7 / 44
June 2016
Policy&Practice
5
S
ix years ago, Chelsea Klosterman
left her job to become a stay-at-
home mom. Although the new mother
had been employed in the banking
sector, she wanted to commit to
raising and caring for her newborn
son full time, while the boy’s father
would be responsible for financial
support. It was a very different time
for the young family.
It was a very different time for the
Franklin County Department of Job
and Family Services (FCDJFS) as
well. Franklin County—Ohio’s second
most populous county and home to
the state’s capital and largest city,
Columbus—was still recovering from
the Great Recession with an unemploy-
ment rate more than 8.5 percent for
much of the year.
As the local agency responsible for
administering the state’s Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program, known as Ohio Works First
(OWF), in addition to an array of other
public assistance programs, FCDJFS
was seeing and feeling the impact of
the economic downturn first hand.
Franklin County’s TANF work par-
ticipation rate (WPR) for All-Family
households was less than 19 percent,
while the rate for Two-Parent house-
holds—where both adults have to
fulfill work requirements—was even
lower. Federal guidelines require states
to maintain an average All-Family
WPR of at least 50 percent and a Two-
Parent rate of 90 percent, and Ohio
was facing more than $100 million in
potential sanctions for failing to meet
the mandates.
These conditions were exacerbated
by rising caseloads, with no possibility
for Caseload Reduction Credits or state
locally
speaking
Taking the Road to 60
Improving Work Participation in Franklin County, Ohio
maintenance-of-effort dollars, and an
outdated, compartmentalized business
model for determining eligibility and
administering the program. Too many
participants were falling through gaps
in the program processes, whether by
missing scheduled appointments, by
not attending work activity assign-
ments, or by failing to submit paper
timesheets in time for state reporting.
FCDJFS leadership recognized
that it would need to make wholesale
changes if it was to get the program
back on track, avoid sanctions, and
preserve essential TANF funding
for local services. The plan included
overhauling the agency’s operational
model for determining participant
eligibility and assigning work activi-
ties; engaging with the local business
community; collaborating with com-
munity partners to manage the Work
Experience Program (WEP); and
improving technology by streamlining
and automating participant tracking
processes.
Under the existing model, case
managers conducted TANF eligibility
determinations at each of the agency’s
five regional Opportunity Centers.
By Mike McCaman
See Road to 60 on page 36