[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 136 (Tuesday, September 5, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S12622-S12624]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      THE ACCURACY OF AFDC NUMBERS

 Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, during the welfare debate on 
August 8, I displayed a chart on the floor of this Chamber entitled 
``AFDC Caseload of 10 Largest Cities in the U.S. (1992).'' It showed 62 
percent of all children in Los Angeles as welfare recipients at some 
point in 1992, 79 percent in Detroit, on and on. These figures were 
supplied by the Department of Health and Human Services [HHS].
  My office provided the chart to the Washington Times at the request 
of its editorial writers. The chart appeared in a Times editorial that 
ran last Friday entitled, ``Welfare Shock.'' The numbers, according to 
the editorial, ``represent a small fraction of the statistical 
indictment against the failed welfare polices of the liberal welfare 
state.''
  Regrettably, the numbers from the Department were wrong. On August 
23, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy Wendell E. 
Primus wrote me to inform me of the error and provided me with new 
data. It happens that the numerator used was the number of public 
assistance recipients in the surrounding metropolitan statistical areas 
[MSA's], rather than the number of recipients in the cities proper. The 
denominator, correctly, was the population of each city. I am informed 
by the Department that data on the number of program beneficiaries is 
difficult to obtain at the city level. The AFDC Program is operated 
either at a State or county level. It was a perfectly honest mistake, 
honorably acknowledged and corrected.
  I forwarded the revised numbers to the Washington Times, which 
graciously ran a follow-up editorial and an explanatory letter from me 
in this morning's edition. The numbers, as the editorial points out, 
went down for Los Angeles and Detroit, but inched up for New York and 
jumped up for Philadelphia. Given the mistake in methodology, I can 
understand why the ratios went down for some cities. But I am perplexed 
why they climbed for others, including New York. Apparently, we have 
more work to do. We'll get them right.
  Today's editorial in the Washington Times, ``Charting the Welfare 
State,'' states that even the lower ratios offer compelling evidence of 
the complete failure of the current system. I don't disagree. But it 
would be a huge mistake for the Federal Government to break off its 
commitment entirely, and we seemed poised to do. If the numbers reveal 
anything that we can understand, it's this: The problem simply has 
become too great for the cities to handle on their own. Mr. Hugh Price 
of the Nationals Urban League has recently argued that the welfare 
reform legislation upon which the Senate will take up tomorrow or 
Thursday could be a reenactment of the deinstitutionalization of mental 
patients in the 1960's and 1970's which led so directly to the problem 
of the homeless.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter I received 
from Deputy Assistant Secretary Primus, the two Washington Times 
editorials, and my letter to the Times appear in the Record following 
my remarks.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          Department of Health and


                                               Human Services,

                                  Washington, DC, August 23, 1995.
     Hon. Daniel Patrick Moynihan,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Moynihan: I very much regret and am deeply 
     embarrassed by the incorrect numbers my office provided to 
     you in response to your request for data on the number of 
     children receiving public assistance in major cities in the 
     United States. I share your passion for data and have 
     published many statistics on welfare during my career. 
     Therefore, I hope you will accept my apologies for this 
     mistake.
       Unfortunately, there is no good explanation for the error. 
     As you are well aware, we depend upon the states for 
     administrative data concerning AFDC receipt. In most states 
     these statistics are gathered on a county level and are not 
     routinely compiled for other political subdivisions. 
     Estimates on welfare receipt can be made from Census data, 
     but in many cases these data do not correspond to 
     administrative data. In responding to your request, we did 
     not appropriately map administrative data to population 
     counts obtained from the Census Bureau. Revised estimates are 
     enclosed, including a methodological explanation.
       Again, I am very sorry for providing incorrect data and for 
     any embarrassment it has caused you. I am very aware of how 
     widely you quoted those numbers. Please accept my personal 
     and professional apology.
           Sincerely,

                                            Wendell E. Primus,

                                        Deputy Assistant Secretary
                                        for Human Services Policy.


 notes to tables on rates of public assistance receipt in major cities

       The attached tables present estimates of the number and 
     percentage of persons in major cities who receive Aid to 
     Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Supplemental 
     Security Income (SSI).
       The AFDC program is operated at either a State or county 
     level. Accordingly, the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
     Services (USDHHS) does not collect data on the number of AFDC 
     recipients by city. In addition, the Social Security 
     Administration keeps data on SSI receipt by State and county, 
     but not by city.
       Table 1 displays, for the 10 largest cities, the number of 
     AFDC (total and child) and SSI (adult and child) recipients 
     of either the city itself (data permitting) or for the county 
     most closely corresponding to the city. The data are drawn 
     from ``Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics: Fiscal Years 
     1992 and 1993'' (a USDHHS publication) and SSI Recipients by 
     State and County (a Social Security Administration 
     publication) and represent the numbers of AFDC and SSI 
     recipients at a point in time.
       Data on the number of recipients by program is, as noted 
     above, difficult to obtain at the city level. The decennial 
     Census does contain data by county and city on the number/
     percentage of households that receive income from any of 
     three public assistance programs (AFDC, SSI or GA) within a 
     year (as opposed to at a point in time). The Census data is 
     not broken down by program; it is not possible to determine 
     from the data how many households received AFDC as opposed to 
     SSI or GA.
       Note: the decennial Census may undercount the number of 
     public assistance recipients. While undercounting is a 
     problem for the Census as a whole, it is of particular 
     concern with respect to lower-income persons. The degree of 
     undercounting tends to be especially large in the case of 
     poorer residents. The Bureau of the Census employs weighting 
     techniques in order to correct for undercounting; it is not 
     clear if these techniques are completely successful.
       The Census data can be employed, in conjunction with the 
     information available for the counties corresponding to the 
     major cities, to arrive at estimates by city of the number of 
     recipients in each program. These estimates, found in Table 
     2, are calculated by assuming that for each program (at a 
     point in time) the ratio of recipients in the city to 
     recipients in the county is equal to the ratio of households 
     in the city that received income from any of the three 
     programs to households in the county receiving such income 
     (from the 1990 Census).
       For example, while there is no data by program for the City 
     of Los Angeles, there is data for Los Angeles County. 
     According to ``Quarterly Public Assistance Statistics,'' 
     there were 784,000 AFDC recipients in Los Angeles County as 
     of February 1993 (see Table 1, column 5, line 2). The 1990 
     Census found that there were 130,000 households in Los 
     Angeles (city) with public assistance income in 1989 (Table 
     2, column 3, line 2), as opposed to 295,000 in Los Angeles 
     County (Table 1, column 3, line 2), for a ratio of .44 (Table 
     2, column 5, line 2). By applying this ratio to the number of 
     AFDC recipients in Los Angeles County in February 1993, we 
     arrive at an estimate of 350,000 AFDC recipients in Los 
     Angeles (city) as of February 1993 (Table 2, column 6, line 
     2).
       The tables also contain estimates of the number and 
     percentage of children who receive AFDC and AFDC or SSI over 
     the course of a year, as opposed to at a point in time. These 
     estimates are calculated by assuming that the ratio of child 
     recipients over the course of a year to child recipients at a 
     point in time (for each city) is equal to the nationwide 
     ratio (for all AFDC and GA recipients) from the Survey of 
     Income and Program Participation (Dynamics of Economic Well-
     Being and Program Participation by the Bureau of the Census).

                              SUMMARY TABLE                             
[Estimated rates of public assistance receipt: Children in major cities]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Percent of child population on--     
                             -------------------------------------------
                                                     AFDC or            
            City                AFDC:     AFDC: W/     SSI:     AFDC or 
                               Point in  in a year   Point in  SSI: W/in
                                 time                  time      a year 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York....................         30         39         32         40
Los Angeles.................         29         38         30         38
Chicago.....................         36         46         38         49
Detroit.....................         50         67         54         67
Philadelphia................         44         57         46         59
San Diego...................         23         30         23         30
Houston.....................         18         22         18         24
Phoenix.....................         15         18         15         18
San Antonio.................         14         21         18         21


                                                                        

[[Page S 12623]]
                        SUMMARY TABLE--Continued                        
[Estimated rates of public assistance receipt: Children in major cities]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Percent of child population on--     
                             -------------------------------------------
                                                     AFDC or            
            City                AFDC:     AFDC: W/     SSI:     AFDC or 
                               Point in  in a year   Point in  SSI: W/in
                                 time                  time      a year 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas......................         16         20         16         23
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Given that the actual percentage of county recipients living in a 
  city likely varies by program and may diverge substantially from the  
  ratio calculated using the 1990 Census data, the figures in Table 2   
  and in the summary table above should be regarded as relatively rough 
  estimates.                                                            
Correction: An error was made in the calculation of earlier estimates   
  released by the Administration, resulting in inflated figures. The    
  number of public assistance recipients in the metropolitan statistical
  area (MSA), rather than the number in the city, was used as the       
  numerator, while the population of the city was used as the           
  denominator.                                                          



     AFDC CASELOAD OF 10 LARGEST CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES (1992)     
                   [Incorrect figures used previously]                  
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 As a   
                                                 Number of    proportion
                     City                           AFDC        of all  
                                                  children     children 
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. New York, NY...............................      478,895         28.4
2. Los Angeles, CA............................      534,528         61.8
3. Chicago, IL................................      314,706         43.7
4. Houston, TX................................      110,860         24.6
5. Philadelphia, PA...........................      115,697         31.3
6. San Diego, CA..............................      117,197         44.2
7. Dallas, TX.................................       51,545         20.2
8. Phoenix, AZ................................       66,770         24.3
9. Detroit, MI................................      234,910         78.7
10. San Antonio, TX...........................       52,340         18.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department of Health and Human Services.                        


                                                                    ____
               [From the Washington Times, Sept. 1, 1995]

                             Welfare Shock

       Having spent the better part of the past four decades 
     analyzing the statistical fallout of the welfare and 
     illegitimacy crises enveloping our great cities, Sen. Daniel 
     Patrick Moynihan never has needed hyperbole to describe the 
     dreadful consequences of failed social policies. Perhaps that 
     is because the New York Democrat possesses the uncanny 
     ability to develop or cite pithy statistics that shock even 
     the most jaded welfare analyst, case-worker, senatorial 
     colleague or reporter.
       Several weeks ago, Sen. Moynihan, appearing on one of the 
     ubiquitous Sunday morning interview shows, shocked his 
     questioners (and, undoubtedly, his television audience) by 
     revealing that nearly two-thirds of the children residing in 
     Los Angeles, the nation's second largest city, lived in 
     families relying on the basic welfare program, Aid to 
     Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). To illustrate that 
     Los Angeles was not unique, he observed that nearly four of 
     every five (!) Detroit children received AFDC benefits.
       The accompanying chart details the extent to which 
     residents in the 10 largest U.S. cities have become dependent 
     on AFDC--and the government. After about three decades of 
     fighting the War on Poverty, during which time more than $5.4 
     trillion (in constant 1993 dollars) has been expended, 
     perhaps no single statistic offers more proof of the war's 
     unmitigated failure than the fact that federal and state 
     governments provide the financial support of 38 percent of 
     all children living in the country's 10 largest cities.

     AFDC CASELOAD OF 10 LARGEST CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES (1992)     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 As a   
                                                 Number of    proportion
                     City                           AFDC        of all  
                                                  children     children 
                                                              (percent) 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York, NY..................................      478,895         28.4
Los Angeles, CA...............................      534,528         61.8
Chicago, IL...................................      314,706         43.7
Houston, TX...................................      110,860         24.6
Philadelphia, PA..............................      115,697         31.3
San Diego, CA.................................      117,197         44.2
Dallas, TX....................................       51,545         20.2
Phoenix, AZ...................................       66,770         24.3
Detroit, MI...................................      234,910         78.7
San Antonio, TX...............................       52,340         18.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department of Health and Human Services.                        

       How does one begin to address such a horrendous problem? 
     For all the talk among Democrats, particularly President 
     Clinton, about the need for increased spending for education 
     to help underwrite welfare reform, it's worth recalling that 
     real (inflation-adjusted) spending for elementary and 
     secondary education has dramatically escalated since the 
     federal government declared war on poverty. Indeed, some of 
     the highest per pupil expenditures occur in the largest 
     cities. Unfortunately, as spending increased, test scores 
     plummeted.
       In a more serious tone, Mr. Moynihan approvingly cited the 
     1966 report on the Equality of Educational Opportunity (the 
     Coleman Report), which ``determined that after a point there 
     is precious little association between school resources and 
     school achievement. The resources that matter are those the 
     student brings to the school, including community traditions 
     that value education. Or don't.''
       Sen. Moynihan has offered his own welfare-reform plan, 
     which, unlike any Republican plan in the House and Senate, 
     would retain AFDC's entitlement status without placing any 
     time restrictions on recipients. Despite the underwhelming 
     success of federal job-training and job-placement programs, 
     his plan places great emphasis on more of the same. Attacking 
     the Republicans' proposals to cancel welfare's entitlement 
     status and enforce time restrictions, Sen. Moynihan frets 
     that ``we don't know enough'' to design programs that attempt 
     to influence the behavior of poor people.
       Take another look at the figures in the chart provided by 
     the senator. They represent a small fraction of the 
     statistical indictment against the failed welfare policies of 
     the liberal welfare state. Tinkering around the edges of such 
     failure without seeking to change the behavior that three 
     decades of the War on Poverty have produced, will surely not 
     solve any of the many social problems that accompany 
     dependency on the scale depicted in the chart. That much we 
     do know.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Times, Sept. 5, 1995]

                     Charting the State of Welfare

       Even by the appalling standards and results of U.S. welfare 
     policy, the chart that appeared in this space last Friday 
     exaggerated the depths of the situation that prevails in some 
     of this nation's largest cities.
       Last month Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, New York Democrat, 
     appeared on the floor of the Senate citing statistics showing 
     that nearly two out of three children in Los Angeles and 
     nearly four out of five children in Detroit lived in 
     households receiving the government's basic welfare grant, 
     Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). At the 
     request of The Washington Times' editorial page, Sen. 
     Moynihan's office faxed a copy of a chart listing the 10 
     largest U.S. cities and the percentage of each city's 
     children relying on AFDC, which was developed by the U.S. 
     Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Regrettably, 
     the information was incorrect.
       Nearby is a chart with updated, expanded, and presumably 
     correct, information that HHS subsequently sent to Sen. 
     Moynihan's office, which then forwarded it the editorial 
     page. The revised chart offers both as snapshot of welfare 
     dependency of children in our largest cities (at a ``point in 
     time'') and a more expansive statistic incorporating all 
     children whose families relied on AFDC during any portion of 
     an entire year. Clearly, neither classification places Los 
     Angeles or Detroit in nearly as dreadful a position as 
     conveyed by HHS's initial, incorrect tallies. It should also 
     be noted, however that the earlier chart understated the 
     problem of pervasive welfare dependency in other cities: New 
     York and Philadelphia, for example. The revised chart offers 
     no solace to anybody interested in the future of our great 
     cities and the children who live in them.

                    ESTIMATED RATES OF AFDC CASELOADS                   
                      [In major cities (Feb. 1993)]                     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Percentage   Percentage
                                                of children  of children
                     State                       on AFDC at    of AFDC  
                                                 a point in    within a 
                                                    time         year   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York......................................           30           39
Los Angeles...................................           29           38
Chicago.......................................           36           46
Detroit.......................................           50           67
Philadelphia..................................           44           57
San Diego.....................................           23           30
Houston.......................................           18           22
Phoenix.......................................           15           18
San Antonio...................................           14           21
Dallas........................................           16           20
                                                                        
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Department of Health and Human Services.                        

       It's been 30 years since the federal government initiated 
     its so-called War on Poverty. During that time more than $5 
     trillion was expended fighting it. What has been 
     accomplished? As the Senate reconsiders the various welfare-
     reform proposals during the next few weeks, let us keep in 
     mind that anything less than revolutionary in scope is likely 
     to have little long-term impact on these depressing 
     statistics and the numerous pathologies and deviancies that 
     derive from them.
                                                                    ____


               [From the Washington Times, Sept. 5, 1995]

             The AFDC Numbers: Bad Enough, But Not That Bad

       Regarding the Sept. 1 editorial ``Welfare shock,'' The 
     Washington Times is entirely correct in stating that the 
     information of AFDC caseloads I presented in the August 
     welfare debate in the Senate was mistaken. We received the 
     data from the Department of Health and Human Services on Aug. 
     4. I found the numbers hard to believe--that bad?--and called 
     the deputy assistant secretary responsible to ask if he would 
     check. He did and called back to confirm.
       On Aug. 23, however, with the Senate in recess, Mr. Wendell 
     E. Primus, the deputy assistant secretary who provided the 
     data, wrote to say that there had indeed been a 
     miscalculation. It was a perfectly honest mistake, honorably 
     acknowledged and corrected. I will place his letter in the 
     Congressional Record today.
       The new numbers are sufficiently horrendous. The proportion 
     of the child population on AFDC or Supplemental Security 
     income in the course of a year in Los Angeles is 38 percent. 
     In New York, 40 percent. In Chicago, 49 percent. In 
     Philadelphia, 59 percent. In Detroit, 67 percent. My 
     contention is that things have gotten so out of hand that 
     cities and states cannot possibly handle the problem on their 
     own. Thirty years ago, certainly. No longer. Mr. Hugh Price 
     of the National Urban League suggests that we will see a 
     reenactment of deinstitutionalization of the mental patients 
     which led so directly to the problem of the homeless. I was 
     in the Oval Office on Oct. 23, 1963 when President 

[[Page S 12624]]

     Kennedy signed that bill, his last public bill signing 
     ceremony. He gave me the pen. I have had it framed and keep 
     it on my wall. Primum non nocere.

                                      Daniel Patrick Moynihan,

                                                     U.S. Senator,

                                               Washington.

  (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record).

                          ____________________