United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee

on Human Resources, Committee on

Ways and Means, House of

Representatives

July 1996 WELFARE WAIVERS

IMPLEMENTATION

States Work to Change

Welfare Culture,

Community

Involvement, and

Service Delivery

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/HEHS-96-105

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-265674 

July 2, 1996

The Honorable E. Clay Shaw

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report, prepared at your request, examines five states’ early experiences implementing

welfare reforms under waivers of federal law. The report focuses on three key reform

provisions: time-limited benefits, work requirements, and family caps, which deny cash benefits

for additional children born to families already receiving Aid to Families With Dependent

Children.

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member of the House

Subcommittee on Human Resources, the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the

House Committee on Ways and Means and Senate Committee on Finance, the Secretary of

Health and Human Services, the Assistant Secretary for Children and Families, and other

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at 202-512-7215 or

David P. Bixler, Assistant Director, at 202-512-7201. Other GAO contacts and major contributors

to this report are listed in appendix I.

Sincerely yours,

Mark V. Nadel

Associate Director,

Income Security Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose In the wake of increasing dissatisfaction with the existing welfare system,

the Congress and the administration have been considering welfare reform

changes on a national level. In the interim, many states have undertaken

far-reaching reforms of varying kinds that are affecting different portions

of their welfare caseloads. These changes generally have been undertaken

through waivers of various federal statutory provisions that govern the

program most Americans commonly think of as welfare—Aid to Families

With Dependent Children (AFDC). For example, states have required AFDC

clients to work; set time limits on benefit receipt; and denied cash benefits

for additional children born to families already receiving AFDC, also known

as a family cap. In fiscal year 1995, the AFDC program provided about $22

billion in cash benefits to nearly 14 million adults and children.

The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Resources,

Committee on Ways and Means, asked GAO to review some states’ early

experiences with implementing these provisions, believing that the

information would be useful to other states as they prepare to face the

challenges of welfare reform. Specifically, the Chairman requested GAO to

examine the approaches that states took and issues they encountered in

implementing three key provisions: time-limited benefits, work

requirements, and family caps. Because the states that GAO reviewed made

relatively few management or service delivery changes to implement their

family cap provisions, this report focuses principally on the state

approaches and issues encountered in implementing time limits and work

requirements.

To develop information for this report, GAO examined the experiences of

Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The criteria used to

select states included obtaining a range in the length of time states’

approved waivers had been in effect, selecting some states whose waivers

included all three provisions, and avoiding duplication of existing studies.

Background AFDC provides benefits to economically needy families with children who

lack support from one or both of their parents because of death, absence,

incapacity, or unemployment. AFDC is funded with federal and state

dollars. States are responsible for administering the program and the U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has federal oversight

responsibility.

Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, HHS is authorized to grant

states waivers of statutory requirements governing the AFDC program. This

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Executive Summary

authority is intended to give states the flexibility to test innovations

designed to help their programs better meet the objectives of the act.

Between 1992 and 1995, 31 states were granted authority to experiment

with one or more of the three provisions discussed in this report.

Twenty-three states received waivers to experiment with time limits, 24

states for work requirements, and 13 states for family caps.

Results in Brief Many states have been making major changes to their welfare programs

through federal waivers. Four of the five states that GAO

reviewed—Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin, established work

requirements and limited the time that many clients could receive cash

benefits. To implement these policy changes, these four states

fundamentally changed the operations and management of their welfare

programs. GAO’s analysis identified three major themes on which these

states, in conjunction with their counties, focused their efforts:

(1) changing their staffs’ culture and clients’ expectations, (2) soliciting

the involvement of employers and communities, and (3) redesigning their

service delivery structure. Another policy change, a family cap, was

implemented in Indiana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin with

relatively few management or service delivery changes.

In efforts to change the focus of their welfare programs, the states that

implemented work requirements and time limits redefined how staffs and

clients interact. Staffs were encouraged to focus less on specific obstacles

facing clients, such as lack of work experience, and more on developing a

strategy for clients to quickly secure employment and move off welfare.

The states used various approaches to increase staffs’ focus on helping

clients find employment, including establishing job placement goals for

each welfare office. In addition, the states sought to prepare clients to take

greater responsibility for moving off welfare through a variety of

approaches such as basing benefit payments on the number of hours

clients participate in work, training, or education activities.

The states also sought to make greater use of community resources by

soliciting the involvement of employers and community organizations in

their welfare reform programs. For example, they asked employers and

local officials to participate in community advisory groups, whose

responsibilities generally focused on helping clients obtain employment.

While the states sometimes had to address misconceptions about welfare

clients in working with these advisory groups, they generally found that

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Executive Summary

community involvement yielded benefits for clients, such as better access

to jobs.

Finally, the states worked to redesign their service delivery structure to

provide more intensive support for clients confronted with work

requirements and time-limited benefits. For example, counties in Florida

and Wisconsin brought together staffs from various locations to form

teams that provide a variety of services at a single location. In addition,

states sought to expand the availability of child care and transportation by

developing closer links to existing community resources, such as by

working with churches to provide after-school care.

Principal Findings

States Make Major

Changes to Design of Their

Welfare Programs

Of the five states GAO reviewed, Indiana and New Jersey implemented their

welfare reforms statewide. Virginia implemented its family cap provision

statewide and is phasing in its work requirement and time limit statewide

over a 4-year period. At the time of GAO’s site visits, Florida and Wisconsin

were each operating their welfare reform programs in two counties.

The work requirements enacted by Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and

Wisconsin vary considerably. For example, Virginia requires nonexempt

clients to engage in unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, or

a community work experience within 90 days of signing personal

responsibility agreements. In Florida, the employability plans developed

with clients specify the education, training, and work activities they are

expected to complete. The time-limited benefit provisions in these four

states generally limit nonexempt clients to 24 months of cash benefits,

followed by a longer period of ineligibility for cash assistance. At the time

of GAO’s site visits, however, none of these programs had been under way

long enough for any clients to have reached the end of their time limits.

With the exception of Florida, each of the states GAO examined had a

family cap provision. Indiana’s provision is typical; it stipulates that no

cash benefit will be provided for a child born more than 10 months after

either the start of the new program or the client’s application for AFDC,

with certain exceptions.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Executive Summary

States View Changing the

Culture of Their Staffs and

Clients’ Expectations as

Critical to Welfare Reform

Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin viewed changing the culture of

their welfare office staffs and clients’ expectations as critical to helping

clients find jobs before their time-limited benefits expire. Traditionally,

staffs were trained to focus on assuring accurate eligibility determinations

and benefit payments and enrolling clients in education, training, and

work activities, but were not always directed to place a strong emphasis

on placing clients in jobs. Recognizing this, these states adopted varied

approaches to broaden staffs’ perception of their roles. For example,

Indiana established annual job placement goals for each county and a

system to monitor county performance. Wisconsin trained staffs to

explore with persons applying for AFDC benefits alternatives to welfare,

such as obtaining a job or child support. Using this approach, in the first 8

months of the state’s welfare reform program, Wisconsin’s pilot counties

diverted about one-third of their applicants from applying for AFDC

benefits, according to a state progress report. Virginia established a

different kind of diversion program for AFDC applicants, which seeks to

divert families in crisis from long-term dependence by offering them a

one-time payment equivalent to up to 120 days of AFDC benefits.

The states also sought to promote greater client responsibility for adopting

behaviors that would facilitate their transition from welfare to work. For

example, Wisconsin set higher expectations for clients by basing benefit

payments on the number of assigned hours of activity they complete.

States also revised their AFDC rules to make work more attractive by

allowing clients to keep more of their benefit checks as they began

working. Finally, states strengthened their sanctions for clients who fail to

comply with program requirements by increasing reductions in clients’

benefits, lengthening sanction periods, or applying sanctions more quickly.

States Solicit Greater

Involvement of Employers

and Communities in

Reforming Welfare

To take advantage of community resources that could help clients obtain

jobs, states used various approaches to solicit the involvement of local

employers and communities in their welfare reform programs. For

example, Virginia’s state and local welfare offices held community

meetings attended by churches, employers, and other organizations to

explain its program and enlist support. Each of the states also established

community advisory groups that included representatives from

government, business, and community organizations. Indiana obtained an

especially widespread level of community involvement, with over 3,000

citizens and officials participating in 92 local welfare reform planning

councils throughout the state. States encountered various challenges

working with community advisory groups, including determining their

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Executive Summary

appropriate roles, informing members about characteristics of welfare

clients and the welfare system, and recruiting a sufficient number of

members. However, the states generally found that as they worked to

address these issues, community involvement provided benefits for

clients, such as more job opportunities, and insights on how to deal with

clients’ barriers.

States Redesign Service

Delivery to Provide More

Intensive Support for

Clients

To further facilitate implementation of time limits and work requirements,

states also redesigned their service delivery structure in different ways to

provide the more intensive support clients may need. Collocation of staffs

to enhance communication among job team members and provide services

more efficiently was a key component of welfare reform implementation

in Florida and Wisconsin. For example, the two pilot counties in Florida,

Alachua and Escambia, sought to provide “one-stop shopping” for clients

by bringing together eligibility specialists, case managers, employment and

training specialists, health clinic staff, and child support staff. Although

both Florida counties experienced logistical difficulties moving staffs to a

single location, such as delays in obtaining office space and equipment, job

teams in Florida and Wisconsin report that clients benefit from the

improved communication and service coordination the teams provide.

Florida’s pilot counties also redesigned their service delivery by creating a

case manager role to coordinate the comprehensive services that clients

may need. Escambia County eligibility workers assumed additional

responsibilities to serve as case managers; in contrast, Alachua County

made the case manager role distinct from that of eligibility staff and

training and employment staff. Case managers in Escambia County

experienced a difficult adjustment to their broad new responsibilities,

because as eligibility workers they had focused on following strict rules

and procedures. On the other hand, case managers in Alachua County

encountered some initial difficulties determining how their roles differed

from those of other staff. In both cases, additional training and experience

helped reduce these problems, according to Florida officials.

By developing closer links to existing community resources, states also

sought to expand the availability of child care and transportation for their

clients. For example, Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, worked with some

day care providers to extend their hours for parents working late shifts.

Scott County, Indiana, recruited local volunteers to transport clients and

Pierce County, Wisconsin, arranged for a local bank to provide

low-interest automobile loans to clients.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Executive Summary

Recommendations GAO is not making recommendations in this report.

Comments From HHS

and States

GAO obtained comments on a draft of this report from HHS and the five

states whose welfare reform programs are reviewed in the report. HHS and

the states generally agreed with the report’s findings and provided

additional technical information that GAO incorporated in the report as

appropriate.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

The Existing Welfare System 10

States Experiment With Their Welfare Programs 12

Federal Welfare Reform Proposals 13

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 14

Chapter 2 

States Make Major

Changes to Design of

Their Welfare

Programs

16

Overview of Five States’ Welfare Reform Provisions 16

Welfare Reforms Implemented on Different Geographic Scopes 18

States’ Work Requirement and Time Limit Provisions Vary 18

Family Cap Provisions Implemented With Relatively Few

Management or Service Delivery Changes

19

Chapter 3 

States View Changing

Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations

as Critical to Welfare

Reform

21

Increasing Staffs’ Focus on Clients’ Employability 21

Preparing Clients to Assume Greater Responsibility 25

Chapter 4 

States Solicit

Employer and

Community

Involvement in

Reforming Welfare

33

Meetings and Promotional Materials Used to Inform

Communities About Welfare Reforms

33

Institutionalizing Community Involvement Can Be Difficult but

Beneficial

36

States Increase Efforts to Work With Employers to Obtain Jobs

for Clients

40

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Contents

Chapter 5 

Service Delivery

Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive

Support for Clients

43

Case Manager Role Created to Coordinate Services 43

Collocated Case Management Teams Established to Improve

Services to Clients

44

States Increased Staffs’ Interaction With Clients 47

Establishing Necessary Support Services 47

Chapter 6 

Concluding

Observations and

Comments From HHS

and States

50

Comments From HHS and States 50

Appendix Appendix I: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Bibliography 53

Related GAO Products 56

Tables Table 1.1: States Granted Federal Waivers to Experiment with

Selected AFDC Provisions, 1992-95

13

Table 2.1: Key Waiver Provisions of the States Reviewed 17

Table 3.1: States Revised AFDC Rules on Income Disregards,

Asset Limits, and Vehicle Asset Limits

29

Table 4.1: States Established Various Types of Community

Advisory Groups to Help Implement Welfare Reforms

37

Figures Figure 3.1: Personal Responsibility Agreements 26

Figure 4.1: Examples of Welfare Reform Promotional Materials 35

Abbreviations

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children program

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Because the existing welfare system has not been successful in preventing

long-term dependency, many states are using federally approved waivers

of statutory requirements to implement their own welfare reform

initiatives. Concurrently, efforts are under way at the federal level to

reform the nation’s welfare system. Some states already are experimenting

with provisions similar to those included in recent federal welfare reform

proposals, such as time limits on benefit receipt, work requirements, and a

prohibition on payment of cash assistance for additional children born to

families already receiving welfare—the family cap provision.

The Existing Welfare

System

Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) provides cash benefits to

economically needy families with children who lack support from one or

both of their parents because of death, absence, incapacity, or

unemployment. In fiscal year 1995, the average monthly number of AFDC

recipients was about 13.6 million—4.4 million adults and 9.2 million

children—and payments to recipients totalled nearly $22 billion. AFDC is an

entitlement program funded with federal and state dollars, with the federal

share determined by a matching formula related to each state’s per capita

income. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has

federal oversight responsibility for the program. Each state administers

and determines many aspects of its AFDC program within federal

guidelines, including payment amounts, eligibility requirements, and

treatment of income and resources.

In recent years, policymakers and analysts have expressed growing

discontent with the welfare system, many claiming that the system fosters

dependency. There have been no limits on the length of time families may

receive benefits, except for recent experiments in some states that have

received federal approval to test time limits. One study estimates that

about 35 percent of those who ever receive AFDC will eventually receive

benefits for a total of 5 years or more, when all moves on and off welfare

are considered.1

 In addition, some policymakers and analysts believe that

the welfare system should no longer provide cash benefits for additional

children born to AFDC mothers.

1

However, a much larger proportion of those receiving AFDC at a given point in time—an estimated

76 percent—receive benefits for 5 years or more. The difference is due to the fact that as longer-term

recipients accumulate on the welfare rolls as time passes, they end up accounting for a large

percentage of recipients on the welfare rolls at any given point in time. See Harold Beebout, Jon

Jacobson, and LaDonna Pavetti, The Number and Characteristics of AFDC Recipients Who Will Be

Affected by Policies to Time-Limit AFDC Benefits (paper presented at the Annual Research

Conference of the Association for Public Policy and Management, Chicago, Oct. 29, 1994).

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 1 

Introduction

With the Family Support Act of 1988, the Congress created the Job

Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program to transform AFDC

into a transitional program geared toward helping parents become

employed and avoid long-term welfare dependence. Under JOBS, states are

to (1) provide a broad range of education, training, and

employment-related activities; (2) increase the number of AFDC clients

participating in these activities; (3) target resources to the hard-to-serve;

and (4) provide support services, including child care and transportation.

The Family Support Act created minimum requirements for the

percentages of AFDC clients participating in JOBS that states must meet to

receive their full share of federal funding. The minimum participation

requirements rose from 7 percent of nonexempt AFDC clients2

 in fiscal year

1991 to 20 percent in fiscal year 1995. While most states have met the

minimum participation requirements, the number of AFDC clients

participating in JOBS remains limited. In fiscal year 1994, about 13 percent

of the 4.6 million adults receiving AFDC were active in JOBS activities each

month.

Our previous work has shown that most JOBS programs nationwide do not

have a strong employment focus.3

 About one-half of the county JOBS

administrators nationwide that we surveyed stated that they do not work

enough with employers to find jobs for participants. In addition, although

most of the program officials reported that less than one-half of their

job-ready participants had become employed, the officials reported little

use of subsidized employment or work-experience programs, options

available under JOBS.

4

 Various factors were identified that contribute to the

lack of a strong employment focus in some JOBS programs. For example,

the performance measurement system for JOBS holds states responsible for

the number and type of AFDC clients participating in JOBS activities but not

for the number who get jobs or earn their way off AFDC. In addition, county

JOBS administrators cited insufficient staff as a major obstacle to

implementing or expanding the use of tools such as subsidized

employment and work-experience programs. JOBS administrators also

2

AFDC clients 16 through 59 years old are considered nonexempt unless they are ill or incapacitated,

working 30 hours or more per week, attending high school, or caring for children under 3 years old (1

year old at state option). However, teenage parents who have not completed high school and have

children under 3 years old are also nonexempt.

3

See Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing Job Placement

(GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995) and Welfare to Work: Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently

Focused on Employment (GAO/HEHS-95-28, Dec. 19, 1994).

4

JOBS programs can provide subsidies to employers to hire AFDC clients, who then receive a

paycheck from their employer. In a community work experience, clients work in newly created

positions with an employer serving a public purpose; they are not hired by the employer, but receive

an AFDC benefit check.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 1 

Introduction

reported that labor market conditions such as high unemployment and low

job growth hindered their efforts to get jobs for clients.

States Experiment

With Their Welfare

Programs

Under section 1115 of the Social Security Act, HHS is authorized to grant

states waivers of certain statutory requirements governing the AFDC

program. This authority is intended to give states the flexibility to test

innovations designed to help their programs better meet the objectives of

the act. The conditions of the waivers require that states have an

independent organization rigorously evaluate the outcomes of their

welfare reform projects and that these projects be cost neutral to the

federal government. HHS assesses cost neutrality over the life of a project,

rather than on a year-by-year basis, because many projects involve making

up-front investments with the expectation of achieving savings in later

years.

Between 1992 and 1995, 36 states received approval from HHS to implement

one or more projects. These projects include a wide variety of provisions,

such as those designed to encourage work, increase parents’ responsibility

for meeting their children’s needs, and restrict eligibility for benefits.

Thirty-one of these states were granted federal waivers to experiment with

one or more of the three provisions discussed in this report: time limits,

work requirements, and family caps. As shown in table 1.1, 23 states

received waivers to experiment with time limits, 24 states for work

requirements, and 13 states for family caps, according to HHS.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Table 1.1: States Granted Federal

Waivers to Experiment With Selected

AFDC Provisions, 1992-95 State Time limits

Work

requirements Family caps

Arizona X X X

Arkansas X

Colorado X

Connecticut X X

Delaware X X X

Florida X X

Georgia X X X

Hawaii X

Illinois X X X

Indiana X X X

Iowa X

Maryland X X

Massachusetts X X X

Michigan X X

Mississippi X X

Missouri X X

Montana X X

Nebraska X X X

New Jersey X

North Dakota X

Ohio X

Oklahoma X X

Oregon X

South Carolina X X

South Dakota X X

Vermont X X

Virginia X X X

Washington X

West Virginia X

Wisconsin X X X

Wyoming X

Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Federal Welfare

Reform Proposals

In recent years, several proposals have been introduced in the Congress to

reform welfare. President Clinton’s proposal, which was introduced in

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 1 

Introduction

1994 but not brought to a vote in the Congress, would have time-limited

cash welfare benefits and provided subsidized jobs to clients unable to

find work on their own. After the congressional elections in 1994, the

104th Congress developed its own welfare reform proposal. The Personal

Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1995 (H.R. 4), the compromise

legislation worked out by House and Senate conferees, was passed by

both houses of the Congress in December 1995. The President vetoed the

legislation in January 1996, citing, among other reasons, that it did not

provide enough funding for child care.

H.R. 4 would have ended the individual entitlement to benefits and the

payment of federal matching funds to states. Instead, each state would

have received a block grant to provide temporary assistance for needy

families. These block grants would have provided states fixed annual

federal allocations and increased their flexibility in operating their

programs. H.R. 4 would have limited families’ lifetime receipt of benefits to

60 months (whether or not consecutive), but allowed states to provide

hardship exceptions in limited cases. In addition, the legislation would

have required parents to engage in work after 24 months of receiving

assistance (whether or not consecutive) or earlier, if a state determined

that the parent was ready to engage in work. Furthermore, the legislation’s

family cap provision would have banned the provision of cash assistance

for additional children born to families already receiving welfare, unless

states decided not to adopt such a provision.

Negotiations for a compromise agreement on welfare reform have

continued among congressional leaders, the President, and state

governors. In May 1996, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Act of 1996, a revised version of H.R. 4, was introduced in the Congress. As

introduced, the proposal includes time-limited benefit and work

requirement provisions similar to those in H.R. 4, but not a family cap

provision. The administration’s revised welfare reform proposal, the Work

First and Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, was introduced in the

Congress in June 1996.

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Human Resources,

Committee on Ways and Means, asked us to review states’ early

experiences with implementing welfare reforms under federal waivers,

believing that this information would be useful to other states as they

prepare to face the challenges of welfare reform. Specifically, the

Chairman requested that we examine the approaches that states took and

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 1 

Introduction

issues they encountered in implementing three key provisions: time limits,

work requirements, and family caps. 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.

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed the implementation

experiences of Florida, Indiana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The

criteria we used to select states included obtaining a range in the length of

time states’ approved waivers had been in effect, selecting some states

whose waivers included all three provisions, and avoiding duplication of

existing studies. We met with state program officials, county program

administrators, and caseworkers in Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and

Wisconsin using a semistructured interview guide that we developed. Our

site visits included interviews with officials in the following counties:

Alachua and Escambia (Florida); Marion, Scott, and Vigo (Indiana);

Fauquier and Culpeper (Virginia); and Pierce and Fond du Lac

(Wisconsin). We contacted New Jersey state officials by telephone to

obtain information on the state’s implementation experiences. In addition,

we examined the terms and conditions of the states’ approved waivers and

other written materials about their welfare reform programs. This report

does not examine the outcomes of the states’ welfare reform programs,

such as cost implications and effects on caseloads, because sufficient data

are not yet available.

We conducted our work between July 1995 and May 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 2 

States Make Major Changes to Design of

Their Welfare Programs

The five states we reviewed made major changes to the design of their

welfare programs through waivers of federal statutory requirements.

These changes include provisions that require some clients to work, set

time limits on cash assistance, and prohibit the payment of cash benefits

for additional children born to families already receiving AFDC. The five

states’ welfare reform programs vary in such features as the length of time

they have been under way, their geographic scope of implementation, and

the content of their provisions. States implemented their family cap

provisions with relatively few management or service delivery changes,

but made more substantial changes in implementing their work

requirement and time-limited provisions, as discussed in the following

chapters.

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. New Jersey’s program,

which has a family cap provision but no time limits or work requirements,

has been under way the longest, since October 1992. The programs in

Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin have time limits and work

requirements, and all but Florida’s have family caps. Among these four

states, Florida’s program has been under way for the longest time (since

Feb. 1994) and Virginia’s the shortest (since July 1995).

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 2 

States Make Major Changes to Design of

Their Welfare Programs

Table 2.1: Key Waiver Provisions of the States Reviewed

Program and geographic scope

(start date) Time-limited benefits Work requirements Family cap

Florida

Family Transition Program—2

countiesa (2/94)

Most nonexempt clients limited

to 24 months of cash benefits in

a 60-month period; some to 36

months in a 72-month period

Employability plans developed

with clients specify the

education, training, and work

activities they are expected to

complete

None

Indiana

Indiana Manpower Placement

and Comprehensive Training

Program (IMPACT)—statewide

(5/95)

Clients assessed to be trainingor job-ready, limited to 24

months of cash benefits

followed by 36-month period of

ineligibility

Clients granted an exemption

from the 36-month period of

ineligibility following the

24-month time limit will be

expected to participate in a

community work experience

program and in job search

No cash benefit for a child born

more than 10 months after

program start date or date of

application for AFDC, with

exceptions

New Jersey

Family Development

Program—statewide (10/92)

None None No cash benefit for a child born

10 months or more after

program start date or date of

application for AFDC, with

exceptions

Virginia

Virginia Independence

Program—eligibility provisions

implemented statewide; work

requirements and time limits

being phased in statewide over 4

years (7/95)

Nonexempt clients limited to 24

months of cash benefits in a

60-month period

Nonexempt clients are required

to participate in work activities

within 90 days of signing

personal responsibility

agreements

No cash benefit for a child born

or adopted more than 10

months after the later of (1)

month of first AFDC payment,

(2) program start date, or (3)

date of family cap notice, with

exceptions

Wisconsin

Work Not Welfare—2 counties

(1/95)

Nonexempt clients limited to 24

months of cash benefits in a

48-month period, followed by

36-month period of ineligibility

After the first month of eligibility,

clients must earn their benefits

through education, training, or

work activities; after 12 months,

they must engage in work

activities

No cash benefit for a child born

more than 10 months after initial

receipt of AFDC, with exceptions

Note: In addition to the programs cited here, Virginia and Wisconsin have implemented other

welfare reform programs authorized through federal waivers.

aSince our site visit, Florida implemented the Family Transition Program in six additional counties.

Source: Terms and conditions of the states’ approved waivers and information obtained from

officials in these states.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 2 

States Make Major Changes to Design of

Their Welfare Programs

Welfare Reforms

Implemented on

Different Geographic

Scopes

The geographic scope of states’ implementation of their welfare reforms

ranged from statewide to selected counties. Indiana and New Jersey

implemented their welfare reform programs statewide. Indiana had an

AFDC caseload of about 56,000 and New Jersey about 120,000 in

September 1995. Virginia implemented its family cap and other new

eligibility provisions statewide in 1995 and is phasing in its work

requirement and time limit statewide over a 4-year period. The state began

by implementing the full welfare reform program in five rural counties. We

visited two of these counties, Culpeper and Fauquier, whose AFDC

caseloads totaled about 400 at the time of our review. Virginia

implemented its program in 19 counties and six cities within the first year

of operation, which represented about 23 percent of the state’s AFDC

caseload. Florida and Wisconsin were each operating their programs in

two counties when we made our site visits. In Florida, Alachua County had

an AFDC caseload of about 4,000 and Escambia County about 5,900, which

combined represented about 4 percent of Florida’s total caseload.

Wisconsin’s program operated in Fond du Lac and Pierce Counties, which

had a combined AFDC caseload of about 500 at the time of our site

visits—approximately 1 percent of the state’s caseload.

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. Virginia requires clients to engage in work

within 90 days of signing personal responsibility agreements, Wisconsin

after clients have been in the welfare reform program 12 months, and

Indiana after they are granted an extension to the time limit on benefits. In

Florida, the timing of work requirements depends on the terms of the

employability plan developed for each client. The states also differ about

which activities will satisfy their work requirements. For example, work

activities that meet Virginia’s requirement include unsubsidized

employment, subsidized employment, and community work experience. In

contrast, Indiana’s work requirement specifies that clients must

participate in a community work experience.

None of the programs in the states with time limits had been under way

long enough for any clients to have reached the limits when we conducted

our site visits. The programs’ time limit provisions stipulate that in certain

situations clients who reach the limits may continue to receive public

assistance. In Florida, clients who have participated but reached the end

of their time limits without having been able to obtain or hold a job will be

provided an opportunity to work in a subsidized job. Indiana, Virginia, and

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 2 

States Make Major Changes to Design of

Their Welfare Programs

Wisconsin permit extensions of their time limits in limited circumstances.

For example, clients in Wisconsin would be eligible for an extension if the

local labor market precludes a reasonable job opportunity, they are unable

to work because of disability or incapacity, or they need to care for a

disabled dependent.

Family Cap Provisions

Implemented With

Relatively Few

Management or

Service Delivery

Changes

The family cap provisions enacted by Indiana, New Jersey, Virginia, and

Wisconsin generally stipulate that no cash benefits will be provided for

children born more than 10 months after the program start date or the date

of a family’s application for or initial receipt of AFDC. These four states

implemented their family cap provisions with relatively few management

or service delivery changes. Staffs in these states informed clients about

their family cap provisions through mailed notices, personal responsibility

agreements, or face-to-face meetings. To further emphasize the

significance of this provision to clients, Wisconsin also trained staffs to

discuss with clients the impact that an additional child would have on

their budgets and ability to work.

In implementing their family cap provisions, Indiana and Wisconsin also

sought to increase clients’ access to family planning services. Indiana

approached this by contracting with health maintenance organizations to

provide family planning services to AFDC clients under the state’s new

Medicaid program. Wisconsin, which instituted a family cap provision in

its Work Not Welfare counties on January 1, 1995, and statewide a year

later, budgeted funds for county grants to provide family planning

education to clients.

Only one of the four states we reviewed identified any issues associated

with implementing the family cap. New Jersey encountered an issue with

regard to the treatment of income from other sources, such as child

support payments, received on behalf of children subject to the family cap.

Under federal rules, states collect child support payments for AFDC

families. Families receive the first $50 of child support collected each

month and the state retains a portion of the remainder, which is based on

its share of AFDC benefit payments. Since children subject to the family cap

do not receive AFDC benefits, state officials in New Jersey believe that the

family should receive the entire child support payment made on behalf of

these children. However, New Jersey has received conflicting information

from officials within HHS about the appropriate treatment of child support

payments for these children, according to state officials. New Jersey

officials have requested clarification from HHS on this issue.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 2 

States Make Major Changes to Design of

Their Welfare Programs

While the family cap provision did not pose major implementation

challenges for these states, the important issue of what effect the

provision might have remains unsettled. An analysis by the evaluator of

New Jersey’s welfare reform program found no statistically significant

difference between the birth rates of AFDC mothers who were subject to

the family cap in New Jersey and those who were not. However, the

evaluator noted that this finding should be regarded as preliminary

because the analysis was based on limited data.5

 New Jersey officials

noted that, while there has been no statistically significant difference in

birth rates between the experimental and control groups, there was a

12-percent decrease in births for both groups.

5

Michael J. Camasso, The State University of New Jersey: Rutgers, Letter to Rudolf Myers, New Jersey

Department of Human Services (New Brunswick, N.J.: June 14, 1995). For a discussion of this analysis

and some of the data issues, see the presentations by Michael Camasso, Rudolph Myers, and Peter

Rossi in Addressing Illegitimacy: Welfare Reform Options for Congress, a conference held in

Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11, 1995, by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin made fundamental changes to the

operations and management of their welfare programs to implement time

limits on benefit receipt and work requirements. These states viewed

changing the culture of welfare office staffs and the expectations of

welfare clients as critical to their welfare reform efforts. Time limits and

work requirements increase the importance of helping clients obtain

employment quickly, which often was not a priority for staffs or clients

under the traditional welfare program. These states used various

approaches to increase staffs’ focus on helping clients obtain jobs and

motivate clients to take greater responsibility for moving off welfare.

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. However, they have not always

been directed to place a strong emphasis on placing clients in jobs.6

 To

facilitate implementing their new work requirements and time limits, the

states we reviewed are using diverse approaches to concentrate more of

their staffs’ energies on helping clients obtain employment. These

approaches include setting job placement goals, working to reduce staffs’

preoccupation with clients’ barriers to self-sufficiency, and having staffs

explore options other than welfare with persons applying for benefits.

Establishing Job

Placement Goals and

Monitoring Performance

To help welfare staffs understand its new emphasis on moving clients into

work quickly, Indiana established performance measures linked to the

state’s welfare reform objectives. Before introducing its reform program,

the state’s JOBS program was oriented to educating and training welfare

clients for better-paying jobs—a human capital investment approach. To

signal the shift in emphasis of its welfare reform program, staffs were

instructed to follow Indiana’s new Work First philosophy: to make getting

a job the first priority for clients, supplemented by education and training.

The state developed a script for staffs to use at the initial eligibility

meeting with applicants; the script is designed to focus the meeting on job

placement and assistance rather than entry into the welfare system.

Indiana established annual job placement goals for each county office to

help motivate staffs to follow the Work First philosophy. Counties report

monthly to the state on their performance in meeting their job placement

goals, and county directors’ annual performance evaluations are based in

part on their job placement performance. For the first 10 months of the

6

See GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995.

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

state’s 1996 fiscal year, 88 of Indiana’s 92 counties were meeting their

annual job placement goals, according to state officials. To reinforce job

placement goals, some counties set monthly goals for the number of

clients staffs should refer to contractors for job placement. A year earlier,

Indiana had prepared for the welfare reform program by adopting

performance-based contracts for job placement contractors. Program

managers told us that the job placement goals have helped focus staffs on

clients’ employment and generated healthy competition among staffs and

counties.

Working to meet the job placement goals generated some early

implementation issues in Marion County, which includes the state’s largest

city, Indianapolis. Local job placement contractors voiced concerns that

they were not receiving a sufficient number of client referrals, according

to the county program director. The county identified two sources of this

problem. First, many clients who were referred did not show up for their

scheduled orientations with the contractors, who would work only with

those clients who did appear. To address this problem, the state changed

the wording of its contracts with job placement contractors to specify that

they were expected to work with all referred clients, including those who

failed to attend their orientations. In addition, the county had clerical staff

call clients to remind them of their scheduled orientations. Second, staff

encountered difficulties in developing an initial pool of clients to refer to

job placement contractors. Typically, a 20- to 40-day period elapsed before

staff could assign clients assessed to be job-ready to any program

activities, including job placement. This delay arose because clients

assessed to be job-ready are subject to time-limited benefits and are

provided an opportunity to appeal their assessment. The county sought to

increase the number of referrals to job placement contractors through

such measures as referring clients who had not yet been assessed.

Reducing Staffs’ Focus on

Clients’ Barriers

Wisconsin and Florida faced a challenge implementing their reform

programs, because some staff were so preoccupied with first addressing

clients’ barriers to self-sufficiency that they were not devoting enough

effort to quickly placing clients in jobs. Job placement is of greater

importance in a time-limited benefit environment than under the

traditional AFDC program. These states sought to shift their staffs’ focus to

looking at the positive qualities of their clients rather than the reasons

clients could not work, such as their lack of self-esteem or work

experience. One county in Wisconsin worked to change staff culture

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

through the persistent efforts of local managers, and Florida responded by

revising the focus of the activity plans staff develop for clients.

The director of the welfare office in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, told

us that he had devoted much of his implementation efforts to encouraging

staff to stop focusing on clients’ barriers to self-sufficiency and instead

focus on their positive characteristics and employability. He explained

that the traditional AFDC program had a procedural focus—staff helped

clients complete paperwork to establish and maintain benefit eligibility.

However, to implement Wisconsin’s welfare reform program, staff were

encouraged to empower their clients to become self-sufficient. The

director illustrated the shift in focus that has occurred by citing an

example of how staff treat Hmong clients,7

 a population that faces

psychological, language, and other barriers. Before Wisconsin’s welfare

reform program, these clients typically were placed in English-as-asecond-language classes and not assigned to work activities. However,

since the reform program began, Fond du Lac County managers have

encouraged staff to find ways to place Hmong clients in jobs. Staff

responded by hiring Hmong job coaches to temporarily accompany these

clients to work and help them handle any problems that arise, such as

communicating with others on the job. Other ways that the county

approached the language issue were to place many of the Hmong in

production jobs that do not require English language skills or in

companies with bilingual staff.

Florida worked to change staffs’ culture by revising the focus of the

activity plans staffs develop for clients in the welfare reform program.

Initially, staffs developed two plans for each client: (1) a self-sufficiency

plan establishing measures to address various barriers clients faced, such

as inadequate shelter, lack of child care, or substance abuse and (2) an

employability plan specifying activities designed to result in employment.

The self-sufficiency plan, however, tended to cause some staff to focus too

much on clients’ barriers and why clients were unable to engage in work

activities, according to Florida’s welfare reform administrator. When

clients met with staff to complete their employability plan, about 10 to 14

days after development of the self-sufficiency plan, staff and clients tended

to focus on the barriers to employment identified in the self-sufficiency

plan. Staff were attempting to first address all the barriers clients faced

and then help them find employment, instead of initially focusing on how

to move them quickly into employment. In response, Florida combined the

7

The Hmong are refugees from Laos.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

employability and self-sufficiency plans into a single plan that makes

clients’ employability the first order of business for staffs.

Having Staffs Explore

Options Other Than

Welfare With Applicants

Wisconsin helped staffs change the way they think about assisting clients

by training them to explore options other than welfare with persons

applying for AFDC benefits. Before the state’s work requirements and

time-limited benefit reforms, staffs automatically processed applicants to

determine their eligibility for benefits. Under the reforms, staffs are

instructed to help clients determine whether applying for benefits is the

most appropriate choice. Staffs encourage applicants to consider the

advantages of not starting the 24-month time clock for AFDC benefits and

explore other options that might enable them to support their families.

These options may include obtaining a job or increasing hours at their

current job, obtaining child support, or taking advantage of other

resources, such as housing assistance or food stamps. Staffs also assist

applicants who decide to pursue options other than AFDC by providing

various services, such as suggesting job possibilities and making referrals

to specialists who can help them obtain child support. In an early study,

Wisconsin reported that Fond du Lac County and Pierce County diverted

about one-third of the applicants—over 300 families—from applying for

AFDC benefits in the first 8 months of the state’s welfare reform program.

About 45 percent of diverted applicants indicated that they would try to

support their families through obtaining child support, obtaining a job,

moving in with others who could help support them, or other means.8

Virginia’s welfare reform program includes a diversion program that is

quite different from the one in Wisconsin. To help divert individuals from

long-term public assistance, welfare office staffs in Virginia examine with

each AFDC applicant the reasons he or she is applying for assistance.

Families who are in crisis but are otherwise self-sufficient are offered a

one-time payment, equivalent to up to 120 days of AFDC benefits, made

directly to a provider for services such as housing or transportation.

Families that receive a diversion payment are ineligible for AFDC benefits

for 160 days. In the first 9 months of Virginia’s welfare reform program,

261 cases received diversion payments; in about two-thirds of these cases,

the payments were used for housing or utilities, according to state data.

8

Of the remaining applicants who were diverted, 15 percent moved out of state or out of the pilot

counties; 15 percent wanted to avoid the work and training requirements after considering their family

needs, such as a full-time college student who did not want to be away from the family additional

hours; and 25 percent did not indicate a reason for not following through with their applications for

AFDC. See Division of Economic Support, Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services, Work

Not Welfare: Progress Report, January-August 1995 (Madison, Wis.: Dec. 1995).

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

Preparing Clients to

Assume Greater

Responsibility

While the states we reviewed devoted considerable effort to increasing

staffs’ focus on clients’ employability, they also worked to change clients’

expectations about welfare. For example, an Indiana official told us that a

key challenge for the state was to learn how to break the entitlement

mentality—a view that public assistance is a guaranteed benefit. With time

limits ending the guarantee of benefits, the states believed that they

needed to find ways to help all clients realize that finding a job was in their

best interest. The states used various approaches to encourage greater

client responsibility for moving off welfare, including setting higher

expectations, expanding financial incentives to work and save money, and

strengthening sanctions for dealing with noncompliant clients.

Encouraging Clients

Through Setting Higher

Expectations

Clients in the states’ welfare reform programs are being asked to take

greater responsibility for their lives through working, managing money,

and meeting their families’ needs. States have used several approaches to

establish higher expectations, such as requiring clients to sign personal

responsibility agreements and changing the way benefits are paid.

Requiring Clients to Sign

Personal Responsibility

Agreements

Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin require clients in their welfare

reform programs to sign personal responsibility agreements that specify

the responsibilities clients must assume in exchange for receiving public

assistance (see fig. 3.1). The responsibility to participate in program

activities designed to culminate in employment is one of the major

expectations set by these agreements. For example, Indiana’s agreement

stipulates that public assistance is intended to be temporary, not a way of

life, and that becoming self-sufficient through work is expected to be the

personal goal of clients. More than 39,000 clients in Indiana had signed a

personal responsibility agreement as of the end of April 1996, and about

3,100 clients were sanctioned for failure to sign an agreement, according

to Indiana officials.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

Figure 3.1: Personal Responsibility Agreements

A

B

C

D

A

B

C

D

- Alachua County, Florida

- Virginia

- Wisconsin

- Indiana

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

The personal responsibility agreements also establish expectations of

greater family responsibility for clients. For example, Florida’s agreement

requires clients with school-age children to have a conference each

grading period with school officials—unless there is a good reason for not

doing so—and have preschool children immunized. In Indiana and

Virginia, minor parents are required to live with their parents or in some

other setting supervised by an adult and also attend school.

Changing the Way Benefits Are

Paid

Wisconsin set higher expectations for clients by establishing a benefit

payment system designed to more closely resemble the world of a day’s

pay for a day’s work. Clients in Wisconsin’s welfare reform program earn

their benefits by participating in education, training, or work activities for

an assigned number of hours per week. If they fail to complete the

assigned number of hours without having a good reason, their benefits are

proportionately reduced. For example, if a client assigned to participate 40

hours completes only 30 hours, the client’s benefits are reduced the

equivalent of 10 hours times the minimum wage.9

 In contrast, a client who

fails to participate in JOBS activities under Wisconsin’s traditional AFDC

program is subject to a fixed benefit reduction equal to only the client’s

portion of the family’s AFDC benefit. During the last 5 months of 1995, an

average of 57 cases each month in Wisconsin’s welfare reform program

had their benefits reduced because of failure to complete assigned hours

of activity without good cause, based on state data.

In addition, Wisconsin “cashed-out” food stamp benefits. AFDC clients

eligible for food stamps do not receive the standard coupons, but instead

have the value of their food stamps included in their AFDC benefit checks.10

This places greater responsibility on clients to determine how best to meet

their families’ needs. To help assure that benefits are used as effectively as

possible to provide adequate food for their families, clients are required to

participate in 12 hours of family nutrition education.11

9

Under this formula, clients who do not complete any hours of assigned activities could have their

benefits reduced to nothing.

10Food stamp benefits are thus also subject to reduction if clients who are not exempt from Food

Stamp program employment and training requirements do not complete their assigned hours of

activity. However, the food stamp portion of a client’s benefit may not be reduced below $10.

11Wisconsin established a similar pay-for-performance system for AFDC clients statewide in its Pay for

Performance/Self-Sufficiency First demonstration project, implemented on March 1, 1996.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

Motivating Clients by

Increasing Financial

Incentives

Setting higher expectations for clients may have limited effectiveness in

ending welfare dependency if they do not perceive that they will be better

off working. The states we reviewed increased financial incentives by

revising the provisions that regulate the treatment of clients’ earned

income and assets because they did not believe these provisions provided

sufficient incentive to clients to work or save money.

Florida, Indiana, Virginia, and Wisconsin modified their provisions relating

to the treatment of earned income to permit clients to keep more of their

AFDC benefits or retain them for longer periods of time while working.

Under federal law, clients’ benefits are reduced and eventually terminated

as their earned income increases. However, clients who obtain

employment are eligible to have some of their earned income disregarded

in calculating their AFDC benefits. As shown in table 3.1, Florida and

Virginia increased the amount of earned income that can be disregarded.

Indiana modified its provision to provide that clients’ benefits would be

calculated at the time of their entry into employment and would remain at

that level even if their earnings increased, subject to certain limits.12 To

help clients make a more stable transition to the workforce, Florida,

Virginia, and Wisconsin extended the length of time that their income

disregards would be available. This change responds to concerns that

families may experience a significant decline in their standard of living

when benefits are reduced or discontinued after existing federal income

disregards expire.

12Indiana also freezes the amounts of food stamp benefits for the first 6 months AFDC clients are

employed.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

Table 3.1: States Revised AFDC Rules

on Income Disregards, Asset Limits,

and Vehicle Asset Limits

Program Income disregards

Asset limits

(excluding

vehicles)

Vehicle

asset limits

Current federal AFDC law

$90 of earned income disregarded

monthly; in addition, $30 of earned

income and 1/3 of remainder

disregarded for first 4 months, and

$30 of earned income disregarded

for next 8 months 1,000 1,500

Florida

Family Transition

Program

$200 of earned income and 50

percent of remainder disregarded

each month with no time limit other

than overall time limit on benefits $5,000 $8,150a

Indiana

Indiana

Manpower

Placement and

Comprehensive

Training Program

Clients’ benefits calculated at time of

entry into employment and frozen at

that level until their time limits end or

their monthly family incomes equal or

exceed federal poverty guidelines 1,500 No change

Virginia

Virginia

Independence

Program

All earned income disregarded for

up to 24 months if earnings plus

AFDC benefits are equal to or less

than federal poverty guidelines 5,000 7,500

Wisconsin

Work Not Welfare $90 of earned income disregarded

monthly; in addition, $30 of earned

income and 1/6 of remainder

disregarded each month with no

time limit other than overall time limit

on benefits No changeb No changec

aFlorida’s waiver permits the state to increase this amount annually.

bSome clients in Wisconsin’s Work Not Welfare program are part of an experimental group in a

statewide Special Resource Account demonstration project that allows clients to set aside up to

$10,000 for the purpose of educational advancement or improving employability.

cSome clients in Wisconsin’s Work Not Welfare program are part of an experimental group in a

statewide Vehicle Asset Limit demonstration project that allows clients to have vehicle assets of

up to $2,500.

Source: Waiver terms and conditions of the states’ welfare reform programs and federal statutory

provisions.

As shown in table 3.1, Florida, Indiana, and Virginia modified their asset

limits or vehicle asset limits. Higher asset limits enable clients to save

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

money that can be used to deal with situations that might otherwise

undermine their transition off welfare, such as a vehicle breakdown. By

permitting clients to own more valuable cars, higher vehicle asset limits

may enable them to obtain more reliable sources of transportation to

work.

Virginia’s provisions constitute an especially broad expansion of work

incentives for clients. The state disregards all earned income for up to 24

months as long as earnings plus AFDC benefits are equal to or less than

federal poverty guidelines. Moreover, families receiving AFDC can establish

savings accounts of up to $5,000 and own motor vehicles with a fair

market value of up to $7,500. In the view of state officials, increasing

financial incentives to clients who get jobs is a critical change that will

help ensure the long-term success of the state’s welfare reform initiative.

Virginia officials believe that disincentives to work were intrinsic in

previous programs because AFDC benefits were immediately reduced or the

case closed when clients became employed. In its welfare reform program,

the state allows clients to use lower-paying jobs as stepping-stones to

self-sufficiency through the increased amount of disregarded income

combined with the increased allowable amounts of savings and vehicle

assets.

Strengthening Sanctions to

Encourage Client

Compliance

Expanding financial incentives for clients to work and save may

encourage some clients to comply with program requirements. Under

federal law, states can sanction clients who fail to participate in JOBS

activities without good cause by reducing their AFDC benefits. The sanction

reduces only the adult’s portion of the AFDC benefit, not the portion

designated for children. The first sanction lasts until the client agrees to

participate, the second for a minimum of 3 months, and the third for at

least 6 months. All the states we reviewed determined that they needed

stronger measures to deal effectively with clients who fail to meet their

participation requirements. As discussed below, they strengthened their

sanctions in various ways, such as including food stamp benefits in the

sanctions, increasing the size of the benefit reduction, applying sanctions

more quickly, increasing the length of sanction periods, and requiring

clients to demonstrate compliance before sanctions would be lifted.13

Wisconsin strengthened its sanctions by adding clients’ food stamps to the

value of their AFDC benefit checks and basing the amount of these checks

on the number of hours of activity clients complete. This change responds

13Many of these changes required waivers of federal statutory requirements.

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

to a frequently voiced criticism of traditional AFDC sanctions—namely, that

they have little effect on some clients because their food stamp benefits,

which are partly based on the clients’ household income, are increased to

compensate for much of the reduction in their AFDC cash benefits.

Virginia increased the size of the benefit reduction and made it easier to

apply sanctions more quickly in its welfare reform program. For the first

sanction, a family’s entire AFDC benefit is terminated for 1 month or until

the client complies, whichever is longer. A family’s entire benefit is

terminated a minimum of 2 months for the second sanction and a

minimum of 3 months for the third and subsequent sanctions.14 In

addition, clients can be sanctioned more quickly because Virginia

eliminated its conciliation process. This process had provided

noncompliant clients an opportunity to avoid receiving a sanction by

demonstrating compliance or indicating that they intended to comply. The

state eliminated the conciliation process because it found the process

administratively burdensome and considered the sanction to be too far

removed from the act of noncompliance to affect clients’ behavior.15

Indiana increased the length of sanction periods and imposes sanctions

more frequently in its welfare reform program. The first sanction now

applies for a minimum of 2 months, the second for at least 12 months, and

the third for a minimum of 36 months, regardless of when the clients

rectify the noncompliance. In addition, Indiana does not allow individuals

to apply for AFDC for 90 days after voluntarily quitting employment. The

number of AFDC clients sanctioned in the first 5 months of program

implementation was about 150 percent higher than the number sanctioned

the previous year for the same months. Concerned about the increase in

the number of sanctions, the director of Indiana’s Division of Family and

Children told us that he was considering hiring a consultant to determine

the reasons for clients’ noncompliance and recommend ways to increase

their program participation.

Florida strengthened its sanctions in response to complaints by staff about

clients who game the system. In some cases, clients would delay

responding to notices of noncompliance until the last possible day and

avoid receiving a sanction by saying that they would agree to comply, even

though they did not always follow through on this agreement. Florida now

requires clients who are not meeting their participation requirements to

14The months in which a family’s benefits are terminated are counted as part of the 24 months allowed

for receipt of cash benefits.

15Clients retain the right to appeal sanctions and receive a fair hearing.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 3 

States View Changing Staffs’ Culture and

Clients’ Expectations as Critical to Welfare

Reform

demonstrate compliance for up to 10 days to avoid having sanctions

imposed. In addition, the state reduced the conciliation period from 21

days to 10 days.

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

As a result of instituting time-limited, employment-focused welfare

reforms, the states we reviewed had to determine how to move clients

more quickly into employment and off welfare. In response, the states

sought to forge stronger links with employers and community

organizations to take advantage of resources, such as job opportunities

and child care, that these groups could provide. 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.

Meetings and

Promotional Materials

Used to Inform

Communities About

Welfare Reforms

One approach states used to generate community interest and involvement

was to disseminate information about the objectives and key features of

their welfare reform programs. Providing such information helps educate

communities about the roles they can play to assist reform efforts and the

benefits they may achieve from welfare reform.

Holding Community

Meetings

Virginia’s Department of Social Services held a statewide summit, hosted

by the governor, to bring together employers, churches, and employment

and training organizations to explain the state’s welfare reform program.

In addition, the department has helped various localities hold community

involvement meetings. At a community meeting in Fauquier County,

county officials identified areas in which community organizations could

assist the program, such as by helping provide child care and

transportation for clients. Florida’s two welfare reform pilot counties each

established a speakers’ bureau. County officials have made presentations

about the program to civic and fraternal organizations, social service

agencies, and churches. In Wisconsin, each pilot county hosted a

community training event, sponsored by the state, to introduce the welfare

reform program to residents, businesses, and service agencies. Pierce

County, Wisconsin, combined its community training with a job fair to

bring job seekers together with employers. Indiana officials have held

numerous speaking engagements with organizations throughout the state

to discuss Indiana’s welfare reform program.

Developing Promotional

Materials

States and counties developed various materials to help publicize their

welfare reforms, such as videotapes, brochures, and posters. For example,

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

as shown in figure 4.1, Virginia developed different versions of a videotape

for employers, churches and nonprofit organizations, and clients. The

employer version notes that to ensure success the state had to reform

welfare by involving the whole community. Alachua County, Florida,

developed a brochure targeted to businesses and public agencies that

explained how its welfare reform program could help employers reduce

their labor costs and improve their bottom lines. The brochure emphasizes

the program’s ability to provide qualified applicants to meet employers’

specific needs and cites the financial incentives available to employers for

hiring program clients.16

16For example, the brochure notes that employers who hire clients for on-the-job training can be

reimbursed up to 50 percent of the wages paid during training and those who hire clients to fill newly

created positions can be reimbursed a portion of clients’ wages.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

Figure 4.1: Examples of Welfare Reform Promotional Materials

A D

C

B

E

F

A

B

C

D

E

F

- Virginia

- Alachua County, Florida

- Alachua County, Florida

- Alachua County, Florida

- Virginia

- Virginia

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

Institutionalizing

Community

Involvement Can Be

Difficult but

Beneficial

Each of the states we reviewed sought to take advantage of community

resources by establishing advisory groups that included representatives

from business, government, and community organizations. As depicted in

table 4.1, the responsibilities of these groups generally focused on helping

clients obtain employment. Indiana obtained an especially widespread

level of community involvement, with over 3,000 citizens and officials

participating on 92 local welfare reform planning councils throughout the

state. States encountered various challenges working with community

advisory groups, including determining their appropriate roles, informing

members about the characteristics of welfare clients and the welfare

system, and recruiting a sufficient number of members. However, the

states generally found that, as they worked to address these challenges,

community involvement provided significant benefits for the clients in

their welfare reform programs, such as better access to jobs.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

Table 4.1: States Established Various

Types of Community Advisory Groups

to Help Implement Welfare Reforms

Type and location of advisory groups Responsibilities

Florida

Community review panels in pilot counties Review cases of clients not complying with

program requirements and sufficiency of

services provided to them

Enterprise development task force in

Alachua County

Develop opportunities for clients to start

their own businesses and help identify and

expand training and job opportunities for

clients

Indiana

Local planning council in each county

statewide

Identify scope of AFDC clients’ needs and

existing community resources, recommend

programs and resources to assist in

providing services to clients, and compile

list of public service work opportunities

Welfare-to-work task force in Scott County Help address clients’ barriers, such as

difficulties obtaining transportation and

child care

Virginia

State advisory commission on welfare reform Recommend ways to generate jobs for

clients and evaluate incentives designed

to promote business participation in

welfare reform

State welfare reform work groups Explore innovative ways to address

implementation issues, involve the

community in implementation, and work to

create a local seamless design by

involving all staff

Local community advisory groups Help develop and implement local plans

for welfare reform

Wisconsin

Community steering committee in pilot

counties

Obtain job and training sites for clients;

foster clients’ entrepreneurial efforts; serve

as mentors for clients; ensure that training

and education programs are relevant to

community business needs; coordinate a

Children’s Services Network that helps

provide services, such as health care and

food, to children whose parents lose cash

benefits; and identify child care and

shelter resources and expand child care

availability

Source: Written materials on the states’ welfare reform programs, supplemented by information

from state and local officials.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

Determining Appropriate

Roles for Advisory Groups

One challenge some states experienced working with community advisory

groups was helping them determine their appropriate roles. For example,

the enterprise development task force in Alachua County, Florida,17

encountered some uncertainty about its role. As set out in program

legislation, the task force was to develop opportunities that emphasize

enterprise development for clients. However, the legislative language does

not elaborate what this role entails. In addition, program staff working

with the task force expressed reservations about limiting the role of the

task force to helping clients start their own businesses. For example, staff

voiced concerns about whether clients would be willing to assume the

risks involved in starting a business and be able to obtain bank financing.

In light of the more pressing need at the time to develop a range of training

and job opportunities for clients in the program, staff proposed that the

role of the task force be broadened to include these activities. Members of

the task force agreed and subsequently focused much of their efforts on

these activities. However, they have expressed interest in working to

develop entrepreneurial opportunities for clients and have invited

speakers to address this topic at recent task force meetings.

Informing Community

Members About Welfare

Clients and the Welfare

System

Another challenge states encountered in working with community

advisory groups was informing members about the characteristics of

welfare clients and the welfare system. For example, counties in Indiana

and Wisconsin faced issues such as addressing members’ misconceptions

of welfare clients and members’ requests for client data that were difficult

to satisfy.

Scott County, Indiana The mayor of Scottsburg, Indiana, established a welfare-to-work task force

to assist the welfare office in Scott County with implementing the state’s

reform program.18 A welfare office representative who served on the task

force told us that the biggest challenge working with the task force was

informing members about the welfare system and changing their

perceptions of clients. Task force members requested that the welfare

office survey clients to find out about barriers clients face as well as their

attitudes toward welfare. The county welfare director told us that the

results of the survey showed that clients wanted to work and generated

enthusiasm among task force members for supporting the program.

17Members of the task force include representatives from private sector employers and the Job Service

Employer Council.

18Members of the task force include the mayor, county welfare director, personnel managers of local

companies, child care experts, a welfare office case manager, and members of the local Private

Industry Council.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

The community task force has been instrumental in helping obtain job

opportunities for clients, according to the county welfare director. For

example, the task force sponsored a meeting for representatives of some

of the area’s large manufacturers. Former AFDC clients who had obtained

jobs told their success stories and attendees were encouraged to provide

current AFDC clients opportunities for employment. Subsequently, some of

these manufacturers hired program clients (and in some cases waived

their General Equivalency Diploma requirement to enable clients to qualify

for employment) and allowed the welfare office to begin handing out their

employment applications.

Fond Du Lac County,

Wisconsin

Educating members of the community steering committee in Fond du Lac

County, Wisconsin,19 about welfare clients proved to be a challenging

experience for both the committee members and the county welfare

office. Some committee members initially knew very little about the

welfare system and were unaware that resources such as child care

assistance and the JOBS program already existed, according to the director

of the county Department of Social Services. Committee members wanted

to obtain baseline data on the welfare reform program and determine, for

example, how many clients would require training, jobs, and child care.

Members told us, however, that the county director often responded to

their requests by saying the data were not available, taking a long time to

provide the data, or providing data in a different format than requested.

Committee members had difficulty understanding the obstacles the county

director faced in meeting their requests for data. For example, the county

director told us that obtaining data from the state’s automated welfare

system was difficult because the state was modifying the system to

accommodate the welfare reform program.

As committee members continued working with the county director, and

learned more about program clients and the welfare system, working

relations improved dramatically. The committee formed several

subcommittees and enlisted additional community members to assist with

its work. The chairman of the steering committee, who is the executive

director of a local business, became a strong advocate for the program. As

a result of the improved working relations, local employers are much more

likely to hire AFDC clients than they were before Wisconsin’s welfare

reform program began, according to the county director.

19The committee consists of representatives of business, government, and educational organizations.

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

Recruiting Sufficient

Community Volunteers

Florida’s experience with community review panels illustrates the

substantial administrative effort that may be required to coordinate

community involvement. These panels were created by Florida’s welfare

reform legislation to serve as independent entities to evaluate the

sufficiency of the welfare department’s delivery of services to clients and

the cases of clients who have not complied with program requirements.

State law requires that each panel consist of seven members and include a

member of the local health and human services board, a member of the

private industry council, a client or former client in the welfare reform

program, two members of the local business community, one member of

the education community, and one member-at-large. Review panels

typically meet for 4 to 5 days each month. Escambia County encountered

difficulties recruiting enough community members to ensure a quorum for

panel meetings. The county had recruited a pool of 67 members for the

review panel at each of its two program sites, but still encountered

problems obtaining the required mix of panelists.

Despite these administrative difficulties, Florida state and county officials

reported that the panels are very beneficial. The panels bring a third-party

perspective to the evaluation of clients that in some cases differs from the

perspective of program staff. For example, the panels have identified

barriers and issues that were not identified in clients’ self-sufficiency or

employability plans, and also served as a resource for career counseling.

In addition to helping document client noncompliance, the panels help

create informed citizens who can serve as advocates for welfare reform,

according to Florida’s welfare reform administrator.

States Increase

Efforts to Work With

Employers to Obtain

Jobs for Clients

As we reported previously, JOBS programs nationwide generally had not

forged the strong links with local employers that can be important to

helping AFDC clients gain work experience and find jobs.20 In contrast, the

welfare reform programs in the states we reviewed were placing a strong

emphasis on working with employers to help clients obtain jobs. As

discussed earlier in this chapter, one approach states used to generate

employer involvement was through establishing community advisory

groups. In addition, the states used various approaches to increase their

effectiveness working with employers, such as expanding incentives for

employers to hire clients, responding to job openings from employers

more quickly, and providing employers with job-ready clients.

20GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995, and GAO/HEHS-95-28, Dec. 19, 1994.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

Expanding Employer

Incentives

Some states expanded the incentives that can be provided to employers to

hire program clients. For example, one provision of Virginia’s welfare

reform program authorizes the payment of the cash value of clients’ AFDC

and food stamp benefits to employers for up to 6 months in exchange for

their providing clients with jobs. This provision, called the Full

Employment Program, is targeted to clients eligible for both AFDC and food

stamps who are unable to find unsubsidized employment. Instead of

receiving AFDC and food stamps, these clients receive wages paid by their

employers. Under the terms of Florida’s welfare reform program, the state

is authorized to pay employers who hire hard-to-place clients an amount

equal to 70 percent of what the clients would have received in AFDC

benefits for up to 1 year. Hard-to-place clients include AFDC recipients who,

in the preceding year, have been unable to hold any job for at least 3

months or have held more than two jobs. Indiana expanded incentives to

employers by extending to up to 24 months the period in which the cash

value of clients’ AFDC benefits can be diverted to employers who hire them.

Responding to Job

Openings More Quickly

Another approach to help staffs work more effectively with employers is

to provide them with the capacity to respond quickly to employers’ needs.

Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin, developed the means to dramatically

decrease the amount of time it took to respond to employers who notified

county staff that they had job openings. Matching clients to job openings

had involved a time-consuming process of manually reviewing case files to

determine which clients had appropriate skills for specific job openings. A

member of the community steering committee recommended that the

county attempt to replicate the ability of private employment agencies to

respond within an hour to job requests. The county obtained a software

program that enables staff to capture information on client skills and job

interests in a database so that they can respond within half a day to

employers with a list of potential client matches.

Providing Employers With

Job-Ready Clients

Wisconsin state officials told us that the community steering committees

helped educate the welfare agencies about some of the primary qualities

local employers sought in employees, such as reliability and the ability to

follow instructions. The steering committees maintained that the welfare

agencies should not spend a lot of time training clients in specific job

skills, but leave this to employers. Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin,

provides a 2-week workshop to help prepare clients for seeking

employment. The workshop covers subjects such as motivation,

budgeting, stress management, nutrition, and parenting.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 4 

States Solicit Employer and Community

Involvement in Reforming Welfare

In the initial months of program implementation, Culpeper County,

Virginia, was sending employers its most job-ready clients—those who had

received some job-readiness training through the JOBS program. However,

county officials expressed a concern that new clients may encounter

difficulties obtaining and keeping jobs when they are required to engage in

a job search without having received some prior job-readiness

preparation. With the help of the local Chamber of Commerce, Culpeper

County developed a job-readiness class covering topics such as

motivation, job-keeping skills, and money management.

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

To help implement time limits and move clients quickly into work, the

states we reviewed also redesigned their service delivery structure. They

believed that their clients needed more intensive support and coordinated

services than were being provided under their previous AFDC program. 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.

Case Manager Role

Created to Coordinate

Services

To prepare clients to become self-sufficient before the end of the time

limit, Florida changed its service delivery by creating a case manager role.

Case managers are responsible for coordinating and brokering a

comprehensive set of services clients might need to become employed

before their time limit expires. The two Florida counties we visited chose

different approaches in assigning these responsibilities and faced different

implementation issues. Escambia County assigned case manager

responsibilities to its eligibility staff, whereas Alachua County created case

manager positions distinct from those of eligibility and JOBS staff.

Eligibility Staff Assume

Case Management

Responsibilities

Escambia County expanded the roles of its existing staff to include both

eligibility and case management responsibilities. As eligibility workers,

their responsibilities included determining eligibility for AFDC and

calculating benefit amounts. Now their role also includes case

management activities such as overseeing client activities and

coordinating support services.

Staff performing the combined role of eligibility worker and case manager

have experienced difficulties adjusting to their new roles. One Florida

administrator told us it has been difficult to get new case managers to use

their judgment and be creative, because as eligibility workers they focused

on following strict rules and procedures. Staff who before believed that

they had little discretion in their jobs experienced a difficult adjustment to

the new expectations that they would now make decisions that could

significantly influence clients’ lives. As a consequence, the program

experienced some staff turnover. To help them adjust to their expanded

role, Escambia County provides case management training. A local college

conducts an on-site program for case managers during their lunch hour

several days a week. In addition, the American Public Welfare Association

conducted a training course for case management supervisors.

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

Another difficulty staff experienced performing in this combined role was

trying to manage their workloads. Despite reductions in the number of

cases these staff worked with, determining eligibility under new program

rules was so time consuming they did not have enough time to perform

their new case management responsibilities, which included conducting

home visits, facilitating client staffing, and processing noncompliant cases

for review by a community panel. For example, their computer system was

not able to accommodate new income disregards, so staff had to calculate

benefit amounts by hand. The staff told us that, while they recognized the

importance of providing intensive case management services to clients

facing a time limit, eligibility determination took up most of their time. To

reduce the staffs’ stress level and workload, the county limited the number

of clients entering the reform program.

New Case Manager

Positions Created

In contrast to Escambia County, Alachua County maintained existing

eligibility determination and JOBS staff roles and added new case manager

positions. The county kept the case manager role separate, believing that

mandatory elements of eligibility would take too much time and not leave

enough time to provide important case management services to clients.

The new case manager positions generated some confusion about staff

roles. JOBS staff and case managers initially were not clear about their roles

and in some instances their responsibilities seemed to overlap.

Traditionally, JOBS staff were responsible for placing clients in education

and training programs and arranging support services clients needed, such

as mental health counseling and housing assistance. Now, case managers

are working intensively with clients to arrange these support services. JOBS

staff told us that while it was difficult to give up part of their traditional

role, this has allowed them to devote more time to other responsibilities,

such as monitoring clients’ program activities.

Collocated Case

Management Teams

Established to

Improve Services to

Clients

Collocation of staffs is a key component of welfare reform implementation

in Florida and Wisconsin. These states brought a variety of staffs together

at one location and formed case management teams to help quickly

provide a comprehensive set of services that clients might need to obtain

employment before they reach the end of their time limits. While both

counties in Florida experienced some logistical problems locating staffs at

a single office, staffs in both states reported that collocation enabled them

to better serve clients. Indiana has directed local welfare offices to take

advantage of opportunities for collocation as current leases expire.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

Variety of Services

Provided at a Single

Location

Florida’s pilot counties each brought together a variety of services at a

single location to provide efficient, one-stop shopping for clients. Alachua

County established a core team of staff who work most directly with

clients and a larger team whose members provide other support services

as needed. The core team, coordinated by a case manager, also includes an

eligibility worker who determines eligibility and benefit amounts and an

employment and training specialist who coordinates all education,

training, and employment activities. Core team members’ offices are

clustered together. They interact frequently, both informally and formally,

at regularly scheduled meetings to help ensure clients receive the

comprehensive set of services they need to become employed before their

time limits expire. Members of the larger team located on-site with the

core team include child support enforcement analysts, community health

nurses, and child care specialists. Escambia County, the other Florida

county we visited, provides additional support for its clients with mental

health and substance abuse counselors on-site.

Like Florida, Wisconsin also collocated staffs to create case management

teams. During the early planning stages of its demonstration, Pierce

County decided to collocate all staffs working with clients. Before the

collocation, case managers and eligibility staff were located in cities that

are about 15 miles apart. In addition to the case manager and eligibility

worker, other members of the case management team who are collocated

at the Pierce County Jobs Center include job employment and training

case managers, child welfare staff, and representatives from a local

technical college. Clients are commonly included at case management

team meetings when their cases are discussed. Social workers are also

assigned to case management teams to help meet the needs of more

difficult-to-place clients, such as those requiring counseling services. The

social workers assess barriers to these clients’ employment, provide

counseling services, and link them to the resources they need to become

employed.

Indiana has adopted a policy that local public assistance offices are to

collocate with workforce and job placement agencies, as well as other

social service agencies, as current leases expire. The policy is intended to

help facilitate a coordinated approach to job placement and

self-sufficiency attainment for clients.

Collocating Staffs Creates

Some Logistical Issues

The experiences of both Florida counties highlight the importance of

allowing adequate time for planning and implementation tasks so that all

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

components are in place when clients enter the program. Given the new

time limits on benefit receipt, delays caused by start-up problems can have

a significant impact on clients. Escambia County began enrolling clients 3

months after it was selected as a pilot county and experienced problems

with the short time frame because workers’ office space was not ready

when the program officially began—leases for office space had not been

signed and office equipment had not been obtained. In Alachua County,

the establishment of an on-site health clinic was delayed until the physical

space could be renovated and needed equipment installed. In addition,

collocating JOBS staff with eligibility staff in both counties required a

contract between two state departments that was not finalized until 5

months after the program began. As a result of the delay, some of the

employment and training services provided by JOBS staff were not in place

until about 10 months after the program began.

Collocated Teams

Reported Improved

Communication,

Teamwork, and Service

Delivery

Staffs on collocated case management teams in Florida and Wisconsin

reported better communication and teamwork and more efficient services

provided to clients. Staffs told us that the more frequent interaction

between team members yields quicker service for clients, better

knowledge of clients’ barriers, and a greater knowledge of services

available to assist clients. These staffs told us that collocation has made it

much easier to coordinate services for clients. Before collocation, clients

sometimes received different directions from JOBS and eligibility staff

about which activities they should perform. Now, periodic meetings are

held to discuss cases and coordinate services among team members.

Case management teams in Florida and Wisconsin told us that clients also

benefit from the collocated team approach because services are more

efficiently delivered. For example, before collocation, time was often lost

when clients were sent notices to go to several different locations for

appointments with service providers. With collocation, clients can meet

with several members of their management team on the same day and

sometimes at the same time to resolve issues quickly. Teams also told us

that clients are more likely to use certain services when they are available

at the welfare office. According to case managers in Alachua County,

having a mental health counselor on-site is beneficial because clients may

be willing to talk to a counselor but would not go to a mental health center

because of the stigma attached. Collocating a health clinic at the welfare

office made it easier for clients because transportation between different

locations is time consuming and not easily available to some clients.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

States Increased

Staffs’ Interaction

With Clients

Aware of the more serious consequence of clients “falling through the

cracks” under time-limited benefit receipt, the states we visited increased

the frequency of staffs’ contact with clients. For example, Fauquier

County, Virginia, redesigned its assessment process to quickly obtain more

detailed information about clients. At the start of the assessment process,

staff in Fauquier County visit clients in their homes. Staff believe that

home visits are an efficient way for them to get critical information that

they would not be able to get otherwise about the services clients need to

be able to work. For example, while it was not an objective of the home

visits, staff found some families in need of child protection services. The

home visits help staff assess a client’s job-readiness, current support

system, and the kind of community in which the client lives.

Before implementing its welfare reform program, Fond du Lac County,

Wisconsin, learned how critical it is to monitor and provide support to

clients once they enter a training program. After learning that a business in

town needed welders, the county contracted with a local high school to

provide a 3- to 4-week welding course for clients. However, county staff

underestimated the amount of monitoring needed and did not find out

soon enough that some clients did not show up for the course. Now, case

managers do a great deal more monitoring of clients. For example, case

managers receive daily attendance reports from the local technical college

and follow up with absent clients.

Concerned about former clients who may lose employment and cycle back

onto AFDC, some of the states we visited increased the services provided to

clients after they begin working. Florida established a Bootstrap training

program for clients who no longer qualify for cash assistance due to

employment. The program allows these clients to participate in JOBS

education and training activities to provide them the opportunity for job

advancement. Vigo County, Indiana, monitors clients 2 weeks after job

placement and then monthly for 6 months. At the request of the

community steering committee, staff in Fond du Lac County, Wisconsin,

formally follow up with clients and employers 90 days after employment

begins.

Establishing

Necessary Support

Services

In addition to increasing interactions with clients, states worked to

provide clients with the support services they needed to become

employed. Two issues the states frequently encountered as more clients

participated in program activities and became employed were the

increased demand for child care and transportation. States worked to

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

increase the availability of these services by using their own resources in

new ways and developing closer links to existing community resources.

States Use Program

Resources and Work With

Community Groups to

Meet Child Care Needs

As states expand their work requirements, more AFDC clients will have to

find child care to work or participate in program activities. Our prior work

has shown that in some states, the supply of certain kinds of child care is

limited, such as infant care, part-time care, and care during nonstandard

work hours.21 The states we reviewed worked to expand the availability of

different kinds of child care by using program resources and developing

closer links to community organizations.

In Culpepper County, Virginia, the need for infant care exceeded the

capacity of the only infant care center, and clients were being placed on a

waiting list. To address this shortage, the county is using state funds to

create a new infant care center. In Wisconsin, Pierce County is considering

developing a child care cooperative where clients can exchange child care

services with one another.

States are also reaching out to community groups to increase the supply of

child care for their clients. One of the biggest child care issues states faced

in implementing their reform programs was finding after-hours care for

clients working late shifts. The community steering committee in Fond du

Lac County, Wisconsin, worked with local day care providers to extend

their hours for parents working late shifts. States are also reaching out to

local churches to increase the supply of child care. For example, staff in

Marion County, Indiana, arranged for churches to pick clients’ children up

from school and provide after-school care. Virginia is working with

volunteers from churches and nonprofit organizations to wrap around

existing child day care operations and increase the hours of service

available.

States Develop Creative

Solutions to

Transportation Issues

The welfare reform programs in the states we reviewed also addressed the

issue of providing transportation for working clients. Finding

transportation was most difficult in rural areas where there was no public

transportation; however, urban areas also experienced transportation

difficulties. For example, in some urban areas, public transportation was

not available close to employers or was not available to clients working

late shifts.

21Welfare to Work: Child Care Assistance Limited; Welfare Reform May Expand Needs

(GAO/HEHS-95-220, Sept. 21, 1995).

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 5 

Service Delivery Redesigned to Provide

More Intensive Support for Clients

States developed creative solutions to these transportation issues. For

example, Virginia is using county and city school buses to transport clients

to community work experience sites. The state also allows welfare

agencies to purchase surplus state and county vehicles for clients to lease,

purchase, or use to travel to work. The welfare reform programs in

Virginia and Wisconsin will pay for some clients’ car repairs and provide

gas subsidies. In addition, some clients in Fond du Lac County are allowed

to provide transportation services to other clients as part of their work

experience activities.

Some states are also working with employers and their communities to

provide transportation for clients. For example, Marion County, Indiana,

worked with its public transportation system and local employers to get

bus stops near large employers’ offices and to have bus service available

for clients completing late shifts. In addition, Pierce County arranged for a

local bank to provide low-interest loans for clients to purchase cars.

Some counties have found community volunteers to provide

transportation for clients. Scott County, Indiana, worked with employers

on its community task force to develop a volunteer transportation

program. They handpicked volunteers, selecting retired persons they

considered reliable and good role models. These volunteers drive clients

to and from work and also serve as mentors to clients. Fond du Lac

County, Wisconsin, also established a community volunteer transportation

service. The service is managed by the County Volunteer Coordinator and

staffed by volunteer drivers using county vans or their own vehicles. Staff

request rides for clients needing transportation to and from appointments,

training, and work.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Chapter 6 

Concluding Observations and Comments

From HHS and States

Because the existing welfare system has not been successful in preventing

long-term dependency, some states are making profound changes to the

structure and operation of their welfare systems. Much can be learned

from the experiences of the states we reviewed. To implement time limits

and work requirements, these states fundamentally changed the way they

do business. They focused their efforts on changing staffs’ culture and

clients’ expectations, seeking greater involvement from their communities,

and redesigning their service delivery structures. To date, however, most

of their changes have been implemented on a relatively small scale, within

a few counties or small metropolitan areas. Thus, it is uncertain what

additional implementation and operational issues these and other states

could encounter as they move to implement welfare reform statewide or in

larger metropolitan areas. For example, obtaining a sufficient number of

jobs for clients or developing new sources of child care could prove to be

more challenging for welfare reforms implemented on a larger scale.

It is too early to determine what effect the welfare reforms in the states we

reviewed might have on moving people into employment and off welfare.

State and local officials point to preliminary data that suggest that their

program changes may be making a difference in the size of their caseloads.

For example, over a 14-month period, the two Wisconsin pilot counties’

combined caseloads decreased by over 40 percent since beginning the

Work Not Welfare program. Between January 1, 1995, and December 31,

1995, Indiana experienced a 22-percent decrease in its statewide AFDC

caseload, which state officials attribute to the implementation of Indiana’s

Work First philosophy. However, it is unclear whether these declines are

directly attributable to the programs or to other factors, such as a strong

economy, low unemployment rates, or in the case of Wisconsin, other

welfare changes within the state. Because the programs in the states we

reviewed are relatively new, no formal evaluations examining the effect of

the reforms have been completed to date. At the time of our review, none

of the programs had been operating long enough for recipients to reach

the time limits.

Comments From HHS

and States

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from HHS and the five

states whose welfare reform programs are reviewed in the report. HHS and

the states generally agreed with the report’s findings but indicated various

places in the report where they believed additional information would be

useful. We incorporated their comments in the report as appropriate.

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Page 51 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Appendix I 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts David P. Bixler, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7201

Andrew Sherrill, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7252

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following persons also made

important contributions to this report: Margaret Boeckmann, Senior Social

Science Analyst; Karen Brown, Evaluator; Deborah A. Moberly, Evaluator;

and Tara Watson, Intern.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Bibliography

Beebout, Harold, and others. The Number and Characteristics of AFDC

Recipients Who Will Be Affected by Policies to Time-Limit AFDC Benefits.

Paper presented at the Annual Research Conference of the Association for

Public Policy and Management, Chicago, Oct. 29, 1994.

Bloom, Dan. The Family Transition Program: An Early Implementation

Report on Florida’s Time-Limited Welfare Initiative. New York: Manpower

Demonstration Research Corporation, Aug. 1995.

Bloom, Dan, and David Butler. Implementing Time-Limited Welfare: Early

Experiences in Three States. New York: Manpower Demonstration

Research Corporation, Nov. 1995.

Camasso, Michael, and others. “New Jersey’s Evaluation,” in Addressing

Illegitimacy: Welfare Reform Options for Congress. A conference held in

Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11, 1995, by the American Enterprise Institute

for Public Policy Research.

Division of Economic Support, Wisconsin Department of Health and

Social Services. Work Not Welfare: Progress Report, January-August 1995.

Madison, Wis.: Dec. 1995.

Myers, Rudolf. “New Jersey’s ‘Family Cap,’” in Addressing Illegitimacy:

Welfare Reform Options for Congress. A conference held in Washington,

D.C., on Sept. 11, 1995, by the American Enterprise Institute for Public

Policy Research.

Pavetti, LaDonna A., and Amy-Ellen Duke. Learning from Ongoing Welfare

Reform Demonstration Projects: Lessons From Five State Initiatives.

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, Aug. 1995.

Rossi, Peter. “What the New Jersey Results Mean and Do Not Mean,” in

Addressing Illegitimacy: Welfare Reform Options for Congress. A

conference held in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 11, 1995, by the American

Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

Sawhill, Isabel V., ed. Welfare Reform: An Analysis of the Issues.

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, June 1995.

U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training

Programs Not Emphasizing Job Placement (GAO/HEHS-95-113). Washington,

D.C.: May 19, 1995.

Page 53 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Bibliography

_____. Welfare to Work: Child Care Assistance Limited; Welfare Reform

May Expand Needs (GAO/HEHS-95-220). Washington, D.C.: Sept. 21, 1995.

_____. Welfare to Work: Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently Focused

on Employment (GAO/HEHS-95-28). Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 1994.

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Bibliography

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Related GAO Products

Welfare to Work: Approaches That Help Teenage Mothers Complete High

School (GAO/HEHS/PEMD-95-202, Sept. 29, 1995).

Welfare to Work: State Programs Have Tested Some of the Proposed

Reforms (GAO/PEMD-95-26, July 14, 1995).

Welfare to Work: Participants’ Characteristics and Services Provided in

JOBS (GAO/HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995).

Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants (GAO/HEHS-95-86,

Apr. 17, 1995).

Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That Low-Income

Mothers Will Work (GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994).

Child Care: Current System Could Undermine Goals of Welfare Reform

(GAO/T-HEHS-94-238, Sept. 20, 1994).

Welfare to Work: JOBS Automated Systems Do Not Focus on Program’s

Employment Objective (GAO/AIMD-94-44, June 8, 1994).

Families on Welfare: Sharp Rise in Never-Married Women Reflects Societal

Trend (GAO/HEHS-94-92, May 31, 1994).

Families on Welfare: Teenage Mothers Least Likely to Become

Self-Sufficient (GAO/HEHS-94-115, May 31, 1994).

Families on Welfare: Focus on Teenage Mothers Could Enhance Welfare

Reform Efforts (GAO/HEHS-94-112, May 31, 1994).

Child Care: Working Poor and Welfare Recipients Face Service Gaps

(GAO/HEHS-94-87, May 13, 1994).

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed

(GAO/HEHS-94-109, Mar. 3, 1994).

(106603) Page 56 GAO/HEHS-96-105 Implementation of Welfare Waivers
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100