Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
IV. Identifying and Addressing Noncompliance: Participation Monitoring and Conciliation Practices
Given that work activities are designed to help clients get and keep jobs, compliance increases clients’ likelihood of future labor market success. To ensure that clients comply with program requirements, TANF agency staff closely monitor clients’ participation in required activities. When staff identify participation problems, they take a range of factors into consideration in deciding how to address the issue. In some cases, they may immediately initiate a sanction as a means of motivating clients to participate. In other cases, they may attempt to gather more information about the reasons for participation problems and then help clients comply more fully. This chapter examines different approaches to monitoring and documenting clients’ participation and to addressing noncompliance.
A. Monitoring Participation
Once clients know what is expected of them, TANF staff must then monitor participation so that clients meet the program requirements. Monitoring participation is integral to promoting program compliance. In a study of pre-welfare reform employment programs, Hamilton and Scrivener (1999) found that programs that monitor clients’ activities closely achieve higher participation rates than programs that do not. To hold clients accountable, program staff may either initiate sanctions to encourage participation or remove noncompliant clients from the TANF caseload.
Participation reports are a critical source of information for identifying noncompliant clients.
Sites regularly and systematically document clients’ participation. The process includes gathering clients’ participation hours at least monthly, though often weekly, and entering reported data into a centralized management information system. Data may include client timesheets, contracted service providers’ tracking reports, school transcripts from education and training programs, attendance sheets from work site supervisors or community partners, and pay stubs from employers or any combination of sources. Some sites allow clients, especially employed clients, to mail or fax their participation hours; in-person data submission is not always convenient for the client. Case managers or other designated staff enter the data into a state monitoring and tracking system that generates participation reports.
Case managers review participation reports to identify noncompliant clients. Findings from the staff survey confirm that case managers largely rely on attendance records and participation reports to make sanction decisions. Among those surveyed, 9 out of 10 case managers said that they use written attendance records, and more than three-fourths review computerized participation reports (see Appendix C). Of those using attendance records and participation reports to make sanction decisions, nearly all found the records and reports useful.
The utility of participation reports depends in part on the frequency with which case managers receive them. In some sites, case managers receive participation reports monthly and in others weekly. In Utah, however, participation reports are available to case managers at all times. The state created a new Web-based management information system called YODA (Your On-line Data Access) that allows case managers to monitor the work participation of each of their cases in real time. Program administrators, supervisors, and front-line staff can view clients' participation hours and activities from their workstations at any time. Case managers use reports from the system regularly to identify those meeting the federally defined work participation rates and to alert them to clients in need of reengagement. Supervisors also use reports from the system regularly to hold case managers accountable for assigning clients to appropriate work activities and hours and monitoring their ongoing program compliance.
In addition to identifying noncompliance, case managers use the information in participation reports to determine the next steps for handling a case. For clients satisfying some but not all participation hour requirements, case managers often contact them by telephone or mail an appointment letter to obtain more information before initiating the sanction process. For blatant and continuous nonparticipation, case managers may initiate the sanction process immediately based solely on the information in the participation reports. Obviously, case managers cannot serve clients who never show up; therefore, they often use the sanction process to bring such clients into the office. According to the survey of frontline staff, case managers initiate sanctions most often for clients who never participate once they are deemed eligible for TANF (see Appendix C). Case managers speculate that such clients learn what is required of them and then decide to rely on other sources of income (e.g., family, boyfriend/girlfriend, disability insurance) rather than comply. Some, they fear, may have legitimate reasons for nonparticipation but do not report the reasons to program staff.
Since clients report their participation to those serving them, clients may report to sanction decision makers directly or indirectly through contracted service providers.
Clients report their participation directly to those serving them. Sites define reporting paths in accordance with the service delivery structure. Clients may be assigned to employment and training services provided either in-house or by community providers such as contracted service providers, vocational and educational training programs, or specialized treatment providers. When services are provided in-house, clients report directly to case managers, who are typically responsible for deciding whether to initiate sanctions. When referred to an outside community provider, clients report to the provider, which then relays information to the case manager. If case management responsibilities are broadly defined to include ongoing monitoring, then clients referred to a community provider may also be required to report both to the provider and to their case manager (see Figure IV.1).
Direct Reporting. Clients referred to in-house employment and training services report directly to case managers, who are authorized to make sanction decisions. Duval and Pima counties rely exclusively on case managers and in-house employment and training staff to serve TANF recipients, monitor and track participation, and initiate sanctions. In these sites, case managers have at least weekly contact with clients when clients submit their participation reports. In addition, case managers meet with clients at least monthly, so that clients can provide a detailed account of their progress and discuss conditions that may interfere with participation. Case managers may use the monthly meetings to resolve difficult situations and reassure and motivate the client. Direct reporting and ongoing monitoring permit the development of personal relationships between case managers and clients.
Indirect Reporting. In sites that rely on community providers for employment and training services, clients report participation indirectly to sanction decision makers through their providers. In Suffolk, Los Angeles, and DeKalb counties, contracted service providers or community partners work with TANF clients to help them get and keep jobs. Clients report their hours and activities to the providers, which in turn report at scheduled intervals to welfare agency staff. Providers also may initiate special reports sooner for noncompliant clients. There are three ways that providers may report to welfare agency staff: directly to case managers, to liaisons at the welfare agency, and to specialized monitoring units.
In Los Angeles County, clients report to providers, which then report to case managers. Case managers and clients first interact when they develop clients’ employment plans. Case managers then assign clients to contracted service providers, General Educational Development (GED) or English as a Second Language (ESL) providers, and community colleges, among others, each of which is responsible for monitoring and reporting client participation. After that, case managers meet only with clients who become noncompliant.
In DeKalb County, contracted service providers monitor clients’ participation in work activities and submit attendance sheets daily to specialized TANF agency staff called community resource specialists. Three community resource specialists serve as liaisons between case managers and contracted service providers. Each community resource specialist works with a specific set of providers. In addition to receiving daily participation reports from providers, they visit providers several times a week to collect more detailed information about clients with personal and family challenges and to problem-solve directly with clients. While on site, they often meet with clients to re-engage them or strengthen their commitment to participate. The specialists relay information about clients’ circumstances to case managers and immediately inform case managers when a client stops participating, allowing case managers to act quickly. Rapid action prevents issues from remaining undetected or ignored due to lags in communication between providers and case managers.
In Suffolk County, specialized units handle case management functions such as employment plan development, monitoring, and sanction responsibilities. There are five units that monitor participation defined by the type of program activity to which clients are assigned (e.g., work site, employment, school, job search, and medical tracking). Community providers serving clients report to one of the five monitoring units. The monitoring units transfer all clients failing to complete their required hours to the noncompliance unit, which initiates the sanction process.
Direct and Indirect Reporting: A Hybrid Approach. Access to a mix of in-house and contracted service providers expands clients’ service options but sometimes duplicates reporting to the sanction decision maker. Case managers in Kern, Tarrant, and Salt Lake counties have primary responsibility for case management but rely on a combination of in-house services, contracted service providers, and community partners to deliver employment and training services. Clients report directly to case managers and to service providers if so assigned. Providers also report clients’ participation to case managers, who may use the information to verify clients’ reported hours. In each of the three sites, case managers carry small caseloads and are required to work intensively with individual clients. Community providers also work closely with clients. While monitoring efforts are sometimes duplicated, clients receive ongoing support from several sources.
To avoid delays with indirect reporting, sites may require contracted service providers to report nonparticipation immediately.
Reliance on community partners as providers expands the resources available to welfare agencies, but it also demands coordinated reporting. Three-fourths of the sites rely on contractors as primary or supplementary providers of employment and training services or specialized treatment (e.g., mental health, substance abuse treatment, domestic violence). Contractors and other community-based agencies are active partners in documenting client participation. Contracts or formal agreements define how, when, and what providers report. At a minimum, providers regularly submit a written or electronic report summarizing clients’ participation hours and activities within a designated period.
Despite the advantages of the involvement of community partners, relying exclusively on providers’ regular participation reports may delay consequences for nonparticipants. Nearly all providers submit participation reports at least monthly. As a result, clients who stop participating at the beginning of a reporting period may remain noncompliant for several weeks before a case manager is aware of their noncompliance. Delayed consequences may reduce the effectiveness of sanctions in motivating clients to participate. Some sites take additional steps to identify nonparticipants sooner.
[D] |
To avoid delayed consequences, providers may be required to notify case managers immediately when clients are noncompliant. For example, Kern County included very specific language in its contracts with providers to encourage timely notification of nonparticipation. Provider staff have three business days to notify the case manager verbally if a client fails to appear. Provider administrators and staff said that the three-day provision motivates them to report nonparticipation quickly in order not to jeopardize the status of their contracts. “We have no room for error,” said one provider administrator who understands the provision’s potential repercussions.
Reporting nonparticipation as it occurs allows case managers to re-engage clients or impose consequences quickly. To focus clients’ attention on their nonparticipation status, case managers may immediately contact nonparticipants and/or initiate the sanction process. With full participation a high priority, re-engagement efforts may encourage clients to comply fully or motivate them to leave the TANF caseload.
When caseloads are high, case managers in sites with indirect reporting often do not become aware of clients’ personal and family challenges until clients become noncompliant.
Caseloads are high in each of the sites with indirect reporting. In Suffolk County, workers in the monitoring unit are responsible solely for monitoring the participation of clients in various work activities but each staff member is responsible for a large number of clients. Two workers are responsible for monitoring the participation of the 500 clients assigned to work experience. Worker-to-client ratios range from 1 to 65 for clients enrolled in educational programs to 1 to 700 for clients who are employed. While other individuals involved with the case, such as worksite supervisors, may report noncompliance immediately to the monitoring unit, the monitoring unit generally will not become aware of noncompliance quickly unless these other individuals take it upon themselves to report it. In Los Angeles County, caseloads range from 110 to 150 per case manager. While case managers spend most of their time reengaging nonparticipants, they are also responsible for developing employment plans and monitoring participation. County administrators are hiring additional staff to reduce the worker to client ratio to 1 to 90. Case managers in DeKalb County handle an average of 60 cases, but are responsible for ongoing eligibility for TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid assistance as well as regular case management.
With high caseloads or workloads, case managers often are able to identify and address clients’ personal and family challenges only after a finding of noncompliance. This is consistent with findings from previous studies that large caseloads are significantly associated with higher sanction frequencies (Los Angeles County, 2005). In each site with indirect reporting, case managers’ limited ongoing interaction with clients reduces opportunities to learn about client difficulties. Nonetheless, by addressing barriers after clients become noncompliant, case manager target resources to the most problematic conditions.
In the absence of information on personal and family challenges, case managers typically rely on participation reports alone to make sanction decisions. Since information about the client is limited, decisions are mostly mechanical and objective. Failure to engage in the required hours of work activities immediately triggers the sanction process.
When case managers are aware of clients’ personal and family challenges, they have much more information on which to base sanction decisions.
Frequent interactions made possible by small caseloads and direct reporting cultivate personal relationships between case managers and clients. Small caseloads of fewer than 100 clients allow case managers to expand the range of information they gather to include personal and family circumstances, participation patterns, and clients’ attitudes and behaviors. Most sites with direct reporting keep caseload sizes between 30 and 70 clients per worker. In such sites, case managers who make sanction decisions meet with clients frequently and regularly, especially clients with serious and persistent personal and family challenges. Some clients disclose personal information to their worker as it relates to their ability to participate and get a job. At the same time, case managers may observe behaviors and/or attitudes potentially indicating that undisclosed barriers may interfere with participation (e.g., drug or alcohol use, learning disabilities, limited functioning).
During interactions, case managers may find ways to identify and address barriers before they interfere with participation. Depending on the severity of the barrier and the flexibility of program requirements, case managers may encourage clients to obtain documentation for an exemption, or they may adjust client employment plans or refer clients to specialized services. For example, case managers in Utah may refer clients with mental health conditions to an in-house social worker for a clinical assessment and mental health treatment covered by TANF or Medicaid funds. For those in treatment, case managers may temporarily reduce required participation hours and count treatment as an activity. In Kern County, all clients are encouraged during TANF program orientation to disclose drug or alcohol addictions to their case manager. In instances of disclosure, case managers refer clients to CalWORKs Behavioral Health Services. In Tarrant County, welfare recipients with barriers may be referred to specialized services provided by community organizations that are under contractor to the entity that operates the Workforce Center (or One-Stop Center).
Case managers who know their clients well generally consider a wide range of factors when deciding to impose a sanction. Case managers may refrain from sanctioning clients facing personal and family challenges. They also may delay a sanction or excuse missed hours if the client has participated consistently in the past or they recognize that a sanction will create family hardship (see Appendix C). In addition, case managers consider their personal relationship with the client. For example, they may deem a client cooperative and responsible if, when faced with a scheduling conflict, the client calls the case manager to reschedule an appointment rather than skipping it without notice.
B. Conciliating with Nonparticipating Clients Before Sanctions are Imposed
Once case managers determine that a client’s nonparticipation warrants a sanction, they must take the necessary steps to begin the pre-sanctioning process. Across the study sites, pre-sanctioning processes ranged from sending standard notices of an impending sanction to extensive outreach efforts to re-engage clients in work activities before imposing the sanction. When these efforts succeed, clients maintain their benefits and program participation rates do not suffer. When these efforts do not succeed, a sanction may be inevitable.
Notifying clients of impending sanctions provides clients with one final opportunity to present evidence of good cause for noncompliance.
As standard procedure in all sites, clients receive an official written warning of an impending sanction and are given a final opportunity to remedy noncompliance and avoid a sanction. Warnings are typically notices sent to clients through the mail. They inform clients that a sanction will be imposed unless they respond to the notice within a specified period (typically 10 to 20 days). In some sites, clients are considered to have responded to the notice and can temporarily avoid a sanction if they simply contact their case manager. In other sites, clients must demonstrate good cause for nonparticipation in order to avoid a sanction. Most sites automatically impose sanctions on clients who fail to respond to the letter in the specified manner within the specified period.
Documented reasons for noncompliance may delay or prevent a sanction. Findings from the survey of frontline staff indicate that case managers refrain from sanctioning a nonparticipant facing physical and mental health problems, dealing with domestic abuse, caring for a disabled family member, or experiencing homelessness or other housing problems, among other reasons (see Table IV.1). In most of the sites, clients must have documentation (for instance, from a physician or licensed professional) to be excused for nonparticipation for these reasons and thereby avoid a sanction. To provide guidance to program staff, many sites develop formal lists of all the circumstances that constitute good cause. However, unless exempt from work requirements, clients with documented barriers may be sanctioned if they do not take steps to address their conditions.
In addition to standard sanction warning notices, outreach to clients through letters, telephone calls, or home visits can help ensure that clients receive critical information about impending sanctions.
Some sites conduct additional outreach to clients because they have learned that standard sanction warning notices alone are often insufficient to elicit a reaction from clients. Many clients do not immediately heed or even understand the message in the notices. Previous research supports this observation. Hasenfeld et al. (2004) found that recipients were far more likely to understand the rules governing sanctions in localities that invested resources in counseling recipients on sanction-related issues than in localities in which staff communicate with recipients primarily through formal notifications. Thus, sites attempt to deliver messages about sanctions to clients through other methods such as specialized notices, telephone calls to clients and other parties involved in a client’s case, in-person meetings with clients, and even home visits. The rationale for additional outreach is generally twofold. First, it acts as a safeguard to ensure that clients do not face undue hardship if they need extra time to comprehend the consequences of their nonparticipation and what they must do to remedy it. Second, it serves as documentation that program staff have done everything possible to reach the client and to avoid a negative action on the case, and that a sanction is justified. Such documentation can be important evidence in defense of the TANF agency during the sanction appeals process.
| Personal or Family Challenge | Percent of Workers who Have Refrained from Sanctioning a Nonparticipating Client with Challenge |
|---|---|
| Physical health issue | 78.4 |
| Mental health issue | 75.7 |
| Domestic abuse issue | 72.1 |
| Need to care for a disabled family member | 68.5 |
| Homelessness or housing problem | 68.5 |
| Substance abuse issue | 65.8 |
| Child care problem | 57.7 |
| Child behavioral problem | 54.1 |
| Transportation problem | 48.6 |
| Legal problem | 44.1 |
| Another reason | 5.4 |
| Death in the family | 1.8 |
| Sample size | 111 |
| Source: MPR survey of frontline workers. Note: Fifty of 161 survey respondents are not responsible for initiating sanctions and thus were not asked this question. |
Nevertheless, additional outreach does not guarantee that messages about impending sanctions will reach clients (see Table IV.2). Some staff who are required to conduct outreach activities do not have time to do so and even if they do, clients are often unavailable by telephone and do not attend scheduled meetings with program staff. Home visits can be particularly difficult. Substantially fewer staff who are required to conduct home visits attempt to do so relative to other outreach responsibilities; and, those who do attempt home visits often are unable to reach clients at home.
Activity |
Percent of Staff |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Required to Conduct Activity |
Among Staff Required to Conduct Activity, |
|||||
All of the Time |
Most of the Time |
Half of the Time |
Some of the Time |
None of the Time |
||
Send a standard sanction notice |
62.1 |
89.0 |
6.0 |
1.0 |
0.0 |
3.0 |
Send other letters to clients |
49.7 |
58.8 |
16.3 |
15.5 |
5.0 |
2.5 |
Telephone clients |
51.6 |
72.3 |
21.7 |
6.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
Able to reach clients by phone |
-- |
3.6 |
19.3 |
55.4 |
21.7 |
0.0 |
Meet with clients in the office |
50.3 |
67.9 |
17.3 |
7.4 |
3.7 |
3.7 |
Able to get clients to attend |
-- |
1.3 |
25.6 |
43.6 |
26.9 |
0.0 |
Conduct home visits |
37.9b |
31.1 |
16.4 |
21.3 |
11.5 |
9.8 |
Able to reach clients at home |
-- |
3.3 |
13.1 |
31.1 |
26.2 |
0.0 |
Sample size |
161 | |||||
| Source: MPR survey of frontline workers. a "Most of the time" was defined as 75 percent of the time, and "some of the time" was defined as 25 percent of the time. For some activities, the frequency does not sum to 100 percent. The remaining responses were "don’t know." b Just over 17 percent of staff reported that they themselves were responsible for conducting home visits, and just over 20 percent reported that other staff members were responsible for conducting home visits. |
To maximize the chances that program staff successfully convey to clients messages about impending sanctions, most sites that conduct additional outreach make several attempts to contact clients. For example, Los Angeles County requires employment and training case managers to mail clients a notice instructing them that they must participate in a cause determination meeting to avoid a sanction. Case managers attempt to telephone clients both before and after sending this notice. They make two to three telephone calls at different times during the day to cover all the times that clients may be at home. Case managers in the Specialized Supportive Service unit—which handles clients with substance abuse, domestic violence, and/or mental health issues—make even more efforts to contact clients through a combination of letters and telephone calls. In Arizona, case managers send three to four notices to clients over a four-week period before imposing sanctions. This ensures that clients have ample opportunity to establish good cause and indicate a willingness to resolve participation issues and comply with program requirements. However, many program staff believe that, while notification procedures protect clients’ due process rights, repeated communication suggests to clients that there is no urgency to comply.
In an attempt to determine the reasons for noncompliance, resolve participation issues, and ensure future compliance, many sites go beyond routine outreach practices and work actively with clients before imposing sanctions.
Some sites have established formal processes that provide clients with an opportunity to address participation issues and conciliate impending sanctions. Typically, discussions between noncompliant clients and program staff about participation issues occur informally and during impromptu telephone or in-person conversations. In the absence of specific procedures for addressing participation issues before a sanction, the likelihood of any dialogue between client and case manager often depends on the client-case manager relationship. Establishing a protocol can ensure that all noncompliant clients have the same opportunities to present evidence of good cause for their nonparticipation and/or to work with program staff to resolve barriers to participation and develop a plan for future compliance. Four of the study sites have established well-defined conciliation processes that extend well beyond client-case manager discussions.
1. Conciliation During a Two-Phase Problem-Solving Process: Utah
Utah’s conciliation process is designed to give nonparticipants ample opportunity to identify and resolve issues before the imposition of sanctions and to maintain protections for clients in the wake of pressure to achieve higher participation rates. The process is organized into two phases. The first phase is a meeting between the client, case manager, and a social worker. The purpose is to determine why the client is not participating and whether reasonable cause exists, to identify necessary supports and resources for the client, to revise the client’s employment plan if necessary, and to reiterate to the client the consequences for continued nonparticipation. If a client fails to attend the meeting or does not follow through with the employment plan after the meeting, the problem-solving process progresses to the second phase. The second phase involves a case conference to reconsider whether reasonable cause for the client’s nonparticipation exists and to inform the client that, in the absence of reasonable cause, the TANF grant will be reduced and possibly terminated. Case managers initiate a sanction in the management information system for all clients who do not attend the conference or do not participate in activities after the conference, and eligibility workers follow-up to ensure that the TANF benefit is reduced or terminated.
In addition to case managers and social workers, the conciliation process usually involves a variety of other program staff. Often, case management supervisors and community partners participate in the phase-one meeting. The client’s case manager, a supervisor or lead case manager, and a social worker involved with the client must participate in the phase-two case conference. However, staff from the child welfare agency, employment service providers, adult probation officers, community action program staff, and mental health therapists may also be invited to attend. Based on information from MPR’s previous study of TANF sanctions, some TANF offices in Illinois also involve a variety of staff in the conciliation process including employment services staff and community partners.
The inclusion of a wide variety of staff in the problem-solving process serves several purposes. First, it lends different perspectives on how best to assist the client in resolving participation issues and identifying the supports that might be available to the client. Second, it ensures that several people review a case before it is closed. As previous studies have illustrated, when case managers apply personal discretion when making sanction decisions they sometimes make different decisions for cases with similar circumstances (Hassenfeld et al. 2004; Los Angeles County, 2005; Berkley Planning Associates, 2004; Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development, 2004). Including other staff in the process provides a check on the decisions of case managers, who have substantial discretion in initiating the problem-solving process. Third, it ensures that clients have an opportunity to be heard broadly beyond their case manager and the case manager’s immediate supervisor. When clients are informed of the date and time of their case conference, they also are advised that they may invite others outside the TANF program context—such as family, friends, other agency workers, or their clergy—to the conference. They are specifically encouraged to invite those who support them in their pursuit for self-sufficiency.
Key Features of the Conciliation Process—Utah
|
All staff participating in the problem-solving process exert considerable effort to familiarize themselves with the client’s case so that they can contribute to the process in a meaningful way. All TANF program staff have electronic access to case notes entered by other program staff in the automated case management system. Anyone involved in the problem-solving process can fully examine the notes. All relevant staff then meet with each other internally before the phase-one meeting with the client. During the internal meeting, staff may identify and clarify inconsistencies in the client’s required hours and activities and share information about potential barriers the client may be facing. Before the meeting, the case manager may make home visits to the client, particularly if the client has not responded to any recent communication or is exhibiting drastic behavior change (e.g., a client who has participated fully for months suddenly stops participating).
2. Conciliation During Mediation Sessions: Suffolk County
Conciliation activities for nonparticipation in Suffolk County take the form of a mediation session between the client and county staff. An examiner from the Department of Social Services (DSS) Compliance Unit (responsible for imposing sanctions) and a mediator (a county staff member with the title of case manager) conduct the meeting with the client. Clients are notified of impending sanctions by letter, which requires them to contact the DSS Compliance Unit within 10 days. Meetings are typically scheduled within three days of the client’s call, last about 15 to 20 minutes, and take place in a mediation room at the central DSS office. The room is equipped with a computer that provides staff with access to the county’s two integrated automated management information systems. A high percentage of clients respond to the Compliance Unit’s letter and attend conciliation meetings. If a client fails to contact the DSS Compliance Unit within the required 10 days, the unit follows procedures to impose a sanction on the 11th day.
To create a relaxed atmosphere and avoid confrontation between the client and the staff member who recommended the sanction, employment services counselors do not participate in the conciliation meeting. Rather, they transfer all case files and documentation to the Compliance Unit for review and are available to talk with unit staff about the details of the case. The meeting provides an opportunity for the client to present his or her side of the story and evidence of good cause; at the same time, the county weighs the evidence and decides whether a sanction is warranted.
Key Features of the Conciliation Process—Suffolk County
|
The conciliation meeting results in one of two possible outcomes. Compliance Unit staff may either rescind the request for a sanction or impose the sanction. All decisions to rescind a request for sanction require supervisory approval. Given that supervisors are located on site at the central DSS office, staff are able to obtain immediate approval. If staff decide to proceed with the sanction, the Compliance Unit examiner follows procedures to impose the sanction in the county’s management information system on the day of conciliation or, at the least, within a few days.
To increase its participation rate, the county has attempted to expedite the conciliation process. Staff used to take a few days to weeks to make a sanction decision based on the conciliation meeting and used to notify clients of the decision by mail. Now, staff make the decision on the spot so that, in the case of a rescinded request for sanction, a client can re-engage in program activities immediately. The mediator physically walks clients back to an employment services supervisor who then escorts the clients to an employment services counselor for re-engagement in activities then and there. In addition, the county recently increased the number of days on which it conducts conciliation meetings in order to accelerate the conciliation process and reduce the time between the identification of nonparticipation and resolution of a case (either through re-engagement or sanction).
In response to the DRA, the county recently instituted a “one strike” rule that permits staff in the conciliation meeting to accept a good-cause excuse for noncompliance one time only without requiring documentation from the client. Previously, staff required hard documentation from the client before accepting any good-cause excuses. The change reflects an effort to avoid an abundance of sanctions and thereby increase the county participation rate. Anecdotally, according to Compliance Unit staff, about 60 percent of sanction requests are now rescinded as a result of the conciliation process. Staff estimate that, before enactment of the “one strike” rule for good cause, about 20 percent of sanction requests were rescinded.
3. Conciliation During Compliance Planning Meetings: Kern County
The goal of conciliation activities in Kern County is to determine the activities for which the client is suited and to create a written plan for the client’s return to compliance. Kern County staff must schedule a cause determination appointment with all nonparticipating clients to determine whether a client can establish good cause for nonparticipation. If the client has a documented good-cause reason for nonparticipation, the case manager may terminate the sanctioning process. If the client cannot establish good cause, the client and case manager must work together during the appointment to develop a welfare-to-work compliance plan.
Key Features of the Conciliation Process—Kern County
|
The compliance plan is distinct from the client’s original employment plan in that it specifies the activities in which the client must participate specifically to avoid a sanction. Clients are required to complete the activities in their compliance plan in order to move out of the pre-sanction process. If an assigned activity lasts longer than 60 days, the client must participate for at least 60 days in order to move out of the pre-sanction process. In the absence of obvious reasons explaining why a client would not be able to complete the activities in the original employment plan, the compliance plan almost always includes the activity in the original employment plan that is associated with the client’s noncompliance. However, activities that may be more reasonable for the client to accomplish or that may be useful for the client’s continued participation may be included in the compliance plan in addition to or instead of the original activities. Examples include completing an assessment to identify and address social service needs or consulting with a professional regarding potential mental health or substance abuse issues. In addition, the case manager may modify the client’s original employment plan if the client reveals personal and family challenges previously not considered. Nevertheless, case managers impose sanctions for clients who fail to complete the specified activities in their compliance plan (or 60 days of participation in activities anticipated to last more than 60 days).
Clients have unlimited opportunity to conciliate impending sanctions. If a client completes the compliance plan and then once more stops participating in program activities, the conciliation process begins again. This arrangement provides clients with extensive protections against undue sanctions and ample opportunity to discuss how to engage more fully in program activities. Some program staff believe, however, that the freedom to engage in the conciliation process time and time again reduces the potential effect of sanctions on client motivation. For instance, when clients do not comply with the assessment process before their assignment to activities, completion of the assessment process itself may be the only activity included in their compliance plans. Often clients complete the assessment but then never participate in activities, thereby triggering the pre-sanction process again rather than swifter or more severe consequences.
4. Conciliation During Compliance Planning Meetings and Home Visits: Los Angeles County
In 2005, Los Angeles County began a home-visiting program that focuses primarily on outreach to and conciliation with nonparticipating clients before imposition of a sanction. When case managers identify noncompliance, they mail a letter to clients notifying them of a cause determination appointment. The purpose of the appointment is to determine whether a client can establish good cause for not participating in program activities and, if not, to develop a compliance plan. The case manager then notifies a home visit worker to mail an additional letter advising the client that a home visit will occur one day after the cause determination appointment if the client does not attend the appointment. Home visitors call clients one day before the cause determination appointment to remind them of the appointment. If the client attends the appointment, the home visit is not necessary.
Program staff report that notification of a possible home visit seems to “shock” clients into action. Home visits were designed to be a mechanism for gathering information on and addressing reasons for clients’ noncompliance. In reality, however, most clients never receive a home visit. Rather, clients receive written notification that a home visit will occur if they do not participate in the cause determination appointment and, to avoid an unwanted home visit, comply with the appointment. About 80 percent of clients who receive a home visit letter respond to the letter by calling their case manager or other employment program staff member before the visit takes place. Relative to other letters clients receive from the TANF agency, the home visit letter is an effective outreach tool that is easy to read and follow. The county recently worked with advocates to revise the letter with the goal of making it positive, reader-friendly, and understandable.
If a home visit is in fact necessary, it usually takes place the day after the scheduled cause determination appointment. During the visit, the home visit worker must complete a checklist of items including an investigation of possible reasons for client noncompliance and a review with the client of TANF program time limits and welfare-to-work requirements. The home visit worker must contact the client 15 days after the visit to ensure that the client is compliant.
Key Features of the Conciliation Process—Los Angeles County
|
Workers have identified several issues during home visits that affect clients’ participation. Many clients work but do not report their work; many clients are ill but do not report their illness and their inability to work; and, many clients experience domestic violence or do not report conflicting court appearances for themselves or their children. Home visit workers estimate that about 20 to 30 percent of their clients should be exempt from work participation, but many such clients have lost their exemption forms or have faced other obstacles in seeking an exemption (for instance, they have forgotten to obtain documentation from their doctor). Home visitors also find that clients are confused about program rules or do not participate because they do not have or have not arranged for childcare.
For home visits to be effective, staff must ensure that clients do not feel threatened; thus, home visitors must be experienced and well-trained. In what has proven somewhat of a challenge, program administrators have sought to hire staff who not only have the appropriate qualifications but also have the appropriate appearance and demeanor to interact with clients in their homes. Before they are assigned their own cases, new home visit workers accompany experienced home visitors as observers. All home visit workers undergo training with master’s degree–level social workers to polish their interviewing skills and to learn how to present themselves as the client’s partner rather than adversary. They also participate in training on personal security, including appropriate and inappropriate times to schedule home visits (based on the area of Los Angeles where they work). Perhaps as a result, most home visit workers have found that clients in need of a home visit welcome them into their homes.
Time constraints also help ensure that home visits and the county’s conciliation process in general is efficient and effective. In Los Angeles County, as soon as a case manager notes in the county’s management information system that a client is noncompliant, a sanction clock starts; if the case manager does not stop or reset the clock, the management information system automatically imposes a sanction 21 days later. The 21-day clock keeps staff and clients focused on completing the compliance planning process in a timely manner. For clients who miss an intake appointment or orientation session, the management information system automatically schedules a cause determination appointment for 10 business days after the missed activity. Cause determination meetings for other clients are scheduled for 10 days after noncompliance is noted. Home visits are scheduled for the day after the appointment. Case managers contact clients to determine whether good cause exists both before and after the appointments and visits.
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |