Victoria Bowden, Diana Azevedo-McCaffrey and Maria Manansala[1]
AFDC and TANF Caseload and Poverty Data
1978-2023
This spreadsheet analyzes AFDC and TANF caseload and poverty data from 1978 until 2023. Following TANF’s inception in 1996, the national TANF-to-poverty ratio has continued to decline until 2023, when there was a very small year-over-year improvement. Between 2022 and 2023, the number of families in poverty receiving TANF cash assistance increased from 19 out of 100 families to 20 out of 100 families. This ratio remains significantly lower than when TANF was established in 1996.
We use the TANF-to-poverty ratio (TPR) to examine changes over time in access to TANF by families experiencing poverty. We calculate TPR by dividing the number of TANF cash assistance cases by the number of families with children in poverty from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey (CPS).
The official U.S. poverty rate rose from 2019 to 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting economic crisis, remained about the same between 2020 and 2022, and then fell slightly from 2022 to 2023. Amid nationwide financial hardship, more families turned to TANF to make ends meet, and caseloads rose at the beginning of the pandemic in 2020 but then fell by the end of that year. Nationally, caseloads continued to decline between 2021 and 2023.
As research shows, cash assistance as an income support through TANF is a powerful mechanism that can help families meet their needs, reduce the risk of child protective services involvement, increase the likelihood of economic stability, and enhance family well-being.
State AFDC/TANF-to-Poverty Ratios, Two-Year Averages | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | 1995-96 | 2005-06 | 2017-18 | 2018-19 | 2019-20 | 2020-21 | 2021-22 | 2022-23 |
| Alabama | 32 | 17 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 7 |
| Alaska | 132 | 32 | 20 | 22 | 20 | 16 | 15 | 14 |
| Arizona | 42 | 27 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Arkansas | 33 | 11 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| California | 101 | 66 | 68 | 70 | 71 | 64 | 63 | 64 |
| Colorado | 66 | 18 | 34 | 23 | 20 | 23 | 27 | 27 |
| Connecticut | 82 | 48 | 22 | 27 | 22 | 19 | 16 | 15 |
| Delaware | 99 | 45 | 39 | 44 | 35 | 24 | 23 | 31 |
| Florida | 55 | 20 | 12 | 13 | 13 | 11 | 9 | 10 |
| Georgia | 82 | 16 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 4 | 3 |
| Hawai‘i | 108 | 71 | 34 | 35 | 34 | 33 | 30 | 22 |
| Idaho | 32 | 8 | 8 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| Illinois | 87 | 17 | 15 | 14 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 18 |
| Indiana | 61 | 35 | 6 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 6 | 5 |
| Iowa | 64 | 40 | 21 | 19 | 23 | 19 | 13 | 13 |
| Kansas | 52 | 32 | 8 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Kentucky | 55 | 29 | 21 | 21 | 21 | 16 | 13 | 13 |
| Louisiana | 48 | 10 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Maine | 91 | 52 | 18 | 19 | 22 | 26 | 26 | 30 |
| Maryland | 97 | 32 | 33 | 25 | 29 | 41 | 34 | 25 |
| Massachusetts | 81 | 46 | 34 | 40 | 43 | 43 | 44 | 51 |
| Michigan | 88 | 40 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 8 |
| Minnesota | 93 | 51 | 41 | 47 | 60 | 68 | 52 | 41 |
| Mississippi | 39 | 14 | 6 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Missouri | 118 | 38 | 13 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 | 6 |
| Montana | 41 | 21 | 33 | 25 | 23 | 19 | 14 | 14 |
| Nebraska | 54 | 52 | 18 | 17 | 20 | 22 | 21 | 16 |
| Nevada | 71 | 20 | 19 | 20 | 18 | 13 | 12 | 12 |
| New Hampshire | 100 | 62 | 30 | 46 | 46 | 23 | 18 | 22 |
| New Jersey | 108 | 42 | 15 | 16 | 16 | 14 | 12 | 11 |
| New Mexico | 44 | 32 | 21 | 24 | 27 | 25 | 21 | 18 |
| New York | 79 | 41 | 42 | 42 | 39 | 38 | 35 | 42 |
| North Carolina | 74 | 14 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 4 |
| North Dakota | 48 | 23 | 10 | 13 | 12 | 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Ohio | 89 | 33 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 25 | 26 | 25 |
| Oklahoma | 41 | 12 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 5 |
| Oregon | 50 | 26 | 40 | 48 | 49 | 37 | 35 | 34 |
| Pennsylvania | 87 | 45 | 25 | 26 | 25 | 19 | 19 | 19 |
| Rhode Island | 113 | 64 | 35 | 35 | 26 | 20 | 21 | 30 |
| South Carolina | 40 | 21 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 7 |
| South Dakota | 42 | 22 | 23 | 20 | 18 | 20 | 23 | 23 |
| Tennessee | 67 | 51 | 22 | 18 | 15 | 14 | 17 | 17 |
| Texas | 47 | 12 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Utah | 59 | 21 | 10 | 11 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 10 |
| Vermont | 80 | 79 | 50 | 49 | 71 | 77 | 56 | 57 |
| Virginia | 56 | 31 | 16 | 15 | 18 | 14 | 17 | 22 |
| Washington | 76 | 63 | 29 | 34 | 39 | 45 | 47 | 39 |
| West Virginia | 68 | 27 | 16 | 18 | 19 | 15 | 14 | 16 |
| Wisconsin | 81 | 23 | 23 | 23 | 20 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| Wyoming | 45 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 7 | 7 | 8 | 8 |
Source: CBPP analysis of AFDC and TANF caseload data collected from the Department of Health and Human Services and (since 2006) data collected by CBPP from state agencies and poverty data from the Census' Current Population Survey. | ||||||||
Más sobre este tema
How States Spend Funds Under the TANF Block Grant
Continued Increases in TANF Benefit Levels Are Critical to Helping Families Meet Their Needs and Thrive
To Strengthen Economic Security and Advance Equity, States Should Invest More TANF Dollars in Basic Assistance
End Notes
[1] Maria Manansala was an intern with CBPP from June 2024 through May 2025.