CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee is a joint, bipartisan, statutory committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. It was established in 1972 to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and statutory compliance of selected state agencies and programs, recommending remedies where needed. In 1975, the General Assembly expanded the committee's function to include investigations, and during the 1977 session added responsibility for "sunset" (automatic program termination) performance reviews. The committee was given authority to raise and report bills in 1985.

The program review committee is composed of 12 members. The president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, the speaker of the house, and the House minority leader each appoint three members.

2005-2006 Committee Members

Committee Staff

Carrie Vibert, Director

Catherine M. Conlin, Chief Analyst

Jill Jensen, Chief Analyst

Brian R. Beisel, Principal Analyst

Michelle Castillo, Principal Analyst

Maryellen Duffy, Principal Analyst

Miriam P. Kluger, Principal Analyst

Anne E. McAloon, Principal Analyst

Renee La Mark Muir, Principal Analyst

Scott M. Simoneau, Principal Analyst

Carrie O. Evangelinos, Legislative Analyst II

Bonnine T. Labbadia, Executive Secretary

Project Staff

Maryellen Duffy

Miriam P. Kluger

Chris Andrews, Legislative Fellow

STATE CAPITOL ROOM 506 HARTFORD, CT 06106 (860) 240-0300

Email: pri@cga.ct.gov www.cga.ct.gov/pri/index.htm

Legislative Program Review

& Investigations Committee

Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative

December 2006

CONNECTICUT'S WELFARE REFORM INITIATIVE

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1

I. An Overview of Welfare Reform in Connecticut 5

Background 6

Jobs First Administrative Organization 7

Key Features of Connecticut's Jobs First 9

Work Participation Rate Requirements under Federal Law 11

II. Jobs First Caseload and Funding Trends 15

Overall Jobs First Caseload 15

Jobs First Employment Services (Time-Limited Clients) 18

Jobs First Expenditure Trends 25

III. Jobs First Program Client Process 31

Initial Jobs First Eligibility Determination 31

Employment Plan Activities 38

TFA Extensions and Sanctioning 39

IV. Programs Available for Jobs First Program Recipients 45

Jobs First Employment Services (JFES) 45

Empowering People for Success Program 45

Transitionary Rental Assistance Program 48

Diversion Program 49

Care 4 Kids 49

Food Stamps 50

Medicaid 50

V. Description of TFA Study Sample Population 51

Key Findings 51

Sample Compilation 53

Description of Approved TFA Applicants in Sample 55

Description of Time on Cash Assistance 56

Financial Condition of Families in Study Sample at Case Opening 63

VI. Jobs First Employment Services: Study Sample Experience 67

Key Findings 67

JFES Orientation 69

Study Sample Participation Rates in JFES Activities 71

JFES Activities and Barriers to Employment 73

VII. Performance Outcomes for Study Sample 75

Key Findings 75

JFES Program Goal Outcomes: Earnings and Independence from TFA 77

WIB Performance Measures 82

Reason for Case Closing 85

Financial Condition of Families Before, During and After TFA 87

Factors Associated with Outcomes 94

Returning to TFA 99

VIII. Federal and State Earned Income Tax Credit 105

Federal Earned Income Tax Credit 105

State Earned Income Tax Credit 108

IX. Measures of Poverty and Connecticut's TFA Payment Standard 113

Federal Poverty Thresholds 113

Poverty Levels in Connecticut 115

Eligibility for TFA and Connecticut's Payment Standard 116

Self-Sufficiency Measure for Connecticut 119

X. Strategies to Achieve TANF Work Participation Rates 125

Removing Certain TFA Client Groups from WPR 129

Exempt Status for Women with Children under Age One 130

Eliminating Financial Cliffs 131

Engage Families in Work Activities More Quickly 135

Fully Engaging Families Already Involved in Work Activities 135

Using Sanctions to Reduce Noncompliance 135

XI. Verification and Monitoring 137

Plan Content 137

Federal Monitoring with Plan Compliance 138

Eligibility and Staffing 139

Monitoring of JFES Performance 143

Other Reporting Activities 146

APPENDICES

A. PRI Staff Contact with Organizations/Interested Parties and Trends in Interviews

B. Comparison of Welfare Program Key Provisions in Selected Other States

C. TFA Payment Regions by Town

D. Definitions of Allowable Work Activities to Count Toward WPR under DRA

E. Counters for Time-Limited TFA Cases

F. JFES Program Operating Principles

G. Study Sample Compared with Connecticut TFA Population

H. Comparison of Families in Urban, Suburban, and Rural Areas

I. Connecticut TFA Recipients that Received TANF in Another State

J. Time When Sample Clients First Began Receiving Time-Limited Cash Assistance

K. Number of Extensions for Time-Limited and Exempt Families

L. Sanctioning Process

M. Reason for JFES Exemption and Differentiating Characteristics

N. Demographic Differences Across the Three DSS Regions

O. Department of Social Services: Town Codes by Region and Office

P. Demographic Differences Across WIB Regions

Q. Additional Information About Barriers to Employment

R. Change in Assets and Income from TFA Opening to Closing

S. TFA Recipients and Food Stamps, Housing, Child Care, and Health Insurance Assistance

T. Activities Participated in By JFES Clients Previously in the Program

U. JFES Activities and Literacy Level

V. Financial Condition at Various Points in Time

W. Financial Condition Over Time for JFES Active, Inactive, and Exempt Clients

X. Percent of Clients Employed Above the TFA Payment Standard

Y. Percent of JFES Active, Inactive and Exempt Clients Earning Above the Federal Poverty Level

Z. Reason for Case Closure for Exempt Families

AA. Financial Condition of Exempt Families Caring for a Child Under One or Due to Temporary Incapacity

BB. Outcomes for Time-Limited Non-JFES Participants

CC. Number of Times Households Cycled On and Off TFA Between October 2003 and August 2006

DD. Employment Sectors for JFES Active, Inactive, and Exempt Clients

EE. Percent of People Below Poverty Using EITC by State, 2003

FF. State TANF Work Participation Rate Gaps to Avoid Federal Penalties in FFY 2007

GG. Agency Responses

Executive Summary

Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative

The Jobs First program, Connecticut's welfare program, is financed by both the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and state matching funds, known as Maintenance of Effort (MOE) funds. There are two parts to the Jobs First program – temporary family assistance (TFA), which gives cash benefits to clients, and the Jobs First Employment Services (JFES) program, which provides employment services to TFA recipients who are not considered “exempt” from work requirements. For these “time-limited” clients participating in the JFES program, cash assistance is limited to 21 months (although extensions to the time limits are possible) and recipients are required to work or participate in employment services. TFA recipients who are exempt from the JFES program fall under specific exemption categories, and their status can change from exempt to time-limited if their circumstances change.

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee authorized a study of Connecticut's welfare reform initiative in April 2006. The scope of study approved by the committee required the review to: 1) describe the exempt and non-exempt families currently enrolled in the Jobs First program by comparing barriers to employment, financial conditions, and the services received by each group; 2) evaluate the implementation and success of the JFES program including measuring the level of economic change experienced by participants; and 3) describe how Connecticut has allocated its TANF block grant and related state funds.

The TANF block grant was reauthorized in February 2006 by Congress under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 and contains several changes that will affect how states operate their programs. A major change will require Connecticut to more than double the number of time-limited clients participating in work activities -- from about 2,200 clients to almost 5,000. Failure to meet federally mandated work participation rates (WPRs) could result in a reduction of TANF funds because of potential penalties imposed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

The committee believes the goal of the state's welfare program should be focused on not only engaging many more clients in work activities that lead them towards employment in order to meet these aggressive work rates, but to help families become and remain better off. Thus, the reauthorization also provides an opportunity to reassess state policies and set new goals that will help Jobs First clients meet with success. These goals should include helping families address barriers to employment, such as attaining a GED or high school diploma, identification and treatment of substance abuse, and offering work supports to promote employment retention.

The report describes the Jobs First program, highlighting caseload and funding trends, and analyzes recipient characteristics, JFES experience, and outcomes for families based on a study sample of 1,278 welfare clients (1,171 families). The report also discusses the federal earned income tax credit, explains how different poverty measures are used to identify the poor, proposes a variety of recommendations aimed at increasing the work participation rates in Connecticut, and discusses federal requirements regarding how states must verify that clients are actually engaged in work activities.

Welfare Caseload and Funding Trends

The program review committee found that the Jobs First caseload decreased sharply from approximately 59,000 families in FY 96 to about 20,000 in June 2006. Combined federal TANF block grant and state matching MOE funds totaled $469.1 million in FFY 06 and were used to fund more than 60 programs across 12 state agencies, departments, and offices.

Welfare Recipient Characteristics and Experience with JFES

Program review committee staff compiled a database consisting of 1,278 Jobs First clients that were granted TFA in October 2003. Based on the study sample, three-quarters were found to have previously received cash assistance, some dating back to the 1990s. Many families faced barriers to employment such as lack of transportation, child care, high school diploma or GED, low math and reading skills, and limited work history.

The committee found that while there was a host of possible JFES work activities, only four were used with any regularity: job search/job readiness; unsubsidized employment; vocational education; and education directly related to employment.

Outcomes for Welfare Families

Approximately one-quarter of the committee's study sample left welfare earning above the federal poverty level; however, there was a dramatic drop in financial condition for many of the families, with almost half of JFES clients having no earnings in the quarter after they left cash assistance. The committee found that the current safety net programs need to be used more often, as early as possible, and be available to those who are unable to seek or maintain employment despite making a good faith effort.

The program review committee also found that more favorable outcomes occurred when JFES clients participated in three or more types of JFES activities, rather than just job search/job readiness training, for example. More favorable outcomes were also associated with having more education (at least a high school diploma or GED), work history and wages prior to TFA case opening, and staying on cash assistance a shorter period of time.

Overall, there were a number of families exempt from work participation with earnings --some above the federal poverty level -- and there were other families mandated to participate in the JFES program who were not doing so. Some of the difficulty in monitoring families and their earned income and JFES participation is attributed to the current Department of Social Services (DSS) automated system Eligibility Management System (EMS), which was found to have significant limitations.

Given the pressure faced by the state, it is clear that the two agencies responsible for aspects of Connecticut's welfare program, DSS and the Department of Labor (DOL), need to make every effort to capture working clients in the WPR and ensure all required clients are participating in JFES. The current DSS automated system is a serious barrier to agency staff efficiently and effectively performing their responsibilities.

Earned Income Tax Credit and Poverty Measures

The Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) is a tax credit that is used by the federal and some state governments for low-income working individuals and families. The committee found Connecticut participation in the federal EITC is low compared to states with similar demographics that have their own EITC programs.

The Standard of Need is used to determine eligibility for TFA, and a separate measure, the Payment Standard, is used to determine the amount of the cash benefit received by families. Neither standard, though, has been updated since the early 1990s. In addition to increasing cash benefits, the committee recommends a revised measure of poverty be established to determine TFA eligibility and the level of cash benefits.

Recommendations for Increasing Work Participation Rate

Clients have historically faced difficult hurdles in obtaining and maintaining employment especially given two features of the Jobs First program: low client payments and the significant drop-off in payments that occurs between the 21^st and 22^nd month. The TFA cash benefit amount has not been increased since 1991 and actually was reduced in 1995. In addition, although Connecticut allows clients to earn up to the federal poverty level (FPL) without eliminating cash assistance during the 21-month time limit, after that, clients are ineligible if their incomes exceed the very low TFA cash benefit amount, not the FPL. This policy creates a very large and abrupt financial cliff at the very time a client needs this work support. The committee believes that both these issues need to be addressed if the state is going to improve its work participation rate as required by federal law. In the absence of meeting the work participation rate, the state will potentially face financial sanctions, resources that could go to address these two key problems.

Work Activity Verification Requirements

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued interim regulations requiring states to submit a plan detailing how states would ensure clients are actually participating in scheduled activities for the required number of hours as mandated under federal law.

The committee found that the JFES case manager-to- client ratios are too high given the fact that the case managers will be responsible for doubling the number of JFES clients engaged in countable work activities, as well as having the additional administrative burden of verifying client participation in those activities.

Further, more frequent verification of client employment is needed because while case managers make work projections for six-month periods based on a single month of employment, the majority of clients work less than a six-month period.

Recommendations

The committee adopted the following 30 recommendations:

1. The Department of Social Services (DSS) should find a simple way to identify child-only cases, such as adding this category to the reason for exemption menu in EMS.

2. EMS levels of alerts should be developed by DSS so that when quarterly wages are found to be above the Federal Poverty Level, they are tagged as a high priority alert, and the appropriate parties can then further research the family's earned wages.

3. The Department of Social Services should begin exploring software options to enhance the current Eligibility Management System in a way that will support staff and management in their efforts to efficiently and effectively perform their responsibilities.

4. DSS should give added attention to monitoring families that change from exempt to time-limited status.

5. To more accurately capture families whose cases close because they are earning above the federal poverty level, and therefore receive credit in the work participation rate calculations, DSS should check available wage databases such as the DOL Earned Wage Database and New Hire Wage Database, and update information accordingly.

6. DSS should strengthen its case monitoring to reduce the number of time-limited families that are not enrolled in JFES but are still receiving cash assistance.

7. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112e shall be amended to increase the use of the Employment Success Program, Prevention Services, and the Safety Net Program to address barriers to employment as early as possible. Requirements regarding the number of sanctions and time-limitations for delivery of the three programs should be relaxed, and clients who have made a good faith effort to seek and maintain employment or who are at risk of unsuccessfully completing the Jobs First Employment Services Program should be served in addition to the current clients served who have not made a good faith effort.

8. DOL should increase the intensity of the JFES program by increasing the number of different types of JFES activities that clients participate in as a way to increase JFES program success.

9. More emphasis should be placed on helping TFA recipients gain their GED or high school diploma, including consideration of requiring time-limited clients to enroll in an adult education program if they have been unable to secure employment after trying for one year.

10. More emphasis should be placed on identifying and treating substance abuse.

11. JFES staff should encourage families to prepare for and find employment in the more lucrative sectors.

12. The Departments of Social Services and Labor should use the following strategies to increase federal EITC filing participation rates:

• discuss the EITC at regular client meetings;

• advertise with posters and flyers in agency offices;

• insert information in agency mailings to clients; and

• partner with utility companies to include EITC information in mailings with billing statements.

13. There shall be a study comparing the costs and benefits of adopting a state earned income tax credit program at either 5 percent, 10 percent, 15 percent or 20 percent of the federal earned income tax credit as opposed to using the funds for programs that address barriers to employment, such as child care and transportation.

14. The Payment Standard shall be increased to the current Standard of Need. The new Payment Standard would be temporary while a more valid methodology for determining the Standard of Need is developed.

15. The Department of Social Services shall revise the methodology used to establish the Standard of Need for determining eligibility for cash assistance programs and establish payment thresholds consistent with those standards by January 1, 2008. Such standards shall be updated each fiscal year by the Consumer Price Index for urban consumers. The standards may vary by geographical areas and family size. Such standards shall be based on studies of actual living costs and generally recognized inflation indices and shall include reasonable allowances for childcare, shelter, fuel, food, transportation, clothing, household maintenance and operations, personal maintenance, and necessary incidentals. Separate standards may be established for families that reside in subsidized or public housing. Other public in-kind benefits shall be considered when establishing the standards.

16. Two-parent families enrolled in the Jobs First program should be funded with Separate State Funds.

17. C.G.S. Section 17b-112(a) shall be amended to allow portions of the Temporary Family Assistance program to operate outside the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program.

18. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112(b)(4) shall be amended to limit the exemption for a single custodial parent caring for a child who is under six months of age rather than one year old.

19. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112(d) shall be amended so that a TFA client who earns at or above the FPL during the initial 21-months of TFA eligibility shall have his or her TFA benefit reduced by one-third for three months and an additional one-third for the next three months before becoming ineligible for TFA.

20. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112(c) shall be amended so that the state's maximum 60-month time limit shall be suspended so these benefits do not count toward the state time limit.

21. The Department of Social Services shall determine if a client should be granted an extension of Temporary Family Assistance using the Standard of Need as the financial measure. If a client is eligible for a second or subsequent extension and does not earn at or above the Standard of Need, the client shall receive the full TFA benefit.

22. If a non-exempt family's gross income is below the Federal Poverty Level at the 21-month time limit but above the Standard of Need, the family shall be eligible for two income supplements for three months each. The income supplements shall be a continuation of TFA but at reduced levels. The first supplement shall result in a benefit reduction of one-third of the benefit. If a family receives a second income supplement because income is still below the Federal Poverty Level, the benefit shall be reduced by an additional third.

23. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112(c) shall be amended so that the state's maximum 60-month time limit shall be suspended so these benefits do not count toward the state time limit.

24. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112(d)(3)(c) shall be amended to increase the child support income disregard for the TFA program from $50 to $100.

25. Jobs First Employment Services case managers should review a client's Care 4 Kids application before the client submits it to the Care 4 Kids program in order to ensure it has been completed correctly and the proper documentation has been included with the application.

26. The Department of Social Services should examine its sanction policy to identify issues with regard to inconsistent and/or low enforcement.

27. JFES case managers should verify client employment on a monthly basis by having clients provide copies of pay stubs.

28. C.G.S. Sec. 17b-698 shall be amended to transfer the responsibility of evaluating job training programs funded by the Department of Labor from the commissioner of the Department of Social Services to the commissioner of the Department of Labor.

29. Access to the earned wage database reported by employers to the Department of Labor shall be provided to the Workforce Investment Boards so that they are able to provide outcome information as required by law.

30. The Department of Labor should develop a reasonable definition of employment that will fairly measure the number of JFES clients employed in a given wage quarter and whether they have retained employment in subsequent quarters. The definition should include the length of time a client must be working to be considered employed and the amount of wages a client must have earned in a particular quarter.

Introduction

Welfare Reform

The Jobs First program, Connecticut's welfare program, is financed by both the federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant and state funds. There are two parts to the Jobs First program – temporary family assistance (TFA), which gives cash benefits to clients, and the Jobs First Employment Services (JFES) program, which provides employment services to TFA recipients who are not considered “exempt” from work requirements. For these “time-limited” clients participating in the JFES program, cash assistance is limited to 21 months (although extensions to the time limits are possible) and recipients are required to work or participate in employment services. TFA recipients who are exempt from the JFES program fall under specific exemption categories, and their status can change from exempt to time-limited if their circumstances change.

In April 2006, the program review committee authorized a study of Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative. The scope of study approved by the committee required the review to: 1) describe the exempt and non-exempt families currently enrolled in the Jobs First program by comparing barriers to employment, financial conditions, and the services received by each group; 2) evaluate the implementation and success of the JFES program including measuring the level of economic change experienced by participants; and 3) describe how Connecticut has allocated its TANF block grant and related state funds.

The TANF program was reauthorized in February 2006 by Congress under the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 and contains several changes that will affect how states operate their programs. A major change will require Connecticut to more than double the number of time-limited clients participating in work activities. Failure to meet federally mandated work participation rates (WPRs) could result in the loss of TANF funds.

The committee finds that the changes in the DRA have increased the pressure on states, including Connecticut, to enroll clients in countable activities in order to meet WPRs. As a result, the JFES program, as currently structured, will most likely fail to meet the WPR without program changes and thus the state faces potential penalties (a $13 million reduction in the TANF block grant received the first year and steeper reductions in subsequent years).

Connecticut will face considerable obstacles in meeting the new federal work participation rates. However, based on the results of a sample of welfare clients, the committee made a number of findings that suggest steps the state can take to improve its work participation rate, some administrative:

• there are some exempt and time-limited clients who are working but currently are not being counted toward the WPR;

• some time-limited clients are not participating in JFES and are falling through the cracks even though their 21-month time counters are running;

• many single mothers, while exempt from participating in JFES due to caring for a child under one, actually have jobs;

• most individual JFES activities do not make much of a difference in terms of clients obtaining employment but the combination of multiple types of activities do; and

• clients frequently switch between exempt and time-limited status.

Given the pressure faced by the state, it is clear that the two agencies responsible for aspects of Connecticut's welfare program, the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Labor (DOL), need to make every effort to capture working clients in the WPR and ensure all required clients are participating in JFES. The current DSS automated system is a serious barrier to agency staff efficiently and effectively performing their responsibilities.

The committee found many families left cash assistance without jobs. The current safety net programs need to be used more often as early as possible, and be available to those who are unable to seek or maintain employment despite making a good faith effort.

The committee believes the goal of the state's welfare program should be focused on not only engaging many more clients in work activities that lead them towards employment in order to meet these aggressive work rates, but to help families become and remain better off. Thus, the reauthorization also provides an opportunity to reassess state policies and set new goals that will help Jobs First clients meet with success. These goals should include helping families address barriers to employment, such as attaining a GED or high school diploma, identification and treatment of substance abuse, and offering work supports to promote employment retention.

Recommendations put forth by the committee focus on rewarding work in order for families to achieve economic and employment stability. Clients have historically faced difficult hurdles in obtaining and maintaining employment especially given two features of the Jobs First program: low client payments and the significant drop-off in payments that occurs between the 21^st and 22^nd month. The TFA cash benefit amount has not been increased since 1991 and actually was reduced in 1995. In addition, although Connecticut allows clients to earn up to the federal poverty level (FPL) without eliminating cash assistance during the 21-month time limit, after that, clients are ineligible if their incomes exceed the very low TFA cash benefit amount, not the FPL. This policy creates a very large and abrupt financial cliff at the very time a client needs this work support. The committee believes that both these issues need to be addressed if the state is going to improve its work participation rate as required by federal law. In the absence of meeting the work participation rate, the state will face financial sanctions, resources that could have gone to address these two key problems.

Another program that supports working families is a state earned income tax credit (EITC). Currently, the committee found Connecticut participation in the federal EITC is low compared to states with similar demographics that have their own EITC programs. Thus, it also is an effective way for a state to maximize participation in the Federal EITC program. Therefore, the committee recommends a study comparing the costs and benefits of adopting a state earned income tax credit program versus using the funds for programs that address barriers to employment, such as child care and transportation.

Methods

Program review committee staff reviewed national literature as well as Connecticut specific studies conducted on welfare. Federal and state laws and regulations, as well as DSS policies and procedures governing TANF, were also examined. The committee held a public hearing in October 2006 to solicit testimony from clients, advocacy groups, DSS, DOL, and others on the impact of Connecticut's welfare reform initiative.

Committee staff also conducted a multitude of on-site interviews with key stakeholders. These included legislators, legislative staff, members of the TANF Council, DSS and DOL central office and regional staff, Connecticut Employment and Training Commission (CETC) members, staff from the Office of Workforce Competitiveness (OWC), directors of the Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), and advocacy organizations. Appendix A contains a list of the more than 20 organizations and other interested parties interviewed and a summary of the trends found in these interviews.

Program review committee staff compiled a database consisting of 1,278 Jobs First clients that were granted TFA in October 2003. Answers to many of the study questions are based on the background and experiences of these clients throughout their time on TFA, in contrast to a snapshot approach of all TFA recipients at a given point in time. Committee staff built a database from four automated sources: 1) DSS' Eligibility Management System; 2) DOL's CTWorks Business System; 3) DOL's Wage Records Database; and 4) DOL's Unemployment Insurance Benefits Database.

The study also provides additional information on current federal and state welfare funding streams, changes that occurred over time during the transition from AFDC to TANF funding, and the types of programs being funded.

Report Format

The report contains eleven chapters. Chapter One provides an overview of welfare reform in Connecticut, discusses the administrative structure of the program, and outlines major program components. The second chapter identifies funding sources available to operate the TFA and JFES programs and provides caseload and funding trends. Chapter Three describes the case flow process from initial application for TFA through system exit. Chapter Four examines the programs available for TFA recipients. Chapters Five, Six, and Seven analyze recipient characteristics contained in the 1,278 sample cases (representing 1,171 families), describe their experiences with JFES, and examine outcomes of the sample client population.

Chapter Eight discusses the federal earned income tax and proposes study of a state EITC program for Connecticut. Chapter Nine explains how different poverty measures are used to identify the poor and recommendations are put forth modifying the thresholds for TFA eligibility and extension criteria. Chapter Ten proposes a variety of recommendations aimed at increasing the work participation rates in Connecticut. Finally, the last chapter discusses federal requirements regarding how states must verify that clients are actually engaged in work activities, and outcomes reported by various state agencies and other organizations. Committee recommendations may be found in the relevant chapters.

Agency Response

It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to a study with an opportunity to review and comment on the recommendations prior to publication of the final report. Appendix GG contains responses from the Department of Social Services and the Department of Labor.

Chapter One

An Overview of Welfare Reform in Connecticut

Connecticut's welfare system has undergone dramatic changes in the 13 years since the Department of Social Services initially obtained a waiver in 1993 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). The waiver, which was modified in 1995, allowed Connecticut to deviate from the rules of the earlier national welfare program called Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), now referred to as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, and be one of the first states in the country to embark on a major reform of its welfare system. Implemented in 1996, Connecticut's Reach for Jobs First program, renamed Jobs First in 1997, uses a three-prong approach to encourage clients to transition from welfare to work:

1. a limitation of 21 months of cash assistance, called “Temporary Family Assistance” for certain welfare recipients classified as time-limited (although extensions to the time limits are possible);

2. a “work-first” approach, requiring recipients to work or participate in employment services intended to assist in finding jobs quickly (called the “Jobs First Employment Services Program”); and

3. a financial work incentive that permits employed recipients to retain their full welfare grant for up to two years.

Figure I-1 shows a timeline of key legislative actions to reform welfare, beginning in 1992 when the Connecticut General Assembly established a task force to study whether the welfare system needed to be changed. As the timeline shows, there have been several modifications to the state and federal welfare system, culminating in the recent passage of the Federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 that reauthorizes TANF until the year 2010. The DRA modifies welfare further by strengthening work requirements and requiring states to verify that clients are actually engaged in work activities. These changes are discussed fully in Chapters Ten and Eleven of this report.

Components of federal welfare reform. In August 1996, six months after Connecticut began implementing the Reach for Jobs First program, the U.S. Congress passed national legislation -- the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (P.L. 104-193, also known as PRWORA). Eliminating entitlement programs such as AFDC, Emergency Assistance (EA), and Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) programs under Title IV of the Social Security Act, PRWORA embraced many of the reforms that were already underway in Connecticut. The act established the TANF program, a non-entitlement federal block grant, which replaced the AFDC entitlement program. The federal law established a five-year lifetime limit for assistance for most recipients and mandated work requirements.

Under PRWORA, states were given flexibility to design their programs within certain parameters. The act changed the welfare funding formula by replacing the open-ended federal funding of AFDC that matched state expenditures, with the federal TANF block grant that provides fixed federal funding and requires a specified matching level of state spending, called maintenance of effort (MOE). Under AFDC, Connecticut received a 50 percent federal match regardless of enrollment caseload.

The new law shifted the fiscal risk for managing the program's costs from the federal government to the states. As a result, states were given broader discretion over the types of services and activities to fund in order to meet welfare reform goals and could set different eligibility criteria depending on the type of program being offered. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act tightened some requirements, restricting discretion over what are allowable work activities.

Jobs First Administrative Organization

Administration of the Jobs First program is currently divided between two state agencies -- DSS and DOL. The social services department determines eligibility for benefits and administers the cash assistance portion of the program (TFA). Most Jobs First clients also receive other assistance from DSS-administered programs, including medical services under the HUSKY program, food stamps, daycare under the Care 4 Kids program and rental assistance; all described more fully in Chapter Four.

The labor department operates the employment services portion of the program, called JFES, for clients that are time-limited. Time-limited clients are non-exempt from job requirements and must participate in job activities and are, as the term implies, cut off from cash assistance after a period of time. The JFES program provides employment services such as job search assistance and skills training to time-limited Jobs First clients. The department contracts for these services through CTWorks -- a partnership of the Department of Labor, five regional Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs), and other state and local agencies -- to promote workforce development. The JFES program is described in Chapter Four.

Organizational structure. Figure I-2 shows the relationship between the entities involved in the operation of the Jobs First program. The WIBs are statutorily required under federal law and receive federal funds under WIA, the federal Workforce Investment Act. They also receive state MOE funds through contracts with the Connecticut labor department who contract with the WIBs for case management services. The WIBs, in turn, subcontract for case management services to develop Jobs First clients' employment plans and perform assessments (WIBs are prohibited by state and federal laws from operating any program without special exception). WIBs also contract with a variety of other programs, described later in this report, based on client assessment outcomes. The Connecticut Department of Labor retains part of JFES funding for direct employment services that are provided in the region and assist clients with job search activities. Clients actually access services at one of 14 state “one-stop centers,” known as Connecticut Works (CTWorks) centers. JFES case managers and DOL regional staff are located at these centers.

Interagency Design Group. The JFES Design Group (referred to in Figure I-2) was informally established in order to monitor the implementation of the JFES program and to address issues of concern among various stakeholders. The group meets monthly and includes three representatives each from DOL, DSS, and each of the WIBs. The group is responsible for promoting continuous improvement in JFES and initiating new policies to meet client needs.

TANF Council

State law (C.G.S. Sec. 17b-29) establishes a statutory oversight council, created initially in 1994 to oversee the implementation of the federal waiver for the AFDC program. Its charge was modified in 1997; the council is now required to monitor the Jobs First program. The council meets at least quarterly and DSS and DOL update the council on TFA and JFES implementation. The council submits recommendations to each of these agencies on issues including child care, family planning and pregnancy prevention information, client education rights and responsibility, Medicaid coordination, time limits and increased sanctions, and the fiscal impact of program changes.

Most recently, the council has held meetings to determine what the impact of the recently adopted federal DRA and ensuing regulations on Connecticut's TFA population will be, how funding will be affected, and whether program delivery and services offered need to be modified. The council will continue to monitor and make recommendations on how DSS and DOL should implement these changes.

Key Features of Connecticut's Jobs First Program

Eligibility criteria. Table I-1 shows the key components of the Jobs First program as it is currently operated (for information on selected other states' programs, see Appendix B). To be eligible for the Jobs First program, families and pregnant women must meet the definition of a needy family. Connecticut defines a needy family as one with gross income less than 75% of CT's median income level¹ and include a dependent child and a caretaker relative.² There are also asset limits that are shown in the table. A dependent child must be either:

• less than 18 years of age;

• 18 years of age and attending secondary school or its equivalent; or

• less than 24 years of age and attending a postsecondary school and considered a dependent student through the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) process.

A Jobs First client must comply with other provisions of the law, including any child support enforcement actions needed, and participate in JFES if a non-exempt individual. The program requirements, including agency administration and responsibilities, are described more fully in Chapter Three.

Time-limited versus exempt clients. Table 1-1 also shows the criteria used to determine if a case is time-limited (i.e., non-exempt) or exempt from job participation requirements. The major criteria used to determine whether a client is time-limited or exempt from time limits and job requirements are described fully in Chapter Three.

Work Participation Rate Requirements under Federal Law

In order for states to receive full TANF block grant funding, federal law requires states to prove that a certain number of their welfare recipients are involved in work activities by meeting federally specified work participation rates. The 1996 law reforming the welfare system (PRWORA) provided for a phase-in of the WPR requirements. Beginning in 1997, states had to have 25 percent of their caseloads participating in countable work activities--with five percent annual increases each year -- to meet a WPR of 50 percent of all time-limited families by 2002 (and 90 percent for two-parent welfare families). The phase-in gave states time to change their welfare programs from providing ongoing cash assistance to preparing welfare recipients to enter the workforce. Also, a caseload reduction credit, described later in Chapter Ten, provided further relief for states.

The reauthorization of the TANF block grant program under the federal DRA ushers in many changes. The act significantly increases the number of adults that states must have meet the TANF work participation requirements and adds new verification requirements that states must adhere to in documenting the number of hours that adult members of these families are engaged in work activities. As a result, states will be facing considerable pressures over the next year to substantially increase the percent of welfare recipients engaged in work activities in order to meet federally mandated WPR. Failure to meet the higher WPR, or to follow the verification procedures, could result in significant fiscal penalties being imposed on states.

Specifically, the DRA makes four key changes to the WPR structure. It:

• modifies the caseload reduction credit so that as of October 1, 2006, adjustments to participation rates are based on caseload declines after 2005 rather than after 1995;

• specifies that as of October 1, 2006, a state's participation rate calculation will be based on the combined number of families receiving assistance in TANF and state-funded programs that count toward the state's MOE requirement.³ (Programs funded solely with state MOE dollars did not count toward work rates under the previous law.);

• requires HHS adopt regulations no later than June 30, 2006, specifying uniform methods for reporting hours of work, the type of documentation needed to verify reported hours of work, whether an activity can be treated as one of the federally listed work activities for purposes of participation rates, and the circumstances under which a parent who resides with a child receiving assistance should be included in the work participation rates; and

• establishes two penalties – one if a state fails to meet the WPR (5 percent of a state's TANF block grant the first year) and a separate penalty of up to 5 percent of a state's block grant if a state fails to implement verification procedures and internal controls consistent with the regulations (this is discussed in the Chapter Eleven).

Effective October 1, 2006, the all-families work participation requirement is 50 percent and the two-parent work participation requirement is 90 percent; both rates are then reduced by the number of percentage points by which the state's caseload falls below 2005 levels for reasons other than eligibility rule changes.

Impact on Connecticut

To increase work participation rates significantly, states will have to engage more recipients in welfare-to-work activities. Based on July 2006 estimates produced by Connecticut's labor department, 9,972 Jobs First recipients will be federally mandated to participate and 4,986 (50 percent) will need to meet the federal participation requirements. Based on this data, the Departments of Labor and Social Services estimate that about 2,181 Jobs First recipients were engaged in work activities that meet the 30-hour threshold needed to count toward inclusion in the WPR. Thus, Connecticut faces a major and very difficult undertaking, given that Connecticut will have to increase participation by 128 percent.

The penalty for not meeting the participation requirements is up to 5 percent ($13 million) of Connecticut's $266.8 million TANF Block Grant the first year and would increase by 2 percent ($5 million) per year for each subsequent year of noncompliance.

The new work mandates will require the commitment of additional resources not only to the JFES program, but also to the state's child care program, Care 4 Kids. Jobs First program changes will focus on how to quickly increase Connecticut's WPRs in order to avoid hefty federal monetary penalties and identify better strategies to engage more Jobs First recipients in work activities. Any debate will most likely include whether the Jobs First program, as it is currently structured, is adequate or should be modified to provide more support to clients facing significant barriers to employment and/or increase opportunities for working clients to achieve greater economic self-sufficiency. Committee recommendations aimed at increasing the WPR are contained in Chapter Ten.

WPR components. The WPR has two components and is unchanged by the 2005 DRA It applies to cash assistance recipients who must participate in work activities (non-exempt) and includes the:

• minimum number of hours Jobs First non-exempt recipients must participate in order to be counted as engaged in work activities (shown in Table I-2); and

• percentage of Jobs First non-exempt recipients that a state must have engaged in work activities (50 percent for single-parent and 90 percent for two-parent).

Types of activities that states can count toward meeting WPRs. Federal law outlines 12 categories of work activities that count in calculating WPR (Table I-3). These are further subdivided into two types -- core and non-core activities. As the table shows, only a few of the core activities are limited for WPR purposes while those in the non-core category all have time restrictions imposed. Hours spent in some non-core activities do not count toward the WPR unless 20 hours are also spent in other countable core activities. A more detailed description of each of these activities is found in Appendix D.

TANF reauthorization. Reauthorization of DRA makes several significant changes, effective October 1, 2006, that will impact countable work activities. Under PRWORA, states were given considerable flexibility in defining allowable work activities as long as they fell into one of the twelve categories. However, the General Accountability Office (GAO) issued a study in 2005 that found states used a range of different definitions and there was little consistency among states.⁴ The report further noted some states counted questionable activities with little oversight by the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Thus, a state's high participation rate in a given activity may indicate actual high participation in a distinct set of activities, or it may reflect differences in definitions -- for example, one state included activities to promote a healthier life style, such as personal journaling, motivational reading, exercise at home, smoking cessation, and weight loss promotion as a Job Search/Job Readiness activity; while other states did not allow this.

As a result of the GAO study, DRA requires the adoption of federal regulations that define:

• the specific work activities that are “countable” toward the WPR (rather than allowing states to use their own definitions of activities); and

• uniform methods for tracking, verifying, and reporting each recipient's participation hours.

Interim regulations were issued on June 29, 2006. The department accepted comments on the regulations until August 28, 2006, and the interim regulations are effective as published until HHS revises them. The department asked states that believe they cannot meet the required participation rates without state legislative action to submit comments explaining why and to make suggestions on how HHS should use the “reasonable cause” exemption to provide penalty relief.

Although the new work definitions will not have any significant adverse consequences for Connecticut since the state's definitions were similar (and Connecticut adopted the federal definitions as of October 1, 2006), the state will need to develop a process that will track and validate recipient participation in countable work activities. All states were required to submit plans to HHS for approval on how they will verify work participation by clients. Connecticut's plan is described in detail in Chapter Eleven.

Summary

There have been many changes to Connecticut's welfare program since family entitlement to cash assistance (AFDC) was eliminated in 1996 and the state moved to a time-limited program with work participation requirements for many of its recipients (TANF). Since then, cash assistance spending has fallen over the decade, driven by declining caseloads, no cost-of-living increases granted since 1991, and an actual reduction in payment in 1995.

Additional program changes are contained in the 2005 DRA that reauthorized the federal TANF program. Effective October 1, 2006, the DRA modifies TANF by significantly increasing the number of adults that states must have meet the TANF work participation requirements, defining acceptable work activities, and requiring states to verify time-limited recipients are actively engaged in work activities. The act requires more TANF recipients be engaged in work activities or states could receive significant fiscal penalties in the form of TANF block grant reductions. Issues surrounding how work participation rates will be calculated to determine if states are meeting the DRA are discussed in Chapter Ten.

Chapter Two

Jobs First Caseload and Funding Trends

This chapter examines changes in the Jobs First client population since 1996, and how the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families and state Maintenance of Effort funds have been used to support the four goals of the TANF program. The program review committee collected caseload and financial information from the two state agencies involved in administering the Jobs First Program -- DSS and DOL.⁵ The information obtained from DSS focuses on the cash assistance portion of the program for both exempt and non-exempt clients. The labor department produces reports on Jobs First clients who participate in Jobs First Employment Services activities. These participants include both time-limited clients and those who are exempt but choose to voluntarily participate in JFES.

Overall Jobs First caseload. Figure II-1 shows the dramatic drop in the average monthly Jobs First caseload since FY 96. While caseloads decreased 66 percent -- from an average monthly caseload of almost 59,000 in FY 96 to about 20,000 in June 2006 -- the greatest drop occurred between FY 98 and FY 00 when many of the first recipients obtained jobs or reached the time limits and were removed from the welfare rolls. As of June 30, 2006, there were 42,154 Jobs First recipients -- 13,034 were adult recipients and 29,120 were children.

Time-limited versus exempt. Figure II-2 trends the number of cases that were time-limited and therefore subject to the 21-month time limit and those exempt from participation in JFES. For the first six years of the program, Connecticut operated under a federal waiver and placed some clients in a control group to measure certain waiver elements. The waiver expired in 2001 and those recipients were placed into either the time-limited or exempt category. Over the years, as shown in the figure, not only have caseloads shrunk significantly since the advent of welfare reform, but since FY 01 the number of exempt cases has either equaled or exceeded those that are time-limited. As of June 2006, there were 7,555 cases that were time limited and 12,305 exempt.

DSS noted a steady decline in the time-limited Jobs First caseload from FY 04 to FY 05: “The exempt caseload has remained fairly stable over the past year while the time-limited caseload has shown a steady decline on average of approximately 120 cases per month. The drop in families served was attributed to declining applications for assistance and to the impact of the requirement of engagement at DOL prior to qualification for benefits.”⁶

Figure II-3 compares the number of “child-only” cases to the total Jobs First caseloads for each federal fiscal year since 2000. While the number of “child-only” cases has remained relatively steady, they represent a greater percent of the shrinking TFA caseload. “Child-only” cases comprised about 28 percent of the total caseload in FY 00 and 43 percent by FFY 05. “Child-only” cases accounted for almost 70 percent of the 12,614 exempt cases as of June 2006. Thus, the traditional notion that welfare is a “family” program is not entirely true given that almost half the Jobs First caseload supports only children.

Clients in extensions. Figure II-4 shows the number of clients who received one or more extensions and the extension number for six points in time for which data were readily available. In 2003, it became much more difficult to gain more than two extensions when the legislature adopted stricter criteria under P.A. 03-2. In June 2006, there were 1,438 clients on their first or second extension, and 138 clients with three or more. Almost all of the clients in their first or second extension were granted the extension because they had made a “good faith effort” to comply with program requirements, but still were below the financial thresholds used to determine continued eligibility. Reasons for receiving more than two extensions included multiple barriers to employment, followed by households experiencing issues of domestic violence.

Clients under sanction. When a time-limited client does not comply with an employment service requirement without good cause, the client is sanctioned through a penalty process. During the first 21 months, the penalties are imposed as follows:

• 1^st penalty – TFA is reduced by 25 percent;

• 2^nd penalty – TFA is reduced by 35 percent; and

• 3^rd penalty – TFA is discontinued and client may not reapply for TFA for at least three months

If a client is sanctioned during an extension, TFA is discontinued, the client is referred to the Safety Net program (discussed in Chapter Four), and is not eligible for future TFA extensions. Clients can only receive TFA again if they become exempt rather than time-limited, or experience circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from working.

Sanctions affect the TANF work participation rate formula described in the Chapter One. During the first 21 months, clients who receive their first sanction are removed from the work participation denominator, while clients in their second sanction are included in the denominator. Since clients on their second sanction are unlikely to be engaged in work participation activities, this has the effect of lowering the work participation rate.

Figure II-5 shows the number of sanctioned cases and the number imposed over six periods of time. In June 2006, there were 390 cases that had received a first sanction, 68 cases were in their second sanction, and only four had been sanctioned for a third time.

In terms of the percent of cases sanctioned compared to the total time-limited caseload, in 1999 about 4.5 percent of cases had received a first sanction and in 2006 it was about 5 percent. Less than one percent of time-limited cases ever receive a second or third sanction in any of the years shown.

Jobs First Employment Services (Time-Limited Clients)

Trends. The Performance Measurement Unit within the Department of Labor has produced an annual report since June 1999 (except for 2001 when no report was published) on Jobs First clients participating in JFES. The report, entitled “At-A-Squint” includes demographic information on clients as well as the types of activities that individuals participated in. Comparing the June 1999 and June 2006 reports shows:

• the vast majority of time-limited clients are female (90 percent in 2006 compared to 86 percent in 1999);

• ethnicity has remained relatively the same over the eight years;

• almost 50 percent of clients in 2006 had completed 12^th grade compared to 45 percent in 1999; and

• 13 percent of JFES clients had some college in 2006 compared to only 6 percent in 1999.

Age of JFES participants. Figure II-6 shows the age of JFES participants at a point in time (June of each fiscal year). As the figure illustrates, the bulk of participants fall between the ages of 22 and 29 years old (35 percent in 2000 growing to 41 percent by 2006). The next largest age group is clients between 30 and 39 years old (31 percent in 1999 and decreasing to 23 percent by 2006). Three percent of the clients were under age 18 in 2006.

Ethnicity. Figure II-7 shows the number of JFES clients by ethnicity. The number of Hispanic clients increased from 38 percent of total JFES clients in 1999 to 40 percent of the clients in 2006. While clients who are African-American decreased slightly (from 31 percent in 1999 to 30 percent in 2006) over the same time period, the proportion of other ethnic groups remained the same.

Education. JFES participants have become more educated over time (Figure II-8). In June 1999, the client educational profile was:

• 49 percent had not completed high school;

• 45 percent had a high school diploma;

• 5 percent had some college; and

• 1 percent had 4 years of college or more.

By 2006, 50 percent of clients had completed high school; 11 percent had some college; and 2 percent had four years of college.

Employment activities. Almost 8,000 clients were enrolled in JFES in June 2006. Of those: 5,972 clients were enrolled in employment activities (clients may be enrolled in more than one activity) and the most frequent activity was participation in job search (Figure II-9). The percent engaged in this activity dropped from 75 percent in June 1999 to 50 percent in June 2006, while 29 percent were employed. Basic education as an activity accounted for only 6 percent of clients and vocational education was 11 percent in June 2006.

Months elapsed. Figure II-10 identifies the number of months elapsed for time-limited clients enrolled in the JFES program. The number of clients who were on the program for 27 or more months has decreased dramatically from a high of 5,040 in 1999 to 873 in 2006 (i.e., the 21-month initial period plus at least one six month extension).

Employment barriers. The number of client employment barriers identified at the time of JFES registration is shown in Figure II-11. This represents the number of barriers identified by JFES case managers in developing participants' employment plans and do not necessarily reflect the total actual number of current employment barriers experienced by clients. Most research indicates that certain client barriers remain unidentified, either because the client is not reporting the problem (such as a substance abuse or mental health problem) or it is not being detected by the case manager (such as learning disabilities).

Even though the overall number of clients has decreased since 2002, the number of clients with barriers has remained relatively the same. In addition, the number of clients with four or more barriers has grown over the five years shown and now comprises an even larger proportion of the 2006 caseload.

TANF and State Maintenance of Effort Dollars

States fund their welfare programs with a combination of federal and state funds from two primary sources – the annual federal TANF block grant and state MOE dollars to meet federal MOE standards. These federal standards require states to maintain historical levels of state spending of at least 75 percent of what they were spending in FY 94 on cash assistance-related programs.

TANF block grant. Since 1997, Connecticut has received a flat TANF block grant of almost $266.8 million annually.⁷ Federal law allows states to transfer up to 30 percent of their TANF grant to the Social Security Block Grant (SSBG) and the Child Care Development Fund (CCDF), and up to 10 percent to the Job Access Transportation Grant. To date, Connecticut has only transferred funds to SSBG (in FFY 06, $26.4 million (10 percent was transferred)).

State maintenance of effort requirement. Connecticut's MOE requirement has been $183.4 million since 1997, although Connecticut has exceeded its MOE requirement each year with spending ranging between $183.5 and $217.4 million. In FFY 05, Connecticut spent $217.4 million in MOE and $240.1 million in TANF dollars for a combined total of $457.5 million.

Purposes of TANF. States must use all federal TANF and state MOE funds to meet at least one of the four purposes articulated in PRWORA or to continue providing services and benefits that they were authorized to provide under their former Title IV-A or Title IV-F state plans (which covered AFDC, Emergency Assistance, and JOBS). The four purposes of the TANF program are:

4. to provide assistance to needy families – programs funded for this purpose cover only needy families so children must live with their parents or other relatives.⁸ It does not cover children living with non-relatives. (Assistance is defined in federal regulations as cash payments, vouchers, and other forms of benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing basic needs);

5. to end dependence of needy parents by promoting job preparation, work and marriage – programs funded could help any needy parent, including a non-custodial parent or working parent. Activities that provide job preparation and work activities would be consistent with this purpose;

6. to prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies – programs funded for this purpose are not limited to needy families or individuals; and

7. to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families - programs funded are not limited to needy families or individuals but are extended to those that encourage two-parent families. Activities could include premarital and marriage counseling, parenting skills, job placement and training services for non-custodial parents, and initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood.

Spending to achieve purposes No. 1 and No. 2 must be targeted to needy families as defined in a state TANF plan, while spending for purpose No. 3 or No. 4 is not limited to needy families. Under the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, states could only use TANF funds, not MOE funds, for programs targeting non-needy families or individuals, but the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 eliminated this provision and now allows MOE funds to be used for these purposes also. In its plan, a state must:

• describe how each of its funded programs meets federal requirements; and

• define the term “needy family” (as noted in Chapter One, Connecticut defines a needy family as a family with gross income of less than 75 percent of Connecticut's median income, and must include a dependent child and a caretaker relative, legal guardian, or others acting in loco parentis).

There are federal rules prohibiting states from using state MOE dollars to fund programs previously funded with state dollars, but there are no such prohibitions on using TANF funds, including TANF funds transferred to SSBG.

TANF and MOE Funding Restrictions

By federal law, the two funding sources -- TANF and MOE -- have different restrictions in terms of the types of programs that can be funded by them. Federal law distinguishes between funding programs that are considered “assistance,” defined as providing ongoing basic needs, such as cash, food, clothing, and shelter, and those that are not. If states use TANF funds to provide “assistance,” recipients are subject to: work participation requirements; a five-year time limit on federal assistance; and child support assignment rules. These restrictions do not apply to recipients when states use TANF funds for services and benefits not considered “assistance” such as child care for working families, refundable income tax credits, work subsidies, and short-term cash benefits (four months or less) designed to meet a specific crisis or episode.

Furthermore, a state may use TANF funds, but not its MOE funds, for activities previously authorized under its Title IV-A or Title IV-F plans, but which are now allowable under TANF (including juvenile justice and/or state foster care maintenance payments). Table II-1 shows the ways in which states can use TANF funds.

MOE funding restrictions. Figure II-12 graphically depicts three different ways in which states can use MOE funds for cash assistance. States may only use MOE funds for “eligible families” (i.e., similar to needy families but must be TANF eligible or would be eligible except for the five-year federal time-limits for TANF).

The figure shows that states use Separate State Program (SSP) funds to exclude some families from federal time limits and work requirements, while still counting these funds towards their MOE requirement. Connecticut currently funds its exempt (from work requirements) client populations with SSP; however, the recently adopted DRA and interim regulations require that most of these clients must now be included when states calculate their work participation rate, a major performance measure in TANF. This will have major implications on the way in which states will continue to use SSP funds and on federally mandated work participation rates. These issues are discussed further in Chapter Ten.

Additional funding under TANF. Supplemental grants were also provided under PRWORA for certain states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession. Connecticut has not received any funds from these grants.

In addition, three “performance bonus” grants were also established. The first, known as the “high performance bonus,” rewards states for meeting employment-related goals like job entry, job retention, and wage progression. The second is a bonus for reductions in non-marital births, sometimes referred to as the “out-of-wedlock” bonus (Connecticut has never received this bonus). Connecticut received high performance bonuses in FFY 2000-2003 totaling slightly more than $30 million over the four-year period, but has not since FFY 2004. Performance bonuses were eliminated under DRA.

Jobs First Expenditure Trends

Overall spending. Figure II-13 shows total federal TANF and MOE spending since FY 97. As noted above, the state receives a fixed amount of $266,788,107 in TANF block grant funds yearly, while MOE spending has fluctuated only slightly. When spending is deflated to 1997 dollars, the figure shows that total spending has actually decreased by 16 percent over the time period examined. One reason for the shift is because client caseloads have been greatly reduced over the years and spending is now on other allowable TANF purposes.

Spending on core programs. Before federal welfare reform in 1996, Connecticut distributed almost $400 million in cash assistance to welfare clients through DSS, Connecticut's welfare agency. Now, 12 state agencies, departments, and offices use TANF and MOE dollars to fund more than 60 programs. Funds have shifted away from core welfare programs, such as cash assistance, and increased only slightly for job activities, given the number of time-limited recipients that have been required to participate in job activities. Spending on these three programs since FY 94 is shown in Figure II-14. Spending on cash assistance dropped 68 percent between FY 94 to FY 05, while child care assistance expenditures increased from $19.4 million in FY 94 to $60.4 million in FY 05 (211 percent). Expenditures for job activities increased from $6.3 million to $15.6 million over the same period (148 percent). The Jobs First Employment Services program was not established until July 1, 1998. Prior to this, DSS operated a job training program. It is clear from the graph that there has been a refocus of welfare from giving cash assistance to families to funding other supportive programs.

Figures II-15 and II-16 compare two points in time – FFY 00 and FFY 06 -- to show how TANF and MOE expenditures have shifted away from DSS-administered programs to those administered or operated by other state agencies. While DSS consumed 66 percent of all TANF spending and 68 percent of MOE in FFY 00, by FFY 06, DSS consumption had dropped to 9 percent, while MOE spending increased 71 percent.

Figures II-17 and II-18 show the percent of TANF and MOE total expenditures by type of program, respectively. As shown in Figure II-17, the Department of Children and Families expended almost 35 percent of TANF dollars received in FFY 06. The next largest federal TANF expenditure was to fulfill TANF purpose No. 3 -- preventing teen pregnancy. Cash assistance (TFA) accounted for less than 4 percent of TANF dollars expended.

Figure II-18 shows MOE expenditures using any of the three funding streams noted in Table II-1 -- commingled, segregated, and SSP MOE. As shown, the largest expenditure occurred in the basic assistance category (47 percent). This category provides TFA to a variety of clients, including those funded under SSP, who are not included in the calculation of the federally mandated work participation rate. The “other” category is expenditures for child care claimed under CCDF and countable under TANF. The category of “work activities” includes expenditures by DOL to operate the JFES program, as well as to provide enhanced case management services. Non-assistance child care includes child care subsidies to working parents who may or may not be receiving TFA; while assistance child care is for TFA clients enrolled in training activities.

TANF and MOE Allocation Trends by Program

Allocation of funds. Concern has been raised among some legislators and advocates representing poor families that over time, TANF and MOE dollars have been shifted away from core welfare programs (goals one and two of TANF) that provide assistance to the poorest and neediest of families. As caseloads fell and fewer families were receiving cash assistance (by 2000, caseloads were almost 50 percent less than what they had been in 1996), the state increased its TANF/MOE spending on child care and identified other programs statewide that could be funded with TANF dollars.

Jobs First expenditure trends. Before federal welfare reform in 1996, and when caseloads were much higher, Connecticut distributed almost $400 million in cash assistance to welfare clients solely through DSS. Now, 12 state agencies, departments, and offices use TANF and MOE dollars to fund more than 60 programs.

Table II-2 shows combined spending of TANF and MOE from FFY 97 through FFY 05. The table illustrates the shift in funds away from cash assistance and child care to pregnancy prevention programs, two-parent family formation programs, and administration. The second largest expenditure is in the “other category,” the bulk of which is spent in three areas: SDE school readiness programs ($27.5 million); DCF investigations ($29.7 million); and DCF case management services ($35.7 million).

The committee found:

• combined, TANF and MOE funds accounted for $457.5 million in FY 05;

• spending on cash assistance decreased from $330 million in 1996 to $122 in FY 06, a decrease of 63 percent;

• there have been no increases to the TFA benefit amount paid to families since 1991 and monthly payments were actually reduced in 1995;

• expenditures for job activities increased from $9 million in FY 96 to $22.6 million appropriated for FY 07, an increase of 151 percent;

• support for job services for TFA recipients has been funded almost exclusively with state MOE funds and almost no federal TANF funds are used for job support programs;

• although Care 4 Kids spending increased from $37 million in FY 96 to $73.2 million in FY 06, most of the funding did not come from TANF or MOE spending, but from other sources;

• spending for “other” programs, including Department of Children and Family programs and State Department of Education programs has risen dramatically from $0 in 1997 to $156.6 million in 2005; and

• expenditures for programs to address the TANF goals of preventing and reducing the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families has also increased at a dramatic rate -- from $1.6 million in 1998 to $74.1 million in 2005.

Summary

The shift from AFDC to the TANF Block Grant program gave states much broader discretion over program funding and eligibility levels as long as programs met one of the four purposes of TANF. Over the years Connecticut has either -- shifted funds away from DSS for cash assistance or increased funding only slightly for jobs programs -- to programs funded by other agencies, particularly DCF.

Chapter Three

Jobs First Program Client Process

An individual seeking assistance under the Jobs First program goes through several steps, first to be determined eligible, and then to be maintained in the program. This chapter describes the various steps, which involve two different state agencies: DSS and DOL. DSS staff is responsible for determining the eligibility of prospective Jobs First program clients for cash assistance (TFA), and whether the clients are time-limited, meaning the clients are required to participate in work activities through the JFES program, or are exempt, at least at that time. The Department of Labor administers the JFES program, primarily through a collection of many different contract providers. Figure III-1 depicts the initial Jobs First eligibility determination process, including whether a client may only be in the program on a time-limited basis, and thus must participate in the JFES program. Figure III-2 shows the flow for time-limited TFA clients once eligibility has been determined, which is also described in more detail. Finally, the chapter concludes with information about Jobs First program staffing.

Initial Jobs First Eligibility Determination

Application and initial financial screening. As Figure III-1 shows, a prospective Jobs First program client seeking cash assistance begins the eligibility determination process by requesting services in person at a local DSS office. The applicant completes an eligibility determination form, answering detailed questions about household members, assets, current and previous employment, and living arrangements. A DSS eligibility services specialist interviews the client and documents income, assets, citizenship, and social security information. The completed application is date stamped, and DSS has 10 business days to complete the initial screening, examining asset and income resources to determine whether a client appears eligible for TFA as well as food stamps and Medicaid. In reality, however, some DSS offices conduct those reviews on the day of application.

At this point in the process, an eligible Jobs First program applicant may be told about the Diversion program and choose to participate in that program, receiving a lump sum payment equal to up to three months' assistance rather than monthly TFA cash assistance. (There have been less than 10 participants annually in the Diversion Program, which is described in Chapter Four.)

Jobs First Program Orientation. DSS provides a Jobs First program orientation to all prospective recipients who appear eligible for TFA cash assistance after the initial screening. For persons who are anticipated to be time-limited, the orientation topics covered include:

• program's work and personal responsibility focus and requirements;

• the 21-month time limit;

• work participation (30 hours per week for single parent families and 35 hours for two parent families);

• sanctions for noncompliance; and

• incentives such as the earnings disregard, higher asset limits, and transitional Medicaid and child care benefits.

Service Needs Assessment. As noted in Chapter Two, the majority of current recipients are exempt from work requirements. However, for those that are not exempt, the client is required to participate in the JFES program, administered by DOL. Prospective clients who appear eligible for JFES based on the initial screening, take part in a Service Needs Assessment (SNA). The DSS eligibility services specialist completes the SNA as part of the TFA application process. Areas assessed include education, employment and training history, basic educational needs, and other social service needs such as: transportation; child care; child support; domestic violence experience; substance abuse; and mental health issues. The purpose of the assessment is to ensure there is information available about a client when the JFES case manager and client first meet.

Universal Engagement. In anticipation of federal requirements, beginning October 1, 2004, Universal Engagement of TFA applicants was put into practice. Client engagement is demonstrated by completing the JFES Orientation/Intake and the resulting employment plan within specific time frames. Participation in the employment assessment and plan development are now a requirement for TFA cash eligibility.

Exempted Jobs First program clients. A prospective Jobs First client may appear to be exempt to a DSS eligibility services specialist, and not be required to participate in JFES. Table I-1 in Chapter One summarizes the reasons for exemptions. Additionally, the DSS eligibility services worker has the authority to approve temporary exemptions for situations where there is a child under one or a medical need that should last for less than three months. For medical exemptions that are expected to last more than three months (i.e., permanent exemptions), a Medical Review Team, located in the DSS Central Office and consisting of physicians, nurses, psychologists and others, makes the determination. The normal processing time for the Medical Review Team is 60 days, although it is backlogged, and so determinations currently take longer than three months.

The largest category of clients exempt from work participation is the “child only” category. These are situations where either the adult in the family is not the child's parent and is not counted when calculating how much assistance the family will receive, or the adult in the family is the parent but is not counted because the parent is receiving Supplemental Security Income for a disability (SSI) or is an ineligible alien. Thus, cash assistance is only provided for the child in that assistance unit.

Change in Exemption Status. Exempt clients may become non-exempt from JFES if, for example, the client has completed her six week postpartum exemption, a non-cap child turns one year old, or a medical exemption is lost. Also, time-limited (non-exempt) participants may become exempt after 20 months in JFES if the adults in the family worked less than six months during the past five years, and have not completed the 6^th grade.

JFES Orientation/Intake

After the general orientation and service needs assessment by DSS, as Figure III-1 shows, the prospective Jobs First program client must attend another orientation and intake, this one targeted to the employment services component of the Jobs First program. These prospective clients must also participate in the development of their own employment plan. This part of the process is overseen by the Department of Labor, utilizing a variety of contracted entities.

The JFES orientation and intake occurs at one of the 14 CTWorks One-Stop Centers (Universal Engagement procedures specify that the applicant's employment plan must be completed within 10 business days of the JFES Orientation/Intake session.). The JFES program orientation/intake consists of three components: 1) JFES/CT Works Orientation; 2) Assessment; and 3) Employment Plan Development.

1) JFES Orientation/CTWorks Orientation. During orientation, a One-Stop JFES case manager explains the available services including:

• job service registration and job matching;

• eligibility determinations for other employment and training programs;

• automated labor exchange and Talent Bank;

• resource center (labor market information, personal computers, fax machines, etc.); and

• workshops (e.g., resume writing).

2) Employment Services Assessment. In addition to the JFES orientation, a prospective client also participates in an employment services assessment, or “intake,” to prepare for the development of an individual employment plan. The existing Service Needs Assessment (completed earlier by DSS) is reviewed by the JFES case manager. Each prospective client is interviewed and the following information gathered or developed:

• test scores and other tools, including the Comprehensive Adult Student Assessment System test (CASAS) (often administered by a contractor)⁹;

• past and current work experience;

• education;

• resources;

• labor market information; and

• availability of programs.

3) Employment Plan. Based on the employment services assessment, the JFES case manager develops an employment plan in conjunction with the client. The employment plan may include activities such as:

• maintaining current employment (if working);

• locating a child care provider;

• completing a child care application and parent provider agreement form to submit to the JFES case manager;

• arranging for transportation to activities;

• using the One-Stop self-help services; and

• arranging for any other support services needed.

DSS Eligibility Determination and Payment

As Figure III-1 shows, once a prospective Jobs First client has gone through all the steps required, DSS will determine eligibility for cash assistance. The DSS eligibility services specialist verifies information provided by the applicant such as social security number, earnings, and previous cash assistance. A determination is then made on eligibility for TFA (as well as food stamps and Medicaid) by applying the Combined Income Test and the Benefit Test.

Combined Income Test. The applicant's gross earnings (less $90) and countable unearned income are compared with the Standard of Need for her/his town or city.

Standard of Need. The Standard of Need is defined in DSS' policy manual as the monthly amount of money considered necessary to cover 23 usual, recurring basic needs of a family, such as food, clothing, shelter, fuel and utilities (The Standard of Need has not been updated in at least 15 years.). If income is at or above the Standard of Need, the application is denied. Other reasons for denial of TFA include failure to cooperate with the child support enforcement program, and family assets that exceed the allowable limit.

The Standard of Need varies depending on the: 1) geographic region where an applicant resides; 2) number of members in the assistance unit (family); and 3) presence of any children in the home who fall under the family cap.

1) Geographic region. Connecticut is divided into three geographic regions on the basis on similarity in the cost of living. The cities and towns contained in the three geographic regions are shown in Appendix C.

2) Number of members in the assistance unit. The Standard of Need also varies depending on the number of members in the assistance unit (family). Standards for assistance units are as small as 1 and as large as 20. An AU of 1 in Region B, for example, has a standard of need of $457, while an AU of 8 has a standard of need of $1,413 per month.

3) Presence of children who fall under the family cap. The Standard of Need is adjusted for any families with children who fall under the cap (i.e., children conceived while the mother was receiving TFA). In these situations, the Standard of Need is based on the total number of members in the assistance unit minus any cap children plus $68.50 for each family cap child (roughly 50 percent less than they would have otherwise received for that child).

A family cap has been incorporated into the Jobs First program since 1995. There are exceptions for rape and incest. Another exception to the cap is the first child born of a minor dependent in a family. As of December 1997, according to DSS, 1,870 children have been born after 10 months of the mother's application for benefits (i.e., “cap babies”).

Benefit Test. The Benefit Test checks that the assistance unit's countable unearned income is below the Payment Standard. If the unearned income is at or above the Payment Standard, then the assistance unit is ineligible for continued TFA.

TFA Payment

As just described, the Standard of Need is the monthly amount of money considered necessary to cover usual, recurring basic needs of a family. The TFA cash assistance amount is equal to 73 percent of the Standard of Need. Because of its link with the Standard of Need, the amount of cash assistance given to eligible clients varies by geographic region, number of members in the assistance unit (family), and presence of any children in the home who fall under the family cap.

Table III-1 shows both the Standard of Need and Payment Standard for a family of three by geographic region. For example, in order to qualify for TFA, a family of three living in Region A must have a monthly income below $872, less adjustments for child support payments. Assuming no cap children, their TFA cash assistance each month will be $636.

Ongoing Case Monitoring

Employment Plan Review and Modification. Figure III-2 depicts the case steps after eligibility is determined. Once an applicant is granted TFA and is determined to be time-limited, a JFES case manager is assigned. The first step is to review the employment plan developed during the JFES orientation/intake session (Universal Engagement calls for the review of the Employment Plan to be scheduled within 30 days of the granting of TFA). This more in-depth review may occur one-on-one or in a group with a JFES case manager at the One-Stop Center.

During the Employment Plan review, the JFES case manager assists the client in developing realistic objectives for becoming and remaining independent through employment. The Employment Plan is an employment-focused document and outlines the steps needed for the JFES customer to accomplish these objectives. Modifications to the Employment Plan may include the addition of work participation activities such as job search and job readiness, and vocational education training.

JFES case managers are trained to take into account factors that would significantly restrict participation in employment related activities and objectives. The employment plan review gathers information about the client including:

• skills;

• work experience and employment history;

• prior and current participation in education and training activities;

• education level;

• months of TFA eligibility remaining;

• life skills;

• resources;

• language ability;

• math and reading test scores;

• interest inventory, attitude, and motivation;

• transportation and child care availability; and

• social services needs (counseling, legal services, substance abuse treatment, etc.).

Employment Plan Activities

The initial employment plan contained activities with little or no cost associated with them. The modified employment plan includes a range of activities for JFES clients. The modified employment plan addresses barriers that can be addressed as well as those that cannot be addressed (such as unavailable vocational education slots or waiting list for substance abuse treatment).

The employment plan has specific details on assigned employment activities and support services as well as responsibilities of both the JFES case manager and participant. Time frames are specified for completion of each of the tasks. As noted in Chapter One, employment plan activities are divided into two groups: core activities; and non-core, supplemental activities, which are described in Appendix D.

Support services are also contained in the employment plan and may include the following:

• child care assistance – Care 4 Kids;

• transportation/baby-sitting special benefits; and

• community resources:

- substance abuse services;

- mental health services;

- domestic violence;

- Department of Children & Families referrals; and

- Bureau of Rehabilitation Services (Division of DSS that provides vocational rehabilitation services to people with disabilities).

Other employment plan tasks. Other tasks may be assigned that are expected to help eliminate barriers to employment and support the transition to independence. Tasks may include: having the participant request more hours of employment; apply for a driver's license; complete an application for available services or benefits; and arrange for backup child care and/or backup transportation.

DSS eligibility redetermination. DSS does an eligibility redetermination 12 months after start of benefits for exempt and non-exempt TFA recipients. The 12-month redetermination is mandatory and requires that the client come to the DSS office for a face-to-face interview. Should the client fail to complete the redetermination process without good cause, then cash assistance is discontinued.

At the redetermination meeting, the DSS eligibility services specialist interviews the TFA client, updating the Service Needs Assessment and reviewing current income status. The purpose of the 12-month redetermination is to:

1. determine ongoing eligibility for assistance;

2. collect information about the family (assistance unit);

3. assess engagement in employment efforts of TFA time-limited Jobs First Employment Services participants;

4. determine whether exempt clients continue to meet the requirements for exempt status; and

5. revise the case file as needed.

The client is redetermined eligible for continued TFA by passing the Gross Earnings Test, the Unearned Income Test, and the Benefit Test. The Gross Earnings Test checks that the assistance unit's gross monthly earnings are equal to or lower than the Federal Poverty Level—if it is greater, then the assistance unit is ineligible for continued TFA.

The Unearned Income Test checks that the assistance unit's countable unearned income is below the Standard of Need. If the unearned income is at or above the Standard of Need, then the assistance unit is ineligible for continued TFA.

Finally, time-limited recipients must once again pass the Benefit Test. The Benefit Test checks that the assistance unit's countable unearned income is below the Payment Standard. If the unearned income is at or above the Payment Standard, then the assistance unit is ineligible for continued TFA.

TFA Extensions

In addition to the standard 21 months in the JFES program, TFA time-limited clients may qualify for extensions of six months at a time. There is a maximum 60 month federal lifetime limit, however, for time-limited clients. TFA extensions may be discussed during exit interviews, which are held in the DSS office during the 20^th month of TFA and, should an extension be granted, occur again at the 5^th month of an extension and at the 58^th month.

Two extensions beyond 21 months are generally available if the client is unable to get a job that would make the family financially independent. Clients may be working at the time the extension is requested, but need help in increasing their hours of work or wage level.

Since July 1, 2003, time-limited recipients may not get more than two extensions unless they meet certain criteria: having two or more substantiated barriers to employment; working full-time and not earning at least the welfare payment standard; or not being able to work full-time because of a medical impairment or because of care-giving responsibilities for a disabled household member.

In order to receive one or two extensions, the family must meet the: 1) Payment Standard Test; and 2) Good Faith Effort Test.

1) Payment Standard Test. The Payment Standard Test is met if the family's gross earned and unearned income (minus $90 for each person working) is less than the payment standard for a family of that size and in that DSS region. For example, the payment standard for a family of two in Region B is $443 per month. A client who has a gross earned and unearned income (minus $90 for each person working) less than $443 would pass the payment standard test.

2) Good Faith Effort Test. To meet the Good Faith Effort Test, the client must have complied with JFES requirements, including no more than one sanction or successful completion of any Individual Performance Contracts (IPCs).

If the client is in the first 20 months of assistance and received more than one sanction, or DSS believed the family to be at risk of becoming ineligible for an extension, then an IPC can be completed. Should the IPC be successfully completed and no other sanction received, the family may have good faith effort status restored, and be eligible for an extension.

In order to receive a third or more TFA extensions, the client must meet the Payment Standard Test, the Good Faith Effort Test, and experience at least one of the following situations:

• family is prevented from working due to domestic violence;

• adult in the home is working at least 35 hours per week earning at least the minimum wage and still earning less than the TFA payment standard;

• adult in the family works less than 35 hours due to a medical impairment that limits employment, or must care for an incapacitated family member; or

• adults in the home are not working due to two or more of the following substantiated barriers to employment:

- lack of child care;

- inadequate transportation;

- substance abuse or addiction;

- serious mental or physical health problems;

- learning disabilities;

- child with a serious physical or behavioral health problem;

- literacy problems (as demonstrated by a score below 235 on the Connecticut Competency System Test (i.e., CASAS));

- requirements of a DCF case plan prevent work or compliance with other employment plan requirements; or

- requirements of a court order prevent work or compliance with other employment plan requirements.

Sanctioning

When a time-limited client does not comply with an employment service requirement without good cause, the client is sanctioned through a penalty process. During the first 21 months, the penalties are imposed as follows:

• 1^st penalty – TFA is reduced by 25 percent for three months

• 2^nd penalty – TFA is reduced by 35 percent for three months

• 3^rd penalty – TFA is discontinued and client may not reapply for TFA for at least three months

If a client is sanctioned during an extension, TFA is discontinued, the client is referred to the Safety Net program, and is not eligible for future TFA extensions (the Safety Net program is discussed in Chapter Four). Clients can only receive TFA again if they become exempt rather than time-limited, or experience circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from working.

Sanctioning process. Sanctioning is triggered when a time-limited client does not cooperate with an employment services requirement such as not showing up and not calling prior to the start of an activity, being disruptive, or dropping out after the start of an activity.

The sanctioning process includes a conciliation phase before the sanction is imposed during which time the JFES client has up to 30 calendar days from the date of initiation to document that the client had good cause for failing to cooperate. DSS staff reported that there was a backlog in this process for 2003 and 2004 due to DSS office closures, caseload transfers, and staff bumping. As a result, the sanction referrals were not done in a timely manner. Additionally, because of all the staffing changes, workers did not necessarily know if a sanction was pending.

Good cause for stopping the sanctioning process includes:

• illness of person;

• illness of family member that requires care to be provided by person;

• unavailability or loss of child care;

• unavailability of transportation;

• family emergency;

• domestic violence; and/or

• unreasonable terms and conditions of employment.

Once a determination regarding non-compliance is made, the DSS eligibility services specialist informs the JFES case manager of the decision within three business days. If the client did not have good cause, the DSS eligibility services specialist imposes a sanction and, if it is a first or second sanction, instructs the participant to comply with JFES requirements. If the DSS eligibility services specialist determines that the participant had good cause, the client is not sanctioned, but instructed by DSS to comply with JFES requirements.

The client may request a hearing before a DSS Fair Hearing Officer after receipt of the notice of the proposed sanction. The Fair Hearing Officer will schedule a due process hearing. The JFES case manager may not need to attend if the issue is whether the participant had good cause for non-compliance, since staff cannot usually testify about the client's personal reasons for not meeting the terms of the employment plan activity. On the other hand, if there is an issue of fact as to whether the participant failed to comply with a JFES requirement, testimony from the JFES case manager may be needed.

An additional requirement for clients receiving a second sanction is that an Individual Performance Contract (IPC) be completed. Clients are referred to a specialized case manager from the Connecticut Council of Family Service Agencies (CCFSA). CCFSA works closely with the client for at least 30 days to determine whether there are any significant barriers to employment, and provide supports so that the client can comply with the employment plan.

Related to the TANF work participation rate formula described in Chapter Ten is the issue that clients who have received their first sanction are removed from the work participation denominator, while clients in their second sanction are included in the denominator. Since clients on their second sanction are unlikely to be engaged in work participation activities, this has the effect of lowering the work participation rate.

DSS regional staff reports that sanctioning is a high priority. Some previous confusion regarding what constitutes good cause and when a client may be referred to DSS for a sanction has been addressed and clarified in training that occurred within the past 18 months, according to DSS staff.

Automated Counters. Time-limited clients are only allowed 21 months (plus extensions) of TFA assistance in Connecticut—and there is a 60-month lifetime limit for receiving services in all states combined. Each time-limited adult client has an “automated counter” and each family or assistance unit has an “automated counter.” Counters are generated by the DSS automated system to track the number of months of cash assistance that have been used up by JFES clients so that assistance does not exceed federal and state limits. As individuals come together or separate, their individual counters may change, depending on the rules governing whose counter to assume.

There are five ways to count the number of months of cash assistance that time-limited clients have been receiving:

1. Federal non-Connecticut TANF counter;

2. Federal Connecticut TANF counter;

3. Federal total TANF counter;

4. State TFA counter; and

5. Jobs First/AU counter.

Appendix E shows the similarities and differences among the five counters.

Automated Systems to Assist the Case Flow

There are two key automated systems that DSS and DOL use in processing and managing the TFA and JFES caseload: EMS and CTWBS.

Eligibility Management System (EMS). Department of Social Services eligibility workers enter all client information into EMS. This automated mainframe system supports the determination of client eligibility, calculates benefit amounts and issuance of cash assistance, and supports financial accounting and management reporting. In addition to TFA, EMS also supports other major DSS assistance programs such as food stamps, medical assistance, state supplement to the aged, blind, and disabled, and the State Administered General Assistance (SAGA). The system was not intended for research purposes.

CT Works Business System (CTWBS). The CTWBS is the automated, web-based computer business system that is the key coordinator for the delivery of services in Connecticut's Workforce Development One-Stop Career Center System. The CTWBS electronically links data from the JFES, WIA, and the Wagner-Peyser Act programs to support operational and administrative needs. DSS eligibility workers enter the Service Needs Assessment client information directly into CTWBS, making it available to the JFES case managers working with these clients at the One-Stop Centers. CTWBS also contains the employment plan and activities, and employment information. The system interfaces with EMS, making demographic background information available to the JFES case managers. This sharing of information between EMS and CTWBS is considered relatively unique, according to managers associated with JFES, representing an innovative model of system integration between two state departments—the Department of Social Services and the Department of Labor.

Chapter Four

Programs Available for Jobs First Program Recipients

This chapter describes in more detail some of the program elements connected to the Jobs First program including: JFES; Empowering People for Success Program; rental assistance; diversion program; and additional supports such as Care 4 Kids, Food Stamps, and health insurance.

Jobs First Employment Services. As noted previously, once clients are determined to be time-limited, they are required to participate in the JFES program. The program has three goals:

• enable participants, through employment, to become independent from cash assistance by the end of the 21-month time limit established by state law;

• enable participants who become independent from cash assistance to remain employed and independent of TFA; and

• ensure that federally established participation rates are met through employment of participants and engagement in other countable TANF work activities deemed appropriate based on assessment of client needs.

In addition, there are nine operating principles that JFES program staff are required to adhere to including: 1) focusing on assisting participants to become independent of assistance through employment; and 2) developing employment plans that are based on the participant's interests, ability, availability of resources and labor market demands. A complete list of the nine operating principles is found in Appendix F.

As described in Appendix D, there are nine core activities in which time-limited clients are expected to spend a minimum amount of time, depending on single or two-parent status, and age of youngest child. A single parent family with a child under age 6 must participate for an average of 20 hours a week while all other one-parent families must participate for an average of 30 hours a week (unless a single parent under age 20 and in school), and two-parent families for 35 hours a week.

Empowering People for Success Program (EPS). This program helps current time-limited families address barriers to employment, and provides safety net services for those no longer receiving TFA. The Connecticut General Assembly created the program in 1997 as part of the comprehensive welfare reforms. The Empowering People for Success Program (EPS) is funded with MOE dollars through DSS and DOL. The following tables describe the four components of EPS: 1) Employment Success Program (ESP) (Table IV-1); 2) Prevention Services (Table IV-2); 3) Safety Net Program (Table IV-3); and 4) Temporary Rental Subsidy Program (Table IV-4).

Beyond the four components of EPS, there is a Transitionary Rental Assistance Program (see Table IV-5) available to some families.

Diversion Program

Applicants applying for TFA may elect the Diversion Program instead of traditional TFA. Effective since October 1, 1998, the purpose of the Diversion Program is to help families remain self-sufficient instead of becoming dependent on monthly cash assistance. Clients are given assistance in the form of a lump sum payment equivalent to up to three months of TFA cash assistance.

The Diversion Program is geared toward clients who are likely to succeed with this one-time help. The applicants to this program need to be working or have received a job offer, have a strong work history, marketable skills, and barriers they should be able to overcome or remove within a three-month period if given the lump sum payment.

A client is ineligible for TFA for three months after receiving a Diversion Program payment unless the family experiences undue hardship. The family is considered to have an undue hardship when there are forces beyond the client's control that result in serious threats to the health, safety or welfare of the family, and do not allow the client to maintain or get a job. Should the client become a TFA recipient in the future, then the Diversion Program payment counts as three months of payments out of the client's 21-month time limit.

DSS eligibility services specialists are required to give clients a side-by-side comparison of the benefits they would receive under either TFA or the Diversion Program. Less than a dozen families annually choose the Diversion Program over TFA. This results in longer-term dependency for families that could otherwise be served with a one-time lump sum payment. In June 2006, for example, only one family consisting of one adult and five children was enrolled in the Diversion Program.

Additional Supports for TFA Recipients

Beyond these programs and services, TFA recipients may receive child care assistance through the Care 4 Kids program, food assistance through Food Stamps, and medical assistance through HUSKY. Each is now briefly described.

Care 4 Kids. Connecticut's child care subsidy program, Care 4 Kids, was designed to offer financial assistance to moderate- and low-income families who need help to pay for child care. All time-limited clients are eligible for Care 4 Kids while on TFA and also when they leave cash assistance as long as they meet the eligibility requirements. The vouchers may be used at centers, licensed family day care homes, and unlicensed family and neighbor care. Payment rates differ based on the age of the child, type of child care provider, range of hours for which assistance is provided, existence of a child's special needs, and region of the state. Full-time care (35-50 hours per week), for example, ranges from $89 per week (for care in any region by a relative, care in the child's home, or recreational programs) to $227 per week (for care in the southwest region of the state in a licensed facility such as a child care center, group child care home, or school-operated program).

Out of approximately 10,750 families receiving Care 4 Kids subsidies in May 2006, a total of 1,721 were TFA families.

Food Stamps. Connecticut uses a joint TFA/Medicaid/Food Stamps application, although persons can apply for just one, two or all of the programs. Almost all TFA recipients qualify for food stamps, a USDA federal program designed to help end hunger and improve nutrition and health. Food stamps are intended to assist low-income households buy the food they need for a nutritionally adequate diet. The monthly food stamp amount ranges from a maximum benefit of $152 to $1,140, depending on the number of people in the food stamp unit. A family of three, for example, would receive a maximum of $399 per month in food stamps. Note that young mothers (18 or 19 years old) who live with their parents would not qualify for food stamps if their parents are over the eligible income level, nor would young mothers below a certain age who are not part of an assistance unit.

Medicaid. Almost all TFA clients qualify for HUSKY A for families. They also continue to receive HUSKY A after they leave TFA as long as family income does not exceed 150 percent of the federal poverty level. Once income goes above 150 percent of the federal poverty level, families receive transitional HUSKY A for one year. (Prior to July 2006, families had received two years of transitional HUSKY A.) After the transitional year, children may continue to receive either HUSKY A (if family income is below 185 percent of the federal poverty) or HUSKY B (if family income is above 185 percent of the federal poverty level). According to a September 24, 2003 OLR Research Report, the state spent just over $62 million during the first two quarters of FFY 02-03 on Medicaid benefits for families receiving TFA.

Chapter Five

Description of TFA Study Sample Population

Chapter Two examined trends in the characteristics of the Jobs First clients overall, and Chapters Three and Four described the processes and programs available to TFA recipients. Chapters Five, Six, and Seven provide more detailed information about a sample of 1,278 Jobs First clients (1,171 families or assistance units) used by the program review committee to assess the outcomes of the Jobs First Employment Services program and its success, a main focus of the study.

This chapter discusses how the sample and database were derived and presents descriptive information about the sample population. Specifically, demographic characteristics and history on cash assistance including extensions and sanctions is provided as well as a comparison of time-limited and exempt families. DSS and WIB regional differences are described as well as barriers to employment, and financial condition of the families in October 2003.

Key Findings

Description of time on TFA (cash assistance)

• More applicants are approved than denied for TFA (60 percent approved)

• Few Connecticut welfare recipients received welfare in another state

• Three-quarters of the sample had been on TFA prior to October 2003

- one-third of the sample had a history of receiving cash assistance dating back to the 1990s

• Slightly more than half (51 percent) of time-limited families (as of October 2003) had at least one extension and one-third (35 percent) at least two extensions

Sanctioning

• For every three clients referred for sanctioning, just one was actually sanctioned

• During their entire time on TFA, 22 percent were sanctioned at least once

• Only 2 percent of the sample left TFA due to sanctioning

Time-limited vs. exempt families

• Most of the families entering TFA in October 2003 had a status of time-limited (71) percent)

• Time-limited and exempt status was fairly fluid, changing at least once for 39 percent of families

Description of family needs

• Approximately one-third of the study sample clients for which this information was known had three or more barriers to employment

• The most prevalent barriers to employment were: transportation; child care; low math and reading skills (literacy); limited work history; and lacking a high school diploma or GED

Financial condition

• Over half the families had no reported income for July-September 2003, the quarter prior to TFA opening

• While not required to be employed, approximately one-third of the exempt families had earnings in each of the quarters they were receiving TFA

Sample Compilation

To compile the sample, PRI staff asked DSS to identify all applicants deemed eligible for TFA in October 2003. These families were then followed through August 2006, the latest information available at the time the sample was selected. The month of October 2003 was selected because it was the most recent time that would allow for 21 months of cash assistance plus two six-month extensions.¹⁰

Study sample selection. In October 2003, DSS decided the eligibility of 2,148 applicants for cash assistance (TFA). DSS determined that 1,278 applicants (60 percent) were eligible for TFA. These applicants made up 1,171 families (also referred to as households or assistance units). While the eligibility was determined in October 2003, the application for TFA may have occurred in October 2003 or earlier. The study sample was compared with other DSS and DOL regional and demographic information and found to be representative of the overall Connecticut TFA population (see Appendix G).

Study sample database development. Both DSS and DOL accessed their relevant databases to provide comprehensive information on each of the families in the sample. PRI staff provided identifying information to DOL so that information about the sample clients' Jobs First Employment Services program experience could be gathered from the Connecticut Works Business System.

The CTWBS was developed by DOL with its workforce partners, and is the automated computer business system that is the key coordinator for the delivery of services at the One Stop Career Centers. All activity on JFES clients is entered into the CTWBS and is immediately available to staff working with JFES clients.

The labor department also gathered information from its Wage Records Database and the Unemployment Insurance Benefits Database. Wage and unemployment insurance information was provided for 41 quarters, from the first quarter of 1996 through the first quarter of 2006.

Finally, DSS accessed information from 54 different department databases to provide information on the sample in such areas as: demographic characteristics; TFA cash assistance, food stamps, and housing subsidies; assets and income (including child support); period of time on federal TANF and state TFA counters; status on TFA (time-limited/exempt, open/closed); sanctions; and extensions.

The Department of Social Services uses a mainframe computer system for its eligibility management system (EMS). The system is more than 20 years old and has many limitations; problems with the system and its impact on the study sample are explained throughout the chapter.

Ineligible TFA applicants. In October 2003, DSS determined the eligibility of 2,148 applicants; 1,278 were found eligible and 870 (40 percent) were deemed ineligible for TFA. More applicants are approved than denied for TFA (60 percent approved). The committee's study focuses only on the applicants deemed eligible; however, Table V-1 provides information on the denied cases. The most frequent reasons for denying TFA to applicants included failure to give necessary information to establish eligibility or having income in excess of the limit allowable under eligibility determination. Four applicants in the “other” category were denied TFA because they failed to cooperate with child support requirements.

Breakouts of sample for analyses. Clients either participate in the JFES program (due to time-limited status) or are exempt from JFES participation (due to exempt status). Of the 1,171 families, 837 (71 percent) were “time-limited” in October 2003, while 29 percent of families entering TFA in October 2003 had exempt status. The 1,171 families in the sample included families who either:

• were new to TFA (475);

• had previously been a TFA time-limited recipient family (577); or

• were actually a continuation of an active case that had been granted an extension, closed and reopened due to missing paperwork, etc. (119).

The last group of 119 was excluded from many of the analyses as, while technically considered newly opened cases, for practical purposes they were not new (or returned to TFA after a closure of 30 or more days). In particular, this group was excluded from analyses regarding current JFES activity.

Some analyses also excluded some cases from the first two groups. Sample cases that remained open the entire period from October 2003 through August 2006, for example, are excluded from analyses regarding reasons for closure and study outcomes.

Finally, approximately 20 percent of the time-limited families were not enrolled in JFES and are excluded from analyses of the time-limited clients who were active in the JFES program.

Ultimately, key analyses were done for the 747 new or returning families who were not exempt and had participated in JFES. (329 new active and 418 returning active).

Description of Approved TFA Applicants in Sample

Characteristics of sample TFA clients. In October 2003, DSS determined that 1,278 applicants (60 percent) were eligible for TFA. Table V-2 shows the characteristics of these eligible applicants. The clients are not especially young: two-thirds of the recipients are between 22 and 39 years old, and the largest racial/ethnic group is Hispanic, followed by Caucasians. Nearly nine in ten are female, and over half (58 percent) have at least a high school diploma or GED.

Characteristics of sample TFA households. As noted, the 1,278 clients were part of 1,171 families. Most of the 1,171 families (937) were single parent assistance units (80 percent), 121 were pregnant women (10 percent) and 113 were two-parent families (10 percent).

Table V-3 shows that less than 10 percent were married at the time, and two-thirds had never been married. The majority of households were located in urban areas. A comparison of families in urban, suburban and rural areas is found in Appendix H.

As seen in Table V-4, TFA households averaged two children and one adult in the 1,171 assistance units in October 2003. Almost one quarter of the households (23 percent) also had an adult child (20 years of age or older) included in the number of adults in the household. Through August 2006, there was no evidence in the study sample of a significant number of “cap babies” or instances where recipients conceive another child while on TFA. There were 206 assistance units (18 percent) with a child under the age of one year old, an automatic reason for exemption from the JFES program.

Description of Time on Cash Assistance

History of cash assistance in another state. There is a federal maximum time limit of 60 months that any TANF recipient required to work may receive benefits. According to information DSS obtains from other states, few of Connecticut's welfare recipients receive welfare in another state. Of the 1,278 TFA clients who began receiving cash assistance in October 2003, there were 60 clients (5 percent) who had also received TANF in another state. Appendix I shows the other states in which clients had received TANF, from as little as one month to as many as 60 months.

Time on TFA. As described in Chapter Three, there are official time counting mechanisms in place, including the Jobs First/AU counter and the state TFA counter. The Jobs First/AU counter is overwritten each month to reflect the most recent number of months on TFA. It correlates highly with the state TFA counter, which is not overwritten each month, so program review committee staff used the state TFA counter for historical data.

More than three-quarters of the sample (77 percent) had been on TFA September 2003 or earlier with a status of time-limited. One-third of the sample had a history of receiving cash assistance dating back to the 1990s--169 received TFA as early as 1996 (It is unknown how many clients received cash assistance as exempt clients because counters only change for time-limited recipients). Appendix J provides additional information about time on TFA for the sample.

Extensions. Slightly more than half (51 percent) of time-limited families (as of October 2003) had at least one extension and one-third (35 percent) at least two extensions. One-third of the exempt families, however, had at least one extension, indicating that they had spent more than 21 months as a time-limited client despite their exempt status. Appendix K shows additional detail about the number of extensions for TFA recipients.

Of the 1,171 heads of household, 83 (7 percent) stayed on TFA from October 2003 through August 2006, the last month for which there is information. As shown in Figure V-1, approximately 12 percent (135 heads of household) had left TFA within three months, by December 2003, and approximately 48 percent (562 heads of household) had left within one year. At 21 months, 401 heads of household (34 percent) remained on TFA.

Sanctions

The Department of Social Services maintains policies that levy financial penalties on noncompliant families and eventually remove them from the TFA caseload. As noted in Chapter Three, sanctions or penalties are applied during the first 21 months of receipt of TFA for failure, without good cause, to cooperate with the requirements of Jobs First Employment Services, for voluntarily quitting a job without good cause and for being fired for willful misconduct. TFA benefits are reduced by 25 percent for three months for the first offense, by 35 percent for three months for the second sanction, and no benefits are issued for a three month period for the third sanction.

Program review committee staff analyzed information about the 754 clients in the study sample who were referred for sanctioning. Appendix L provides a flowchart of the sanctioning process, along with the actual numbers of referrals and outcomes from CTWBS for the 754 sanctioned sample clients. Of the 754 clients referred for sanctioning, only 236 (31 percent) were actually sanctioned, 35 percent were found by DSS to have good cause (and thus avoid a sanction), and the remaining 34 percent were withdrawn or had no further action associated with the sanctioning process. Based on this information, one would estimate that for every three clients referred for sanctioning, just one will actually be sanctioned.

Characteristics of sanctioned families. Table V-5 shows the factors associated with sanctioned families in the study sample. Sanctioned families are more likely to be younger, have a higher JFES program intensity level, have a transportation barrier, participate in the Northwest Regional WIB, and be in the Western DSS Region.

Exempt and Time-Limited Status of TFA Families

Time-limited families left at a greater rate than the exempt families (see Figure V-2).

Reasons for exemption from participating in JFES. The reasons for exempting 334 adults from participating in JFES are shown in Table V-6 (information was not available for 54 adults). The most frequent reason for exemption was caring for a child under one, followed by the DSS eligibility worker determining that the adult was incapacitated (usually temporarily). Characteristics that differentiate each of the four most frequent reasons for exemption from JFES are shown in Appendix M.

The largest proportion of exempt families currently receiving cash assistance are called “child-only” cases; these are situations where a non-parent relative—usually a grandparent—is raising a child. DSS' eligibility system does not have an easy way to identify these cases; it is not actually one of the reasons for exemption. Because so many of the exempt cases remaining on the caseload are child-only cases, the committee recommends:

DSS should find a simple way to identify child-only cases, such as adding this category to the reason for exemption menu in EMS.

Change in status from October 2003 to the first time case closed. Time-limited and exempt status is fairly fluid, changing at least once for 39 percent of families. While most of the 791 time-limited families (92 percent) remained mandatory JFES participants and thus time-limited, over half (55 percent) of the 297 exempt families were time-limited at the time their cases closed.

Exempt clients who changed to time-limited. Table V-7 shows the reason for exemption and the percent that changed to time-limited status by closure, or if still open, by August 2006. As would be expected, almost two-thirds of adults caring for a child under one (61 percent) became mandatory JFES participants. A sizeable number of adults in the other groups also became mandatory JFES participants.

Of the 129 families exempt due to caring for a child under one who closed, 70 (54 percent) subsequently became time-limited and active JFES participants. (Note that 8 parents had become time-limited but were considered inactive JFES clients, and 51 did not become time-limited).

In examining the 83 families who were TFA recipients the entire 35 months (October 2003 through August 2006), there were 37 families who were exempt in October 2003 and 46 families who were time-limited, mandatory JFES participants. The time-limited or exempt status changed at least once for 66 percent of these families, with some families having as many as four status changes. Half of the cases that opened time-limited (50 percent) were exempt 35 months later. Nearly half of the cases that opened exempt (46 percent) were time-limited 35 months later.

Regional Breakout of the Sample

DSS regions. Of the 1,278 TFA clients in the study sample, the Northern DSS region had the most sample TFA recipients (approximately 42 percent) and the Western and Southern regions each had 29 percent of the sample. A more detailed demographic breakdown of the sample clientele by DSS region is provided in Appendix N, and the towns and cities within each of the three DSS regions are found in Appendix O.

WIB regions. There are differences in the number of TFA cases among the five regional workforce investment boards (WIBs), with the North Central WIB having the most sample JFES participants (36 percent), almost twice as many as the next largest region (19 percent in the South Central Region). Appendix P shows the demographic differences that were found across the five WIB regions for the sample.

Description of Family Needs

Barriers to employment. Information was available from CTWBS for 1,222 of the 1,278 TFA recipients in the study sample (96 percent). Table V-8 shows the reported incidence of barriers to employment during the development of the JFES employment plan (at registration). It is important to note that the barriers are identified by JFES case managers when developing participants' employment plans and do not necessarily reflect the total number of actual current employment barriers (per Note in “At-A-Squint” Reports).

The most prevalent barriers to employment are: transportation; child care; low math and reading skills; limited work history; and lacking a high school diploma or GED.

Approximately one-third of these 1,221 clients had three or more barriers to employment as reported by the JFES case managers (Figure V-3). More information about barriers to employment is contained in Appendix Q.

Financial Condition of Families in Study Sample at Case Opening

Assets and income. Table V-9 shows the assets and income for the families in the study sample in October 2003 based on data from DSS. Almost no families owned a home and approximately one-third were receiving a housing subsidy or living in public housing.

One in six had earned income in the month they began receiving TFA and one-third had earned income in the quarter in which they began receiving TFA. Nearly half (49 percent) had some form of unearned income (excluding TFA). Appendix R shows the change in assets and income from TFA opening to closing.

Income was also assessed using information obtained from the Department of Labor earned wage database. In the third quarter (July-September) of 2003, the quarter most closely reflecting the families' financial condition as of October 2003, wages were reported for 42 percent of the 1,171 households in the sample. There were also 170 families who had members receiving unemployment compensation in that quarter, slightly less than the 188 figure reported by DSS for October 2003.

Regardless of whether they were exempt from JFES or required to participate in employment services (“time-limited”), all TFA families received cash assistance. Adjustments to the payment standards were made depending on unearned income sources, such as housing subsidies and child support. Table V-10 shows the average cash payment in October 2003 by size of household. The median TFA payment was $440 for a family of three. Additional information about TFA recipients and food stamps, housing, child care, and health insurance assistance are found in Appendix S.

Earned wages for time limited and exempt clients during their time on TFA. Figure V-4 shows the percent of earned wages for time-limited and exempt clients while they were on TFA. While not required to be employed, approximately one-third of the exempt families had earnings in each of the quarters open.

EMS. EMS generates an estimated 89,000 Income Eligibility Verification System (IEVS) alerts each month. These are computer matches with the Department of Labor wage database and unemployment files, the Internal Revenue Service 1099 (unearned income) files, and the Social Security Administration benefit and wage files. Alerts are regularly sent to DSS Eligibility Workers when there is a discrepancy between employment information on EMS and employment information on these other databases; however, because there are so many alerts, workers are unable to follow up in a timely manner. The program review committee recommends:

EMS levels of alerts should be developed by DSS so that when quarterly wages are found to be above the Federal Poverty Level, they are tagged as a high priority alert, and the appropriate parties can then further research the family's earned wages.

Beyond the alerts, there are other EMS limitations:

• it is difficult to incorporate any programmatic or policy change without a labor intensive effort;

• the system is reliant on lengthy narrative to understand the history of the case;

• the system is unable to fully monitor cases--for example, it cannot accurately state a client's number of sanctions or whether a client is time-limited but continues to receive cash assistance without JFES referral or registration; and

• the system is inefficient and has very limited reporting capabilities.

It took approximately four months from the program review committee staff date of request for DSS to complete the provision of requested data. While the committee is deeply grateful to the dedicated staff that spent many long hours providing this information critical to the study of Connecticut's welfare reform initiative, enhancements to the system are needed to save time and money, and promote the information support expected for a large public assistance agency. While complete replacement of EMS might be ideal, expense and level of disruption prohibit the committee from making such a recommendation. Therefore, the program review committee recommends:

The Department of Social Services should begin exploring software options to enhance the current Eligibility Management System in a way that will support staff and management in their efforts to efficiently and effectively perform their responsibilities.

Chapter Six

Jobs First Employment Services: Study Sample Experience

As described in the study scope, advocates have expressed concern about the JFES program adequately preparing parents to successfully leave TFA. This chapter goes beyond the program description and focuses on the actual JFES program experience, based on the program review study sample. Specifically, information about JFES orientation attendance rates and participation in each of the program's core and non-core activities is discussed. Also described is the relationship between the activities clients participate in and their barriers to employment, children's ages, and literacy level.

Key Findings

JFES orientation

• A total of 43 percent attended their JFES orientation the first time it was scheduled

• An additional 14 percent attended the second time it was scheduled

• Adding together third and fourth scheduled times, a total of 64 percent attended their JFES orientation

Time-limited and non-JFES registered clients

• There were 164 clients who were time-limited but did not participate in JFES (20 percent of the one-parent, time-limited clients in the sample)

• Their situations generally fell into three categories:

- time-limited for 1-3 months, then closed (17 percent);

- time-limited for 4+ months and then closed (42 percent); and

- had both time-limited and exempt status (41 percent).

Participation in JFES activities

• While there are a host of possible activities, only four were used with any regularity:

- job search/job readiness;

- unsubsidized employment;

- vocational education; and

- education directly related to employment.

• Approximately half of sample JFES clients participated solely in unsubsidized employment or job search/job readiness training

• Very few sample JFES clients were receiving treatment for mental health, domestic violence, or substance abuse issues

• JFES clients in unsubsidized employment had the fewest barriers to employment, and those in education directly related to employment had the most, particularly lacking a high school diploma or GED

• Twelve percent of clients in unsubsidized employment were employed less than one month, 68 percent at least 13 weeks, and 46 percent at least 6 months

JFES Orientation

As described in Chapter Three, under Universal Engagement, TFA applicants expected to be time-limited clients must attend a JFES program orientation to begin receiving cash assistance. Figure VI-1 shows the outcomes for 199 clients scheduled for JFES Orientation between October 1 and October 7, 2003. While Figure VI-1 is not related directly to the study sample, this time period is similar to the sample time period, and prior to the Universal Engagement rule requiring attendance at a JFES Orientation to receive TFA.

A total of 43 percent attended their JFES Orientation the first time it was scheduled, and an additional 14 percent attended the second time it was scheduled. Adding together third and fourth times that it was scheduled, a total of 64 percent of the original 199 persons attended their JFES Orientation.

JFES Core and Non-Core Activities

As defined in Appendix D, JFES clients may participate in nine core activities and three non-core activities. In the study sample, there were 747 families new or returning to TFA who participated in JFES, most of whom (672) were categorized as “regular” or “pregnant” cases. There were also 164 “regular” or “pregnant” clients who were time-limited but did not participate in JFES¹¹. Their situations generally fell into three categories:

• 28 were time-limited for 1-3 months, then closed (17 percent);

• 69 were time-limited for 4+ months and then closed (42 percent); and

• 67 had both time-limited and exempt status (41 percent).

One in five of the one-parent, time-limited clients (20 percent) were not participating in JFES, including some who received TFA for two or more years. This percent was similar across all three regions. It is not clear what happened in these cases, but DSS and DOL reported that staff layoffs and early retirements made 2003 particularly challenging, which is the year from which the study sample came. While understanding administrative difficulties, losing track of families when they change their status from exempt to time-limited is a critical problem. In addition to possible improvements to EMS, the program review committee recommends:

The Department of Social Services should give added attention to monitoring families that change from exempt to time-limited status.

While there are a host of possible activities for JFES clients, only four are used with any regularity: 1) job search/job readiness; 2) unsubsidized employment; 3) vocational education; and 4) education directly related to employment. It should be noted that 4 percent of the new JFES clients in unsubsidized employment (six people) and 3 percent of the returning JFES clients in unsubsidized employment (nine people) were engaged in self-employment activities and so no earnings would be included in the DOL Earned Wage Database. Approximately half of the active JFES clients were participating solely in unsubsidized employment or job search/job readiness and no other core or non-core JFES activities.

Unsubsidized employment. Figure VI-2 shows the average number of hours per week clients in unsubsidized employment spent working (the highest paying job was used for this analysis if clients had experienced more than one job during their time in JFES). Most worked at least 20 hours per week with over half working 30 or more hours per week. Note that the clients working 20-29 hours per week could have been caring for a child under six, and so these hours would be counted toward the work participation rate.

The number of unsubsidized employment experiences the 747 JFES clients had ranged from none to five. Of those who had at least one unsubsidized employment experience, 70 percent had one job and 24 percent had two jobs.

Figure VI-3 shows the length of time employed in the longest job held for 212 of the 344 JFES clients in unsubsidized employment (62 percent). Twelve percent were employed less than one month, 68 percent employed at least 13 weeks, and 46 percent employed at least 6 months. CTWBS identified 24 clients who worked in seasonal jobs (7 percent of the 344 with unsubsidized employment), and 58 clients who worked in temporary jobs (17 percent of the 344 with unsubsidized employment).

Additional activities. Table VI-2 shows additional activities that clients participated in beyond the core and non-core JFES activities. The new clients participated in more of the additional activities (not core or non-core JFES activities) than did the returning clients, particularly in child care related activities. Very few JFES clients were receiving treatment for mental health, domestic violence, or substance abuse issues.

JFES activities and barriers to employment. Table VI-3 shows the four most frequent JFES activities and the barriers to employment reported at JFES intake by clients in these activities. Overall, those in unsubsidized employment appeared to have the fewest barriers to employment, and those in education directly related to employment appeared to have the most barriers to employment, particularly lacking a high school diploma or GED. (JFES clients could be in more than one JFES activity during their time in JFES, and so be counted more than once.)

JFES activities and age of children. Figure VI-4 shows the average age of the youngest and the oldest child in the family for clients participating in the four most frequent JFES activities. Families with younger children appeared to be in vocational education and those with somewhat older children in education directly related to employment.

JFES activities and literacy level. Many of the JFES clients are given the CASAS test of their reading and math literacy levels. Overall, the 526 clients who had a reading test score averaged 234, which equates to the reading literacy level 4 (High Intermediate, which is below secondary education). There were also 407 clients who had a math test score, which averaged 216, equivalent to a math level 3 (Low Intermediate). Appendix U shows the average reading and math scores for clients in the four most frequent JFES activities. The clients participating in education directly related to employment appeared to have the lower literacy scores.

Chapter Seven

Performance Outcomes for Study Sample

One of the main study purposes was to evaluate the success of TFA and the JFES program in particular. How success is measured is a key issue. In this chapter, the outcomes of the study sample are compared to the goals established by the programs or administering agencies. The study sample outcomes were also compared to an estimate of the state self-sufficiency standard.

Specifically, the level of achievement of DOL JFES program goals and WIB benchmarks is described, related to family earnings and independence from TFA. Differences in outcomes for active JFES participants, time-limited inactive clients, and exempt clients are examined. Finally, factors associated with more favorable outcomes, improvement in financial condition, and return to TFA after closure are also identified in this chapter.

Key Findings

Earnings and independence from TFA

• Twenty-two percent met the first JFES program goal of independence from cash assistance by the end of the 21-month time limit through employment

• As many as two-thirds of TFA participants (with state TFA counters of 1-21 months) met the second JFES program goal of independence from cash assistance through remaining employed and independent of TFA

• Most of the WIB benchmarks were met or almost met with the exception of being able to attain at least a 10 percent wage increase within six months of exit for 40 percent of clients who left TFA employed

• Over one-quarter (27 percent) left TFA earning above the federal poverty level

• One in five families are estimated to have left TFA earning above the self-sufficiency standard

• Almost half of active JFES participants had no earnings in the quarter after they left TFA

• There was a dramatic drop in financial condition for many of the families leaving TFA

• Employment is not maintained even for one quarter in most instances where reason for closing is due to earning above the TFA limit; by the fourth quarter post closure, one-third of the families had returned to TFA

• Approximately half of families who closed due to earnings above the FPL fall below the FPL in each post-closure quarter examined

• Over half of families who were exempt in October 2003 left TFA employed

• Approximately 40 percent of single parents exempt because of caring for a child under one had earned wages in each quarter, and almost one in ten was earning above the federal poverty level

Factors associated with more favorable outcomes

• Having more education (at least a high school diploma or GED) and literacy

• Having a work history and wages prior to TFA opening

• Having more than job search/job readiness training alone

• Participating in three or more types of core and non-core JFES activities

• Staying on cash assistance a shorter period of time

Returning to TFA

• Almost three-quarters (71 percent) were on TFA more than once

• Families that had been on TFA multiple times had significantly more barriers to employment

JFES Program Goal Outcomes: Earnings and Independence from TFA

As described earlier, time-limited clients are only allowed 21 months (plus extensions) of TFA assistance in Connecticut—and there is a 60-month lifetime limit for receiving services in all states combined. Each time-limited family has an automated state TFA counter that tracks the number of months of cash assistance that have been used up so that assistance does not exceed federal and state limits.

JFES Program Goal 1: Enabling TFA participants, through employment, to become independent from cash assistance by the end of the 21 month time limit.

Two hundred forty (240) families out of the 1,088 (22 percent) became independent from cash assistance by the end of the 21-month time limit through employment. There are several points about this finding:

• this program goal is not currently measured by DSS or DOL;

• there is no standard against which to assess this finding as the program goal does not state a specific percent that is expected to be achieved;

• this finding of 22 percent is higher than the 12 percent reported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, for example, in FFY 04; and

• the current system is failing to capture all of the families with earnings above the federal poverty level at closure. Program review committee staff measurement of this program goal went beyond the reasons for closure generated by EMS and looked at earned income in the closing quarter as reported on the DOL earned wage database.

Figure VII-1 provides context for this outcome and shows the breakdown of families by their time on TFA, who left due to earnings above the TFA limit or FPL. Of the 1,088 sample families whose cases closed, 510 families had one to 21 months on their state TFA counter at the time of their first closing post-October 2003, and 528 families had 22 to 60 months on their counter. (The remainder of the 1,171 families included 50 who had zero on their state TFA counter and 83 who were open the entire time period under study).

Compared to those with a JFES counter of 21 months or less, families with a JFES counter over 21 months were less likely to leave cash assistance employed and earning at or above the TFA limit or Federal Poverty Level.

Figure VII-2 shows the outcomes for all families who had between one and 21 months on their JFES counter at time of first closure since October 2003. Only 28 of the active clients with JFES counters between one and 21 months came to JFES already employed (8 percent); however, over half (54 percent) left cash assistance employed and earning above the TFA payment standard or FPL.

In contrast to families who left within the 21 month time limit, Figure VII-3 shows the outcomes for families who had between 22 and 60 months on their JFES counter at time of first

closure since October 2003. Similar to the finding for families with lower JFES counters, only 21 of the active clients with higher JFES counters came to JFES already employed (6 percent). They were somewhat more likely, however, to leave employed and earning above the TFA payment standard or FPL (28 percent) in comparison to the remainder who had come to JFES without employment (18 percent).

JFES Program Goal 2: Enabling TFA participants who become independent from cash assistance to remain employed and independent of TFA.

This program goal does not specify whether it focuses on participants who become independent of TFA at or before 21 months, or at any time. Therefore, program review committee staff present the program goal outcome using three different scenarios: families with state TFA counters of 1-21 months at closure; families with state TFA counters of 22-60 months at closure; and families with state TFA counters of 1-60 months at closure. It should be remembered that the sample timeframe and unavailability of wage information beyond March 2006 obviously limits how far out it can be determined that someone has remained employed and independent.

Families with state TFA counters of 1-21 months. As just discussed regarding the first JFES goal, 240 families left TFA employed and with a state TFA counter of 1-21 months. As many as two-thirds of them remained employed and independent from cash assistance in the two quarters following case closure. One-third of the 240 families returned to TFA by August 2006 (see Figure VII-4).

Eighty-one percent (of the 234 families that had been closed at least one quarter) showed earnings in the first full quarter after TFA closure and 99 percent (of the 184 families that had been closed at least an additional, second quarter) in the second full quarter after TFA closure.

Families with state TFA counters of 22-60 months. There were 102 families who left TFA employed and with a state TFA counter of 22-60 months. As many as four-fifths of them remained employed and independent from cash assistance in the two quarters following case closure. One-fifth (22 percent) of the 102 families returned to TFA by August 2006.

Eighty-seven percent (of the 90 families that had been closed at least one quarter) showed earnings in the first full quarter after TFA closure and 92 percent (of the 75 families that had been closed at least an additional, second quarter) in the second full quarter after TFA closure.

Families with state TFA counters of 1-60 months. Combining the above two groups, there were 342 families who left TFA employed and with a state TFA counter of 1-60 months. As many as 70 percent of them remained employed and independent from cash assistance in the two quarters following case closure. Nearly one-third (30 percent) of the 342 families returned to TFA by August 2006.

Eighty-three percent (of the 324 families that had been closed at least one quarter) showed earnings in the first full quarter after TFA closure and 97 percent (of 259 families that had been closed at least an additional, second quarter) in the second full quarter after TFA closure.

The committee finds that this goal is neither measured nor well-defined. For example:

• this program goal is not currently measured by DSS or DOL;

• the goal is unclear as to whether the goal only includes families who were on TFA for 21 months or less;

• the goal is unclear as to whether clients are expected to remain independent of TFA for a minimum period of time or permanently;

• the goal is unclear as to whether the clients are to remain employed for a minimum period of time or permanently; and

• there is no standard against which to assess this finding as the program goal does not state a specific percent that is expected to be achieved.

WIB Performance Measures

The federal Workforce Investment Act requires states to evaluate program success using certain core performance indicators. For FY 07, DOL's contract with each WIB contains performance measures for placing and retaining JFES clients in employment (referred to as “Entered Employment Benchmarks”). Table VII-1 sets out the benchmarks and shows the relative success of the program for the 747 active JFES clients in the study sample using these indicators.

In the study sample, four of the six WIB benchmarks were met. For several of the benchmarks, either the DOL CTWBS Database or the DOL Wage Database could be used to identify employed clients as well as income earned. The outcomes differed depending on which database was used.

The second benchmark, for example, was calculated using information from the DOL CTWBS Database, which identified 339 clients in unsubsidized employment. The second benchmark was also calculated using information from the DOL Wage Database, and 502 clients were identified as having earned income; however, only 64 percent were identified as having gross earnings of at least $633 monthly. A smaller difference was found for the third benchmark, where the DOL Wage Database identified 29 percent of the 502 employed clients as earning above the FPL in contrast to the 30 percent found for the 339 clients on CTWBS. The differences in information between the two databases suggest either some employed clients in the JFES program did not report this information to their JFES case managers, or JFES case managers failed to enter the information into CTWBS.

The first benchmark percent was slightly lower in October 2003, requiring just 40 percent to enter unsubsidized employment, a goal that this sample would have met under the 2003 benchmarks. The only area where there was a large gap between the WIB performance indicator and outcome was for the sixth benchmark: while the goal is that 40 percent of clients who left TFA employed attained at least a 10 percent wage increase within six months of exit, only 26 percent actually did.

Additionally, the WIB contracts with DOL have a performance measure that requires at least 60 percent of JFES clients be enrolled in TANF work activities that can be counted toward the federally required 50 percent work participation rate. In the study sample of 747 active JFES clients, there were 604 (81 percent) that showed participation in one or more of the nine core or three non-core activities. However, activities can only be counted toward the work participation rate if a minimum number of hours are spent alone or in combination with particular activities.

Hours in unsubsidized employment. Average weekly hours in unsubsidized employment is shown in Table VII-2 for the 343 families for which this information is known. Note that the highest paying job and information about that job was used in this analysis for the 105 clients who had experienced more than one job during their time on JFES. The median number of hours in unsubsidized employment was 30-34 hours per week.

Reason for case closing. Each time a family's case is closed a DSS worker or EMS automatically indicates a single reason for closing the assistance unit/family case. In its sample, committee staff found 92 families who were earning above the federal poverty level in their closing quarter and subsequent quarters but whose records indicated another reason besides earning above FPL for case closure.

As can be seen in Table VII-3, the most frequent reason recorded for case closures for families earning above the FPL, besides that actual reason, was that the families did not show for required appointments or failed to complete required paperwork. If the 92 additional families are added to the 205 formally identified as being closed for that reason, the percent of families whose cases were closed because they were earning above the FPL jumps from 19 percent to 27 percent. This study uses the expanded group of 297 families when examining families who closed earning above the FPL. The program review committee recommends:

To more accurately capture families whose cases close because they are earning above the federal poverty level, and therefore receive credit in the work participation rate calculations, DSS should check available wage databases such as the DOL Earned Wage Database and New Hire Wage Database, and update information accordingly.

DSS has up to one year to correct information submitted to the federal government for use in determining work participation rates.

Table VII-4 shows the revised reasons for case closing, based on committee staff analysis. Overall, the most frequently indicated reasons for closure were that the family had earned income above the federal poverty level or that the client did not attend a required appointment or submit required paperwork. Only two percent of families were sanctioned off of TFA.

Differences in reason for closure for time-limited and exempt families. Table VII-4 also shows the differences in reason for case closing for time-limited and exempt cases. JFES exempt cases were more likely to close because there was no longer a TFA-eligible child in the home, and time-limited cases were more likely to close because they had timed out or an extension was not approved. It is noteworthy that one in five of the JFES exempt cases that closed was earning above the federal poverty level.

Marriage and leaving TFA above the federal poverty level. Marital status was not one of the factors that influenced whether families left TFA at or above the federal poverty level. Table VII-5 shows percent leaving poverty by marital status. Note that a status of married includes two people living apart and legally separated.

Rather than marriage, Table VII-6 shows that a stronger factor associated with families leaving TFA at or above the federal poverty level is the presence of two working parents. Note that marriage alone does not assure that both parents are working.

Financial condition in quarter following closure. Figure VII-5 summarizes outcomes for active JFES clients in the quarter after they left TFA in relationship to earnings at or above the federal poverty level. As can be seen, almost half of active JFES participants who closed had no earnings in the quarter after they left TFA; however, one in five was earning above the federal poverty level.

In addition to earned income, financial condition in the quarter following TFA closure was also assessed by examining:

• TFA benefit amount (if any -- for re-opened cases);

• food stamp benefit amount (if any);

• social security amount (if any);

• child support amount (if any); and

• unemployment compensation (if any).

Table VII-7 shows the financial condition of the 974 closed families in the quarter following their closing. (Appendix V shows the financial condition of the 974 families at opening, in the quarter prior to closure, and at closure for the families that had at least one TFA closing post-October 2003.) The median combined earned and unearned income was 38 percent higher for formerly active JFES clients in comparison to formerly inactive JFES clients ($670 per month for formerly active JFES clients and $414 for formerly inactive JFES clients).

Figure VII-6 shows the financial condition for time-limited families who were active and not active in JFES during their time on TFA. Almost half of the active JFES clients (47 percent) had no earnings in the quarter after they left TFA. However, fewer of the formerly inactive JFES clients were working or receiving food stamps. Appendix W provides additional information about their different employment rates over time.

Formerly active JFES clients fare relatively better than inactive JFES clients in the quarter following TFA closure. Therefore, the committee recommends the following:

DSS should strengthen its case monitoring to reduce the number of time-limited families that are not enrolled in JFES but are still receiving cash assistance.

Regardless of active/inactive status in the JFES program, Figure VII-7 shows that there is a dramatic drop in overall financial condition for many of the families leaving TFA. The committee will recommend in Chapter Ten that cash assistance be decreased rather than abruptly stopped to smooth the transition off of TFA.

Figure VII-8 compares quarterly wages at opening and closing. There is more than triple the percent of families in the over $3,000 category. Some TFA families make significant gains in their quarterly earnings from TFA opening to closing.

There were 73 families, regardless of whether they were JFES participants, whose cases closed because their earnings were above the TFA limit at redetermination. Figure VII-9 shows the wages earned in each of the quarters following closure. In no quarter are more than one-third of families who closed for this reason earning above the TFA payment standard, the reason given for case closure. This suggests that the employment is not maintained even for one quarter in most instances where reason for closing is due to earning above the TFA limit. By the fourth quarter post closure, one-third of the families had returned to TFA. Appendix X provides additional information for JFES active, inactive and exempt families who closed for this reason.

Outcomes for families who left because they had income above the federal poverty level. There were 205 families who left TFA reportedly because they were earning at or above the federal poverty level. Information about their earnings in the quarter in which their case was closed, in the quarter before and in the quarters after, are shown in Figure VII-10. Appendix Y provides additional information for JFES active, inactive and exempt families who closed for this reason.

Approximately half of families who close due to earnings above the FPL fall below the FPL in each quarter; they appear unable to maintain earnings above the FPL in quarters following closure.

Of the 205 families that close due to income above the FPL, just 47 percent sustain that earnings level in the subsequent two quarters post closure. The families are not required to earn income above the FPL for a sustained period of time before they are terminated from TFA.

Earned Income above the Self-Sufficiency Standard for TFA Families at Closing

The state's self-sufficiency standard, described in Chapter Nine, is another measure by which to assess the study sample outcomes. There were 219 families (20 percent of the 1,088 families) that experienced at least one TFA closing who left TFA earning at or above the self-sufficiency standard, estimated at approximately $42,600 annually ($3,550 monthly), the lowest estimate in 2005 for a family of three (one adult, one preschooler, one school-age child).

Those who closed with a time-limited status were no more likely to be earning above the self-sufficiency standard than exempt cases that closed. The more time on TFA, however, was associated with less likelihood of leaving earning a wage above the self-sufficiency standard.

Outcomes for Exempt Families

As changes made by the Deficit Reduction Act will include certain exempt categories of clients in the state's work participation rate, Table VII-8 provides some information on level of success for the two largest groups of exempt recipients and all exempt recipients combined. The more successful families would leave TFA working and earning at least above the TFA payment standard. Additional information on the reasons for case closure for the two most frequent types of exempt families are found in Appendix Z. The financial condition of these families is also described in Appendix AA.

Despite being exempt in October 2003, over half left TFA employed.

Earnings and Independence from TFA for Exempt Families

Although not required to be employed, a number of exempt clients were working while receiving cash assistance.

Earned wages for exempt families overall. Figure VII-11 shows the earned wages for all exempt clients while they were on TFA. Only single parent families that were exempt all three months of the quarter were included. While approximately half have no earned wages prior to TFA, the percent in each open quarter with no earnings continues to increase while the small percent with earnings above the federal poverty level declines.

Earned wages for open cases of exempt clients caring for children under one. The exempt clients caring for a child under one were relatively more likely to be working than the full group of exempt clients. Figure VII-12 shows the earned wages for exempt clients while they

were on TFA. Only single parent families that were exempt all three months of the quarter were included. Approximately 40 percent of single parents exempt because of caring for a child under one had earned wages in each quarter, and almost one in ten was earning above the federal poverty level. A number of clients exempt due to caring for a child under one were working -- some quite successfully -- and a shorter, six-month exemption will be recommended in Chapter Ten.

Factors Associated With Outcomes

Barriers to employment. Table VII-9 shows the four most frequent barriers to employment reported at JFES intake. Those with no earnings are more likely to lack a high school diploma or GED and have a limited work history. Those with no earnings overall have a statistically significant increased number of barriers to employment than those earning above the FPL.

Additionally, of the 17 with a reported barrier of substance abuse, 13 (76 percent) had no earnings in the quarter following TFA closure.

Because clients with more barriers to employment are associated with poorer outcomes, the program review committee recommends the following:

C.G.S. Sec. 17b-112e shall be amended to increase the use of the Employment Success Program, Prevention Services, and the Safety Net Program to address barriers to employment as early as possible. Requirements regarding the number of sanctions and time-limitations for delivery of the three programs should be relaxed, and clients who have made a good faith effort to seek and maintain employment or who are at risk of unsuccessfully completing the Jobs First Employment Services Program should be served in addition to the current clients served who have not made a good faith effort.

Identifying the problems earlier will give case managers and support programs additional time to help clients obtain needed services for a better outcome.

Literacy level. Table VII-10 shows that the clients earning above the FPL in the quarter after leaving TFA have the highest literacy scores, and those with no earnings in the quarter following TFA closure have the lowest literacy scores.

JFES activities participation. There were 692 families identified as time-limited who participated for a portion of time in the JFES program. Table VII-11 shows the various JFES core and non-core activities in which the active JFES clients participated between October 2003 and August 2006.

While there are a host of possible activities, only four are used with any regularity: 1) job search/job readiness; 2) unsubsidized employment; 3) vocational education; and 4) education directly related to employment.

Results of the sample showed that those who did not participate in unsubsidized employment were significantly less likely to be employed in the quarter after leaving TFA. Further, clients with no earnings in the quarter after leaving TFA were just as likely to have participated in job search and job readiness training as those employed. Thus, job search and job readiness training alone is not enough to help these families.

Families were considered more successful if they left TFA employed and either earning above FPL or the TFA payment standard in two consecutive quarters after closing. The less successful were families that left TFA unemployed. Figure VII-13 shows the success level for clients participating in particular JFES activities. With the exception of unsubsidized employment, participation in a single JFES activity alone is not linked to success of outcome.

Intensity of JFES Program

JFES clients may participate in one or more of the core and non-core activities. Figure VII-14 shows the number of types of activities clients participated in and whether they had a successful or unsuccessful outcome. (Outcome information on the inactive JFES participants is found in Appendix BB.)