The Use of TANF Work-Oriented Sanctions
in Illinois, New Jersey, and South Carolina

Final Report

By:
LaDonna Pavetti, Michelle K. Derr, Gretchen Kirby, Robert G. Wood, and Melissa A. Clark

April 30, 2004

Submitted to:
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

Project Officers:
Elizabeth Lower-Basch and Alana Landey

Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Project Director:
LaDonna Pavetti

Contract No.: HHS-100-01-0011
MPR Reference No.: 8902-602

This report is available on the Internet at:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/TANF-Sanctions04/index.htm

How to Obtain a Printed Copy

Contents

Executive Summary

Acknowledgements

Chapters

1. Introduction
   • Sanctions and Welfare Reform
   • Research Questions
   • Data Sources
   • Study Limitations
   • Characteristics of the Study States and Local Study Sites
2. From Policy to Practice: Implementing TANF Sanctions
   • Informing Clients About Work Requirements and Sanctions
   • Defining Program Expectations and Requirements
   • Monitoring Participation in Work Activities
   • Deciding Whether to Impose a Sanction
   • Imposing a Sanction
   • Reengaging Sanctioned Recipients in Program Activities
   • Summary
3. Imposing TANF Sanctions: How Often, On Whom, and With What Outcomes?
   • How Common Are Sanctions in the Three Study States?
   • Which Recipients Are Most Likely to Be Sanctioned?
   • How Do Personal Liabilities Influence the Likelihood of a Sanction?
   • How Do Sanctioned TANF Recipients Fare?
   • Do Sanctions Promote Compliance with Work Requirements?
4. Summary and Conclusions
   • How Have TANF Sanctions Been Implemented?
   • How Often Are TANF Sanctions Imposed?
   • Who Is Sanctioned?
   • How Do Sanctioned Recipients Fare?
   • Potential Next Steps

References

Appendix A: Methodology for Multivariate Analysis

Tables

• I.1 Major Dimensions of State Sanction Policies
• I.2 The "Cost" of Work-Oriented Sanctions For a Family of Three
• I.3 Characteristics of TANF Recipients in the Study States
• I.4 Administrative Arrangements For Implementing Work Requirements and Sanctions
• III.1 Incidence and Timing of Sanctions
• III.2 Probability of Being Sanctioned, Controlling For Other Characteristics
• III.3 Personal Liabilities by Sanction Status
• III.4 Probability of Being Sanctioned in Illinois by Personal Liabilities
• III.5 Duration of Partial Sanctions and Reasons these Sanctions Ended Among TANF Recipients in Illinois and New Jersey
• III.6 Sanctioned and Other Leavers Returning to TANF
• III.7 Summary of Compliance After the Imposition of an Initial Partial Sanction in Illinois and New Jersey
• Appendix A.1. Variable Descriptions
• Appendix A.2. Effects of Specific Characteristics on the Probability that a TANF Case Head is Sanctioned Within 12 Months in Illinois
• Appendix A.3. Effects of Specific Characteristics on the Probability that a TANF Case Head is Sanctioned Within 12 Months in New Jersey
• Appendix A.4. Effects of Specific Characteristics on the Probability that a TANF Case Head is Sanctioned Within 10 Months in South Carolina
• Appendix A.5. Variable Descriptions for Illinois Survey-Based Models
• Appendix A.6. Effects of Specific Liabilities on the Probability that a TANF Case Head is Sanctioned (Full or Partial) Within 12 Months in Illinois
• Appendix A.7. Effects of Multiple Liabilities on the Probability that a TANF Case Head is Sanctioned (Full or Partial) Within 12 Months in Illinois
• Appendix A.8. Effects of Multiple Liabilities (Grouped Model) on the Probability that a TANF Case Head is Sanctioned (Full or Partial) Within 12 Months in Illinois

List of Figures

• III.1 Time Spent In Various Employment And Tanf Statuses During The First 12 Months After A Full-Family Sanction In New Jersey
• IV.1 The Sanction And Post-Sanction Status of Tanf Recipients In New Jersey

Acknowledgements

This report would not have been possible without the cooperation and support we received from staff at all levels in each of the study states. Program administrators fielded many questions from us about formal TANF sanction policies and procedures, and local staff talked openly with us about how those policies and procedures play out in practice. Marilyn Edelhoch and David Patterson from the South Carolina Department of Human Services, Dave Gruenenfelder and Diane Darnell from the Illinois Department of Human Services, and Rudy Myers, and Beth Connolly of the Division of Family Development at the New Jersey Department of Human Services provided us with administrative data and, in some cases, survey data for the quantitative analysis for this report. Marilyn Edelhoch, David Gruenenfelder, Rudy Myers, Suzanne Borys (NJ) and Gayle Riesser (NJ) also reviewed and provided comments on an initial draft of the report We would like to thank everyone who graciously shared their time with us for making this report possible.

We would also like to thank staff from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, for providing guidance and feedback throughout this project. As project officers, Elizabeth Lower-Basch and Alana Landey monitored each project task and provided useful suggestions for improving the study and final synthesis report. Don Winstead, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Services Policy, also reviewed the final report and provided us with suggestions for improving it.

The work for this project was completed as a team effort, involving staff from Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) and our subcontractor, AFYA, Inc. As project director, LaDonna Pavetti led all aspects of this study from beginning to end. Michelle K. Derr conducted site visits, authored state site visit summaries, and co-authored the final synthesis report. Gretchen Kirby conducted the administrative and survey data analysis for Illinois and South Carolina and summarized the general findings from the quantitative data analysis across the study states in Chapter 3 of the final report. Robert Wood and Melissa Clark conducted the quantitative data analysis for New Jersey and contributed to the final report. A team of senior and assistant programmers — Mark Brinkley, Carol Razafindrakoto, Lucy Lu, Elizabeth McClintock, and Melissa Faux — worked together to prepare and carry out the administrative and survey data analysis for this study. Heather Hesketh and Jesse Gregory managed the project. Alan Hershey provided quality assurance. Daryl Hall and Karen Rosenthal edited this report. Alfreda Holmes provided ongoing and consistent administrative support.

Our subcontractors, AFYA, Inc., participated in the site visits for this study. As project director at AFYA, Inc., Harry Day supervised project staff and reviewed project deliverables. Shani Rolle participated in each of the site visits and co-authored a site visit report.

How to Obtain a Printed Copy

To obtain a printed copy of this report, send the title and your mailing information to:

You may also print the report in a “printer friendly” PDF version.

Where to?

Top of Page | Contents

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Last updated:  10/14/04