A study focused on results from seven of the earliest state welfare reform initiatives with some form of welfare time limit. Four programs--Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, and Wisconsin--- included benefit-termination time limits triggering cancellation of a family's entire welfare grant. Arizona and Indiana imposed benefit-reduction time limits, in which only the adult's portion of the welfare grant was canceled at the time limit. Vermont imposed a work-trigger model in which recipients who reach the limit must work but benefits are not reduced or canceled. Five issues were related to program implementation: deciding on phase-in strategies, conveying the time-limit message, tracking the clock, determining when exemptions apply, and handling cases that reach the time limit. Early findings on whether time limits make a difference were as follows: Florida and Vermont found no evidence that time limits reduced the number of applicants who went on to receive benefits; all four programs for which employment data were available generated increases in employment rates in the pre-time limit period; four of five programs did not reduce the number of welfare recipients during this early period; and families were not more likely to experience severe material hardship after the time limit than they had experienced before. Open questions were whether extensions would be the norm or exception for clients reaching time limits and how time limits would affect behavior and well-being of recipients and their children over the long term. (Contains 36 references.) (YLB)