[ Main page of Report | Contents of Report ]
Achieving full engagement depends on whether and the extent to which this philosophy is supported (1) at the highest levels of management and (2) by TANF agency administrative procedures. For instance, senior policymakers and program administrators must champion the philosophy in the messages they send to their staff and their agency partners; their goal is to ensure that program and contractor staff buy in to the philosophy and use it to guide their daily service delivery efforts. Putting the philosophy into practice, however, means that administrative procedures must facilitate a recipient's movement through the system, track this movement, help staff manage caseloads, give managers the authority to hold staff accountable for outcomes, and document program successes and failures.
We identified four administrative procedures used by the study sites to promote full engagement: (1) communicating a clear and consistent program message; (2) tracking client participation closely; (3) using sanctions to encourage participation; and (4) using performance standards to hold staff accountable for outcomes. Like the strategies, it is not likely that one of these procedures alone will support full engagement. To do so, programs will have to use several procedures.
[ Go to Contents ]
Achieving full engagement is a "top-down" effort. The message from program administrators to service-delivery staff and from service delivery staff to TANF recipients is that the mission of the welfare agency is to put recipients back to work, and that recipients are capable of taking steps toward this goal. This message must be delivered clearly and consistently, and is particularly important in programs that offer a broad range of acceptable program activities and afford case managers broad discretion in assigning recipients to activities. Without a clear emphasis on the importance of work and self-sufficiency, programs risk recipients stagnating in activities that are not helping them progress.
Several of the welfare offices we visited have strong leaders who have championed this message in their agencies and throughout their communities. For example, in 1997, program administrators in El Paso County capitalized on the additional resources and flexibility afforded them through PRWORA to redefine the mission of their TANF program. The new mission is to eliminate poverty and family violence in El Paso County by strengthening families, promoting self-sufficiency, ensuring the safety of all county residents, and generally improving the quality of life in the community. To communicate this message to program staff, program administrators printed it on the back of business cards and on documents and posters throughout the Department of Human Services. To communicate it to other agency partners and the community at large, program administrators conducted an aggressive community outreach campaign.
Communicating a strong message about engagement to program staff may be challenging. Everyone may not be receptive to the message and the program implications. For instance, regardless of program administrators' efforts to persuade front-line staff to buy into the changes, resistance was strong when changes were first introduced in El Paso County and Utah. Staff turnover was high as the agencies adjusted to new program goals. To ease the transition in these and other sites, program administrators coordinated agency-wide training sessions to encourage buy-in, supervisors addressed concerns during staff meetings, and front-line staff helped each other to adjust.
Getting the message across to TANF recipients poses a different set of challenges. Aggressive efforts to inform recipients about program requirements do not guarantee that they will participate. Even if they are repeatedly informed in various ways that they must participate in order to receive benefits, recipients may not clearly understand the rules or believe that they will be enforced.
[ Go to Contents ]
Tracking TANF recipients is critical to continuous participation in program activities. The process allows case managers to (1) identify nonparticipation immediately, (2) respond to it by quickly re-engaging recipients and/or helping them to resolve issues that stand the way of participation, and (3) document compliance/noncompliance as the means to holding recipients accountable for their progress.
The study sites use a range of procedures to track participation. Processes differ with respect to the types of information reported, who reports it, the format in which it is reported, and the frequency with which it is reported. Despite variations in procedures, program administrators and front-line staff in all of the study sites reported that tracking was generally timely and consistent. However, heavy workloads sometimes interfere with case managers' ability to respond immediately to reported lapses in participation.
Types of Information Reported. At a minimum, study sites gather information on the types of activities in which recipients participate and on the number of hours they devote to these activities during the reporting period. For recipients enrolled in school, staff collect information from instructors on attendance and grades. Examples of other types of information that are gathered in some sites include the length of time recipients have spent in each activity, and notes on their progress within each activity.
Who Reports on Participation. Case managers gather information from in-house workshop instructors, contracted service providers, collateral contacts, and recipients.(1) The flow of communication between case managers and these entities is essential to reliable reporting. Three of the seven sites rely primarily on contracted service providers to gather information on participation hours and activities, and to submit this information to case managers in a monthly report. This process appears to work well.(2) El Paso County is the only site that relies exclusively on recipient self-report.
Reporting Format. A well-organized, common-sense format helps case managers easily identify recipients who are not participating in program activities. The format is generally a standard summary report from contracted service providers or recipient activity log timesheets. Some study sites, such as Riverside County, use activity logs from recipients as well as more formal reports from contracted service providers.
Reporting Frequency. Frequent reporting allows case managers to respond quickly to lapses in participation. In all sites, the formal process for reporting is at least monthly, and three of the seven sites report more often. In addition, program staff often notify case managers directly and immediately when a recipient is not participating in program activities.
[ Go to Contents ]
Although the study sites have very different sanction policies, all use sanctions to encourage participation in work and work-related activities. (3) Sanctions are consequences — a reduction in the amount of or elimination of the TANF grant, for example — for nonparticipation in work or work-related activities. However, the purpose of sanctions is not to punish recipients but to (1) provide an incentive to participate and (2) create a mechanism for case managers to both identify why recipients are not participating and develop a plan to re-engage them in program activities. States and localities have considerable discretion in how sanction policies are structured, in the process for imposing them, and in how they may be cured. Therefore, it is not surprising that the sites used sanctions in different ways to increase participation.
Outreach. Aggressive outreach efforts, which were used by all of the sites to encourage re-engagement in program activities, can take a variety of forms. In all sites, case managers mail a notice to nonparticipating recipients explaining both what they must to do to meet requirements and the consequences of continued noncompliance. In some sites, however, case managers go to more extensive lengths. For instance, in Riverside County, case managers must visit nonparticipants in their home before initiating a sanction. Case managers in El Paso County also conduct home visits regularly.
| Re-Engaging Nonparticipating Clients in Utah: Persistence Yields
Participation
Betty Jones, (4) a 28-year old single mother of four children (ages 8, 9, 11, and 13) did not begin actively participating in program activities in Utah until her case manager imposed a sanction. Betty experienced multiple barriers to employment. All of her children had been in and out of foster care. She had low general functioning (e.g., limited problem-solving and life skills), a suspended driver's license, substance abuse problems, limited work history, criminal history, and physical health problems. Ms. Jones committed to participate in substance abuse treatment to fulfill her program requirement, but dropped out of treatment shortly after she began. The case manager scheduled nine appointments with Ms. Jones over a two-month period; Ms. Jones attended the first five and missed the last four. The case manager telephoned her eight times and sent six letters, including a certified letter. She also visited Ms. Jones once in her home. Ms. Jones was invited to an interagency conciliation review, which she did not attend. Finally, the case manager imposed a TANF sanction. "The client had to bottom out before she was going to change," said the case manager. After case closure, Ms. Jones reversed her sanction by participating in substance abuse treatment; she is currently participating in a GED class and attending treatment. |
Sanction Review. Sanction reviews are used to uncover hidden personal and family challenges that interfere with a recipient's ability to participate. The typical review is a formal case conference — which takes place before a sanction is imposed — between the recipient, agency staff, and community partners to determine why the recipient is not participating and to develop a plan for re-engagement. Utah and El Paso follow this model. Utah invites the recipient to a conference with the case manager, his or her supervisor, an in-house social worker, and staff from other agencies. In El Paso, a "sanction prevention team" — consisting of the recipient's case manager, an eligibility technician, and, where applicable, the child welfare worker involved with the family — reviews not only information gathered during a home visit to the recipient but also the recipient's employment plan and participation history to determine whether to impose a sanction. Case managers indicated that the additional time required for these reviews is well spent in that the process can expose factors that interfere with participation.
Motivation. All sites use sanctions to motivate, not to punish, TANF recipients. Recipients may therefore "cure" sanctions and receive cash assistance again by meeting designated participation requirements. In four sites, recipients cure their first sanction by participating in work or work-related activities for at least 10 days. In the three remaining sites, recipients cure their first sanctions simply by making an oral or written commitment to participate in program activities.(5) The feasibility of the cure encourages recipients to re-engage in program activities.
[ Go to Contents ]
Set by the state or the county, performance standards for local offices and front-line staff identify preferred recipient outcomes, such as obtaining a work placement or permanent job, and program priorities, such as a specified level of engagement. By measuring case managers' performance against these standards, supervisors and team leaders promote accountability and motivate case managers to stay on top of their caseloads. The process also identifies staff who may need additional support to perform their jobs — for example, more training or a revised workload.
In most of the study sites, supervisors appear to be actively involved in monitoring case managers' performance. Several sites have formal performance review processes; other measures include case management reports, monthly meetings, and case reviews. In Utah, for example, supervisors conduct monthly or quarterly performance reviews with each case manager in their team, assessing such areas as knowledge of the basic core services, policies, and computer systems; teamwork; recipient outcomes (for instance, job referrals and number of cases closed for earned income); and professional conduct. Supervisors also review case files monthly. They review files for each recipient assigned to a newly hired case manager for six months to a year. For more seasoned workers, they review a small sample of files each month.
One local office in Utah uses a peer review system under which caseworkers exchange files. This not only helps ensure accuracy and appropriateness but also facilitates cross-training and the dissemination of best practices. In addition, program administrators and supervisors use management information system reports to monitor the quality and timeliness of case management and to identify training needs (see box below). If there is a problem, supervisors immediately contact the case manager to explore ways to more effectively manage the caseload. Supervisors said that they review case management alerts generated by the system to determine whether case managers make changes in the system within the required timeframe.
In Wisconsin, office performance is judged by 10 standards, the most prominent being progress toward "full and appropriate engagement." To meet this standard, counties must demonstrate that 80 percent of their overall TANF caseload is engaged in at least 30 hours of work or work-related activities. All activities in the employment plan — nonfederal or otherwise — count toward this standard. According to program administrators in Wisconsin and elsewhere, performance goals make offices more accountable with respect to achieving program outcomes. The drawback is the burden imposed on staff by performance monitoring and reporting requirements.
| Tracking Worker Performance
Utah's YODA reporting system pulls information from the state eligibility and case management systems to describe caseload information at all levels of service delivery (e.g., state, region, office, team, and individual case manager). It allows program administrators, supervisors, and front-line staff to generate a variety of monitoring reports. For example, the "Case Management of Active Cases" report provides information on the amount and types of cases (e.g., open program enrollments, cases with open employment plans, cases without notes in the last 30 days) by case manager. The "Case Management Customer" and "Ultimate" reports provide detailed information about the amount and types of activities to which recipients are assigned, progression within each activity, and the frequency of recipient-case manager contact. Information in YODA is based on scheduled, rather than actual, hours. |
[ Go to Contents ]
(1) Examples of collateral contacts include mental health counselors, substance abuse treatment staff, and classroom instructors for those enrolled in education or training programs.
(2) Formal contracts with outside service providers help to ensure that the data they report to TANF program staff is consistent and timely. Contracts often contain language that binds providers to comply with specified tracking procedures at the risk of financial or other penalties.
(3) Oswego and Riverside counties implement partial sanctions, El Paso County and Utah impose gradual full-family sanctions, Franklin and Montgomery counties impose immediate full-family sanctions, and Wisconsin bans individuals from a paid tier after three strikes (or periods of nonparticipation). In addition, Oswego County closes the TANF grant for noncompliance with Pathways case management meetings and Wisconsin uses a pay for performance structure within paid tiers.
(4) Fictitious name.
(5) Many sites will not allow recipients to cure second or subsequent sanctions immediately, but require that recipients remain in sanction status for at least a minimum period of time.
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)