Now more than ever, the path to self-sufficiency for most welfare recipients involves finding and keeping a job. The recently enacted welfare law, the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, emphasizes the need for individuals to take personal responsibility in their move toward self-sufficiency. The law underscores the importance of work and requires most able-bodied individuals to find some type of work within two years after they start collecting welfare. For welfare recipients, the time limits that the new law imposes significantly raise the stakes of not being employed. As the new law is implemented, more individuals who are less job ready will be entering the labor market. Many of these individuals, unused to the world of work, will be in danger of losing their jobs. While time limits may motivate some to hold onto their jobs, many are likely to face situations that make it hard for them to do so. Although welfare recipients must try to deal with these challenges, external assistance and support can help them overcome some of these barriers. States and other local agencies may be able to provide support that makes individuals’ transition from welfare to work smoother and more successful. (author abstract)

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 brought about sweeping changes in the funding structure for the nation’s cash assistance program. Among these changes was the transformation of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, rooted in an effort to shift power from the federal government to states. To encourage autonomy and innovation, a mandate was included in the federal welfare reform legislation to provide TANF block grant funds to the states, allowing greater program flexibility in spending and other decisions. Now, more than a decade after the passage of the landmark legislation, little is known about how a noteworthy portion—roughly 15 percent—of these TANF funds is used. The purpose of this study, conducted by Mathematica Policy Research on behalf of the Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families (ACF), is to understand how states are spending federal TANF funds reported as “Other” and “Authorized Under Prior Law” (AUPL) on the ACF-196 federal reporting form and, based on findings and feedback from states, to provide recommendations for improving federal reporting. Based on the definitions in the instructions for completing the ACF-196 form, we chose to focus on three categories: 1. Assistance AUPL. These expenditures were previously authorized under AFDC and cover expenses for services such as juvenile justice or state foster care. 2. Nonassistance AUPL. These expenditures were previously authorized under AFDC but do not fulfill the purposes of TANF and do not meet the federal definition of assistance. 3. Nonassistance “other” (line 6). These expenditures do not meet the definition of assistance and do not fit into any of the 13 prescribed categories under line 6. “Other” expenditures must fulfill at least one of the four purposes of TANF (provide assistance for needy families; promote job preparation, work, and marriage; prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families).(author abstract)

This report presents implementation and two-year effectiveness results for the Reach for Success (RFS) program, operated by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Social Services (DPSS). RFS offered individualized and flexible case management services to recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash assistance benefits –– primarily, single mothers who were working at least 32 hours per week but earned too little to leave assistance. DPSS administrators designed RFS with the goal of helping individuals retain their employment and secure better jobs, and it sought to meet this goal by increasing the availability and improving the quality of case management services, relative to services offered as part of the agency’s existing post-employment services (PES) program. Participation in services in either program was voluntary. RFS operated from March 2002 to June 2005 in three regions in the county. RFS is one of 16 innovative models across the country being evaluated as part of the Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) project under contract to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with additional funding from the U.S. Department of Labor. The evaluation of RFS uses a random assignment research design, whereby eligible individuals were assigned, through a lottery-like process, to one of two groups. Those assigned to the RFS group were actively recruited to participate in services and were offered personalized case management. Those assigned to the control group were eligible to request, on their own initiative, services from the county’s existing post-employment program. The report’s findings thus indicate whether Los Angeles’s new RFS program was more effective than its existing approach to providing post-employment services. (author abstract)

The dramatic decline in welfare caseloads in the 1990s suggested that welfare reform was achieving one of its major goals: reducing dependency. It also raised questions among policymakers, program administrators, advocates, and the public as to whether the characteristics of the caseload were changing, whether families that left welfare were better off than when they were on welfare, and whether former recipients were making progress in the labor market. The purpose of this report is to summarize what we know about these issues for current TANF recipients and former recipients (“leavers”)1 from existing literature and to update our knowledge with new analysis using more recent data. The key questions addressed in the report are: 1.) How do the characteristics of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) caseload compare with the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)/TANF caseload characteristics 5 and 10 years ago?2 In particular, is the caseload more or less disadvantaged than in the past, especially with respect to their employability? 2.) What are the characteristics and outcomes for families that recently left the TANF rolls compared with families on TANF, and compared with families that left the TANF rolls 5 and 10 years ago? Have TANF leavers become more or less disadvantaged? Are families better off after leaving TANF than when they were on the welfare rolls? (author abstract)

Considerable interest exists among state and local welfare departments, workforce investment agencies, community colleges, and other nonprofit community-based service providers to find ways to promote job retention and advancement among employed welfare recipients and other low-wage working families. Little is known, however, about what services are effective. The Employment Retention and Advancement (ERA) evaluation, designed to provide more information about what works in this area, is the largest and most comprehensive study of its kind. Conceived and sponsored by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the evaluation is being conducted under contract by MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan social policy research organization. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has provided additional funding for the project. As of December 2002, a total of 15 ERA programs are being tested in 8 states. This report describes the initial experiences of those programs, focusing on implementation issues and institutional connections. (author abstract)

Phased in during a time of strong economic expansion, welfare reform and the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program have been associated P with an unprecedented drop in the welfare rolls and commensurate increases in employment. While the nation’s rural areas have shared in the benefits of economic prosperity and welfare reform, poverty continues to be more prevalent and persistent in rural areas than in nonrural ones. The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is funding the Rural Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Strategies Demonstration Evaluation to learn how best to help TANF and other low-income rural families move from welfare to work. Under contract to ACF, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR), along with Decision Information Resources, Inc. (DIR), is conducting the evaluation. Economic and geographic conditions in rural areas make it especially difficult for welfare recipients and other low-income families to enter, maintain, and advance in employment and secure longer-term family well-being. Unemployment and underemployment rates are higher, and average earnings are lower, in rural labor markets than in urban ones. The lower population densities and greater geographic dispersion that characterize most rural areas result in severe transportation problems and limited employment options. Key services, such as education, training, child care, and other support services, are often unavailable or difficult to access. Many evaluations have focused on rural populations and employment strategies, but few, if any, have been rigorous. The Rural WtW Evaluation will lead to increased information on well-conceived rural WtW programs. Distinctive, innovative programs in three states—Illinois, Nebraska, and Tennessee—were selected as evaluation sites. A rigorous evaluation of each will greatly contribute to knowledge about what rural strategies work best for different groups of welfare recipients and other low-income families. It also will highlight lessons about the operational challenges associated with these programs, provide recommendations for improving them, and guide future WtW programs and policies related to the rural poor. (author abstract)

The enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act in 1996 signaled a dramatic shift in the nation’s approach to providing assistance to those among the country’s neediest populations. The concept of welfare in the United States shifted from cash assistance to economic self-sufficiency. Rural welfare populations possess unique characteristics and face unique circumstances that will affect their ability to achieve the requirements and intent of welfare reform. To build knowledge and research about effective approaches in working with rural populations, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) awarded planning grants to ten states to help develop and study strategies to move rural families from welfare to work. Although there are extensive bodies of literature both on rural matters and on welfare-related matters, there is relatively little information about rural welfare issues. This report synthesizes available knowledge and, where appropriate, draws inferences from studies about the ways that welfare reform is likely to affect rural welfare to work strategies. (author abstract)

This report is the second in an evaluation of MFIP that the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) is conducting under contract with Minnesota’s Department of Human Services (DHS) and with support from the Ford Foundation, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the McKnight Foundation, and the Northwest Area Foundation. The report examines the implementation of MFIP and its effects on welfare recipients’ employment, earnings, welfare receipt, and total income during their first 18 months in the study. (author abstract)

The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) funded a study to determine how local management of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs has adapted practices to address changing needs and improve program results. To understand these local adaptations, the research team—which included staff from the Lewin Group and the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government—visited five local TANF offices to interview staff and collect data. The sites selected were among locations where field research was conducted several years ago in order to gauge changes since the early years of TANF implementation. The five sites were in Phoenix, Arizona; Macon, Georgia; Kansas City, Missouri; Newark, New Jersey; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Site visits were conducted between February and July 2006. This report presents major findings from the site visits. Several cross-cutting findings emerged from the study: (author abstract)