Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

State Implementation of Major Changes to Welfare Policies, 1992 - 1998

Publication Date
Aug 2, 1999

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:

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]:

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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

Table W-2.a
Comparison Of AFDC and TANF Work Exemption Polices By Implementation Dates and Age of Yougest Child

  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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

Table W-3.a
Comparison of AFDC and TANF Sanctions Policies By Implementation Dates and Severity of Sanction

  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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

FOOTNOTES

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.

FOOTNOTES

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.