Research Reports

Since the passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) and the creation of the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, many states have struggled to determine the type of skills and training necessary for front-line workers. While many clients were still clearly in need of social work services, funding and the shift in focus of the TANF program challenged welfare agencies to determine what was both necessary and feasible. While the long-term goal of PRWORA may have been to reduce dependency on government benefits, the short term mandate was to move people into employment.

The vision of reformed welfare policy was always that of a one-way street. Participants were to move from welfare dependency to a level of self-sufficiency, thus making receipt of welfare benefits no longer necessary. Passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) addressed the fear that AFDC promoted long-term dependency by reducing the recipient’s ability to view themselves as self-sufficient.

The impact of PRWORA has not ended with time limits and work requirements. As part of the implementation of new policies under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, there has been a dramatic increase in the types of circumstances that can lead to reduction or termination of cash benefits (Mathematica, 2003). The concept of “carrot and stick” is often used to describe the current work-based welfare system

The introduction of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) as part of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 brought about many changes to our nation’s social welfare policy. Attention is commonly focused on the issues of time limited benefits and work requirements. Indeed these were significant changes in policy. Another, less discussed yet equally important feature, was the Individual Responsibility Plan (IRP).