“MDRC’s site visits and a survey of staff indicate that workers routinely inform and remind clients about the time limit and the incentive, which is an enhanced “earned income disregard” — a rule change that allows working clients to retain their entire welfare grant as long as their earnings are below the federal poverty level. Data from a small survey of clients indicate that most clients are aware of these policies. At the same time, most Jobs First clients are not required to have frequent contact with staff, and workers’ large caseloads prevent them from contacting many clients proactively. Thus, there are relatively few opportunities for staff to aggressively market the new policies or to work with clients to decide how best to respond. Moreover, there appears to be some variation in the way staff describe the policies to clients”(ES-3).

“The information collected to date suggests that Jobs First has generated key changes in employment services. As intended, most clients start with “up-front” job search activities, and employment services staff report focusing much more attention on the goal of employment. Moreover, staff report that clients are far more likely to be sanctioned (i.e. to have their benefits reduced or canceled) for failing to cooperate with employment services mandates”(ES-3).

“At the same time, there have been difficulties in monitoring the attendance of clients referred to some contracted providers of employment services. In addition, with resources limited, employed clients have been given low priority, even if they are working in low-wage, part-time jobs that would qualify them for an extension when they reach the time limit”(ES-3).

“Most eligibility staff say that, under the new system, they are more likely to discuss topics related to employment and self-sufficiency during their contacts with clients; in addition, many staff say they are doing more to assist clients in moving toward self-sufficiency. Staff, however, have relatively limited contact with many of their clients, and many have expressed ambivalence about the decreased monitoring of their clients’ income. They believe that this less intense monitoring may result in incorrect benefit amounts (e.g., when clients have earned income that exceeds the poverty level)”(ES-4).

“Preliminary data indicate that just over one-fourth of early Jobs First enrollees received benefits continuously (or nearly continuously) for 21 months and reached the time limit. The others either left welfare, at least temporarily, or were granted an exemption that stopped their time limit clock. Many of these clients may reach the time limit eventually”(ES-4).

“Of those who reached the time limit, about half initially received a six-month extension. A large majority of the extensions were granted because the client had income under the payment standard and was deemed to have made a good-faith effort to find employment. Most of the clients who were denied extensions had income over the payment standard. Very few clients with income below the payment standard were denied extensions (a denial of extension would occur only if the client had failed to make a good-faith effort and was not facing special circumstances that interfered with her ability to work). Some clients, however, had their benefits canceled because they failed to show up foe the interview at which extensions were determined; thus, DSS could not ascertain their income”(ES-4).

“It is important to note, however, that the statuses at the end of the time limit are not necessarily permanent. Some of the clients who were initially denied an extension were subsequently granted one (usually because their income dropped) and were off assistance for only one to three months. Conversely, some of the clients who received extensions were off welfare only a few months later, in some cases it was determine that they failed to comply with employment-related requirements during the extension period”(ES-4).

“It appears that staff have implemented the review process as it is intended to operate. However, it seems clear that some of the clients who were deemed to have made a good-faith efforts were in fact not carefully monitored during their time in the program. Others were thought to have been employed — and thus were not targeted for employment services — when in fact they had failed to inform DSS that they had lost a job. (Under Jobs First unusual earned income disregard, clients’ grants are usually not affected when they lose a job.) Because only a small number of clients with income below the payment standard have had their benefits canceled, there have been relatively few referrals to the “safety net” component set up to ensure that such families’ basic needs are met”(ES-5).

“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.”

“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.”

“As expected, the employment rate in the last month of TFA receipt was high — about 84 percent. Additional analysis, 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).”

“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.”

“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. 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).”

“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.”

“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, 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.”

“Income in the month prior to the three-month interview. 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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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. 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.”

Approximately 83 percent of the respondents were employed at the time of their six-month interview, and 6 percent reported working at more than one job.

The overall employment rate was very similar at all three points, ranging from 82 to 85 percent. Similarly the employment status of most of the respondents’ was the same at all three points. About 72 percent were employed at all three points. Conversely, 7 percent of the respondents were not employed during their last benefit month nor at their three or six-month interviews.

The percentage of respondents who reported they were currently employed at the time of their six-month interview differed significantly across the sites. For example, current employment ranged from as low as 76 percent in Waterbury to as high as 92 percent in Manchester. Bridgeport respondents had the next highest rate of current employment (91 percent), followed by Norwich respondents (85 percent), Hartford (81 percent) then New Haven (78 percent) respondents.

The most common household (31 percent) consisted of three persons. There were also some fairly large households: 13 percent of the households contained five persons, and 14 percent contained six or more persons. Just about all (97 percent) of the households included one or more children. The absence of children in 3 percent of households is attributed to persons moving out of the respondent’s household since their benefits were discontinued. About 43 percent of the households included at least one other adult beside the respondent.

A little more than half of these respondents (51 percent) reported higher household income at the six-month follow-up point, than at their three-month equivalent. Roughly 41 percent of these respondents experienced a decrease in income by their six-month follow-up point and the income of 5 percent of these respondents remained about the same at both points. 21 percent of these respondents experienced income increases of $1-299, and 30 percent had income increases that were $300 or more. Twenty-one percent of these respondents had a decrease in income that was $1-299, and 20 percent experienced decreases in income that were $300 or more.

Recipients who leave welfare for work are eligible for transitional Medicaid coverage for two years. Seven percent of the respondents (N = 29) indicated they were not covered by health insurance six months after their TFA benefit had been discontinued. Twenty-one of these 29 respondents were working at the time of their six-month interview. Six percent of all respondents (N = 28) reported there were children in their household that were not covered by medical insurance. Twenty-one of these 28 respondents reported they were employed at the time of their six month interview.

Respondents who indicated that they had used a particular strategy to make ends meet in the month prior to the six-month interview were then asked whether they had used that strategy more, less, or the same amount as in the month before their three-month interview. For example, of those who indicated that they had delayed paying bills in the month prior to the six-month interview, 38 percent indicated that they did so more in the month before their six-month interview than in the month before their three-month interview.

The majority of respondents reported that their families either "always" had enough to eat (40 percent) or had "enough," but not always the kinds of food they wanted (45 percent) at the time of the six-month interview. Twelve percent reported their families "sometimes" did not have enough to eat, and 3 percent of the respondents reported this was "often" the case.

The analysis of the responses of 373 respondents with data from both the three and six-month follow-up interviews suggests that the respondents experienced changes in food sufficiency between the respondents last benefit month and their six-month interview. When respondents were asked how much they relied on low cost food to feed their children during their last benefit month: 14 percent said "often," 30 percent said "sometimes" and 57 percent said "never." However, at the six-month interview 21 percent said "often," 38 percent said "sometimes" and 41 percent said "never." As noted earlier, however, it is not possible to attribute this apparent change to the fact that benefits were discontinued.

The main features of Jobs First were successfully put in place in the research sites, but the program has not been implemented very intensively.

Most Jobs First group members did not reach the time limit within two and a half years after enrollment. Of those who did, about half were granted an extension. Most of those whose cases were closed at the time limit were employed.

Jobs First increased employment rates and earnings throughout the follow-up period; impacts were particularly large for the least job-ready clients.

In the first part of the study period, Jobs First substantially increased both welfare receipt and family income; as individuals began to reach the time limit, the program began to reduce welfare receipt and the income gains diminished.

• This report focuses mainly on people who entered the Jobs First evaluation when they were applying for or receiving cash assistance in the Manchester and New Haven DSS offices between January and June 1996, and who left cash assistance at some point within 18 months after entering the study (before reaching the 21-month time limit).
• Many of the outcomes for welfare leavers in Connecticut are shaped by the state’s earned income disregard.
• About half of the welfare leavers were employed in the immediate post-welfare period.
• About one-fourth of those who left welfare returned to cash assistance within one year after leaving.
• In a survey conducted 18 months after people entered the study, respondents who were off welfare when interviewed reported average monthly household income of just over $1,500. Just over 70 percent had health insurance, usually through Medicaid. A little less than half reported that they owned a car. In general, it appeared that non-working leavers were worse off than working leavers, although only a small number of non-working leavers were interviewed.
• Finally, the report briefly compares individuals who left welfare due to the 21-month time limit with those who left welfare before reaching the time limit, finding that the time-limit leavers had a much higher rate of employment.

• Jobs First continues to have a positive impact on employment.
• Jobs First generated substantial reductions in cash assistance receipt and payments in Year 3.
• The Jobs First and AFDC groups had about the same average income in Year 3 although, consistent with the program's goals, the Jobs First group derived a greater proportion of its income from earnings.
• The most impressive employment gains continue to be experienced by the most disadvantaged subgroup.
• Only a small fraction of the Jobs First group received benefits continuously through the three years, and many of those who did worked while on welfare.