Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

III. FINDINGS

This section summarizes the findings of the study, including major differences across the sites and significant changes during the past five years that affect the TANF program. While there were changes at all of the sites—both within the TANF program and in external factors that affect clients within the program—they did not fundamentally alter the nature of the programs at the local level. There were many continuities from earlier research conducted by the Rockefeller Institute in the late 1990s and early 2000s. One would have little trouble recognizing programs last visited five years earlier.

A. Program Goals and Philosophies Varied Substantially and Were Greatly Influenced by the State

Regardless of whether the TANF program was state or county administered, local staff indicated that program policies and directives generally come from the state level. In most of the sites, operational goals were not greatly different from those found in previous rounds of field research. But some changes did occur.

When asked to describe the overarching goal of TANF, staff in all five sites cited some version of the following: providing services and benefits in a timely manner to help families become self-sufficient. However, asking staff how this goal is operationalized—that is, measured and tracked by state-level staff—revealed differences. In states where different departments, or agencies within departments, have responsibility for aspects of the program (see Exhibit II.1 above), there was often less agreement in describing goals and program philosophy.

On one end of the spectrum, in Macon, the mantra is “welfare isn’t good enough for anyone,” the announced and often-repeated philosophy of the state’s current human service agency administrator. In the past, local staff focused on engaging families in employment-specific activities. But now, there is a strong and widely held understanding among staff that TANF rolls should be minimized, both by providing alternatives to welfare for potential clients, and by moving long-term clients into employment. This goal of welfare avoidance was evident in previous rounds of research in Georgia—for example, a Rockefeller Institute study of frontline workers found that job search and compliance with child support enforcement were required before families could qualify for cash assistance in Bibb County in 2000. But the intensity and breadth of the emphasis on minimizing cash assistance rolls was new.

The message in Milwaukee was also coherent. State staff contract with providers in Milwaukee; the contracts include eight performance standards. Recently, the state renewed its emphasis on employment, after a number of years in which, according to staff at the local office, the program became more “AFDC-like.“ As a 2001-02 Rockefeller Institute field report found, the program had evolved to provide more education and more services to assist a caseload with greater barriers to employment. During the recent site visit, one staff member noted that an “entitlement mentality” had taken hold. Today, the program again is work-focused. Local staff stated “everyone is better off working.” Moreover, three performance measures are employment related: entered employment, retention, and wages at employment. Wages must average $8.05 per hour for those who enter employment. The local contractor must earn 20 percent of its contract through performance.5

Although the Newark program is administered by two different offices, reflecting the state-level structure, a local manager oversees both programs. This has led the offices to speak with one voice. In Newark, the focus on helping clients become self-sufficient through employment and other supports—an emphasis found in previous reports—is tempered by widely held perceptions on the ground: a high cost of living, requiring wages above the minimum, and many clients that staff believe face significant barriers to employment. For example, clients are potentially eligible for temporary rental assistance of up to $700 per month. New Jersey, as described further below, has a number of policies in place to protect clients with multiple barriers to self-sufficiency from being terminated from TANF due to time limits.

At the other sites, the bifurcated nature of the program at the state and local level led to different sets of concrete program goals. In Phoenix and Kansas City, eligibility managers and staff stated that their day-to-day goal is to ensure that cases are processed in a timely and accurate manner. State-level staff closely monitor these metrics. Kansas City staff also noted that combating waste, fraud and abuse is a stated department goal (a goal that received much less attention according to the 2001-02 Rockefeller report on Kansas City). This goal is operationalized by requiring local-level staff to reinvestigate 100 percent of cases annually.

The employment services providers at these sites are guided by different criteria. These measures, more so than those used to assess eligibility processes, focus on ultimate self-sufficiency, including “engagement rates” and job placement rates. Staff in Phoenix and Kansas City also indicated that local office performance is judged by the state in part by the extent to which TANF leavers get “good” jobs. This includes jobs with medical benefits (Phoenix) and higher-than-average wages (Kansas City). The manager of the employment contractor in Kansas City stated that the most meaningful measure for his staff was placement in jobs that pay at least $7.50 per hour for 32 hours per week, preferably in a growing industry such as health care.

As the above examples suggest, local administrative goals are often reinforced by the state’s program performance measures, such as job placements, few eligibility errors, or wage rates of welfare leavers. Goals are also reinforced by repeated statements by and communications from top state administrators. In addition, states also appear to influence local office goals through their staff training programs, which, in these sites, were generally designed and facilitated by state staff. In Arizona and Wisconsin, for example, new eligibility and employment services staff attend “basic training” type classes, often at the local site. In Arizona, the training lasts three weeks, while refresher courses are available for experienced workers. Even though Wisconsin relies heavily on private contractors to implement its TANF program in Milwaukee, the state still designs and conducts training, which includes a core curriculum designed for new welfare staff by the state agency, Wisconsin’s Department of Workforce Development. In Missouri, eligibility staff are also trained by the state and, like Wisconsin, have access to an online policy and procedures manual.

B. Most Changes in Policy and Procedure Originate at the State Level

One purpose of this study was to identify changes in the TANF program implemented by local offices. At the sites, just as program philosophy was determined by state-level staff, the majority of changes, particularly those related to policy issues, but often procedural changes as well, originated at the state level. This was true regardless of whether the program was state-administered (Arizona, Georgia and Missouri) or county-administered (New Jersey and Wisconsin.) This finding is somewhat counter-intuitive, given that it would seem that local officials in county-administered TANF programs would have more flexibility in making decisions regarding the nature of the program. However, based on the evidence from the sites in this study, it appears that state officials have retained authority for most decisions regarding the basic structure and policies of the TANF program. Listed below are changes observed that emanated from the state level. These changes include those that were implemented statewide, as well as site-specific changes. Examples include sanction policies, changing responsibility for employment services, adopting pre-eligibility requirements, benefit extensions, changes in contracting, and service integration.

1. Changes in Sanction Policies and Procedures

Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin state-level officials made changes to TANF sanction policies. In Arizona, the change was the result of a lawsuit in 2002 that alleged unfair and arbitrary sanction policies that made it difficult for families to come into compliance and narrowly defined the criteria for which good cause could be found for non-compliance. The sanction amount did not change (see Exhibit II.5 above). However, the sanctioning process was completely revised to insure opportunities for the client to comply with program requirements and show good cause. The definition of good cause was expanded to include many circumstances that might cause a person to miss a meeting or work assignment, including medical appointments, court appointments, temporary loss of child care, or transportation. Box 2 describes the process in more detail. Staff noted that it is now difficult to sanction any client, and as a result, sanctions are not an effective tool to encourage participation in work activities.

Box 2: The Arizona Sanction Process Under the new process, the initial notice describes the time and type of non-compliance, the potential resulting sanction, examples of good cause and how to show good cause, and how to provide verification. The case manager must help obtain verification when asked. A notice is sent to the client as to whether good cause was approved or denied. If denied, supervisory approval is required before a sanction can be imposed and only after advance notice of such is sent to the client. Once notice has been sent indicating failure to show good cause and a status of non-compliance imposed, clients can come into compliance by notifying the case manager during the 10-day notice period of their willingness to comply. If the client responds and is willing to comply, the sanction will not go into effect; instead, the caseworker directs the client to the employment services program and also addresses barriers to participation. If the client indicates his/her willingness to comply after the 10-day period, the grant is restored after the first month.

The change in Wisconsin was also promoted by community advocates who expressed concern that TANF recipients were sanctioned for non-participation due to barriers or other factors beyond their control. Like Arizona, the structure of the sanction did not change. However, in 2005, the state introduced a requirement that TANF agencies notify participants through personal contact before reducing payments by 20 percent or more or before terminating a participant’s eligibility. Clients must be given the opportunity to rectify the deficiency within seven days. Staff must ensure that clients do not have barriers to participation that might not have been identified during the assessment process.

In Georgia, the change in the state’s sanction policy had a much different origin and effect. Under the previous sanction process, the initial sanction for failure to co-operate with a program requirement resulted in a 25 percent reduction in assistance for the family for up to three months. The second failure resulted in permanent exclusion from assistance for the entire family. In order to impose the lifetime sanction, approval of upper-level local and state management was required. As a consequence of the extreme nature of the sanction and the documentation requirements, it was seldom invoked.

In January 2006, the state amended this policy. The initial sanction remains the same—a 25 percent reduction in family assistance payments for three months. The subsequent sanction is case closure for three months. If the client then satisfies the requirement that caused the sanction, benefits can begin again. Should another sanction be necessary, the period of case closure is one year. Because the sanction is not as severe, approval of upper-level state officials is no longer necessary. Following the change, sanctions were applied more frequently—23 cases were in sanction status in Macon in one recent month, whereas previously, almost no cases were sanctioned.

2. Shifting Responsibility for Employment-related Activities

In Missouri and New Jersey, responsibility for TANF-related employment services was moved from the department that oversees TANF eligibility to the department that operates employment programs. At the local level, this had the effect of separating staff responsible for eligibility determinations from those who provide case management and employment services, often in different physical structures.

In 2003, Missouri moved $50 million in TANF work program funds from the Department of Social Services (DSS) to the Department of Economic Development (DED). The rationale was that all employment programs should be housed in the same department, and that DED had a comparative advantage in running the TANF work program. In Kansas City the change had noticeable consequences. Prior to 2003, the key community partners—the Local Investment Commission, DSS, and the job services provider (the Full Employment Council or FEC)—developed a program that involved vocational and educational assessment of clients, goal development, different tiers of case management depending on client needs, and job-related services for clients determined to be work ready. DSS staff were responsible for eligibility determination, assessment, and case management. FEC focused on job placement and other employment and training services for only those clients who were job ready. As a consequence of the state reorganization, FEC now provides case management as well as job services. The local DSS office lost a number of positions and had to reduce the salaries of remaining staff, who were reclassified as eligibility specialists. That office also lost much flexibility in dealing with clients. Although the change was implemented statewide, stakeholders in Kansas City argued it was felt most acutely in their region because of the strong partnerships developed among the key players.

In New Jersey, the change was not as wide-ranging, and therefore had fewer consequences than in Missouri. Until 2004, TANF funding for employment-related services was split between the state Department of Human Services (DHS), which distributed them to counties to fund local contractors, and the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) for dispersal to local one-stop career centers. As a consequence of what was characterized as a “consolidation” in the state labor department, all funding for employment-related contract services now flows through DLWD. Local staff note that a consequence of the new funding scheme is a delay in letting contracts to local service providers. When the state fiscal year began in July 2005 and again in 2006, contracts were not in place for employment and training services, creating a situation in which case managers had limited services to which to assign TANF clients.

In addition to moving funding for employment and training contracts to DLWD, state authorities considered moving funding for TANF case management to DLWD. However, because there was concern that most one-stop career centers were not prepared to provide appropriate case management services to TANF clients, DHS management convinced authorities to provide additional separate funding to DLWD for case management, while continuing to fund TANF case management through DHS. Thus, for the 2007 fiscal year, DLWD received separate state funding for “to work” case management that will then be distributed to local one-stop career centers. This change did not have a significant effect on the local office in Newark because the county operates both eligibility processes and the local one-stop that provides employment-related services to TANF clients. Nevertheless, the shift in funding for contracts for employment and training services is an important indicator of a shift in overall responsibility for employment and training functions in the TANF program.

3. Changes in Pre-Eligibility Requirements

In recent years, Arizona adopted policies aimed at promoting compliance with child support enforcement requirements and increasing exposure to, and acceptance of, diversion grants.

Beginning in 2004, TANF applicants were required to comply with child support enforcement before TANF eligibility determination. This involves participation in an intake interview with child support staff. Box 3 describes the process in more detail.

Box 3: The Child Support Pre-Eligibility Requirement in Arizona During the initial eligibility interview the TANF worker gives the applicant a letter to take to the local child support office, where she attends an orientation and then meets one-on-one with a case worker to fill out paperwork to begin the paternity (if necessary) and order establishment processes. The child support worker signs the letter indicating the applicant complied, and the applicant returns to the assistance office to complete eligibility. Applicants have 10 days to complete the child support pre-compliance requirement. The process at the local office visited is slightly different because an out-stationed child support worker on site can meet with applicants the same day they apply for benefits.

Staff from TANF and child support spoke positively about the new process. The previous process was cumbersome for staff from both programs, and non-compliance was frequent. TANF eligibility workers had to go through 12 computer screens to gather information about the absent parent, information that was not directly relevant to their work. Child support staff had to contact the recipient after eligibility was established in order to get the recipient to come to the office for an interview. Recipients often failed to respond, and sanctioning was slow.

In 2003, Arizona also adopted a process to expose TANF applicants to grant diversion. The state has had a policy in place for a number of years that offered grant diversion to applicants who are employed or could secure employment quickly and have a one-time need for cash assistance. TANF eligibility workers were previously responsible for screening applicants for grant diversion, but few diversions were granted. The state changed the process so that, prior to TANF eligibility, applicants are required to meet with an employment services case manager within 10 days of filing for benefits. The case manager asks a series of questions about current employment and job history and whether a one-time payment of up to three months of cash assistance would help meet employment needs (e.g., car repairs, tools, child care). As a consequence of the change in the process, the number of diversions increased from 13 statewide in 2003 to 1,360 in 2005.6

4. New Extensions of Assistance

In two sites, few families had lost eligibility in recent years as a consequence of time limits. In New Jersey, this is the result of actions by state officials to extend the time limit for many families. In Arizona, many adults lost their share of the grant under the state’s strict time limits in its initial welfare reform law, an AFDC waiver program.7 But after the waiver expired, five-year clocks for all participants were newly set, and time limits seem to be a source of some confusion among local staff.

In New Jersey, the state enacted policies that permit continuation of monthly payments to TANF clients who would otherwise be terminated due to time limits. In October 2003, the state instituted the Supportive Assistance to Individuals and Families (SAIF) program. When a TANF client is nearing the 60-month time limit, the employment services case manager compiles information on the client’s medical condition, test scores, and history in the TANF program. The case is reviewed by county employment and training agency staff and a representative of the TANF agency to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to exempt the case from the time limit. If no basis for exemption is found, the client is sent an application for the SAIF program. If the application is filed, benefits continue and the client is called in for additional assessment and assignment to one of three vendors that work with SAIF clients. Appropriate work activities are assigned. If the client continues to participate in a work activity, he or she may receive up to 24 months of cash benefits, plus services such as child care and transportation. The program also tries to identify and address previously unidentified barriers to employment. Box 4 provides information on SAIF program participation.

Twenty-one months after reaching the 60-month time limit, if the client has still not found employment, the case is again reviewed with the client by county employment and training and welfare staff, as well as the state’s on-site representative. The purpose of the review is to determine whether the case should be terminated or should be exempted from time limits. The exemption criteria under the SAIF program are broader than those that are available during the first 60 months of TANF receipt. For example, exemptions include poor literacy. Those clients who are exempted for other than health-related barriers are required to engage in activities intended to address barriers and promote self-sufficiency.

Another unusual aspect of the New Jersey program is a supplement that is added to the monthly payment for those cases that are determined to be exempt from time limits. The Supplemental Living Support is $150 per month. It is not time limited.

Box 4: New Jersey SAIF Program Participation Rates According to county staff, approximately 7,000 county cases have been reviewed for the SAIF program since it was initiated in January of 2004. Over the last 2 ½ years, a little over 3,000 cases were enrolled in the program (determined to be non-exempt after the 60-month TANF time limit). Of those, approximately 1,800 were subsequently exempted before the 24-month SAIF time period ended. In January of 2006 the first cases that had exhausted the 24 months of SAIF began to be reviewed by the county. By the time of the site visit in July, approximately 300 of these cases had been reviewed; only 17 had been terminated. The rest were determined to be exempt from participation requirements.

Conversely, in Arizona the TANF time limit will soon affect clients after a period in which its effect was delayed. This is not a change in policy, per se, but is a change in operations resulting from a previous policy decision. After welfare reform, the state operated under a waiver in which the adult in the TANF grant could receive benefits for only 24 months in a five-year period. According to prior Rockefeller reports, many recipients hit these limits in the 1990s. The waiver expired and time clocks were reset. The first recipients will hit the limit in late 2007. At the time of the site visit, central office staff were considering steps to ensure that all local office staff were aware of the fact that the time limit would soon result in the termination of TANF benefits for some clients for the first time. The absence of time limits created some confusion in the local office as to whether the state had a time limit at all. Some case managers had apparently been telling clients to ignore language in state notices about the time limit and that the TANF program did not have a time limit.

5. Changes in Contracts and Contractors

State staff in Wisconsin changed the manner in which contracts are let for TANF services in Milwaukee County. Privatizing services in Milwaukee is not new and predates PRWORA. However, for the first time, the state released separate RFPs for eligibility/case management and employment services. Whereas one contractor in each of the five Milwaukee regions provided all functions in the past, now different contractors can provide services in the same region. The impetus for the change was to return to the foundation of Wisconsin’s TANF program, which is employment. The state believed that specialized staff could better focus on job development and linking clients to employment opportunities.

The state also changed the configuration of Milwaukee regions. Before 2005 there were six regions. The contract with one provider was terminated in 2005 due to contracting irregularities. At first, the state took over management of that region; then it shifted responsibility to a contractor from another region. When the new contracts were let for the 2006-2009 period, the number of regions remained at five. As a result, the service areas of a number of the providers, along with caseloads, changed. One consequence of the changes in contractor responsibilities and service areas was shifting of clients among sites, reassigning them to different staff, and in the case of the terminated contract, bringing in entirely different staff to run the office.

Additionally, one contract was let to provide SSI advocacy services county-wide.8 Eligibility workers in all five Milwaukee regions refer applicants with significant barriers—those expected to keep them out of the labor force for at least 12 months—to the SSI advocate. The advocate assists TANF clients in the SSI application process and with subsequent steps toward securing SSI payments. The contractor is assessed for the percent of TANF participants receiving advocacy services for whom SSI is awarded. According to state staff, implementation of the contract has increased the movement of clients from the TANF rolls to the SSI program.

6. Adoption of a Service Integration Pilot

Arizona implemented a service integration pilot in the local office visited. As noted in Section II, eligibility and job services staff are generally housed in separate offices. One of the few exceptions is the local office selected for the site visit. In this office, the state, with input from local managers, designed a service integration pilot project that aims to inform applicants and clients about alternatives to TANF available in the building, including the Job Service, child support enforcement and child care.

The service integration project builds on the co-location of a number of programs housed in the building. While the site has a history of co-locating programs, up until recently there had been no effort to integrate program operations. The fragmentation of local program administration was due, in part, to information systems and processes that reflected the separate nature of programs and staff within the state bureaucracy.

The cornerstone of the initiative is the customer service window. Workers at the customer service window “triage” clients based on their needs and direct them to appropriate programs. The project goals include improved customer service (clients are offered a short customer satisfaction survey), a shift to a holistic approach to working with clients, and reduction in the cash assistance caseload. Customers who might be eligible for TANF are directed to the Job Service to register for services. Job Service staff also provide job listings, assistance with resume development, and materials for self-directed trainings. The future of this pilot project, however, will likely be affected by the planned privatization of eligibility and case management services.

C. Locally Driven Changes Generally Focus on Office Procedures

Changes that affect the TANF program and that were implemented as a consequence of local initiative were basically procedural in nature. In many cases, the changes were not TANF-specific, but rather affected program operations more broadly.

1. A New Streamlined Intake Process

In Kansas City, the local administrator re-designed the intake process for income support programs, including TANF. Good customer service is a locally determined program goal. The local administrator was concerned about the amount of time that applicants and clients spent waiting to be seen. The office therefore developed a tracking system that used information technology to improve the efficiency of front-end processes. The process is described in Box 5.

Box 5: Kansas City Intake Process When an individual enters the office, he or she takes a number. Customer service representatives call customers in the order they arrive. When the number is called, the applicant approaches the customer service window, and the customer service representative immediately checks the computer systems to see if there is a case open, and at the same time begins to track the client’s progress through the intake process with software that was implemented at the local level. If the client is not already known to the state’s systems, the applicant is given forms to fill out. The applicant takes a seat and the customer service representative sends a message upstairs to the eligibility workers indicating a TANF, Food Stamps and/or Medicaid applicant needs to be interviewed.

Three points of time are logged: the time when the client/applicant is “clocked in” by the customer service representative (i.e., when her number is called and she goes to the customer service window), the time when the eligibility worker calls the client/applicant, and the time when the eligibility worker “checks out” the client/applicant. The office administrator indicated to staff that customers should not have to wait more than 15 minutes to meet with an eligibility worker after checking in at the customer service desk. Logs are reviewed at the end of each day to determine the average wait time. (This is one of the few examples of the implementation of new information technology to improve services at the study sites, the other being the slot management system in Newark, discussed below.)

2. Creation of Transportation Services

The Newark welfare office developed transportation options to help clients access services and travel to work-related activities. The welfare office purchased a large vehicle that, beginning in June 2006, serves as a mobile site where residents can file for benefits, including TANF. The impetus for the van was the underutilization of Food Stamps by Essex County residents, and the van was funded by the Food Stamps program. The vehicle has space enough for three small offices.

The county welfare office also developed three new transportation options for TANF clients. First, the Essex Night Owl is a van service that provides transportation for residents of Newark, East Orange, Orange and Irvington whose hours of employment start before or end during overnight hours when public transportation is not operating. The service operates seven days a week between 1 a.m. and 5 a.m. The Route 10 Shuttle is another shuttle service that provides transportation to and from the Route 10 corridor, the location of a large number of employers. Finally, Workforce Accessibility Vehicles of Essex County (WAVE) is a van-based transportation system that provides access between the county welfare office, the county one-stop, and many of the vendors that provide employment and training services in the county. Unlike the Essex Night Owl and the Route 10 Shuttle, which have flexible schedules and routes, WAVE’s six different van routes are scheduled, with departures eight times daily from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

3. New Effort to Manage Contractor Services

The county office that provides employment and training services in Newark contracts with 23 vendors to provide employment-related services for TANF clients. Case managers need real-time information regarding the type, availability, and location of services. Until recently, interactions between vendors and county staff were entirely paper-based (e.g., compiling listings of openings in vendor-provided activities [slots] such as job search and vocational training, tracking client participation). This created logistical problems and often meant that case managers had out-of-date information on available slots. The county addressed this situation by implementing a web-based “Slot Management System” approximately four years ago. Vendors now provide information on slot availability to county staff via the Internet. Staff now have immediate, real-time information on available activities to which clients can be assigned. In addition, vendors input information on client attendance that is available to case managers to track participation in work activities.

4. New Consolidation of Offices

Whereas the changes described above were designed to improve services to low-income families, including TANF clients, other changes have had the effect of making it somewhat less convenient to file for benefits. The number of local sites where individuals can file for TANF and other programs has been reduced in recent years.

In Milwaukee, county staff responsible for Food Stamps and Medicaid eligibility determination were out-stationed in the local TANF office until recently. As a consequence of the reduction in the overall TANF caseload, as well as financial issues (the county was not willing to absorb all of the costs for space in offices of the private TANF contractors), the county pulled these staff from the contractor sites to a centralized, county office. (TANF applicants are required to file applications with the county office before their TANF cases can be opened in the state’s information system.) These changes had the effect of decreasing the number of offices where TANF applicants could file with the county from five to one,9 necessitating travel to an additional, and often comparatively distant, location in order to complete the TANF application process.

In Essex County consolidation of a number of local offices into a single building in the center of Newark was nearly complete at the time of the site visit. Until recently, clients could file for benefits in a number of locations; now application can be made in only two—Rector Street in Newark and South Clinton Street in East Orange (the latter is the location where all case management for TANF clients is performed). Intake and eligibility processes that were available in East Orange will soon be relocated to the main welfare office on Rector Street. Unlike in Milwaukee, program administrators were supportive of the consolidation efforts. They noted that the change improved the ability to manage the eligibility and employment functions of the program. They added that the new office was easy to reach and that the offices that were closed were in unsafe neighborhoods in the county. The implementation of the mobile office in Essex County, described above, also partially offsets the closing of local welfare offices in the county.

5. Increased Emphasis on Community Work Experience Program

One of the few examples of a significant and locally motivated change specifically focused on the TANF program is the increase in the size and importance of the Community Work Experience Program (CWEP) in Newark. (The other example is the creation of new work programs in Macon, described below.)

CWEP in Newark is not a placement of last resort, where clients are assigned more as a means of satisfying TANF participation requirements than with an expectation that the program will lead to an actual job. CWEP in Newark is a large and active program that, at the time of the site visit, had approximately 700 potential slots available in nearly 300 different organizations. The program increased in size after the employment and training agency director increased staffing over the last year and a half. Where employment and training staff might previously have seen five clients in a day, on one recent day they saw 80 clients. One reason that the program has grown from approximately 60 to nearly 300 organizations is that, in addition to helping place clients, staff also develop relationships with the organizations that provide positions. In order to help ensure that participants are successful in the program, the county recently began to require participants to spend one week in job readiness classes before going to a job site. The county also started combining the six-month work placement with GED class participation as a way to address participant education needs in combination with work. The expectation is that CWEP assignments will lead to full-time employment with the organizations that provide the positions.

D. State and Local Policies Limit Participation in TANF

A number of the changes at the state and local levels have the effect of limiting TANF participation. In addition to the pre-eligibility changes in procedures in Arizona—increased emphasis on diversion and cooperation with child support enforcement—described above,10 state and local offices have made other changes that have the effect of limiting enrollment in the TANF program. Of the five sites in the study, only Missouri had not adopted pre-eligibility requirements since the initial implementation of TANF in the late 1990s.

1. Re-emphasizing Up-front Job Search

According to local- and state-level staff in Wisconsin, the most recent contracts re-emphasized the TANF program’s employment focus. Staff in the local office explained that in the prior years, the program’s emphasis had become “more AFDC-like.” That is, rather than the program’s early emphasis on employment and activities designed to move clients to work as quickly as possible, an entitlement mentality had taken hold. Clients were frequently given extensions on the employment rung time limits, and payment reduction for missing assigned hours of participation was not rigorous. Applicants now participate in upfront workforce attachment exercises before eligibility determination unless they demonstrate a barrier to work. This includes a two-day intensive employment readiness workshop, job club, and one week of job search during which applicants must make 13 contacts.11

2. Creation of New Work Programs

In Macon, TANF staff took steps in 2006 to simultaneously “close the front door” and “open the back door”—goals stressed by the state’s TANF program administrator. Closing the front door is staff short-hand for policies that limit initial eligibility to TANF, such as up-front job search that results in employment, and therefore eliminates the need for TANF. Opening the back door involves implementing programs designed to move clients who have been on the TANF rolls for a prolonged period into jobs. Earlier this year the Bibb County Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), the state office that administers the TANF program in Macon and the remainder of Bibb County, instituted two programs designed to move potential TANF families, as well as long-term TANF clients, toward self-sufficiency.

To “close the front door,” DFCS started the Service and Hospitality Industry Fundamentals Training (SHIFT) program, which is operated by a for-profit company. All applicants must participate in the four-week program. The first week of SHIFT involves classroom training to prepare clients to apply for a job in the service industry. For the second through fourth weeks, clients are expected to make 10 in-person contacts with employers each day.

For the first two weeks, no action is taken on the TANF application.12 After two weeks, the case manager, in conjunction with SHIFT staff, determines whether the applicant has continued to participate in SHIFT and whether further participation is appropriate. The expectation is that the client will secure a job before TANF eligibility is established.

To “open the back door,” DFCS created a new program for long-term clients, Upward Progression to Self Sufficiency (UPSS). Like SHIFT, services are provided under contract with a private company. The program is intended for clients who have passed through the standard employment and training program (Goodworks!) run by the local one-stop but have not found employment. Typically these are cases in which the client has little or no work experience.

UPSS provides work experience in the DFCS office. Clients receive training in job readiness skills, job retention and how and when to explore job advancement opportunities. Classes last from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. five days per week; if a client misses one of the days, class is held on Saturday. On average, class time lasts four weeks, during which time barriers to employment not previously identified may come up, and are addressed.13 At the end of the training period, the client is placed in a job at the DFCS office where she is supervised by UPSS staff. Clients are paid $5.15 per hour; hours of paid employment are limited to avoid causing the client to become ineligible for TANF (see Box 6). Other activities, such as job search, fill out a 40-hour week.

Box 6: UPSS Program Hours The UPSS program takes advantage of the method by which the state computes the TANF payment. Georgia is what used to be called a “gap state;” income is counted in a way that has the effect of disregarding the portion that falls between the standard of need and the maximum amount of the TANF payment. For example, for a family of three, the need standard is $424 and the maximum amount of the TANF payment is $280. In addition to the standard earned income disregards, the portion of the income that falls between the need standard and the maximum payment, $144 in this case, is effectively disregarded. This allows the family to remain eligible for TANF during the work experience portion of the UPSS program, with an income that is much higher than would otherwise be provided by only the TANF payment. The hours of work in the DFCS office are limited so as to prevent the family from becoming ineligible for TANF.

E. TANF Program Functions are Being Carried out by Increasingly Complicated Institutional Structures, a Change that may Affect Participation in TANF as well as Staff Communications and Coordination

Changes at the state and local level at the five sites suggest that TANF programs are moving toward more complex management structures at the state level, and increased specialization and separation of functions at the local level. Compared to only a few years ago, TANF functions in these sites have been increasingly divided between human service and labor departments; between public and private agencies; and among a variety of specialists. Clients must interact with many staff, often in different agencies and in different locations, in order to receive a monthly payment. In none of the sites has the program become more streamlined.

The sites showed many instances of growing complexity in the administration of TANF:

• Georgia. In Macon, local TANF managers have instituted two new programs, SHIFT and UPSS, described above, the former for TANF applicants, the later for long-term TANF clients. Both programs are provided by private organizations through contracts arranged at the local level, and are in addition to services provided at the local labor department one-stop office under a state-level contract.

• Missouri. As described above, the state shifted funding for TANF case management and employment-related services from the state human service agency to the state labor department. Whereas the Department of Social Services provided both eligibility and case management services at the same local office, now DSS staff provide eligibility for TANF and a private contractor at a separate location is responsible for case management and employment services. In addition, state Department of Workforce Development staff contact TANF applicants, prior to eligibility determination, to offer voluntary employment services at the local one-stop career center.

• New Jersey. Eligibility and employment services have been housed in two separate local offices for some time. Until recently, funding for TANF employment services was shared by the human services and labor departments. Now, the labor department receives all such funding. At the study site in Newark the change had little effect; the county operates the labor one-stop office as well as the offices responsible for TANF eligibility.

• Wisconsin. While both TANF eligibility and case management functions have been privatized for more than a decade in Milwaukee, state contracts now separate eligibility and case management from employment functions. In addition, a separate contract provides for SSI advocacy for the entire county. In the local office, the same organization had both contracts.14 In addition, staff from the county welfare office who determine eligibility for Food Stamps, Medicaid and child care are no longer outstationed in local offices. These staff have been relocated to a centralized county office.

• Arizona. In most parts of the state, eligibility and job services are provided in separate offices by separate state staff. The office visited was unique in that it is a pilot integration site. Although it had not yet directly affected the site visited in Phoenix, a significant change in program structure is underway in Arizona. The state legislature mandated the privatization of TANF case management and related employment-related activities throughout the state.15 Privatization of these functions will result in a major realignment of staff, some of whom will lose their jobs, while others will move to other positions.

At all of the sites, applicants and clients must meet with multiple staff to receive services. Box 7 shows the complexity of the programs in Macon and Milwaukee.

Box 7: TANF Program Complexity in Macon and Milwaukee Macon When a TANF client initially visits the local office, she is given a single application for TANF, Food Stamps and Medicaid. She is then seen by a Screener, who completes a Work Readiness Assessment and determines whether the client needs immediate assistance via the expedited Food Stamp process, in which case she is seen immediately by an eligibility worker. The screener also sets up an appointment with the employment services case manager. For the majority of cases, the parent is seen by a case manager that day or the following one. If there are no factors present that would cause the client to be exempt from participation in a work activity, she is referred to SHIFT, one of Macon’s new programs, which focuses on up-front job search. If child care is needed, the client meets with child care staff. Within a brief period of time, the client is likely to be called in to the child support office in another location in Macon. Meanwhile, a Family Support Worker, employed by Macon Bibb County Economic Opportunity Council, Inc., under a contract with the local welfare office, visits the site where the client has been assigned to track participation and to provide mentoring and coaching, should the client fail to meet participation requirements. All in all, the client is likely to meet with a minimum of a half-dozen staff in multiple agencies, all before receiving a payment. (In Georgia’s TANF program, the initial payment is not made until more than a month after application.) There are numerous opportunities for clients to miss an appointment, and therefore eligibility for the TANF program. Milwaukee At the site visited, the level of staff specialization was striking. A typical applicant meets with the following staff during the first few weeks of entering the program: a Customer Service Representative, an Information Resource Specialist, employment staff, an Eligibility Financial Employment Planner, a county child support enforcement worker, and an ongoing Financial Employment Planner, a specialist who works with the specific employment program to which the client is assigned, all of whom are on site. The client must also make her way to the county welfare office to file there for Food Stamps, Medicaid, and for child care.

Given the complexity of program requirements and related activities (e.g., eligibility requirements, participation requirements, child support requirements, child care arrangements, transportation arrangements), the number of different workers and the bureaucracies in which they operate with whom clients must interact, and the general lack of integration of service delivery systems, it is not surprising that many clients fail to satisfy initial or subsequent eligibility requirements. For example, in the Milwaukee office visited, of the applicants who filed for TANF in the first three months of 2006 who were within the office’s service area, more than half did not follow through with the various interviews and other requirements that are part of the eligibility process. Many likely found employment. But some also likely decided not to pursue benefits for one reason or another. An additional 15 percent were determined to be ineligible for benefits, including a substantial percentage who failed to complete the up-front job search requirement.

The increased complexity of local TANF programs creates challenges for staff as well. For example, in Phoenix and Kansas City, completely separate IT systems were used to determine eligibility and track timeliness and accuracy in providing benefits, and to follow work participation activities. Milwaukee’s CARES system was the only system of the five states that fully integrated IT functions for eligibility, case management, and job services. Most often, staff from one side of the program (e.g., eligibility) did not have access to the system used by the other side (job services). This separation not only made it harder for staff to track clients; it also forced staff to spend time collecting information already obtained and captured elsewhere in the TANF system.

In locations where TANF eligibility staff and case managers work in different locations, and particularly where they work for different agencies, communication issues were apparent. This was most noticeable in Milwaukee, where, as described above, county welfare staff had until recently been co-located with TANF staff. Previously there were ongoing personal interactions between county and contractor staffs, facilitated by physical proximity and shared caseloads. Now, staff on both sides expressed frustration. Contractor staff indicated that they had difficulty determining which county workers were handling their cases and securing responses to requests for information. County staff indicated that at times client information relevant to their work was not passed on by TANF staff. Both parties agreed that the move away from co-location was not good for either staff or clients.

F. Low Benefit Levels may Affect Client Participation and Sanction Effectiveness

Cash payment levels in four of the states in this study are low, and given that benefit levels have remained static for long periods, are of reduced value relative to the cost of living. As indicated in Exhibit III.1, in four states the amount of the TANF payment was less than $425 per month for a family of three, and in two states, it was less than $300 per month. In addition, these benefit levels have remained basically unchanged for many years. In New Jersey, for example, staff reported that the payment level for TANF (and the AFDC program before that) had not increased for 19 years. The combination of low benefit levels, as well as the factors described above, has likely made the TANF program, whether by design or otherwise, less attractive as a means of addressing the needs of low-income families.

Exhibit III.1: Maximum AFDC/TANF Benefit for a Parent and Two Children (Dollars per month)

State	1995	2000	2006
Arizona	347	347	347
Georgia	280	280	280
Missouri	292	292	292
New Jersey	424	424	424
Wisconsin	517	673	673*

* For clients in the community service job rung

Insubstantial benefit levels also present program administrators with a dilemma regarding the effectiveness of sanctions. For example, the sanction for the first failure to participate in work activities in Arizona, Georgia and Missouri is 25 percent of the grant. In New Jersey, it is the adult’s portion of the grant. Given the benefit levels in these states, the sanction does not amount to very much money. When coupled with notice and due process requirements and the ease with which the sanction can be cured, sanctions do not appear to be an adequate means of securing cooperation. In a number of the sites, local staff told us that sanctions were largely ineffective in securing compliance.

The dilemma for state program administrators is that, on the one hand, given benefit levels, current sanctions are not meaningful, at least initially. Yet more onerous sanctions, such as the permanent full family sanction that was previously the policy in Georgia for the second failure to cooperate, may be impractical. Georgia recently changed the policy because the full-family sanction was seldom invoked. In two of the sites, administrators indicated that the state’s sanction policy was likely to be revised as a consequence of changes in federal rules regarding TANF participation.

To a certain extent, the limited amount of cash benefits is offset by eligibility for child care, the value of which can easily exceed the TANF payment in the study states. However, while the value of child care may be substantial, the loss of the subsidy does not serve the same purpose in securing client participation as reduction in the TANF payment—a client who is not participating in a work activity does not require child care. Staff in all of the sites indicated that child care for TANF families was available, both in terms of state funding to pay for child care and the supply of child care providers. There were differences, however, in whether child care for other low-income working families was available. In Macon, for example, applications for child care for such families were not being taken at the time of the site visit. As a consequence, eligibility for TANF had become a means of securing child care.

---

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next