inTroducTion

The “great recession” of 2007‒09 and the subsequent joblessrecovery have demonstrated vividly the importance of worksupports to low-income working families. as a directconsequence of the massive job losses and scant re-employmentopportunities that have defined the last four years, increasingnumbers of families have turned to public work supports forassistance in paying for essential expenses like groceries, healthinsurance, and postsecondary education. consider how thenumber of americans participating in the supplementalnutrition assistance Program, formerly known as food stamps,rose by 59.6 percent between december 2007 and 2010. Putdifferently, one of every seven americans—16.5 million people inall—received food assistance at the end of 2010.3 if thoseindividuals gathered in one place, they would form the country’sfifth most-populous state, ahead of illinois.4

Burgeoning caseloads demonstrate the severity of the downturnand the importance of work support programs. nevertheless,studies have found that sizable numbers of low-income workingfamilies either fail to receive one or more supports for whichthey are eligible or fail to qualify for some work supports. Thesegaps result from such household characteristics andinstitutional factors as complex application requirements,limited outreach strategies, and social stigma. The result is thatwork supports fail to benefit as many families as they could, asefficiently as they could.

in response, philanthropic foundations and government agencieshave intensified their efforts to improve access to work supportprograms while streamlining their delivery. Because state andlocal governments play a central role in the delivery of worksupports, many reforms have targeted governmental policiesand administrative practices. such efforts have unfolded along a

imProving access To Work suPPorTs: sTrengThening sTaTe Policies and PracTices

john Quinterno1

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org | wpfp@starpower.net | (301) 657-1480

The Working Poor Families ProjecTPolicy BrieF sPring 2011

The Working

Poor Families ProjecT

strengthening state Policies for

america’s Working Poor

millions of americanbreadwinners work hard tosupport their families. But,despite their determination andeffort, many are mired in low-wage jobs that provideinadequate benefits and offerfew opportunities foradvancement. in fact, nearlyone in three american workingfamilies now earn wages so lowthat they have difficultysurviving financially.2

launched in 2002 and currentlysupported by the annie e.casey, Ford, joyce, and mottfoundations, the Working PoorFamilies Project is a nationalinitiative that works to improvethese economic conditions. Theproject partners with statenonprofit organizations andsupports their policy efforts tobetter prepare america’sworking families for a moresecure economic future.

For more information:www.workingpoorfamilies.org

continuum, ranging from expansion of outreachefforts on the part of community-basedorganizations to braiding of work supports withemployment and financial services to thebetterment of complex public systems. in thecoming years, such efforts will assume addedimportance, as states cope with the lingeringeffects of the great recession and attempt toexpand public health insurance coverage asrequired by the federal affordable care act.

The pronounced need for work supports, combinedwith the shifting policy environment, offerspromising opportunities for the nonprofitorganizations that partner with The Working Poor

Families ProjecT (WPFP), a national initiative tostrengthen state policies influencing the well-beingof low-income working families. Thanks to WPFPstate partners’ policy expertise, credibility withpublic leaders, and skill in collaborating withdiverse stakeholders, they are well positioned tostrengthen state policies that maximize low-incomeworking families’ access to work supports andsimplify administration of those benefits.

To aid state partners in their efforts, this PolicyBrief surveys the landscape of change initiativesintended to influence state policies and practicesrelated to work supports. specifically, the briefsummarizes the case for change, sketches acontinuum of change efforts, profiles severalpromising state-level examples, and recommendsdirections for WPFP partners to pursue.

The need For change

Public work supports are cash and non-cashbenefits “that are provided based on income(‘means-tested’) and received by households withone or more working members.”5 at the broadestlevel, work supports include income supports likerental subsidies and federal and state benefits suchas earned income tax credits, unemploymentinsurance, disability insurance, and education andtraining benefits like those provided under thefederal Workforce investment act. in practice, thedefinition of work supports frequently is limited toa subset of “programs to assist working families

with access to basics, such as health care, childcare, food, and housing.”6

Federal, state, and local officials offer threerationales for public provision of work supports.First, some programs function as “safety nets” forlow-income families confronting a crisis, such as ajob loss, that prevents them from affordingnecessities like groceries. second, some supportsact as wage subsidies that bridge the gaps betweenthe low wages paid by many jobs, particularly part-time ones, and the high costs of core expenses thatinclude health insurance and child care. Finally,supports linked to education and training helpworking adults acquire the skills they need toadvance into better jobs.

Work supports touch a sizable proportion ofamerican households. according to one study, some16 million american households—nearly one ofevery five—received at least one work support in2008.7 receipt of work supports narrows the gapbetween what low-income families earn and what itcosts to make ends meet.8 nevertheless, studieshave found that sizable numbers of low-incomeworking families either fail to qualify for worksupports (the eligibility gap) or fail to receive one ormore supports for which they qualify (the take-upgap). in fiscal year 2006, for instance, only 17percent of potentially eligible children receivedchild care subsidies.9 similarly, research indicatesthat just 5 percent of the households eligible forpublic health insurance, nutritional aid, and childcare assistance take up all three supports.10

Besides depriving low-income families of some $65billion in annual aid, take-up gaps cost localcommunities billions in forgone economic activity.11

researchers attribute gaps in benefit take-up amongeligible families to a variety of household andinstitutional factors.12 significant householdcharacteristics include demographic traits, programawareness, past experiences, and perceptions ofsocial stigma. salient institutional factors relate tothe complexity of application requirements, the needto apply for individual benefits at multiple locations,and the difficulty in retaining benefits. The result isthat work supports fail to reach as many families asthey could, as efficiently as they could.

2Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

The overarching goal in this policy area has been toimprove take-up rates among low-income workingfamilies. To date, attention generally has focusedon seven work supports intended to help familiesmeet basic expenses: the child care developmentBlock grant, the earned income Tax credit (eiTc),housing assistance (public housing and rentalvouchers), medicaid, the children’s healthinsurance Program (chiP), the supplementalnutrition assistance Program (snaP), andTemporary assistance to needy Families (TanF).That said, some recent efforts have incorporatedadditional supports like those related to workforcetraining and asset building, while others haveincorporated elements designed to close theeligibility gap as well.

change initiatives typically center on governmentpolicies and practices, due to the central role theseagencies play in the operation of work supportssuch as the seven mentioned above. With theexception of the eiTc, state and local governmentsadminister all of these programs consistent withfederal laws and regulations. states and localgovernments also may invest their own dollars toaugment federal benefits, as with the eiTc; closeeligibility gaps within programs, like TanF; orprovide additional, state-specific supports.

a conTinuum oF change eFForTs

The past few years have witnessed an upswing ininitiatives targeted at public work supports.community-based organizations (cBos) have ledsome of these efforts, and governmental agencieshave coordinated others, just as the public sectorhas underwritten some projects, while foundationshave funded others. While change efforts vary instrategy, design, and structure, all reflect the coreassumption that the “approach to deliveringbenefits—crisscrossing federal, state, and localagencies and encompassing a range of eligibilityrequirements—needs improvement.”13 moreconcretely, efforts typically share five goals:

Fostering the economic advancement of low-income working families;

ensuring that households receive and retain

all of the work supports for which theyqualify;

simplifying administrative requirementslike those related to application procedures;

Broadening the number of low-incomehouseholds eligible for work supports; and

enhancing the efficiency with which publicresources are used.

There are numerous opportunities for improvingthe design, delivery, and administration of publicwork supports. yet the diversity of options meansthat change efforts vary greatly depending on localneeds and the kinds of organizations involved. aproject spearheaded by a cBo actingindependently of the public sector, for instance,might emphasize outreach, while an effort directedby a public agency might stress administrativeefficiency. Though the existence of multiple pointsof influence offers opportunities for action, it alsobreeds confusion about how best to advancemeaningful changes.

at the most basic level, there are “two related, butdistinct approaches” for improving access to worksupports.14 one approach involves expandingoutreach efforts to individuals potentially eligiblefor at least one work support, while the otherstresses systems improvement intended to betterprogram administration and efficiency. To illustratethe relationships between the two approaches,Figure 1 sketches “a continuum of benefit accessefforts” first developed for a consortium offoundations active in the area of public worksupports.

The left side of the continuum encompassesoutreach efforts ranging from coordinating publicawareness campaigns to using screening softwareto provide application assistance. cBos frequentlydrive outreach efforts, which tend to emphasizework supports linked to basic needs. in the middleof the continuum sit activities that integratedelivery of a broad array of work supports,including those associated with postsecondaryeducation and asset building. many such effortsinvolve both public and nongovernmental agenciesand involve an element of systems change. last, the right side of the continuum spans systems

3Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

improvement efforts. state agencies often lead suchinitiatives. an example would be for a state toadopt “express lane” eligibility, meaning that ahousehold found eligible for one work supportwould qualify automatically for every support withsimilar eligibility rules.

in reality, the different points along the continuumblend into one another. an innovative outreacheffort, for example, might prove so successful inexpanding coverage that it creates momentum forsystems improvement by making challengestransparent. in the same manner, a systemschange effort might enrich outreach efforts by, say,rationalizing the use of available federal dollars.The point to bear in mind is that there is no onestrategy for strengthening public work supportprograms.

sTrengThening Work suPPorTs: examPles From The sTaTes

over the last decade, cBos, government agencies,and foundations have launched numerous efforts toimprove work support programs. These efforts haveunfolded along the entire continuum of change.some projects have focused on individualcommunities, others on statewide systemsimprovement, and still others on a combination ofthe two. all of the major efforts endeavor toimprove access to work supports by expandingoutreach to potentially eligible households,screening households for eligibility, facilitatingapplication processes, and helping householdsretain work supports. The goal, in short, is to closegaps in coverage.

This emphasis originates in research showing that“lack of awareness of a program’s existence,complexity of (and confusion about) eligibility rules,

4Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

Figure 1: continuum of Benefits access efforts

a negative perception of program, and lack ofinterest in receiving benefits,” along with“burdensome administrative procedures,” limithousehold participation.15 While advocates for low-income families long have voiced concerns aboutsuch matters, three recent developments haveheightened their salience. First, the magnitude ofthe great recession and the weakness of therecovery have swelled the population of householdsin need of supports. second, the affordable care actexpands medicaid eligibility starting in 2014,thereby requiring states to update theiradministrative capacities to handle the anticipatedvolume of new applications.16 last, technologicaladvances have improved the effectiveness of relatedinformation technologies.

in many instances, cBos, governmental agencies,and foundations have supported the incorporationof computer technologies, primarily Web-basedsoftware applications, into efforts to boost take-upof work supports. such tools typically provide aconvenient, cost-effective way of screeninghouseholds for program eligibility and facilitatingapplication processes. While the tools vary indesign, ease of use, access points, includedsupports, interoperability, and costs, technologicalconcerns must not become the focus of changeefforts (Box 1). What ultimately matters is how thetools are marshaled in service of the goal ofimproved access.

computer-based tools are most effective whenembedded in larger strategies that have fourcomponents: 1) population-relevant outreachefforts; 2) ample, well-supported community accesspoints; 3) user-friendly software; and 4) strong tiesto state information systems. in other words,successful models raise awareness amonghouseholds eligible for supports; provide convenientlocations where households can obtain informationabout supports; employ easy-to-use, population-appropriate software that screens for a broad set ofsupports; and facilitate application processesthrough direct data links to state computersystems. such models may emerge from the effortsof state agencies, community organizations, or acombination of the two.

sTaTe sysTem iniTiaTives

improvements to public work supports may resultfrom efforts initiated by the governmental agenciesresponsible for various supports, such as statesocial service departments. initiatives from stateagencies may concentrate on any point of thecontinuum of change ranging from direct householdoutreach to internal systems improvement.

Pennsylvania and Washington state are home tointeresting examples of state-initiated efforts toimprove access to work supports throughimprovements to outreach, screening, andapplication procedures. in 2001, Pennsylvania’sdepartment of Public Welfare launched thecommon Point of access to social services(comPass), a Web-based tool that offersscreening, application, renewal, and casemanagement information for multiple worksupport, health, and human service programs.17

Besides providing individuals with a convenientway of learning about and applying for worksupports, the comPass system streamlinesprogram administration by reducing foot traffic inlocal offices and minimizing the data entry tasksrequired of public employees.

advantages of the comPass model—since adoptedin georgia, among other states— include thebreadth of included supports, the simplicity andaccessibility of the website, and the direct tie tostate computer systems.18 due to its origins as aninternal state project, however, the systemoriginally was not as strong in the elements ofoutreach and community access as it was intechnological design and systems integration. Tocompensate for that limitation, comPass now hasa “community Partner” model that permitsregistered cBos to use an enhanced version of thewebsite and to assist individuals in the screeningand application processes. a health clinic, forinstance, could use comPass to help patientsapply for medicaid or schiP. Partners also are freeto build outreach strategies around comPass andincorporate them into their programs, just asPathWays Pa has done in Pennsylvania.

5Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

6Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

Box 1. screening and aPPlicaTion Technologies and Work suPPorT Programs

information technologies hold the potential to simplify the delivery of public work supports in a mannerthat benefits individual households, the staff of public agencies, and states as a whole. yet technology byitself is incapable of achieving those benefits; rather, state policies and practices pertaining to the deliveryof work support improve only when technology functions as one piece of an overarching change effort.

This is not to say that technology is unimportant. selection of a system is a crucial part of any changeeffort, but there is no one “correct” piece of software. each technology, regardless of whether it was devel-oped by a public agency, a cBo, or a for-profit vendor, has strengths and weaknesses. The choice oftechnologies, then, depends on the desired goals as well as practical concerns such as governancestructures, preferred strategies, and available budgets. Put differently, selection of a technology shouldnot crowd out the larger goal of improving access to work support programs.

While selection of individual technologies will vary by project, the selection process should considercertain criteria. Based on the experiences of WPFP partners, successful technology-based outreach andscreening efforts exhibit six characteristics:

access to the systems is provided in multiple locations in the communities where potentiallyeligible households live and/or in the places they frequent.

active outreach targeted to the needs of specific populations is used to raise awareness and drivehouseholds toward the available technology.

computer software, especially self-service software, is simple to use and is appropriate forpopulation-specific traits, such as reading and language abilities.

computer software screens for a broad array of work supports and provides more than simple yes-or-no assessments.

computer software interfaces with state systems and permits direct submission of applicationsand staff follow-up.

efforts should avoid duplicating similar ones already underway in an area.

on a related note, projects that involve the responsible public agencies may enjoy some advantages overthose that lack a tie. This is because state agencies are in a position to implement the administrativechanges needed to streamline application processes. state agencies also are able to access fundingstreams—such as federal outreach dollars—that are not available to other entities. at the same time,efforts operated entirely by a state agency run the risk of becoming detached from the cBos capable ofconnecting households to technology-based outreach efforts. in short, collaboration is essential.

Finally, change efforts cannot succeed absent a strong public sector. Technology may complement publicsystems by removing the need to perform certain transactions in-person at local offices, thereby freeing upstaff time for other tasks, but no technology can replace public agencies or operate at the same scale. Tech-nology, therefore, should be seen as a tool for helping public agencies achieve their missions rather than asa substitute for those agencies and their employees.

Washington state took a different approach inconstructing a similar system known as theWashington connection, which is a Web-based toolthat offers screening, application, renewal, and casemanagement information for multiple worksupport, health, and human service programs.19

While the tool loosely resembles ones found in otherstates, the site was not an exclusive project of agovernment agency, but rather the product of alegislatively authorized collaboration among thepublic, nonprofit, and philanthropic sectors.

The state legislature authorized the creation of theWashington connection in 2010 as part of a re-organization of the delivery system for public worksupports.20 The legislation established a steeringgroup with members drawn from foundations;cBos; local governments; elected officials; andstate agencies, including the department of socialand health services, the department of commerce,the employment security department, and thestate Board of community Technical colleges.21 itis interesting to note that the costs associated withselecting, developing, and implementing the neededtechnologies were financed by a $1.2 million grantfrom the seattle-based Bill and melinda gatesFoundation. The state, in turn, provided in-kindtechnical services worth more than $1 million andassumed responsibility for ongoing operating costs.22

The involvement of the gates Foundation helped tocreate a leadership role for cBos like statewidePoverty action network, the WPFP state partner inWashington. including cBos in the leadershipstructure ensured up-front consideration ofcustomer-service issues such as language accessand the appropriate range of work supports toinclude in the system. nevertheless, the design ofthe Washington connection occurred in a state-initiated manner that produced a system that,

although technologically sophisticated, is relativelyweak in outreach and community access. inresponse, the Washington connection is nowworking with cBos to offer local access and toincorporate the tool into programs serving eligiblehouseholds.

state-led efforts also may be initiated throughpartnerships with the philanthropic sector, as is thecase with the Work support strategies initiative, ademonstration project funded by The FordFoundation and managed by the urban instituteand the center on Budget and Policy Priorities.over a five-year period beginning in 2011, theinitiative will invest $15 million in public-sectorprojects that “design, test, and implement moreeffective, streamlined, and integrated approachesto delivering key benefits that support work forlow-income families and individuals, includinghealth coverage, nutrition benefits, and child caresubsidies.”23 improvements in benefit access areone part of this larger undertaking to strengthenstate systems.

The project will occur in two phases. in February2011, the project selected nine states—colorado,idaho, illinois, kentucky, new mexico, northcarolina, oregon, rhode island, and southcarolina—to receive $250,000 each in planningfunds.24 Participating states have one year toundertake an internal assessment and develop aplan for policy and programmatic improvement.states that successfully complete the first stagewill have the opportunity to apply for three-yearimplementation grants worth up to $500,000 peryear.

The Work support strategies initiative drawsinspiration from lessons learned from changeefforts underway in states like Washington andPennsylvania. By investing in state-led projectssupported by governors and key agency heads, theinitiative seeks to bring about policy andprogrammatic changes in a period of time and at ascale that would be hard for localized efforts toachieve, while offering states financial resourcesthat otherwise might be in short supply.

7Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

Improvements In benefIt access are

one part of thIs larger undertakIng

to strengthen state systems.

communiTy-Based iniTiaTives

in numerous communities across the county, cBohave launched efforts—some involving publicagencies, others working independently— that aimnot just to increase access to benefits, but also tobundle those supports with services that addressdeeper issues of employment, education, and a lackof assets. Besides helping low-income workingfamilies achieve and maintain economic self-sufficiency, such efforts frequently build communitycapacity.

one ambitious approach for integrating servicedelivery is the center for Working Families (cWF).developed in the early 2000s as an initiative of Theannie e. casey Foundation, the cWF approach isactive in more than 20 cities across the country.25

at its core, cWF revolves around local partnershipsof public, nonprofit, and philanthropicorganizations. individual sites—many of which arerun in conjunction with national organizations suchas the local initiatives support corporation andthe united Way—strive to expand outreach to low-income households, connect them to acomprehensive bundle of work supports andservices, and provide follow-up services that helphouseholds achieve and maintain economic successover time.

The emphasis placed on integrating services is ahallmark of the cWF approach. specifically, thehope is that bundled services provided sequentially“will have a more-than-additive effect in promotingeconomic security, enabling clients to resolveimmediate crises, acquire skills and credentials, getbetter jobs, and build the savings needed to preventthe next crisis and build for the future.”26 While theexact combination of services varies by site, eachone must offer three core services: employment andcareer advancement, including postsecondaryeducation and skills development; incomeenhancements and work support screening andassistance; and financial literacy and asset-building strategies. in many instances, sites, whichvary in type from two-year colleges to communityfinancial institutions to one-stop career centers,employ one of the screening tools described below tolink households to work supports.

as intuitive as the idea of “bundling” servicesseems, it is quite difficult to implement, thanks tothe complexity of public programs and fundingstreams—a complexity that too often fragmentswhat should be a unified system for assisting low-income families. an essential part of the cWF orintegrated service delivery approach, then, involveshelping sites determine how best to integrate andleverage various federal and state programs for thebenefit of low-income households. This can involveencouraging organizations to adopt new practices,as in the case of two-year colleges (Box 2).27 ideally,such innovation will generate knowledge and bestpractices that can influence policymaking at thefederal, state, and local levels.

early evaluations of cWF sites have revealedpromising results. a study of sites in maryland,missouri, and new mexico found that largemajorities of participating clients received bundledservices. such clients were “three to four timesmore likely to achieve a major economic outcome(such as staying employed, earning a vocationalcertification or associate’s degree or buying a car)than clients receiving only one service.”28 inaddition, the greater the intensity of the servicesreceived, the greater a household’s chances ofachieving economic success.

While perhaps the most comprehensive community-based initiative involves work supports, the cWFapproach is not the only successful one. in fact,numerous communities have built efforts thatembed screening and outreach technologies,typically those created by third parties, withinlarger service frameworks. From the perspective ofthe WPFP, three approaches are of particularinterest: The Benefit Bank, earnBenefits, and theBenefits enrollment network. These three standout not only because they are present in 15 WPFPstates, but also because they are associated withdistinct models for assisting low-income workingfamilies.29

of the three, The Benefit Bank (TBB) is the onlyone that is predominantly statewide in nature.Built around an online screening and benefitapplication service developed and operated bysolutions for Progress, a Philadelphia-based

8Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 9

Box 2. Bundling Work suPPorTs WiTh communiTy college Programs

certain community-based initiatives focused on work support programs seek to partner with communityand technical colleges. The challenge is that colleges seldom have viewed connecting students to work sup-ports as part of their missions despite enrolling large numbers of low-income students. yet two-yearcolleges are logical places where bundling work support, employment, educational, and financial servicescould occur.

located in albuquerque, central new mexico community college (cnm) is one college that consciouslyhas incorporated benefit access into its programs. The college’s school of adult and general education ishome to a center for Working Families (cWF) site initiated by the annie e. casey Foundation. The schooloffers developmental and literacy instruction to adults who must boost their skills before enrolling in col-legiate-level, credential-granting programs. research suggests that low-income students are more apt topersist in their studies and earn a credential if they receive work supports.

The new mexico cWF site provides a mix of employment, educational, work supports, and financial serv-ices. in addition to enrolling in the college’s educational programs, students may participate in financialtraining and counseling provided by the new mexico Project of Financial literacy and take advantage of acollege-sponsored tax preparation service and program of matched savings accounts.

access to work supports is provided through two resources. First, in 2005, the college created an informa-tional website that contains clear, multi-lingual descriptions of work support programs and theirapplication requirements. second, in 2009, cnm became home to a single stop providing the Benefitsenrollment network.

in 2011, cnm expanded its efforts by launching “cnm connect,” an initiative that will provide studentswith access to dedicated “achievement coaches,” thanks in part to grants from the kresge Foundation andthe W.k. kellogg Foundation.

cnm provides cWF services, not as an end in themselves, but as a means for promoting academicachievement and economic advancement. as of late 2009, some 890 students had received cWF services.moreover, preliminary evaluation results suggest that participation boosts student outcomes. key prelimi-nary findings include the following:

some 88 percent of cWF clients received bundled services.

students receiving bundled services had a 61 percent chance of achieving short-term economicsuccess, compared to 16 percent of other students.

students receiving bundled services had a 20 percent chance of achieving long-term economicsuccess, compared to 5 percent of other students.

The most common long-term economic outcome was receiving a certificate, ged, or associate’sdegree.

source: center for Working Families, an integrated approach to Fostering Family economic success:how Three model sites are implementing the center for Working Families approach (Baltimore, md:The annie e. casey Foundation, january 2010), pp. 10-13.

organization, the model came to prominence in2006, when ohio piloted it. TBB is built onpartnerships involving the operator, a statewideaffiliate, and local community partners. under theTBB model, a nonprofit organization serves as a“statewide affiliate” responsible for managing TBBoutreach by recruiting local partners, training localstaff and volunteers in the use of TBB, and raisingoperating funds, including the funds needed to paysolutions for Progress for use of the service andassociated technical assistance. in turn, localpartners provide free access to TBB, along withcounselors capable of guiding households throughthe screening and application processes.30

The ohio Benefit Bank is perhaps the most maturestatewide TBB project. as of early 2011, the ohioBenefit Bank was present at 1,100 local siteslocated in every county in the state. since 2006,local partners have helped an estimated 175,000families apply for the some two dozen supportsincluded in TBB (primarily those related to basicneeds, but some tax and educational benefits areavailable as well, as is electronic tax and benefitfiling).31 Furthermore, a 2008 study by ohiouniversity found that Benefit Bank clients appliedfor supports potentially worth $38.4 million duringits first two years, though the actual amountreceived probably was less than that.32 a secondstudy prepared by researchers at ohio universityfound that families that accessed supports throughthe ohio Benefit Banks benefited in a variety ofmeaningful ways.33

The TBB model also stands at the center of theWork supports initiative (Wsi), a joint project ofmdc, inc., and solutions for Progress.34 Wsiattempts to disseminate TBB to other states byidentifying appropriate statewide affiliates,customizing the service, helping to implement themodel, and fostering sustainability. due in part tothe Work supports initiative, TBB now is presentat some 2,300 sites in 10 states: arkansas, Florida(parts), indiana, kansas, maine, mississippi, northcarolina, ohio, Pennsylvania (parts), and southcarolina.35

earnBenefits, a project of seedco, a nationalcommunity development organization based in newyork city, is a second model that uses computer

tools to improve access to work supports.earnBenefits works at the level of specificcommunities and focuses on partnerships involvingseedco, local cBos, funders, and public agencies.The basic strategy, which was unveiled in 2003,expands outreach in communities with likelyconcentrations of potentially eligible households,guides households through a technology-basedscreening and application process, and helpshouseholds retain any work supports for whichthey qualify. Partner cBos have access toearnBenefits, and agency staff members aretrained to screen households and assist them inpreparing applications, which then are submittedelectronically to the appropriate public agencies (ifpossible) or through normal application processes.36

Besides providing access to work support benefits,individual sites provide low-income families with avariety of services that foster economicadvancement, such as workforce training andfinancial counseling.

as of early 2011, earnBenefits not only had sites inconnecticut, georgia, kentucky, massachusetts,maryland, new york state, oklahoma, andTennessee, but also was planning expansions intoother communities.37 over the last five years, theproject has screened 75,000 clients, 60 percent ofwhom obtained at least one work support. duringthe same period, the total value of work supportsreceived by users of earnBenefits equaled $61million.38

The final cBo-led model of interest is single stop,a project of single stop usa, a new york city-based nonprofit organization formed in 2007.39

single stop evolved from an earlier initiative innew york city that provided low-incomehouseholds with an array of services related towork supports, tax preparation, legal counseling,and financial advice. The element of the programassociated with work supports uses a tool called theBenefits enrollment network (Ben). Ben containsthe information needed to screen households formultiple supports, primarily those tied to basicneeds, along with selected tax and educationalbenefits.40

as with earnBenefits, single stop focuses onindividual communities. The core model expands

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 10

outreach in communities with likely concentrationsof households eligible for work supports, guideshouseholds through a technology-based screeningand application process, helps households managetheir supports, and packages work supports withother services. single stop generally locates itsservices within local organizations such as two-yearcolleges, cBos, commercial locations like shoppingmalls, jails and prisons, and one-stop careercenters.41

at the end of 2010, single stop was active at localsites in five states—california, Florida, newjersey, new mexico, and new york—and wasintending to expand.42 in 2009, single stop sitesserved nearly 120,000 families that werepotentially eligible for some $300 million insupports.43

Policy recommendaTions

due to the rise in interest and activities related towork supports at the state and local levels, WPFPstate partners may have opportunities to supportand advance these change efforts. By bringing theirstate policy expertise, credibility, and capacities tobear on initiatives and specific policy matters, statepartners can help ensure that sufficient worksupports are easily available to aid the economicadvancement of low-income working families.

in light of the difficult budget shortfalls currentlyfacing most states, large-scale reforms, particularlythose that attempt to expand program eligibility,may not advance right now. nevertheless,increased interest in the policy area,implementation of online screening and applicationsystems in multiple states, the existence ofphilanthropic investment in some states, and theneed to comply with the federal affordable care actby 2014 offer chances to pursue helpful, if modest,improvements. such positive changes may build afoundation for more expansive reforms oncefinancial circumstances improve.

When it comes to specific state policy actions,WPFP partners should concentrate their efforts onfive areas: supporting state investments in worksupport programs and systems; expanding

eligibility and outreach; streamlining applicationprocesses; promoting retention of work supports;and identifying performance measures tied tofamily economic advancement. Within each area,there are multiple ways of bettering relevant statepolicies, procedures, practices, and systems to closegaps in both take-up and coverage (Box 3).44

suPPorT sTaTe invesTmenTs in Work suPPorTs

When working to increase work supports, WPFPstate partners should use their analytical andcommunication capacities to build support for thoseprograms. since the onset of the great recession,the numbers of households in need of, eligible for,and receiving work supports has surged. Worksupports not only have helped families make endsmeet, but also have stimulated local economies. yet,few policymakers perceive the contributions ofwork supports, and this lack of awareness raisesthe odds that such supports will become targets forbudget cuts.

state partners, therefore, should support sustainedstate investments in work support programs. innorth carolina, for instance, the n.c. Budget andTax center published a series of county-levelstudies documenting the enrollment levels andeconomic impacts of supports like snaP, TanF,unemployment insurance, and financial aid. Thesestudies provide the evidence used to argue againstcuts such as eliminating the state eiTc orconverting it into a non-refundable tax credit—achange that would undercut its effectiveness.

in the same vein, WPFP state partners shouldencourage adequate administrative investments inwork support systems. even if individual programsare designed well, there is a need for properlyfunded state systems capable of administering theprograms, maximizing their effectiveness, andensuring their integrity. WPFP state partners alsoshould monitor state efforts to adopt technology orcollaborate with cBos to ensure that their effortsstrengthen public systems, rather than hollow outexisting administrative capacities.

on a related note, WPFP state partners shouldarticulate a broad definition of work supports, onethat moves beyond income supplements to include

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 11

education and skills training, asset building, andother services linked to long-term economicadvancement. By broadening the conversation toinclude other supports, state partners can promoteadequate state-level investments in a full range ofservices related to economic advancement and self-sufficiency.

exPand Program eligiBiliTy and

ouTreach eFForTs

another way for state partners to enrich worksupports is by using the WPFP’s data-driven policychange process to improve eligibility and outreach.despite the important benefits they confer, worksupports fail to reach as many low-incomehouseholds as they could. in some cases, overlyrestrictive eligibility rules exclude low-incomehouseholds; in other instances, ineffective outreachmay preclude eligible households from applying forbenefits. states can close such gaps in any numberof ways.

as a first step, states should seek to close gaps ineligibility for key work supports. Within manyprograms, state governments play an importantrole in setting the rules used to establish eligibility.That discretion latitude explains why, in 2006, asingle parent of two with a gross income equal to133 percent of the federal poverty level would havequalified for medicaid in massachusetts, but not inTexas, where the maximum income was set at 54percent of the poverty line.45

one way to help more low-income working familiesbenefit from existing programs is to eliminate theuse of asset tests. many states require benefitapplicants not just to meet certain categorical andincome criteria, but also to possess no more thanthe most modest level of savings. in 2009, forinstance, most states barred low-income householdswith more than $2,000 or $3,000 in assets—typically liquid ones like savings and checkingaccounts—from participating in the TanFprogram.46 moreover, asset tests often vary byprogram, even within the same state. removingasset tests is a simple way of enabling low-incomehouseholds to participate in work supportprograms.

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 12

Box 3. Policy recommendaTions

support state investments in Work supports

support sustained state investments in worksupports programs.

encourage adequate administrativeinvestments in work support systems.

articulate a broad definition of worksupports.

expand Program eligibility and outreach efforts

close gaps in eligibility for key worksupports.

eliminate the use of asset tests within worksupport programs.

Tie improvements in work support programsto health reform efforts.

expand efforts to connect potentially eligiblehouseholds to work supports.

increase the number of benefit access pointsavailable in communities.

avoid duplicating outreach efforts.

streamline application Processes allow households to apply for multiple

supports remotely.

align eligibility criteria across work supportprograms.

simplify administrative procedures relatedto application processes.

Promote retention of Work supports

streamline renewal processes.

standardize renewal requirements acrossprograms.

adopt “fast track” policies for re-establishingeligibility.

identify Performance measures

encourage states to set and evaluateperformance measures that track worksupport use.

use performance measures to improve worksupport policies and procedures.

implementation of the federal affordable care actprovides states with a natural opportunity tostandardize eligibility rules across multipleprograms and expand outreach efforts. Besidesrequiring states to strike asset tests from theirmedicaid program and adopt a uniform minimumincome level by 2014 at the latest, the affordablecare act provides resources to expand outreach tonewly eligible households. states should seize thechance to tie improvements in work supportprograms to health reform efforts.47

next, states should expand efforts to connectpotentially eligible households to work supports. asnoted earlier, many households that could benefitfrom work supports fail to apply for reasons such aslack of program awareness. one way to expandoutreach is by pursuing innovative ways ofdisseminating information about available supportsto working families. consider how the crittentonWomen’s union, the WPFP state partner inmassachusetts, recently published a bilingualguide to public work supports targeted specificallyat low-income adults enrolled in postsecondaryeducation and training programs.48

additionally, states should build on suchundertakings to increase access points available atcommunity sites like two-year colleges and one-stop career centers. as an added benefit, locatingaccess points at these places would promotealignment of income supports with those tied toworkforce education.

Finally, given the tight budget environments inmany states and the limited amount of availablephilanthropic funding, public agencies and cBosshould avoid duplicating outreach efforts alreadyunderway in an area. on one level, duplication ofefforts makes it harder for households to accessbenefits due to the need to navigate multiplesystems that may differ in design and includedprograms. on another level, duplication may leadto inefficient use of financial and humanresources—resources that otherwise could helpimprove work support systems.

sTreamline aPPlicaTion Processes

While important, expansions in eligibility andoutreach must not become ends in themselves.What matters is not the sheer volume ofapplications, but the ability of qualified householdsto receive supports as quickly and efficiently aspossible. To that end, WPFP state partners shouldsupport modernization and simplification ofapplication processes.

in many states, the process of applying for worksupports is unnecessarily complex and duplicativefor applicants and the public employees who reviewapplications. The complex and fragmented natureof the work support system often requireshouseholds to file multiple applications in differentoffices, participate in various in-person

appointments that cover the same material,document the same fact repeatedly, navigatecontradictory procedures, and engage in reviewprocesses that work against bundling supports.Public employees, meanwhile, often must recordthe same information many times, collect extensivedocumentation, and replicate procedures otheroffices have completed. The result is work supportprograms that fail to cover as many households asthey could, as efficiently as they could.

in response to these problems, some states haveattempted to simplify aspects of their applicationprocesses by deploying tools like comPass or byintegrating state systems with services such as The

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 13

allowIng households to apply for

multIple work supports remotely In a

way that, Ideally, connects dIrectly

to state computer systems would

mInImIze the need for clIents to

appear at local offIces and would

free program staff from rote

admInIstratIve requIrements.

Benefit Bank. allowing households to apply formultiple work supports remotely in a way that,ideally, connects directly to state computer systemswould minimize the need for clients to appear atlocal offices and would free program staff from roteadministrative requirements. Prudent use oftelephone interviews, electronic correspondence,and mail-back forms may foster better use of thetime of public employees and applicants alike.

Besides incorporating technology into theapplication process, states could align eligibilitycriteria across work support programs, so that ahousehold found eligible for one benefitautomatically qualifies for other benefits withsimilar eligibility criteria. such “express lane”eligibility could allow chiP to enroll a childreceiving snaP based on the snaP determination.When coupled with improvements in data systems,express lane eligibility could improve bundling ofwork supports. similarly, adopting “presumptiveeligibility” within public health insurance programscould permit qualified providers like hospitals toenroll a child in chiP immediately if the childmeets basic requirements. The child then couldreceive services while the normal applicationprocess unfolds. although not directly anapplication issue, aligning eligibility criteria canease the administrative burden on applicants bystandardizing the documentation they must submitto public agencies.

states also should simplify administrativeprocedures related to application processes tominimize the need for applicants to appear inperson at local offices. a state might standardizedocumentation procedures across programs and useinformation technology to share documents amongresponsible agencies. That way, an applicant whohas already submitted, for instance, the properforms to the department responsible for medicaidwould not have to prove eligibility again to thedepartment that oversees child care subsidies.coordination would eliminate duplication of effortfor applicants and public employees.

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 14

Box 4. reTaining child carevouchers in massachuseTTs

Without access to safe, reliable child care, parents inlow-income families are unable to work or pursuethe education needed to prosper over time. To thatend, every state operates a system of child carevouchers financed primarily through the federalchild care and development Fund, a block grantwith capped funding.

state voucher systems suffer from many of the limi-tations common to public work support programs. inmassachusetts, a comprehensive 2006 study of thestate’s voucher system undertaken by the BessieTartt Wilson initiative for children documented avariety of procedural and administrative challengesthat led most children receiving vouchers to be “sub-ject to discontinuous, unstable care.” suchinstability also caused employment difficulties forparents and financial problems for providers.

The report identified the requirement that partici-pating households undergo a formal eligibilityreview once every six months to be a significantsource of “churn” within the system. in fact, 30 per-cent of the vouchers studied in 2005 wereinterrupted or terminated, with many cases laterbeing re-opened.

after issuing the study, the Bessie Tartt Wilson ini-tiative for children and partner organizations likethe crittenton Women’s union, the WPFP statepartner in massachusetts, worked to build the sup-port needed to enact the recommendations. in 2006,massachusetts extended the voucher certificationperiod to one year. similarly, the state eliminated a“double documentation” requirement that causedcertain households to submit the same set of infor-mation to two different state agencies.

Follow-up research indicates that the changes to therenewal process and procedures improved the Baystate’s voucher system. When compared to 2005,only 13 percent of all vouchers were interrupted orterminated in 2007. This decrease in program churnled to improvements in the continuity of careprovided to children, while reducing the financialdifficulties providers experienced and making it eas-ier for parents to balance their obligations to theirchildren and their employers.

source: valora Washington, The massachusetts childcare voucher study: Progress and Possibilities (Boston,ma: The Bessie Tartt Wilson initiative for children,2009). on the internet at http://www.btwic.org/wp-con-tent/uploads/2010/01/Progress-and-Possibilities.pdf

PromoTe reTenTion oF Work suPPorTs

once a household successfully navigates theprocess of applying for work supports, it mustmanage a second, equally complex process to retainthose supports—a process in which one misstepmay lead to termination of any or all supports.While retaining work supports is just as importantto a household’s well-being as access is, the topicreceives less attention. state partners shouldspotlight the importance of benefit retention andthe need to minimize program “churn,” whichoccurs when an otherwise-eligible households losesa benefit due to its failure to meet anadministrative requirement, only to re-qualify afew weeks later.

research into state work support systems indicatesthat the risk of losing a support is a serious onethat manifests itself whenever a household isslated to renew its eligibility. For example, researchindicates that nearly half of all children who losemedicaid actually meet the program’s eligibilitycriteria.49 in many situations, churning bothprecipitates a family crisis and consumes scarceresources from the responsible public agencies.

one way to encourage retention of work supports isto streamline renewal processes. For example, Web-based tools like the Washington connection permithouseholds to renew their eligibility or reportstatus changes without having to visit a local office.Because such functionality delivers the convenienceand efficiencies associated with online application,states should ensure that technological toolsincorporate renewal and change processes.

a second way to encourage retention of worksupports is to standardize renewal requirementsacross programs. a state, for example, could alignthe renewal timeline across programs, which wouldpermit a household to renew its eligibility for all ofthe supports it receives at the same time, say oncea year. states should also simplify recertificationrequirements so that a household that completesthe process for one program is recertifiedautomatically for every program with similarrequirements (Box 4).

last, states should adopt “fast track” policies for re-establishing eligibility. This might involve grantingagency employees the discretion to reopen certainnewly closed cases or to re-establish eligibilitythrough telephone interviews. states also couldestablish a preventive approach that usesadministrative data to identify cases at risk ofclosing and then intervenes before the deadline isreached.

idenTiFy PerFormance measures

efforts to strengthen public work supports likethose described previously strive to achieve somecombination of economic advancement on the partof low-income households and administrativeefficiencies on the part of governmental agencies.To ensure that progress toward such goals isactually realized, WPFP state partners shouldencourage states to set and evaluate performancemeasures that track work support use by eligiblelow-income households.

Public agencies responsible for work supportprograms collect extensive data, which should beused for system improvement. all of the goalsassociated with change efforts are measurable, andinstitutionalization of such performance measurescould identify weaknesses in the system. Forexample, an analysis of data related to case closingmight indicate patterns that could help mitigateprogram churning. similarly, tracking the dollarvalue of the supports received by households couldillustrate the role that work supports play infacilitating economic self-sufficiency. states,therefore, should use performance measures toimprove work support policies and procedures.

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 15

conclusion

recent years have seen increased interest in effortsto improve access to public work supports that canhelp low-income working families advanceeconomically over time. due to the central rolestates play in administration and delivery of worksupports, many change initiatives have attemptedto influence state policies and practices throughformation of partnerships involving state agenciesand community partners. such efforts havesucceeded not only in increasing access to worksupports, but also in combining traditional incomesupports with services that address deeper issues ofeconomic self-sufficiency, education and skill levels,and asset building. more specifically, change effortshave unfolded along a broad continuum, rangingfrom expansion of outreach efforts withinindividual communities to improvement of complexstate systems. This innovation has createdopportunities for WPFP state partners to supportchanges in policies and practices that would expandthe number of low-income households that benefitfrom work supports intended to help them prosperover time.

For questions about this policy brief or the

Working Poor Families Project contact:

Brandon roberts

robert3@starpower.net

(301) 657-1480

Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org 16

Working Poor Families

ProjecT recommendaTions

1) support state investments in Worksupport Programs and systems

2) expand Program eligibility andoutreach

3) streamline application Processes

4) Promote retention of Work supports

5) identify Performance measures Tied toFamily economic advancement

endnoTes

1 john Quinterno is a principal with south by northstrategies, ltd., a research firm specializing in economic andsocial policy. rebecca clendenin provided editorialassistance. Brandon roberts and deborah Povich of TheWorking Poor Families Project provided overall projectdirection. Thanks to marianne Bellesorte, carol goertzel,and lyn kugel of PathWays Pa; celia cole of the center forPublic Policy Priorities; ralph gildehaus of mdc, inc.; andTony lee of solid ground for their willingness to share theirthoughts and experiences related to benefit access policies,programs, and technologies. Thanks as well to susangewirtz of The annie e. casey Foundation; ralph gildehausof mdc, inc; ruth liberman of The crittenton Women’sunion; elizabeth lower-Basch and abigail newcomer of thecenter for law and social Policy; and shelley Waters Boots,independent consultant to philanthropic initiatives, for theirconstructive feedback.

2 Brandon roberts, deborah Povich and mark mather. greatrecession hit hard at america’s Working Poor: nearly 1 in 3Working Families in united states are low-income, WorkingPoor Families Project, december 2010, p.1.

3 author’s analysis of Food research and action center,snaP/Food stamp monthly Participation data, variousmonths. on the internet at http://frac.org/reports-and-resources/snapfood-stamp-monthly-participation-data/

4 author’s analysis of population data from 2010 census.

5 gregory mills, jessica compton, and olivia golden,assessing the evidence about Work support Benefits andlow-income Families: rational for a demonstration andevaluation (Washington, dc: urban institute and FordFoundation, February 2011), p. 6. on the internet athttp://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412303-Work-support-Benefits.pdf

6 randy albelda and heather Boushey, Bridging the gaps: aPicture of how Work supports Work in Ten states(Washington, dc: center for economic and Policy researchand center for social Policy, october 2007), p. 3. on theinternet at http://www.bridgingthegaps.org/publications/nationalreport.pdf

7 mills, compton, and golden, p. 6.

8 albelda and Boushey, pp. 8‒9.

9 office of the assistant secretary for Planning andevaluation. estimates of child care eligibility and receiptfor Fiscal year 2006 (Washington, dc: u.s. department ofhealth and human services, april 2010), p. 1. on theinternet at http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/10/cc-eligibility/ib.pdf

10 sheila Zedlewski, gina adams, lisa dubay, and genevieve

kenney, is There a system supporting low-income WorkingFamilies? (Washington, dc: urban institute, February2006), pp. 20‒21. on the internet at http://www.urban.org/uploadedPdF/311282_lowincome_families.pdf

11 mckinsey & company, single stop rollout strategyProject: Final report (February 2007).

12 For a discussion of institutional and householdcharacteristics, see Zedlewski, adams, dubay, and kenney,pp. 24‒34, and mills, compton, and golden, pp. 16‒21.

13 shelley Waters Boots, improving access to Public Benefits:helping eligible individuals and Families get the incomesupports They need (new york: Ford Foundation, april2010), p. 7. on the internet at http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/economic%20security/Family%20economic%20supports/improvingaccesstoPublicBenefitshelpingeligibl/Benefitsaccess41410.pdf

14 Waters Boots, p. 8.

15 mills, compton, and golden, p. 19.

16 ibid., p. 7.

17 The Pennsylvania comPass. Website is https://www.humanservices.state.pa.us/compass.Web/cmhom.aspx

18 The georgia comPass. Website ishttps://compass.ga.gov/selfservice/

19 The Washington connection. Website is https://www.washingtonconnection.org/home/availablebenefits.go?locale=en_us

20 Wash. rev. code § 74.04.225. on the internet athttp://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=74.04.225

21 office of Program research, Bill analysis: hB 2782(olympia, Wa: Washington state house of representatives,january 2010), p. 3. on the internet at http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/Wsldocs/200910/Pdf/Bill%20reports/house/2782%20hBa%20hs%2010.pdf

22 Telephone interview with Tony lee, solid ground,February 24, 2011.

23 urban institute, Work support strategies: call forProposals (new york: The Ford Foundation, 2010), p. 1. onthe internet at http://www.urban.org/worksupport/call-for-proposal.pdf

24 note that colorado, illinois, kentucky, new mexico, andnorth carolina have WPFP state partners.

25 center for Working Families, an integrated approach toFostering Family economic success: how Three model sitesare implementing the center for Working Families

17Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org

approach (Baltimore, md: The annie e. casey Foundation,january 2010), p. 3. on the internet at http://www.aecf.org/~/media/Pubs/Topics/economic%20security/Family%20economic%20supports/anintegratedapproachtoFosteringFamilyeconomic/report%201%2012%2009.pdf

26 center for law and social Policy, Federal Funding forintegrated service delivery: a Toolkit (Washington, dc:center for law and social Policy, january 2011), p. 1. on theinternet at http://www.clasp.org/admin/site/publications/files/cWF_all.pdf

27 Tom hilliard and Brett visger, general observations ofcommunity colleges and Public Benefit access,memorandum, February 8, 2011.

28 center for Working Families, an integrated approach toFostering Family economic success, p. 4.

29 The 14 states are arkansas, indiana, maine, mississippi,north carolina, and ohio have The Benefit Bank.connecticut, georgia, kentucky, maryland, andmassachusetts, have earnBenefits. new jersey and newmexico have the Benefits enrollment network. new yorkhas both earnBenefits and the Benefits enrollmentnetwork.

30 melanie Powell, jalia Tucker, and elizabeth yim,“solutions for Progress and The Benefit Bank: a community-Based approach to individual self-sufficiency” inPhiladelphia social innovations journal, may 2010. on theinternet at http://www.philasocialinnovations.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=172:solutions-for-progress-and-the-benefit-bank-a-community-based-approach-to-individual-self-sufficiency&catid=21:featured-social-innovations&itemid=35

31 Personal correspondence with ralph gildehaus, mdc, inc.,February 19, 2011.

32 ohio university voinovich school of leadership and Publicaffairs, The ohio Benefit Bank (columbus, oh: ohioassociation of second harvest Foodbanks, 2008), p. 5. on theinternet at http://www.mdcinc.org/docs/ou-report.pdf

33 ohio university voinovich school of leadership and Publicaffairs, impact of the ohio Benefit Bank (columbus, oh:ohio association of second harvest Foodbanks, 2011). onthe internet at http://admin.oashf.org/uploads/news/econ_impact_exec_summary.pdf

34 mdc, inc., Frequently asked Questions about The Worksupports initiative and The Benefit Bank. on the internet athttp://mdcinc.org/docs/Wsi-TBB-FaQs.pdf

35 solutions for Progress, The Benefit Bank network ofstates. on the internet at http://www.thebenefitbank.com/states

36 seedco, about earnBenefits. on the internet athttp://www.earnbenefits.org/page.php?pageid=86

37 seedco, Welcome to earnBenefits online. on the internetat http://www.earnbenefits.org/page.php?pageid=85

38 Waters Boots, p. 11.

39 single stop usa, What is single stop usa? on theinternet at http://www.singlestopusa.org/about-us

40 single stop usa, Benefits and Technology. on the internetat http://www.singlestopusa.org/about-us/The-model/Benefits.shtml and http://www.singlestopusa.org/about-us/The-model/Technology.shtml

41 single stop usa, strategies. on the internet athttp://www.singlestopusa.org/strategies.shtml

42 single stop usa, locations. on the internet athttp://www.singlestopusa.org/locations.shtml

43 single stop usa, 2009 results. on the internet athttp://www.singlestopusa.org/results/2009-results.shtml

44 many of the descriptions of individual policy actions aretaken from chapter 1 of dorothy rosenbaum and stacydean, improving The delivery of key Work supports: Policy& Practice opportunities at a critical moment (Washington,dc: center on Budget and Policy Priorities, February 2011).on the internet at http://eee.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3408 note that this publication is an excellent,in-depth, technical guide to issues related to benefit access.

45 albelda and Boushey, p. 25.

46 urban institute, The Welfare rules databank: statePolicies as of july 2009. on the internet athttp://anfdata.urban.org/wrd/databook.cfm

47 a useful set of recommendations for coordinating benefitaccess across health and human service programs wasreleased recently by the u.s. department of health andhuman services. see office of the national coordinator forhealth information Technology, electronic eligibility andenrollment recommendations (Washington, dc: u.s.department of health and human services). on the internetat http://healthit.hhs.gov/portal/server.pt?open=512&mode=2&objid=3161

48 deborah harris and ruth liberman, Beyond Financial aid:2010 guide to extra help for low-income adult students(Boston, ma: crittenton’s Women union, 2010). on theinternet at http://www.liveworkthrive.org/site/assets/cWu_Beyond_Financial_aid_Final_082310.pdf

49 mills, compton, and golden, p. 20.

18Working Poor Families Project | www.workingpoorfamilies.org