^p^N^o^N^o
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^ssee^Y^es^No^Yes
^T^e^xa^s^S^ki^p^N^o^N^o
^Utah^Yes^Y^es^Yes
^U^.^{S. Vi}^r^gⁱⁿ^Is^l^ands^Sk^ip^No^No
^Verm^oⁿ^t^Y^es^No^No
^Vir^gⁱⁿ^ia^Sk^ip^No^No
^W^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^Yes^Y^es^No
^W^e^{st Vir}^gⁱⁿ^ia^Sk^ip^Sk^ip^Sk^ip
^Wⁱ^sc^oⁿ^sin^Y^e^s^No^Ye^s
^W^y^o^mⁱⁿ^g^S^ki^p^S^ki^p^S^ki^p
^Source:^C^R^S^an^aly^s^is^of^th^{e State Non}^c^iti^zen^Elig^ibility^Su^rv^ey^{(SNES), J}^aⁿ^.^2003.
Noncitizen Receipt of TANF
Trends Over Time
As an annual percentage of total adult TANF recipients, noncitizens who
received Aid for Families with Dependent Children (the predecessor of TANF) rose
from 7.0% in FY1989 to 12.3% in FY1996. The percent of noncitizen adults
receiving TANF dropped slightly to 11.7% in 1999 and ultimately fell to 8.0% in
2001, the most recent year data are available. That many states have exercised one
or more options to extend coverage to certain classes of LPRs has mitigated the
effects of the federal bars enacted in 1996. This trend in receipt of TANF, which
does not include noncitizens assisted by the separate state programs noted above, is
illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Noncitizens as a Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients,
FY1989-FY2001
^P^e^rcent
¹⁰⁰
⁸⁰
⁶⁰
⁴⁰
²⁰^12.³
^8.⁰^7.⁰
⁰
¹⁹⁸⁹¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹¹¹⁹⁹²¹⁹⁹³¹⁹⁹⁴¹⁹⁹⁵¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹
^Sour^c^e^{: CRS presentatio}^{n o}^f^data^{published annually}^by^{the Adm}ⁱ^nstratio^{n fo}^{r Children}
^{and F}^a^m^ilies,^DHHS.
Trends by State
California tops the list of states, with 16.9% of its 278,069 TANF recipients
who were noncitizens in 2001, as Table 6 presents. Calculated in terms of
percentage of all adult noncitizens receiving TANF, Californians comprised 41.8%
of adult noncitizens in the United States on TANF in 2001. New York followed
California with 12.3% of its 189,299 recipients who were adult noncitizens or 20.7%
of noncitizens in the United States on TANF. Texas and Minnesota were distant
third and fourth places with 7.4% and 5.2% respectively of adult noncitizens in the
United States on TANF, with 8.9% and 16.8% of their states’ caseload respectively
who were noncitizens. Data presented in Table 6 do not include noncitizens assisted
by the separate state programs in California, Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Utah, and Wisconsin.

Table 6. Percentage of Adult TANF Recipients
Who Are Noncitizens by State, FY2001
^{Percent of s}^t^{ate total}
^S^t^ate^T^otal^ad^u^l^ts^{U.S. citizen}^Noncitizen^Unkⁿ^owⁿ
^A^l^abam^a⁸^,972^100.0%^0.0%^0.0%
^A^l^as^k^a^5,462^93.9%^6.1%^0.0%
^A^rⁱ^z^on^a^18,952^92.4%^7.5%^0.0%
^A^r^k^aⁿ^s^as^6,957^99.7%^0.3%^0.0%
^C^a^lⁱ^f^ornⁱ^a^278,069^83.0%^16.9%^0.1%
^C^o^l^o^rado^6,619^99.7%^0.3%^0.0%
^C^oⁿⁿ^ectⁱ^c^u^t^16,907^95.7%^4.3%^0.0%
^D^e^l^a^w^a^re^3,245^98.9%^1.1%^0.0%
^Dⁱ^s^t^ri^ct^of^C^o^l^o^m^bⁱ^a^12,144^99.1%^0.9%^0.0%
^F^l^ori^d^a^24,823^87.8%^12.2%^0.0%
^G^e^orgⁱ^a^25,608^99.3%^0.6%^0.1%
^H^a^w^aⁱⁱ^11,067^98.8%^1.2%^0.0%
^Idah^o³⁶¹^98.0%^2.0%^0.0%
^I^llin^oⁱ^s³⁸^,⁴⁸³⁹⁹^.¹^%⁰^.⁸^%⁰^.¹^%
^In^di^an^a^32,539^99.4%^0.6%^0.0%
^Iow^a^17,584^100.0%^0.0%^0.0%
^K^aⁿ^s^as^9,496^97.8%^2.2%^0.0%
^K^eⁿ^t^u^c^k^y^22,448^98.9%^1.1%^0.0%
^L^o^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^13,756^99.6%^0.4%^0.0%
^Maiⁿ^e⁷^,864^96.3%^3.7%^0.0%
^Mary^l^aⁿ^d^17,000^99.0%^1.0%^0.0%
^Mas^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s^27,202^87.2%^12.8%^0.0%
^Mi^chⁱ^g^an^48,989^96.8%^3.2%^0.0%
^Miⁿⁿ^e^s^o^t^a^34,851^83.2%^16.8%^0.0%
^Mi^s^sⁱ^s^sⁱ^ppi^7,920^100.0%^0.0%^0.0%
^Mi^s^s^o^u^rⁱ^34,635^97.3%^2.7%^0.0%
^Mon^t^an^a⁴^,782^99.4%^0.4%^0.2%
^N^e^bras^k^a^6,265^96.5%^3.5%^0.0%
^N^e^v^a^da^4,282^94.9%^4.9%^0.2%
^N^e^w^H^a^m^p^s^hⁱ^r^e⁴^,274^96.5%^3.5%^0.0%
^N^e^w^Jers^ey^27,915^95.8%^4.2%^0.0%
^N^e^w^Mexⁱ^co^17,136^92.1%^7.9%^0.0%
^N^e^w^Y^o^rk^189,299^84.8%^12.3%^2.9%
^N^o^rt^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a^21,414^96.4%^1.4%^2.2%
^N^o^rt^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^2,216^97.9%^2.1%^0.0%
^O^hⁱ^o^50,982^97.7%^2.3%^0.0%
^O^k^l^a^h^o^m^a^8,067^99.6%^0.2%^0.2%
^O^r^eg^on^8,869^94.0%^4.9%^1.0%
^Penⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a^58,471^96.9%^3.1%^0.0%
^Pu^ert^o^Rⁱ^co^23,266^99.0%^1.0%^0.0%
^R^h^{ode Is}^l^aⁿ^d^12,808^85.1%^14.9%^0.0%
^S^o^u^t^h^C^a^rolⁱⁿ^a⁹^,655^99.9%^0.1%^0.0%
^S^o^u^t^h^D^a^k^o^t^a^1,209^100.0%^0.0%^0.0%
^T^eⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^42,456^99.7%^0.3%^0.0%
^T^e^x^a^s^93,313^91.1%^8.9%^0.0%
^U^t^ah^5,269^95.5%^4.4%^0.1%
^V^e^rm^on^t⁵^,183^98.6%^1.4%^0.0%

^{Percent of s}^t^{ate total}
^S^t^ate^T^otal^ad^u^l^ts^{U.S. citizen}^Noncitizen^Unkⁿ^owⁿ
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿ^Is^l^aⁿ^d^s⁶⁷⁷^88.9%^9.7%^1.3%
^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^16,788^98.3%^1.7%^0.0%
^Was^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^43,282^87.0%^11.0%^2.0%
^Wes^t^Vⁱ^rgⁱⁿⁱ^a^12,612^99.9%^0.1%^0.0%
^Wi^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ⁶^,149^100.0%^0.0%^0.0%
^Wy^omⁱⁿ^g¹⁶²^99.8%^0.2%^0.0%
^U^.^S^.^t^o^t^a^l¹^,408,752^91.5%^8.0%^0.5%
^Source:^C^R^S^pres^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^of^dat^a^f^r^om^N^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^T^A^N^F^D^a^t^a^fⁱ^l^e^as^of^May^{15, 2002.}
Generally, states with larger shares of LPRs were more likely to have expanded
state-level TANF policies for noncitizens as well as have a greater percentage of their
caseload who were noncitizens. There were, however, some exceptions as noted
above. The level of immigrant enrollment in assistance programs is affected by the
restrictions imposed under the 1996 welfare reform law, by states’ choices to extend
or deny coverage when given the option and, to some degree, by individuals’
perception of their eligibility status and their election to participate or not. Among
the public at large, confusion remains over what classes of noncitizens are eligible
for which programs, in part because the 1996 welfare law used the phrase “qualified
alien” — not a term in immigration law — that encompasses a variety of classes of
noncitizens who must meet additional specified conditions. Moreover, despite
narrowly drawn regulations from the former Immigration and Naturalization Service
(now the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services in the Department of Homeland
Security) on what constitutes “public charge,” many believe that receiving public
benefits may adversely affect a noncitizen’s immigration status or potential to
sponsor immigration petitions for family members. These factors may be inhibiting
participation among eligible immigrants.