To encourage employment, states used different strategies. First, they informed individuals early in the application process of their obligation to participate in an activity that would lead to employment. Then they monitored and tracked client progress toward that goal and offered needed support services, such as child care and transportation assistance. To further promote employment, the states changes incentives in the AFDC program by allowing working participants to disregard more of their earned income in the calculation of benefits, thereby enabling them to earn more before becoming ineligible” (5).

“To help recipients who earned their way off welfare make the transition to self-sufficiency, some services [in Utah] such as transitional Medicaid and child care were extended beyond the 12 months required by the JOBS program. Utah diverted needy job-ready individuals from the welfare rolls by offering them a one-time payment to cover emergency expenses until they received a paycheck. Finally, these states used sanctions to enforce the participation requirements by first reducing benefit amounts for failure to participate in planned activities and, if failure persists, terminating benefits entirely” (5).

“The three states’ different approaches reflect the strategies that they believe work to help welfare recipients in their states move toward self-sufficiency; consequently, these states plan to continue their programs, with minor changes, under the new law. Michigan and Utah, which attempted universal participation, are concerned about the welfare recipients left behind after the job-ready clients become employed and leave the rolls. They believe this group, which in the past generally was exempted or deferred from participation requirements because of their multiple barriers to employment, will require intensive services to be able to participate in the activities that meet the restricted definition of work participation under the new law”(5).

“Through their waiver programs, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Utah were able to increase the percentage of their AFDC recipients participating in activities designed to move them toward self-sufficiency. Reflecting the underlying work focus of their programs, the largest percentage of all participants in each of the three states were engaged in unsubsidized employment. Counting only activities allowed by the JOBS program, GAO compared the participation levels that these states achieved under their statewide waiver programs in September/October 1996 to the levels that they reported for their fiscal year 1995 JOBS program. GAO’s analysis found that Massachusetts’ participation increased from 19 to 36 percent of the adult caseload, Michigan’s from 21 to 42 percent, and Utah’s from 42 to 57 percent” (6).

“GAO’s analysis showed that all three states are almost certain to meet the first year all-families TANF participation rate requirement. Taking credit for their caseload reductions since 1995, Massachusetts and Michigan officials estimate that their actual target participation rate for fiscal year 1997 will be about 13 percent, while Utah officials believe their rate will be about 14 percent. Using the definition of work participation in the new law, all three states were achieving participation rates higher that their estimated target rates under their waiver programs. GAO estimates that Massachusetts was achieving an overall participation rate of 25.3 percent, Michigan, 32.6 percent, and Utah, 30.9 percent. However, officials in Massachusetts and Michigan reported that they will have difficulty meeting the separate two-parent families participation rate, and officials in all three states expressed concern over their ability to meet the higher future rates” (6).

“As those recipients who are able to become employed and move off the welfare rolls, officials are concerned that the remaining caseload will consist of less-employable recipients, making it difficult to meet the higher future participation rates. Furthermore, since these programs were implemented under favorable economic conditions, which many believe contributed to the large caseload reductions, officials are concerned that an economic downturn could limit future program success. Also, as states are left with a more difficult population to serve, they are concerned about the cost and availability of services to meet this populations’ multiple need in moving toward work and self-sufficiency” (6).