VIII. CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH STATE PROGRAM FUNDED UNDER TANF

Work First Strategies

Almost all of the states have moved to "Work First" models in their welfare programs, requiring recipients to move quickly into available jobs. Nearly every state has instituted "social contracts" or other personal responsibility agreements in which recipients agree to specific steps toward self-sufficiency. States are enforcing these agreements, sanctioning people who fail to sign or live up to their agreements. States include sanctions that can remove the entire family from assistance where a parent refuses to cooperate with work requirements.

Forty-two states have enacted policies to make work pay, generally by increasing the amount of earnings disregarded in calculating welfare benefits. For example, Connecticut now disregards all earnings up to the poverty level. Most states have also simplified the treatment of earnings compared to the AFDC treatment. In conjunction with this process, 43 states have raised the level of resources and/or the maximum value of a vehicle allowed to welfare recipients. This will make it easier for recipients to get to work and to accumulate savings that might lead to self-sufficiency.

Time Limits

Families who have received assistance for five cumulative years (or less at state option) will be ineligible for cash aid under PRWORA. States will be permitted to exempt up to 20 percent of their caseload from the time limit, and states will have the option to provide cash and non-cash assistance and vouchers to families that reach the time limit using Social Services Block Grant or state funds.

The most striking features of state policies regarding time limits is their variety and complexity. Many states have chosen intermittent time limits that limit the consecutive months of recipiency allowed within a longer time period (for example, Virginia limits TANF receipt to 24 months in any 60 month period). Nine states have chosen time limits of less than five years, but often with exceptions or exemptions. Twenty-seven states have chosen the Federal limit of 60 months. Four states have chosen other options involving supplements from state welfare programs for those reaching the Federal time limits.

Devolution

Several states, including the two with the largest caseloads, New York and California, are devolving key policy and program decisions to counties. States in the process of devolving include California, Maryland, Ohio, Florida, New York, Colorado, and North Carolina. All of these states are devolving decisions about work activities and sanctions. Colorado and North Carolina are also passing on decisions about other factors including eligibility. Benefit levels will still be determined at the state level, although in some cases the state will mandate only a basic package which the counties can choose to exceed.

Waivers

ACF has provided funding for 23 projects in 18 states which continue or modify evaluations of welfare reform initiatives begun under section 1115 waivers.

Following enactment of PRWORA, most states developed state plans designed to operate in parallel with reforms initiated under waivers, with little or no modification. In fact, in many cases, the question whether states are continuing or terminating waivers is moot, since many individual waiver policies, especially those related to eligibility, are consistent with PRWORA and the flexibility it provides states in designing their TANF programs.

Section 415 allows states to delay implementation of certain TANF provisions, particularly work requirements and time limits, to the extent they are inconsistent with PRWORA requirements. However, for a number of reasons, we cannot fully document the extent to which states plan to continue inconsistent waiver policies. TANF state plans are not sufficiently detailed to provide this information. This lack of detail reflects a variety of factors: limited Federal authority to require plan information, the fact that state TANF planning was in its early stages and state program designs were still under development, and uncertainty about the implications of specific policy choices under the new TANF penalty provisions. Thus, while some states provided information that gives us a clear picture of the waiver policies they are continuing, many plan references to waiver continuations are ambiguous. Some states have indicated that they are deferring decisions as to what waiver policies they will continue or terminate until final TANF regulations are published.

In the absence of final rules, we cannot fully determine what inconsistency claims states will ultimately make. When PWRORA was enacted, 42 states had section 1115 waivers.