Selected Summary Findings in Brief

Review of Sanction Policies and Research Studies (HHS March 2003):

• Owing to differences in methodology, studies reported a wide range of estimates of the incidence of sanctions.
• Sanctions tend to be imposed shortly after TANF clients begin receiving benefits.
• Many TANF recipients cure their sanction and remain in sanction status for relatively short periods of time.
• Most sanctioned clients are sanctioned only once, but a modest fraction are sanctioned, come into compliance and then are sanctioned again.
• Sanctioned families exhibit many of the characteristics that have traditionally been associated with longer welfare stays.
• Sanctioned TANF recipients are more likely than their non-sanctioned counterparts to be long-term welfare recipients and to experience human capital deficits such as limited education and lack of work history.
• Studies consistently found that lack of transportation is more common among sanctioned than non-sanctioned TANF clients. Few studies examined lack of child care as a barrier to employment; of those that did, findings varied.
• Sanctioned families are more likely than non-sanctioned families to experience some but not all personal and family challenges.
• When accounting for the interaction and influence of various demographic characteristics and potential employment barriers simultaneously, few factors appear to significantly predict whether a family will be sanctioned or not.
• Employment rates and earnings are lower for sanctioned than non-sanctioned families.
• Studies reported a wide range in the estimated number of sanctioned TANF recipients who return to the rolls; most studies found higher rates of return for sanctioned than non-sanctioned families.
• Sanctioned recipients are more likely to experience material hardships than their non-sanctioned counterparts.
• One study suggests that sanctioned families are more likely to have an infant or toddler who is hospitalized.
• A few studies suggest that more stringent sanctions lead to greater welfare exits and caseload declines, although most offer little insight into how these changes occur.
• Recipients often are not clear about participation requirements, sanction policies, and processes to "cure" a TANF sanction.
• State and local practices vary considerably and can influence the number of families who are sanctioned.

Sanctions and Time Limits: State Policies, Their Implementation, and Outcomes for Families (MDRC and Mathematica, February 2001):

• Research: Existing research does not adequately examine the direct effects of sanctions on recipient behavior. Non-experimental studies do not provide information on how recipients would have fared had they remained on welfare, and experimental studies (using random assignment methods) could not isolate the effects of sanctions from the effects of other program elements (e.g. expanded earnings disregards).
• Participation: Findings from NEWWS (1999) suggest that in programs that did not closely monitor attendance and rarely imposed sanctions, participation rates were only slightly higher for those subject to the program than for those in a control group that faced no mandates. Higher sanctioning rates were not associated with higher participation rates among programs that enforced mandates.
• Compliance: Data suggest that most people do not comply with program requirements even after a sanction is imposed. In Iowa, half of all sanctions were canceled because families complied with the requirements, but most studies that have looked at rates of compliance find rates closer to 30 percent (GAO, 2000). The Three-City Study (2001) reported that the most common reasons for being sanctioned were missing an appointment or failing to file required paperwork. (Only 12 percent of the penalties were imposed for failing to take a job or to show up for a job-related activity.)
• Employment: Although Indiana uses only a partial-family sanction, it outperformed all other states in its rate of employment placements in 1998.
• Sanction rates: In 1998, an average of 112,700 families each month (4.5 percent of the national TANF caseload) received reduced benefits owing to a sanction (GAO, 2000). It was estimated that 16,000 families per month lost benefits due to full-family sanctions in 1998. Studies that examine the experiences of a cohort of recipients over time find that one-quarter to one-half of families subject to work requirements are sanctioned over a 12 to 24-month period (Delaware ABC, 1999; Virginia VIP, 1999).
• Characteristics of sanctioned families: In Tennessee, 60 percent of sanctioned families did not have a GED or a diploma compared to 40 percent of families who left TANF for work. In South Carolina, 36 percent of recipients who were high school dropouts were sanctioned compared to 22 percent of high school graduates. In South Carolina.; 38 percent of long-term recipients were sanctioned compared to 21 percent of shorter-term recipients. Several studies also indicate that many families who are sanctioned experience personal and family challenges (such as chemical dependency, physical and mental health problems, domestic violence, child care, and transportation) that may make it difficult for them to comply with program requirements at a higher rate than other welfare recipients (Three-City Study, 2001; CBPP, 2000; GAO, 2000).
• Leaver studies: Although each survey measured hardship differently, anywhere from one-third to one-half of respondents reported that they were having trouble making ends meet. Sanctioned leavers are substantially less likely to work than individuals who left welfare for other reasons. Summarizing data from nine studies, GAO estimates that an average of 41 percent of sanctioned families were working after they left TANF (GAO, 2000). Studies find as much as a 27 percentage point difference in the rate of employment among sanctioned and non-sanctioned leavers. Seven studies found relatively high rates of participation in both Food Stamps and Medicaid, from 57 to 71 percent of sanctioned recipients received Food Stamps and 59 to 88 percent received Medicaid (GAO, 2000).