http://www.researchforum.org/project_general_64.html

Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities under TANF

General Information

View a brief abstract of this project.

View a complete, printer-friendly profile of this project.

Evaluator(s) Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University
Investigator(s) Kathleen Maloy (Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University)
Sponsor(s) Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University
Funder(s) US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
Subcontractor(s) Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
National Public Health and Hospital Institute
 
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Sep 1997 - Dec 1998
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To explore and document ramifications of implementing state diversion programs and activities for children and families with emphasis on how Medicaid eligibility is affected, and the health care providers that serve them.
Program/Policy Description Under the new law (PRWORA) welfare benefits are time-limited and recipients are required to participate in work and work-related activities. Moreover, the new law effectively “de-links” Medicaid and welfare benefits- eligibility for Medicaid is no longer automatic for TANF recipients. One way in which states seek to encourage work is to divert individuals who are either job-ready or have other sources of income from becoming welfare recipients by offering them a one-time financial payment and/or job placement assistance as an alternative to enrollment in welfare.
Notes No notes reported.
 
Last Updated 09/01/99
Type of Summary Reviewed
External Reviewer(s) Kathleen Maloy (Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University)
Contact(s) Kathleen Maloy (ihokam@gwumc.edu)
Center for Health Policy Research, George Washington University
2021 K Street NW
#800
(T) (202)-530-2368
(F) not reported
Publications Department Not Reported

Populations Studied

Target Population Persons diverted from welfare
Local government
Social/Community service agencies
Subgroups Analyzed Caseworkers/managers/administrators
Sample Size and Unit State diversion programs and activities in all 50 states with particular attention to selected case study states.

Sites Studied

Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Maryland, and Georgia

Program Components, Policies, and Activities Evaluated

Employment activities

  • Job readiness activities
  • Job search
  • Job placement

Social/Support services

  • Transitional child care
  • Transitional health benefits
  • Transportation
  • Social/Support Services - misc.

Eligibility

  • Eligibility - misc.

Administration/Implementation

  • Development of new welfare policies

Diversionary activities

  • Diversionary activities - misc.
Variation in program components across sites? Yes
Notes on program components Employment activities: States may offer a one-time job placement to divert welfare applicants from receiving benefits.

Program operations/implementation: Operations and implementation of state diversion programs are studied.

Social/Support services: The effects of state diversion programs and activities on safety net providers is studied.

Outcomes Assessed

Income security

  • Medicaid receipt

Attitudes towards work, welfare, and program

  • Attitudes towards work, welfare, and program - misc.

Program implementation

  • Program Implementation - misc.

Entry effects

  • Entry effects - misc.

Policy changes

  • Policy changes-misc.

Exit effects

  • Exit effects-misc.

Types of Studies

Type Descriptive/Analytical Study
Aim To examine how state diversion programs and/or activities are being conceived and structured.

To study how diversion programs are being implemented and what the effects are on participants, particularly with respect to Medicaid enrollment.

To determine whether and how local communities and institutions, particularly the traditional safety net providers, might be affected by diversion programs and activities, in particular by changes in Medicaid enrollment rates.

To determine whether potential strategies for monitoring changes in Medicaid enrollment rates as well as the effects of these changes over time can be developed based on existing databases.

 

Data Sources

Source Secondary data
Title Information about diversion programs/activities from sources such as the National Governors’ Association, National Conference of State Legislatures, Center for Law and Social Policy, and Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection Information regarding state diversion programs and activities.
Collected October 1997 and February 1998.
Sites All 50 states
Response Rate/Attrition Notes N/A
Additional Execution Notes No notes reported.
 
Source Interview
Title Semi-structured interview
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection State level respondent is likely to involve state welfare reform waiver coordinator and a senior official in the state health or Medicaid department.
Collected October 1997 and February 1998.
Sites All 50 states
Response Rate/Attrition Notes 48 out of 51 states (including ther District of Columbia)
Additional Execution Notes Interview guides will be based on written materials collected about each state from the CBPP survey, and will be tailored to the circumstances of each individual respondent state.
 
Source Interview
Title Semi-structured interviews by telephone and/or in-person
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection Welfare administrators, welfare benefits field staff, families participating in diversion, community-based welfare right groups, safety net providers, and community-based providers.
Sampling method not reported (number in sample not reported).
Sites Case study states ( to be selected)
Response Rate/Attrition Notes Not yet available.
Additional Execution Notes Additional follow-up interviews with the state officials who participated in the telephone interviews may be pursued during the site visit or by telephone after the site visits.
 
Source Field Research
Title Site visits
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection Visits to case study states.
Site selection will be determined and site visit plans and protocols will be developed during February and March, 1998.Five to seven site visits (4-5 days each) will be scheduled April through September, 1998.
Sites Ohio, Montana, Missouri, Maryland, and Georgia
Response Rate/Attrition Notes N/A
Additional Execution Notes No notes reported.
 
Source Administrative data
Title Existing databases
Sample Characteristics/Data Collection State and safety net provider databases (number not reported).
Report completed by November 1998.
Sites Not reported.
Response Rate/Attrition Notes N/A
Additional Execution Notes Report will discuss the potential for using and combining other data sources 1) to address study questions and 2) for the development of databases to support analyses of the intended or unintended health policy-related consequences of state diversion programs and activities, specifically in terms of changes in Medicaid enrollment rates, and the effects of these changes on safety net providers.
 

Findings Available

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

Findings

08/01/98: Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities Under Section 1115 AFDC Demonstration and TANF: Description and Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities
Interim Descriptive/Analytic Findings:

The authors find that more than half of all states have implemented formal welfare diversion programs that provide families with a one-time lump-sum payment for expenses and/or require up-front job search before being allowed to apply for cash assistance. Their analysis indicates substantial variation among states with regard to program conditions and requirements. In particular, the study examines the possible effects of diversion on an individual’s access to Medicaid, focusing on whether or not diverted families are ever linked with Medicaid even though they do not apply for cash welfare. Finally, it identifies areas of need for further research in monitoring the impact of diversion on Medicaid receipt and information on strategies to ensure access for Medicaid eligibles.

 

Recommendations

Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities Under Section 1115 AFDC Demonstration and TANF: Description and Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities (08/01/98)
“Questions about lump sum payment programs include: 1) which lump sum payment programs are particularly effective for what types of TANF applicants, 2) how well can caseworkers manage the implementation of these relatively discretionary and multifaceted programs, and 3) what types of lump sum payment programs are best suited for the goals of formal diversion.”

“Questions about mandatory applicant job search include: 1) how do workers determine who is and is not required to look for work as a condition of eligibility, 2) what fraction of applicants find employment before their application for assistance is processed, 3) how do the non-cash benefits available to families differ depending on whether an applicant finds employment before or after his or her application for assistance is approved, 4) what is the relationship between the level of job search activity required and/or the amount of job search assistance provided and the proportion of applicants who find employment, and 5) what happens to applicants who get discouraged and do not complete the application process.”

“A common set of data elements about the diversion program and the state=s Medicaid program is needed to fully document and analyze the effects. However, most states do not collect common data. In the case of applicant job search, for example, diverted cases generally would be coded as incomplete or denied with no specific reference to participation in and the outcome of participation in an applicant job search program. Most states report that they would measure the success of the diversion programs in terms of the number or percentage of total applicants diverted and if or for how long they then stay off the TANF rolls, but little data of this type are available.”

 

Existing Publications

07/01/97 Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities Under Section 1115 AFDC Demonstration and TANF: Project Proposal CHPR-GWU
08/01/98 Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities Under Section 1115 AFDC Demonstration and TANF: Description and Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities CHPR-GWU
01/30/99 Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities Under Section 1115 AFDC Demonstration and TANF: Diversion as a Work-Oriented Welfare Strategy and its Effects on Access to Medicaid CHPR-GWU
06/01/99 Examination of State Diversion Programs and Activities Under Section 1115 AFDC Demonstration and TANF: States' Use of Options Under Section 1931 to Account for the Effects of Diversion CHPR-GWU