Specifically, this report (1) describes states’ efforts to require and encourage welfare recipients and potential recipients to assume greater personal responsibility, (2) examines how states are providing services to support the objectives of TANF, and (3) reviews early reported data to assess states’ progress in achieving program objectives. States’ Policies Are Shifting Emphasis From Entitlement to Self-Sufficiency

Consistent with the thrust of the federal welfare reform law of 1996, states are shifting away from a welfare system that focuses on a family’s entitlement and eligibility determination to one focused on moving recipients—and potential recipients—to self-sufficiency. For example, increasing the percentage of recipients required to participate in work-related activities has required states to change caseworker roles from emphasizing eligibility determination to helping recipients address barriers to work by providing more and different services to those previously exempted from work requirements. 2.1). States Have Modified Policies to Encourage Self-Sufficiency

States’ reform programs have generally included various policy changes to reinforce the expectation that recipients will move from welfare to work and that welfare should be temporary, not a way of life. Applicants Are Being Diverted With Focus on “What’s Needed”

A major new strategy states are using to reduce the need for welfare is “diversion”—that is, families are diverted from receiving monthly cash payments if they can be assisted through other means. Training workers to perform their expanded roles has been among the most challenging and widespread implementation issues reported by states. Training staff to perform their new roles has been one of the major challenges of welfare reform. As discussed earlier, states do face many limits on how they use federal TANF funds—notably time limits. Finding ways to involve these recipients in work activities was one of the most challenging and widespread implementation issues cited in the states we visited. Moreover, some areas have weaker economies than others. Devolution of Responsibility to Localities Is a Key Component of Some States’ Welfare Reforms

Just as the 1996 welfare reform law provided states greater flexibility to design and administer their assistance programs for needy families, some states have in turn given local administrative entities greater flexibility to design programs tailored to the needs of their recipients. Nonetheless, little is known about the impacts states’ programs are having on the well-being of children and families. 5 and 6 of table 4.3). At the same time, states are modifying their programs to better support welfare recipients in meeting these expectations, such as by expanding the role of welfare workers to include job counseling, transforming local welfare offices into job centers, enhancing support services, expanding efforts to establish partnerships with employers and other organizations, and giving local administrative entities more flexibility to tailor programs to local needs. Increases in job placement rates and levels of participation in work activities are early encouraging signs of progress toward some of the objectives of the federal welfare reform law.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed states' implementation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, focusing on: (1) states' efforts to require and encourage welfare recipients and potential recipients to assume greater personal responsibility; (2) how states are providing services to support the objectives of TANF; and (3) early reported data to assess states' progress in achieving program objectives.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) consistent with the thrust of the federal welfare reform law, states are moving away from a welfare system focused on entitlement to assistance to one that emphasizes finding employment as quickly as possible and becoming more self-sufficient; (2) in the seven states GAO visited, welfare offices are generally being transformed into job placement centers; (3) adults with mental and physical impairments and those caring for small children are less likely than before to be exempt from participating in work activities; (4) in the states GAO reviewed, the average proportion of adult recipients required to participate in work activities increased; (5) to reinforce the expectation that welfare is temporary, states have established time limits on receiving cash assistance and have modified various policies to help make welfare recipients financially better off if they obtain jobs than if they do not; (6) states also have devised strategies to reduce the need for monthly cash assistance; (7) states also have modified their programs to better support welfare recipients in becoming more self-sufficient; (8) in their efforts to change the culture of welfare offices, states are expanding welfare workers' roles by shifting their priorities from determining eligibility and cash assistance levels to helping recipients obtain work and become more self-sufficient; (9) at the same time, states plan to use some of the additional budgetary resources available under the welfare reform law to enhance support services; (10) moreover, some states have given local administrative entities greater flexibility to design welfare-to-work programs tailored to the needs of their recipients; (11) implementing all these changes has not been quick or easy: among the most challenging and widespread implementation issues reported by the states have been training staff to perform their new roles and finding ways to involve recipients with multiple barriers to participation in work activities; (12) it is too early to draw definitive conclusions about the success of states' programs because it is uncertain how states' programs will perform as more of the most job-ready recipients leave welfare and states face increasing proportions of recipients with multiple problems, or if the current strong economy undergoes a major downturn; (13) moreover, little is known about program impacts; and (14) future monitoring of states' programs will need to focus on areas such as job retention and earnings progression, children's welfare, and family stability.