Women involved in public assistance and child welfare systems often must overcome multiple barriers to self-sufficiency and family stability or face sanctions or loss of benefits. Kentucky's Targeted Assessment Program (TAP) is an innovative model for assisting these women by placing human services professionals in public assistance and child welfare offices to provide support services and promote integrated service delivery This article discusses TAP program data for years 2005 through 2008, as well as initial 6-month follow-up data. These data suggest that TAP is effective in reducing the burden of barriers faced by participants. TAP strategies are discussed for their utility in informing practice models of human services agencies to proactively promote participant success in overcoming barriers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaruschA. S., TaylorM., & Abu-BaderS. (1999). Understanding families with multiple barriers to self-sufficiency. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah, Social Research Institute.
2.
California Institute for Mental Health. (2002). The CalWORKS project: Alcohol and other drug, mental health, and domestic violence issues: Effects on employment and welfare tenure after one year. Sacramento, CA: Author.
3.
DanzigerS. K., & SeefeldtK. S. (2002). Barriers to employment and the ‘hard to serve’: Implications for services, sanctions, and time limits. Social Policy & Society, 2(2), 151–160.
4.
FinkelsteinN., & PiedadeE (1993). The relational model and the treatment of addicted women. The Counselor, 2(3), 8–12.
GutmanM., KetterlinusR., & McLellanA. T. (2003). Characteristics of substanceabusing women on welfare: Findings from the evaluation of CASAWOR KS for Families Pilot Demonstration. Evaluation Review, 27(6), 597–628.
7.
HildebrandtE., & StevensP (2009). Impoverished women with children and no welfare benefits: The urgency of researching failures of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. American Journal of Public Health, 99(5), 793–801.
8.
HoffmanN., ShulmanG., YoungN., & YehS. (2004). Addiction and child welfare professionals: The makings of a healthy partnership. Addiction Professional, 2(2), 17–20.
9.
JayakodyR., & StaufferD (2000). Mental health problems among single mothers: Implications for work and welfare reform. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 617–634.
10.
LennonM. C., BlomeJ., & EnglishK. (2001). Depression and low-income women: Challenges for TANF and welfare-to-work policies and programs. New York: National Center for Children in Poverty, Columbia University.
11.
LichterD., & JayakodyR (2002). Welfare reform: How do we measure success?Annual Review of Sociology, 28, 117–41.
12.
LoprestP., & ZedlewskiS (1999). Current and former welfare recipients: How do they differ? (Assessing the New Federalism Policy Brief No. 99-17). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
McKayJ. R., GutmanM., McLellanA. T., LynchK., & KetterlinusR. (2003). Treatment services received in the CASAWOR KS for Families Program. Evaluation Review, 27(6), 629–655.
15.
McLellanA. T., GutmanM., LynchK., McKayJ. R., KetterlinusR., MorgensternJ., (2003). One-year outcomes from the CASAWOR KS for Families intervention for substance-abusing women on welfare. Evaluation Review, 27(6), 656–680.
16.
McLellanA.T., KushnerH., MetzgerH., PetersR., SmithI., GrissomG., PettinatiH., & ArgeriouM. (1992). The fifth edition of the Addiction Severity Index. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 9(3), 199–213.
17.
MeckstrothA., PavettiL., & JohnsonA. (2000). The future is now: Transforming the welfare system to identify and address chronic barriers. Policy and Practice, 9, 8–12.
18.
MeltonG. (2005). Mandated reporting: A policy without reason. Child Abuse & Neglect, 29, 9–18.
19.
MillerB. V., FoxB. R., & Garcia-BeckwithL. (1999). Intervening in severe physical child abuse cases: Mental health, legal, and social services. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(9), 905–914.
20.
MillerW. R., & RollnickS. (1991). Motivational interviewing. New York: Guilford Press.
21.
MorgensternJ., RiordanA., McCradyB., McVeighK., BlanchardK., & IrwinT. (2001). Intensive case management improves welfare participants’ rates of entry and retention in substance abuse treatment. Camden, NJ: Rutgers University.
22.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA). (2000). Substance abuse and learning disabilities: Peas in a pod or apples and oranges?New York: Author.
23.
National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA). (2009). CASASARD: Intensive case management for substance-dependent women receiving temporary assistance for needy families. New York: Author.
24.
PavettiL., OlsonK., PindusN., PernasM., & IsaacsJ. (1996). Designing welfareto- work programs for families facing personal or family challenges: Lessons from the field. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
25.
PolendN. (2001). TANF hard-to-serve: Lessons from related disciplines: Proceedings and analysis. Washington, DC: American Public Human Services Association.
26.
RamlowB., WhiteA. L., WatsonD., & LeukefeldC. G. (1997). The needs of women with substance use problems: An expanded vision for treatment. Substance Abuse and Misuse, 32(10), 1395–1404.
27.
RaphaelJ., & TohlmanR (1997). New evidence documenting the relationship between domestic violence and welfare. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, Research Development.
28.
SheehanD. V., LecrubierY., SheehanK. H., AmorimP., JanavsJ., WeillerE., (1998). The Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI): The development and validation of a structured diagnostic psychiatric interview for DSM-IV and ICD-10. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 59(s20), 22–57.
29.
SmithB., & MarshJ (2002). Participant-service matching in substance abuse treatment for women with children. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 161–168.
30.
Staton-TindallM., CarltonE., LeukefeldC. G., DelaneyM., & RamlowB. (2010). Targeted Assessment Program (TAP) 2009 follow-up report. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Center on Drug & Alcohol Research.
31.
Staton-TindallM., LeukefeldC. G., RamlowB., & DelaneyM. (2008). Targeted Assessment Program (TAP) 2008 follow-up report. Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky Center on Drug & Alcohol Research.
32.
StrausM. A., HambyS. L., Boney-McCoyS., & SugarmanD. B. (1996). The revised Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17(3), 283–316.
33.
SweeneyE. (2000). Recent studies indicate that many parents who are current or former welfare recipients have disabilities and other medical conditions. Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
34.
TolmanR., & RaphaelJ (2000). A review of research on welfare and domestic violence. Journal of Social Issues, 56(4), 655–682.
35.
TymchukA. (1999). Moving toward integration of services for parents with intellectual abilities. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities, 24(1), 59–74.
36.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). Patterns of substance use and substance-related impairment among participants in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program (AFDC). Washington, DC: Author.
37.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2000). Addressing substance abuse issues among TANF recipients. Rockville, MD: Author.
38.
Washington State Division of Employment and Social Services. (1997). Washington state learning needs screening. Tacoma, WA: Author.
39.
WhiteR. K., & WrightD. G. (Eds.). (1998). Addiction intervention strategies to motivate treatment-seeking behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
