This document provides information by state on the timing of major changes to welfare policies under both the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program (through statewide waivers implemented 1992 – 1996) and the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program (implemented 1996 to 1998).
The information is presented in nine tables. Tables A and B provide summary information on the dates of approval and implementation for major AFDC waivers and the TANF program in each state. More detailed information concerning five types of AFDC waivers is provided in Tables W-1 through W-5. Specifically, the tables provide state-by-state information on approval and implementation dates for the following types of policy changes:
- Table A. First major AFDC waiver and TANF implementation [Printer oriented, PDF version];
- Table B. Overview of six types of major AFDC waiver policies [Printer oriented, PDF version];
- Table W-1. Termination/reduction time limits [Printer oriented, PDF version];
- Table W-2. Changes to work exemptions [Printer oriented, PDF version];
- Table W-2a. Comparison of AFDC and TANF work exemptions policies;
- Table W-3. AFDC and TANF sanctions [Printer oriented, PDF version];
- Table W-3a. Comparison of AFDC and TANF sanction policies;
- Table W-4. Increases in earnings disregards [Printer oriented, PDF version]; and
- Table W-5. Family caps [Printer oriented, PDF version]
Note that in many cases, waivers were implemented in limited geographic areas, and later expanded to encompass more of a state. In these cases, we did our best to identify the dates at which the waivers were implemented statewide, or at least covered the majority of the state. These choices are explained in the footnotes to each table.
The information in these tables was used to model AFDC waivers and TANF policies in the econometric caseload models studied in the 1999 Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) report on The Effects of Welfare Policy and the Economic Expansion on Welfare Caseloads: An Update. As explained in the CEA's technical report, one version of the model had only two policy variables (First AFDC waiver and TANF implementation, as shown in Table A), while the other version attempted to estimate the separate effects of six major policies (as shown in Table B). The 1999 CEA model used date of implementation for the waiver variables. Somewhat smaller effects are estimated when the date of approval is used (as was done in the earlier, 1997, CEA study).
In addition to the information on policy changes, the document contains 51 state figures that depict trends in welfare recipiency rates over the past two decades, showing how such rates have been affected by state unemployment rates and the major policy changes shown in Table A. States [All figures are in PDF format]:
- Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware
- DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa
- Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota
- Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico
- New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island
- South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington
- West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming
For further information about the data in these tables and figures, contact Gil Crouse at gilbert.crouse @ hhs.gov
"Table A. First major AFDC waiver and TANF implementation
Table A
Approval and Implementation Dates of Major AFDC Waivers and TANF, 1992 – 1998
| Earliest Major Waiver | TANF Implemented | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Approved | Implemented | Official | Actual |
| Alabama | 11-15-96 | |||
| Alaska | 7-1-97 | |||
| Arizona | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | 10-1-96 | |
| Arkansas | 4-5-94 | 7-1-94 | 7-1-97 | |
| California | 10-29-92 | 12-1-92 | 11-26-96 | 1-1-98 |
| Colorado | 7-1-97 | |||
| Connecticut | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 | 10-1-96 | |
| Delaware | 5-8-95 | 10-1-95 | 3-10-97 | |
| Dist. of Columbia | 3-1-97 | |||
| Florida | 6-26-96 | --(1) | 10-1-96 | |
| Georgia | 11-1-93 | 1-1-94 | 1-1-97 | |
| Hawaii | 6-24-94 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | |
| Idaho | 8-19-96 | 7-1-97 | ||
| Illinois | 11-23-93 | 11-23-93 | 7-1-97 | |
| Indiana | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 | 10-1-96 | |
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 1-1-97 | |
| Kansas | 8-19-96 | 10-1-96 | ||
| Kentucky | 10-18-96 | |||
| Louisiana | 2-5-96 | 1-1-97 | ||
| Maine | 6-10-96 | 11-1-96 | ||
| Maryland | 8-14-95 | 3-1-96 | 12-9-96 | |
| Massachusetts | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 9-30-96 | |
| Michigan | 8-25-92 | 10-1-92 | 9-30-96 | |
| Minnesota | --(2) | 7-1-97 | ||
| Mississippi | 9-1-95 | 10-1-95 | 10-1-96 | 7-1-97 |
| Missouri | 4-18-95 | 6-1-95 | 12-1-96 | |
| Montana | 4-18-95 | 2-1-96 | 2-1-97 | |
| Nebraska | 2-27-95 | 10-1-95 | 12-1-96 | |
| Nevada | 12-3-96 | |||
| New Hampshire | 6-18-96 | 10-1-96 | ||
| New Jersey | 7-20-92 | 10-1-92 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 |
| New Mexico | 7-1-97 | |||
| New York | 12-2-96 | 11-1-97 | ||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 1-1-97 | |
| North Dakota | --(3) | 7-1-97 | ||
| Ohio | 3-13-96 | 7-1-96 | 10-1-96 | |
| Oklahoma | 10-1-96 | |||
| Oregon | 7-15-92 | 2-1-93 | 10-1-96 | |
| Pennsylvania | 3-3-97 | |||
| Rhode Island | 5-1-97 | |||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | 10-12-96 | ||
| South Dakota | 3-14-94 | 6-1-94 | 12-1-96 | |
| Tennessee | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 | 10-1-96 | |
| Texas | 3-22-96 | 6-1-96 | 11-5-96 | |
| Utah | 10-5-92 | 1-1-93 | 10-1-96 | |
| Vermont | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | 9-20-96 | |
| Virginia | 7-1-95 | 7-1-95 | 2-1-97 | |
| Washington | 9-29-95 | 1-1-96 | 1-10-97 | |
| West Virginia | 7-31-95 | 2-1-96 | 1-11-97 | |
| Wisconsin | 6-24-94 | 1-1-96 | 9-30-96 | 9-1-97 |
| Wyoming | 1-1-97 | |||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary. The "actual" dates for TANF implementation are based on communications from Urban Institute staff.
Source: Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||
1. Florida began to implement its "Family Transition Project" in two counties in February 1994; non-exempt applicants or recipients limited to 36 months of benefits in a 72 month period or 24 months of benefits in a 60 month period depending on education and work history. The state began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $200 plus one-half the remainder in eight counties beginning in February 1994.
2. Minnesota began to implement its "Minnesota Family Investment Program" in seven counties in April 1994; this program included consolidating AFDC and Food Stamp payments and increasing the earned income disregard to 38 percent.
3. North Dakota's work sanction policy was initially implemented in 11 counties beginning in July 1996. The state began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in ten counties beginning in October 1996.
Table B. Overview of six types of major AFDC waiver policies
Table B
Approval and Implementation Dates of Major AFDC Waiver Policies, 1992 – 1996
| Termination/Reduction Time Limit |
Changes in JOBS Work Exemptions | JOBS Sanctions | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Approved | Implemented | Approved | Implemented | Approved | Implemented |
| Alabama | ||||||
| Alaska | ||||||
| Arizona (1) | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | -- | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | |
| Arkansas | ||||||
| California | ||||||
| Colorado | ||||||
| Connecticut | 12-18-95 | 1-1-96 | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 |
| Delaware (2) | 5-8-95 | -- | 5-8-95 | -- | 5-8-95 | -- |
| DC | ||||||
| Florida (3) | -- | 6-26-96 | ||||
| Georgia | 11-1-93 | 1-1-94 | ||||
| Hawaii | 8-16-96 | 2-1-97 | 6-24-94 | 2-1-97 | ||
| Idaho | 8-19-96 | 8-19-96 | ||||
| Illinois (4) | -- | 2-1-96 | 9-30-95 | 9-30-95 | 10-1-95 | |
| Indiana (5) | 12-15-94 | -- | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 |
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 |
| Kansas | ||||||
| Kentucky | ||||||
| Louisiana | ||||||
| Maine | 6-10-96 | |||||
| Maryland | 8-16-96 | 10-1-96 | 8-16-96 | 10-1-96 | ||
| Massachusett | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | ||
| Michigan | 10-6-94 | 10-6-94 | 10-6-94 | 10-6-94 | ||
| Minnesota | ||||||
| Mississippi | ||||||
| Missouri | 4-18-95 | 6-1-95 | ||||
| Montana (6) | 4-18-95 | -- | 4-18-95 | -- | ||
| Nebraska (7) | 2-27-95 | -- | 2-27-95 | -- | 2-27-95 | -- |
| Nevada | ||||||
| New Hampshire | 6-18-96 | 6-18-96 | ||||
| New Jersey | 7-1-92 | 10-1-92 | 7-1-92 | 10-1-92 | ||
| New Mexico | ||||||
| New York | ||||||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 |
| North Dakota (8) | -- | |||||
| Ohio | 3-13-96 | 3-13-96 | 7-1-96 | |||
| Oklahoma | ||||||
| Oregon (9) | 3-28-96 | 7-1-96 | 7-15-92 | 2-1-93 | 3-28-96 | 7-1-96 |
| Pennsylvania | ||||||
| Rhode Island | ||||||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | 5-3-96 | 5-3-96 | |||
| South Dakota | 3-14-94 | 6-1-94 | ||||
| Tennessee (10) | 7-25-96 | -- | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 |
| Texas (11) | 3-22-96 | -- | 3-22-96 | 6-1-96 | 3-22-96 | 6-1-96 |
| Utah (12) | 10-5-92 | 1-1-93 | 10-5-92 | 7-1-96 | ||
| Vermont | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | ||
| Virginia (13) | 7-1-95 | -- | 7-1-95 | -- | 7-1-95 | -- |
| Washington (14) | 9-29-95 | 1-1-96 | -- | |||
| West Virginia | 7-31-95 | 2-1-96 | ||||
| Wisconsin | 8-14-95 | 1-1-96 | 8-14-95 | 1-1-96 | ||
| Wyoming | ||||||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||
Table B (continued)
Approval and Implementation Dates of Major AFDC Waiver Policies, 1992 – 1996
| Increased Earnings Disregard | Family Cap | Work Requirement Time Limit | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Approved | Implemented | Approved | Implemented | Approved | Implemented |
| Alabama | ||||||
| Alaska | ||||||
| Arizona | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | ||||
| Arkansas | 4-5-94 | 7-1-94 | ||||
| California (15) | 10-29-92 | 12-1-92 | 8-19-96 | 9-1-97 | 9-11-95 | 9-11-95 |
| Colorado (16) | -- | |||||
| Connecticut | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 | 12-18-95 | 1-1-96 | ||
| Delaware (2) | 5-8-95 | 10-1-95 | 5-8-95 | -- | 5-8-95 | 10-1-95 |
| DC | ||||||
| Florida (3) | -- | 6-26-96 | ||||
| Georgia | 6-24-94 | 11-1-93 | 1-1-94 | |||
| Hawaii | 8-16-96 | 2-1-97 | ||||
| Idaho | ||||||
| Illinois | 11-23-93 | 11-23-93 | 9-30-95 | 12-1-95 | ||
| Indiana | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 | ||||
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | ||||
| Kansas | ||||||
| Kentucky | ||||||
| Louisiana | ||||||
| Maine | ||||||
| Maryland | 8-16-96 | 10-1-96 | 8-14-95 | 3-1-96 | ||
| Massachusetts | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 |
| Michigan | 8-1-92 | 10-1-92 | 8-1-92 | |||
| Minnesota (17) | -- | |||||
| Mississippi (18) | -- | 9-1-95 | 10-1-95 | |||
| Missouri (19) | -- | 4-18-95 | ||||
| Montana (6) | 4-18-95 | -- | 4-18-95 | 2-1-96 | ||
| Nebraska (7) | 2-27-95 | 2-27-95 | 11-1-96 | |||
| Nevada | ||||||
| New Hampshire | 6-18-96 | 6-18-96 | ||||
| New Jersey | 7-1-92 | 7-1-92 | 10-1-92 | |||
| New Mexico | ||||||
| New York | ||||||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | ||||
| North Dakota (8) | -- | |||||
| Ohio | 3-13-96 | 7-1-96 | ||||
| Oklahoma | ||||||
| Oregon | ||||||
| Pennsylvania | ||||||
| Rhode Island | ||||||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | |||||
| South Dakota | 3-14-94 | 6-1-94 | ||||
| Tennessee (10) | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 | 7-25-96 | -- | ||
| Texas | ||||||
| Utah (12) | 10-5-92 | -- | ||||
| Vermont | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | ||
| Virginia (13) | 7-1-95 | -- | 7-1-95 | 7-1-95 | 7-1-95 | 7-1-95 |
| Washington | ||||||
| West Virginia | ||||||
| Wisconsin (20) | -- | 6-24-94 | 1-1-96 | 9-30-96 | 9-30-96 | |
| Wyoming | ||||||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||
1. Arizona begin to phase in its JOBS exemptions change beginning November 1995.
2. Delaware began implementation of its termination time limit, JOBS exemptions, JOBS sanctions, family cap policies with a small number of cases in October 1995; these became universal in March 1997.
3. Florida began to implement its "Family Transition Project" in two counties in February 1994; non-exempt applicants or recipients limited to 36 months of benefits in a 72 month period or 24 months of benefits in a 60 month period depending on education and work history. The state began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $200 plus one-half the remainder in eight counties beginning in February 1994.
4. Illinois' termination time limit policy, approved September 30, 1995, was not included in the set of waivers presented in the original 1997 CEA analysis due to its limited scope. The time lime applies only to cases where the youngest child is at least 13 years of age and only those months without any earnings counted towards the time limit.
5. Indiana began implementation of its 24-month time limit policy for "job-ready" non-exempt cases in May 1995; beginning June 1997 the 24-month time limit was expanded to all non-exempt cases.
6. Montana's JOBS work exemptions policy for adults caring for a young child, its JOBS sanctions policy, and its Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $200 plus 25 percent for recipients in unsubsized jobs ($100 for recipients in Community Service Program) began in eight counties in February 1996 and was phased in statewide by February 1997.
7. Nebraska began to implement its "Welfare Reform Demonstration Project" in eight counties in October 1995 which included a time limit of 24 months of benefits in a 48 month period, a full-family sanction, and reduced JOBS exemptions. Nebraska began to implement its family cap in five counties in October 1995 and expanded it statewide within a year.
8. North Dakota's work sanction policy was initially implemented in 11 counties beginning in July 1996. The state began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in ten counties beginning in October 1996.
9. Oregon's JOBS sanctions policy was approved July 15, 1992 for statewide application (except for 8 local areas); the state began implementation in February 1993 in part of the state. Under a later waiver, a revised policy was implemented statewide in July 1995.
10. Tennessee's time limit was phased in over a six month period beginning October 1996. The state's family cap was phased in over a six month period beginning September 1996.
11. Texas' 12, 24, or 36 month time limit began in one county in June 1996 and was expanded to the entire state by September 1997. The federal 60 month time limit was imposed beginning November 1996.
12. Utah's JOBS work exemptions policy for adults caring for a young child began in seven counties in January 1993. Included was the implementation of a $100 benefit reduction sanction. In November 1995 , this was replaced by a full-family sanction, which was expanded statewide by July 1996. The state also implemented an Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $100 and 45 percent in seven counties in January 1993 and later expanded statewide.
13. Virginia's time limit, JOBS exemptions change, JOBS sanctions, and Increased Earnings Disregards policies (100 percent up to the federal poverty guideline income level, current recipients only) began in five counties in July 1995 and were expanded to the entire state by October 1997.
14. In the set of waivers listed in the original 1997 CEA analysis, the state of Washington was listed as having had a JOBS sanctions waiver approved September 29, 1995. Subsequent review of the nature of this waiver resulted in its being classified as a termination time limit waiver.
15. California had a waiver approved July 1992 that would have limited AFDC payments based on the size of the family at the time they began receiving public assistance but this waiver was not implemented.
16. Colorado began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in five counties beginning in June 1994.
17. Minnesota began to implement its "Minnesota Family Investment Program" in seven counties in April 1994; this program included consolidating AFDC and Food Stamp payments and increasing the earned income disregard to 38 percent.
18. Mississippi began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in two counties beginning in October 1995.
19. Missouri received approval January 15, 1993 for and began implementing the $30 plus one-third income disregard for up to 48 months in Kansas City beginning in July 1994.
20. Wisconsin's Increased Earnings Disregard policy of the first $200 plus one-half the remainder for new applicants under age 20, approved April 10, 1992 , began to be implemented in July 1994. Beginning in January 1995 in two counties, Wisconsin implemented an Increased Earnings Disregard policy for all those under its "Work Not Welfare."
Table W-1. Termination/reduction time limits
Table W-1
Approval and Implementation Dates of Termination/Reduction Time Limits, 1992 – 1998
| AFDC | TANF | TANF Policy | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Termination/Reduction Time Limit | Implementation | Time Limit | Benefit Reduction | Benefit Termination | |||
| State | Approved | Implemented | Official | Actual | |||
| Alabama | 11-15-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Alaska | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Arizona | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | 10-1-96 | 24 out of 60 | 24 | 60 | |
| Arkansas | 7-1-97 | 24 months | - | termination | |||
| California | 11-26-96 | 1-1-98 | 60 months | reduction | - | ||
| Colorado | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Connecticut | 12-18-95 | 1-1-96 | 10-1-96 | 21 months | - | termination | |
| Delaware | 5-8-95 | -- (1) | 3-10-97 | 48 months | - | termination | |
| DC | 3-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Florida | -- (2) | 10-1-96 | 24 out of 60 | - | termination | ||
| Georgia | 1-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Hawaii | 8-16-96 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |
| Idaho | 7-1-97 | 24 months | - | termination | |||
| Illinois | -- (3) | 2-1-96 | 7-1-97 | 24/24off/60 | - | termination | |
| Indiana | 12-15-94 | -- (4) | 10-1-96 | 60 months | 24 | 6 | |
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 1-1-97 | individualized | - | termination | |
| Kansas | 10-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Kentucky | 10-18-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Louisiana | 1-1-97 | 24 out of 60 | - | termination | |||
| Maine | 11-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Maryland | 12-9-96 | 60 months | reduction | - | |||
| Massachusetts | 9-30-96 | 24 out of 60 | - | termination | |||
| Michigan | 9-30-96 | none | - | - | |||
| Minnesota | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Mississippi | 10-1-96 | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | ||
| Missouri | 12-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Montana | 2-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Nebraska | 2-27-95 | -- (5) | 12-1-96 | 24 out of 48 | - | termination | |
| Nevada | 12-3-96 | 24/12off/60 | - | termination | |||
| New Hampshire | 10-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| New Jersey | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | ||
| New Mexico | 7-1-97 | 36 months | - | termination | |||
| New York | 12-2-96 | 11-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | ||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 1-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |
| North Dakota | 7-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Ohio | 3-13-96 | 10-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | ||
| Oklahoma | 10-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Oregon | 3-28-96 | 7-1-96 | 10-1-96 | 24 out of 84 | - | termination | |
| Pennsylvania | 3-3-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Rhode Island | 5-1-97 | 60 months | reduction | - | |||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | 10-12-96 | 24/120/60 | - | termination | ||
| South Dakota | 12-1-96 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Tennessee | 7-25-96 | -- (6) | 10-1-96 | 18/3off/60 | - | termination | |
| Texas | 3-22-96 | -- (7) | 11-5-96 | 60 months | 12/24/36 | termination | |
| Utah | 10-1-96 | 36 months | - | termination | |||
| Vermont | 9-20-96 | none | - | - | |||
| Virginia | 7-1-95 | -- (8) | 2-1-97 | 24/2-3yrs. | - | termination | |
| Washington | 9-29-95 | 1-1-96 | 1-10-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |
| West Virginia | 1-11-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Wisconsin | 9-30-96 | 9-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | ||
| Wyoming | 1-1-97 | 60 months | - | termination | |||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary. The "actual" dates for TANF implementation are based on communications from Urban Institute staff.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
|||||||
1. Delaware began implementation of its termination time limit, JOBS exemptions, and JOBS sanctions policy with a small number of cases in October 1995; these became universal in March 1997.
2. Florida began to implement its "Family Transition Project" in two counties in February 1994; non-exempt applicants or recipients limited to 36 months of benefits in a 72 month period or 24 months of benefits in a 60 month period depending on education and work history.
3. Illinois' termination time limit policy, approved September 30, 1995, was not included in the set of waivers presented in the original 1997 CEA analysis due to its limited scope. The time lime applies only to cases where the youngest child is at least 13 years of age and only those months without any earnings counted towards the time limit.
4. Indiana began implementation of its 24-month time limit policy for "job-ready" non-exempt cases in July 1995; beginning May 1997 the 24-month time limit was expanded to all non-exempt cases.
5. Nebraska began to implement its "Welfare Reform Demonstration Project" in eight counties in October 1995 which included a time limit of 24 months of benefits in a 48 month period.
6. Tennessee's time limit was phased in over a six month period beginning October 1996.
7. Texas' 12, 24, or 36 month time limit began in one county in June 1996 and was expanded to the entire state by September 1997. The federal 60 month time limit was imposed beginning November 1996.
8. Virginia's termination time limit began in five counties in July 1995 and was expanded to the entire state by October 1997.
Table W-2. Changes to work exemptions & Table W-2a. Comparison of AFDC and TANF work exemptions policies
Table W-2
Approval and Implementation Dates of Work Exemptions Policy Changes, 1992 – 1998
| JOBS Exemptions Change | TANF Implementation | TANF Policy | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Approved | Implemented | Official | Actual | Exempt While under Age: | Limited to 12 Total Months |
| Alabama | 11-15-96 | 1 year | - | |||
| Alaska | 7-1-97 | 1 year | X | |||
| Arizona | -- (1) | 10-1-96 | 1 year | X | ||
| Arkansas | 7-1-97 | 3 months | X | |||
| California | 11-26-96 | 1-1-98 | 6 months (7) | - | ||
| Colorado | 7-1-97 | county option | - | |||
| Connecticut | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 | 10-1-96 | 1 year (8) | - | |
| Delaware | 5-8-95 | -- (2) | 3-10-97 | 13 weeks | - | |
| Dist. of Columbia | 3-1-97 | 1 year | X | |||
| Florida | 6-26-96 | 10-1-96 | 3 months | - | ||
| Georgia | 1-1-97 | No exemption | - | |||
| Hawaii | 6-24-94 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | 6 months | - | |
| Idaho | 8-19-96 | 7-1-97 | No exemption | - | ||
| Illinois | 9-30-95 | 7-1-97 | 1 year | - | ||
| Indiana | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 | 10-1-96 | 1 year (10) | - | |
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 1-1-97 | No exemption | - | |
| Kansas | 10-1-96 | 1 year | - | |||
| Kentucky | 10-18-96 | 1 year | X | |||
| Louisiana | 1-1-97 | 1 year | X | |||
| Maine | 6-10-96 | 11-1-96 | 1 year | X | ||
| Maryland | 8-16-96 | 10-1-96 | 12-9-96 | 1 year | - | |
| Massachusetts | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 9-30-96 | 6 months | - | |
| Michigan | 10-6-94 | 10-6-94 | 9-30-96 | 3 months | - | |
| Minnesota | 7-1-97 | 1 year | X | |||
| Mississippi | 10-1-96 | 7-1-97 | 1 year | X | ||
| Missouri | 12-1-96 | 1 year | - | |||
| Montana | 4-18-95 | -- (3) | 2-1-97 | No exemption | - | |
| Nebraska | 2-27-95 | -- (4) | 12-1-96 | 3 months | - | |
| Nevada | 12-3-96 | 1 year | X | |||
| New Hampshire | 6-18-96 | 10-1-96 | 3 years | - | ||
| New Jersey | 7-1-92 | 10-1-92 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | 12 weeks | - |
| New Mexico | 7-1-97 | 1 year | X | |||
| New York | 12-2-96 | 11-1-97 | 1 year | X | ||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 1-1-97 | 1 year | - | |
| North Dakota | 7-1-97 | 3 months | X | |||
| Ohio | 10-1-96 | 1 year | X | |||
| Oklahoma | 10-1-96 | 1 year | X | |||
| Oregon | 7-15-92 | 2-1-93 | 10-1-96 | 90 days | - | |
| Pennsylvania | 3-3-97 | 1 year | X | |||
| Rhode Island | 5-1-97 | 1 year | - | |||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | 10-12-96 | 1 year | - | ||
| South Dakota | 12-1-96 | 12 weeks | - | |||
| Tennessee | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 | 10-1-96 | 4 months | - | |
| Texas | 3-22-96 | 6-1-96 | 11-5-96 | 4 years (15) | - | |
| Utah | 10-5-92 | 1-1-93 (5) | 10-1-96 | No exemption | - | |
| Vermont | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | 9-20-96 | 18 months | - | |
| Virginia | 7-1-95 | -- (6) | 2-1-97 | 18 months (16) | - | |
| Washington | 1-10-97 | 1 year (17) | X | |||
| West Virginia | 1-11-97 | 1 year | - | |||
| Wisconsin | 8-14-95 | 1-1-96 | 9-30-96 | 9-1-97 | 12 weeks | - |
| Wyoming | 1-1-97 | 3 months | X | |||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary. The "actual" dates for TANF implementation are based on communications from Urban Institute staff.
Source: Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||
| AFDC JOBS Exemptions Policy & Date | TANF Work Exemptions Policy & Date | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Exempt Is Under: | No Exemption | Under 6 | Over 6 | Exempt Is under: | No Exemption | Under 6 | Over 6 |
| Alabama | 1 year | 11-15-96 | ||||||
| Alaska | 1 year | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| Arizona | 1 year | 10-1-96 | ||||||
| Arkansas | 3 months | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| California | 6 months (7) | 1-1-98 | ||||||
| Colorado | county | |||||||
| Connecticut | 1 year | 1-1-96 | 1 year (8) | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Delaware | 12 weeks | 13 weeks | 3-10-97 | |||||
| DC | 1 year | 3-1-97 | ||||||
| Florida | 6 months | 3 months | 10-1-96 | |||||
| Georgia | No | 1-1-97 | ||||||
| Hawaii | 6 months | 2-1-97 | 6 months | 7-1-97 | ||||
| Idaho | 12 weeks | No | 7-1-97 | |||||
| Illinois | 1 year | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| Indiana | 2 years (9) | 1 year (10) | 10-1-96 | |||||
| Iowa | 3 months | 10-1-93 | No | 1-1-97 | ||||
| Kansas | 1 year | 10-1-96 | ||||||
| Kentucky | 1 year | 10-18-96 | ||||||
| Louisiana | 1 year | 1-1-97 | ||||||
| Maine | 2 year | 1 year | 11-1-96 | |||||
| Maryland | 12 weeks | 10-1-96 | 1 year | 12-9-96 | ||||
| Massachusetts | 6 years (11) | 6 months | 9-30-96 | |||||
| Michigan | No | 10-6-94 | 3 months | 9-30-96 | ||||
| Minnesota | 1 year | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| Mississippi | 1 year | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| Missouri | 1 year | 12-1-96 | ||||||
| Montana | 1 year | No | 2-1-97 | |||||
| Nebraska | 12 weeks | 3 months | 7-1-97 | |||||
| Nevada | 1 year | 12-3-96 | ||||||
| New Hampshire | 1 year (12) | 3 years | ||||||
| New Jersey | 2 year | 10-1-92 | 12 weeks | 7-1-97 | ||||
| New Mexico | 1 year | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| New York | 1 year | 11-1-97 | ||||||
| North Carolina | 5 years (13) | 1 year | 1-1-97 | |||||
| North Dakota | 3 months | 7-1-97 | ||||||
| Ohio | 1 year | 10-1-96 | ||||||
| Oklahoma | 1 year | 10-1-96 | ||||||
| Oregon | 3 months | 2-1-93 | 90 days | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | 1 year | 3-3-97 | ||||||
| Rhode Island | 1 year | 5-1-97 | ||||||
| South Carolina | 1 year (14) | 1 year | 10-12-96 | |||||
| South Dakota | 12 weeks | 12-1-96 | ||||||
| Tennessee | 16 weeks | 9-1-96 | 4 months | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Texas | 5 years (15) | 4 years (15) | ||||||
| Utah | No | 1-1-96 | No | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Vermont | 16 weeks | 7-1-94 | 18 months | 9-20-96 | ||||
| Virginia | 18 months | 18 months (16) | 10-1-97 | |||||
| Washington | 1 year (17) | 1-10-97 | ||||||
| West Virginia | 1 year | 1-11-97 | ||||||
| Wisconsin | 1 year | 1-1-96 | 12 weeks | 9-1-97 | ||||
| Wyoming | 3 months | 1-1-97 | ||||||
| Note: Table W-2a shows age of youngest child at which the parent is required to participate part time in a work-related activity.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||||
1. Arizona begin to phase in its JOBS exemptions change beginning November 1995.
2. Delaware began implementation of its JOBS exemptions policy with a small number of cases in October 1995; these became universal in March 1997.
3. Montana's JOBS work exemptions policy for adults caring for a young child began in eight counties in February 1996 and was phased in statewide by February 1997.
4. Nebraska began to implement its "Welfare Reform Demonstration Project" in eight counties in October 1995 which included reduced JOBS exemptions.
5. Utah's JOBS work exemptions policy for adults caring for a young child began in seven counties in January 1993.
6. Virginia's JOBS exemptions change began in five counties in July 1995 and was expanded to the entire state by October 1997.
7. California counties may lengthen the exemption age to 12 months or shorten it to 12 weeks. For children born while after the family is receiving assistance, the parents are exempt while the youngest child is under 12 weeks old.
8. The exemption does not apply to children that are subject to the family cap.
9. Not coded for inclusion in the set of dummy variables. Indiana parents are exempt while the youngest child was under two years old for children not subject to the family cap. For children conceived while the family is on AFDC, exemptions will only be allowed for care of a child under 12 weeks.
10. Effective June 1998, Indiana parents are exempt while the youngest child was under six months old for children not subject to the family cap and effective December 1998, the age drops to 12 weeks. For children conceived while the family is on AFDC, exemptions will only be allowed for care of a child under 12 weeks.
11. Not coded for inclusion in the set of dummy variables. Massachusetts parents whose youngest child is between two years and six years old may become nonexempt if work activities become available. Parents are exempt while the youngest child is under 3 months for children not in the assistance unit.
12. In New Hampshire, the age of child exemption may be reduced to 13 weeks in the case of a child conceived while the parent was receiving AFDC, with certain restrictions.
13. Not coded for inclusion in the set of dummy variables.
14. In South Carolina, exemption for child care is not provided if custodial parent is under age 25 and has not completed high school.
15. Not coded for inclusion in the set of dummy variables. In Texas, JOBS exemption based on age of youngest child may be used only once for each family.
16. Virginia parents are exempt while the younges child is under six weeks for children subject to the family cap.
17. Effective June 30, 1999, the exempt age in Washington state decreases from one year to three months.
Table W-3. AFDC and TANF sanctions & Table W-3a. Comparison of AFDC and TANF sanction policies
Table W-3
Approval and Implementation Dates of AFDC and TANF Sanctions Policies, 1992 – 1998
| AFDC Policy | TANF | TANF Policy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOBS Sanctions | Implementation | Initial Sanction | Severest Sanction | |||||
| State | Approved | Implemented | Official | Actual | Benefit Reduction | Duration of Sanction (months) | Benefit Reduction | Duration of Sanction (months) |
| Alabama | 11-15-96 | Partial | until compliance | Full | 3 | |||
| Alaska | 7-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Partial | 12 | |||
| Arizona | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | 10-1-96 | Partial | 1 | Full | 1 | |
| Arkansas | 7-1-97 | Full | until compliance | Full | 3 | |||
| California | 11-26-96 | 1-1-98 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | 6 | ||
| Colorado | 7-1-97 | Partial | 1-3 | Full | 3-6 | |||
| Connecticut | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 | 10-1-96 | Partial | 3 | Full | 3 | |
| Delaware | 5-8-95 | -- (1) | 3-10-97 | Partial | until compliance | Full | lifetime | |
| DC | 3-1-97 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | 6 | |||
| Florida | 10-1-96 | Full | until compliance | Full | 3 | |||
| Georgia | 11-1-93 | 1-1-94 | 1-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Full | lifetime | |
| Hawaii | 7-1-97 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | 6 | |||
| Idaho | 8-19-96 | 7-1-97 | Full | 1 | Full | lifetime | ||
| Illinois | 9-30-95 | 10-1-95 | 7-1-97 | Partial | until compliance | Full | 3 | |
| Indiana | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 | 10-1-96 | Partial | 2 | Partial | 36 | |
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 1-1-97 | Partial | 3 | Full | 6 | |
| Kansas | 10-1-96 | Full | until compliance | Full | 2 | |||
| Kentucky | 10-18-96 | Partial | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |||
| Louisiana | 1-1-97 | Partial | 3 | Full | until compliance | |||
| Maine | 11-1-96 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | 6 | |||
| Maryland | 8-16-96 | 10-1-96 | 12-9-96 | Full | until compliance | Full | 1 | |
| Massachusetts | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 9-30-96 | Partial | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |
| Michigan | 10-6-94 | 10-6-94 | 9-30-96 | Partial | 1 | Full | 1 | |
| Minnesota | 7-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Partial | 6 | |||
| Mississippi | 10-1-96 | 7-1-97 | Full | 2 | Full | lifetime | ||
| Missouri | 4-18-95 | 6-1-95 | 12-1-96 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | 6 | |
| Montana | 4-18-95 | -- (2) | 2-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Partial | 12 | |
| Nebraska | 2-27-95 | -- (3) | 12-1-96 | Full | 1 | Full | 12 | |
| Nevada | 12-3-96 | Partial | 1 | Full | lifetime | |||
| New Hampshire | 6-18-96 | 10-1-96 | Partial | 1/2 | Partial | 1/2 | ||
| New Jersey | 7-1-92 | 10-1-92 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Full | 3 |
| New Mexico | 7-1-97 | Partial | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |||
| New York | 12-2-96 | 11-1-97 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | 6 | ||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 1-1-97 | Partial | 3 | Partial | 12 | |
| North Dakota | -- (4) | 7-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Full | until compliance | ||
| Ohio | 3-13-96 | 7-1-96 | 10-1-96 | Full | 1 | Full | 6 | |
| Oklahoma | 10-1-96 | Full | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |||
| Oregon | 3-28-96 | 7-1-96 (5) | 10-1-96 | Partial | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |
| Pennsylvania | 3-3-97 | Partial | 1 | Full | lifetime | |||
| Rhode Island | 5-1-97 | Partial | until compliance | Partial | until compliance | |||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | 10-12-96 | Full | 1 | Full | 1 | ||
| South Dakota | 3-14-94 | 6-1-94 | 12-1-96 | Partial | 1 | Full | 1 | |
| Tennessee | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 | 10-1-96 | Full | until compliance | Full | 3 | |
| Texas | 3-22-96 | 6-1-96 | 11-5-96 | Partial | 1 | Partial | 6 | |
| Utah | 10-5-92 | 7-1-96 (6) | 10-1-96 | Partial | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |
| Vermont | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | 9-20-96 | Partial | until compliance | Full | until compliance | |
| Virginia | 7-1-95 | -- (7) | 2-1-97 | Full | 1 | Full | 6 | |
| Washington | -- (8) | 1-10-97 | Partial | 1/2 | Partial | 1/2 | ||
| West Virginia | 7-31-95 | 2-1-96 | 1-11-97 | Partial | 3 | Full | 6 | |
| Wisconsin | 8-14-95 | 1-1-96 | 9-30-96 | 9-1-97 | Partial/Full | until compliance | Full | lifetime |
| Wyoming | 1-1-97 | Partial | 1 | Full | 1 | |||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary. The "actual" dates for TANF implementation are based on communications from Urban Institute staff.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||||
| AFDC Waiver Policy | TANF Policy | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sanction | Rating | Sanction | Rating | |||||||
| Initial | Final | Low | Medium | High | Initial | Final | Low | Medium | High | |
| Alabama | Partial | Full | 11-15-96 | |||||||
| Alaska | Partial | Partial | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| Arizona | Partial | Partial | 11-1-95 | Partial | Full | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Arkansas | Full | Full | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| California | Partial | Partial | 1-1-98 | |||||||
| Colorado | Partial | Full | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| Connecticut | Partial | Full | 1-1-96 | Partial | Full | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Delaware | Partial | Full (life) (1) | Partial | Full | 3-10-97 | |||||
| DC | Partial | Partial | 3-1-97 | |||||||
| Florida | Full | Full | 10-1-96 | |||||||
| Georgia | Partial | Partial | 1-1-94 | Partial | Full | 1-1-97 | ||||
| Hawaii | Partial | Partial | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| Idaho | Full | Full | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| Illinois | Partial | Full | 10-1-95 | Partial | Full | 7-1-97 | ||||
| Indiana | Partial | Partial | 5-1-95 | Partial | Partial | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Iowa | Partial | Full | 10-1-93 | Partial | Full | 1-1-97 | ||||
| Kansas | Full | Full | 10-1-96 | |||||||
| Kentucky | Partial | Full | 10-18-96 | |||||||
| Louisiana | Partial | Full | 1-1-97 | |||||||
| Maine | Partial | Partial | 11-1-96 | |||||||
| Maryland | Full | Full | 10-1-96 | Full | Full | 12-9-96 | ||||
| Massachusetts | Partial | Full | 11-1-95 | Partial | Full | 9-30-96 | ||||
| Michigan | Partial | Full | 10-6-94 | Partial | Full | 9-30-96 | ||||
| Minnesota | Partial | Partial | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| Mississippi | Full | Full | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| Missouri | Partial | Partial | 6-1-95 | Partial | Partial | 12-1-96 | ||||
| Montana | Partial | Partial (2) | Partial | Partial | 2-1-97 | |||||
| Nebraska | Full | Full (3) | Full | Full | 1-1-97 | |||||
| Nevada | Partial | Full | 12-3-96 | |||||||
| New Hampshire | Partial | Partial | 10-1-96 | |||||||
| New Jersey | Partial | Partial | 10-1-92 | Partial | Full | 7-1-97 | ||||
| New Mexico | Partial | Full | 7-1-97 | |||||||
| New York | Partial | Partial | 11-1-97 | |||||||
| North Carolina | Partial | Partial | 7-1-96 | Partial | Partial | 1-1-97 | ||||
| North Dakota | Partial | Full | 1-1-98 | |||||||
| Ohio | Partial | Full | 7-1-96 | Full | Full | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Oklahoma | Full | Full | 10-1-96 | |||||||
| Oregon | Partial | Full | 7-1-96 | Partial | Full | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Pennsylvania | Partial | Full | 3-3-97 | |||||||
| Rhode Island | Partial | Partial | 5-1-97 | |||||||
| South Carolina | Full | Full | 10-12-96 | |||||||
| South Dakota | Partial | Partial | 6-1-94 | Partial | Full | 12-1-96 | ||||
| Tennessee | Full | Full | 9-1-96 | Full | Full | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Texas | Partial | Partial | 6-1-96 | Partial | Partial | 11-5-96 | ||||
| Utah | Partial | Full (6) | 7-1-96 | Partial | Full | 10-1-96 | ||||
| Vermont | Partial | Partial | 7-1-94 | Partial | Full | 9-20-96 | ||||
| Virginia | Full | Full (7) | Full | Full | 10-1-97 | |||||
| Washington | Partial | Partial | 1-10-97 | |||||||
| West Virginia | Partial | Full | 2-1-96 | Partial | Full | 1-11-97 | ||||
| Wisconsin | Partial | Partial | 1-1-96 | Partial/ Full | Full | 9-1-97 | ||||
| Wyoming | Partial | Full | 1-1-97 | |||||||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||||||
1. Delaware began implementation of its JOBS sanctions policy with a small number of cases in October 1995; these became universal in March 1997.
2. Montana's JOBS sanctions policy began in eight counties in February 1996 and was phased in statewide by February 1997.
3. Nebraska began to implement its "Welfare Reform Demonstration Project" in eight counties in October 1995 which included a full-family sanction.
4. North Dakota's work sanction policy was initially implemented in 11 counties beginning in July 1996.
5. Oregon's JOBS sanctions policy was approved July 15, 1992 for statewide application (except for 8 local areas); the state began implementation in February 1993 in part of the state. Under a later waiver, a revised policy was implemented statewide in July 1995.
6. Utah's JOBS work exemptions policy for adults caring for a young child began in seven counties in January 1993. Included was the implementation of a $100 benefit reduction sanction. In November 1995 , this was replaced by a full-family sanction, which was expanded statewide by July 1996.
7. Virginia's JOBS sanctions began in five counties in July 1995 and were expanded to the entire state by October 1997.
8. In the set of waivers listed in the original 1997 CEA analysis, the state of Washington was listed as having had a JOBS sanctions waiver approved September 29, 1995. Subsequent review of the nature of this waiver resulted in its being classified as a termination time limit waiver.
Table W-4. Increases in earnings disregards
Table W-4
Approval and Implementation Dates of Earnings Disregard Policy Changes, 1992 – 1998
| Increased Earnings Disregard | TANF Implemented | TANF Policy | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Approved | Implemented | Official | Actual | Flat Percent Disregard | Percent Remainder Disregard | Months | Flat Percent Disregard | Percent Remainder Disregard | Months |
| Alabama | 11-15-96 | - | 100 | 3 | - | 20 | 4-60 | |||
| Alaska | 7-1-97 | $150 | 33 | 1-12 | $150 | 33 | 13-24 | |||
| Arizona | 10-1-96 | $90 | 30 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Arkansas | 7-1-97 | 20% | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| California | 10-29-92 | 12-1-92 | 11-26-96 | 1-1-98 | $225 | 50 | all | - | - | - |
| Colorado | -- (1) | 7-1-97 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | |||||||
| Connecticut | 8-29-94 | 1-1-96 | 10-1-96 | 100% of earnings below poverty | ||||||
| Delaware | 5-8-95 | 10-1-95 | 3-10-97 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | ||||||
| DC | 3-1-97 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | ||||||||
| Florida | -- (2) | 10-1-96 | - | 100 | 3 | - | - | - | ||
| Georgia | 6-24-94 | 1-1-97 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | |||||||
| Hawaii | 8-16-96 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | 20% then $200 then 36% of remainder | ||||||
| Idaho | 7-1-97 | - | 40 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Illinois | 11-23-93 | 11-23-93 | 7-1-97 | - | 67 | all | - | - | - | |
| Indiana | 10-1-96 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | ||||||||
| Iowa | 8-13-93 | 10-1-93 | 1-1-97 | 20% | 50 | all | - | - | - | |
| Kansas | 10-1-96 | $90 | 40 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Kentucky | 10-18-96 | 100% for 2 mn; $120 + 33% for 2 mn; $120 for 7 mn; $90 thereafter | ||||||||
| Louisiana | 1-1-97 | $1,020 | - | 6 | $120 | - | 7-60 | |||
| Maine | 11-1-96 | 8 counties 20% + $134; other 8 $150 + 50% under poverty | ||||||||
| Maryland | 8-16-96 | 10-1-96 | 12-9-96 | - | 26 | all | - | - | - | |
| Massachusetts | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 9-30-96 | $120 | 50 | all | - | - | - | |
| Michigan | 8-1-92 | 10-1-92 | 9-30-96 | $200 | 20 | all | - | - | - | |
| Minnesota | -- (3) | 7-1-97 | - | 36 | all | - | - | - | ||
| Mississippi | -- (4) | 10-1-96 | 7-1-97 | - | 100 | 6 | $90 | - | - | |
| Missouri | -- (5) | 12-1-96 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | |||||||
| Montana | 4-18-95 | -- (6) | 2-1-97 | $200 | 25 | all | - | - | - | |
| Nebraska | 2-27-95 | 12-1-96 | - | 20 | all | - | - | - | ||
| Nevada | 12-3-96 | 100% for 3 mn; 50% for 9 mn; larger of $90 or 20% thereafter | ||||||||
| New Hampshire | 6-18-96 | 10-1-96 | - | 50 | all | - | - | - | ||
| New Jersey | 7-1-92 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | - | 100 | 1 | - | 50 | 13-60 | |
| New Mexico | 7-1-97 | $150 | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| New York | 12-2-96 | 11-1-97 | $90 | 42 | all | - | - | - | ||
| North Carolina | 1-1-97 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | ||||||||
| North Dakota | -- (7) | 7-1-97 | 27% + additional disregard based on family size & earnings | |||||||
| Ohio | 3-13-96 | 7-1-96 | 10-1-96 | $250 | 25 | 18 | - | - | - | |
| Oklahoma | 10-1-96 | $120 | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Oregon | 10-1-96 | - | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Pennsylvania | 3-3-97 | - | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Rhode Island | 5-1-97 | $170 | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| South Carolina | 10-12-96 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | ||||||||
| South Dakota | 12-1-96 | $90 | 20 | all | - | - | - | |||
| Tennessee | 7-25-96 | 9-1-96 | 10-1-96 | $90 | - | all | - | - | - | |
| Texas | 11-5-96 | no change from AFDC - $120 + 33% 4 mn; $120 for months 5-12; $90 thereafter | ||||||||
| Utah | 10-5-92 | -- (8) | 10-1-96 | $100 | 50 | all | - | - | - | |
| Vermont | 4-12-93 | 7-1-94 | 9-20-96 | $150 | 25 | all | - | - | - | |
| Virginia | 7-1-95 | -- (9) | 2-1-97 | 100% so long as earnings + benefit not greater than poverty | ||||||
| Washington | 1-10-97 | - | 50 | all | - | - | - | |||
| West Virginia | 1-11-97 | disregard varies with income; averages 40% | ||||||||
| Wisconsin | -- (10) | 9-30-96 | 9-1-97 | - | 100 | 3 | - | - | - | |
| Wyoming | 1-1-97 | $200 single parents & $400 married couples | ||||||||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary. The "actual" dates for TANF implementation are based on communications from Urban Institute staff.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||||||
1. Colorado began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in five counties beginning in June 1994.
2. Florida began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $200 plus one-half the remainder in eight counties beginning in February 1994.
3. Minnesota began to implement its "Minnesota Family Investment Program" in seven counties in April 1994; this program included increasing the earned income disregard to 38 percent.
4. Mississippi began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in two counties beginning in October 1995.
5. Missouri received approval January 15, 1993 for and began implementing the $30 plus one-third income disregard for up to 48 months in Kansas City beginning in July 1994.
6. Montana's Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $200 plus 25 percent for recipients in unsubsized jobs ($100 for recipients in Community Service Program) began in eight counties in February 1996 and was phased in statewide by February 1997.
7. North Dakota's began an Increased Earnings Disregard policy in ten counties beginning in October 1996.
8. Utah implemented an Increased Earnings Disregard policy of $100 and 45 percent in seven counties in January 1993 and later expanded statewide.
9. Virginia's time limit, JOBS exemptions change, JOBS sanctions, and Increased Earnings Disregards policies (100 percent up to the federal poverty guideline income level, current recipients only) began in five counties in July 1995 and were expanded to the entire state by October 1997.
10. Wisconsin's Increased Earnings Disregard policy of the first $200 plus one-half the remainder for new applicants under age 20, approved April 10, 1992 , began to be implemented in July 1994. Beginning in January 1995 in two counties, Wisconsin implemented an Increased Earnings Disregard policy for all those under its "Work Not Welfare."
Table W-5. Family caps
Table W-5
Approval and Implementation Dates of Family Caps, 1992 – 1998
| Family Cap | TANF Implementation | TANF Policy | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| State | Approved | Implemented | Official | Actual | No Increase for Additional Children | Partial Increase for Additional Children | Increase in the Form of a Voucher | Increase Paid to Third Party |
| Alabama | 11-15-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Alaska | 7-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Arizona | 5-22-95 | 11-1-95 | 10-1-96 | x | - | - | - | |
| Arkansas | 4-5-94 | 7-1-94 | 7-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |
| California | 8-19-96 (1) | 9-1-97 | 11-26-96 | 1-1-98 | X | - | - | - |
| Colorado | 7-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Connecticut | 12-18-95 | 1-1-96 | 10-1-96 | - | X | - | - | |
| Delaware | 5-8-95 | -- (2) | 3-10-97 | X | - | - | - | |
| DC | 3-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Florida | 6-26-96 | 10-1-96 | - | X | - | - | ||
| Georgia | 11-1-93 | 1-1-94 | 1-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |
| Hawaii | 7-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Idaho | 7-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |||
| Illinois | 9-30-95 | 12-1-95 | 7-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |
| Indiana | 12-15-94 | 5-1-95 | 10-1-96 | X | - | - | - | |
| Iowa | 1-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Kansas | 10-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Kentucky | 10-18-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Louisiana | 1-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Maine | 11-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Maryland | 8-14-95 | 3-1-96 | 12-9-96 | - | - | - | X | |
| Massachusetts | 8-4-95 | 11-1-95 | 9-30-96 | X | - | - | - | |
| Michigan | 9-30-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Minnesota | 7-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Mississippi | 9-1-95 | 10-1-95 | 10-1-96 | 7-1-97 | X | - | - | - |
| Missouri | 12-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Montana | 2-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Nebraska | 2-27-95 | 11-1-96 (3) | 12-1-96 | X | - | - | - | |
| Nevada | 12-3-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| New | 10-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| New Jersey | 7-1-92 | 10-1-92 | 2-1-97 | 7-1-97 | X | - | - | - |
| New Mexico | 7-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| New York | 12-2-96 | 11-1-97 | - | - | - | - | ||
| North Carolina | 2-5-96 | 7-1-96 | 1-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |
| North Dakota | 7-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |||
| Ohio | 10-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Oklahoma | 10-1-96 | - | - | X | - | |||
| Oregon | 10-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Pennsylvania | 3-3-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Rhode Island | 5-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| South Carolina | 5-3-96 | 10-12-96 | - | - | X | - | ||
| South Dakota | 12-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Tennessee | 7-25-96 | -- (4) | 10-1-96 | X | - | - | - | |
| Texas | 11-5-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Utah | 10-1-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Vermont | 9-20-96 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Virginia | 7-1-95 | 7-1-95 | 2-1-97 | X | - | - | - | |
| Washington | 1-10-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| West Virginia | 1-11-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Wisconsin | 6-24-94 | 1-1-96 | 9-30-96 | 9-1-97 | X | - | - | - |
| Wyoming | 1-1-97 | - | - | - | - | |||
| Note: Implementation dates are arbitrarily stated as of the first of the month absent specific information to the contrary. The "actual" dates for TANF implementation are based on communications from Urban Institute staff.
Source: Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Setting the Baseline: A Report on State Welfare Waivers and other unpublished documents. |
||||||||
1. Delaware began implementation of its family cap policies with a small number of cases in October 1995; these became universal in March 1997.
2. Tennessee's family cap was phased in over a six month period beginning September 1996.
3. Nebraska began to implement its family cap in five coutnies in October 1995 and expanded it statewide within a year
4. Tennessee's family cap was phased in over a six month period beginning September 1996.