Child welfare and TANF team up
Recent welfare reform efforts have encouraged greater collaboration between welfare and child welfare agencies and have prompted the development of new programs and practices aimed at reducing instances of child abuse and neglect. According to The Urban Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization, a number of communities are beginning to look at how their Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) programs and child welfare programs can best work together to address child abuse concerns.
For example, Denver County, Colo., has used funds from both its child welfare and TANF programs to create intake and intensive services units within its child welfare agency. The intake unit works to alleviate problems dual-system (TANF/child welfare) families face before allegations of abuse or neglect are made. Once abuse allegations have been made and the child has been removed from the home, the intensive services unit works to see if the family can be reunited.
In Alameda County, Calif., child welfare workers are being trained to access TANF services for child welfare clients. And Harris County, Texas, is extending services traditionally available only to welfare clients — services such as child care, drug testing, training and education, and housing services — to child welfare clients.
In other communities, child welfare agencies are learning to deal with the sanction policies (which mandate that families make progress toward getting off public assistance) and with lifetime limits on cash assistance that came with welfare reform. Lyon County, Minn., for instance, is referring sanctioned families to child welfare agencies when they do not appear to be making progress toward getting off public assistance. Child welfare assesses the family and works with TANF to provide support for the children.
Some communities are targeting their efforts at helping relatives who are caring for children. Prior to welfare reform, comprehensive support for those cases did not exist to any substantial degree. That was a problem because, often, relatives caring for children received no foster care payments, either by choice or because of failure to meet licensing requirements. Consequently, those relatives who did not qualify for TANF assistance often were forced to rely on TANF child-only payments. Now, a number of counties are working to modify or expand child-only payments.
For example, the TANF offices in the Colorado counties of Denver and El Paso provide supplemental payments as well as supportive services to relatives who care for children. In Mobile County, Ala., the child welfare and TANF agencies have developed a kinship care pilot project under which caregivers receive additional child welfare services. The project is designed to keep children out of the foster care system.
Kern County, Calif., is focusing its TANF/child welfare collaboration efforts on protecting children who could be exposed to domestic violence. The county assesses families that disclose instances of domestic violence. If necessary, it refers the situation to the child welfare agency, which determines whether the children are at risk and takes appropriate action.
For more information on collaborative efforts between welfare and child welfare agencies, visit http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/occa53.html and click on “Welfare Reform and Opportunities for Collaboration between Welfare and Child Welfare Agencies.”