Until the recent shift to a more work-oriented assistance system, eligibility for cash assistance focused primarily on determining whether a family met the financial and household composition requirements to be eligible for assistance. Thus, the eligibility determination process generally focused on making sure that all of the documentation required to verify income, assets, the presence and ages of children in the household and deprivation was provided. The processing of applications in a timely manner without errors defined success. Given this emphasis, in most offices, eligibility workers spent little, if any time, talking with applicants about the circumstances that led them to apply for assistance and whether there were other resources that they could access to alleviate their current situations.
The shift to a more work-oriented, transitional assistance has started to alter this eligibility determination process. Workers are taking more responsibility for informing applicants about program expectations and work-related benefits such as child care, transportation or child support assistance. Seven of the 51 states examined for this report (Florida, Idaho, Maryland, Montana, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin) are making a concerted effort to explore alternative resources with applicants before proceeding with an application for TANF. These efforts are designed to accomplish a number of different objectives: 1) to help families become more self-reliant by thinking more broadly about their needs and potential options for meeting those needs; 2) to provide families only with the assistance they need (e.g., child care assistance) rather than assuming all families need cash assistance; and 3) to provide cash assistance only as a last resort so that families subject to a lifetime time limit will have access to resources at times when they are most in need.
In contrast to other forms of formal diversion, there are generally no specific
policies that guide the process of linking TANF applicants with alternative
resources. Instead, this approach is implemented through changes in the
interaction between workers and applicants. Workers now ask questions in
a different way and assume a different universe of potential solutions. Cash
assistance is viewed as one of many resources available to help a family
rather than the only resource. Since efforts to link applicants with alternative
resources are relatively new and not driven by a detailed set of policies
we do not have sufficient information to describe and compare state approaches
along a number of common dimensions. Thus, to examine how these programs
work, we describe how several states have integrated efforts to link applicants
with alternative resources into their eligibility determination process.
In Montana, efforts to link TANF applicants with alternative resources occurs through their JOB Supplement Program (JSP) that offers child care assistance, food stamps, Medicaid and lump sum payments but does not offer a monthly TANF cash grant. JSP is primarily for people with a fairly stable source of income or the ability to find employment quickly. Time spent in JSP does not count towards the time limit on TANF benefits. Families who do not have any source of income are steered into Pathways, Montana=s more traditional AFDC/TANF program that provides cash assistance.
When families apply for assistance in Montana, they meet with a Families Achieving Independence in Montana (FAIM) coordinator, a caseworker who does both eligibility determination and case management. During their initial interview, caseworkers conduct a comprehensive assessment of an individual=s needs and circumstances and consider all potential resources. The caseworker uses several tools to conduct this assessment: a household budget sheet, an action plan in which an individual writes out what the goals of the family are for the immediate future, and a screening guide or a self-assessment tool that describes credit problems, substance use/abuse, domestic violence, literacy level, and other barriers or strengths. During this interview process, if the applicant is found to have family in the area, the caseworker will talk to the applicant about how strong the family support system is and what kinds of resources can be drawn from that family (e.g., a mother who can watch grandchildren instead of incurring child care cost). Caseworkers can also make referrals to community agencies and contact family members if appropriate. In general, caseworkers do not make phone calls and instead provide the applicant with the information necessary to contact resources, e.g., information about the housing authority for housing needs, or the district transit authority for transportation assistance.
Montana=s JSP program was created to help individuals identify what resources and support systems other than TANF were available in their community. Montana has also supported the creation of local entities known as Community Advisory Councils (CAC). The CACs have a variety of local responsibilities including decision about how to support welfare reform and diversion programs. To assist with the mplementation of JSP, each CAC conducts a needs assessment of their community and develops a comprehensive resource guide for the caseworkers. Montana=s approach to providing assistance is that they do not want families to accept cash assistance unless they absolutely have to. However, families have the option to turn down participation in JSP and have their application for cash assistance processed.
Florida=s efforts to link families with alternative resources are less formalized than Montana=s efforts. In their efforts to determine whether a family=s needs might be met through a lump sum payment, caseworkers also explore whether there are resources within the community that could be used to help a family meet their needs. Caseworkers are expected to be knowledgeable about the resources available in the community. Although caseworkers explore the potential availability of alternative resources, they do not actively discourage people from applying for TANF benefits. On the other hand, their goal is to help people save the time-limited TANF benefits available to them for the difficult situations when they may need these benefits the most.
New York=s Front Door diversion program occurs at the local level. The state estimates that about half of the counties in the state formally screen applicants to see if they can be diverted. The goal of the state=s program is to divert applicants for assistance by helping them identify other services and resources that might be available to them. In counties where this type of diversion is in place, caseworkers explore the following types of questions with TANF applicants: Is there anyone else who can help you? Have you worked recently? If so, why did you leave work? Is the current problem temporary? What can you do to avoid public assistance? Those receiving Front Door diversion services are eligible to receive job search assistance, work orientation and child care. Caseworkers also try to identify applicants who are disabled and get them to apply for SSI, VA or Social Security Disability benefits.
Wisconsin=s efforts to divert individuals through alternative
resources represent the most aggressive approach among the ten states. Wisconsin
conducts an extensive screening process and also makes financial resources
other than TANF available to the applicant. Specifically, after the applicant
has applied for TANF, she meets with a
Aresource
specialist.@
The resource specialist helps the TANF applicant identify potential alternative
resources and will make necessary referrals to other agencies for case management
services, transportation, child care, Medicaid, food stamps, job search and
emergency assistance. Additionally, the resource specialist will screen job
ready applicants for a job access loan. The loan can range from $25 to $1600,
depending on the need, and is available to TANF applicants who indicate an
emergency financial need to maintain or obtain employment. In effect, the
resource specialist explores all available options and directs the TANF applicant
to other services and resources before TANF is considered.
These descriptions of state efforts provide
an initial look at the ways in which states are beginning to change their
eligibility determination procedures to consider a broad range of resources
that may be available to help TANF applicants meet their immediate needs
without receiving ongoing cash assistance. The successful implementation
of efforts to link TANF applicants with alternative resources requires a
broader understanding of community resources and more sophisticated interviewing
skills than has traditionally been required of caseworkers determining
eligibility for cash assistance. Thus, staff training and caseworker
qualifications are likely to have a substantial impact on how efforts to
link TANF applicants with alternative resources play out in practice. With
the exception of Wisconsin, states generally offer applicants the opportunity
rather than requiring them to take advantage of alternative resources that
may be available to them. Consequently, in most states, efforts to link
applicants with alternative resources are likely to affect only those applicants
who have a relatively minor, short-term need which can be met through means
other than providing ongoing cash assistance. Applicants in need of ongoing
assistance to address more serious needs are as likely to progress through
the application process and receive TANF benefits as they would have prior
to the shift to an approach involving a more concerted effort to assess applicant
needs and link applicants with the appropriate alternative resources.