Lookback Survey of Wilson Fish TANF Coordination Program Grant Recipients Over the Initial Project Period

OMB #: 0970-0531
Expiration Date: 9/30/2025

Wilson Fish TANF Coordination Program Lookback Survey
Thank you for participating in this survey. Your answers to these questions will help ORR
understand how the flexibilities available through the Wilson Fish TANF Coordination
discretionary program (WF TCP) were utilized in your programs during this project period. ORR
understands that WF TCP is a limited program and that many challenges facing your
organization and the refugee resettlement network at large are outside the program’s scope; these
questions are meant to cover the broad range of activities that could be offered through your
program and are not mean to indicate that your program should have addressed all populations
and/or services listed. These questions are intended to supplement information that you have
already provided ORR through the Semi-Annual Program Reports and other program documents.
Your responses to these questions are for ORR’s information only and will have no impact on
the upcoming Year 5 funding awards for the current project period. Participation is voluntary and
individual responses will be kept private. The survey will take about twenty minutes to complete.
ORR will compile an aggregated summary of the results to share with grantees.
1. Which client populations accessed WF services most often? (Please select one)
R&P clients (meaning: refugees and SIVs assured to a local resettlement agency
(LRA) by the Department of State)
Non-R&P clients (meaning: AHPs, UHPs, CHEs, Asylees, and SIVs not receiving
R&P services)
2. When did the majority of clients access WF services, regardless of any other factors that
may differ among them (i.e., immigration category or status)? (Please select one)
Between 1 – 90 days of arrival
Between 90 days and 12 months of arrival
Post-12 months of arrival

PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT OF 1995 (Public Law 104-13) STATEMENT OF PUBLIC BURDEN: The
purpose of this information collection is to understand the initial project period and experiences of the WF TCP
grant recipients to inform and support future efforts. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is
estimated to average 20 minutes per grantee, including the time for reviewing instructions, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and reviewing the collection of information. This is a voluntary collection of
information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of
information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, unless it displays a currently valid
OMB control number. The OMB # is 0970-0531 and the expiration date is 9/30/2025. If you have any comments on
this collection of information, please contact Abby Scott at [email protected].

3. In your state, are two-parent families able to receive TANF? (Please select one)

Yes
No
4. In your state, how long do WF TCP client families, on average, receive TANF? This can
be an estimation. (Please select one for each family type)
Two-parent families
Under 12 months
Between 12 and 18 months
Between 18 and 24 months
Over 24 months
Single-parent families
Under 12 months
Between 12 and 18 months
Between 18 and 24 months
Over 24 months
5. Using the scale below, how did the relationship with your state’s TANF office improve
as a result of this program? (Please select one)
As a result of the WF TCP in my state, my office’s relationship with the state TANF office
improved:
To a great extent
Somewhat
Very little
Not at all
2

6. Which client populations did your program design target? (Please select as many as are
relevant to your program design)

R&P clients
Non-R&P clients

Parents of unspecified or
other gender identity (of
two-parent families)

Male parents (of twoparent families)

Single parents (any
gender)

Female parents (of twoparent families)

Client families living
within a 100-mile radius of

WF TCP staff providing
services
Client families living
outside a 100-mile radius
of WF TCP staff providing
services

7. Of the populations you selected above, which client populations did not access WF TCP
services as you had anticipated and why? (Please select as many as are relevant to your
program design)
R&P clients

Female parents (of twoparent families)

Non-R&P clients
Male parents (of two-parent
families)

Parents of unspecified or
other gender identity (of twoparent families)

Client families living within a
100-mile radius of WF TCP
staff providing services
Client families living outside
a 100-mile radius of WF TCP
staff providing services

Single parents (any gender)

Reason(s) targeted population(s) did not access WF TCP services (Please select all that
are applicable)

Not enough interest from the population(s)
Overestimation of need within the population(s)
Services available from other providers
State-specific statutory barriers (if selected, provide a brief summary of
the statutory barrier)

3

State-specific systematic barriers (if selected, provide a brief summary of
the system barrier)

Restrictions on WF TCP funding prevented provision of specific services
(if selected, state which service(s))

8. What data did you use to determine the level of program effectiveness? If you collected
data that contributed to determining whether the program was effective in producing
positive outcomes for clients, please provide a description of the data and the outcome
indicators you measured. This can be program-wide or limited to a specific WF TCP
service and/or client population. Please note this question pertains to any data collection
conducted outside of ORR-required data collection. If you did not collect data on
program success, skip this question. (Please fill in the free text box below)

9. If your program offered geographically remote services, did these services vary based on
the locations in which they were offered? (Please select one)
Yes
No
4

10. If access to services for geographically remote clients varied, describe how and the
reasons for that variance. (Please select all that are applicable)
Geographically remote clients received Information & Referral services only
Geographically remote clients received Foundational Case Management only (i.e.,
did not receive any specialized services that were available to in-person clients
like digital literacy, etc.)
Services were not available to geographically remote clients through the local
TANF office/workforce development vendor that were available to in-person
clients through the local TANF office/workforce development vendor
Other:

11. Which service gaps were you able to fill with this program that you were not able to offer
through other ORR funded programming? (Please select from the options below as
applicable to your program)

Services to nonworking mothers
Services to single parents
Services to non-R&P arrivals who are living within a 100 mile radius of an LRA
who would not otherwise have had access to services
Services to non-R&P arrivals who are living outside a 100 mile radius of an LRA
who would not otherwise have had access to services
Digital literacy services
Financial literacy services
Refugee-focused employment services for recipients of TANF who would have
otherwise been provided employment services by the state’s mainstream
workforce development programming
Increased LRA and statewide staff knowledge of TANF policy and processes
5

Mainstream community resources that were not engaged prior to WF TCP (if
selected, please provide one or two examples of new community resource
connections that resulted from WF TCP):

12. What barriers to communication and coordination with the TANF office were not able to
be addressed through this program? (Please select all that are applicable)

Systems barriers to data sharing
Policy barriers to data sharing
Internal bureaucratic hierarchies made communication and coordination difficult
(state-administered)
WF TCP grantee’s position external to the state government bureaucracy made
communication and coordination difficult (RD)
WF TCP grantee’s position external to the state government bureaucracy made
communication and coordination difficult (LRAs that are not the stateadministered or RD SRC office)
Other:

13. What information delivery method(s) and/or content provided by ORR provide during the
course of the project period did you find helpful? (Please select from the below options)
Ad hoc email guidance
Quarterly calls – updates from co-leads (Abby and Kelly)
Quarterly calls – peer to peer discussion

6

One-on-one phone calls and/or emails between your state and the WF TCP coleads
TA provided during monitoring visits
WF TCP Tableau Dashboard
Other:

7