Recent efforts to reform the welfare system have been more comprehensive than many previous reforms, emphasizing such diverse policy changes as family caps and immunization, school attendance and more stringent work requirements. Although broad in scope, the primary emphasis of these reforms has been on increasing participation in work or work-related activities.(1) In contrast to earlier work-related reforms that emphasized participation in longer term education or training activities, many current reform efforts are focused on encouraging or requiring TANF or potential TANF recipients to find employment as quickly as possible. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) requires recipients to participate in a work activity within two years of receiving TANF benefits but states have the option to require work sooner if they choose to do so.
As noted in Chapter 1, 16 of the 48 states included in this analysis require at least some TANF applicants to begin to look for work as a condition of eligibility, an indication that states are expecting recipients to work much sooner than the two years set forth under PRWORA. An additional twelve states, while not having specific job search requirements, do require attendance at a work orientation, work registration or both as a condition of eligibility. (See Table IV-1.) California, Maine, Michigan, Montana and Texas require work orientation only; Iowa, Kentucky, New Jersey, and Utah require work registration only; and the District of Columbia and Wyoming require work orientation and work registration. In South Dakota, TANF applicants considered ready to work must go to the Department of Labor instead of the Department of Social Services to apply for TANF assistance and must complete a Personal Responsibility Plan that could, at the discretion of the DOL employment specialists, require the applicant to engage in a variety of work-related activities including job training and job search. While all of these activities have the potential to divert families from the TANF rolls, mandatory applicant job search is the only work-related activity that meets our criteria for a formal diversion program activity.
In general, mandatory applicant job search programs are intended to accomplish two related goals: (1) to emphasize and reinforce the shift from a cash assistance to employment-focused program and (2) to help potential recipients find employment as quickly as possible. If mandatory applicant job search works as intended, it will both send a clear message that receipt of cash assistance is dependent on one's efforts to work or find work, and encourage some potential applicants to find employment sooner than they would have without such a requirement in place. Where jobs are plentiful, applicants may find employment very quickly, possibly even before their application for TANF benefits has been completed or approved. Depending on their earnings, these applicants may be completely diverted from TANF assistance or they may be eligible for TANF benefits only for a very limited period of time, possibly for as little as one month. If potential TANF recipients perceive the job search requirements as too onerous or beyond their abilities they may choose not to follow through with the requirements, potentially jeopardizing their eligibility for TANF assistance.
In contrast, mandatory work orientation and/or work registration requirements are designed primarily to emphasize the shift to an employment-focused program and not to help potential recipients find employment prior to the approval of their application for TANF. Thus, to the extent that these requirements divert families from TANF they are likely to do so informally rather than formally.
Although mandatory applicant job search programs are becoming an increasingly common component of state efforts to reform their welfare systems, there is very little known about what is expected of families who are required to look for employment as a condition of eligibility, who is subject to those requirements, how much discretion workers have in modifying job search requirements to take into account individual circumstances, and how much assistance is provided to applicants who are required to look for work. As all of these factors are likely to contribute to the extent to which mandatory applicant job search requirements divert potential TANF recipients from receiving cash assistance, in this chapter we present an initial analysis of how states have structured these programs.
Mandatory applicant job search programs differ in a number of important ways.
While some states require all adults to search for work, others limit this
requirement to a smaller group of families such as two-parent families.
Similarly, while some states exempt large numbers of applicants from this
requirement, others have no or very limited exemptions. Additionally, while
workers in some states have considerable discretion to grant exceptions to
the exemption criteria set by the state in some states, in other states they
are required to apply the established exemption criteria much more rigidly.
The specific job search requirements also vary substantially across the states,
ranging from as few as two to as many as 40 employer contacts within a month.
Finally, states vary in the level of job search assistance that they provide
to applicants who are required to look for work with some states providing
considerable assistance and monitoring, and other states leaving applicants
mostly on their own to find employment.
As Table IV-2 shows, most states that require applicants
to look for work impose this requirement on nearly all adult applicants.
In general, states have used a traditional separation of cash assistance
cases into three broad categories based on family structure and the relationship
of the children in the household to the case head (single and two-parent
families and families headed by a caretaker/relative) to define who is and
is not required to look for work before their application for assistance
is approved. Only two states, Missouri and South Carolina, limit this requirement
to two-parent families. Alabama does not require caretaker/relatives to look
for work, but does extend this requirement to both two-parent and single-parent
families. Twelve states require the adults in single-parent, two-parent and
caretaker/relative cases to look for work as a condition of eligibility.
In Oregon and Ohio, the scope and nature of who is required to look for work
is determined at the local level.
Exemptions from the Mandatory Applicant Job Search Requirement
All states, except Idaho, exempt some applicants within the target population from the applicant job search requirement. As Table IV-2 shows applicants may be exempted on the basis of the age of the youngest child in the household, a disability (of the adult applicant or a household member) or job-readiness. Although the criteria for exemptions are generally determined at the state or county level, the actual decision as to whether or not someone in the target population will be subject to a job search requirement is often made on a case by case basis by individual workers. While some criteria such as age of the youngest child are entirely objective, others such as disability or job-readiness are much more subjective, making it difficult to specify with much precision how many potential applicants are likely to be required to look for work before their application for assistance is approved.
Seven states (Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, and South Carolina) explicitly exempt applicants from job search on the basis of a child=s age. All seven states exempt applicants with a child under one year of age, presumably following the criteria set forth in PRWORA for defining the pool of families on which the state=s performance on meeting the work participation targets will be measured. The states that have deviated from the one year exemption criteria have done so in opposite directions. Indiana is planning to narrow its exemption based on the child's age to 12 weeks effective in December 1998. In Nevada, the exemption extends to families with children under 6 years of age if the family does not have access to child care.
Exemptions for applicants with a disability or who are caring for a disabled household member are somewhat more common than exemptions based on the age of the youngest child in the household. Eight states (Alabama, Arizona, Indiana, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, New York, South Carolina) made some allowances for disability, although each state defines disability somewhat differently. In South Carolina, persons who are incapacitated by physical or mental impairments are exempted from job search. In Kansas, a disability must be supported by a written doctor=s statement.
In eight states (Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, Oklahoma and Wisconsin) applicants are exempted from the mandatory job search requirement if they are not job ready. Since there are no universally established criteria for determining whether someone is job ready or not, each state has developed its own criteria and/or system for determining whether an applicant should be exempted from job search based on this criteria. While some states have attempted to develop objective criteria that workers can use to make this determination, in many states, this determination is made by workers based on their evaluation of an individual applicant=s current circumstances and previous job history.
In Missouri, all TANF applicants are assessed at the initial interview for Alevel of job-readiness.@ There are three levels of job-readiness and only Level 1 persons must look for work at the point of application. Missouri defines a Level 1 person as someone who indicates an interest and ability to work and has some recent work history, a particular occupational license or certification that will allow her to work, or is receiving unemployment compensation. Levels 2 and 3 persons face greater barriers and do not have to complete applicant job search. Instead, Level 2 and 3 persons complete job search after they receive TANF. A level 1 person who is unsuccessful at finding a job at the end of four weeks is recategorized into Level 2 or 3 and they are authorized to receive TANF benefits. In Arkansas, a TANF applicant determined to be job ready is someone with a recent work history or at least a 10th grade education level, and someone with transportation and no child care needs. Georgia is currently developing an assessment tool for caseworkers to help them determine whether an applicant should be required to conduct a job search. Georgia recognizes that some circumstances may prohibit eligible applicants from immediately pursuing a job. For example, an applicant might have low education levels and poor literacy, transportation problems, or child care issues that need to be resolved before the applicants engage in mandatory job search.
In some states, worker discretion extends beyond determining whether or not an applicant is a part of the target population and meets any of the exemption criteria. In 10 of the 16 states with applicant job search requirements, workers have the discretion to make exceptions to the formal exemptions.(2) Exceptions may include situations such as a non-disabling injury, illiteracy and other barriers that prevent individuals from actively engaging in mandatory job search.
Although the specified target population for
most applicant job search programs is all adult applicants, exemptions and
exceptions granted through worker discretion are likely to considerably reduce
the number of applicants subject to this requirement. Substantial worker
discretion could also result in considerable variation from one office to
the next.
Once workers have determined that an applicant is required to fulfill a job search requirement in order to be eligible for assistance, they must then determine exactly what the applicant must do in order to meet that job search requirement. In some states, the requirements are determined by the worker or by county officials in the local offices, and in other states these requirements specified by state officials with consideration given to the conditions of the labor market in the local areas.
Table IV-3 shows that the length of mandatory job search and the definition of what constitutes job search vary considerably across the states. The length of time that applicants are required to engage in job search activities ranges from as little as 2 weeks in South Carolina and Idaho to as many as 6 weeks in Georgia. Many states define the job search requirement as a specific number of contacts per specified time period, usually until the application is approved. Contacts range from as few as two over a 40-45 day period in Alabama to as many as 10 per week for four weeks in Missouri, Indiana, and Nevada.
Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Indiana, Kansas,
Nevada, and South Carolina apply the same job search requirements statewide.
In the remaining states, counties and local offices are given broad discretion
to determine exactly what will be required of applicants. In Arkansas, non-exempt
TANF applicants are required to engage in job search activities for at least
10 days following the initial application interview. However, determination
of the number and type of job contacts are based on the opportunities available
in the county. In Oregon, caseworkers must follow state guidelines that
non-exempt persons must be engaged in work search full-time (i.e., at least
20 hours/week) for a period not to exceed 30 days. Beyond these broad
requirements, local offices are free to define their own job search requirements.
Thus, in East Oregon (a rural area) the local office requires a person to
look for work for only 1 week. In Portland, the local office requires applicants
to search for work for 2-3 weeks (or longer).
Good Cause Exceptions to Completing Job Search Requirements
As with the process for determining who must
job search and who is exempt, states can allow exceptions for individuals
who have failed to complete job search requirements. Good cause exceptions
are given to applicants who are required to look for work but may be unable
to complete the requirement because of unforeseen circumstances. Ten states
provide good cause exceptions to applicants who are willing, but unable to
complete their job search requirements. Good cause exceptions are generally
considered for unavoidable, unexpected, or insurmountable barriers to securing
or maintaining a job. Such good cause reasons for granting exceptions may
include transportation or child care problems or illness. For example, in
Arizona, illness, court-ordered appearance, lack of transportation and child
care, a family crisis, severe weather, and incidence of domestic violence
are considered good cause. If an applicant who is required to look for work
but has not done so can show good cause, the TANF application will continue
to be processed and will not be denied or withdrawn due to failure to meet
job search requirements.
The type and intensity of job search assistance provided to applicants who are required to look for work varies substantially across the states. Ten of sixteen states (Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, and Oregon) provide applicants with some assistance to help them find employment. However the type of assistance varies considerably across the states and in most states, across local offices. In Georgia, the county Departments of Family and Children Services as well as the state Department of Labor help applicants by providing them with employment contacts. In Nevada, the welfare staff is outstationed at employment security offices to offer job leads. In Idaho, applicants have access to a community resource room. In Missouri, each local welfare office has staff from the state employment securities agency available to help applicants with job search activities and provide resource information.
Wisconsin and all local offices in Oregon provide extensive job search assistance. This assistance includes classes on how to complete an employment application and write a resume, and how to prepare for a job interview. In addition, TANF applicants looking for employment are eligible for a variety of assistance including case management services, transportation, child care, Medicaid, food stamps, job search and emergency assistance. Caseworkers determine what services are provided. In Wisconsin, job ready individuals who indicate an emergency financial need to maintain or obtain employment may be eligible for a job access loan which can range from $25 to $1600.
Seven states (Alabama, Georgia, Kansas, Maryland,
Nevada, New York, and Oklahoma) specifically note that they require documentation
to verify that applicants are actively engaged in job searches. For example,
in Alabama TANF applicants are required to register with the employment services
and must report the number of job applications they submitted and to whom
they applied to the TANF eligibility workers prior to completing the application.
In Oklahoma, TANF applicants must submit their activities and the number
of hours for each day that they do job search to their caseworker. Oklahoma
is also unique in the fact the state pays a "participant allowance" which
can be from $3 to $6 a day (for more than 4 hours of activity) while applicant
is engaged in job search. Applicants must submit a "time sheet" so that they
can be paid the allowance.
In contrast to lump sum payment programs where many of the decisions regarding the structure of the programs are made at the state level and the rules are relatively well defined, applicant job search programs are characterized by considerable devolution of decision making to local offices and by substantial worker discretion. Given the amount of discretion associated with determining who might be excepted from applicant job search, what the specific scope of the job search will be, and who might be excused from completing their job search requirements, it is difficult to determine the extent to which mandatory applicant job search programs are likely to divert applicants from TANF. Nonetheless, it is possible to identify the characteristics of these programs that seem most likely to result in diversion.
To the extent that job search assistance increases the likelihood that an applicant will find employment, one would expect programs that provide more job search assistance to result in higher levels of employment and therefore higher levels of formal diversion. With considerable assistance available, fewer applicants may be discouraged from applying for assistance, potentially reducing the number of applicants who are diverted informally. On the other hand, informal diversion may be higher in programs where little job search assistance is provided, particularly if applicants might be easily discouraged by relatively demanding job search requirements, particularly if they have failed in previous efforts to find employment.
The intensity of the job search requirements could affect whether and how TANF applicants are diverted in several different ways. If the likelihood of finding employment is directly related to the number of employer contacts one makes, then the likelihood of applicants finding employment and being formally diverted would be higher in programs with more intense job search requirements. However, if the number of job searches required is beyond what many TANF applicants believe they can reasonably accomplish in the specified time period, then applicants may apply for jobs randomly, paying little attention to whether or not they are likely to be qualified or be considered for the job. If this occurs, a higher number of job contacts will not necessarily translate into a higher probability of finding employment. In addition, the more difficult the requirements are to meet, the more likely applicants may be to either give up or not apply for assistance in anticipation that they will be unable to meet the requirement. To the extent that such circumstances occur frequently, there is potential for mandatory applicant job search programs to create substantial informal rather than formal diversions.
How workers use their discretion with respect to exceptions may also affect the extent to which mandatory applicant job search requirements result in formal or informal diversion from the welfare system. If workers do a good job at accommodating applicants who are unable to meet the job search requirement, applicants will be less likely to either give up on meeting or fail to meet the job search requirements. In addition, potential applicants may be less likely to avoid applying for TANF because they do not feel they can meet the expected job search requirements.
In sum, mandatory job search requirements are likely to divert potential TANF recipients both formally and informally. In well-designed programs providing the assistance that applicants need to look for work, applicants will be diverted formally because they find employment. On the other hand, if programs provide minimal support and require relatively stringent job search activities that are unrealistic in terms of the abilities of most potential TANF applicants, mandatory applicant job search programs may result in substantial, and possibly undesirable, informal diversion.
2.
This may also be true in Ohio where counties
have the discretion to determine the parameters of their
program.