Applying Behavioral Science to Improve Participation in Work-Readiness Activities: Washington State

Using administrative data, the BIAS-NG team found that many DSHS clients who were assigned to a TANF work activity did not attend their work activity orientations, and fewer still completed their work activities within 13 months. The BIAS-NG team explored clients’ experiences during TANF intake sessions to identify behavioral bottlenecks (process factors that might reduce clients’ engagement) that kept clients from attending their work activity orientations and subsequent work activities. These behavioral bottlenecks—such as communications from the program that may have primed clients to think about the stigma associated with receiving cash welfare and cumbersome processes that could affect the likelihood of completing steps—were hypothesized to contribute to a lack of engagement. 

To address these behavioral bottlenecks, the BIAS-NG team designed an intervention that included two sets of print materials. These materials aimed to convey information about work activity options, participation expectations, and additional support services more accessibly. The BIAS-NG team and DSHS managers trained staff members to incorporate the materials into a modified intake session that used a structured set of prompts to guide clients in setting goals, reflecting on the personal benefits of TANF participation, and making plans for attending their work activity orientations. 

The BIAS-NG intervention was tested in five DSHS community service offices. Across these offices, a group of 20 staff members were randomly assigned to incorporate the intervention materials into their intake sessions with clients; their clients were the “intervention group.” Another 20 staff members were randomly assigned to lead business-as-usual intake sessions with clients, who were the “standard group.”  

Across both the intervention and standard groups, a total of 3,104 households were enrolled in the sample between October 2018 and February 2020. Administrative data suggest that the random assignment process worked as intended; the characteristics of clients in the two groups were not significantly different when they were enrolled. 

The design of the intervention relied on staff members to incorporate the intervention materials into their practice and conduct a modified intake session. To gauge how the intervention was implemented, the BIAS-NG team interviewed staff members and clients and observed intake sessions to explore whether materials were used as intended and whether clients in the two study groups received different experiences.  

Three lessons emerge from the test of the BIAS-NG intervention in Washington that have implications for TANF program-improvement efforts: 

• Align staffing policies to better support the goals of new tools. Although the intervention materials were designed to help staff members build rapport with clients, staffing and client-assignment procedures commonly used in TANF offices may have limited staff members’ ability to engage clients as intended and build this rapport. When implementing new tools, aligning policies and procedures with the goals of the new tools may help create the conditions needed for success. 

• Consider how existing management systems may conflict with the intended objectives of new tools and processes. Although DSHS leaders encouraged staff members to use the materials to have more in-depth conversations with clients, DSHS’s centralized timekeeping system—used for performance purposes—probably deterred staff members from spending more time with clients.  

• Work to get staff members to buy into the implementation of new policies. The BIAS-NG team collaborated with DSHS staff members to design the intervention; however, the staff members charged with implementing the BIAS-NG intervention were not the same as those involved in the design process. When designing new procedures and policies that will be dependent on staff participation, it is probably essential to solicit the involvement of those staff members who will be directly responsible for implementation at various levels (for example, direct service, strategy and monitoring, and systems of reporting).