Black TANF utilization by state

In a column for Taki's Mag, John Derbyshire highlighted an interesting table from the Department of Health and Human Services showing the state-level distributions of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) by race. The piece considers the so-called "slavery tax" and whether it is something we can--or should--continue to pay (or collect--though "pay" is the far more accurate verb to describe Derb readers), and the table's relevance comes from his making the point that as soon as one starts delving into the subject of welfare, race inevitably becomes an issue:

As soon as you start to look at the numbers, though, you come up against the race issue. Here are the 2007-08 TANF tables—that’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, a federal program—broken up by state and race. So for example, in the state of Maryland, which is 30 percent black, 80 percent of TANF-receiving families are black.

Aside from the table naturally catching my attention, I wondered if the Derb fished for and then used an especially startling example of black overrepresentation to make his point. Less than one-third of the population but four-fifths of the active TANF cases? That certainly makes blacks look bad!

The following table ranks states by the level of black representation among TANF beneficiaries relative to the percentage of the total population that is black (black TANF % / black population %), expressed as an index in which 1.00 represents exactly proportional usage, anything less than 1 indicates lower utilization and anything greater than 1 indicates disproportionately high utilization:

State	TANF
1) Wisconsin	9.04
2) Minnesota	8.90
3) Nebraska	7.92
4) Idaho	7.33
5) Iowa	7.23
6) North Dakota	6.83
7) Maine	6.67
8) Utah	6.00
8) Wyoming	6.00
10) Oregon	5.65
11) Pennsylvania	5.48
12) Vermont	5.20
13) Indiana	5.02
14) Kansas	5.00
15) Nevada	4.96
16) Michigan	4.47
17) Illinois	4.46
18) Oklahoma	4.45
19) New Jersey	4.27
20) New Hampshire	4.25
21) Ohio	3.91
22) Arkansas	3.85
23) Arizona	3.77
24) Missouri	3.71
25) Connecticut	3.47
26) Alaska	3.38
26) Kentucky	3.38
28) Montana	3.33
28) Tennessee	3.33
30) Washington	3.30
31) Delaware	3.29
32) Massachusetts	3.25
32) South Dakota	3.25
34) Florida	3.23
34) West Virginia	3.23
36) Virginia	3.19
37) California	3.06
38) North Carolina	2.87
39) Maryland	2.81
40) Alabama	2.65
41) New York	2.56
42) Georgia	2.45
43) Louisiana	2.43
43) South Carolina	2.43
45) Texas	2.39
46) Colorado	2.38
47) Mississippi	2.22
48) Rhode Island	2.11
49) New Mexico	1.70
50) Hawaii	1.06

A visualization of the black data is available here.

Rather than cherry pick a state that made blacks look especially bad, the Derb chose from near the bottom of the list, a state that is closer to racial parity in TANF usage than the country as a whole is. He wasn't trying to pull any punches--in fact, he probably just randomly selected a state that where the figures happened to be round and easily comprehended.

With the exception of Hawaii (where many blacks are in the military and are consequently relatively intelligent and prosperous), blacks receive a disproportionately large share of TANF benefits in every state in the country.

The upper Midwest is the nation's most racially unbalanced region, with blacks using welfare at rates far higher than non-blacks. The South, in contrast, is its most balanced. It is often argued that as a place becomes less white, white support for welfare programs that come to increasingly transfer white wealth not from affluent whites to poor whites but from affluent and middle class whites to non-whites will decrease. This by no means debunks that argument, but it is worth noting that the rankings don't shake out the way such an argument might predict, with whites in states where blacks receive especially disproportionate amounts of welfare benefits voting more strongly Republican than they do in states where welfare benefits are more equally distributed. There is no correlation between the two.

And TANF utilization relative to population share for Hispanics:

State	TANF
1) Massachusetts	3.61
2) Connecticut	2.78
3) Pennsylvania	2.40
4) Minnesota	2.19
5) New York	2.13
6) Nebraska	2.01
7) New Hampshire	1.89
8) Rhode Island	1.78
9) Arizona	1.78
10) Utah	1.69
11) Idaho	1.69
12) Wyoming	1.62
13) Washington	1.62
14) New Jersey	1.55
15) New Mexico	1.54
16) Texas	1.50
17) North Dakota	1.50
18) Wisconsin	1.42
19) California	1.35
20) Iowa	1.34
21) Indiana	1.33
22) Montana	1.31
23) Colorado	1.24
24) Oregon	1.22
25) Vermont	1.20
26) Kansas	1.13
27) Missouri	1.11
28) Ohio	1.10
29) Michigan	1.09
30) Nevada	1.09
31) Oklahoma	1.03
32) Delaware	0.96
33) Alaska	0.93
34) Maine	0.85
35) Hawaii	0.74
36) Florida	0.74
37) North Carolina	0.70
38) Virginia	0.67
39) Illinois	0.60
40) Arkansas	0.59
41) Tennessee	0.59
42) West Virginia	0.50
43) Louisiana	0.43
44) Kentucky	0.42
45) South Dakota	0.41
46) Alabama	0.36
47) Georgia	0.35
48) Mississippi	0.30
49) South Carolina	0.29
50) Maryland	0.21

A visualization of the Hispanic data is available here.

Not surprisingly, Hispanics in states with small black populations appear to be especially heavily welfare users. That's because in these states, their TANF utilization is being compared mostly to white TANF utilization rates, whereas in the South, Hispanics are being compared to a black-white mix, and consequently look less disproportionate (and actually quite admirable in many places). Looking at the preceding table, it's not surprising why Arizona has a restrictionist reputation--that Alabama does so as well is less predictable.