WELCOME TO LIVINGSTON COUNTY’S

TEAMING UP TO MOVE PEOPLE FORWARD

NYPWA Winter Conference January 24, 2008

We Knew We Wanted to:• Reduce the # of times a client needs to “tell their story”.• Have a system that is less confusing to our clients, and

have more understanding of all the eligibility and employment requirements.

• Eliminate duplication of: efforts, information gathering, and creation of files.

• Eliminate information flow breakdowns.• Speed up turnaround time from first contact with

agency to case action.• More effectively move people forward by engaging

them on Day 1 at the agency.

Case IntegrityCase Integrity has 3 parts:1. Workers – must protect the vulnerable,

and hold people accountable to forward movement toward personal responsibility and self-sufficiency.

2. Clients – must take responsibility for making choices that move them toward self-sufficiency.

3. Process – must enable staff to work together with clients, and with each other, so that both workers and clients achieve respective integrity in their relationship.

Commissioner’s Vision:I want every client who comes in for any sort of cash assistance to have

a thorough assessment on day #1, done by a triage team of workers who will have a relationship with the client from application to case closing.

• Situational History: how & why they came to be in this situation requiring public assistance.– Start identifying personal decisions & responsibility right away

(Right, Wrong & Different).• Inventory of all their available resources (Income, relationships, skills,

experiences).• Help clients plan choices for immediate & future decisions to ensure

self-sufficiency.

Triage Team Composition

Caseworker EmploymentWelfare Examiner

Temporary AssistanceWelfare Examiner

Core Beliefs• There is always a better way than what we’re

doing now.• We accept change, we want change, and it’s

time for change.• If we strive for perfection, we can minimally

expect excellence.• If we are not becoming part of the solution,

then we are part of the problem!• We are problem solvers, and our team is a

think tank!

Process Funnel

*Team Approach *Assessment Tool *Budget Sheet *Resource Lists *Adjunct Members

Other Resources

EOTP Case Openings

Case Management

Resources in place

Options

AOA Plan

Client

Assessment Tool• See Handout• Main Topics in Assessment Tool -

– Household Composition– Presenting Problems– Needs Previously Met By– Current Employment/Income of All Household Members & History of Past

Employment– Child Care Issues– Transportation Issues– Educational/Vocational Training– Medical Benefits/Issues– Drug/Alcohol Issues– Criminal/Legal Issues– Service Providers– Housing/Fuel/Utility Issues– Food/Food Stamps– Child Support/Non-Custodial Parent– Bank Relationship– Referrals– Current Resources of the Client– Options Discussed– Options Chosen & Plan

Process Funnel

*Team Approach *Assessment Tool *Budget Sheet *Resource Lists *Adjunct Members

Other Resources

EOTP Case Openings

Case Management

Resources in place

Options

AOA Plan

Client

Team PartnersTriage Team Composition

Caseworker EmploymentWelfare Examiner

Temporary AssistanceWelfare Examiner

Resources/Pull In Staff

HousingSupport Collection

TransportationOTDA Jobs Staff

Workforce DevelopmentIntensive Case Managers

RIGHT

WRONG

DIFFERENT

Success by the InchWhere Personal Choices put us on the Continuum of SuccessStuck

Free toWhere-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Get Where

You Are You

Want

Note: We have a lot of strengths that have put us somewhere on the continuum, but we have decisions left to make that will move us to the left or right.

a

WHAT CHOICES do we need to consider?

WHY are they Important?The Unwritten Rules

HOW can we choose differently to be more successful?

Organizational StructureCommissioner

Director of FAP Employment Coor. Director of Services

TA Team Principal EU Team Principal Grade B Team Supervisor

TA Team Senior EU Team Senior Services Team Senior

TA Team Examiners

EU Team Examiners

Services Team Caseworkers

What Works Well• Expressing needs and requests to your team

mates, and responding to those expressed needs and requests.

• Treating each other as equals, with respect, and feeling free to disagree on issues. We need to be free to express conflicting opinions and have healthy debates.

• Learning from each other’s style & expertise, and familiarity with each other’s work.

• Be respectful on each other’s “Bad Hair” days (Those are not your true colors).

Case Integrity Indicators• Livingston County Case Integrity Indicators• Forward Movement Indicator – Numerator A

– # Exempt Nonemployables upgraded in the month (Work Limited/Employable)– # Hired in the month, cases remaining open– # Cases Closing in the month: Excess Income, Client request, SSI/SSD– # Sanctions Lifted in the month.– # Referred for SSI/SSD Grant – Total___________

• Engagement Indicator – Numerator B– # Exempt Non-employables engaged in Skills Training in the month– # Participating in Recommended Treatment (Medical, Mental, Substance Abuse, SO)– # Employables Participating in ETP as scheduled during month– # Actively Employed– # Actively in SSI/SSD Track Grant– Total__________

• Denominator: Open Cases Worked With in the Month– Caseload:

• # SN Cases• # TANF Cases• # MOE’s - Note: Do not count any cases opened with “Emergency X”

– Grand Total_________

• Numerator Total A or B/Denominator Total = Livingston County Case Integrity Rate

Did We Accomplish What We Wanted?

• Number of times client tells story went from 5 times down to 1 time.

• Time to do eligibility interview went from 7-11 days to 1st day they were seen.

• Now engaged with employment the 1st day, under previous system up to 2 weeks.

• Duplication very much reduced – all files with same team.

• Information flow break down reduced.• Clients work towards self-sufficiency on day 1

at the agency.

Comparison DataTopic Baseline Data Team Data (old system) (new system)• Intake Process 195 minutes 89 minutes • Wait time in lobby 105 minutes• FTE intake only

Outcomes• EOTP 34% 12%• Applications taken 62% 41%• Diversion – other 0% 22% (no DSS program)• Diversion 26%

(other DSS program)

2006-2007 TANF Employables v. Nonemployables

91

63

84

59

44

3237

3338 38

31

2126

38

3035

66

98

107111

121

108

76 78

91

8386

83

70

80

87 89

66

93

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2006

Jan

Augus

t

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

2007

Jan

Februa

ryMar

chApri

lMay

June Ju

ly

Augus

t

Septem

ber

Octobe

r

Novem

ber

Decem

ber

Employables

Nonemployables

2006 - 2007 Sanctioned Clients

35

27

2526

21

18

1413

16

1312

11

5

1

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Sanctioned Clients

2006-2007 Caseloads

254250

246

229

219212

206212 209

192185

179

162

154149

143

130

141133

122129

146150 152

259254

247

234230

234242

230

217

205

193 196202

179 178172

166

158164

148 148153

166

188

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

2006 Jan March May July September November 2007 Jan March May July September November

TANF

SN

2006-2007 TANF Participation

4145

4955 57

61

25

157 156

134 133

121116

107103

98

116

10396 96

8274

70 67 66

80 83

26.1 28.833.1

45.938.3 40.5 37.9

7118861219

27

12

49 4944

3225 27 30

147148

128

13.811.911.4

14.619.7

28.1

8.48.1

18.237.4

42.5

29.924.3

27.6 25.9 24.3

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

2006

Jan

March

May July

Septem

ber

Novem

ber

2007

Jan

March

May July

Septem

ber

Novem

ber

NUM

DENOM

TANF %