Skip Navigation
 
ACF
          
ACF Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News   |   HHS Home

  Questions?  |  Privacy  |  Site Index  |  Contact Us  |  Download Reader™  |  Print      

Office of Planning, Research & Evaluation (OPRE) skip to primary page content
Advanced
Search

Table of Contents | Previous 

Appendix D: State Administrative Data

As part of this study’s exploration of the relationship between sanction policy and procedural changes and engagement in work and work-related activities, we obtained and analyzed administrative data from management information systems or detailed management reports from both Texas and Georgia.  Chapter VI presents some analyses of these data, and a more comprehensive set of tables to supplement that analysis is contained in this appendix.

I. Texas Administrative Data

 

Table D.1. Characteristics of Texas TANF Cases, by Cohort
Characteristic Partial Sanction Cohort Full Family Sanction Cohort
Ethnicity/Race of Case Head    Non-Hispanic, White 19.8 19.4
   Non-Hispanic, African American 30.5 31.3
   Hispanic, any race 48.9 48.6
   Other 0.8 0.8
Education of Case Head    Less than high school diploma/GED 59.6 58.7
   High school diploma/GED 40.4 41.3
Number of Children in TANF Casea    0 0.7 0.7
   1 41.6 41.9
   2 30.0 29.9
   3 17.0 16.9
   4 or more 10.7 10.6
Age of Youngest Child in Caseb    Younger than 1 11.8 11.4
   1 to 2 15.4 15.3
   3 to 5 12.2 12.4
   6 or older 18.3 18.4
Type of case    Single-parent 58.1 54.6
   Two-parent 4.7 4.6
   Child-only 37.1 40.8
Cumulative TANF Months since 11/1996    Less than 6 months 25.1 25.8
   6 to 11 months 17.6 18.8
   12 to 24 months 19.2 19.4
   25 months or more 36.9 34.9
Sample size 131,556 138,916
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.
a A family in which all of the minor children receive SSI may be eligible for TANF.  For such a family, the TANF case would consist of only the adult member(s).
b Child age is calculated as of August 1 of the cohort year (2002 for Cohort 1 and 2003 for Cohort 2). Of the two cohorts, 55,522 cases in cohort 1 and 59,076 cases in cohort 2 were missing data for the youngest child's birth date.

 

Table D.2. Approximate Participation Among Single-Parent Cases in Texas, By Cohort
  Number on TANF (A) Number Not Exempt (B) Number Participating for at Least 30 Hours/ Month (C) Approximate Participation Rate (C/A) (Percent)
Cohort 1: TANF cases in August 2002 (N=131,556) August 76,489 59,028 18,151 23.7
September 69,042 52,201 16,450 23.8
October 63,702 47,410 14,945 23.5
November 56,658 41,356 13,375 23.6
December 52,192 37,559 11,219 21.5
January 47,900 33,857 10,387 21.7
February 42,973 29,820 9,080 21.1
March 40,482 27,680 8,679 21.4
April 38,430 25,904 8,399 21.9
May 36,938 24,513 8,405 22.8
June 35,372 23,119 7,571 21.4
July 33,755 21,743 7,232 21.4
Cohort 2: TANF cases in August 2003 (N=138,916) August 75,845 60,339 23,170 30.5
September 49,734 35,557 20,454 41.1
October 46,669 33,136 18,553 39.8
November 38,821 26,319 14,961 38.5
December 34,081 22,201 12,738 37.4
January 30,513 19,140 11,312 37.1
February 26,307 15,634 9,517 36.2
March 24,135 13,810 8,667 35.9
April 21,634 11,927 8,019 37.1
May 20,408 10,907 7,045 34.5
June 18,822 9,809 6,310 33.5
July 18,026 9,191 6,284 34.9
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.
Note: Participation rates are calculated as the number of single-parent cases on TANF that are participating in activities for at least 30 hours per week divided by the number of single-parent cases on TANF.  The rates are approximate because they do not exclude from the denominator cases that may be removed from the calculation according to federal law.  Thus, the rates likely understate the actual participation rate.

 

Table D.3. TANF Caseload and Rate of Sanction Receipt Over Time in Texas, by Cohort
  Number on TANF Among Those on TANF Among Those Not Exempt
Number Not Exempt Percentage That Received a Sanction Percentage That Received a Sanction
Cohort 1 (Aug. 2002) August 131,555 64,094 n.a. n.a.
September 120,619 56,588 5.1 10.8
October 113,009 51,358 4.5 9.9
November 102,728 44,780 5.4 12.3
December 96,320 40,646 3.1 7.2
January 90,245 36,649 3.3 8.0
February 83,103 32,262 4.7 12.0
March 79,377 29,965 3.7 9.8
April 76,019 28,076 4.3 11.5
May 73,529 26,636 3.2 8.7
June 71,024 25,179 3.5 9.7
July 68,226 23,696 4.0 11.3
Cohort 2 (Aug. 2003) August 138,916 66,230 0.0 0.0
September 107,604 39,562 10.3 27.9
October 101,358 36,869 2.1 5.8
November 89,026 29,520 3.6 10.7
December 81,488 24,870 2.7 8.8
January 75,281 21,625 3.1 10.6
February 67,983 17,683 3.4 13.0
March 64,075 15,646 2.3 9.3
April 59,697 13,569 2.9 12.7
May 57,220 12,430 2.0 9.3
June 53,918 11,237 2.4 11.5
July 52,194 10,564 2.0 9.9
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.
Note: It was not possible with the data we obtained to determine the percentage of cases that received a sanction in August 2002 (“n.a.” means not available).  The state imposed no sanctions in August 2003 probably because it was in the process of implementing changes to its management information system to accommodate the policy changes that took effect in September.  Sanctions imposed in September 2003 (for cohort 2) likely include those that were supposed to be imposed in August 2003 as well as in September 2003.

 

Table D.4. TANF Cases in Sanction Status Over Time in Texas, by Cohort
  Number on TANF Among Those on TANF Among Those Not Exempt
Number Not Exempt Percentage in Sanction Status Percentage in Sanction Status
Cohort 1 (Aug. 2002) August 131,555 64,094 15.0 30.4
September 120,619 56,588 16.7 35.1
October 113,009 51,358 18.1 39.3
November 102,728 44,780 18.8 42.7
December 96,320 40,646 17.7 41.5
January 90,245 36,649 16.8 40.9
February 83,103 32,262 16.5 42.2
March 79,377 29,965 16.7 43.8
April 76,019 28,076 17.2 46.0
May 73,529 26,636 16.5 45.0
June 71,024 25,179 16.4 45.9
July 68,226 23,696 16.4 46.9
Cohort 2 (Aug. 2003) August 138,916 66,230 0.0 0.0
September 107,604 39,562 10.3 27.9
October 101,358 36,869 2.1 5.8
November 89,026 29,520 3.6 10.7
December 81,488 24,870 2.7 8.8
January 75,281 21,625 3.1 10.6
February 67,983 17,683 3.4 13.0
March 64,075 15,646 2.3 9.3
April 59,697 13,569 2.9 12.7
May 57,220 12,430 2.0 9.3
June 53,918 11,237 2.4 11.5
July 52,194 10,564 2.0 9.9
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.
Note: In Cohort 2, due to the policy change implementing an immediate full family sanction, the number of cases in sanction status in a month is equivalent to the number of cases receiving a sanction in that month. In Cohort 1, more cases in each month are in sanction status than received a sanction in that month because the former policy did not remove sanctioned families from the caseload. The state imposed no sanctions in August 2003 probably because it was in the process of implementing changes to its management information system to accommodate the policy changes that took effect in September.  The percentage in sanction status in September 2003 (for cohort 2) likely includes those that were supposed to be imposed in August 2003 as well as in September 2003.  In addition, it is possible that there were cohort 2 cases in partial sanction status in August 2003 (the month prior to the shift to a full-family sanction policy), but that the management information system variable indicating the percentage in sanction status was altered in August as a result of the ensuing policy shift.

 

Table D.5. Characteristics of Sanctioned TANF Cases in Texas, by Cohort
  Cohort 1 Cohort 2
Ever Sanctioned During Year Never Sanctioned During Year On TANF in July 2003 Ever Sanctioned During Year Never Sanctioned During Year On TANF in July 2004
Ethnicity/Race of Case Head Non-Hispanic, White 19.8 19.8 16.4 19.9 19.2 15.4
Non-Hispanic, African American 33.7 28.8 32.0 34.7 30.3 30.3
Hispanic, any race 45.7 50.7 50.9 44.7 49.7 53.6
Other 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7
Education of Case Head Less than high school diploma/GED 61.9 58.4 65.1 62.1 57.8 64.3
High school diploma/GED 38.1 41.6 34.9 37.9 42.2 35.7
More than high school diploma/GED 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Number of Children in TANF Casea 0 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.2 0.8 0.7
1 36.4 44.4 40.7 39.2 42.6 42.3
2 31.1 29.4 29.9 30.7 29.7 29.6
3 19.2 15.8 17.0 18.4 16.5 16.5
4 or more 12.9 9.5 11.8 11.5 10.4 10.9
Age of Youngest Child in Caseb Younger than 1 15.1 10.1 11.0 14.2 10.7 9.6
1 to 2 18.9 13.5 15.1 18.1 14.6 14.3
3 to 5 13.1 11.7 12.5 13.1 12.2 12.5
6 or older 16.2 19.5 20.1 15.3 19.3 20.7
Type of Case Single-parent 92.2 39.6 49.5 91.6 44.9 34.5
Two-parent 6.3 3.8 3.0 6.3 4.2 2.3
Child-only 1.5 56.6 47.5 2.1 50.8 63.2
Cumulative TANF Months since 11/1996 Less than 6 months 28.3 23.3 16.8 31.2 24.4 14.7
6 to 11 months 20.7 15.9 13.9 21.7 18.0 13.7
12 to 24 months 21.6 17.9 19.1 21.5 18.9 19.2
25 months or more 28.2 41.7 48.7 24.5 37.6 51.1
Sample size 46,445 85,110 68,226 28,732 110,184 52,194
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.
a A family in which all of the minor children receive SSI may be eligible for TANF.  For such a family, the TANF case would consist of only the adult member(s).
b Child age is calculated as of August 1 of the cohort year (2002 for Cohort 1 and 2003 for Cohort 2). Of the two cohorts, 55,522 cases in cohort 1 and 59,076 cases in cohort 2 were missing data for the youngest child's birth date.

 

Table D.6. Employment Rates Among Cases That Left TANF in Texas, by Cohort
  Percent
Among Partial Sanction Cohort Cases that Went off TANF in Quarter 3 of 2002 (N=19,700) Employed in quarter 3 of 2002 49.0
Employed in quarter 4 of 2002 46.9
Employed in quarter 1 of 2003 43.2
Employed in quarter 2 of 2003 43.2
Among Partial Sanction Cohort Cases that Went off TANF in Quarter 4 of 2002 (N=27,835) Employed in quarter 4 of 2002 48.3
Employed in quarter 1 of 2003 44.5
Employed in quarter 2 of 2003 43.4
Among Partial Sanction Cohort Cases that Went off TANF in Quarter 1 of 2003 (N=20,647) Employed in quarter 1 of 2002 43.7
Employed in quarter 2 of 2003 42.3
Among Partial Sanction Cohort Cases that Went off TANF in Quarter 2 of 2003 (N=14,331) Employed in quarter 2 of 2003 40.6
Among Full Family Sanction Cohort Cases that Went off TANF in Quarter 3 of 2003 (N=42,154) Employed in quarter 3 of 2003 39.3
Employed in quarter 4 of 2003 39.8
Among Full Family Sanction Cohort Cases that Went off TANF in Quarter 4 of 2003 (N=34,421) Employed in quarter 4 of 2003 39.9
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.
Note: Employment data are based on Unemployment Insurance wage data records and are unavailable for quarters 1 and 2 of 2004.

 

Table D.7. Employment Status Among Cases That Left TANF In Texas, by Cohort
  Number That Left TANF Percentage Employed Among Those That Left TANF
July – September October - December January - March April - June
Cohort 1: TANF cases in August 2002 (N=131,556) August -- -- -- -- --
September 10,936 47.6 45.2 41.8 42.1
October 8,764 50.7 49.1 44.8 44.5
November 11,707 45.9 47.5 43.7 42.8
December 8,180 43.4 49.5 45.4 43.9
January 7,972 40.7 48.4 44.9 43.8
February 9,114 36.3 43.7 43.0 41.4
March 5,968 33.4 41.6 45.4 43.7
April 5,585 29.3 36.4 43.0 42.4
May 4,777 28.9 33.7 40.0 41.5
June 4,585 28.1 31.7 34.0 40.6
July 4,981 27.4 29.2 31.5 39.7
Cohort 2: TANF cases in August 2003 (N=138,916) August -- -- -- -- --
September 31,312 38.7 39.3 N.a. N.a. 
October 10,842 41.1 41.5 N.a.  N.a. 
November 15,026 39.1 39.3 N.a.  N.a. 
December 10,566 40.3 41.0 N.a.  N.a. 
January 8,947 39.6 39.6 N.a.  N.a. 
February 9,708 37.8 37.8 N.a.  N.a. 
March 6,523 37.1 37.5 N.a.  N.a. 
April 6,934 36.4 36.5 N.a.  N.a. 
May 5,149 35.4 35.9 N.a.  N.a. 
June 5,616 33.8 34.0 N.a.  N.a. 
July 4,488 34.7 34.4 N.a.  N.a. 
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data. (Unemployment Insurance data was not provided for the first two quarters of 2004)
Note: N.a. means not available; MPR was unable to obtain Unemployment Insurance data beyond quarter three of 2003.

 

Table D.8. TANF and Employment Status In Texas, by Cohort

 

 

 

Among All Cases Among Those Off TANF
Off TANF On TANF  
Not Employed Employed Not Employed Employed Not Employed Employed
Cohort 1: TANF cases in August 2002 (N=131,556) August -- -- 89.9 10.1 -- --
September 8.3 0.0 82.2 9.5 99.9 0.1
October 14.1 0.0 77.2 8.7 99.8 0.2
November 21.9 0.1 70.4 7.7 99.7 0.3
December 26.7 0.1 66.8 6.4 99.7 0.3
January 31.3 0.1 63.0 5.6 99.6 0.4
February 36.7 0.1 58.5 4.7 99.6 0.4
March 39.5 0.2 56.0 4.4 99.6 0.4
April 42.0 0.2 53.7 4.1 99.5 0.5
May 43.9 0.2 51.8 4.1 99.5 0.5
June 45.8 0.3 50.4 3.6 99.5 0.5
July 47.9 0.3 48.5 3.3 99.5 0.5
Cohort 2: TANF cases in August 2003 (N=138,916) August -- -- 88.4 11.6 -- --
September 21.6 0.9 68.1 9.4 95.9 4.1
October 26.8 0.2 63.6 9.4 99.1 0.9
November 35.6 0.3 56.4 7.7 99.2 0.8
December 41.1 0.2 52.2 6.4 99.4 0.6
January 45.5 0.3 48.7 5.5 99.4 0.6
February 50.8 0.3 44.5 4.4 99.4 0.6
March 53.6 0.3 42.1 4.0 99.4 0.6
April 56.6 0.4 39.4 3.6 99.3 0.7
May 58.5 0.3 38.0 3.2 99.4 0.6
June 60.9 0.3 36.0 2.8 99.5 0.5
July 62.1 0.4 34.9 2.7 99.4 0.6
Source: MPR analysis of Texas TANF administrative data and Texas Unemployment Insurance data.

 

II. Georgia Administrative Data

 

Table D.9. TANF Case Terminations in Georgia, 2000-2006
Year Average Monthly Caseload Annual Terminations Regular TANF Cases Terminated Two-Parent TANF Cases Terminated
Number Percent Number Percent
2000 54,091 29,134 28,870 99.09 264 0.91
2001 50,904 28,512 28,176 98.82 336 1.18
2002 54,682 31,228 30,736 98.42 492 1.58
2003 57,823 37,890 37,195 98.17 695 1.83
2004 57,389 45,665 44,708 97.90 957 2.10
2005 45,325 41,782 41,195 98.60 587 1.40
2006 34,373 27,677 27,502 99.37 175 0.63
Source: MPR tabulations of Georgia DFCS data.
Note: Termination data is calculated by calendar year. Average monthly caseload is the average number of families on the TANF caseload in each month of a given State Fiscal Year.

 

Table D.10. First and Second Level Sanctions in Georgia, FY98 Through FY05
  FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05
Clients With First Sanction Applied n.a. n.a. 476 410 168 210 380 835
Counties with Most First Sanctions*     Bibb Dougherty Decatur Bibb Bibb Muscogee
    Dougherty Bibb Richmond Chatham Spalding Bibb
    Mitchell Crisp Douglas Houston Decatur DeKalb
    Chatham Mitchell Floyd Mitchell Dougherty Fulton
    Terrell Richmond Grady Decatur Carroll Troup
        Muscogee   Colquit  
Clients With Second Sanction Applied 23 4 6 6 19 13 24 89
Counties with Multiple Second Sanctions Butts   Glynn   Bibb Bibb Upson Muscogee
Lowndes         McDuffie Spalding Screven
          Jackson Butts Troup
            Colquitt Fulton
            Wayne Houston
              Sumter
              Clayton
              Colquitt
              Early
              Spalding
              Upson
              Washington
              Bacon
              Bibb
              Butts
              Coweta
              Newton
Source: MPR tabulations of Georgia DFCS data.
*Shows top 5 counties, or more if several counties are tied for 5th place.

 

Table D.11. Georgia TANF Applications, 2000-2006
Calendar Year Applications Percent Approved Percent Denied
2000 115,155 50 50
2001 130,648 51 49
2002 137,791 51 49
2003 146,279 51 49
2004 145,314 73 27
2005 132,309 48 52
2006 104,547 22 78
Source: MPR tabulations of Georgia DFCS data.

 

Table D.12. Types of TANF Applications Denied in Georgia Over Time
Calendar Year Total Denials Regular TANF Applications Denied Two-Parent TANF Applications Denied
Number Percent Number Percent
2000 57,190 55,218 96.55 1,972 3.45
2001 64,284 62,106 96.61 2,178 3.39
2002 67,908 65,701 96.75 2,207 3.25
2003 71,310 68,379 95.89 2,931 4.11
2004 40,919 37,670 92.06 3,249 7.94
2005 69,022 65,192 94.45 3,830 5.55
2006 81,796 79,199 96.83 2,597 3.17
Source: MPR tabulations of Georgia DFCS data.

 

Table D.13. Frequency of Georgia TANF Application Denial Reasons as A Percentage of Applications Denied, 2000-2006
Denial Reason Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Financial Ineligibility 21.7 21.6 20.7 20.6 34.4 15.9 11.0
Voluntary withdrawal 17.6 19.2 20.6 22.5 10.1 25.2 37.6
Failed to cooperate with eligibility process 34.1 36.0 36.5 33.3 14.0 33.5 36.8
Failed to meet other eligibility requirements 12.6 12.2 12.6 14.3 16.4 8.9 5.3
Other denial reasons 14.0 11.0 9.6 9.3 21.5 15.4 9.3
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: MPR tabulations of Georgia DFCS data.

 

Table D.14. Frequency of Georgia TANF Case Termination Reasons as a Percentage of Cases Terminated, 2000-2006
Termination Reason Year
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Financial ineligibility 57.9 56.5 52.3 42.3 21.9 25.9 21.5
Voluntary withdrawal 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.7 18.3 12.2 13.3
Failed to cooperate with eligibility process 0.0 0.8 0.0 5.7 12.4 23.6 24.1
Failed to meet other eligibility requirements 19.4 24.8 29.5 27.8 24.0 20.6 21.3
Other termination reasons 22.6 17.9 18.2 19.3 22.6 17.6 19.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: MPR tabulations of Georgia DFCS data.


 

 

Table of Contents | Previous