As Chapter 1 explained, states have been given broad flexibility in determining which policies apply to child-only cases. In addition, states have been given the opportunity to develop TANF policies that could have a bearing on child-only caseloads in the future. This chapter describes in more detail the TANF policies and practices in three states, California, Florida, and Missouri, and in the three counties visited, which are Alameda County, Duval County, and Jackson County.
This chapter draws on information from interviews conducted with state officials, county administrators, and county staff, supplemented with information from other published reports, as cited. The chapter begins with a brief description of the organizational and staffing structure in the three counties. Section III outlines the policies and practices in the three states that were identified earlier as affecting child-only caseloads - policies regarding sanctioning, aliens, Supplemental Security Income (SSI), non-parental caregivers, and time limits. Section IV discusses the key differences between TANF and other programs available to non-parental caregivers, and Section V discusses the interaction between TANF staff and child welfare staff. Section VI concludes with a discussion of how county welfare offices are handling a growing share of TANF cases comprised of child-only cases.
In Alameda County, the Welfare to Work Department operates the county's TANF program, which is called California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs). Unlike Florida and Missouri, CalWORKs is county administered, with each county given some autonomy in administering the program, under the state's supervision, and sharing in the costs of program operations. In Duval County, the First Coast Workforce Development Board and the Work and Gain Economic Self-Sufficiency (WAGES) Coalition administers the TANF program and contracts out to Lockheed Martin IMS as the service provider for the work activities and participant support services required under the WAGES program. The Florida Department of Children and Families (DCF) is the responsible entity for all eligibility functions of the program. In Jackson County, the Missouri Department of Social Services Division of Family Services operates the state's income maintenance and self-sufficiency programs, referred to as Temporary Assistance. The Division of Family Services also has a separate program, FUTURES, which provides education, skill training and employment assistance to individuals receiving AFDC.
In each of the counties, staff responsible for eligibility functions are separate from staff responsible for assigning work activities and monitoring participation. Differences exist in how the caseloads are assigned to the eligibility workers:
This section discusses the states' policies regarding sanctions, alien status, SSI, non-parental caregivers, and time limits focusing on how these policies impact child-only caseloads and how they were implemented in the three counties visited. In addition, all three states have developed other programs for relative caregivers who might otherwise apply for TANF assistance.
PRWORA gives states the flexibility to determine the penalty for noncompliance. In addition, welfare administrators may enforce the sanctions differently, based on the sanction processes and their philosophies regarding the effectiveness of sanctions. California, Florida, and Missouri have different sanctioning policies and processes involved in imposing the sanctions.
Exhibit 2.1 highlights the basic sanction policy in each of the three states.
When a parent is sanctioned in California, generally for not participating in the welfare-to-work program, the parent's income is included in the benefit determination, but her needs are not considered and she is not included in the assistance unit. This essentially converts a regular case to a child-only case. For certain program violations, such as not providing proof of immunizations, the state issues a penalty, not a sanction. In this situation, the adult's needs are not included, although the adult remains in the assistance unit. Finally, the state reduces a family's grant by 25 percent if the adult refuses to cooperate with child support activities.
Exhibit 2.1
Sanction Policy in Three States
| California | Florida | Missouri |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
| a/ This policy did not change. | ||
With the welfare-to-work sanction, an individual is ineligible until she complies, if it is the first violation. The second violation results in a minimum sanction of three months or until the client is compliant, whichever is latest; the third sanction results in a minimum sanction of six months, or until the client is compliant, whichever is latest. In addition, the county is required to issue voucher or vendor payments for at least the rent and utilities for the second and third sanction.
Florida is one of several states that imposes full-family sanctions (i.e., closes the cash assistance case) when clients are first noncompliant for not participating in a work activity; this is referred to as a level-one sanction.(1) Prior to December 1999, a level-two sanction, which is imposed for the second incident of noncompliance, resulted in a loss of cash assistance and food stamps, until the client complied for 30 days. A level-three sanction was imposed for the third incident of noncompliance, and closed the cash and food stamps case for at least three months. In December 1999, the policy on food stamp sanctions was changed after it was determined that it did not conform to federal food stamp regulations. Specifically, the state first applies the food stamp work exemptions (which are broader, exempting mothers with children under age six) before closing the food stamp case and allows other household members to apply for food stamps after a penalty period. In addition, the state decided to apply the food stamp sanction to level-one sanctions as well.(2)
With level-two and level-three sanctions, the parents can apply for assistance for their children through a protective payee, a third party who receives the grant on behalf of the parent and children. For this study, these protective payee cases are categorized as child-only cases.
A sanction is "forgiven" after six months. This means that a client whose cash has been sanctioned, but who participates in a work activity for six months, would receive a level-one sanction and not a level-two sanction for a second violation. It is important to note that analysis presented in Chapter 3 showing some cases are child-only due to sanction are level-two and level-three sanctions. Many more cases were sanctioned but are not captured in the estimates because of case closure.
While the work activity sanction is imposed to a greater extent then other sanctions, a client can also be sanctioned for other reasons, including: (1) not cooperating with Child Support Enforcement (which closes the TANF grant and removes the adult from Medicaid); (2) failing to immunize the children (children's needs, and not the adult's needs, are removed); (3) having a teen child who is not attending school (children's needs, and not the adult's needs, are removed); and (4) not attending a school conference (adult's needs are removed). Only sanctions that remove the adult result in child-only cases.
Missouri's sanction policy changed in October 1998, which has implications for this study. Prior to this point, Missouri had a policy similar to California's - noncompliance resulted in the removal of the parent from the TANF grant, converting the case to a child-only case. Noncompliance under the current policy results in a 25 percent reduction of the grant but keeps the adult in the assistance unit. For all cases except households with one child, this new policy results in a greater reduction of benefits. This essentially results in a smaller child-only caseload in 1999 than would have been, due to this reclassification of sanctioned cases. Before this new policy was enacted, the state had been considering several changes to the sanction policy, including a full-family sanction,(3) but opted for a benefit reduction after pressure from advocacy and community groups.
Alameda had low sanction rates in the past, although there is evidence that this is changing. In the early 1990s in the GAIN program, the predecessor to CalWORKs, there was insufficient funding to provide employment services to the full caseload. During those years, GAIN served primarily volunteers, and the majority were in self-initiated education or training programs. Thus, Alameda referred very few cases for sanctioning relative to other California counties and sanctioned few, if any.(4) By late 1997, Alameda started implementing a Work First program and called in mandatory clients. By June 1998 there was approximately 4 percent of the caseload in sanction status; another 5 percent had been referred for sanction, but were complying or had not yet been sanctioned. By September 1998, the reported sanction rate had increased to 5 percent of the caseload and another 11 percent had been referred for sanction. This reflected the change in program focus and the increased number of clients being required to participate. An analysis conducted by the county in June 1998 found that almost half were sanctioned for not attending the initial orientation, 22 percent did not participate in job club/job search, 24 percent did not participate in an assigned education or training activity, and 5 percent did not attend their assessment.(5)
Of the three states, Florida's policy imposes the severest penalty for noncompliance by closing the cash assistance case for first violations. In addition, eligibility workers have no discretion in when to impose or lift a sanction. The WAGES program refers all cases that are noncompliant to the eligibility workers and they have 10 days to impose the sanction. When the client complies with their WAGES work requirements, the WAGES program will request that the sanction be lifted. For level-two and level-three sanctions with protective payees (the child-only cases), the TANF recipient volunteers a friend, relative, or neighbor as her protective payee to receive the welfare check on behalf of the children.
In Jackson County, the families are subject to sanctions for an adult's refusal of a job offer, for failure to comply with child support, and for failure to comply with or participate in work-related activities. If the case has no barriers and is expected to conduct a job search, the self-sufficiency eligibility worker determines whether to sanction the case or not. If the case has some barriers to immediate employment and is assigned to the FUTURES program, then it is the FUTURES worker's determination as to whether the case should be sanctioned. In this situation, the FUTURES worker will refer the case to the eligibility worker, who will impose the sanction. All sanctions require a face-to-face meeting, and the client is given several chances to come into compliance. As mentioned above, these sanctioned cases are not child-only, although they were in the past.
Exhibit 2.2 outlines the states' policy regarding the eligibility of aliens in each state.
All three states deny benefits to non-qualified aliens who were ineligible under the AFDC program. As discussed in Chapter 1, states cannot use federal funds for payments to qualified aliens who entered the country after August 1996 for the first five years they are in the United States. Nevertheless, California and Missouri have opted to continue providing benefits to this group, using state funds, while Florida is not providing benefits to this group. All three states have opted to provide benefits to qualified aliens who entered before August 1996.
In all three states, the status of aliens who apply for TANF assistance as qualified aliens is verified with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Generally, non-qualified applicants admit to being non-qualified when they apply for their children who are U.S. citizens; in this situation, the case is not reported to INS, since false information has not been presented. The application asks about income and resources, although eligibility workers interviewed assumed that some income is not reported. Since this employment is "off the books," it goes undetected. The income that is reported is counted in the cash assistance benefit calculation.
Exhibit 2.2
Eligibility of Aliens in Three States
| California | Florida | Missouri | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Non-qualified Aliens | Non-qualified aliens who were previously eligible under the AFDC program are eligible for state-funded benefits. Otherwise, they are not eligible for assistance and their U.S. citizen children are eligible (case is child-only). | Are not eligible for assistance. U.S. citizen children of non-qualified aliens are eligible (case is child-only). | Are not eligible for assistance. U.S. citizen children of non-qualified aliens are eligible (case is child-only). |
| Qualified Aliens Entering the Country Prior to August 1996 | Are eligible for TANF benefits. | Are eligible for TANF benefits. | Are eligible for TANF benefits. |
| Qualified Aliens Entering the Country After August 1996 | Are eligible for state-funded TANF benefits. After five years in the country, they are eligible for federal TANF benefits. | Are eligible for state-funded TANF benefits. After five years in the country, they are eligible for federal TANF benefits. | Are not eligible for TANF benefits for five years after entering the country. U.S. citizen children are eligible (case is child-only). |
Given the choice between SSI and TANF, individuals will most likely opt to receive SSI benefits, given the higher benefits. SSI recipients can then apply for TANF benefits for their children. This section discusses the differences in SSI and TANF benefits, the treatment of SSI in determining other benefits, and the process for referring individuals to SSI in the three counties.
Individuals who are aged, blind, or disabled and who have little or no income and resources are eligible for SSI benefits. Disabled individuals whose income and resources meet the SSI threshold are often eligible for TANF benefits from their state agency if they have children. However, since SSI payments are greater than TANF benefits for a disabled parent or child, these individuals have an incentive to apply for SSI. Exhibit 2.3 presents the difference between the SSI benefits for one parent's needs and the additional benefits parents could receive by being included in the TANF assistance group instead of on SSI in the three states. As this Exhibit shows, it is always in the financial interest of the SSI eligible individual to apply for SSI benefits rather than be included on the children's TANF grant.
Exhibit 2.3
Comparison of SSI and TANF 1999 Payments for One Person
| State | Maximum SSI payment for disabled individuals | Maximum TANF grant for one person's needsa/ |
|---|---|---|
| California | $676b/ | 102 - 221c/ |
| Florida | 484 | 61 - 62 |
| Missouri | 484 | 62 - 102 |
|
a/ Represents range based on size of assistance
unit; assumes at least one child remains on the grant
b/ SSI recipients are not eligible for food stamps in California because the state supplements the federal SSI payment instead of issuing food stamps. SSI for the blind is $732. c/ Represents the exempt rates for Region 1 (which includes Alameda) effective July 1999.
|
||
In all three states, SSI is not considered when determining eligibility for TANF and benefit levels. Florida enacted legislation that included SSI recipients in the TANF assistance group, and subsequently, would count the SSI benefit as income in calculating TANF benefits. The state was to provide a special needs allowance for families that include SSI recipients. In the end, the state never implemented this provision and ultimately changed its state law, perhaps out of concern about the number of families that could potentially lose benefits.
TANF cases that are child-only because the parent is an SSI recipient may have started as a regular TANF case before the parent received SSI. Alternatively, the parent may have been receiving SSI when she learned that TANF benefits were available for her children. The process differs for each scenario. In the first situation, in which the parent was first receiving TANF, her TANF eligibility worker or case manager may have referred her to SSI. The assessment process for determining exemptions to work requirements could lead staff to detect possible eligibility for SSI. In the second situation, in which the parent was first receiving SSI, the SSI worker may have informed the parent that her children were eligible for TANF. In addition, some clients learn about benefits from outside organizations or through word-of-mouth.
The referral from TANF to SSI is fairly informal in all three counties, dependent upon staff's judgment, although Alameda has a more formal TANF appraisal and assessment process. Alameda County utilizes an upfront process that involves social workers at intake conducting an initial appraisal. The social workers are able to spot individuals who might be eligible for SSI and help them with the application process. Applicants are assigned to a two or three-hour orientation conducted by welfare-to-work staff at five agency and five community sites throughout the county. At the orientation, they are told about their rights and responsibilities and an appraisal is conducted where they are assigned to a job workshop and given child care. Those unable to find a job (or not employed full-time) are referred to assessment where an evaluation is conducted, in part, to uncover any educational, physical, or mental limitations.
In Duval, one worker noted that he typically asks clients who are not meeting their work requirements why they are not complying. The answers often reveal disability-related conditions and he will suggest that they apply for SSI. Another staff member mentioned that WAGES workers in Florida are more likely to discover individuals who might have learning or physical disabilities and they will actively encourage clients to apply for SSI, even helping them complete an application. As cases reach the time limit in Florida, clients who are potentially eligible for SSI will be given a hardship exemption until their application is processed, as long as they have not exceeded the 48-month lifetime limit. According to staff in Duval, however, clients who are eligible for SSI typically learn they are eligible early in the process before they have used up their time on the clock.
Missouri TANF workers may see individuals who might be eligible for SSI at intake and refer them, or they may learn about their possible eligibility during their participation in FUTURES, which handles the clients with barriers to participation. Still, one staff person said that she rarely referred clients to SSI because she was not qualified to make this judgment; referrals to SSI tended to come from physicians and outside organizations.
Staff in all three county offices said they have limited interaction with SSI staff, and most of it is limited to getting listings of TANF recipients approved for SSI. Confidentiality issues preclude the staff from sharing detailed information between the offices, although SSI may have questions regarding a client's eligibility that eligibility staff can answer.
Relative caretakers of TANF cases must have a specified degree of relationship to the child. Generally, this means a relative who is immediate family or a stepparent, uncle or aunt, first cousin, first cousin of parent, nephew or niece, persons of preceding generations such as a great-grandmother, or the spouse to one of these persons.
In California and Florida, caretakers who are not related to the children are not able to receive TANF benefits for children under their care. In Missouri, exceptions are allowed for non-relative caretakers who have legal custody or legal guardianship of the children. Legal custody can be obtained via family court after it has been determined that the child should be placed outside of the home. Legal guardianship is obtained through probate court after family court has relinquished its jurisdiction over the child and his or her caretaker.
In all three states, relative caregivers must cooperate with the state by supplying information on each parent absent from the home, which is forwarded to the state child support agency. In addition, the states require that relative caregivers also assign child support benefits over to the state. The child support agency pursues the absent parent to establish a support order, if none is in place, or to enforce an existing order.
The TANF programs in the three counties offer no services targeting non-parental caregivers, although non-parental caregivers who are in the assistance group are eligible for the same services available to parental caregivers, including job search assistance, child care, transportation, and other ancillary services. Non-parental caregivers not in the assistance group are generally not eligible for these services, although states often have non-TANF programs that offer services, such as child care and transportation, for which they can apply.
Child-only cases, with the exception of sanctioned cases in some states, are not subject to a time limit. Nevertheless, states' time limit policies can influence the number of cases that become child-only in two ways. First, states that remove the parents from the assistance group but continue to provide assistance to the children at the time limit, automatically convert regular cases to child-only cases. Second, states that reduce or terminate cash assistance at the time limit impose economic hardships on families, possibly leading to some children moving in with relatives or other caretakers who are better able to care for them, and thus, leading to an increase in child-only cases with non-parental caregivers.
Of the three states studied, only Florida welfare recipients have begun to reach the time limit. In California and Missouri, the discussion presented in this section focuses more on how states intend to implement these policies when individuals begin reaching the time limit and the methods used for tracking the time limit.
Exhibit 2.4 provides basic information on the time limit policies. The policies discussed in this section applies to the caseload that is not exempt; states can exempt 20 percent of its caseload from the five-year federal time limit and continue to provide assistance to this group using the federal block grant. In addition, states may exempt more than 20 percent and provide assistance using state funding.
Exhibit 2.4
Time Limit Policy in Three States
| California | Florida | Missouri | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Length of Time Limit |
|
|
|
| What happens at time limit? |
|
|
|
| When did/will families begin reaching time limit? |
|
|
|
California's TANF program, CalWORKs, places time limits on adult's TANF receipt, but not on children's benefits, meaning the case becomes child-only after the adults reach the cumulative five-year time limit. Counties may decide whether to provide benefits for the children in the form of cash or vouchers.(6) The five-year time limit does not apply to sanctioned cases.
Because the CalWORKs program was not implemented until 1998, well after PRWORA was signed, the state has to track two time limits: the federal time limit, starting December 1996, and the state time limit, starting January 1998. Both are five-year time limits, but some individuals will reach the federal time limit first (starting in December 2001). If the 20 percent exemption limit has been exceeded, the state will have to use state funding to provide assistance to these individuals. Welfare recipients will not reach the state time limit until January 2003.
Within the five-year time limit, applicants are eligible for 18 cumulative months and current recipients are eligible for 24 cumulative months of aid. Aid can continue after the 18- and 24-month cumulative time limits if the county certifies that there is no job currently available and the recipient participates in community service. Counties may also extend the 18-month time limit for up to 6 months if the extension is likely to result in unsubsidized employment or employment is not available in the local labor market.
Florida's WAGES program limits most welfare recipients to 24 months of assistance over a 60-month period. Certain individuals - long-term recipients or individuals under age 24 who have not completed high school or have little or no work experience - are assigned a 36-month time limit out of a 72-month period. The clock is extended by one month for each month welfare recipients work, up to 12 months. All welfare recipients are limited to 48 months over their lifetime.
Unlike California, the time limit applies to the household and not just the adults of the household. This means that at the time limit, the state terminates the family's cash assistance, although the family is still eligible for food stamps and Medicaid. Two exceptions to this policy are allowed. First, exemptions of up to 12 months are offered to individuals who have "diligently participated in WAGES" and still not found employment (not exceeding the 48-month time limit). Adults continue to receive assistance on the grant, and the case is not child-only. Another exception is made when a hardship exemption is not granted, but Child Protection Services (CPS) reviews the case and determines that the child is likely to be placed into an emergency shelter or foster care as a result of case closure. In this situation, a protective payee is assigned to the case and the benefits for the children are paid to the protective payee, making the case a child-only case; however, the 48-month lifetime limit still applies to the children.
Missouri's TANF program applies the five-year lifetime limit to the household. Thus, the case closes when the time limit is reached. The child will continue to be eligible if he or she were to move in with another adult after the first household reached the time limit and is eligible when he or she becomes an adult. Five-year time limits in Missouri went into effect July 1997 and will be reached in July 2002. At this point, there are no provisions in the policy that will convert regular cases to child-only cases at the time limit.
Clearly, for time limits to affect child-only caseloads, welfare departments must be able to track the number of months of benefits clients are receiving. In addition, time limits will only influence child-only caseloads if states take action when families reach the limits.
In Alameda, as discussed above, eligibility workers have to monitor the federal time limit and the state time limit. Both are five-year time limits, although individuals will reach the federal time limit first. This complex tracking must be done for fiscal purposes, to determine when to provide assistance from state funding and not from the federal block grant. The state is currently implementing a statewide-automated welfare data tracking system. The system will contain information regarding the 18- or 24- and 60-month time limits; welfare benefits received from the counties; and county-specific information on exemptions, exceptions, and sanctions.
In Duval County, the eligibility workers monitor the number of months of assistance both manually, on paper forms that are included in each case file, and electronically, in the automated case management system. The time limit follows the adults as they move from one case to another and the system should track this movement.
In Jackson, eligibility workers track the time limit by manually counting the months; the computer system has not been adapted to keep count of the number of months left on the clock.
Since welfare recipients have not begun to reach the time limit in California and Missouri, and are only beginning to reach the time limit in Florida, questions remain regarding how cases will be handled at the time limit which will have an effect on child-only caseloads. For example, in California, counties may extend assistance to adults who have reached the five-year time limit if they meet particular conditions.(7) In Missouri, it is still unclear how these cases will be treated, although the policy calls for the closure of these cases. In Florida, welfare recipients have begun to reach the time limit but many are currently being offered benefit extensions. As more families reach the end of their extensions, the financial hardship could lead to an increase in the number of children who are left with relatives.
As discussed above, non-parental caregivers may seek assistance from other programs rather than apply for TANF assistance. These programs available for relative and non-relative caretakers of children, generally offer higher levels of benefits, impose additional requirements, and offer additional services. The extent to which caregivers see these other programs as substitutes for TANF has an impact on child-only caseloads.
Exhibit 2.5
Alternative Programs Available in Three States
| California | Florida | Missouri |
|---|---|---|
|
|
|
This section discusses some of the characteristics of four of these programs - the federal foster care program, California's Kinship Guardianship Assistance Payment (Kin-GAP) Program (not yet implemented), Florida's Relative Caregiver Program, and Missouri's Grandparents as Foster Parents program. It outlines some of the differences in program goals, services and requirements, benefit levels, program funding, and caseloads.Exhibit 2.5 gives an overview of the programs.
Briefly, California plans on implementing the Kin-GAP Program statewide in January 2000 for relative providers who become legal guardians; Florida implemented the Relative Caregiver program in October 1998 for relative caregivers who have legal custody or are caring for children under court supervision; and Missouri implemented the Grandparents as Foster Parents program in August 1997, restricted to grandparents who are caring for their grandchildren (in August 1999, the program was expanded to include relatives other than grandparents).
The goals of TANF, foster care, and the alternative programs differ to some extent. Some alternative programs are considered alternatives to foster care while others are considered alternatives to TANF. In addition, foster care program goals differ by state, although these state differences are not discussed in this section.
Among the TANF, foster care, and state alternative programs outlined above, TANF offers the fewest services and imposes the fewest requirements on non-parental caregivers, while foster care offers the most services and imposes the most stringent requirements. The alternative programs have some requirements, although they are generally not as stringent as foster care. These programs are discussed separately below.
The TANF programs require that non-parental caregivers meet with their eligibility workers for redeterminations of benefits. Generally, redeterminations take place every six to 12 months (depending on the state), or every three months in some states, if the case is receiving food.(10) During the redetermination, they must supply basic information about the household, although are not required to provide information regarding income and resources if they are non-parental caregivers excluded from the grant. Non-parental caregivers not included in the grant are not required to participate in the work activities required of caregivers included in the grant.
The key difference between foster care and TANF is that children in foster care are in the state's legal custody and not the caregiver's custody. In addition, foster care imposes stringent requirements, requiring the most supervision and oversight from the child welfare agency. In Florida, relative caregivers must be fully licensed as foster parents in the foster care component, while California and Missouri waive specific licensure requirements for relative caregivers. However, even in these states, families must undergo a home study and their cases are reviewed every six or twelve months. Training is often available, and sometimes required, of families. For example, the California DSS provides training to foster parents through community colleges and county-sponsored training programs; Missouri requires 30 hours of foster parent training; and Florida requires that families complete 21 hours of training. California and Missouri require that for relatives to receive foster care, the children must come from a poor family (i.e., were previously eligible for TANF).(11)
California's Kin-GAP program will require relative caregivers to have legal guardianship and have cared for the dependent child in foster care for at least 12 months. To receive Kin-GAP, the court must terminate dependency, meaning many of the requirements imposed in foster care are not imposed once families enter Kin-GAP. No services are to be provided to Kin-GAP participants.
Missouri's Grandparents as Foster Parents program provides assistance to grandparents and other relatives age 50 years or older, who are legal guardians or have legal custody of the child. The caretakers receive 30 hours of foster care training, but can forgo the formal foster care licensing procedures or home study.(12) The Grandparents program does not require that children be from TANF-eligible households, as is required for relatives to be eligible for foster care benefits.
Florida's Relative Caregiver Program offers assistance to relatives who are taking care of children under court supervision or who have temporary legal custody. Relatives are not required to be licensed but have to undergo a background check and a home study to ensure the home is safe.
Exhibit 2.6 lists the average benefits in each of the program categories, assuming two children in the household. The alternative program rates are set at or close to the foster care rate and are always greater than the payments offered to TANF non-parental caregivers. The fourth column lists the TANF rate for two children and one adult, for non-parental caregivers who choose to be included on the grant (and are willing to meet the work requirements and receive time-limited assistance).
| State | Foster Care Payment for Two Childrena/ | Alternative Program Payment for Two Childrena/ | TANF Payment for Two Children, No Adult | TANF Payment for Two Children, One Adult |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 893 | 893b/ | 565c/ | 699c/ |
| Florida | 769 | 526 | 241 | 303 |
| Missouri | 515 | 515 | 234 | 292 |
|
a/ Payments vary depending on the age
of the child. The payment presented in this exhibit represents the 1999 payment,
averaging the payment for a child age 2, 9, and 16 and multiplying it by
two.
b/ Rates will be equal to foster care rates (which could change in 2000 when implemented) except without a clothing allowance or specialized care increments. c/ Maximum payment for exempt caregivers in Region 1, which includes Alameda County, July 1999. |
||||
The payments for all programs increase for additional children in the household. However, the incremental change in foster care payments is a fixed payment based on the child's age; the incremental change in TANF payments diminishes for additional children. Therefore, the difference between foster care and TANF payments increases as household size increases.
The TANF child-only cases may be funded with federal block grant dollars, to the extent that they meet federal requirements. The Foster Care Program is funded with Title IV-E (of the Social Security Act) dollars and state dollars. States share in the foster care costs for IV-E children and pay fully for foster care children who are not IV-E eligible.
The alternative programs rely on different funding schemes. California's Kin-GAP program will use TANF funding to pay up to the TANF base rate and the state and counties will share in the costs over and above this base rate. Florida's Relative Caregiver program is funded with TANF dollars, while Missouri's Grandparents program is funded primarily with state maintenance-of-effort (MOE) dollars (expenditures states must make from their own funds as a condition of receiving the TANF block grant) and some TANF dollars.
Consistent participation data for the different federal and state programs are difficult to obtain, with data covering different periods and different units (number of children or number of families). For example, the foster care estimates in Exhibit 2.7 represent the number of children in foster care, while the TANF estimates represent the number of cases with non-parental caregivers. In addition, the foster care estimates represent caregivers that are relatives and non-relatives. Still, the participation estimates suggest that in Florida and Missouri, non-parental caregivers are more likely to receive assistance from TANF rather than foster care. In California, the data are inconclusive. As will be seen in Chapter 3, California non-parental caregivers make up a smaller portion of the TANF caseload than in the other states.
Exhibit 2.7
Participants in Foster Care and State Programs
| State | Title IV-E Foster Carea/ | Foster Careb/ | State Alternative Programs | TANF Non-Parental Caregiverse/ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| California | 61,805 | 110,544 | n/a | 38,417 |
| Florida | 6,147 | 23,379 | 3,965c/ | 28,889 |
| Missouri | 4,826 | n/a | 275d/ | 8,015 |
|
a/ Green Book. Average
monthly number of children, 1996.
b/ The Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS). ACF. Represents number of children as of September 1997. These figures are substantially higher than the Green Book estimates because they include the children who are not eligible for federal funding (primarily because they were not from AFDC-eligible homes), but are eligible for state foster care. c/ Total children as of September 1999. d/ Total cases as of September 1999. e/ Estimates are average monthly estimates for fiscal year 1997. |
||||
Not surprisingly, the state alternative programs have fewer participants owing in part to the newness of the programs. The levels will undoubtedly increase as the states conduct more outreach and relative caregivers learn of the programs; in Missouri, recent changes broadening eligibility may increase participation.(13)
Note that participants in Florida's Relative Caregiver Program are included in TANF caseload estimates, while participants in Missouri's Grandparents as Foster Parents are not because of the different funding sources discussed above. As of the time of this report, California had not decided how they would classify Kin-GAP participants.
All staff contacted for interviews agreed that they had little direct interaction with child welfare services. This is beginning to change somewhat as more individuals participate in alternative programs. In all states, child welfare services are administered in separate offices within the welfare department. In California, child welfare is administered by the DSS Children and Family Services Division and in Florida, the DCF Family Safety Program office oversees child welfare programs. In Missouri, Children's Services handles child welfare functions.
Alameda County eligibility staff interact with CPS in only rare situations, perhaps when CPS is trying to contact a client or CalWORKs staff are asked to provide information for a court proceeding.
Duval County staff interviewed also said they had very little interaction with CPS. By law they must report cases of abuse to CPS or suspicions of abuse and if a child has been removed from a case they may talk to child welfare to find out when the child is expected to return. However, this is primarily for eligibility purposes only. When CPS is investigating a case in Duval, they will not call and inform TANF. As one TANF worker noted, "There's no reason for them to do so."
In Florida, CPS is also involved after a case has reached the time limit and a decision is made not to offer the parent a hardship exemption. In this situation, CPS will investigate the case to determine if the child is at risk of entering foster care. If so, then benefits will continue and a protective payee will be assigned. In Duval County, CPS has not issued a protective payee for any cases they have reviewed.
Missouri noted that beyond an initial referral from Children's Services, they do not have contact with the agency; both agencies may be working with the same family (handling different responsibilities) but they do not collaborate.
If the child(ren) enters foster care, foster care staff will notify TANF so that they can close the TANF case. In Duval, staff noted that they never advised clients to seek services or assistance from the child welfare agency; they know very little about the program. In Alameda, one staff mentioned that they would not make a referral to foster care because the state's goal is not to get more cases into the foster care system. However, another staff said that if a non-relative caregiver wanted to apply for TANF, he would direct the caregiver to foster care (since non-relatives are not eligible to receive child-only benefits in California). Interaction is often limited to determining Medicaid eligibility of foster care cases.
In Florida and Missouri, TANF eligibility workers are beginning to have more interactions with child welfare because of the implementation of the Relative Caregiver Program and the Grandparents as Foster Parent Program.
In Duval, Family Safety identifies individuals who are eligible for the Relative Caregiver Program and after conducting the home study, will refer the cases to the TANF office. After getting referrals to this new program, TANF staff may call Family Safety for additional information or documentation. If clients come in to apply for TANF benefits for relative children, the eligibility workers may tell them about the program or clients may see the posters exhibited in the welfare offices that describe the program and ask for information. Interested clients are told to contact Family Safety for a home study. Clients who have had any interaction with Family Safety in the recent past typically learn about this program from them.
In Missouri, clients who apply for TANF are referred to children's services in order to participate. Foster care provides training, but eligibility staff handles all eligibility functions.
In Duval, the proportion of child-only cases to the TANF caseload doubled from 34 percent in July 1997 to 68 percent in May 1999. Originally, the staff handled child-only cases or regular cases. Staff who had child-only caseloads had a caseload of 175 cases, while staff who had regular cases had 150 cases, recognizing that regular cases required more case management time. Recently, the county decided to combine the caseloads. Eligibility workers now have a mixed caseload of 150 child-only and regular cases. This was to alleviate the workload of those handling a regular caseload that was taking an increasing amount of time. As one worker mentioned: "We are down to the hard core cases [on the regular caseload]. They get a job, lose a job, [and] get a job." Staff have to monitor the work requirements, sanction noncompliant cases, ensure that the client is receiving child care and transportation, and track the time left on the clock, as well as conduct redeterminations. In contrast, the child-only cases typically only require staff to conduct redeterminations.
Jackson eligibility workers are specialized. Case workers who handle child-only cases also handle Medicaid-only cases. Their total caseload is about 225 cases, compared to an average caseload of 110 for self-sufficiency workers, who handle regular cases. They are anticipating an increase in the child-only caseload and in at least one office, there has been some discussion of bringing in an additional case worker to handle the increased child-only caseload.
1. Noncompliant clients attend a counseling session and have 10 days to comply or show good cause before the sanction is imposed.
2. For the first sanction, if the noncompliant individual does not meet a food stamp exemption, the food stamp case is closed for one month or until the individual complies, whichever occurs later; the other members of the household may reapply after one month. For the second and third sanctions, the household is ineligible for three months and six months, respectively; other members of the household can apply for food stamps after this period if the head of household is still noncompliant.
3. J. Ferber and R. Storch (1998). Full-Family Sanctions: Not Worth the Risk. Gateway Legal Services. St. Louis, Missouri.
4. J. Riccio, S. Friedlander, and D. Freedman with M. Farrell, V. Fellerath, S. Fox and D. Lehman (1994). GAIN: Benefits, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of a Welfare-to-Work Program, MDRC, New York, NY. According to this study, only 2 percent of AFDC single-parent cases in Alameda were referred for sanction and no one was sanctioned. This is the lowest referral rate of all counties studied, which included Butte (10 percent referred), Los Angeles (34 percent), Riverside (34 percent), San Diego (22 percent), and Tulare (12 percent). A referral came from a GAIN worker, who monitored GAIN participation, and referred noncompliant cases to the eligibility workers for sanctioning.
5. CalWORKs implementation reports posted on Alameda's Department of Welfare-to-Work web site: www.co.alameda.ca.us/assistance/calworks.
6. California officials indicated that these benefits would be paid for with state funds.
7. Specifically, adults may receive an extension if they are:
8. 1998 "Green Book"; Washington, DC.
9. California Welfare and Institutions Code, Section 11361.
10. In California, food stamp redeterminations are every 12 months (the same as TANF redeterminations).
11. Boots, S. and R. Geen (1999). Family Care or Foster Care? How State Policies Affect Kinship Caregivers. The Urban Institute. Washington, DC. This is a federal requirement; other states may provide state foster care benefits for relatives even though the children are not from needy families.
12. Grandparents or relatives who refuse to participate in foster parent training may receive cash benefits but not respite care, a clothing allowance, and transportation services available to those who complete the training. In addition, for this group, the TANF five-year time limit applies and participation in a mandatory work training component is required.
13. Previously, this program was reserved for grandparents age 55 and over. In August 1999, eligibility was broadened to include relatives other than grandparents and to include grandparents and relatives age 50 and over.
Table of Contents:
Executive Summary
National Overview
TANF Child-Only Policies and Practices in Three
States
Characteristics of the TANF Child-Only Caseload in Three
Counties
Summary Findings and Implications for Future Research
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
(HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
(ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS)
Last modified on 3/27/00