I. Introduction

This document presents results from the post-time limit tracking study – a survey of former recipients of Temporary Family Assistance (TFA), Connecticut's cash assistance program for needy families with children. The survey targeted individuals from six areas of the state whose TFA benefits were discontinued in late 1997 when they reached the 21-month time limit on cash assistance that was established as part of Connecticut's Jobs First welfare reform initiative. Individuals who were still not receiving TFA approximately three months after their benefits were discontinued were asked to complete a brief telephone interview describing their current situation and key changes that had taken place since they left cash assistance.[1] These same individuals will be interviewed again approximately six months after their benefits were discontinued.

The post-time limit tracking study is being conducted by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), with funding from the Connecticut Department of Social Services (DSS). MDRC, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization with more than two decades of experience designing and studying social policy initiatives, is also conducting a full-scale evaluation of Jobs First in two of the six areas that are part of the post-time limit tracking study.

Readers should exercise caution in interpreting the results of the post-time limit tracking study for two main reasons. First, the three-month follow-up period is quite short; much longer follow-up is required to fully understand how families will fare after their welfare benefits are discontinued. Second, although this study explicitly compares families’ situations three months after TFA discontinuance with their situations in the last month in which they received benefits, it is not possible to attribute any changes to the fact that their benefits were discontinued. There is no way to determine how these families would have fared if they had been allowed to continue receiving welfare. MDRC’s full-scale evaluation of Jobs First is comparing the outcomes for Jobs First clients with the outcomes for a randomly selected group of similar clients who are continuing to receive welfare under the prior rules.

In addition, it is important to understand two distinctive features of the Jobs First program. First, owing to the way Jobs First’s time limit is designed and implemented, most of the recipients whose benefits have been discontinued had household income above the welfare payment standard (the maximum grant for their family size) when they reached the time limit. Conversely, most of the recipients with income below the payment standard when they reached the time limit have received extensions of their benefits, and thus are not included in this study.[2] Because of this pattern, one would expect that most of the people targeted for this study were employed at the point their benefits were discontinued.

Second, Jobs First includes an unusually generous financial work incentive: All earned income is disregarded (i.e., not counted) in calculating recipients’ cash grants and Food Stamp benefits, as long as their earned income is below the federal poverty level. This policy allows many working recipients to continue receiving their entire cash grant (typically $543/month for a family of three), along with a substantial Food Stamp allotment. Thus, when comparing the financial status of families before and after benefit discontinuance, it is important to recall that, before they reach the time limit, working recipients typically have much higher total income under Jobs First than they would have had under prior welfare rules.

A. The Jobs First Program and Evaluation

1. The Jobs First time limit. Individuals who began receiving TFA after January 1, 1996 entered Jobs First immediately. If they were not exempt from the time limit, their "clock" began with their first month of benefit receipt.[3] Individuals who were already receiving benefits when the program began were phased into Jobs First gradually during 1996, when they showed up at the welfare office to have their eligibility for benefits recertified; their clocks started with the first month of TFA receipt after that point.

This schedule means that people who entered Jobs First in the first month of implementation (January 1996), received benefits continuously, and were never exempt from the time limit, reached their 20^th month of benefit receipt in September 1997. At that point, they were called in for an "exit interview" to determine whether they qualified for an exemption or a six-month extension of their benefits. In general, extensions are granted to recipients who have made a good faith effort to find employment, but have family income below the welfare payment standard when they reach the time limit, or at any point thereafter. Recipients may receive extensions even if they have not made a good faith effort, if there are circumstances beyond their control that prevent them from working when they reach the time limit.

As noted earlier, statewide DSS data indicate that most of the recipients who show up for an exit interview and have income below the payment standard are receiving extensions. Most of the clients who are not receiving extensions fall into two categories. The majority are people who attended their exit interview and were found to have income that exceeded the payment standard. Others have been denied extensions because they failed to show up for their exit interview. Relatively few clients have been denied extensions because it was determined that they failed to make a good faith effort to find employment.[4]

In effect, this pattern means that a large proportion of the clients who have had their benefits discontinued are employed. Because of the large earned income disregard, described above, many of these clients were able to work and receive their entire welfare grant until they reached the time limit. At that point, they experienced a large drop in income because their welfare benefits were discontinued (and their Food Stamp grants may have declined as well). However, they may apply for an extension later if their income drops.

2. The Jobs First evaluation. MDRC is conducting a multi-faceted evaluation of Jobs First in New Haven and Manchester, under a contract with DSS. The study uses a random assignment research design, in which about 6,000 welfare applicants and recipients were assigned to one of two groups: the Jobs First group, whose members are subject to all of the rules described above, or the AFDC group, whose members are subject to the prior welfare rules (i.e., they have no time limit and also do not receive the enhanced earned income disregard). MDRC is studying the members of these two groups during a follow-up period of several years; any differences that emerge between the groups’ members will be attributable to Jobs First. These differences are known as the program’s impacts.

This post-time limit tracking study complements the Jobs First evaluation, but is not directly part of it (indeed the post-time limit tracking study is occurring in four areas that are not part of the full-scale evaluation). As discussed below, the post-time limit tracking study is intended to describe the post-welfare circumstances of clients who reach the time limit and do not receive extensions. However, the study cannot measure the impact of Jobs First because there is no comparison group against whom to compare the clients who are being surveyed. The first evidence on the impacts of Jobs First – that is, the differences between the Jobs First and AFDC groups – will appear in an interim evaluation report scheduled for 1999.

B. The Post-Time Limit Tracking Study

As discussed above, the post-time limit tracking study focuses on the early experiences of a sample of cases who were the first to reach their 21-month TFA time limit and not receive a cash aid extension.

To date, not much is known about the economic status and household stability of families who are no longer receiving welfare. Most existing research has focused on the financial circumstances of women as they cycled on and off Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC). However, the employment and economic experiences of women who chose to leave welfare could be different from those whose welfare benefits were discontinued at a time limit. The findings presented in this document seek to fill in some of the gaps, and provide a snapshot of the lives of several hundred families at very early stages of their post-welfare period.

1. The sampling frame. Cases eligible to be surveyed for this study include those that reached the 21-month TFA benefit time limit and did not receive an extension. These cases were selected from six DSS district offices: Bridgeport, Hartford, Manchester, New Haven, Norwich, and Waterbury.

Figure 1 illustrates how the survey sample was selected. To identify the sample, DSS provided MDRC with computerized files containing the names of all recipients who were scheduled for a 20-month exit interview in September or October 1997 (the first months in which such interviews took place), along with information on the outcome of the exit interview for some of the cases. MDRC began by eliminating cases from the non-study sites and cases that were coded as having received an extension during the exit interview. The remaining cases were looked up on the Eligibility Management System (EMS), and those that were found to be receiving TFA just before the survey began were also eliminated from the sample (these cases had either been granted extensions initially but had not been coded as such, or had been denied extensions initially but had returned to welfare in the meantime). The remaining cases constituted the survey sample; however, respondents who were found to be receiving TFA when contacted were not asked to complete the interview.

As shown in Figure 1, there were 1,644 cases in the study sites scheduled for exit interviews in September or October 1997 (773 and 871 cases, respectively). Of these, 277 cases in the September cohort were dropped because the DSS file indicated that they had received an extension during their exit interview. From the remaining 496 cases in the September cohort, another 117 were dropped because they were found to be receiving TFA just before the survey began, and 42 cases were dropped because it was determined that they had not used up all 21 months of their time limit clock.[5] Ten cases were used for a pre-test of the survey instrument, leaving a total of 327. Nearly 500 cases in the October cohort were dropped because the DSS file indicated that they had received an extension during their exit interview. From the remaining 398 cases in the October cohort, 266 cases that fit the criteria described above were selected.[6]

2. Survey method. The post-time limit survey was conducted by the Response Analysis Corporation (RAC), under a subcontract with MDRC. RAC used a Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technique.[7] To encourage survey participation, respondents were offered a $10 incentive to complete the survey. When RAC’s phone center was unable to reach a sample member by telephone, field trackers were sent to their last known address to encourage them to complete an interview. Interviewing for the three-month interview began in the second week of January and concluded in the second week of April 1998. (As noted earlier, RAC will also administer a six-month interview to the same sample.)

3.    The contents of the interview. The post-time limit survey was designed to elicit information from respondents regarding their income, employment, household composition, financial well-being, food sufficiency, and extension process experiences three months after their TFA benefit discontinuance, as well as indicate changes in these areas since their last TFA benefit month. On average, respondents were interviewed about 3.54 months after their TFA benefits were discontinued.[8] The average length of the interview was about 19 minutes. The survey was administered in English and Spanish.

4. Survey response rates and representativeness. Of the 593 sample members eligible to be surveyed, 463 or 79 percent[9] were contacted.[10] However, because 24 of the 463 respondents were receiving TFA at the time of the interview, only 421 sample members were asked to complete the survey. (See Figure 1.)

An analysis was performed to determine whether estimates based on survey data are systematically biased by the absence of completed interviews for some sample members. The analysis showed there were no specific or systematic differences in the characteristics of responders and non-responders. See Appendix A for an in depth discussion of the response analysis.

It is also important to note that the post-time limit tracking study sites were not randomly selected from all the sites or district offices in Connecticut. Consequently, caution should be exercised when generalizing these survey findings. Nevertheless, about three-fourths of the statewide TFA caseload is represented by the districts in this study.

5. Characteristics of survey respondents. As shown in Table 1, the largest proportion of respondents (24 percent) was from New Haven, followed by Bridgeport (20 percent), Hartford (19 percent), Norwich and Waterbury (14 percent), and Manchester (10 percent).

The vast majority of the respondents are female (94 percent). The average age of respondents at the time of the interview was 33.5. About  49 percent of the respondents were between 25-34 years old, and 34 percent were between 35-44. Roughly 11 percent of the respondents were between 20-24. Seven Six percent were 45 and older.[11]

The total sample is comprised of three major ethnic groups that are nearly equally represented. Thirty-four percent of the survey respondents are white non-Hispanic, 32 percent are black non-Hispanic, and 32 percent are Hispanic.[12]

A little more than half of the respondents have a high school diploma or GED and about 54 percent went to college or have a college degree. A substantial number of respondents (42 percent), however, did not graduate from high school or obtain a GED.

6. Demographic differences by district office. As shown in Appendix Table B.1, the ethnic breakdown of the sample is significantly different across the sites. As one might expect, there are significantly more black and Hispanic than white respondents in the urban sites. In Bridgeport, 40 percent of the respondents are black, 48 percent are Hispanic and 10 percent are white. The ethnic composition of the Hartford site is similar: 35 percent of the respondents are black, 56 percent are Hispanic, and 9 percent are white. In contrast, the Norwich, Manchester and Waterbury samples are comprised largely of white respondents. The New Haven site was composed primarily of black respondents, followed by white, then Hispanic respondents.

II. Survey Results

Results are presented below for each of the six main topics covered in the survey: employment, housing, income, financial security, food sufficiency and experiences with the extension process. For each topic, the discussion begins by describing the status of respondents at the time of the three-month interview (or, in some cases, in the month prior to the interview). Next, the discussion focuses on key changes that have occurred since the last month in which respondents received TFA. Finally, findings for the individual district offices are discussed when significant differences exist.

The tables are organized in a similar manner. In most tables, the top panel shows the status as of (or just before) the three-month follow-up interview, while the bottom panel describes changes that have occurred since the last benefit month. Tables 1 to 9 include results for the full sample, and appendix Tables B.1 to B.9 show the results by district.

A. Employment, Earnings and Job Characteristics

The survey asked respondents about their current employment status, and focused a number of detailed questions on the characteristics of their primary current job (generally the job in which they work the most hours). The survey also asked less detailed questions about other jobs the respondents had held since their last month of TFA receipt.

1.    Employment status three months after TFA discontinuance. As shown in the top panel of Table 2, approximately 80 percent of the respondents were employed at the time of their 3-month interview, and roughly 5 percent reported working at more than one job.

The next section of Table 2 focuses on respondents who were employed at the time of the interview. It shows that, on average, employed respondents worked 34 hours per week at all jobs. The average earnings per week from all jobs were $252. (Table 3 provides additional information on the primary job held by employed respondents. For example, Table 3 shows that respondents worked an average of 33 hours per week in their primary job and earned, on average,  $7.92 per hour.)

About 20 percent of the respondents were not employed three months after their TFA discontinuance. When asked why, 43 percent of the respondents who were not employed indicated they "could not find work," 17 percent reported they had a "health problem,"  9 percent indicated they were "in school," 11 percent said they were "taking care of someone," and 19 percent provided some other reason. Sixty-one percent of the respondents who were not employed indicated they were currently looking for work.

2.    Changes since last benefit month. The bottom panel of Table 2 shows how respondents’ employment status had changed since the last month in which they received TFA. As expected, the employment rate in the last month of TFA receipt was high – about 84 percent. Additional analysis, not shown in the table, found that the employment rate in the last benefit month was almost 90 percent among recipients who, according to EMS, had been denied an extension because they had income over the payment standard.[13] Among respondents who reported that they did not attend a Jobs First 20-month exit interview, the employment rate in the last benefit month was about 77 percent (discussed further below).

The bottom panel of Table 2 also shows that most respondents’ employment status did not change in the relatively brief period between their last benefit month and the 3-month interview. Seventy-four percent were employed at both points, and 10 percent were working at neither point. Of those who were working in the last benefit month, 83 percent were still employed at the same job three months later.

Further analysis (not shown) found that 22 percent of the respondents who were employed at both points were working more hours at the time they were interviewed than in their last benefit month. Conversely, 16 percent were working fewer hours. This analysis also found that the respondents who were working at the three-month point, but not during their last benefit month, were working an average of 34 hours per week, and earning, on average, $7.75 per hour, similar to the figures for all employed respondents.

3.    Employment differences by district office. The percentage of respondents with more than one job ranged from as few as 2 percent in New Haven to as much as 14 percent in Manchester. ( See Table B.2.) There were differences in the number of hours worked at all jobs, and at the primary job, across the district offices. Respondents in Waterbury reported working a total of 38 hours per week at all jobs and Manchester respondents reported working a total of 30 hours per week. Similarly, the average earnings per week reported by respondents from all jobs were significantly different across sites. Waterbury respondents reported the highest weekly earnings ($293) and Manchester respondents reported the lowest ($230).

Time spent commuting to work also differed across sites. On average it took New Haven respondents the least amount of time to get to work (17 minutes) and Hartford respondents the longest (26 minutes). (See Table B.3.)

B. Household Composition and Housing Arrangements

Some have suggested that discontinuance of welfare benefits could lead to changes in household composition. That is, former recipients might move in with friends or family to cut costs. Families could also send children to live with relatives.

1. Housing status three months after benefit discontinuance. The top panel of Table 4 describes respondents’ housing status and household composition at the point of the three-month interview. The most common household (30 percent) consisted of three persons. There were also some fairly large households: 15 percent of the households contained five persons, and 13 percent contained six or more persons. Just about all 98 percent) of the households included one or more children. The absence of children in 2 percent of households may be attributed to persons moving out of the respondent’s household since the last benefit month. About 41 percent of the households included at least one other adult beside the respondent.

The Census Bureau defines a unit as crowded if it has more than one person per room. As indicated in Table 4, 14 percent of the respondents live in crowded conditions by this definition.

2. Changes since the last benefit month. Overall, there were few major changes in respondents' living arrangements in the short period between the last benefit month and the three-month interview. For example, as shown in the bottom panel of Table 4, there was no change in household size since the last benefit month for 89 percent of respondents. Four percent reported an increase in household size and 7 percent reported a decrease. Four respondents (1 percent) reported being homeless at some point after their TFA benefits were discontinued. However, three of the four respondents who reported being homeless since their last benefit month also reported being homeless in the year prior to their last benefit month.

Approximately 17 percent of the respondents had moved since their last benefit month. Of the respondents who moved, 71 percent reported that they moved to a better home, and 16 percent indicated they moved to a home of equal quality. About 13 percent of the respondents who had moved (2 percent of all respondents) indicated their move led to a home that was worse than their previous home.

3. Changes by d istrict office. The number of moves differed significantly across sites. (See Table B.4.) About 23 percent of Hartford respondents and 20 percent of New Haven respondents reported moving since their last benefit month. By contrast, 16 percent of Bridgeport respondents and 14 percent of Manchester respondents reported moving. Respondents in Norwich and Waterbury were less likely to have moved since their last benefit month (10 percent in each site) than respondents in the other sites. Five percent of respondents in Norwich, and 2% of respondents in Waterbury had moved twice since their last benefit month.

C. Household Income

For this analysis, total household income was calculated for the month prior to the three-month interview by asking respondents a series of questions about income from various sources. The survey asked about income for all household members. However, income from household members other than the respondent was counted in the total only if the respondent indicated that this income helped to support her and her children. Specifically,29 35 percent of respondents indicated that other members of their household had income. However, of these, over one third 30indicated that the other household member’s income did not help to support them or their children; thus, this income was excluded in the total household income calculation.

Respondents were not directly asked about their income in their last month of TFA receipt. They were, however, asked to indicate whether their present income was more, less, or about the same as their income in their last benefit month. Initial analysis of the data uncovered some inconsistencies between income measures and other measures of well-being. Further analysis suggests that the questions regarding the income comparison may have been misinterpreted (i.e., respondents may have answered these questions in terms of earned income only). See Appendix C for a more in depth discussion of this analysis.

1.    Income in the month prior to the three-month interview. As shown in the top panel of Table 5, 19 percent 23 of the respondents reported their household income was between $1-$499, 33 percent reported income between $500-$999, and 30 percent reported income between $1,000-$1,499. The average total household income in the month prior to the three-month interview was $955. The average income for respondents who reported that their household was comprised of three individuals (30 percent of respondents) was $862. For respondents with a household size of four (22 percent of respondents), the average income was $971. (Income by family size is not shown in the table.)

Several separate analyses were conducted to determine how respondents sustained themselves without employment, or on little or no income in the month prior to the interview.

For example, 5 percent of the respondents reported no household income. An analysis showed 11 of these 19 respondents reported borrowing money from friends or family to sustain themselves during the month prior to the interview period. Two others lived with family and did not pay rent; their family members may have provided more than rent-free housing. Two respondents reported income from other household members, although they also reported that this income was not available to support them or their children.

An analysis of the 19 percent of respondents that reported household incomes between $1-$499 was also conducted. The average household size for this group was 3.7, and more than half of the respondents in this category did not have another adult in their household besides themselves. More than half reported they were employed three months after their TFA benefit discontinuance, and about 15 percent did not attend an exit interview. Nearly 77 of the respondents who reported household income between $1 and $499 were black or Hispanic (64 percent of all respondents were black or Hispanic). Also. , Finally, within the sites, the proportion of cases in this income category ranged from 10 percent in Norwich to 26 percent in New Haven. At least one in five respondents fell into this income category in three sites: Bridgeport (20 percent), Hartford (23 percent), and New Haven.

Another group of interest is the 70 respondents (17 percent of the sample) that reported no one in their household was employed. Fifty-five of these 70 respondents (79 percent) reported someone in the household received income from other sources. Eleven of the remaining 15 respondents reported using some of the following strategies to cope: borrowing money, borrowing food, or dipping into savings to support their families during the month prior to the interview.

Data limitations preclude a direct comparison of respondents’ income in their last month of TFA receipt with their income three months after their benefits had been discontinued. However, as noted previously, given the disregard structure, a decrease in total household income following the discontinuance of benefits is to be expected. On average, respondents reported that they had received $491 in TFA cash assistance in their last benefit month, and it is not likely that respondents would have been able to make up this amount in the short follow-up period for this study.

Another comparison of interest is how respondents’ total income post-TFA measures up against what they previously could have received from TFA and Food Stamps (without supplemental income from earnings).[14] A little more than half of the respondents (56 percent) had higher incomes three months after their TFA discontinuance than they could have received from TFA and Food Stamps (without working).[15]

An analysis of the 44 percent of respondents with less income in the month prior to their interview than they could have received in public assistance was conducted. Forty-four percent of the respondents in this group had income levels between $1-$499 at the time of the interview. About 15 percent also reported the income of other household members helped to support themselves and their children. Sixty-two percent of these respondents reported that they were employed when their benefits were discontinued, and 69 percent were working at the time of their interview. Approximately one-third of respondents in Norwich, Manchester, and Waterbury reported incomes lower than the maximum they could have received from TFA and Food Stamps. This was true for approximately half of respondents in the other sites, ranging from 45 percent in Hartford, to 53 percent of respondents in New Haven.

D. Financial Security and Other Measures of Well- Being

Research has shown poverty has harmful effects on families, and especially on children, in part because it implies less access to basic necessities. This section examines respondents' access to basic necessities such as food and medical care.

1.     Status in the month prior to the three-month interview. Recipients who leave welfare for work are eligible for transitional Medicaid coverage for two years. As shown in Table 6, 7 percent of the respondents (N = 28) indicated they were not covered by health insurance three months after their TFA benefit discontinuance. Fifteen of the 28 respondents were working when their benefits were discontinued and at the time of their interview. Nine percent of all respondents (N = 39) reported there were children in their household that were not covered by medical insurance. Nearly two-thirds (N = 25) of these respondents were employed at both points in time.

Respondents reported using various strategies to make ends meet in the month prior to their interview. Approximately two-thirds (67 percent) indicated they delayed paying their bills in the month prior to their interview. Forty percent reported borrowing money from family or friends and 31 percent reported borrowing food. Fifteen percent of the respondents also indicated they got food from a church, soup kitchen or food bank during this period.

2.     Changes since last benefit month. Respondents who indicated that they had used a particular strategy to make ends meet in the month prior to the three-month interview were asked whether they had used that strategy more, less, or the same amount as in their last benefit month. For example, as shown in the bottom panel of Table 6, of those who indicated that they had delayed paying bills in the month prior to the interview, 46 percent indicated that they did so more than in their last benefit month. (The survey cannot determine whether there are respondents who did not use a particular coping strategy at the three-month point, but did use it during their last benefit month.)

Half of the respondents reported they spent less money in the month prior to their interview than in their last benefit month. More than half the sample (55 percent) also reported saving less money and about a third of the sample (30 percent) reported they worked more hours. Table 6 also shows that approximately two-thirds (65 percent) of the respondents bought smaller or less expensive meals in the month prior to the interview than they had in their last benefit month. Also, of the respondents that reported borrowing food from friends and family in the month prior to their interview, 62 percent did so more than they had in the last benefit month.

When asked about their standard of living (e.g., their food, housing, medical care, and recreation) 4846 percent of respondents indicated they were less satisfied with their standard of living in the month prior to the interview than in their last benefit month, about a third indicated they felt about the same, and a little less than a quarter of the respondents reported they were more satisfied.

E. Food Sufficiency

The food sufficiency questions used in this survey are a subset of items used by the United States Department of Agriculture’s Food and Consumer Service in establishing national food-security benchmarks.

1.    Status three months after TFA discontinuance. As shown in Table 7, the majority of respondents reported that their families either "always" had enough to eat (34 percent) or had "enough," but not always the kinds of food they wanted (44 percent) at the time of the three-month interview. Sixteen percent reported their families "sometimes" did not have enough to eat, and 6 percent of the respondents reported this was "often" the case. Within the sites, the percentage of respondents who reported food insufficiencies ranged from 17 percent in Norwich to 27 percent in Bridgeport (see Table B.7).

An additional analysis (not shown in a table) indicated that more than a third of the respondents who reported food insufficiency (36 percent) reported monthly income of less than $500. Approximately 61 percent of them food insufficiency respondents also did not have another adult in their household. Seventy-eight percent reported they were also employed when their benefits were discontinued. Approximately one fifth (21 percent) of the food insufficiency respondents did not attend an exit interview. It is also of interest to note that 78 percent of these respondents either believe that they cannot or do not know whether they can receive cash assistance any more in Connecticut.

Many respondents also reported they "often" (29 percent) or "sometimes" (33 percent) relied on low cost foods to feed their children because they ran out of money to buy food. Thirty-nine percent of the respondents reported this was "never" the case.

2.     Changes since the last benefit month. The analysis indicates that there may have been a change in food sufficiency between the two time periods. For example when respondents were asked how much they relied on low cost food to feed their children in their last benefit month: 15 percent said "often," 30 percent said "sometimes" and 55 percent said "never." As noted earlier, however, it is not possible to attribute this apparent change to the fact that benefits were discontinued.

Table 8 focuses on the 94 respondents (22 percent of all respondents) who indicated that they sometimes or often did not have enough to eat in the month prior to the interview (this is shown in Table 7). As Table 8 shows, about 55 percent of these respondents (or about 12 percent of all respondents) indicated that it was "often" true that the "food I bought just didn’t last, and I did not have enough money to get more." In contrast, only one quarter of these respondents said that this had "often" been true in their last benefit month.

F. Experiences with the Jobs First Extension Process

Near the beginning of the 20^th month of benefit receipt, clients receive a notice scheduling them for an exit interview. At the interview, staff determine whether the client qualifies for an exemption (which would suspend their time-limit clock), or a 6-month extension of their TFA benefits. Clients who do not attend an exit interview cannot receive an extension.

As shown in Table 9, 85 percent of the respondents reported that they had attended a Jobs First exit interview. Some observers have expressed concern about clients who do not attend an exit interview because these clients may not know that they are eligible for an extension or exemption. In addition, by not attending an exit interview, a client may miss the opportunity to apply for additional services, such as temporary rental assistance, which is available to some clients who are denied extensions because they are over income.

As noted earlier, about 77 percent of the clients who reported that they did not attend an exit interview also reported that they were employed in their last month of TFA receipt. Table 9 shows that about half of those who reported that they did not attend an interview said they did not attend because they could not get off work, or because they had a job (and presumably knew that they would not be eligible for an extension).

Of those who reported attending an exit interview, a large majority reported that their case worker discussed exemptions and extensions with them. Interestingly, only about half of the respondents reported that they had applied for an extension. It may be that many of these clients knew they would not be eligible for an extension because their case worker had already calculated that they were "over income."

Finally, when respondents were asked if they thought they were allowed to receive cash assistance any more in Connecticut, 53 percent said "no," 24 percent said "yes," and 23 percent said they did not know. In fact, all of the respondents who were denied extensions because they are over income would be eligible to apply for an extension later if their income decreases.

Notes:

¹As discussed below, under certain circumstances, individuals may receive extensions of their cash assistance at some point after their benefits are discontinued.

²As discussed further below, some recipients had their benefits discontinued because they did not attend an "exit interview" in their 20^th month of assistance; their income situation was likely unknown to DSS.

³ Families are exempt from the time limit if no adults in the household are required to participate in employment-related activities.

⁴This pattern may change in the future because clients who are granted extensions will have their benefits discontinued if they fail to cooperate with employment-related mandates during the extension period.

⁵ The 117 cases probably include some who were granted an extension at the exit interview (even though they were not coded as such on the files received from DSS) and others who were initially denied an extension but had returned to TFA by December.

⁶Only 266 additional cases were needed to complete the fielded survey sample goal. They were selected from cases scheduled for an exit interview in October, proportional to their representation by site in the September cohort. Since not all the cases in the October cohort were needed for the fielded sample, the cases were sorted in random order so that each case within a site had an equal chance of being looked up on the EMS.

⁷With CATI, the survey instrument is embedded in a computer program that displays the questions in the appropriate order and allows the interviewer to type in the responses. The data are directly entered into the program, which does not accept inconsistent responses, resulting in a cleaner data file.

⁸The telephone numbers extracted from the EMS for a substantial number of sample members were no longer valid by the time RAC attempted to contact them. Consequently, the field period was extended so that field trackers could be sent to the last known address of these sample members to encourage them to participate in the study.

⁹Five of the 593 cases were removed from the base for calculating the response rate because the respondent did not speak English or Spanish.

¹⁰Included in the non-responder category are: 21 sample members who were located after the fielding period expired, 27 who refused to answer the survey, and 77 who could not be located.

¹¹The demographic data for respondents were extracted from the EMS. Respondents were not asked to verify its accuracy.

¹²The ethnicity field for 1 percent of the respondents was blank on the EMS.

¹³There are two possible reasons this rate is less than 100 percent. First, some respondents probably had household income from sources other than their own employment in their last benefit month. For example, the respondent may have had an employed spouse, or may have had income from child support. Second, it is possible that some respondents incorrectly recalled the dates when they started or stopped jobs, or the month of their last TFA payment.

¹⁴This comparison is based on maximum TFA and Food Stamps benefits for the reported household size at the time of the interview. Note that this may be different from the respondent’s household size while on TFA, due to changes in household composition since that time, and also because the household may include individuals who would not be considered eligible members of the respondent’s TFA or Food Stamps case.

¹⁵A family of three with no other income could receive $784 in benefits per month — $543 in TFA, and $241 in Food Stamps. For a family of four without earnings, maximum TFA and Food Stamps benefit amounts are $639 and $283, respectively, for a total of $922.