Table of Contents | Previous | Next |
Using Work-Oriented Sanctions to Increase TANF Program Participation
This report may contain external links. ACF cannot attest to the accuracy of information provided by external links. Providing links to a non-ACF Website does not constitute an endorsement by ACF or any of its employees of the sponsors of the site or the information or products presented on the site. Also, be aware that the privacy protection provided on the ACF domain (see ACF's Privacy Policy) may not be available at the external link.
A. State Policy Context
B. Study Questions and Methodology
1. Case Studies
2. Telephone Survey of Frontline Workers
3. Administrative DataC. Review of Literature on the Role of Sanctions in Welfare Reform
1. The Relationship Between Sanctions and Participation in Work-Related Activities
2. The Implementation of Sanctions
3. Contributions of the Current Study of Sanction Policies
II. Sanction Policies and Program Trends: An Introduction to the Study Sites
A. Immediate Full-Family Sanctions
1. Texas—Tarrant County
2. Florida—Duval County
B. Gradual Full-Family Sanctions1. Utah—Salt Lake County
2. Arizona—Pima County
3. Georgia—DeKalb CountyC. Partial Sanctions
1. California—Los Angeles and Kern Counties
2. New York—Suffolk County
A. Defining Who is Required to Participate in Program Activities
B. Defining Client Expectations
C. Communicating Expectations to Clients
IV. Identifying and Addressing Noncompliance: Participation Monitoring and Conciliation Practices
A. Monitoring Participation
B. Conciliating With Nonparticipating Clients Before Sanctions are Imposed
1. Conciliation during a Two-Phase Problem-Solving Process: Utah
2. Conciliation during Mediation Sessions: Suffolk County
3. Conciliation during Compliance Planning Meetings: Kern County
4. Conciliation during Compliance Planning Meetings and Home Visits: Los Angeles County
V. Engaging the Unengaged: Initiatives for Clients in Sanction Status
A. Intensive Efforts to Identify and Resolve Barriers to Participation
1. Conducting Outreach to and Group Sessions for Sanctioned Clients: Kern County
2. Using a Local Social Service Agency to Identify and Resolve Barriers: Suffolk CountyB. Employment Programs or Policies to Engage Sanctioned Clients in Work Activities
1. Engaging Clients in Job Search and Job Preparation: Tarrant County
2. Engaging Clients in Unsubsidized Jobs: Suffolk County
3. Engaging Clients in Federally Countable Activities by Offering Incentives: GeorgiaC. Organizational Strategies to Support Re-Engagement Initiatives
VI. The Relationship Between Sanctions and Work Participation Rates in Three Sites
A. The Texas Experience–Shifting From a Partial to a Full-Family Sanction
1. Changes in the Caseload
2. Changes in Participation
3. Changes in EmploymentB. The Georgia Experience–Sanction Policy and Applicant Work Requirement Changes
C. The Los Angeles County Experience–Efforts to Reduce Sanctions
A. Key Innovations Implemented in The Study Sites
B. What we Learned From the Study Sites’ Experiences
C. Expanding the Knowledge Base: Evaluating the Impact of Various Sanction Policies and Procedures on Work Participation and Related Outcomes
1. An Experiment to Test the Impact of Major Policy Changes
2. Experiments to Test Alternative Services for Families That Are or May be Sanctioned
Appendices:
Appendix A: Study Site Summaries
Appendix B: Telephone Survey of Frontline Workers Survey Instrument
Section A: Job Description
Section B: Information Clients About Sanctions
Section C: Deciding Whether to Initiate a Sanction
Section D: Imposing a Saction
Section E: Re-engaging Sanctioned ClientsAppendix C: Telephone Survey of Frontline Workers Methodology And Results
| Table of Contents | Previous | Next |