Search Type Title Author/Investigator Search Advanced Search

Table of Contents | Previous | Next

II. SUMMARY OF THE TANF PROGRAM AT THE LOCAL SITES

A. Program Structure

The program structure at the state and local levels was complex at each site. More often than not, more than one department, or agency within a department, has responsibility for aspects of the TANF program. Often contractors are part of the mix at the local level. From the client’s perspective, applying for TANF and receiving employment and case management services can involve interactions with multiple staff. Exhibit II.1 summarizes the program structure in the five sites.

Exhibit II.1: TANF Program Structure

State	State-Level Program Responsibility		Local-Level Program Responsibility		Notable Aspects
	Eligibility	Employment/Case Management	Eligibility	Employment/Case Management
Arizona (Phoenix)	Department of Economic Security (DES) Family Assistance Administration (FAA)	DES Employment Administration (EA)	State FAA staff	State EA staff	FAA and EA in separate offices (exception in pilot site)
Georgia (Macon)	Department of Human Resources Division of Family and Children Services (DFCS)	DFCS	State DFCS staff	Contractors (employment); DCFS (case management)	Eligibility and some employment services in one site
Missouri (Kansas City)	Department of Social Services (DSS)	Department of Economic Development (DED)	State DSS staff	DED contractor	Eligibility and employment in two separate sites
New Jersey (Newark)	Department of Human Services (DHS) Division of Family Development	Department of Labor and Workforce Services (DLWS)	County DHS staff	County DLWS staff (case management, some employment services); contractors (some employment services)	Two separate offices and multiple contractor sites; however one director oversees eligibility and employment services at local level
Wisconsin (Milwaukee)	Department of Workforce Development (DWD)	DWD	DWD Contractor	DWD Contractor	County staff determine Medicaid and Food Stamp eligibility at separate site; SSI advocate contract

In two states—Georgia and Wisconsin—the same state-level entity has responsibility for all aspects of the TANF program. In the other states, TANF eligibility and employment services/case management are separated. As discussed below, this has implications for program coherence.

States that separate TANF eligibility and employment functions at the state level have more complex structures at the local level, such as different offices for different functions. In these locations, clients encounter multiple staffs while participating in the program. However, even states in which one department houses all TANF-related functions can have complex service delivery models. For example, in Wisconsin, the state contracts for TANF case management and employment services separately.2

B. State Context

Local offices, regardless of the level of autonomy operate within the parameters of the state’s general program philosophies and welfare policies. This section provides the context for local office operations. It documents statewide trends and differences in TANF caseloads and summarizes key TANF policies, including benefit levels, time limits and sanctions.

1. TANF Caseloads

The five states in the study experienced large caseload declines in the years following welfare reform, ranging from 37 percent in Arizona to 74 percent in Georgia. Exhibit II.2 shows caseload trends in more recent years. Four of the five states had fluctuating caseloads that increased between 2000 and 2004 before declining. Only Missouri experienced an ongoing decline since 2000. Georgia is unique among these states in seeing an especially large drop in cases between 2004 and 2006.

[D]

Because these five states differ greatly in the number of needy families living within their boundaries, caseload totals say little about state differences in the participation of potentially eligible families. Yet understanding such differences in participation may be essential if one wants to discern differences in the accessibility of state TANF programs to low-income families with children—due, for example, to diverse policies, administrative practices, and cultural and social factors. Although there is probably no ideal way of comparing the penetration of TANF programs among needy families across states, Exhibit II.3 helps put state caseloads into perspective by comparing the number of children on TANF with the number of children (i.e., persons under 18) living in the state and in a household whose income falls below the federal poverty level.3

Exhibit II.3

Children on TANF as a Percentage of Children in Poverty, Five Study States, 2004-05

	Children on TANF; average monthly number, in thousands, 2004-05	Children under federal poverty level; average, in thousands, 2004-05	Ratio (percent) of children on TANF relative to all children in poverty, 2004-05
New Jersey	80	186	43
Missouri	68	246	28
Arizona	73	339	22
Wisconsin	37	206	18
Georgia	71	481	15
Median for all states			26

The Exhibit shows large differences across the states in the percentage of children in poverty on monthly TANF rolls. New Jersey was much higher than the median state in terms of poor children participating in TANF. Missouri was slightly higher than the median, while Arizona was slightly lower. Wisconsin and Georgia were well below the median state (25.8 percent).

The states also differed significantly in the percentage of child-only cases in their overall cash assistance caseloads (cases where only a child or children are receiving assistance). Under PRWORA, most families receiving TANF are subject to work requirements and time limits on benefit receipt. However, child-only cases are generally exempt from these federal requirements. This has implications for the activities of local offices. Goals and monitoring that focus on employment and training services and work participation rates do not align with the reality in some offices, where child-only cases account for a major share of the caseload.

Child-only cases represented the largest share of the caseload in Georgia (75 percent) and Wisconsin (64 percent) in March 2006. About half of all cases in Arizona were child only. The proportion in New Jersey (30 percent) and Missouri (28 percent) were smaller. Exhibit II.4 shows trends in the proportion of cases that are child-only. As it indicates, the proportion fluctuated in three of the five study states; it gradually increased in Missouri, and after a relatively flat trajectory increased sharply in Georgia starting in 2004.4

[D]

2. TANF Policies

In addition to program philosophy, local offices operate within the context of state-level TANF policies. This includes benefit levels, time limits, sanctions, and diversion policies, all of which affect whether families apply for, receive, or remain on TANF.

Exhibit II.5 shows state cash benefit and diversion policies. Four states have maximum cash benefit levels based on family size; Wisconsin bases the benefit on the recipients’ placement on the four-rung employment ladder (unsubsidized job, trial job, community service job, or transitional services). Benefit amounts ranged from a low of $280 per month for an adult and two children in Georgia to a high of $673 for a recipient on the community service job employment ladder rung in Wisconsin.

Only two states, Arizona and New Jersey, have official diversion policies. In Arizona, applicants must meet with employment services staff prior to benefit determination to assess eligibility for and interest in a lump sum payment in lieu of TANF benefits. In New Jersey, the Early Employment Initiative, the state’s diversion program, provides a one-time payment for job search and placement activities while a family member seeks employment. Other states described policies that have the effect of diverting potential clients. As described below in more detail, TANF applicants in Georgia and Wisconsin must participate in job search activities prior to benefit determination, which may have the effect of reducing caseloads by encouraging applicants to find a job during the application period.

Exhibit II.5: Benefit Amounts and Diversion Policies, Five Study States

State	Maximum Monthly Benefit for Family of Three	Diversion Policy
Arizona	$347	Yes; must meet with employment services staff within 10 days of application to determine interest in and eligibility for diversion; failure to do so results in benefit denial. Diversion is equal to payment of up to three months of benefits.
Georgia	$280	No official diversion policy, but upfront employment program (see below) and 45 day wait for first benefit payment have effect of diversion policy.
Missouri	$292	No diversion policy.
New Jersey	$424	Yes; Early Employment Initiative provides a one-time payment during job search as well as other services, such as child care.
Wisconsin	Depends on job tier placement, not family size: --Unsubsidized job (no grant) --Trial job (no grant) --Community service job ($673) --W-2 transition ($628)	No diversion policy; can apply for a job access loan of between $25 and $1,600 that must be repaid within 12 months (payment period can be extended).

Exhibit II.6 details time limit and sanction policies. Four of the five states have 60-month time limits; Georgia’s limit is 48 months. The time limit in Arizona, in practice, was extended beyond 60 months for participants who were receiving benefits when the AFDC waiver ended and time clocks were reset. The first clients will time out in late 2007. Wisconsin has an employment ladder rung time limit for all rungs except unsubsidized employment, in addition to the benefit time limit. Clients cannot spend more than 24 months in any one tier (e.g., community service jobs, trial jobs). The expectation is that clients will move up the ladder to the top rung, an unsubsidized job, and ultimately become self-sufficient.

Each state outlines reasons for extensions to the benefit time limit. These generally include domestic violence, treatment for mental health issues, treatment for substance abuse, and, in Missouri, incompatibility between TANF work requirements and child welfare-mandated activities. Extensions are generally for short periods of time (e.g., three months) at which time they are reviewed. As described below in Section III, New Jersey provides up to two years of additional benefits to families that are having difficulty attaining self-sufficiency.

Exhibit II.6: Time Limits and Sanctions, Five Study States

State	Time Limit and Extensions		Sanction Policy
	Months	Extension Reasons	Reason	Policy
Arizona	60 months	N/A at time of site visit: Due to waiver, first clients hit limit 10/07	Failure to participate in work activities, non-cooperation with child support, or failure to meet with employment staff (same sanction)	25% for first month of non-compliance; 50% for second month; case closure in third month
Georgia	48 months	DV, child welfare case, substance abuse, disability, caring for disabled family member, residence in high unemployment area; Extensions for three months and count towards federal 60 month limit	Failure to cooperate with child support or participate in work activities (same sanction)	--1st level: 25% of grant for 3 months --2nd level: case closure for 3 months --3rd level: case closure for 12 months
Missouri	60 months	Mental health issues, substance abuse treatment, receiving services for DV issue, TANF activities do not align with child welfare activities, family crisis; Extensions re-evaluated every 90 days	For not participating in work activities:	25% of grant, only after an in-person meeting in place until compliance (1st sanction) or 3 months or compliance, whichever is longer (2nd and subsequent)
			For non-cooperation with child support:	25% grant plus parent’s share of Medicaid
New Jersey	60 months	24 month extension available; must continue to work or participate in a work activity	For not participating in work activities:	--1st level adult share of grant for 30 days if cooperative; if not full family sanction --2nd level adult share for 60 days or full family if non-cooperative --3rd level is full family sanction for 90 days
			Failure to cooperate with child support:	Full family sanction
Wisconsin	60 month benefit limit; 24 month limit on employment ladder rungs except unsubsidized employment	Can request extension to either limit—determinations made by case manager on case by case basis; if granted, usually 4-6 months	Failure to participate in assigned CSJ or W-2T activities without good cause (employment ladder rungs with grants):	Grant reduction of $5.15 for each hour missed without good cause
			Non-cooperation with child support:	Entire cash grant and childcare, and adult share of Food Stamps and Medicaid

All five states sanction recipients for failure to comply with work requirements and non-cooperation with child support enforcement. Arizona also sanctions clients who fail to meet with employment services staff. In terms of non-compliance with work activities, three states—Arizona, Georgia, and New Jersey—have increasingly severe sanctions, starting at 25 percent of the grant and increasing to a full family sanction as non-compliance continues. Missouri has a flat sanction rate (25 percent) regardless of the months sanctioned. Wisconsin sanctions clients $5.15 for every hour of assigned work activities missed without good case if the client is in one of the two employment ladder rungs with cash grants. In two states sanctions cannot go into effect until staff have made attempts to reach clients through multiple notices (Arizona) or an in-person meeting (Missouri).

Sanctions for failure to cooperate with child support enforcement are often more stringent. In Missouri, the 25 percent grant sanction is combined with the loss of the adult’s share of Medicaid. In New Jersey and Wisconsin, non-cooperation results in a full family sanction; Wisconsin also eliminates the adult’s share of Food Stamps and Medicaid.

Finally, substantial pre-eligibility requirements are present in all the sites except Missouri. Exhibit II.7 shows local office variation in up-front child support and job search compliance. PRWORA requires that TANF recipients cooperate with the child support enforcement agency to establish paternity or establish, modify, or enforce child support obligations. Failure to do so, as noted above, is grounds for a sanction.

Exhibit II.7: Pre-Eligibility Activities, Five Study Sites

Local Office	Child Support Enforcement Meeting	Job Search
Arizona	Upfront: CSE worker out-stationed at local office	Subsequent to eligibility determination
Georgia	Subsequent to eligibility determination.	Upfront: must participate in employment program for 4 weeks
Missouri	Subsequent to eligibility determination.	Subsequent to eligibility determination
New Jersey	Upfront: CSE worker out-stationed at local office	Subsequent to eligibility determination
Wisconsin	Upfront: CSE worker out-stationed at local office	Upfront: applicants attend workshop and participate in one week of job search

In three of the five study sites—Phoenix, Newark and Milwaukee—TANF applicants must meet with child support staff prior to eligibility determination. In all three sites, child support workers are located at the TANF office, although applicants have the option of going to a local child support office as well. In Kansas City, the TANF applicant fills out child support enforcement paperwork during the TANF application process. TANF staff then forward this information to a central child support office. If the information is incomplete or additional information is needed to start a case, child support staff will contact the client for an interview. In Macon, child support staff contact clients after eligibility is determined to begin the establishment and enforcement process.

The local sites also differ in the timing of job search activities. Macon and Milwaukee require applicants to participate in job search activities before eligibility determination. In Phoenix, Kansas City and Newark, job search and other work activities begin after eligibility determination.

---

 

Table of Contents | Previous | Next