# Presentation: 174178

## Local TANF Implementation

- Presented at the Administration for Children and Families’ Tenth Annual Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference
- Arlington, VA
- June 6, 2007
*Presented by Mike Fishman*

## Background

- Devolution of responsibility for welfare from the federal government to state and local agencies in 1996 an important institutional change.
- Since PRWORA was passed and implemented, welfare caseloads have declined significantly.
- Causes for decline include state and local welfare policies
- Interaction between policy, local program operations, and outcomes not fully understood.
- Administration for Children and Families (ACF) funded study to determine how local management of TANF programs has changed.

## Study Specifics

- Conducted by The Lewin Group and Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
- Visits to five local offices
- Defined as one welfare office that determines eligibility plus offices of the employment and child care agencies that serve welfare clients
- Urban sites
- Focus on changes post 2000
- Deficit Reduction Act of 2006 passed after site visits initiated; limited focus on reauthorization
- Final report released in April 2007

## Study Questions

- How are local operations organized?
- How have local processes and practices (e.g., case management, intake processes and monitoring) changed since 2000?
- How have local office structures changed, including relations between human services and labor departments?
- What changes have local offices adopted to improve performance?

## Site Selection

- Guided by three criteria:
- Availability of pre-existing documentation (i.e., inclusion in a previous Lewin or Rockefeller Institute study)
- Site experienced considerable changes relevant to welfare program effectiveness (e.g., economic, demographic, state policies)
- Variation in TANF programs (e.g., resource levels, benefits, program structure)
- Compiled 10 sites: 5 primary and 5 alternates
- ACF and project team made selections

## Sites Selected

| State | Location | Administration of TANF |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Arizona  | Phoenix, South Mountain Office | State-administered  |
| Georgia | Macon (sole office) | State-administered |
| Missouri | Kansas City, Fletcher Daniels Memorial Office (downtown) | State-administered |
| New Jersey | Newark (sole office) | County-administered
 |
| Wisconsin | Milwaukee, Region IV | County-administered  |

## Characteristics of Sites (2005)

## Variation in Benefit Levels and Resources

| Site | Maximum Monthly Benefit for 
Adult, Two Children | Average Annual Spending per Poor Child (TANF & MOE) 2002-2004 |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Arizona | $347 | $1,062 (37th)  |
| Georgia | $280 | $1,257 (33rd) |
| Missouri | $292 | $1,395 (30th) |
| New Jersey | $424 | $4,320 (4th) |
| Wisconsin | Depends on “rung”
$0 to $673 | $2,440 (17th) |

## Findings Overview

- Program goals and philosophies varied substantially and were greatly influenced by the State
- Most changes in policy and procedure originate at the state level
- Locally driven changes generally focus on office procedures
- State and local polices limit participation in TANF
- TANF program functions are being carried out by increasingly complicated institutional structures
- Low benefit levels may affect client participation and sanction effectiveness

## TANF Programs Goals Set by States and Vary Substantially

- States establish TANF program policies and the overall program philosophy.
- Overall goal consistent across states:
- Provide services and benefits in a timely manner to help families become self-sufficient
- How goal is operationalized varies
- “Welfare isn’t good enough for anyone”
- “Everyone is better off working”
- “Clients who are left on welfare really need the support as well as our help to become self-sufficient”
- Bifurcation of eligibility and employment functions led  to goal divergence between organizations with responsibility for those functions

## Most Changes in Policy and Procedure Originate at the State Level

- States make primary decisions regarding TANF policies, procedures, and organizational structures
- Equally true in state and county administered states observed
- Examples:
- Changes in sanction policies and procedures
- Movement of employment and training aspects of the TANF program from human services to labor department
- Changes in pre-eligibility requirements
- New extensions of assistance
- Changes in contracts and contractors
- Adoption of a service integration pilot

## Locally Driven Changes Generally Focus on Office Procedures	

- Streamlined intake process
- Creation of transportation services
- Contract management system
- Consolidation of offices
- Increased emphasis on community work experience program

## State and Local Policies Limit Participation in TANF

- Re-emphasizing up-front job search
- Creation of new work programs
- Upfront job search (SHIFT program) to “Close the front door”
- Initiative for “hard to employ” (UPSS) to “Open the back door”

## TANF Program Functions are Being Carried out by Increasingly Complicated Institutional Structures

- Use of private contractors
- Bifurcation of employment and eligibility functions
- Staff specialization to address multiple client needs
- Multiple IT systems
- Complexity challenges staff communication

## Low Benefit Levels may Affect Client Participation and Sanction Effectiveness

- Cash payment levels in four of five states studied are low
- Benefit levels in these four states have remained unchanged for years
- Low benefits seen by staff as contributing to ineffectiveness of sanction policies

## Conclusions

- TANF programs continue to evolve
- There is limited flexibility in the TANF program at the local level
- TANF programs varied considerably by site
- Divided responsibility for eligibility and employment functions may affect TANF’s coherence and performance at the local level
- TANF reauthorization is likely to generate additional changes in local TANF offices

## Contact Information

- Mike Fishman
- Senior Vice President
- The Lewin Group
- (703) 269-5655
- Mike.Fishman@Lewin.com

- Tom Gais
- Co-Director
- Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government
- (518) 443-5238
- gaist@rockinst.org