SUMMARY OF THE INTERIM IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ON THE NORTH DAKOTA TRAINING, EDUCATION, EMPLOYMENT, AND MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The North Dakota TEEM project consolidates TANF and Low Income Heating and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) into a single cash assistance program. TEEM includes the following major provisions: a social contract, increased work incentives, sanctions, raised asset limits, a benefit cap and incentives for family stability and marriage. TEEM was first implemented as a demonstration in 11 of North Dakota’s 53 counties in July 1997. The remainder of the counties is currently in various stages of implementation. Berkeley Planning Associates is conducting a process study of the TEEM program.
The goal of this report is to provide early feedback about program implementation that the Department of Human Services (DHS) can use to refine and improve TEEM as it is extended to counties throughout the state. It assesses program implementation and describes client characteristics, activities, and progress toward self-sufficiency by examining the influence of policies and local context in program design, and the influence of program operations on client outcomes. This report also examines TEEM implementation in four demonstration counties: Cass, Richland, Stark, and Stutsman. The study is based on field visits and analysis of administrative records. This report covers the period July 1997 through June 1998.
FINDINGS
The interim findings show that TEEM has generally been successfully implemented. This success has been demonstrated in a number of ways. First, staff and clients understand the purpose of TEEM and how it differs from the old AFDC program. Second, the computerized assessment is being utilized by all TEEM managers in demonstration counties in their interactions with clients, regardless of their knowledge of computers before TEEM began. Finally, DHS has provided ongoing support for staff throughout implementation, listening to the feedback staff provide and making program changes as necessary.
This report examined implementation of six programmatic components: case management, assessment, referrals, TEEM contract, work activities, sanctions, time limits, and the benefit cap. The analysis focused on ways to make the provision of services more effective and to improve the flow of services to client. The analysis identified various deficiencies, including: 1) that two-fifths of non-exempt clients in the demonstration counties had no work activity hours recorded between January 1998 and June 1998; and 2) job retention services were needed. It also found that while the majority of clients were aware of the five-year lifetime limit on benefits, they were not well-informed about the benefit cap policy. Both staff and clients indicated through interviews and focus groups that they do not believe the benefit cap will affect fertility. Both groups believed that money does not motivate or prevent people’s decisions about childbearing.
The report also made recommendations for policy and operational changes which would assist DHS in its efforts to strengthen the TEEM program. A list of the findings for each component and the recommendations for modification are listed below.
Case Management
The roles of staff have changed significantly since TEEM’s implementation. Although they have made great strides in implementing case management, staff needs more support and training to fully internalize their changing roles and succeed in the case management function. DHS is beginning to undertake a second round of training this fall.
TEEM clients need one individual to coordinate the various TEEM services they receive and TEEM managers are the most appropriate person to fulfill this function. To that end, TEEM staff must increase communication and coordination of service delivery both with JOBS and with other services agencies.
TEEM managers have adopted a broker model, in which they assess client needs and link them to appropriate services. This model should be expanded to include more comprehensive follow-up, monitoring, and ongoing case management.
Comprehensive case management may be impossible to achieve given the current recommended TEEM caseload size. Some counties may need caseload relief to provide a higher intensity of case management than currently exists.
Assessment, Referrals, and TEEM Contract
Although some TEEM managers found the automated system difficult to learn over time they became more comfortable using it.
The assessment could be expanded in some areas, and made more flexible to accommodate clients’ individual needs, strengths, and interests. A more flexible screening tool would be more useful for re-assessment purposes.
TEEM managers are making more referrals under TEEM as a result of the assessment.
The TEEM contract would be more useful to clients if its action steps were prioritized, and supported by a mechanism that reinforced the completion of all non-mandatory components. This mechanism may include increased case management and monitoring, or incentives for completion of non-mandatory TEEM contract goals.
Computerizing the assessment process has the ability to hinder client-staff relationships. It is important for TEEM managers to use the computer as a aid in the assessment interview, not as the focal point.
Clients may be better served with a shorter time period between intake and assessment.
Work Activities
Because the TEEM and JOBS assessments are not coordinated or shared, there is some duplication of services.
Primary barriers to work are child care, transportation, and language.
A more intrinsic barrier to work is some client’s beliefs that it is simply wrong to work while raising an infant or young toddler.
Community service placements should be structured carefully. They should include more of an introduction to TEEM for the worksite supervisor, and more contact with the supervisor to monitor client progress and performance.
TEEM and JOBS staff both report a need for job retention services. Job retention services are key in assisting clients maintain employment, particularly for clients who face many barriers to self-sufficiency.
Two-fifths of the non-exempt clients (both applicants and recipients) in the demonstration counties had no work activity hours recorded between January 1998 and June 1998. Unfortunately, data available at this time has not allowed the evaluators to assess the reasons for non-participation.
Some disparity exists between JOBS’ performance requirements and TEEM’s goals. JOBS is evaluated based on placement and wage rates, while TEEM's goals include other measures of self-sufficiency.
Sanctions
The vast majority of TEEM staff report that the sanctioning process is effective, and that it makes the TEEM contract a more binding document. Many staff report that having sanctioning available helps reinforce the message that rules of welfare have changed.
Because TEEM does not sanction for the non-mandatory elements (referrals to family or individual counseling, classes for budgeting, financial management, parenting, nutrition, or child care assistance) of the TEEM contract, some staff argue that clients are less likely to complete those items.
Repeat sanctions may be avoided more effectively through comprehensive case management or positive reinforcement than through progressive sanctions. The report identified two weaknesses in the sanctioning process: 1) clients are less likely to complete the non-mandatory elements of the TEEM contract because they are not sanctioned for noncompliance; and 2) TEEM managers do not seem to advocate or intercede when clients get their first or second sanction, to try to avoid the next sanction. These weaknesses may be addressed better through the implementation of a more comprehensive model of case management or positive reinforcement than by punitive measures.
Time Limits
The majority of interviewed clients were aware of the five-year lifetime limit on benefits, although few seemed worried about it. TEEM staff confirmed this finding, and suggested that time limits seem too far away for most clients to comprehend.
Staff and clients both expressed concern that the goal of self-sufficiency was simply unattainable for some clients and for these clients the five-year lifetime limit on benefits could be very detrimental.
Benefit Cap
Clients with whom evaluators spoke were not terribly well-informed about this policy. Although they received printed information about the restrictions with their grant checks, few take note of it. The benefit cap policy has been recently added to the TEEM video that clients see during the intake process.
Staff and clients both indicated through interviews and focus groups that they do not believe the benefit cap will affect fertility. Respondents from both groups believed that money does not motivate or prevent people’s decisions about childbearing.
Recommendations
Staff need more and continuous support and training to implement the comprehensive case management model necessitated by TEEM.
The delayed timing of the TEEM assessment leads the JOBS provider to assume the role of primary TEEM manager during the first months of TEEM participation. To best serve clients, TEEM managers should be the primary individual coordinating the various TEEM services.
The assessment should be expanded in some areas, and made more flexible to accommodate clients’ individual needs, strengths, and interests. A more flexible screening tool would be more useful for re-assessment purposes.
The TEEM contract would be more useful to clients if its action steps were prioritized and a mechanism for enforcement of all components was in place.
Two-fifths of non-exempt clients in demonstration counties are not engaged in a work activity. DHS and JOBS providers need to work together to ensure these clients are making progress toward self-sufficiency.
Community service placements should be more structured.
DHS should continue to seek creative solutions to transportation and child care barriers.
JOBS activities could be expanded to include job retention services. Federal Welfare-to-Work funds could be used to provide these services to the most disadvantaged TEEM clients.
For more information contact Girley Wright:gwright@acf.dhhs.gov