| |
Answer |
|
| |
Among
the recent changes that have transformed the nation's
welfare system, the imposition of time limits on cash
assistance is one of the most dramatic. Currently, 17
states have time limits that can result in cancellation
of a family's welfare grant after fewer than 60 months
of assistance. Another 26 states (and the District of
Columbia) have a 60-month time limit. Eight states (including
several of the largest) do not have time limits that can
lead to cancellation of a family's welfare grant.[1]
Time limits look simple on paper, but there are many complex
issues involved in designing the implementing them. One
key issue is how to communicate time limits to recipients.
Most states want welfare recipients to react to time limits
long before reaching them - generally by taking steps
toward self-sufficiency. No one wins if large numbers
of people reach time limits unprepared for self-support.
But if recipients are to respond appropriately, they need
to understand the time-limit policy, how it applies to
them, and how they can prepare. Key lessons include:
|
|
| |
Give
frequent reminders. |
|
| |
When
many months remain on the clock, some recipients will
see the time limit as a distant concern; they will understandably
be focused on more immediate issues.[2]
Thus, staff needs to remind recipients frequently about
the time limit, how much time remains on the clock, and
what will happen to their benefits when the time limit
is reached. It is probably helpful to use a variety of
techniques to communicate the message: letters, personal
contacts, posters in the welfare office, calendars with
months crossed off, etc.
|
|
| |
Spread
the word to partner agencies |
|
| |
In
many states and localities, a wide variety of public and
private agencies provide employment-related or other services
to welfare recipients. Workforce development agencies
are particularly important partners. While welfare staff
may be quite familiar with time limits and how to discuss
them, recipients may actually have more frequent contact
with staff from these other agencies. Thus, training about
time limits should involve all relevant partners, and
each agency should tailor the time-limit message. For
example, a child support enforcement agency could use
the time limit to motivate custodial parents to help the
agency establish a support order (so the parent will have
a steady second income stream after leaving assistance).
|
|
| |
Make
sure there is a clear message about how to recipients
should respond. |
|
| |
Should
workers counsel recipients to get off welfare as fast
as possible to "save" or "bank" their
available months? Should they urge recipients to take
advantage of an opportunity to build their skills, even
if this means using up some additional months? Or should
staff not offer specific advice but instead provide recipients
with clear information about the implications of different
choices open to them? Programs need to develop a clear
strategy in this regard and ensure that staff are not
sending mixed messages to recipients.
|
|
| |
Pay
particular attention to working recipients. |
|
| |
Many
states have expanded earned income disregards, allowing
more families to work and receive a partial welfare grant.[3]
Under time limits, these families face a difficult choice
between (1) continuing to receive a relatively small welfare
grant (with each month counting toward the time limit),
or (2) opting not to receive benefits and instead "saving"
the month of welfare eligibility for a time when they
may more critically need it. Staff need to help recipients
consider the pros and cons of staying on assistance, perhaps
by helping them consider a monthly budget that does not
include the partial welfare grant.
|
|
| |
Decide
how to discuss extensions. |
|
| |
All
states have provisions that will allow families to continue
receiving benefits after the time limit under certain
circumstance. But how (if at all) should staff discuss
this issue when recipients are still fare from reaching
the time limit? In some programs, staff present the extension
policy quite directly upfront. In others, staff rarely
mention extensions (or keep their discussion intentionally
vague) to avoid sending a message that the time limit
may not be firm.[4]
Once again programs should ensure that staff know how
they should address this critical topic.
|
|
| |
Use
the time limit as a planning tool. |
|
| |
Staff
in many programs have found the time limit to be a helpful
tool in working with recipients to develop clear plans
and timetables. Think about ways to use the time limit
to structure a calendar for milestones and steps for achieving
self- sufficiency. For example, if the time limit is two
years, what are reasonable expectations for a progression
during the first six months? Where should you expect someone
to be after 18 months?
|
|
|
 |
More
information on this topic |
|
|
 |
|
|
Notes |
|
|
|
1. |
State Policy Documentation
Project (SPDP). Most of the eight states that do not have
"termination" time limits do have "reduction
" time limits that cancel the adult's portion of
welfare grant but retain the children's portion. All eight
of these states currently plan to use state funds to support
children or entire families who reach the federal 60-month
limit and exceed the 20% cap on exemption. |
|
|
|
2. |
Brown, Bloom, and
Butler, 1997. |
|
|
|
3. |
See State Policy
Documentation Project. |
|
|
|
4. |
Bloom, 1999. |
|
|
^ Back to top |
|
|
No. 4, Summer 2000
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
Dan Bloom
Since joining MDRC in 1988, Bloom has directed three large-scale
evaluations of state welfare reform waiver projects, and
he is currently co-principal investigator for the multisite
Employment Retention and Advancement evaluation. He has
written more than 20 research reports, as well as a book,
After AFDC: Welfare-to-Work Choices and Challenges for
States, summarizing lessons learned from studies of welfare-to-work
programsanda synthesis of research, How Welfare and Work
Policies Affect Employment and Income. Bloom has a master’s
degree in public policy from the John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Language Matters
The language staff use to describe a time limit can send
subtle messages that shape how recipients respond. For
example, con-sider a recent welfare applicant who is subject
to a 24-month time limit. A worker might tell this recipient,
"You will reach your time limit in March 2002, so
you've got to start thinking about how to get a good job
by then." This language strongly implies that the
worker expects the recipient to receive welfare contin-uously
until reaching the time limit, rather than trying to leave
earlier to "bank" or "save" her months.
It also makes the time limit seem far away and of distant
concern. Finally it might create the impression that the
time limit refers to calendar months, rather than months
of assistance received.
As an alternative, in one program, staff described a 24-month
time limit as a book of 24 coupons, urging recipient to
save as many coupons as possible by leaving welfare.
|
|
|
|
QFF#4
Answer 
