A Study of Work Participation and
Full Engagement Strategies

Final Report

September 2004

By:
Jacqueline Kauff, Michelle K. Derr, and LaDonna Pavetti

Submitted to:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Project Officer:
Elizabeth Lower-Basch
Alana Landey

Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Project Director:
LaDonna Pavetti

Contract No.: 100-98-0009
MPR Reference No.: 8550-416

This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/full-engagement04/

Printed Copy (in PDF format)

How to Obtain a Printed Copy

Contents

Executive Summary

Acknowledgements

Chapters:

1. Introduction
   1. Policy Context: Prwora and Work Participation
   2. Research Questions
   3. Site Selection
   4. Data Sources
      1. Case Studies
      2. Administrative Data
2. Approaches to Engagement
   1. Models of Broad Engagement in Work Activities
      1. El Paso County, Colorado — A Focus on The Family Unit
      2. Franklin County, Ohio — A Focus on Work Experience
      3. Montgomery County, Ohio — A Focus on Service Integration
      4. Utah — A Focus on Individual Strengths
      5. Wisconsin — A Focus on Tiered Case Planning
   2. Variations on Models of Broad Engagement
      1. Oswego County, New York — A Focus on Frequent Client Contact
      2. Riverside County, California — A Focus on Work Plus Education and Training
3. Program Strategies to Promote Full Engagement
   1. Broadly Defined and Flexible Program Requirements
   2. Use of Paid and Unpaid Work Experience
   3. Comprehensive Assessments
      1. Screening Recipients to Identify Immediate Service Needs
      2. Determining RecipientsÆ Employability And Employment Goals
      3. Using Specialized Assessments to Identify Intensive Service Needs
   4. Individualized Case Planning
      1. Work-Focused, Client-Centered Approach to Case Management
      2. Regular and Frequent Contact with Recipients
      3. Monitoring Progress Toward Self-Sufficiency
   5. Providing Access to A Broad Range of Services
      1. Co-Locating the TANF Agency with One-Stop Centers or Service Providers
      2. Co-Locating with Specialized Treatment Providers
      3. Establishing Formal Collaborative Partnerships
4. Administrative Procedures that Support Full Engagement
   1. Communicating a Clear and Consistent Program Message
   2. Tracking Participation Closely
   3. Using Sanctions to Encourage Participation
   4. Using Performance Standards to Hold Staff Accountable
5. Levels of Engagement in Program Activities
   1. Assigned Activities
   2. Assigned and Actual Hours of Participation
   3. Participation and Progress Over Time
   4. Engagement Among Subgroups
   5. Activities and the Federal Participation Rate
   6. Key Findings from the Administrative Data Analysis
6. Conclusion
   1. Key Findings
   2. Potential Next Steps

Appendices:

1. Community Context and Key TANF Policies and Program Features
2. Description of Administrative Data
3. Analysis of Participation in Program Activities for El Paso County and Utah

Tables

I.1 Types of Programs Included in Study
I.2 Number And Location of Local Offices Visited in Each Site
Iii.1 Defining Participation Hours and Activities
Iii.2 Going Beyond Federally Defined Activities
Iii.3 Case Management Structure and Frequency of Client Contact
Iii.4 Strategies for Improving the Accessibility of Services
V.1 TANF Program Status Among Recipients with No Activities
V.2 Most Common Assigned Activities Among All Recipients in a Typical Month
V.3 Most Common Nonfederal Activities in a Typical Month in Utah
V.4 Number Of Activities in a Typical Month
V.5 Average Assigned Weekly Hours In a Typical Month
V.6 Average Assigned Weekly Hours in Activities in a Typical Month in Utah
V.7 Participation in Federally Counactivities in El Paso County
V.8 Length of Time Recipients Remained in Activities
V.9 Comparisons between Hard-To-Employ and Job-Ready Recipients in El Paso County
V.10 Comparisons between Long-Term and Shorter-Term Recipients in Utah

Figures

V.1 Assigned Activities in a Typical Month (El Paso County)
V.2 Assigned Activities in a Typical Month (Utah)
V.3 Assigned Activities Over Time Among August 2003 Cases in El Paso County
V.4 Assigned Activities Over Time Among May 2003 Cases in Utah
V.5 Progress from Nonfederal Only to Countable Activities and from Other Countable to Core Countable Activities
V.6 Federal Participant Rate Status among All TANF Recipients in El Paso County and Utah
V.7 Types of Recipients Excluded from Numerator in El Paso County and Utah

Acknowledgements

The Study of Work Participation and Full Engagement Strategies was conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) under contract to the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Many individuals within these organizations assisted in conducting the study and producing this report.

At DHHS, Elizabeth Lower-Basch monitored each project task and provided useful suggestions for improving the study and final report. Alana Landey was responsible for all business aspects of the study, which primarily included monitoring the budget. Don Winstead and Peter Germanis also reviewed the final report and provided useful comments.

At MPR, LaDonna Pavetti led all aspects of the study from beginning to end. Michelle Derr, Jacqueline Kauff, Gretchen Kirby, Heather Hesketh, and Michelle Van Noy conducted site visits and wrote the site visit summaries. Ama Takyi and Regina Gramss conducted the programming needed to prepare and analyze the administrative data, and Jacqueline Kauff conducted the data analysis. Alan Hershey provided quality assurance reviews of all study products, and Daryl Hall edited this report. Alfreda Holmes provided ongoing and consistent administrative support.

In addition, a broad range of researchers, policymakers, and staff at community-based and nongovernment organizations helped us to identify sites to include in the study. They include: Andy Bush and Grant Collins at the Administration for Children and Families at DHHS; David Fein and Alan Werner at Abt Associates; Thomas Gais and Richard Nathan at the Rockefeller Institute; Kristin Seefeldt at the University of Michigan; Allison Logie at American Management Systems; Jacob Klerman at Rand; Larry Mead at New York University; Barry Van Lare and Nanette Relave at the Welfare Information Network; Mark Greenberg at the Center for Law and Social Policy; and independent consultants Mark Hoover, Jason Turner, and Liz Schott.

This report would not have been possible without the cooperation and support we received from staff at all levels in each of the study sites. State and local TANF administrators, case managers and supervisors, eligibility workers and other TANF program line staff, administrators and staff at contracted service providers, and staff who handle data collection and reporting as well as management information systems spoke with us openly about the strategies they use to engage TANF recipients in work and work-related activities. In each site, one individual was responsible for arranging MPR's in-person visit. These individuals include Marie Parker in El Paso County, Colorado; Georgianna Hayes in Franklin County, Ohio; Linda Shepard in Montgomery County, Ohio; Chris Weaver in Oswego County, New York; Jeremy Samsky in Riverside County, California; Chris Gordon in Utah; and Liz Green in Wisconsin. In addition, Mary Kay Cook, Mary Riotte, and Joan Bancroft in El Paso County, Colorado, and Ann Kump in Utah provided us with administrative data for analysis and were very responsive to our questions about the data.

We would like to thank all of these organizations and individuals for their important contributions to this study. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are solely those of the authors and should not be construed as representing the opinions or policy of any agency of the federal government.

[ Go to Contents ]

How to Obtain a Printed Copy

To obtain a printed copy of this report, send the title and your mailing information to:

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Last updated: 09/02/05