Findings from Ten TANF Roundtables - Home - … Center for Public Policy Summary Report of TANF Roundtables ii Executive Summary The current session of Congress will reauthorize the

Perspectives on TANF

A Summary Report of Ten Roundtables to the

Virginia Department of Social Services

April 2002

Virginia Commonwealth University Center for Public Policy

VCU Center for Public Policy Summary Report of TANF Roundtables

i

Table of Contents Page Executive Summary ii

Introduction 1

Purpose of TANF Roundtables

Organization and Structure of Sessions

Selection of Major Themes

Program Simplification 2 Job Readiness, Job Entry, Job Retention & Job Advancement 9

Hard-to-Serve TANF Clients 14

Strengthening Families 19 Next Steps 24 Appendix 1 – Roundtable Participants 25 Appendix 2 – Facilitation Guide 28


ii

Executive Summary

The current session of Congress will reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) program at the national level by October 1, 2002. In addition, the federal

waivers that Virginia secured to implement the Virginia Independence Program (VIP) and the

Virginia Initiative for Employment not Welfare (VIEW) will expire on June 30, 2003. To plan for

future changes to the TANF program in Virginia, the Department of Social Services (DSS)

sought information from local departments of social services (LDSS) and others through

roundtable sessions.

At the request of DSS, the Center for Public Policy (CPP) at Virginia Commonwealth

University convened a total of 10 roundtable discussions on general topics related to TANF that

were identified by DSS. In January and February of 2002, Center staff traveled to Virginia

Beach, Wytheville, Lynchburg, Manassas and Richmond to listen and learn firsthand from the

people who administer the TANF program, provide services, or receive services. Five sessions

were held with each of two groups, community stakeholders and LDSS staff. DSS requested

that CPP identify key themes that emerged during these roundtables.

The roundtable discussions were structured so that four key topic areas were

addressed. These topics were program simplification; job readiness, job entry, job retention,

and job advancement; hard-to-serve clients; and strengthening families. Facilitation questions

were developed and used consistently across roundtable sessions. The purpose of convening

the roundtables was to gather information from frontline workers and community stakeholders

about VIP and VIEW policies and operations during the past six years.

Frequency (fairly consistent recurrence) rather than intensity (the number of people in a

session with similar perspectives) was the principal identifying criterion for a theme. Comments,

concerns, issues, and ideas that surfaced in at least four of the five regions and within each of

the two groupings established a theme. The key themes do not fully capture the robust

interaction that occurred at the roundtables. Topics that surfaced less frequently, but in more

than one roundtable session, were deemed important – though not key themes.


iii

A sampling of these are presented under the respective topic areas in the report. The following

is a summary of the major themes for each of the four topic areas, including both issues and

recommendations for change.

Program Simplification:

♦ The current amount of TANF eligibility and VIEW paperwork is burdensome and often results in the collection of duplicative information.

♦ Current information systems do not allow for data sharing among LDSS staff and among

LDSS staff and service providers involved in the TANF client’s case. The result is the collection of duplicative information and less time spent focusing on client needs.

♦ The social service system is complex and the TANF client’s ability to succeed is

adversely impacted by multiple appointments for eligibility and assessment activities.

♦ Forms and correspondence are not written with grade-level appropriate language.

♦ Localities often differ in how they interpret and implement TANF policy and programs. Many LDSS staff do not seek guidance from regional and state DSS staff when questions arise in the interpretation of TANF policy.

Job Readiness, Job Entry, Job Retention, and Job Advancement:

♦ Incorporate basic life skills training into all job readiness classes.

♦ Develop collegial relationships and engage in collaborative efforts with local employers to maximize the potential for the client to obtain and retain employment.

♦ Assess viability of tax credits for employers that reward not only job entry but also job

retention.

♦ Make self-sufficiency an explicit goal of TANF.

♦ Identify and implement effective strategies to meet the ongoing child care and transportation needs of TANF clients.


iv

Hard-to-Serve Clients:

♦ TANF clients are facing more barriers to employment than their predecessors who left the welfare rolls shortly after the passage of PRWORA. Many barriers are not easily addressed within the time-limits and work requirements of the VIEW program.

♦ Training of LDSS staff is needed so that they can detect client barriers to employment

early through appropriate screening and referrals (for subsequent assessment).

♦ Localities have differing needs. Many LDSS staff voiced a need for discretionary funds that could be used to address client needs that are unique to each locality.

♦ The current process of exemptions is counter-productive because the TANF client is not

required to participate in any activities for the duration of his/her exemption.

♦ The VIEW program does not allow enough flexibility for TANF clients facing multiple barriers to employment. Possible solutions included allowing treatment to count toward to the 30 hours per week of creditable work activity. Others recommended a sliding scale approach to the number of hours of work activity based on the TANF client’s severity of barriers.

Strengthening Families:

♦ The concept of “family” should apply to single-parent homes. Resources should be used to strengthen the TANF client’s family structure as it currently exists.

♦ The demand for traditional support services for TANF families will continue at current

levels or increase commensurate with work policies. Additional services are needed focused on parenting skills, basic life skills, and, as appropriate, family counseling.

♦ Child support enforcement policies that incarcerate the father may be counterproductive.

Rather they should encourage work by providing job readiness training. ♦ Policies and programs to strengthen families should focus on the well-being of children.

Youth are viewed as a potentially vulnerable group. Youth development programs providing supervision and structure to foster transitions to adulthood, avoid risky behaviors, and interrupt the intergenerational cycle of dependency would be helpful.

♦ Marriage and family formation as anti-poverty strategies must be pursued cautiously.

On balance, participants seemed to prefer indirect approaches to promoting marriage by removing barriers to forming unions.


1

INTRODUCTION

The current session of Congress will reauthorize the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families (TANF) program at the national level by October 1, 2002. The federal waivers

that Virginia secured to implement VIP and VIEW expire on June 30, 2003. To plan for

future changes to the TANF program in Virginia, the Department of Social Services

(DSS) sought information from local departments of social services (LDSS) and others

through a series of facilitated roundtable discussions.

A. Purpose of TANF Roundtables

DSS contracted with the Center for Public Policy (CPP) at Virginia Commonwealth

University to facilitate ten roundtable discussions throughout the Commonwealth. The

goal was to generate thoughts and solicit comments and opinions from local community-

based stakeholders and LDSS staff about critical elements related to the TANF program.

This information will guide DSS as it explores ways to improve the VIP/VIEW program

once the current waivers expire on June 30, 2003, and to address new federal

requirements resulting from the reauthorization of the TANF Block Grant.

B. Organization and Structure of Sessions

Ten discussion group sessions were held between January and mid-February 2002.

Two discussion groups were held each day in Virginia Beach, Wytheville, Lynchburg,

Manassas, and Richmond. The three-hour morning session included service providers,

current and past TANF clients, representatives from faith-based organizations,

educators, and other community stakeholders. The three-hour afternoon LDSS session

included eligibility workers, self-sufficiency workers, supervisors, and directors.

DSS provided CPP with a list of discussion group invitees. Invitations, logistical

planning, discussion group facilitation, and reporting were managed by CPP. On

average, there were 15 to 20 participants in each discussion group session. Appendix 1

contains a list of organizations and LDSSs that participated.

The topic areas addressed during each facilitated session were held constant. This

allowed similar and unique themes between discussion groups and among regions to be


2

identified. Topics discussed were program simplification; job readiness, job entry, job

retention, and job advancement; hard-to-serve clients; and strengthening families. The

facilitator guide can be found in Appendix 2.

C. Selection of Major Themes

No attempts were made to either confirm or validate participant comments. All

statements were considered to have equal weight. Frequency (fairly consistent

recurrence) rather than intensity (the number of people in a session with similar

perspectives) was the principal identifying criterion for a theme. Comments, concerns,

issues, and ideas that emerged in at least four of the five regions and within each of the

two groupings established a theme.

I. Program Simplification

The first topic addressed during each of the roundtable sessions was program

simplification. Discussants were asked how the current TANF program could be

simplified and/or streamlined to increase efficiency and facilitate positive outcomes for

TANF clients being served. Issues were identified and suggestions made in the areas of

intake processes, paperwork and information systems, language in forms and

correspondence, and consistency within and among LDSSs.

A. Intake Processes

Both LDSS staff and community stakeholders spoke about the challenges that TANF

clients face when attempting to navigate a complex social service system. During the

process of eligibility determination and VIEW assessment, TANF clients generally are

required to participate in multiple interviews and activities at different locations at

different points in time with different workers and service providers. The system itself is

difficult to navigate and the process is further complicated when one considers that

TANF clients often lack basic resources such as child care and transportation.

The following is a comment made by a community-based service provider during one of

the Wytheville sessions.


3

“We’re at multiple intakes by multiple agencies. The customer has to come for a TANF intake and they have to go in for a welfare to work intake and they have to go in for a housing intake and they have to come in for a DRS intake and they have to come in for a career support system intake and they have go out for somebody else and it becomes such a burden. When we have customers who miss appointments, we go, ‘Gee, why did they miss an appointment? Well, because they had 30 of them.’ And they have other barriers that exist besides --, you know, they have things like transportation and things like child care and all the other things that you and I may not actually see.”

There was support for the concept of universal intakes whereby the TANF client could

complete all interviews and assessment activities at one point in time in one location.

References were made to a need for a “one-stop” approach to intake and assessment

with LDSS staff and representatives from community-based organizations co-located in

one facility.

Although there was support for streamlined intake and assessment processes, there

was a general air of caution surrounding the concept of a single, multi-skilled worker

being responsible for intake activities across a range of programs such as food stamps,

TANF, Medicaid, and housing. Eligibility criteria are complex and vary from program to

program and the time it takes to complete the paperwork for each of these programs

was deemed to be too much for any one worker to handle. This sentiment was echoed

by a Wytheville participant who reported being responsible for both eligibility

determination and service coordination.

“The problem that I have is I do the eligibility end of it and the services end of it. And what I face each month is my food stamp time frames, my TANF time frames, my Medicaid time frames, my VIEW time frames, and of course, food stamps tops the list as we all know, and VIEW is right over here toward the bottom of the list. Just the volume that I have, the size of the case load, and you're trying to help these very hard-to-serve clients that you have to spend so much time with that it really limits the time that you can spend with your other programs. So you continuously juggle which ones are most urgent, they’re all urgent, but which one is most urgent.”


4

B. Paperwork Requirements and Information Systems

Given the complexities of the social service system, it is not surprising that discussants

identified a need to decrease and streamline the current paperwork requirements and to

also make current computer-based information systems compatible and accessible to

allow for information sharing. Due to the fragmented nature of the current social service

system, duplicative information is being collected by LDSS staff and community-based

service providers. There are no clear policies or practices in place that address or allow

for information sharing between those involved in the TANF client’s case.

The time spent collecting information from clients was cited as a key inhibitor to

spending more time learning about the client’s unique needs and coordinating and/or

providing services to address those needs. Some participants spoke about the time-

consuming aspects of using the ADAPT system. The following is a quote from a

participant in one of the Wytheville sessions.

“The problem is that it (ADAPT) was designed to reduce work, when actually it added to it. And now we’re not only required to put all the information in ADAPT for the whole family, which could take a long time, we’ve got to turn around and document all of that on paper. So you’re actually duplicating records. You’re keeping everything in the ADAPT system and you’re also keeping everything in paper records. The intention was to go paperless, but that’s not how the system is happening.”

An additional issue, expressed specifically by LDSS staff, is a lack of easily accessible

information about the client’s lifetime experience on TANF. For example, some

discussants referenced an inability to generate a list of TANF clients sanctioned in their

locality. Others referenced current information systems that only contain data on the

client for the past three years. However, since TANF benefits are time-limited to five

years, LDSS staff expressed a need for information that covers the client’s lifetime

experience in the TANF program (i.e., five years).


5

Concrete suggestions were provided about how various aspects of the current TANF

program could be simplified. Written comments from a Richmond invitee who was

unable to attend the session include the following related to policy:

“Exempt one vehicle per TANF family. It is desirable for a family to have reliable transportation for employment. This provision supports that need, and it simplifies greatly the workload of the eligibility staff who currently must verify both car ownership and car value at each application and six-month review.” “Change some of the verification requirements for TANF eligibility to self-declaration. TANF is a time-limited, work-oriented program. Administrative time spent on verifying every factor of eligibility could better be used on preparation for employment.”

The vehicle exemption was an issue that was referenced during many of the roundtable

sessions. Many participants pointed to inconsistencies between program policies with

regard to vehicle ownership and how this complicates service provision. The following is

a quote from a Lynchburg participant.

“How can you explain to a client why they might be eligible for one program but because they have a vehicle, they’re not eligible for another program? And if your goal is self-sufficiency, why don’t we just let them have the vehicle.”

C. Language in Forms and Correspondence

There was consensus that the content of many of the eligibility forms, assessment forms

and written correspondence is not easily understood by TANF clients who often lack a

high school education and/or have low functional educational levels. The wording is

often at a level that is beyond the reading and comprehension level of the average TANF

client. The TANF client may misinterpret questions and/or disregard correspondence

that, in turn, could adversely impact services and cash benefits.


6

D. Consistency Among LDSS Agencies LDSS staff and community-based service providers frequently talked about how

inconsistencies served to complicate the TANF program. First, during the Virginia

Beach session, TANF clients and community-based service providers spoke about the

differences in interpretation of policy and how some services are afforded in certain

agencies but not in others. A representative from an employment support organization

(ESO) working with multiple localities in the northern Virginia area shared his

perspective.

“The other thing that it made me think of was the fact that since we serve many different counties, every department of social services will interpret the regulations a little differently. So that what you may do in the city of Charlottesville may be different than what we do in Louisa County, or what we may do in Greene County, because social services teams have a different interpretation of how the regulation should be looked at.”

It may be that some local agencies feel more empowered to seek regional or state

approval for various programs and initiatives. A Wytheville participant made the

following comment that supports this notion.

“We talked with them at the regional DSS, and they said ‘Yes, that’s allowable.’ But the locals are afraid because no one has told them its okay.”

Participants recommended that state agencies work together to develop a common

vision and coordinate policies and procedures that allow for consistency in service

provision at the local level. The following quote was from a participant in one of the

Manassas discussion groups.

“There seems to be a huge disconnect at the state level between all the major players, DSS, DRS, VEC, whatever the major agencies that are represented in each community. And it would seem that a lot of this can be dealt with and simplified at that level prior to coming down so to speak to localities if there were some level of understanding, coordination, cross training comes to mind, at all levels, sharing of common visions if you will for handling clients throughout the system, wherever they enter or wherever they exit, and whatever social service agency that might be, performing that service. So it seems its not just local interpretation, it’s the fact that that interpretation isn’t really developed, in my opinion, and handled properly at the state level. It could be done. It’s been done in other areas.”


7

Second, across regions, TANF clients shared a range of experiences that reflect the

extent to which LDSS staff vary in their approach to service provision. Some were

described as inconsiderate and mean and others were described as caring and

motivating. These variations in LDSS staff performance were cited as a contributing

factor to the TANF clients’ eventual success or failure in moving from welfare to work.

Below are two different quotes from one TANF client that describe her diverse

experiences with LDSS staff in two different LDSS agencies.

“The first day I ever applied for assistance I was living in Richmond and I went to see a social worker. He was nasty. He was very nasty. He had a nasty attitude. I don’t know if he was having a bad day or if it just was this individual, but he was very mean toward me.”

“And like I said, there are so many programs around here that you can get into, and when I came into VIEW I met some of the sweetest people at Chesterfield social services. And when I went there, they treated my like I was cool. I couldn’t ask for anything better.”

E. Consistency Among LDSS Agencies and Community-Based Providers

There appeared to be differences between LDSS staff and community-based service

providers in how they viewed their efforts with regard to service delivery. LDSS staff

spoke frequently, and at length, about their focus on moving TANF clients into work.

The community-based service providers, on the other hand, spoke about their focus on

addressing the underlying challenges that the TANF client faces that makes work

difficult. The need for collaboration between LDSS agencies and community-based

service providers emerged as a theme across groups. Ensuring that all are working

toward a common goal is a critical element to successful collaboration.

During the Manassas session involving community stakeholders, there was much

discussion about the need for common terms and definitions. There was a general

sense that LDSS staff, employment support organizations, the Department of

Rehabilitative Services (DRS), and other providers have differing concepts and notions

about work, work activities, successful employment outcomes, diagnoses and disability.


8

Consistency in terms and conceptual understanding would allow for meaningful data

sharing and a streamlining of intake processes.

“There is a disconnect that we’ve seen, we’re the ESO in the Charlottesville area, and so we’ve seen the differences in opinion between DSS and DRS, even if you’re talking about something as simple as the word ‘work’, what does ‘work’ mean to DSS and what does ‘work’ mean to the Department of Rehabilitative Services. Very simple terms are interpreted very differently by state agencies.”

F. Local Boards LDSS staff often cited challenges posed by the local Boards that oversee local social

service agencies. Some reported that their local Boards are adversarial and made the

delivery of services difficult, if not impossible. Others reported that their local Boards are

supportive of and interested in the work and successes of local social service agencies.

“I’ve worked with directors over the years, and some of them I think have to be tight-lipped about what their Boards know, and try to keep it away from them, and others have Boards that understand and can open up a little bit more. I think the local boards are crucial players, are they not? I mean especially in these out-of-the-box themes, I think people get nervous about being out-of-the-box when they have to go to their local Boards and say ‘We’re buying cars’ and they say ‘Whoa, why are you buying cars?’ I don’t think they’re very well educated, and evidently in some counties there are advantages to them not being very well educated. But you know, I think that’s a group that control a little bit more of the pot than we want to look at or talk about.”

Points to Consider – Program Simplification The recommendations that resulted from discussions about program simplification were:

1. Shift to a universal intake process whereby the client can complete all paperwork and documentation at one point in time in one location.

2. Modify current information systems so that information on clients can be shared between LDSS staff and between LDSSs and service providers. This would address current inefficiencies in the system associated with duplicative information gathering on the part of LDSS staff and community-based service providers.


9

3. Revise the language on forms and correspondence provided to clients during their eligibility determination and during their participation in the TANF program.

4. Address program requirements that inadvertently hinder the TANF client’s ability to work and meet requirements of participation in the VIEW program (i.e., vehicle exemption).

5. Eliminate recording of information in dual formats (i.e., paper and computer-based).

6. Encourage LDSSs to seek input on policy interpretations that may simplify the delivery of services and maximize the clients benefit thereof.

II. Job Readiness, Job Entry, Job Retention, and Job Advancement

The second topic discussed during the roundtable sessions was job readiness, job entry,

job retention, and job advancement. Key themes that emerged in this topic area were

related to self-sufficiency, an ongoing need for post-employment support services, a

need to work collaboratively with local employers, and a need to provide opportunities

that facilitate job advancement.

A. Self-Sufficiency

Across groups and across regions, many participants spoke about how the current work-

first focus of the TANF program, while positive in certain respects, generally inhibits the

TANF client’s ability to achieve long-term self-sufficiency. A key theme was that placing

clients into work does not equal self-sufficiency. The following quote made by a local

DSS staff person participating in the Richmond session illustrates the complexities

involved in achieving self-sufficiency.


10

“And the other thing people are failing to look at, when all these TANF rules change, self-sufficiency equals getting off welfare. A check. We have a young lady in our agency that went through 24 months; she is a dental hygienist, something of that sort. Her income is like 1200 and something dollars a month gross. Her daycare, which we pay for in our agency, is $1300 a month. She gets food stamps, she’s a Medicaid recipient, okay, she’s not self-sufficient, in any way, shape or form. It looks good, it’s been in the Richmond newspaper, this is a success story.”

There were suggestions for programs and activities that serve to enhance TANF client’s

basic life skills such as problem-solving, money management, communication, and goal

setting. Many participants spoke of the ease with which TANF clients enter the

workforce and the near impossibility of retention and advancement due to a lack of basic

life skills.

A community-based service provider in one of the Lynchburg sessions spoke about the

effectiveness of peer mentoring in helping TANF clients acquire basic life skills. Another

participant spoke about how basic life skills are integrated into his agencies computer

training program for TANF clients. The following quote pertains to the computer training

program.

“We have people that come in and talk about respecting authority, being on time to work, how they handle the day-to-day things of holding down a job. And to me this is the most important part of the program. They learn the computer skills, but they’re getting people on their level coming in and talking about how they made it and why they made it, and that sort of thing, by just learning everyday life skills that are just lacking. So I think if we’re going to prepare people for jobs and get them into jobs, we want them to have some sort of a background in life skills.”

B. Collaborative Relations with Employers Many participants referenced the need to work with local employers to generate

employment opportunities and to demonstrate responsiveness when TANF clients

encounter problems in the work-setting after obtaining employment. This includes

learning what employers in the local community want and need.


11

Some argued that employers lack knowledge about the TANF program and often view

TANF clients as less qualified or less desirable than other job applicants. The following

is a quote from a LDSS staff person participating in one of the Lynchburg sessions.

“I think that one of the problems that we have with our career development course is that we’re trying very hard to make contact with employers and talk to them. Despite all we’ve talked about welfare reform, consistently we get ‘Well your people aren’t as good,’ or ‘Well, will you pay for training before your clients even come to our doors?’ Now, they’re training people off the street with the same kind of training, and they’re paying for it, but they want us to pay for it before our clients will even be interviewed. And a lot of it is just prejudicial kind of stuff. And I guess I mistakenly thought that we had come through a lot of that, but we’re running into a lot of that right now. So if there was some kind of general education that we can do, I think it would help.”

A related topic that was discussed was the inherent danger of placing a TANF client into

a work-setting prior to the acquisition of basic life skills and job readiness skills. The

result, if the TANF client fails to retain his/her job, may be, as one participant stated, “a

poisoned relationship” with that employer. The likelihood of the employer providing

additional opportunities to TANF clients in that locality may be greatly diminished.

Through communicative efforts, job retention can be enhanced. A community-based

service provider in one of the Richmond sessions described how he works with willing

employers to maximize the client’s potential for successful job retention.

“When I work with somebody, there’s an agreement between the supervisor, the employee and myself. When that person first starts work, they’re usually on their best behavior. It’s usually six weeks down, nine weeks down, nine months down the road that problems develop. And if we have that communication structure starting at the beginning, the supervisor can call me and we can kind of work problems out so they don’t immediately fire that individual. And that communication I found very helpful.”


12

C. Availability of Jobs Some participants, particularly in the more rural areas, identified constraints due to a

lack of viable job opportunities in their local communities. The eastern shore is faced

with seasonal employment issues. The southwest region of the state is faced with high

unemployment rates as compared to other regions. Some expressed concern that the

statewide economic downturn has generally reduced employers’ willingness to train and

coach TANF clients along until they become productive workers.

Suggestions were made to increase availability of jobs through the use of incentives for

employers. The following comment was made by a Lynchburg participant.

“The only way you’re going to get it to work is if you give employers some kind of a tax break. We had one a few years ago that we were paying half their salary. They loved our employees then, they were getting them for half salary….If you can get them something, that would help.”

Also, some Manassas participants believed that incentives could be used to foster the

employer’s willingness to retain employees. The following was one recommendation

made by a community-based stakeholder.

“I’d like to see the work opportunity tax credit restructured so that businesses are not given credit simply for hiring a TANF recipient, but they get that credit after the person has stayed on the job a certain number of months.”

D. Need for Ongoing Post-Employment Supports

Child care and transportation were cited as the two key post-employment supports that

TANF clients need in order to retain their jobs and to be in a position to advance in the

work setting. The need for sick-child care and child care during non-traditional work

hours was stressed. The following is an exchange that occurred between the facilitator

and a participant in one of the Lynchburg sessions.

Facilitator: And I think Susan you mentioned day care for, not just 8 to 5. Respondent: Sundays. Facilitator: So weekends and odd hours or shift hours. Respondent: Exactly


13

Availability was only one aspect of the child care issue. The ability to pay for child care

was also cited as a barrier that often adversely impacts job retention. The following is a

quote from a community-based provider in the Richmond session.

“When people are in minimum wage jobs, they’re meeting all the other requirements of minimum wage jobs and stuff, and to say okay, you don’t have child care a year after you’ve started to work because it doesn’t fit in the guidelines. And they aren’t able to get out from that thing. And a minimum wage job, basically, to be able to afford child care, they need to be making $8, $9 dollars an hour, which there is no job that’s going to give you a $4 raise….there’s no assistance for that kind of job advancement or anything like that. They’re working and working and working all the time, no child care, the children unsupervised, or the mother has to stop work because she doesn’t have child care.”

The need for ongoing transportation support was cited more frequently by participants

that live and work in rural areas where there is a general lack of a regional public

transportation system.

E. Education and Job Advancement

Across regions and across groups, there was consensus that job advancement simply is

not a focus of the current TANF program. Participants identified education beyond the

high school level as a prerequisite for advancement opportunities. Although post-

secondary education is allowable while in VIEW, it is only feasible if the 30 hours per

week or creditable work activity is met. This presents additional challenges with regard

to both child care and transportation beyond that experienced with work alone.

“Job advancement, I think there is the expectation that our folks will advance, but they’re not going to advance without being able to perform well, and they need the supports to do that. They’re not going to advance without really some money for training, for higher education, for bringing more things to the table. And it’s not just going to happen. And I think sometimes that’s what people expect is that after six months, yeah, they’ll get a raise. Well, that’s not necessarily, especially in this context, going to happen. They need to, and if you want that to happen, then you need to put more into the individual.”


14

Points to Consider – Job Readiness, Job Entry, Job Retention, and Job Advancement

The recommendations that resulted from discussions about job readiness, job entry, job retention, and job advancement were:

1. Incorporate basic life skills training into all job readiness classes.

2. Develop collegial relationships and engage in collaborative efforts with local

employers to maximize the potential for the client to obtain and retain employment.

3. Assess viability of tax credits for employers that reward not only job entry but also job retention.

4. Make self-sufficiency an explicit goal of TANF.

5. Identify and implement effective strategies to meet the ongoing child care and

transportation needs of TANF clients.

III. Hard-to-Serve TANF Clients

With the implementation of VIP in 1995 and the passage of PRWORA in 1996, a large

number of TANF clients left the welfare rolls. Those that remain on welfare today are

presumed to be “hard-to-serve” because they face multiple barriers to employment. The

TANF program’s ability to effectively serve hard-to-serve clients was the third topic

discussed during each of the roundtable discussions. Themes that emerged through

discussion of this topic area were related to multiple barriers to employment, staff

training and consultation relative to screening and assessment, mismatch between the

structure of the VIEW program and client needs, personal connections, adverse impact

of exemptions, need for discretionary funds, and availability of services.

A. Multiple Barriers to Employment The majority of participants spoke about the multiple barriers to employment that many

TANF clients face and concurrent challenges related to a chaotic family life. Barriers

frequently encountered, and often in combination, are substance abuse, low educational

levels, domestic violence, learning disabilities, and mental health issues.


15

The context of the discussions related to this theme primarily centered on the severity of

the barriers and the ability to effectively address the barriers within the time constraints

and work-mandates of VIEW. The following quote from a Manassas eligibility service

worker describes the challenges he experiences when working with the hard-to-serve.

“One thing that just came to mind is this 90 day work activity, where when we have somebody come into VIEW, by the 90th day or the 95th day, they’re supposed to be in a work activity or a community work experience program. And when dealing with the hard-to-serve, we’re finding that it is more difficult to meet that 90 days because we’re getting them evaluated, we’re getting them counseling, we’re doing a lot of different things.”

There was a convergence of opinion that the majority of TANF clients with multiple

barriers will fail to retain employment and will not achieve long-term self-sufficiency if

they have to meet current VIEW work mandates. It was suggested that a way to

address this concern is to allow treatment for substance abuse and mental illness to

count toward the 30-hour per week of creditable work activity. Further, some suggested

having a “sliding scale” approach to work participation whereby the work participation

hours required are increased over time as barriers are addressed and managed.

B. Staff Training on Screening and Assessment

There was a general sense that TANF clients are placed into work activities and/or

employment and their barriers only begin to be identified once they fail in their program

or their employment. A recurrent theme that emerged was the need for better screening

and assessment of clients. LDSS staff should receive training in how to screen TANF

clients for barriers and to then refer, as appropriate, to local service providers in the

public and private sectors for further assessment and, as indicated, treatment.

Many LDSS staff stressed the importance of work experience as an element of the

assessment process - - that is, a situational assessment. This would allow barriers and

challenges that are not readily apparent to manifest themselves in a work setting and be

addressed prior to job placement. Then, LDSS staff could individualize services based


16

on the needs identified through the early work experience activities. The following is a

quote from a LDSS staff person participating in the Richmond session.

“It would be nice to have the ability to quickly put somebody into work experience where appropriate so that they can work out the balancing of work, home, scheduling, how do I handle this problem, what do I do in this situation, without jeopardizing a paycheck.”

C. Mismatch between VIEW Work Requirements and Client Needs

Many participants, especially in the sessions involving LDSS staff and administrators,

spoke about an apparent mismatch between current VIEW time limits and work

mandates and the needs of TANF clients who have multiple barriers to employment.

Some agencies have attempted to proactively address this concern by implementing

multidisciplinary assessment activities that allow for the timely identification of barriers

with quick placement into treatment and services.

D. Personal Connection between the TANF Client and Service Provider(s) Participants spoke about the general distrust that some TANF clients have of the social

service system. This may include a fear of disclosing illicit behaviors such as drug use

or disclosing negative family situations, both of which could potentially lead to referral to

Child Protective Services (CPS).

The need for a personal connection to be made between the service provider and the

TANF client was stressed by participants in all groups and all regions. A TANF client in

the transitional phase spoke about the impact that a service provider had on him.

“I know from my experience with the job readiness program, she searched in there and she found something to build on. She picks these people apart, and if it’s something they’re not so good at but yet they’re better at that than something else, she’s got a way of building on that. And I think that’s a human service kind of quality. But it works, it worked for me.”


17

Along similar lines, a community-based service provider in the Lynchburg region spoke

about the need for an advocate to successfully navigate the TANF program.

“It just seems to me to be who you know and how you’re able to navigate the system, and whether you have an advocate or not. Nobody gets out of this system alive without an advocate. And secondly, the families and the folks that do well don’t do well, in my humble opinion, because of this job training program or this child care program or this transportation program. The families that do well are the families that can name you a person, be it a social worker, a counselor or whoever, who has stuck with them and who has encouraged them and who they have a real trusting relationship with.”

Related to the theme about personal connections were comments about the importance

of understanding the motivations and goals of the TANF client. There was a general

sense that laborious eligibility determination and intake processes often take valuable

time away from learning about the TANF client’s wants and needs. Streamlining

administrative work, as discussed previously, would help address this issue.

E. Adverse Impact of Exemptions LDSS staff, across regions, identified exemptions as counter-productive in many cases.

There was a sense that while a client was in exempt status, time was lost that could be

productively spent receiving services and interventions. For example, some participants

spoke about the how pregnant TANF clients could benefit from basic life skills training

during their exempt period that begins after the first trimester. One suggestion was to

craft TANF policy that would require exempt TANF clients to participate in work

preparation and/or work-related activities, to the extent possible, during the period of

their exemption.


18

F. Discretionary Funds for Localities LDSS staff recommended that local agencies be given discretionary TANF funds to use

for programs and interventions that address the unique needs of the population in that

locality. References were made to the differing transportation issues between urban and

rural localities, the differing employment opportunities between localities, and the

differing needs of clients in various localities.

Participants in sessions involving LDSS staff referenced the availability of grants to help

fund services that are unique to their locality. References were made to the current

TANF Hard-to-Serve Initiative and the upcoming MedVIEW program. Discussions of

these opportunities were tempered, however, by an acknowledgement that LDSSs often

lack the time, personnel, and/or expertise to develop fundable grants. Further, if grants

are awarded, there is often a time lag in implementation and additional reporting

requirements. Although positive in concept, the idea of using time-limited grant funds as

a means to address locality-specific needs was not supported by the majority of

discussion group participants.

G. Availability of Services

Some LDSS staff spoke of challenges in accessing services for their clients both in the

community and through other state agencies. The following is a quote from an

employment support worker participating in the Richmond session.

“Well, in Goochland, we have a waiting list at community services board. I mean yesterday, I had a client sit and tell me Okay, I’m ready to fight my cocaine problem, but I can’t get into counseling now, the waiting list is so long. And then I now know where my child’s father is, but I call Child Support Enforcement, and I get this answering machine, nobody ever calls me back.”


19

Points to Consider– Hard-to-Serve TANF Clients

The recommendations that resulted from discussions about hard-to-serve clients were:

1. Provide staff training in the areas of screening and assessment so that potential barriers are detected early and appropriate referrals made for further evaluation and diagnosis.

2. Alter the 30 hours per week of creditable work activity requirements so that those

with severe and/or multiple barriers to employment can participate in treatment activities. This may include counting treatment as a work activity and/or implementing a “sliding scale” approach to work participation.

3. Require TANF clients in exempt status to participate in work preparation or work-

related activities, to the extent possible, during the period of their exemption.

4. Provide ongoing supports to LDSS staff so that they can establish and maintain personal connections with their TANF clients.

5. Develop mechanisms, beyond grant funds, to provide localities with discretionary

monies to provide services and programs that would otherwise be unavailable to their clients.

IV. Strengthening Families

A significant portion of the national policy discussion surrounding reauthorization

involves the statutory objectives involving marriage and family formation. Since the new

federal law governing the TANF Block Grant is expected to encourage more aggressive

state involvement with marriage and formation, DSS requested that the CPP discuss the

issue with roundtable participants.

Three general themes emerged with regard to the topic of strengthening families. The

impracticality of marriage policies and supports for families and youth were two of the

three themes that were readily discussed in most sessions. The third theme related to

the viability of marriage and family formation as an anti-poverty strategy.


20

A. Feasibility of Marriage Policies and Programs

There was considerable dialogue about the meaning of strengthening families. Groups

spoke about the concept of family and questioned if a two-parent household is the best

definition of family. An underlying concern was that marriage initiatives might divert

funds away from or provide more services to married couples. Discussants spoke of the

need to strengthen the TANF client’s family unit by working within the context of the

family structure that is currently in place. Drawing attention to the definition of family

was one way this view was expressed. Another way was to cite demographic changes

and how the numbers of single-family units in the population has increased.

The need to work within the context of the TANF client’s current family structure was

reinforced by some participants who noted that many two-parent TANF homes are

troubled, if not hostile, environments. A significant number of TANF mothers are victims

of domestic violence attributable to their partners. Less noted, but often implied, was the

prevalence of substance abuse and child abuse in these families. These perspectives

lead to the view that promoting two-parent, married families was impractical. The

following is a quote from a community-based service provider in one of the Wytheville

sessions.

“Maybe our concept of strengthening the family is different than what DSS at the state level thinks that it should be. Maybe it’s because they’re out of touch and really do not realize the impractical point of the two-parent family, and that’s not the norm in our society today, so why not strengthen what you have and work from there, instead of making an impossible situation by herding people to get together, get married, having much more child abuse, domestic violence issues than you ever had before because you’re encouraging them to do that. You know, why not empower that single parent, whether it is a male or a female.”


21

A TANF client, in the transitional phase of VIEW, supported this notion as

reflected in the following quote made during one of the Wytheville sessions.

“I just agree with her whole-heartedly. I think when the government says they would prefer two-parent families; I think they mean two paycheck families. They’re not dumb, they know that, just like she says, its getting worse it’s not getting better, there’s going to be more and more single parents, I’m a single parent. And my kids live with me. The fact that they don’t have a mother figure in the home, that just shouldn’t even be considered.”

B. Supports for Families and Youth

When talking about how to strengthen the family, supports to help families cope with

their challenges to achieving self-sufficiency was the easiest way to operationalize the

concept of strengthening families. The most common support services surfacing at all

roundtables were child care services. Others included health insurance, transportation,

and educational interventions. The need for parenting skills was commented on

explicitly or implied in tangential remarks. Other recommended support services

included family counseling and basic life skills training addressing things like budgeting,

household planning, and relationship skills. In addition, education in areas such as

problem-solving, financial budgeting, nutrition, health care, and involvement in school

activities was suggested.

It was not uncommon to hear suggestions for policies that focus on the well-being of

children, usually as a way of quieting debate over family structure.

“I think again, instead of focusing on the families, because it depends on how you define families….there are so many definitions. Why not try to focus on the children and again try to break some of these cycles and change them.”


22

Some participants spoke about the challenges confronting children in single-parent

families, such as “poverty” and “fewer opportunities.” Others pointed out “there have

been some wonderful, strong children coming out of single parent households.” Others

attempted to combine both possibilities and drew conclusions about the well-being of

children in homes with only one parent.

“Well, it’s always better if there are two incomes in a family. And it’s always better for the children as well, as long as it’s not an abusive parent. Theoretically, it should be better for the children with both parents working and both parents contributing to the success of the family. Unfortunately, a lot of families that we are working with aren’t what we consider healthy families.”

Youth were discussed as a new target audience at a few roundtables in different

regions. Youth were said to be exposed because there are fewer support services for

youth beyond age 11 when they are no longer eligible for day care. Prevention

programs that focus on youth development and transition to adult life were identified in

addition to before and after-school programs to complement education.

There was general agreement among community stakeholders and LDSS staff that

teens and young adults often mimic behaviors that they see and are exposed to in their

formative years. Intergenerational dependence was a key issue that was discussed and

suggestions were put forth about how to break the cycle. Other suggestions were made

with regard to youth initiatives and peer mentoring programs. Many session participants

thought TANF clients are more responsive to input, guidance, and suggestions relative

to lifestyle choices when it comes from someone with similar experiences and cultural

backgrounds.

C. Marriage and Family Formation as Anti-poverty Strategies

Policies related to marriage as a poverty reduction strategy and other family-building

policies were not well understood by LDSS staff and community stakeholders. Based

on concerns raised about penalties associated with the father living with the family in the

home, participants were sensitive to discouraging marriage. (For instance, “We have

cases where dad is in the home but they’re still on TANF. But still, the dad is in the


23

home. That was an overdue change.”) Administrative staff also noted the importance

of increased marriages among TANF and former TANF clients in the Welfare to Work

program. Consider the following exchange between two administrative colleagues:

Respondent: “This is a married program in a way because they wait until they have reached the 24th month, then they get married. Respondent: “Well”, at least they got married.” Respondent: “Also speaking about the Welfare to Work program….looking at the data that she mentioned, there were a lot of people that [viewed it] like a second chance safety net program. At the point that they were in the program, we saw a lot of marriage occur. There had been a lot of situations where the significant other had been involved in the person’s life for a number of years. I’m not sure what drove them [to marriage] specifically, but we did see a lot.”

As for promoting specific strategies, a few participants said they need more information.

Those sympathetic with the potential anti-poverty effect of marriage on children favored

an indirect approach involving the removal of barriers to forming unions, contrasted with

direct strategies. The interventions favorably discussed by most participants included

strategies to reduce non-marital births and teen pregnancies as well as Child Cap

provisions.

Points to Consider – Strengthening Families

The recommendations that resulted from discussions about strengthening families were:

1. The concept of “family” should apply to single-parent homes. Resources should be used to strengthen the TANF client’s family structure as it currently exists.

2. The demand for traditional support services targeting TANF families will continue

at current levels or increase commensurate with work policies. Additional services aimed at parenting skills, basic life skills, and, as appropriate, family counseling may be needed. Child support enforcement policies that incarcerate the father may be counterproductive. Rather they should encourage work by providing job readiness training.


24

3. Policies and programs to strengthen families should focus on the well-being of children. Youth, particularly above the age of 11, are viewed as a potentially vulnerable group. Youth development programs providing supervision and structure to foster transitions to adulthood, avoid risky behaviors, and interrupt the intergenerational cycle of dependency would be helpful.

4. Marriage and family formation as anti-poverty strategies must be pursued

cautiously. Disincentives to preventing formation of two-parent families appeared unacceptable. Some administrative staff observed an increase in marriage among TANF participants, particularly in Welfare to Work programs. On balance, however, the participants seemed to prefer indirect to direct approaches to promoting marriage by removing barriers to forming unions.

Next Steps The statements in this report reflect individual perspectives. The comments provide important

points for further consideration and will help guide future program planning and program

development. Input from LDSS staff and community stakeholders on policy and procedures

are critical and open lines of communication will be necessary to bring a meaningful state plan

to fruition.


25

APPENDIX 1

Roundtable Participants


26

COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS Lynchburg: Alliance for Families and Children Amherst Domestic Violence Career Support System Crossroads Community Services Board DRS Family Preservation Johnston Medical Center Lynchburg Schools- Adult Education Miriam’s House Rescue Mission of Roanoke Roanoke Community Service Board VEC YWCA Wytheville: ABE Gate City Career Support System Consultant Department of Rehabilitative Services Family Resource Center Mt. Rogers Regional Adult New Beginnings New River Community College OEI Peoples, Inc. Radford University TANF Client (1) Virginia Tech Women’s Resource Center Virginia Beach: Educational Opportunities Eggleston Empowerment 2010 Inc. Hampton University Homeless Shelter Suffolk Norfolk Community Services Board St. Pius X Catholic Church Tidewater STOP TANF Clients (2) Tidewater Tidewater Community College YWCA

Richmond: Alliance of Social Ministries Capital Area Training Consortium Catholic Charities/Refugee & Immigration Services Chesterfield City DRS TANF Clients (2) Crater Regional Workforce Deputy Secretary, Health and Human Resources GREAT Hanover Domestic Violence Henrico County DRS New Visions Poverty Law Center Richmond Career Advance Richmond Goodwill Suntrust Virginia Assembly of Independent Baptists Virginia DRS VISSTA YWCA Richmond Manassas: Alexandria Volunteer Bureau Bolivian-American Coalition Charlottesville DRS Domestic Violence Dowell J Howard Voc Center ECHO Fairfax Family JAUNT Manassas SERVE Northwestern Workshop Piedmont Works Salvation Army Services to Abused Children SOC Warrenton Virginia Coop Extension Woodrow Wilson Rehabilitation Center Worksource


27

DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICE MEETINGS Lynchburg: Amherst Appomattox County Bedford County Campbell Danville Franklin County Halifax Henry/Martinsville Lynchburg Mecklenburg County Pittsylvania Prince Edward County Roanoke City Roanoke County Wytheville: Bristol City Dickenson County Galax Grayson County Montgomery County Pulaski County Radford City Russell County Smyth County Tazewell Washington County Wise County Wythe County Virginia Beach: Accomack Chesapeake Franklin City Hampton Isle of Wight James City County Newport News Norfolk North Hampton Portsmouth Suffolk Virginia Beach York County

Richmond: Brunswick Chesterfield Goochland Greensville/Emporia Henrico Hopewell King and Queen Petersburg Richmond Surry County Manassas: Albemarle Alexandria Arlington Charlottesville Clarke Frederick Fredericksburg Harrisonburg Loudoun Manassas Orange Prince William Staunton/Augusta Winchester


28

APPENDIX 2

Facilitation Guide


29

FACILITATION GUIDE: Topic Area I: Program Simplification Focus: This topic area will focus on changes that would make the TANF program easier to access and less cumbersome for front-line workers, service providers, and clients. Also, efforts will be made to gain input on what is currently working well. Prompts:

♦ What kind of things do you do on a regular basis that are cumbersome and/or make it difficult for you to work with TANF clients effectively?

♦ Are there policies that make it difficult for you to help TANF clients? ♦ What changes would you recommend to make things less cumbersome? ♦ What kinds of processes are in place that are positive and allow you to work

effectively? ♦ Tell me about paperwork and documentation requirements. ♦ Tell me about how you record information. Is it in writing? Is it computer-based?

Topic Area II: Job Readiness, Job Entry, Job Retention, & Job Advancement Focus: This topic area will focus on policies, programs, and practices that facilitate and/or hinder job readiness, job entry, job retention, and wage advancement. Prompts:

♦ What things are working or not working with regard to job readiness, job entry and job retention?

♦ Are there current policies or program requirements that impact your ability to focus on work-related activities? [Examples: sanctions, exemptions, time limits, eligibility process, etc.]

♦ Are the Full Employment Program and/or Community Work Experience Program attractive to employers in your localities? Why or why not?

♦ Describe your relationship with local employers. ♦ What can be done to promote job retention and advancement?


30

Topic Area III: Hard-to-Serve Clients Focus: Some say that current TANF clients are “harder to serve” than past TANF clients because these current clients have multiple barriers to employment. This topic area will focus on the concept of the “hard-to-serve” and how TANF can be aligned to best meet their needs and assist them with the transition to work. Prompts:

♦ Are the TANF clients you are serving today different than those you served in the past?

♦ How are they different? How are they the same? ♦ What is challenging about the process of working with current TANF clients? ♦ What changes to TANF, if any, would aid in transitioning the hard-to-serve from

public assistance to work? ♦ Do other federal programs like food stamps or Medicaid impact your efforts to

pursue new innovative ways to promote self-sufficiency and work? Topic Area IV: Strengthening Families Focus: This topic area will focus on how the TANF program can be aligned to meet the goal of strengthening families in the Commonwealth. Prompts:

♦ Does the TANF program contain features that strengthen families? ♦ What are the characteristics of a program that strengthen families? ♦ How effective are programs that are currently in place? ♦ How do children fit into the goal of strengthening families? ♦ Are there efforts being put forth to end intergenerational dependence? If so, how

effective are these efforts?


31

PARTIAL LIST OF RESOURCES USED FOR FACILITATION GUIDE DEVELOPMENT:

Program Simplification

Thomas L. Gais, Richard P. Nathan, Irene Lurie, and Thomas Kaplan. (2001). "Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996." In: The New World of Welfare, ed. by Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins (Brookings: Washington, D.C.).

Job Entry, Retention, and Advancement

Rebecca Blank and Lucie Schmidt. (2001). “Work, Wages, and Welfare." In The New World of Welfare, ed. by Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins (Brookings: Washington, D.C.)

Hard to Employ

LaDonna Pavetti, et al. (2001). Work-Based Strategies for the Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients: A Preliminary Assessment of Program Models and Dimensions. Final Report (Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.). Contract no. 282-98-0021, Task Order #16.

Strengthening Families

Wade F. Horn and Isabell V. Sawhill. (2001). "Fathers, Marriage, and Welfare Reform." In The New World of Welfare. ed. by Rebecca Blank and Ron Haskins (Brookings: Washington, D.C.)

Documents

Findings from Ten TANF Roundtables - Home - … Center for Public Policy Summary Report of TANF Roundtables ii Executive Summary The current session of Congress will reauthorize the