Increasing TANF Work Participation:

1
Increasing TANF Work Participation Findings
from the Colorado Works Program Evaluation

ACF/OPRE Welfare Research and Evaluation
Conference Presented by Mary Farrell and
Michael Mueller, The Lewin Group Other Partner
Organizations Johns Hopkins University University
of Colorados Health Science Center Capital
Research Corporation
June 4, 2007
2
Evaluation

• Colorado contracted with Lewin to evaluate
  Colorado Works, Colorados TANF program
• Partners
• University of Colorados Health Science Center
• Johns Hopkins University
• Capital Research Corporation
• In 3rd year of 5-year study
• Examining potentially promising self-sufficiency
  strategies and approaches
• Advisory Committee and State oversees evaluation
  and selects topics to be addressed
• One topic selected Work Participation

3
Work Participation Study

• Reviewed literature and TANF regs
• Reviewed recommendations of Colorado Works
  Work Participation Task Force
• Contacted 20 of 64 counties to understand
  approaches and strategies being pursued
• Analyzed Colorado Works participation data

4
Caseload decline in Colorado 62 from 1995 to
2006
Source ACF AFDC/TANF reports
5
Adjusted All Families WPR Set to 0 for
All-Families Rates FY99 - FY06 Could increase to
50 in FY07
6
Strategies Pursuing to Increase Participation

• Wide-ranging differences in philosophies
  regarding how best to respond to DRA
• Strategies promoted by State and Task Force
• Up-front/Intake State Diversion Provides
  diversion during initial intake/ assessment
  period when clients are not participating in
  countable activity
• Refinance Payments Not claiming county
  appropriated funds as state MOE instead using
  these funds for two-parent cases and
  hard-to-employ individuals (taking them out of
  equation)
• Active Case Management More vigilant management
  of case activities (assessing clients, moving
  them into activities quickly, sanctioning, and
  using data reports effectively)

7
Other Strategies Highlighted by Counties

• Financial incentives and post-employment
  diversion
• Expanded use of case closures for demonstrable
  evidence
• Close tracking of participation reports from
  state system
• Having specialized case managers
• Holding staff and contractors accountable for
  meeting rates

8
Participation Status of Adult TANF Recipients
(10/05)
Note Calculation differs from WPR calculation
significantly. Disregards included in this
denominator, and not in WPR calculation. Also,
calculation is of adults, not cases. Source CBMS
9
Demographics of Adult TANF Clients by
Participation Status (10/05)
10
Main Differences in Characteristics

• Meeting all families rate
• Never married
• Younger
• Youngest child under age 6 (face 20 hour
  requirement)
• Participating, but for fewer hours than required
• Youngest child 6 years or older (face 30 hour
  requirement)
• Not participating, not exempt
• Fewer months on TANF clock (perhaps new to TANF
  system and not yet assigned to activity)
• May have barriers not yet identified
• Exempt due to disability or caring for disabled
• Substantially older
• More months on TANF clock

11
Percent of Participants in Work Activity (10/05)
Note Participants can participate in more than
one activity thus percents sum to more than 100
12
Percentage of Participants Meeting the All
Families Rate by Primary Activity (10/05)
Primary activities are defined as those in
which clients has 2/3 of their countable
hours Includes Work Experience, Community
Service, OJT and Subsidized Employment
Includes Job Skills Training, Education Directly
Related to Employment and Vocational Educational
Training
13
Leaver Status After 12 Months by Participation
Status in 10/05
14
Preliminary Conclusions

• Substantial portion of clients meeting work
  participation subject only to 20 hour requirement
• Many adult recipients (10 percent) are
  participating but not meeting the hours
  requirement
• Non-participants with no hours more likely to be
  new to TANF (takes time to move clients into
  activities)
• Up-front/intake diversion might help state meet
  WPR
• Non-participants also more likely to exit TANF
  and not return

15
Still to Come

• Work Participation Study
• Compare FY06 (pre-DRA) rates by county to FY07
  and F08 rates
• Survey county directors and visit selected
  counties to understand how counties implemented
  new policies
• Examine TANF receipt and UI wage outcomes after
  diversion
• Tie specific strategies employed (e.g., enhanced
  case management, up-front diversion, non-TANF
  funding) to changes in participation rates over
  time
• Conduct statistical analysis of factors,
  including policies and economic conditions,
  associated with participation

16
Other Components of Evaluation

• Leavers Study (client survey and administrative
  data analysis)
• Caseload Modeling Study (examine factors behind
  recent caseload reduction)
• Longitudinal Data Analysis
• Comparative Study
• Other Topical Studies as selected by Advisory
  Committee and State

17
For Further Information

• Contact
• Mary Farrell (Project Director)
• The Lewin Group
• 703-269-5685
• mary.farrell_at_lewin.com
• or
• Demetra Nightingale (Co-PI)
• Johns Hopkins University
• 401-516-8796
• dnight_at_jhu.edu