Purpose: Extensive research has documented the barriers to work faced by many current recipients of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families. Numerous programs seek to ameliorate the negative impacts of barriers so that families can move towards self-sufficiency. Barriers are typically identified through screening or more formal assessments when a client begins participation in a program and/or when a client has failed to complete a goal (Burt, 2002), but the fluctuations in the number and type of barriers over time has not been well documented in evaluations of these programs. This research project identified fluctuations in the type and number of barriers reported by clients who were participating in a community-based case management program which addresses the needs of welfare-to-work recipients who have significant barriers to employment. This paper explores the utility of tracking the barrier fluctuations during program participation and the challenges in interpretation.

Methods: The program was evaluated with quantitative analysis of administrative data. Case managers assessed strengths and barriers using a standardized questionnaire when clients entered the program. Case managers then completed an outcome barrier report that identified the number of barriers and presence/absence of progress with each identified barrier when the case was closed. The sample consisted of 249 clients who started the program between July 1 and November 30, 2003.

Results: When clients began the program, they reported having an average of 3.22 barriers. The majority of clients had barriers of unemployment and lack of childcare. Clients reported having an average of 3.28 barriers at closing, with unemployment for more than six months again the most frequently-experienced barrier. There was a significant difference in the number of barriers at closing (an average of .33 barriers) for those with pre/post data (t(133)= -2.238, two-tailed p=.027). Looking at pre/post changes alone, however, does not capture what occurred during the program. Examination of the fluctuations reveals that 46% of clients had a decrease in the number of barriers, 28% of clients had an increase, and 26% saw no change, reflecting a shift in the type and number of barriers over the course of the program. Finally, although the number of barriers did not significantly decrease, clients made progress with an average of 2.5 barriers. Progress without barrier removal reflects the challenge in eliminating those barriers that require a sufficient period of time (e.g., education, language, mental health issues). Tracking progress can therefore provide additional data to describe what occurred during program participation.

Implications: In addition to documenting barriers that had been eliminated, case managers identified new barriers while clients were participating in the program, reflecting the ongoing changes in clients' lives and/or the increased willingness to disclose needs due to the development of a working relationship. Case managers also documented progress with barriers. Strategies for data collection in research on welfare-to-work programs that identify barrier fluctuation and progress will provide more descriptive information that can inform program and policy design.