Vol. 8, No. 2                                                                                                                   March 2004
Addressing the Needs of Adults Sanctioned Under TANF
By Jan Kaplan
 
Background
 
In many states, a significant proportion of the welfare caseload has been sanctioned for not complying with program rules. In those states, as well as in states with fewer sanctioned cases, the penalized clients are likely to have one or more barriers to employment. They may have lower levels of education and job skills and/or be affected by domestic violence, substance abuse, or mental health problems. Or they may have health, disability, or caregiving issues or lack transportation or child care. These same barriers are likely to continue to impede clients’ ability to find jobs and become self-sufficient after the imposition of a sanction. Consequently, many families will face numerous challenges when their cash assistance is reduced or suspended because of a sanction.
 
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) requires states to sanction welfare clients who do not comply with the work requirements of the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. States may also sanction individuals who do not comply with other TANF rules, such as requirements that children receive immunizations and attend school. The law allows states to define noncompliance and to determine the severity of the penalty, exemptions, procedures to help clients avoid a sanction, and the process to restore benefits. Sanction policies may range from short-term partial benefit reduction to full-benefit termination for the entire family. In some states, adults may lose their cash assistance because of a sanction, but other family members remain eligible.
 
Federal and state policies exempt some families with severe employment barriers from sanctions, and federal law prohibits states from penalizing a single parent with a child below age six if child care is not available. In addition, some states use intensive case management, mental health and substance abuse assessments, home visits, presanction reviews, and other mechanisms to determine whether a client has “good cause” to be excluded from TANF participation requirements and protected from a potential sanction.
 
Outcomes for sanctioned clients and their families will depend on the scope and duration of the penalty, the availability of other community and family supports, the availability of employment opportunities, and the economic impact of the loss of income. These factors may also affect a client’s decision to come into compliance with program rules and “cure” a sanction according to his or her state’s compliance policies. Some clients will decide against returning to welfare and will seek employment, apply for other public benefits, and/or turn to relatives and friends for assistance to meet daily needs. In seven states, the welfare agency closes cases after repeated or continued noncompliance.
 
This Issue Note highlights post-sanction strategies that states can use to address clients’ needs, help clients “cure” their sanction, and improve clients’ access to other public benefits to prevent hardship. For more information, visit The Finance Project’s web pages on Sanctions at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/sanction.asp and TANF “Leaver,” “Cycler,” and “Stayer” Studies at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/trackingstudies.asp.
 
Policy Issues
 
Why might a state consider a post-sanction policy? A post-sanction policy can augment other welfare strategies that aim to encourage self-sufficiency by focusing attention on the unique needs of clients who have demonstrated serious problems with program participation and job-related behavior. Such a policy can also reinforce the importance of personal responsibility and compliance with program rules.  Finally, post-sanction services may prevent or reduce material hardship for some families.
 
In some states, the post-sanction policy will complement the use of sanctions as a tool to identify serious program participation barriers and to help clients meet their program responsibilities and comply with TANF rules. Other states deem sanctions as a fair punishment for noncompliance and a valuable means to teach clients respect for rules and the importance of personal responsibility. A post-sanction policy in those states would allow staff to continue to send this message to sanctioned clients while encouraging actions that restore benefits, increase employability, and prevent long-term dependency. Post-sanction interventions that reduce employment barriers can also reduce recidivism and dependency on other public programs and support a state’s self-sufficiency goals for public benefit recipients.
 
In addition, a post-sanction strategy that creates linkages to important “safety-net” services within the community and improves access to other public benefit programs may prevent material hardship in the daily lives of these clients. Sanctioned clients may have difficulty finding steady employment and raising their income level to become self-sufficient. They may also have difficulty accessing other public benefits because they are unaware of their eligibility or the application process. Post-sanction strategies that include aggressive outreach and education can improve access to needed services and benefits.
 
Post-sanction services that encompass child welfare, family support, family preservation, and kinship care services can also be effective in alleviating or preventing family stress and instability.  According to the Administration for Children and Families (2002), approximately 11 percent of TANF child-only cases are a result of sanctions on their parents. In these instances, the adult has been sanctioned, but children in the household continue to receive benefits at a reduced level. Post-sanction policies can focus attention both on the unique service needs of these families and on methods to help the clients cure their sanction. These efforts may reduce or stabilize child-only caseloads, prevent these children from long-term dependency on TANF and other public assistance programs, and improve child outcomes (see Kaplan and Copeland April 2001).
 
Finally, state post-sanction policies can result in new or expanded collaborative relationships between state agencies and community-based providers. These relationships can facilitate information sharing, professional training, joint funding, and other resource sharing to strengthen the capacity of community-based organizations to provide safety-net services and other interventions to meet the needs of sanctioned clients.
 
How can TANF agencies provide followup services to sanctioned clients? A post-sanction policy could include mechanisms to maintain contact with clients once they are no longer receiving cash assistance. The goal of followup contact would be to develop and implement a needs assessment, compliance plan, and referral strategy for other public benefits and community-based services. Certain mechanisms can help agencies establish ongoing contact with sanctioned clients, including a reliable tracking system, clear and simple information on sanction procedures, and personal interaction with the client. 
 
Many states use automated systems to track client progress in work-related activities, monitor program compliance, and trigger alerts of noncompliance and sanction notifications. These systems can be adapted to enable agencies to track caseworker-client interactions after a sanction is imposed and to document compliance plans and client actions to cure a sanction. In addition, automated systems can be configured to issue notices when a minimum sanction period is ending to enable a sanctioned client to restore benefits. States that do not use automated systems to monitor client progress could consider manual means to document and track post-sanction services.
 
Another key element of effective post-sanction programs is adequate and timely information about sanction procedures, requirements for curing sanctions, appeals policies, and safety-net services and benefits.  Information should be provided at the time the sanction goes into effect, immediately after the effective date, and prior to the end of a minimum sanction period. Using automated trigger systems can ensure the issuance of timely notices. Notices and information can be written in clear, simple English and be translated into other languages for families with low reading skills and limited English proficiency.
 
Personal contact with sanctioned clients can be an important component of post-sanction service delivery. Caseworkers can meet with sanctioned clients in the welfare office, during a home visit, or via the telephone and can use these interactions to clarify information contained in written notices and outline the actions necessary to restore benefits. Personal interaction also enables the caseworker to conduct a needs assessment that documents the reasons for noncompliance, including personal barriers (e.g., health issues or learning disabilities) and structural barriers (e.g., a lack of child care or transportation).  In addition, caseworkers should identify material needs, including housing, nutrition, and clothing, that require immediate attention. A compliance plan can then be developed, in collaboration with the client and family, which outlines the specific actions that must be taken to restore benefits and establish eligibility for other public benefits.  The plan should identify appropriate community-based services and resources and describe the referral process.
 
How can states work with sanctioned families to overcome employment and program participation barriers? Clients who have been sanctioned for noncompliance often cannot find or retain stable jobs for the same reasons that others remain on the rolls for long periods.  Many of the same strategies used to overcome employment barriers among long-staying clients can be used to help sanctioned clients overcome their compliance barriers. For others, access to barrier reduction and employment support services could result in sustained employment and the ability to remain off welfare.
 
Case management can be a useful tool with sanctioned clients. A comprehensive case management strategy that includes assessments, case planning, and information and referrals can prevent them from becoming disconnected from the TANF system. This strategy also facilitates ongoing monitoring of service needs and gaps, the results of which may lead to the timely restoration of benefits. States may want to consider ways to collaborate with community-based organizations to assemble case management teams. Alternatively, states can base the case management teams in the welfare office or another public agency. Case management staff will need access to a comprehensive referral network to connect sanctioned clients with needed services.
 
States will need to decide whether broader efforts to assist low-income workers and former welfare recipients become self-sufficient should be expanded to serve sanctioned clients. States can provide post-sanction services through existing work support initiatives using eligibility criteria based on income level, welfare-related status, or other criteria. Alternatively, states can target certain services to sanctioned clients and their families. For many states, particularly those with limited funds because of budget constraints, collaborative and contractual arrangements with other public and private agencies can be an efficient way to deliver post-sanction services.
 
Common strategies to reduce employment barriers among TANF clients can be adapted to meet the needs of sanctioned clients. 
 
Substance abuse and mental health services. Substance abuse or mental health problems can prevent many clients from complying with TANF program requirements. States could provide case management and information and referral services, fund treatment services, or expand existing collaborations between their TANF agency and their substance abuse and mental health programs to serve sanctioned families. Caseworkers and other staff responsible for post-sanction service planning should receive training in screening for substance abuse and mental health problems. (For more information, see The Finance Project October 2003 and Kaplan June 2002.)
 
Domestic violence services. Domestic violence can be a significant barrier to employment, program participation, and long-term self-sufficiency. Because most state TANF agencies are equipped to serve victims of domestic violence, they could expand eligibility to sanctioned clients. In particular, agencies could provide case management and referral services, use TANF funds to support relocation and followup services, and strengthen their collaborations with local domestic violence agencies to expand their capacity to serve sanctioned clients. Case management and other staff involved with sanctioned clients should be trained on screening and assessment techniques. (For more information, see Ganow December 2001.)
 
Employment supports. Most sanctioned clients do not have stable jobs during the sanction period and are employed at a rate significantly lower than other welfare leavers (Pavetti March 2003). Access to one-stop job centers’ preemployment and job retention services can help some of these clients find or maintain employment. States and localities can ensure that sanctioned clients are aware of the availability of these services by providing information with sanction notices and during post-sanction followup meetings or phone interactions. States could also expand or strengthen the capacity of their one-stop job centers and other employment training and job search programs to enable them to meet the needs of sanctioned clients. For example, case managers can be stationed at job search kiosks and information and referral networks can be expanded to include service providers able to address multiple employment barriers. In addition, community-based providers of job training and job search services can also provide access to mentoring programs, peer support groups, and case management services to better meet the needs of sanctioned clients. Finally, some states provide cash, vouchers, or other payments to cover the costs of work-related equipment and clothing for TANF clients and could make this work support available to sanctioned clients who have found employment. 
 
Access to child care. A lack of child care, especially during nontraditional working hours, is a serious compliance and employment barrier for many sanctioned TANF clients. Historically, in most states, current and former TANF (nonsanctioned) recipients have had priority over other low-income families for the few subsidized child care slots available. Despite the continued scarcity of child care subsidies, especially in states with ongoing fiscal constraints, states could include sanctioned clients among their priority groups for such child care. This expansion would reinstate clients’ TANF-related eligibility for child care assistance, and it should have a minimal impact on child care funds or slot availability. Restricting access to child care assistance to those who have found jobs or solely for hours of employment could encourage some sanctioned clients to find and retain jobs. The federal welfare reform law allows states to provide transitional child care to employed families without imposing time limits, work requirements, or other federal welfare rules. (For more information, see Capitani and Hercik September 2001.)
 
Access to transportation. A lack of transportation can be a primary cause of noncompliance with TANF program rules, and it will continue to be an employment and participation barrier after sanctioning. Transit system changes that increase the supply of transportation for low-income families will also improve access for sanctioned clients. Changes include reverse commuting routes to bring employees to jobs in suburban areas, expanded schedules to increase service during nontraditional hours, and route changes to serve low-income population centers and rural areas. States can also establish car ownership and vehicle maintenance programs; provide transportation financial assistance through vouchers, transit passes, cash payments, or reimbursements; and offer alternative transportation networks, such as vanpools, to provide transportation services specifically for welfare clients. States can limit access to some of these transportation supports to sanctioned clients who are actively searching for employment or who are employed. Alternatively, states can determine eligibility on the basis of income. In many states, welfare agencies that have been forced to cut or limit their welfare-related transportation programs because of state budget constraints are exploring ways to strengthen existing transportation collaborations with other public agencies (e.g., aging, housing, transportation, public health, economic development, and workforce development), community-based service providers, and the business community. They also are reviewing their revenue maximization strategies (see U.S. Department of Transportation May 2001 and The Finance Project October 2002). Such efforts to improve access to transportation can be a significant employment and program compliance support for sanctioned clients.
 
How can states improve access to other public benefits programs for sanctioned clients and their families? State policies differ regarding whether sanctioned clients lose their Medicaid or Food Stamp benefits. Thirteen states terminate Medicaid coverage for nonpregnant sanctioned adults. In addition, federal food stamp law requires states to disqualify sanctioned adults who are subject to work requirements under both TANF and food stamps. In 16 states, entire families are disqualified from food stamps when all children in the household are above age six (Pavetti March 2003). States may also reduce the food stamp benefit level by up to 25 percent for sanctioned clients and may not increase food stamps in response to the loss of TANF assistance because of a sanction.
 
In a few states, sanctioned clients are eligible for some types of housing assistance. Assistance usually focuses on the prevention of homelessness resulting from eviction or the loss of heat and other utilities. States can also develop an income-based eligibility policy to enable sanctioned clients to receive assistance with weatherization and other utility needs or rental assistance that includes cash or vouchers for security deposits, application fees, and monthly rent payments. States can use maintenance-of-effort (MOE) funds to pay for housing services for sanctioned clients to avoid federal time limit and work requirement rules under TANF. (For more information, see The Finance Project September 2002 or visit http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/housing.asp.)
 
Information on the loss or availability of other public benefits should be included in presanction interviews and written notices as well as in any reviews and notices to assess post-sanction compliance and consider reinstatement of cash assistance. The information should explain the reason for benefit terminations, identify the family members who have lost the benefits, and outline the process for requalifying for the benefits. In addition, sanctioned clients should receive information on the continuation of benefits and application procedures. States with developed post-sanction followup strategies can use agency or community-based caseworkers to provide timely information directly to sanctioned clients. Presanction interviews and compliance review notices are particularly important information vehicles in states without an established post-sanction followup program.
 
Most states have developed outreach strategies to improve awareness among welfare clients of their continued eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps after leaving welfare for work or as a result of time limits. These strategies can be modified to reach sanctioned clients who retain their eligibility for benefits and inform them about the availability of other benefits. Written outreach literature can be modified to highlight eligibility and application information for sanctioned clients and be placed in locations throughout the community that are likely to be frequented by these clients, such as at food banks and public housing agencies. Other important venues for outreach materials include public and private agencies that provide domestic violence, substance abuse, mental health, child care, and education and job training services. In addition, many states have strengthened their interagency communications and improved their automated systems to enable case information to be transferred and shared among relevant agencies.  These linkages can guide outreach efforts and help track the use of Medicaid, food stamp, and other benefits by sanctioned clients who may not have ongoing contact with the welfare agency.
 
How can states address the unique needs of families that lose TANF permanently because of sanctions? In seven states, families with multiple sanctions may be permanently barred from TANF. Families in 24 states must reapply for benefits after multiple sanctions; many of these families will not return to TANF (Pavetti 2003). Clients with multiple sanctions are likely to face more extreme personal and family challenges, including low self-esteem and poor problem-solving and communication skills. In addition, the same personal and logistical barriers that impeded program compliance are likely to prevent these clients from finding and retaining stable jobs after losing TANF, resulting in their indefinite reliance on family, friends, and numerous public and private programs. 
 
Safety-net services can prevent severe material hardship for many of these families. Safety net programs could be funded with state MOE funds or through separate state funds. Specific benefits can be tailored to individual needs and could include vouchers or direct vendor payments to cover the costs of food, shelter, clothing, utilities, and other emergency services. Disseminating timely information on the availability of safety-net services can prevent unnecessary hardship and could be done by agency staff during a case closure interview, via written notice, or through telephone calls or home visits after the case is closed.
 
Welfare agencies can contract with private agencies to provide safety-net services. Existing contracts with community-based organizations (CBOs) for post-sanction followup and compliance planning could be expanded to include safety-net services. CBOs can help clients meet their basic needs, assess their employment readiness, develop and implement an employment-readiness plan, and provide case management and monitoring. Alternatively, case managers from the TANF agency can fulfill these functions as part of the case closing process. However, budget constraints in many states may preclude TANF agencies from providing followup services such as monitoring and case management. 
 
Information about safety-net services can be included in state public outreach campaigns aimed at informing sanctioned clients about the availability of employment supports and other benefits. In addition, states’ automated systems can facilitate case monitoring among agencies to ensure these clients have received appropriate referrals. The administrative data gleaned from these systems can also be useful for evaluating the effectiveness of sanction policies and conducting research on outcomes for welfare leavers. Some states may be able to develop electronic links with community-based agencies to assist them with case monitoring.
 
What types of public-private linkages can support the provision of post-sanction services? Collaborations with public- and private-sector organizations are a key component of an effective state policy to address the multiple needs of sanctioned clients and their families. States may want to redefine existing relationships between TANF agencies and other state and local welfare-related public agencies to encompass post-sanction services. Relevant agencies could include those involved with housing, Medicaid, disabilities, transportation, food stamps, child care, child welfare, child support, mental health, substance abuse, social services, workforce development, maternal and child health, low-income home energy assistance, and vocational, secondary, and adult education.
 
Similarly, linkages with community-based providers are critical to the effectiveness of a post-sanction policy. Many of these providers already have relationships with TANF agencies and could expand or modify their roles to serve sanctioned clients and their families. TANF agencies will want to ensure that community-based providers understand TANF program participation rules so they can effectively help sanctioned clients come into compliance. CBOs that cannot meet federal TANF requirements could participate in safety-net programs that serve clients who permanently lose cash assistance. These programs are likely to have different administrative and financial requirements than TANF-funded programs. States can help strengthen relationships with CBOs through improved access to funding, staff training, and other administrative supports. For more information on agency collaboration, visit The Finance Project’s web page at
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/management/standloc.asp.
 
How can states fund post-sanction services? States may use both federal TANF and state maintenance-of-effort funds to provide services to sanctioned clients and their families. States can use TANF funds to support broad efforts aimed at low-income families, regardless of their welfare history, by expanding their definition of “needy families” under the federal welfare law. In addition, many services can be provided as “nonassistance” without subjecting recipients to TANF work requirements and time limits. These services include support services for employed individuals, such as counseling, transportation, child care, education and training, information and referral, and case management services. Child care and transportation services for nonemployed families would be considered “assistance” and would be subject to federal TANF rules. State MOE funds that are not commingled with federal TANF funds can also be used to provide services to these families and are not subject to federal accounting, reporting, participation, and time limit rules. (For more information, see Capitani September 2001.)
 
Other federal funding sources can be used to provide post-sanction and safety-net services. For example, funds are available through the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program to help with utility payments and through the Social Services, Community Services, and Community Development block grants to provide mental health and substance abuse treatment, housing assistance, case management, career counseling, transportation services, and parent education. Funds may also be available through the Child Care and Development Fund, Medicaid, the Food Stamp program, and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program for outreach and information and referral activities. In addition, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Job Access and Reverse Commute program funds services to transport low-income individuals to and from employment-related activities (see U.S. Department of Transportation May 2001). Other funding opportunities are available through the U.S. Departments of Labor, Education, Agriculture, and Housing and Urban Development and through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
 
Finally, welfare agencies and community-based organizations can seek private funds to support their participation in post-sanction programs. Possible funding sources include corporate donations and community and national foundation grants. For more information on funding sources, visit The Finance Project’s web page on Welfare-Related Funding Opportunities at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/grant.asp or the web page on Program Issues at 
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/win/default.asp.
 
Research Findings
 
Estimates of sanction rates range from 5 percent to 52 percent as a result of different study methodologies. Some studies have looked at the prevalence of sanctions among current TANF recipients, others have looked at closed cases, and still others have collected cumulative information (Pavetti March 2003). A 2000 report by the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) indicates that during an average month, 5 percent of families receiving cash assistance lost part or all of their benefits as a result of a sanction. According to this study, rates varied among states. Partial sanctions affected between 0 percent and 29 percent of clients and full-family sanctions affected between 0 percent and 7 percent of the average monthly caseload. Estimates of sanction rates are significantly higher in studies that have followed clients over time. These “cohort” or cumulative studies have found that between 45 percent and 52 percent of TANF recipients received work-related sanctions over time (Pavetti March 2003).
 
A study of low-income families in Boston, Chicago, and San Antonio found that TANF clients who had benefits reduced or terminated had more complex and challenging lives than other TANF clients. Sanctioned individuals were significantly more disadvantaged in health, housing, finances, education, and neighborhood quality (Cherlin et al. 2001). State welfare leaver studies have also found that compared with families leaving TANF for employment, sanctioned families are less educated and have more difficulty understanding program requirements and complying with work requirements. These families also have limited work experience and face numerous barriers to compliance, including health problems and a lack of transportation and child care (U.S. General Accounting Office March 2000). Finally, researchers have identified common characteristics of clients who are likely to be sanctioned. They include human capital barriers, such as limited work experience and a lack of job skills; logistical barriers, such as transportation and child care problems; and personal and family challenges, particularly domestic violence and mental health problems (Pavetti March 2003).
 
Cherlin et al. (2001) surveyed sanctioned clients and found that two thirds tried to reinstate their cash benefits. Half were able to do so by following rules, reapplying, filing appeals, or using other strategies. Of those who did not have benefits restored, 35 percent reported finding a job, 25 percent got money from family or friends, 10 percent delayed or stopped paying bills, and 6 percent got benefits from other public programs. In Sonoma County, California, 80 percent of sanctioned clients remained in sanction status or had left welfare after 12 months; 42 percent did not want or need to restore their benefits; and 19 percent reported compliance barriers, including transportation, homelessness, or child care (Mancuso and Lindler June 2001).
 
A study of families that left welfare in South Carolina found a 36-percent employment rate among those who were sanctioned, compared with a 71-percent rate among those who left TANF because of earned income. After three years, the employment rate for sanctioned clients rose to 49 percent, compared with 67 percent for those who left TANF because of earned income (Richardson et al. December 2002). An analysis of state welfare leaver studies found an average employment rate of 41 percent among sanctioned families. Employment rates and earnings were higher after they left TANF, but were lower than those of other families that left TANF (U.S. General Accounting Office March 2000). Moffitt and Roff (2000) found that 89 percent of sanctioned clients were poor, compared with 71 percent of other welfare leavers. The researchers conclude that women who are sanctioned have a more difficult time in the labor market and, as a result, are more economically disadvantaged after leaving TANF. 
 
According to a 2000 GAO review of state welfare leaver studies, many sanctioned families depended on family, friends, or neighbors for housing, use of an automobile, or a loan. However, most sanctioned families continued to receive Medicaid and food stamp benefits. In contrast, researchers in Sonoma County, California, found that a significant number of welfare leavers were not aware of, or not using, other public benefits, including food stamps, earned income tax credits, and child care subsidies (Mancuso and Lindler June 2001).
 
A survey of states found that approximately 50 percent fewer states offered support services to sanctioned clients than offered services to individuals leaving welfare for employment. Sixty percent of states had initiatives to improve access to Medicaid and food stamps for sanctioned clients; 85 percent targeted employed TANF leavers. Seventeen percent offered housing assistance to sanctioned families; 47 percent offered this assistance to employed leavers. Other support services addressed in the survey were transportation, education, child care, domestic violence, mental health, and substance abuse services (Capitani September 2001).
 
Innovative Programs
 
A sample of programs providing services to sanctioned families is described below.  Budget constraints have resulted in proposed or enacted cuts in post-sanction services in some states.   Some of these service reductions are noted (see Parrott and Wu June 2003).
 
Arizona, California, and Hawaii are examples of states that offer child care assistance to sanctioned families. In Arizona sanctioned families also are eligible for parenting education and parent aide services. Sanctioned families in California are eligible for child care assistance only during hours of employment. In Hawaii families must meet income eligibility guidelines. Contact Jill Capitani of Caliber Associates at 703-385-3200.
 
Connecticut. WorkSteps is a partnership between the United Way/Infoline and the state social services department to provide noncash aid to families that have lost their cash assistance because of a sanction or other reason. WorkSteps staff attempt to make initial contact with sanctioned clients through the mail or by telephone. Followup home visits include assessments of barriers to employment and job readiness. Case management and care coordination plans aim to eliminate employment barriers. The program refers sanctioned clients to community-based agencies for vouchers for food, clothing, and shelter to meet basic daily needs. (Note: The governor’s proposed 2004 budget eliminates these services.) Contact Steve Ristau of the Connecticut Council of Family Services Agencies at 860-571-0093.
 
Minnesota. The department of human services follows up with sanctioned clients through letters, phone calls, or home visits. Clients are screened and assessed for possible barriers to participation. Case management meetings and case reviews are used to determine the need for a family violence waiver or for preemployment activities, including volunteer work, literacy programs, chemical dependency or mental health services, and parenting education. The sanctioned grant amount may be used to pay vendors for utility and shelter costs. Contact Dale Simonson of Minnesota Children and Family Services at 651-297-8041 or dale.simonson@state.mn.us. 
 
New Hampshire. The New Hampshire Employment Program’s case managers follow up monthly with sanctioned clients by letter. In addition, the state contracts with a community-based agency to conduct home visits to screen and assess barriers to program engagement and to identify strategies to overcome those barriers. Contact Celeste Renfroe of the New Hampshire Division of Family Assistance at 603-271-4418 or crenfroe@dhhs.state.nh.us.
 
Sonoma County, California. The county’s human services department conducts home visits with clients who will be, or are already, sanctioned. Client needs are assessed, particularly relating to domestic abuse, substance abuse, and mental health issues. Clients who cooperate with the home visit and assessment process may have the sanction lifted. Contact Jerry Dunn of the Sonoma County Department of Human Services at 707-565-5500.
 
Washington , D.C. Community-based organizations receive grants to conduct home visits with noncompliant clients. During these visits, clients are screened to determine the reasons for noncompliance and identify ways to help them overcome participation and employment barriers. Contact Terri Thompson of the District of Columbia Income Maintenance Administration at 202-698-3902 or terris.thompson@dc.gov.
 
Resource Contacts
 
·         Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Heidi Goldberg, 202-408-1080.
·         Caliber Associates, Jill Capitani, 703-385-3200.
·         Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., LaDonna Pavetti, 202-484-9220.
·         Johns Hopkins University, Welfare, Children & Families Study, Robert Moffitt, 410-516-8920.
·         Urban Institute, Pamela Loprest, 202-833-7200.
 
Publications and Electronic Resources
 
Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Table II-3: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families—Child-Only Cases.” Washington, D.C., 2002. Available at http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/opre/characteristics/fy2000/203.htm.
 
Bloom, Dan, and Don Winstead. Sanctions and Welfare Reform. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution, January 2002. Available at http://www.brookings.edu/es/research/projects/wrb/publications/pb/pb12.htm.
 
California Department of Social Services. Good Cause Establishment, Compliance, and Curing of Sanctions under the CalWORKS Program. Report to the Legislature. California Department of Social Services, April 2001. Available at http://www.dss.cahwnet.gov/getinfo/acin01/pdf/I-40_01.pdf.
 
Capitani, Jill, and Jeanette Hercik. Pathways to Self-Sufficiency: Findings of the National Needs Assessment. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, September 2001. Available at http://www.calib.com/peerta/pdf/needsassessment.pdf.
 
Cherlin, Andrew, et al. Sanctions and Case Closings for Noncompliance: Who is Affected and Why. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 2001. Available at http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/18058_Welfare_Policy_Brief.pdf.
 
The Finance Project. Affordable Housing as a Support for Working Families. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, September 2002. Available at
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/affordablehousingRN.htm.
 
The Finance Project. Serving Welfare Clients with Mental Health or Substance Abuse Problems. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, October 2003. Available at
http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/servingwelfareclientsRN.htm.
 
The Finance Project. Transportation: An Integral Work Support. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, October 2002. Available at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/transportationRN.htm.
 
Ganow, Michelle. Strategies for TANF Agencies to Identify and Address Domestic Violence. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, December 2001. Available at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/tanf_dvissuenote.htm.
 
Goldberg, Heidi, and Liz Schott. A Compliance-Oriented Approach to Sanctions in State and County TANF Programs. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, October 2000. Available at http://www.cbpp.org/10-1-00sliip.htm.
 
Kaplan, April, and Ivory Copeland. Addressing the Well-Being of Children in Child-Only Cases. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, April 2001. Available at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publicatoins/childonlycassissuenote.htm.
 
Kaplan, Jan. Coordinating Welfare and Substance Abuse Services. Washington, D.C.: The Finance Project, June 2002. Available at http://www.financeprojectinfo.org/Publications/coordinatingwelfareIN.htm.
 
Mancuso, David, and Vanessa Lindler. Examining the Circumstances of Welfare Leavers and Sanctioned Families in Sonoma County. Burlingame, Calif.: The SPHERE Institute, June 2001. Available at http://www.sphereinstitute.org/pdf/HewlettSonomaFinal.pdf.
 
Moffitt, Robert, and Jennifer Roff. The Diversity of Welfare Leavers. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University, 2000. Available at http://www.jhu.edu/~welfare/17468_Welfare_Policy_Brief.pdf.
 
Parrot, Sharon, and Nina Wu. States are Cutting TANF and Child Care Programs. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, June 2003. Available at http://www.cbpp.org/6-3-03tanf.htm.
 
Pavetti, LaDonna. Review of Sanction Policies and Research Studies. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, March 2003. Available at http://apse.hhs.gov/hsp/TANF-Sanctions03.
 
Richardson, Philip. Three-Year Follow-Up Study of Welfare Leavers in South Carolina—Final Report. Reston, Va.: Maximus, December 2002. Available at http://www.cortidesignhost.com/maximus/cpss/publications.asp.
 
U.S. Department of Transportation. Job Access Planning: Challenges and Approaches. Washington, D.C., May 2001. Available at http://www.fta.dot.gov/wtw/japca/index.html.
 
U.S. General Accounting Office. Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected. Washington, D.C., March 2000. Available at http://www.gao.gov.
 
 
The author wishes to thank LaDonna Pavetti and the other individuals who assisted in the preparation or review of this Issue Note.
 
 
 
 
 
The Welfare Information Network is supported by grants from the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation and the Ford Foundation