But another reason may have been the greater political legitimacy accorded to welfare programs because family heads who are working are seen as more deserving of support. Federal agencies have given states flexibility in using their welfare block grant funds. Rules are loose, permitting states to assist the heads of working families without making their families subject to federal time limits. And Washington has not rigorously audited state spending. While all states share the focus on work first and the activist approach to reforming their human service systems, many variations exist in tone, structure, spending, and operations.
States differ, for example, in their operational goals.
Some try to meet TANF's performance requirements by engaging a large and growing share of their cash assistance caseloads in work activities. Others reduce caseloads, either by moving beneficiaries into jobs or providing them with alternatives to continuing cash assistance. States differ even more in how they try to achieve these goals. Minnesota, Michigan, and Kansas, for example, all emphasize work engagement rather than caseload reduction, but each pursues a different approach. Minnesota emphasizes financial incentives to work.