Introduction

In the spring of 1997, the National Association of Counties conducted four field hearings to determine how counties were faring in the early implementation of the Work Opportunity and Personal Responsibility Act of 1996, commonly known as the federal welfare reform law. The four hearings were held in Fulton County, Georgia; Hennepin/Ramsey Counties, Minnesota; Santa Clara County, California; and Dade County, Florida. At each site NACo heard from county and state officials, private businesses, non-profit service providers, religious leaders and former welfare recipients from urban, suburban, and rural counties.

The results of the hearings were published in a report released during NACo's 1997 annual conference in Baltimore, Maryland. Some major findings from the hearings included: Welfare reform was working best where counties and the state had come together at an early stage to develop a common agenda; transportation needs were greater than any other concern; and placing individuals with multiple barriers to employment in long-term jobs was a growing problem.

This year, NACo sent a comprehensive questionnaire to the counties that participated in the 1997 hearings to assess development. The survey included questions on the number of people who obtained full- time employment; reductions or increases in the welfare rolls, greatest needs, effect on other systems and ability to meet the legal requirements, such as work participation rates. A shorter questionnaire on changes to the welfare rolls and employment was sent to an additional 85 counties. This report incorporates the findings from both questionnaires, as well as identifying promising county practices in the areas of collaborative efforts, education, child care, transportation and others.

The Changing Role of
Counties in Welfare Reform

Several states aggressively took advantage of the opportunity presented by the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant (TANF) to provide counties with greater flexibility. These states include California, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin.

"Colorado Works"

Under Colorado's system, called "Colorado Works," counties received a block grant and have the flexibility to develop local plans within state and federal requirements. There are individual performance contracts between each county and the state. This contract includes the amount of money the county has to pay, its duties and responsibilities and the county's work participation requirement. Counties have discretion over some factors such as determining levels of sanctions, expanding work activities and creating grant diversion programs. Counties are not allowed to provide less cash assistance than the statewide standard, but they may provide more.

North Carolina's "Electing Counties"

Under the welfare reform legislation adopted by the North Carolina legislature at the end of their 1997 session, some counties are allowed to determine eligibility and benefits for welfare recipients. Counties may set their own eligibility and benefit standards or continue to operate under the state's eligibility and benefit requirements. Counties that elect to set their own standards submit their proposed plans to the state Department of Human Services. Only counties representing a total of 15.5 percent of the statewide caseload would be authorized to implement their own eligibility and benefit systems.

"Ohio Works First"

The Ohio Works First program began October 1, 1997 and gave counties in Ohio unprecedented new authority. Counties now have the primary and legal responsibility to develop and implement cash assistance programs. Instead of following rules prescribed by the state department of human services, county agencies are required to implement programs independently, in compliance will all applicable federal and state laws. For example, counties may elect to require more hours of work a week than required by the federal law.