[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) made sweeping changes to the welfare system in the United States, replacing the 60-year-old Aid to Families with Dependent Children program with a block grant to states to create the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. A system that once focused on the delivery of cash benefits now encourages families to make the transition from welfare to work.
This dramatic policy change has drawn attention both to the services intended to help families with this transition and to the need to engage recipients in activities that build their capacity to work. In fact, PRWORA requires states to engage a certain minimum percentage of their caseloads in specified work and work-related activities for a specified number of hours per week. The required rate in most states has been relatively low to date, however, because the minimum rate is reduced by one percentage point for each percentage point that a state's average monthly caseload drops below its average monthly caseload for fiscal year 1995. Thus, most states have not been terribly restricted by the federal legislation. While the percentage of TANF cases meeting the participation requirement nationwide is relatively low (33 percent in fiscal year 2002), states are likely engaging a larger share of cases either in activities other than those specified in the legislation or in the specified activities but for fewer hours than required by the federal law. The goal of engaging all or nearly all TANF recipients in work and work-related activities is even explicit in some state programs.
Information on the strategies used by state and local programs to engage a large percentage of TANF recipients in work activities is important because it could help other states that have the same goal in mind. Yet, we know little about these strategies other than that they are likely to comprise a combination of policies, program services, and administrative procedures. To learn more about these strategies and the extent to which they have been successful, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., (MPR) to conduct the Study of Work Participation and Full Engagement Strategies, an examination of seven state and local programs that attempt to engage all or nearly all TANF recipients in work and work-related activities. This report presents the study findings, which are especially timely, as the proposed reauthorization of the TANF legislation will likely require states to engage a greater percentage of their caseload in work activities.
The remainder of this chapter describes the policy context for the study, outlines the research questions that guided the study, and presents the study methodology. Chapter II provides background on the study sites and describes their general approaches to engaging TANF recipients in work or work-related activities. Chapters III presents findings on the strategies programs use to engage recipients, Chapter IV presents findings on the administrative procedures that support these strategies, and Chapter V presents findings on levels of engagement and program participation. Chapter VI summarizes the findings, presents their associated policy implications, and identifies questions to explore in future research.
[ Go to Contents ]
PRWORA afforded states flexibility in providing assistance to low-income families with children but mandated that a high percentage of these families be involved in work or work-related activities. In fact, Congress specified a minimum state participation rate for all TANF families and another minimum rate for two-parent families. Congress also specified the types of activities in which families must participate and the minimum number of hours of participation per week that count toward the state rate.
Specifically, adults in single-parent families must participate for a minimum of 30 hours per week, 20 of which must be devoted to at least one of nine core activities: unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment, subsidized public sector employment, work experience, on-the-job training, job search and job readiness assistance, community service programs, vocational education training, or providing child care for a community service participant. The remaining 10 hours can be devoted to three other activities: job skills training directly related to employment, education directly related to employment (for high school dropouts only), or satisfactory attendance in secondary school or the equivalent (for high school dropouts only). Adults in two-parent families must participate for a combined minimum of 35 hours per week, 30 of which must be devoted to any of the nine core activities and the remaining 5 hours to any of the other three activities.
When TANF began in 1997, Congress set the minimum work participation rate at 25 percent for all families and 75 percent for two-parent families. For each subsequent year through 2002, Congress steadily raised the rate until it reached 50 percent for all families and 90 percent for two-parent families. However, for each percentage point that a state's average monthly caseload drops below its average monthly caseload for fiscal year 1995, the minimum participation rate is reduced by one percentage point.(1) States report data necessary to calculate their participation rate to the federal government each quarter. In fiscal year 2002, the most recent year for which participation data are available nationwide, almost all states met the federal participation requirements, in many cases because the caseload reduction credit lowered the minimum rate to considerably below 50 and 90 percent. Nevertheless, actual rates at which TANF families participated in federally countable activities varied substantially by state, ranging from 8 to 85 percent of all families.
The wide variation in participation rates, and the extremely low rates in some states in particular, has sparked interest in what recipients who are not counted toward the rates are doing. Are they participating in the activities specified in PRWORA but for fewer than the required hours? Are they participating in activities other than those specified in the legislation, such as mental health counseling or substance abuse treatment? Are they sitting idle on the caseload, or are they perhaps lost in the system? If these recipients are participating in activities to some extent, how are programs engaging them? Are some state or local programs being more aggressive than others in engaging more recipients? These questions are particularly relevant in the current policy environment, as the proposed PRWORA reauthorization is likely to both increase the minimum participation rates and change the methodology used to calculate these rates — including the required number of hours, the types of countable activities, and the use of the caseload reduction credit. In making these changes, it may be helpful for policymakers to consider the experience of programs that have already made efforts to engage all or nearly all TANF recipients in work and work-related activities.
[ Go to Contents ]
The Study of Work Participation and Full Engagement Strategies had three broad objectives: to identify state and local programs that intend to engage all or nearly all TANF recipients (excluding recipients in child-only cases) in work or work-related activities, to examine how these programs operate, and to identify ways in which other states might engage a larger share of their caseloads in work or work-related activities. More specifically, the study sought to answer the following research questions:
[ Go to Contents ]
Our primary objective in selecting study sites was to include a wide range of programs that intend to engage all or nearly all TANF recipients (excluding those in child-only cases) in work or work-related activities, regardless of the extent to which they have succeeded in doing so. Sites were not selected for their best or promising practices for engaging clients, nor were they selected on the basis of their federal participation rate.
We used a two-step process to identify the sites. In the first step, we analyzed the 2001 TANF data all states submitted to the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) for the purpose of calculating federal participation rates. We also reviewed reports and databases on state participation requirements, including "State Welfare-to-Work Policies for People with Disabilities" (the Urban Institute 1998), the 2000 Welfare Rules Database (the Urban Institute), and the 1999 State Policy Documentation Project Database (Center for Law and Social Policy/Center on Budget and Policy Priorities). On the basis of this information, we then divided the states into two groups: those that appeared to require most TANF recipients to participate in work and work-related activities and those that did not. We considered a state to have such a requirement if it met either one of two criteria:
1. It grants no or few exemptions from work requirements — regardless of whether exemptions are for a personal disability, caring for a family member with a disability, caring for a young child, etc. — or it has a set of exemptions that does no apply to most of the caseload.
2. It counts at least 90 percent of its adult caseload in the denominator of the federal participation rate and exempts under 5 percent of its caseload from work requirements according to the ACF participation data.(2)
Using these criteria, we found that 10 states require most TANF recipients to participate in work and work-related activities: Arizona, Idaho, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Montana, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
In step two of the site selection process, we asked a diverse group of researchers, policymakers, and staff at community-based and nongovernmental organizations — such as the American Public Human Services Association and the National Governors Association — to suggest sites that (1) exempt very few recipients from work or work-related activities, (2) have an explicit goal of engaging all or nearly all recipients in program activities, and (3) have an explicit strategies in place to achieve this level of engagement. The sites identified in this process include programs in the states of Ohio, Utah and Wisconsin, and local programs in El Paso County, Colorado; New York City, New York; Norfolk, Virginia; Oswego County, New York; and Riverside County, California.
To make the final selection, we compared the results of the two steps and included each state that appeared in both groups.(3) We also attempted to include each county suggested by the individuals we consulted. All but two of the counties suggested were included in the study — one was not interested in participating in the study, and the other was too early in its program implementation to add value to the study.
The sites included in the study represent three types of programs, distinguished by (1) whether some or all recipients are required to participate in activities and by (2) the activities in which recipients are required to participate (see Table I.1). The first type of program requires all TANF recipients to participate in work or work-related activities. These include programs in El Paso County, Colorado, Franklin and Montgomery counties in Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin. The second type of program requires only some recipients to participate (by providing exemptions for circumstances such as disabilities or the need to care for very young children) but strives to engage all nonexempt recipients in work or work-related activities. Riverside County, California, falls into this category and is most typical of TANF programs nationwide. It was included in the study, in part, because of its efforts to maximize participation among employed TANF recipients. The third type of program requires all recipients to participate in activities but not necessarily in work or work-related activities. Oswego County, New York, represents this type of program in that it mandates that all TANF recipients take part in case management but attempts to engage in work or work-related activities only recipients who are not exempt from work requirements for medical or other reasons. More detailed descriptions of each site's approach to engagement are presented in Chapter II.
[ Go to Contents ]
Data for the study were derived from two sources: comprehensive case studies of all seven sites and administrative data from management information systems in two sites — El Paso County, Colorado and Utah.
| Activity Required | Recipients Required to Participate | |
|---|---|---|
| All | Some | |
| Work or work-related activities | El Paso County, Colorado Franklin County, Ohio Montgomery County, Ohio Utah Wisconsin |
Riverside County, California |
| Case management | Oswego County, NY | |
The purpose of the case studies was to gather information from a variety of sources in order to create a comprehensive picture of strategies used to engage TANF recipients in work and work-related activities. Toward this end, two members of the MPR project team conducted two- to three-day visits to each program during winter and spring 2004. In some sites, we visited two local TANF offices to discern how policies, program services, and administrative procedures are carried out; in other sites, we visited one office (Table I.2). Using semi-structured guided discussion techniques, we interviewed state and local TANF administrators, case managers and supervisors, eligibility workers, other TANF program line staff (such as job developers), administrators and staff at contracted service providers, and staff who handle data collection and reporting as well as management information systems. We also reviewed a small number of case files for various types of recipients, including those who have participated in program activities consistently, sporadically, or not at all. These case file reviews enriched the interview data by providing concrete examples of the concepts and issues raised by interviewees.
To supplement the case studies, we analyzed administrative data from management information systems in two of the study sites — El Paso County, Colorado and Utah. To the extent that data were available, we collected information on the number and types of activities to which recipients are assigned, the number of hours they are assigned to participate, the extent to which they actually participate in assigned activities, and their progress over time. This information revealed both the extent to which recipients are engaged in program activities and the circumstances of those who are not counted in the federal participation rate.
| Number | Locations | |
|---|---|---|
| El Paso County, Colorado | 1 | -- |
| Franklin County, Ohio | 1 | -- |
| Montgomery County, Ohio | 1 | -- |
| Oswego County, New York | 1 | -- |
| Riverside County, California | 2 | Lake Elsinore, Riverside |
| Utah | 2 | Davis County, Salt Lake County |
| Wisconsin | 1 | Dane County |
The administrative data in El Paso County include all 1,204 adult recipients who were on TANF in August 2003 and reflect their participation from August 2003 through December 2003. The administrative data in Utah include the 6,187 adult recipients who were subject to program requirements in May 2003.(4) Most analyses cover the six months from May 2003 through October 2003, but some cover all months from the opening of each TANF case through December 2003. August 2003 and May 2003 reflect typical months in El Paso County and Utah, respectively.
[ Go to Contents ]
(1) The caseload decline must not be as a result of changes in state or federal policy in order to count toward the caseload reduction credit.
(2) While the ACF data are available for both the county and state, other sources of information on work requirements are not as readily available at the county level. Therefore, we did not attempt to systematically classify counties in the same manner as states. In order to identify counties that intend to engage all or nearly all TANF recipients in work or work-related activities, we relied on suggestions from knowledgeable individuals outside of MPR in the second step of the site selection process.
(3) In Ohio, where the TANF program is operated and administered at the county level, we selected two counties for the study: Montgomery County, which includes Dayton, and Franklin County, which includes Columbus.
(4) We excluded 927 adult recipients who were ineligible aliens, disqualified for fraud, deemed parents, or receiving Supplemental Security Income.
Main Page of Report | Contents of Report
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)