Because the states that we reviewed made relatively few management or service delivery changes to implement their family cap provisions, this report focuses principally on approaches states used and issues they encountered in implementing time limits and work requirements. Overview of Five States’ Welfare Reform Provisions

Table 2.1 provides an overview of the five states’ time-limited benefit, work requirement, and family cap provisions. States’ Work Requirement and Time Limit Provisions Vary

The work requirements of the states’ welfare reform programs differ with regard to the time by which clients must begin engaging in work and what counts as a work activity. In implementing their family cap provisions, Indiana and Wisconsin also sought to increase clients’ access to family planning services. Increasing Staffs’ Focus on Clients’ Employability

Traditionally, staffs have been trained to focus on assuring accurate eligibility determinations and benefit payments and enrolling clients in education, training, and work activities. Indiana established annual job placement goals for each county office to help motivate staffs to follow the Work First philosophy. 3.1). The personal responsibility agreements also establish expectations of greater family responsibility for clients. Strengthening Sanctions to Encourage Client Compliance

Expanding financial incentives for clients to work and save may encourage some clients to comply with program requirements. While the states had used these resources to some extent in the past, they made a more systematic effort to solicit employer and community involvement in their welfare reforms by publicizing their welfare reform programs, establishing various types of community advisory groups, and working to improve their ability to enlist employers’ support in finding jobs for clients. The approaches states used to redesign their service delivery included creating a new staff role to improve service coordination, bringing job team members together at a single location, increasing staff interaction with clients, and developing closer links to community resources to expand the availability of child care and transportation.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed five states' early experiences with implementing welfare reforms under waivers of federal law, focusing on the states' approaches in implementing time-limited benefits, work requirements, and family cap provisions.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the five states made relatively few management or service delivery changes to implement their family cap provisions; (2) the states' geographic scope of implementation and work requirements varied considerably, but time limits for cash benefits were generally 24 months, followed by a longer period of ineligibility for cash assistance; (3) four states changed their welfare program operations to implement their time limits and work requirements; (4) the states encouraged staff and clients to focus on clients' employability by establishing job placement goals for each office, having clients sign personal responsibility agreements, basing benefits on how much time clients spent in work, training, or education activities, increasing clients' financial incentives as they began working, and applying sanctions for clients' failure to comply with program requirements; (5) the states disseminated information to communities and employers to increase their interest in welfare reforms and formed community advisory groups, which usually led to better client access to jobs; (6) the states redesigned their service delivery structures to provide more intensive support for clients by coordinating services, increasing staff interaction with clients, and expanding the availability of child care and transportation for their clients; and (7) the states encountered some problems in implementing welfare reforms, but they were able to resolve most of those problems.