Questions?   Privacy   Site Index   Contact Us
			Home   |   Services   |   Working with ACF   |   Policy/Planning   |   About ACF   |   ACF News		Search

Training, Education, Employment,

and Management (TEEM) Program

Final Report

March 30, 2000

Submitted to:

North Dakota Department of Human Services

600 East Blvd. Bismarck, North Dakota 58505-0250

Submitted by:

Berkeley Planning Associates

440 Grand Avenue, Suite 500 - Oakland, California 94610

Acknowledgments

This report reflects the contributions of many individuals to the Evaluation of North Dakota's TEEM Program. The authors are especially grateful to staff in Burleigh, Cass, Richland, Rolette, Stark, Stutsman, and Walsh Counties, who facilitated and accommodated our site visits. We would also like to thank TEEM participants, JOBS program staff, Human Service Center staff, staff at other service agencies, community service worksite supervisors, and employers for their candid discussions of the merits and shortcomings of TEEM.

We benefitted greatly from conversations with staff from the North Dakota Department of Human Services. In particular, John Hougen's supportive involvement with the evaluation is much appreciated. In addition, Judy Kadrmas, Karen Cossette, and Doug Melby were very helpful in providing us with administrative data for the evaluation and answering our many questions. We also benefitted greatly from conversations with Arlene Dura, Carol Cartledge, Ron Knutson, Brenda Peterson, and Sue Satterthwaite.

Finally, we are grateful to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Children and Families for funding for this evaluation.

Rebecca London, Project Director

Courtney Smith

Kristin Porter

Kendra Lodewick

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

I. Introduction 1

TEEM Components 2

Evaluation Goals 3

Outline of the Report 4

II. Evaluation Methodology 5

Qualitative Data Collection 5

Quantitative Data Collection 10

III. TEEM Eligibility and Interactions with Other Public Assistance Programs 11

Chapter Highlights 11

Introduction 11

Program Eligibility and Benefits 12

TEEM Benefit Levels and Employment Incentives 14

Interaction Between TEEM and Other Public Assistance Programs 14

IV. TEEM Implementation 22

Chapter Highlights 22

Introduction 23

Flow of TEEM Services 24

A. Case Management 27

B. Assessment 35

C. Work Requirements 41

D. TEEM Sanctions 53

E. Time Limits 55

F. Benefit Cap 57

V. Caseload Composition and Dynamics 58

Chapter Highlights 58

Introduction 59

Caseload Trends 59

Counties Experienced Differing Caseload Trends. 61

Client Characteristics 63

Client Work Activities 70

Case Duration, Closure, and Recidivism 75

VI. Recommendations 85

Appendix A: Caseload Calculation Methodology 91

Executive Summary

• a computerized assessment that results in a social contract and referrals to needed services;
• incentives to promote work and work effort;
• sanctions for non-compliance with the program requirements;
• increased asset limits allowing families to save while on aid; and
• a benefit cap that precludes TEEM recipients who get pregnant while on aid from receiving additional cash benefits for that child.

TEEM was implemented across North Dakota in stages. Beginning in 1997, 11 demonstration counties were the first to be trained in and to operate TEEM. The remainder of North Dakota's 53 counties implemented the program between 1998 and 1999.

In the Fall of 1996, Berkeley Planning Associates (BPA) was selected through a competitive procurement process to evaluate TEEM program implementation. Our Interim Implementation Report, submitted in November 1998, documented the implementation experience among four demonstration counties. This Final Report extends the analysis to include an additional three non-demonstration counties. Both examined caseload trends and client characteristics over time using data from the Emergency TANF Data Reports. In addition, this report provides an analysis of the extent of the safety net in North Dakota by simulating the state and federal benefits available to low-income residents at various earnings levels. We summarize findings from these chapters below, including recommendations that stem from the evaluation results.

After Teem eligibility ends, families have substantial public assistance support available through other public assistance programs.

While receiving TEEM, families are eligible for Medicaid, Food Stamps, the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), and child care assistance. Once a family's earnings increase and they lose eligibility for TEEM, they retain eligibility for many of these programs. For example, Food Stamps provides benefits to families whose income levels fall below 130 percent of the federal poverty level (about $18,000 for a family of three) and LIHEAP provides benefits to families with incomes below 150 percent of the federal poverty level (about $20,000 for a family of three).⁽¹⁾ Child care assistance is available to a working family of three through about $25,000 of annual earnings.

Therefore, once a family leaves TEEM due to increased earnings, the safety net provides a substantial amount of income, either cash or in-kind. Tabulations indicate that a family of three in which the parent works full-time at $7.50 per hour ($15,000 per year) is eligible for $1,634 in Food Stamps (annually), $322 in LIHEAP (for the winter season), and can have 55 percent of its child care costs reimbursed, up to a certain level. These benefits can make a tremendous difference in the lives of low-income families. We therefore recommend that the Department of Human Services ensure that families who exit TEEM are aware of their potential eligibility for these programs and the steps they would need to take to access them.

The Earned Income Tax Credit provides substantial cash payments to low-income families who file taxes.

Similar to the programs discussed above, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) provides benefits to low-income working families. At its maximum, the EITC offers families $3,816 in a refundable tax credit. This cash payment is the equivalent of more than two-thirds of annual TEEM benefits for a family of three. However, unlike other programs, this supplement is available through the federal tax system. Families who wish to claim the credit must file an IRS 1040 form and know they are eligible for the credit (the IRS will calculate the amount if the taxpayer marks the correct box). Many families who would be eligible for this program are not, however, required to file a federal tax return. It is therefore very important that TEEM recipients and former recipients be made aware of this earnings supplement and the steps they need to take to receive it. We recommend that the Department of Human Services ensure that information about the EITC be provided to current and exiting TEEM recipients.

Teem components have been fully implemented.

Site visits to seven counties over two years tracked North Dakota's progress in implementing TEEM. All counties have implemented the core features of the program, including the computerized assessment, which required substantial training. In addition to the base features of TEEM, some counties have begun to experiment with new service options. For instance, one county has plans to work with the local Human Services Center to target sanctioned TEEM recipients for more in-depth assessment of barriers to employment. Another county is specifically targeting long-term recipients for more intensive services.

Teem managers' need ongoing training to fulfill their case management role.

In order for the TEEM model to be effective, TEEM managers must assess clients' barriers to employment, refer them to appropriate services, ensure that services are received, and follow-up with clients regularly. Our visits to counties indicated that some TEEM managers felt they did not have the skills or training to implement such an intensive case management model. Particularly in non-demonstration counties, in which the TEEM training was shortened, TEEM managers reported feeling ill prepared for the challenges of their new roles. There are a number of measures that DHS could take to assist TEEM managers fulfill this role. A first step would be to clarify the role that DHS expects TEEM managers to fulfill. TEEM managers have an enormous amount of flexibility in their jobs and some are uncertain of the extent to which they are expected to exercise their authority. To reinforce this role clarification, DHS should provide ongoing training on case management and other issues. Other areas that could be included in training are: means of identifying employment barriers and how to work with clients that report substantial barriers to employment. In addition, coordination with multiple services providers and follow-up with clients are important aspects of case management that need to be emphasized. We recommend that the Department of Human Services develop a plan for ongoing staff development, and provide further training on case management to TEEM managers in all counties.

Teem managers are often not the client's primary case manager.

Part of the confusion about the TEEM manager role stems from the fact that TEEM recipients often spend much of their first four months of the program working closely with their JOBS case manager, who oversees their work participation activities. During these initial months before the TEEM assessment, the JOBS case manager is the primary contact for provision of services beyond eligibility determination and benefits authorization. A client first begins the TEEM assessment and referral process after four months of contact with JOBS. Because of this timing, TEEM recipients have often been assessed and referred to services by the time they begin working with their TEEM manager. In addition, there is overlap between the services provided by JOBS and TEEM case managers, leading to duplication in the assessment process. We recommend that the Department of Human Services consider ways to link the JOBS and TEEM assessments, and improve information-sharing between the two programs.

The assessment process could be improved.

Currently, TEEM recipients are formally assessed by their TEEM manager roughly four months after program entrance. During these initial four months, clients work with their JOBS case manager to attempt to secure work. The rationale for this flow of services is that recipients with only short-term needs in finding employment may not benefit from the assessment, which is lengthy and somewhat time consuming. Our findings indicate that delaying the assessment process may be detrimental to TEEM's goals because it places the TEEM manager in a secondary position to the JOBS case manager. In addition, even recipients who find work may need support, and without a formal assessment their support needs would not be identified.

In addition to the timing of assessment, the computerized assessment tool itself was identified by TEEM managers and county directors as potentially ineffective in achieving its goals. They reported that the instrument was sometimes difficult to administer, particularly if clients were aware that by saying "no" to all the questions they would not have any new activities to undertake. Further, there is no flexibility in the instrument so that individual- or community-specific barriers can be identified or addressed. Finally, the tool is not modified for re-assessment one year after initial assessment. TEEM managers are unable to use the tool to document changes in their clients' service needs over the year. We recommend that the Department of Human Services shorten the time between intake and assessment. The assessment instrument should be made more flexible to accommodate clients' individual needs, strengths and interests, and particularly to accommodate re-assessment purposes.

Teem Adult Included Cases are becoming increasingly comprised of Native Americans.

As has occurred through much of the U.S., TEEM adult included cases are more likely to be Native American over time. Between January 1998 and September 1999, the percent of TEEM heads who were Native American increased from 54 to 57 percent. Data presented in Chapter V indicates that Native American TEEM recipients are, on the whole, more disadvantaged than their White counterparts in the state. Native American families are likely to stay on aid for longer time periods and when they exit, they are also more likely to return to aid. However, we are encouraged by Native American families' increasing participation in Tribal NEW programs over the time period examined. We recommend that DHS continue to work with Tribal leaders to help Native American TEEM recipients meet their self-sufficiency goals.

Over time, children in adult not included cases were more likely to be living with parents receiving disability payments.

Children in adult not included (ANI), or child-only, cases may live with a related adult caretaker, typically a grandparent, or under certain circumstances, they may be living with a parent. In September 1999, 36 percent of children in ANI cases were living with a parent and 45 percent were living with a grandparent. Nineteen percent were living with other relatives and fewer than 1 percent lived with non-relatives. The percent living with parents increased slightly over time, from 34 percent in January 1998. This increase in the percent of ANI children living with parents is due entirely to an increase in the share of parents who received federal disability benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In January 1998, 19 percent of ANI cases had children living with a parent who received disability payments. By September 1999, 29 percent of ANI cases had such a parent.

More Teem recipients were engaged in work activities over time.

The rate of participation in work activities among work-mandatory adult TEEM heads increased from 47 percent in January 1998 to 62 percent in September 1999. The most common work activity in September 1999 was unsubsidized employment, with 58 percent of those engaged in work activities in that activity. Twenty-five percent of adults were in a work experience setting, for which they were not getting paid. Fifteen percent were engaged in job search or job readiness activities.

Although engaged in work activities while on aid, current and former TEEM recipients are not offered job retention services once they are working. These services might include mentoring or job coaching, time management, problem-solving or other types of support that working parents might need. To be most effective, these efforts should be ongoing and begin before the client even finds a job. We recommend that the Department of Human Services expand JOBS activities to include job retention services.

On average, adult included cases spent 12 of the 21 months we observed on aid

In September 1999, the TEEM adult included caseload had spent an average of 12 months on aid since January 1998. Thirty percent spent between 19 and 21 months on aid, using about a third of their 60-month lifetime limit. Longer-term recipients (those who had been on aid for between 15 and 21 months as of September 1999) were more likely to be Native American and less educated.

Although many TEEM recipients are progressing toward reaching their lifetime limit on aid, many TEEM managers we interviewed reported that they lacked direction from DHS on who would be exempt from the time limit policy. To best help clients strategize their future assistance as the time limit approaches, we recommend that the Department of Human Services provide information to counties regarding state time limit policy guidelines.

One-fifth of case closures were due to employment.

Among adult included cases in September 1999, about one-fifth closed for employment reasons. This is a decline from previous months. For instance in January 1998, 32 percent of cases closed for employment and in July 1998, 26 percent closed for employment. In September 1999, another 66 percent of cases closed due to "state policy," except the sanction policy. This might include cases that closed because the client failed to submit a monthly report or sign a TEEM contract and did not re-open her case. The percent of cases closing for "state policy" reasons has increased over time. The finding that the rate of closures due to employment fell over time is somewhat troubling, given TEEM aims to move people into the workforce. One reason for this may be the imprecision in the case closure codes. Many cases close with the client failing to make an appointment or submit a monthly report. In these cases, it is possible that the client has earnings that make her ineligible for benefits and she therefore let her case close without reporting those earnings to her TEEM manager. If properly coded, these would be closures due to employment.

Statewide recidivism was on par with or slightly higher than in other states.

I. Introduction

The passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) in August 1996 dramatically transformed the nature of cash assistance in the United States. PRWORA terminated the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program and replaced it with Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). While the AFDC program provided a guarantee of cash assistance for eligible needy families, TANF provides time-limited cash assistance to families and requires most adult-headed families to participate in work activities in order to remain eligible for the program.

The state of North Dakota was prepared for the changes introduced with the passage of PRWORA, having already planned the Training, Education, Employment, and Management (TEEM) Project, which focused on moving clients with barriers to employment into self-sufficiency. Prior to the passage of PRWORA, the North Dakota Department of Human Services (DHS) obtained a waiver from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to replace the AFDC program with TEEM in a subset of counties. When PRWORA passed in 1996, the TEEM program, modified to comply with the federal legislation, became the basis for the State's new Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program.

In the Fall of 1996, DHS contracted with Berkeley Planning Associates (BPA) to evaluate TEEM. In July 1997, TEEM was implemented in 11 demonstration counties among North Dakota's 53 counties.⁽²⁾ The remaining 42 non-demonstration counties implemented TEEM over the course of the following two years. A more detailed discussion of the legislative history of TEEM and the evolution and planning of the evaluation is provided in our Interim Implementation Report.

BPA submitted an Interim Implementation Report in November 1998. The Interim Implementation Report documented the experiences of implementing TEEM in four of the 11 demonstration counties.⁽³⁾ The report also described the characteristics and activities of TEEM clients in these counties. This Final Report updates our interim report and provides additional findings from the four demonstration counties included in the interim report, as well as three non-demonstration counties which implemented TEEM over the course of the following two years. The lessons provided in this report will help DHS further refine and improve TEEM throughout the state. In addition, this report presents information on the characteristics of current TEEM clients, the activities in which they are participating, and the reasons for and rates of case closure.

In this introductory chapter, we provide a brief overview of TEEM, present the goals of the evaluation, and outline the remaining report chapters.

TEEM Components

The North Dakota Training, Education, Employment, and Management (TEEM) Program is a comprehensive program aimed at encouraging self-sufficiency among the state's public assistance recipients by increasing employment and reducing public assistance receipt. North Dakota's cash aid caseload has fallen over the past few years, indicating that many job-ready clients have left the rolls.⁽⁴⁾ Those who are unable to leave public assistance, even in a strong economy, are likely to be the most disadvantaged recipients with multiple barriers to employment. Many new entrants to the cash aid caseload are likely to be similarly disadvantaged as they are unable to find employment despite the record low rates of unemployment throughout the state. TEEM was developed to promote self-sufficiency for individuals who could not find employment, even in the best economic conditions, by assessing individuals' barriers to employment and assisting them in overcoming these barriers.

As shown in Figure I-1, TEEM includes multiple components intended to address clients' barriers to employment.

1. To document the implementation of TEEM, including variation in operations at local (county and tribal) levels.

2. To document the implementation and assess the performance of the TEEM screening system, a computer-based expert system designed to promote self-sufficiency by identifying recipients' barriers to work.

3. To examine the implementation of a diverse set of reforms aimed at promoting employment, including both positive and negative interventions (i.e., work incentives as well as sanctions).

4. To describe the implementation and responses to a benefit cap, which limits benefit amounts for recipients who have additional children while receiving benefits.

These policy questions focus on implementation issues as well as key participant outcome measures. The results of the evaluation are intended to assist the state in refining the program to be more effective in achieving its goals.

Through a series of on-site interviews and focus groups, we have tracked the experiences of four demonstration counties: Cass, Richland, Stark, and Stutsman, and three non-demonstrations counties: Burleigh, Rolette, and Walsh. In addition, we have used North Dakota administrative records to examine caseload dynamics, client characteristics, and participation in TEEM activities. The methods of data collection and analysis are discussed in more detail in Chapter II of this report.

II. Evaluation Methodology

To evaluate the TEEM program, BPA conducted a process study that sought to document the implementation of North Dakota's welfare reform project and assess its effectiveness. We used two main sources of data: qualitative field research and quantitative data on welfare caseloads and TEEM recipients provided by the North Dakota Department of Human Services. This chapter outlines the methods employed in collecting and analyzing those data. For a more complete discussion of the conceptual framework for the evaluation, see our Interim Implementation Report.

Qualitative data was collected through a series of on-site visits to the State DHS and a sample of North Dakota's counties for extensive interviewing and observation. In the first year of the evaluation, BPA staff conducted two rounds of on-site visits to four of the 11 demonstration counties. In the second year, we conducted two rounds of visits to three non-demonstration counties that had more recently implemented TEEM. In addition, we returned to the four demonstration counties for another round of on-site data collection.

Selection of Sample Counties

To ensure that the evaluation provided data on TEEM implementation that was representative of the experiences across the state, the sampled counties included those with a variety of characteristics. As shown in Figure II-1 below, we selected counties that would constitute a sample with variation on the following key characteristics:

Figure II-1

Each set of interviews was preceded by the development of topic guides that process study team members used to direct their discussions with key respondents during site visits. These guides were developed based on the research objectives laid out in Chapter I of this report. Topic guides were revised after each round of visits to reflect specific data collection goals.

The bulk of data collection occurred in the on-site county visits. In Figure II-2 below, we detail the activities associated with each round of visits.

Figure II-2

Schedule of Process Study Site Visits to Demonstration Counties

Quantitative Data Collection

Recent caseload data on client characteristics, work activities, and case closures were tabulated from North Dakota's Emergency TANF Data Reports to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Using data from both TECS and the TEEM system, the State submits quarterly reports to HHS in both aggregate and individual-level formats. We used the individual-level files to provide tabulations on the types of activities clients are undertaking in meeting their TEEM requirements. We also utilized data from these files to examine the link between various client characteristics and time on aid.

III. TEEM Eligibility and Interactions with
Other Public Assistance Programs

Chapter Highlights

• 
  TEEM recipients have a number of programs available to them in supplementing their incomes both during program participation and after case closure. However, these programs are only utilized if the recipient is aware of her eligibility and takes appropriate action to secure the program benefits.
• A family of three loses eligibility for TEEM at about $10,000 in annual earnings, or about 37 hours per week of work at minimum wage. At this earnings level, however, families retain eligibility for Food Stamps, Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), child care assistance, and the Earned Income Tax Credit. These added benefits can significantly raise effective incomes for families, in some cases bringing them above federal poverty levels. In addition, such families may also be eligible for Medicaid and Healthy Steps.
• Once a family of three reaches an income of about $18,000, it loses eligibility for Food Stamps, at about $20,000, it loses eligibility for LIHEAP, and at just above $25,000 it loses eligibility for child care assistance. At an income of about $30,000, this family loses eligibility for the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Introduction

TEEM recipients have available to them an array of cash and in-kind benefits associated with various state and federal programs. For example, TEEM recipients are typically eligible for both Food Stamps and Medicaid. Further, low-income individuals may be eligible for federal tax credits, which provide refunds through the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and deductions through the Child and Dependent Care Expenses Tax Credit (DCTC). In addition, low-income North Dakota residents may be eligible for state-run assistance programs, including child care assistance vouchers. North Dakota also extends health insurance coverage for low-income children through the Healthy Steps Program. Determination of eligibility for many of these programs is based on income level, and cash benefits received from one program may affect eligibility and benefit levels in others.

Program Eligibility and Benefits

Figure III-1

Public Assistance Programs, Benefit Types and Income Eligibility Requirements

Sources: (1) TEEM Program Policy and Procedures Manual, updated as of April 1999, (2) U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and Means, 1998 Green Book; (3) Conversations with the North Dakota Department of Human Services; and (4) IRS Form 1040 and 2441 and Instructions.
^aFederal Poverty Levels for these programs are updated annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The poverty level for a family of three in 1999 was $13,880.

TEEM Benefit Levels and Employment Incentives

Eligibility for TEEM assistance is dependent on the applicant family's net and gross earnings levels. Gross income is simply the family's earned and unearned income, excluding various sources such as Earned Income Tax refunds, foster care payments, rental and utility subsidies, and various other subsidy payments. Income from other public assistance programs, such as Social Security, Veteran's benefits, and Worker's Compensation are included as non-earned income. To be eligible for TEEM, a family's gross income must not exceed 106 percent of the state-determined Need Standard. This Need Standard was $457 for a family of three in 1999. Once a family passes the gross income test, TEEM benefit levels are determined by calculating net income, which includes various deductions from gross income.⁽⁷⁾ For instance, a work-related deduction of 27 percent of gross earnings is allowed. In addition, there is a work incentive deduction that serves to allow families with very low incomes to receive higher benefits. This deduction phases out as incomes increase. Also, for families who are earning while receiving TEEM, the cost of child care up to a certain level may be deducted.

Once eligibility requirements have been met, the family's benefit level is determined according to the size of the family. For example, a three-person family receives a maximum monthly benefit of $457. All eligible TEEM family members are included in the case except for children born after the family's case has been established, per the family benefit cap rule. As a result of this family cap provision, any child conceived while the mother is receiving TEEM benefits is not included as a family member and the payment amount is not adjusted upward to accommodate the larger family size.

Interaction Between TEEM and Other Public Assistance Programs

As shown above in Figure III-1, there are a number of other programs besides TEEM that low-income North Dakota residents may access. In examining recipients' incomes, it is important to include not only their TEEM benefits and earnings, but also the value of benefits from the Low-Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), Food Stamps, the EITC and the DCTC. In addition, other services, including Medicaid, Healthy Steps and child care subsidies, provide essential services to low-income North Dakota residents that are not reflected in their earned income. In this section, we examine a number of hypothetical scenarios using various assumptions about work effort and wage levels. We allow for full interaction among programs and earnings levels and assess the extent to which low-wage workers in North Dakota have a take-home income that allows them to move out of poverty with this array of services.

Figure III-2 shows a range of annual earnings levels and the extent to which families with these earnings are eligible for various public assistance programs. The model is based on a single-parent family with two children. The first row shows benefits for this family without earnings. Under this scenario, the family is eligible for $5,484 in TEEM benefits, an additional $3,716 in Food Stamps, $1,222 in LIHEAP, and Medicaid. Even without earnings, this family is eligible for child care subsidies as a supportive service enabling participation in TEEM activities approved in the client's social contract. Without earned income, the family is not eligible for the EITC or the DCTC.

As annual earning levels increase, the family soon becomes ineligible for TEEM benefits. At an annual income level of just over $10,000 (or about 37 hours per week at a minimum wage job), the family's case is closed. Food Stamp benefits last quite a bit longer for low-income families. Families become ineligible for Food Stamps when their incomes exceed $17,000, or when they work full-time at an hourly wage of more than $8.50.

LIHEAP benefits are available to families with incomes below 150 percent of FPL, or just over $20,000 for a family of three. Child care assistance is available for families with incomes up to about 75 percent of statewide median income, which corresponds to $29,340 for a family of three in 1999. TEEM recipients who are engaged in approved work activities except unsubsidized employment are provided with free child care. Those who are engaged in unsubsidized employment while receiving TEEM benefits pay a co-payment determined on the same sliding scale as those who are not TEEM recipients.⁽⁸⁾

Program Eligibility and Annual Benefits for Various Earnings Levels
Single-Parent Family with Two Children

Sources: BPA tabulations using information from (1) TEEM Determination of Need, Service Chapter 400-18; (2) Food Stamp Program Eligibility Requirements, October 1, 1999; (3) Child Care Sliding Fee Schedule, October 1, 1999; (4) Conversations with the North Dakota Department of Human Services; and (5) 1999 IRS Forms 1040 and 2441 and Instructions.

^aIn calculating Food Stamp benefits, we assume no child support payments. Dependent care deductions assume average child care costs for two children are the actual cost of care paid by the family (taking into account subsidies received for Child Care Assistance and part-time work), with a maximum of $350 per month. Shelter expenses are assumed to be $400 per month, including both rent and utility expenses.

^bUtility expenses are assumed to be $1,222 for the winter season.

^cCost of care for an infant and a 4 year old are assumed to total $350 per month or $4,200 per year. All subsidy levels are based on full-time care.

^dTransitional Medicaid is available to those with family net income below 185% of FPL who fail 1931 Medicaid due to increased earnings, child support or spousal support. Exiting TEEM recipients with employment may retain transitional eligibility for up to one year. Transitional Medicaid covers all family members in the case.

Working parents are able to supplement their incomes through the federal tax system. Individuals who earn as much as $30,000 are eligible for the EITC, which provides an earnings supplement in the form of a refundable tax credit. However, this supplement is only available to taxpayers who claim the credit. Individuals who file a tax form but are not aware of their eligibility for the credit will not receive it, even if they are eligible.⁽⁹⁾ In addition, individuals who are not required to file tax forms and choose not to do so do not receive the EITC supplement. For a family of three that becomes ineligible for TEEM at an annual earnings level of $12,000, the EITC supplements earnings by $3,816, or 32 percent. It is therefore extremely important to provide information to TEEM recipients regarding this tax provision to assist them in maximizing their incomes.

The DCTC also provides an earnings supplement to low-income families although at a lower level, particularly for those with subsidized child care. Individuals may be eligible for a maximum of $1,440 in tax credits through this program, but the maximum credit for families in our scenarios is $1,056 for a family earning $25,000. Families with incomes below about $12,000 cannot receive the DCTC because it is a non-refundable tax credit. It can only be used to reduce taxes owed, not as a refundable credit, as is possible with the EITC. Hence, many individuals who use the credit will not receive its full amount. DCTC amounts reported in Figure III-2 are based on the family's expenditures on child care, reduced by child care subsidies through North Dakota's child care assistance program (for those who are eligible). These amounts assume a federal tax liability for the corresponding earning level and the appropriate EITC deduction. As with the EITC, individuals who do not claim the tax credit or do not file taxes are not able to take advantage of this potential earnings supplement.

In addition to these programs, low-income North Dakota residents may be eligible for Medicaid or the Child Health Insurance Program, Healthy Steps. Eligibility requirements are dependent upon the category of Medicaid most appropriate for the applicant. The principal categories are based on age, deprivation of parental support, and disabilities. Each category has separate income and resource requirements. Most families receiving TEEM are eligible for 1931 Medicaid. Eligibility for 1931 Medicaid is based on TEEM net income calculations and a monthly income eligibility limit based on the former AFDC monthly income limits. If recipients leave 1931 Medicaid for employment, they are eligible for Transitional Medicaid for up to one year at an increased net income limit of 185 percent of the federal poverty level. Children age 18 or younger who live in families with incomes between 133 percent and 140 percent of FPL are eligible for Healthy Steps, which provides health insurance with a co-payment associated with doctor and hospital visits.

In addition to benefits accrued through these various programs, individuals have expenses to take into account, such as out-of-pocket child care and work-related costs, as well as state and federal taxes. Figure III-3 shows a hypothetical budget for a single-parent family with two children under various assumptions about hours worked and wages earned. Included as income for the family are earnings from work, TEEM benefits, Food Stamps, LIHEAP, child care subsidies and the EITC.⁽¹⁰⁾ Deducted from these income sources are taxes paid (Social Security and federal and state income taxes), actual utility expenses, and child care and work expenses. Work expenses, including transportation and clothing, are assumed to be 10 percent of earnings, capped at $100 per month.⁽¹¹⁾ Some individuals, particularly those receiving TEEM benefits, may receive assistance for these types of work expenses. The third to last row in Figure III-3 shows the family's take-home income, net of taxes and expenses.⁽¹²⁾ The last row shows the ratio of this take-home income to the federal poverty level of $13,880 for a family of three.

The purpose of this exercise is to examine the impact of combining work with available public assistance programs on the incomes of low-income families in North Dakota. We caution the reader that the poverty calculations presented here do not reflect poverty calculation methods used by the U.S. Bureau of the Census in reporting poverty rates nationwide. Official poverty statistics utilize a measure of income that includes gross family earnings and income from social programs that provide cash benefits. Income and benefits from the EITC and Food Stamps are not included. Deductions for taxes paid, child care and work expenses are also not taken into account in official poverty statistics.⁽¹³⁾

The first column of Figure III-3 shows the income a single-parent family with two children would receive if the parent did not work. This family would receive TEEM, Food Stamps, and LIHEAP benefits, totaling $10,422 annually. This family has its entire utility bill paid for by LIHEAP, leaving a take home income of $9,200, which is 66 percent of the poverty level for a family of this size.

Single Parent with Two Children in 1999

Sources: BPA tabulations using information from (1) TEEM Determination of Need, Service Chapter 400-18; (2) Food Stamp Program Eligibility Requirements, October 1, 1999; (3) Child Care Sliding Fee Schedule, October 1, 1999; (4) Conversations with the North Dakota Department of Human Services; (5) 1999 IRS Forms 1040 and 2441 and Instructions; and (6) 1999 North Dakota State Income Tax Form 37 and Instructions.

Notes: Part-time work is assumed to be 25 hours per week. Full-time work is assumed to be 40 hours per week. Individuals are assumed to work 50 weeks per year. Parentheses denote deductions from income.

^aThe 1999 poverty level is $13,880 per year for a single-parent family of three.

Of the various earnings levels presented in Figure III-3, the highest take-home income is achieved by the family whose parent works full-time at an hourly wage of $10 and participates fully in assistance program benefits and tax relief efforts. The income of nearly $14,837 is still only 107 percent of the poverty level. Once this wage level is increased, the loss of benefits and increased tax burden reduce the value of the family's earned income. This indicates that an hourly wage of over $10 is needed to replace the value of the benefits received through public assistance programs. It also highlights the important contribution of the EITC in assisting low-income families.

The EITC alone has the potential to increase income by 22 percent for individuals who are just above the eligibility limits for TEEM. However, to receive the tax credit, individuals must file their tax returns and claim the credit. Many of the families in our scenarios would not be required to file taxes and therefore would forgo these earnings supplements if they were unaware of their existence. In addition, filing for these benefits can be complicated, particularly if the taxpayer is not accustomed to the tax system.

Because of its potential to increase income substantially, we recommend that DHS ensure that TEEM case workers are knowledgeable about and inform recipients about these various post-TEEM options, including the EITC. It is important for both current and former TEEM recipients to be informed about their eligibility for the EITC given the sizeable income supplement it provides.

IV. TEEM Implementation

Chapter Highlight

• Overlap in case management responsibilities between the JOBS provider and TEEM manager has made it difficult for TEEM managers to assume a central role in managing clients' cases. Because clients who are not exempt from work requirements are typically referred to JOBS before completing the TEEM assessment, the JOBS counselor takes on the role of primary case manager for the first four months of TEEM receipt.
  

• TEEM managers need ongoing training and support to fulfill their roles as case managers. The case management model should be expanded to include better integration of case management with the assessment tool, and more comprehensive follow-up, monitoring, and ongoing contact with clients and referral agencies. Additional training provided by DHS should be focused on these issues.

• TEEM managers have experienced difficulty assessing needs and identifying barriers using the automated assessment tool. Improvements suggested for the assessment include: making the assessment tool more flexible; eliminating excessive overlap in the JOBS and TEEM assessments by linking assessments or conducting joint assessments; and shortening the time between intake and assessment.

JOBS programs are beginning to target populations with special needs, such as long-term recipients, refugees, and Native Americans.

• Neither JOBS nor TEEM staff in most counties provided follow-up services for clients or individuals who left TEEM due to employment. JOBS activities should be expanded to include job retention services
  

• Little outreach to employers is taking place. The labor market will ultimately determine the success of efforts to move clients into the workforce. Therefore, we recommend that DHS make an effort to involve businesses in welfare to work efforts.

• Overall, TEEM managers thought sanctions were effective for encouraging compliance with TEEM requirements. Repeat sanctions should signal to the TEEM manager that a client may have persistent needs that are not being met or issues that are not being addressed. To avoid multiple sanctions, TEEM managers should follow through by actively pursuing issues with clients.
  

• TEEM managers from most counties indicated that they lacked direction from DHS on who would be exempt from the time limit policy. Staff need this information so that they can help clients develop plans for becoming self-sufficient.

Introduction

This chapter assesses TEEM implementation at the county level, using data collected through a series of in-person site visits to a sample of seven counties. Our analysis is based primarily on interviews with county staff, JOBS staff and other local service providers, and employers who have hired TEEM recipients.

We reported on early TEEM implementation experience previously in our Interim Implementation Report. The interim report focused on the implementation experiences in four demonstration counties: Cass, Richland, Stark, and Stutsman. We found that the first year of implementation had been largely successful in those counties, however, there were several areas in which program components could be strengthened. Consequently, the interim report made recommendations for fine-tuning services and improving the TEEM flow of service delivery. This chapter updates the interim report, focusing on how TEEM implementation has progressed in the four demonstration counties, as well as in three non-demonstration counties: Burleigh, Rolette, and Walsh

Overall, we found that all seven counties had implemented the major components of TEEM. However, we also found that many of the issues raised in our interim report continued to hinder the implementation process, and that little had been done to address those problems. Our interim report noted that demonstration counties felt well-supported by the state, and that staff felt great ownership of TEEM. Unfortunately, as implementation progressed statewide, county staff felt that state-level support had diminished. Furthermore, non-demonstration counties did not receive the same intensity of training or preparation for implementing TEEM, and staff in those counties did not voice a comparable level of buy-in to the program as had TEEM managers in demonstration counties.

We begin this chapter by providing a brief overview of the flow of TEEM services. We then discuss TEEM staff roles and describe staff's experience implementing a case management model. Finally, we provide an in-depth discussion of several major components of TEEM: assessment and social contract, work requirements, sanctioning, time limits, and benefit cap.

Flow of TEEM Services

Figure IV-1 below illustrates the flow of client services. As shown, potential clients apply for benefits at a county social services office and are immediately assessed for emergency needs. In addition, TEEM managers explain the TEEM program to clients and in most cases, clients are shown a video explaining TEEM program components.

Clients who are not exempt from work activities are immediately referred to three mandatory services: JOBS⁽¹⁴⁾ (for work activities), the Health Tracks, Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment (EPSDT) program, and Child Support Enforcement. Clients must register at the JOBS program no later than two weeks after the referral. DHS currently contracts with Job Service North Dakota to provide JOBS in every county. In the seven counties we visited, Job Service operated in an office separate from the county social services office. Two of the counties also had separate, alternative JOBS programs for specific populations (refugees and Native American tribal members) that were run by different agencies.

A JOBS counselor typically assigns clients to a work activity, such as a job search or job readiness class. Non-exempt clients must participate in work activities for 30 hours per week.⁽¹⁵⁾ If their job search activities prove unsuccessful, they may be placed in a community service or work experience setting to fulfill their work requirements.

After four months, a client must make an appointment with her TEEM manager to complete a computerized assessment. Although TEEM managers have the discretion to schedule this assessment interview any time within the first four months, most TEEM managers wait the full four months before scheduling the meeting. Clients are re-assessed once a year if they continue to receive TEEM benefits.

Figure IV-1

TEEM Client Flow of Service

During the assessment process, clients work with their TEEM managers to identify their needs, set goals, and assign timelines in which to complete these goals. TEEM managers refer clients to non-employment related services, such as family or personal counseling, domestic violence counseling, substance abuse treatment, financial planning, WIC, and parenting classes. The process results in a TEEM social contract that the client signs thereby acknowledging her responsibility for accomplishing the specified activities.

While clients work on the goals set out in the TEEM contract, they continue to participate in 30 hours of work activities per week. Clients must submit a monthly report to their TEEM manager indicating their progress toward the goals in their TEEM contract. In addition, clients must check-in weekly with their JOBS case manager to report their work activity hours.

Ideally, clients continue to engage in these work activities until they obtain employment and reach the income eligibility limit, at which time their case closes. However, in practice, clients' cases close for a variety of reasons, both positive and negative. They may marry, be sanctioned due to noncompliance, move out of town or out of state, or be unwilling to participate in the activities required of them and voluntarily leave the program.

The remaining sections of this chapter describe the TEEM implementation experience. We discuss implementation of each of the major TEEM components: case management, the assessment process, work activities, sanctions, time limits, and the benefit cap. We also assess the effectiveness of these strategies in promoting self-sufficiency.

A. Case Management

The implementation of TEEM has dramatically changed the way public assistance is provided in North Dakota. By focusing on assessment, referrals, and employment services, TEEM strives to address clients' barriers to employment and move them into the workforce. To accomplish this goal, staff have had to assume responsibilities beyond those of eligibility workers under TEEM's predecessor, the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. Instead of focusing primarily on income verification and eligibility determination, TEEM managers must now establish a closer rapport with clients, help them identify potentially sensitive barriers to self-sufficiency, problem solve creative solutions to those needs, and maintain working knowledge of the range of local service providers available to clients.

In addition to those responsibilities, TEEM managers are expected to serve as the central figure in a client's case planning process.⁽¹⁶⁾ Under this model, TEEM managers facilitate service delivery by coordinating with referral agencies, monitoring client progress toward meeting goals, and revising service plans as necessary. Thus, the TEEM manager is expected to serve as the gate keeper and coordinator of the services received by her clients. This requires case managers to establish ongoing communication not only with their clients, but with a range of service providers working with clients.

On the whole, TEEM managers in the seven counties visited have experienced varying degrees of success in meeting their case management responsibilities. Most TEEM managers indicated that as a result of TEEM implementation, they spent more time and developed closer relationships with their clients. Some felt that the assessment and referral process enabled them to better respond to clients' needs. However, despite the progress in meeting case management goals, ongoing challenges remain.

In our Interim Implementation Report, we identified two elements of TEEM case management that could be strengthened. First, TEEM managers had not assumed a lead role in coordinating the many services that TEEM clients received. Second, achieving the mission of TEEM required a more proactive level of case management than existed at that time. Although TEEM managers were providing referrals, they rarely advocated on behalf of their clients, followed-up with service providers, or coordinated clients' service delivery.

In this section, we build on these two findings, assessing the progress counties have made in implementing the TEEM case management model. We begin by discussing the extent to which TEEM managers have been able to assume a central role in coordinating service delivery for their clients. We then assess their ability to implement major components of a case management model, including assessing client barriers and needs, linking clients with services, coordinating with JOBS and other service providers, and maintaining ongoing case management throughout a client's participation in the program. Finally, we discuss the need for case management training to better prepare staff for their responsibilities.

Overlap in Case Management Responsibilities Between the Jobs Provider and Teem Manager Made it Difficult for Teem Managers to Assume a Central Role in Managing a Client's Case.

Our current findings from visits to both demonstration and non-demonstration counties mirror those of our interim report. Although TEEM managers served as the contact person for determining eligibility and authorizing benefit payments, they did not typically assume a lead role in the provision of clients' services. This stemmed, in part, from the fact that the responsibilities of TEEM managers and JOBS counselors often overlapped, creating confusion about the role TEEM managers should play. Moreover, because JOBS is initially such an important component of the TEEM program, the JOBS counselor was often better positioned to assume a lead role in coordinating a client's case.

A major factor that inhibited TEEM managers from assuming the lead role in service provision was that in most counties, the division of case management responsibilities between the JOBS provider and the TEEM manager remained ill-defined. Both JOBS counselors and TEEM managers aimed to help clients become self-sufficient by addressing barriers to employment, emphasizing the importance of work, and developing plans for leaving cash assistance. To achieve these goals, staff at both agencies gathered personal information from clients, conducted assessments, and discussed obstacles to finding and maintaining a job. Although staff roles were similar, the JOBS assessment and case planning began early in the flow of TEEM services, essentially positioning the JOBS counselor as the primary contact for non-exempt clients.

JOBS counselors were particularly involved with TEEM clients during the first four months of clients' participation in the TEEM program. During this period, JOBS staff assessed clients' work readiness, discussed their employment history and career interests, and identified any major barriers to employment, such as transportation and child care. They authorized supportive services and paid for items such as interview outfits, licensing exams, and uniforms. Some JOBS managers also informally referred clients to other service providers to help them address specific needs. In contrast, during these first four months the TEEM manager may not have had face-to-face contact with a client since initial intake. Furthermore, whereas TEEM managers collected monthly reports from clients, JOBS managers usually remained informed of clients' progress through weekly check-ins

After four months, a client typically met with her TEEM manager to participate in the assessment process. The TEEM assessment differs from the JOBS assessment in many important ways. Designed to be a comprehensive determination of clients' needs, the TEEM assessment covers issues such as substance abuse, domestic violence, and personal finances. Unlike the JOBS assessment, which focuses heavily on job readiness, the TEEM assessment does not ask clients detailed information about their work experience or career goals. However, the JOBS assessment is not as rigid as TEEM's, and our findings indicate that JOBS counselors sometimes expanded their interviews to address more personal issues. Therefore, there may be substantial overlap in the two assessment processes, further confounding case management roles. Moreover, a JOBS counselor has likely worked with a client to identify and discuss potential barriers months before a TEEM manager initiates the assessment interview.

There is also overlap in the way in which staff use information from the two assessments. A client's employment history and specific employment barriers, such as learning disabilities and transportation needs, are included in the Employability Development Plan (EDP) created with the JOBS manager after the JOBS assessment. Similarly, a TEEM manager creates a "social contract" after assessing a client's needs. The social contract may list referrals to a variety of service providers depending on a client's reported need. However, as noted above, the JOBS assessment and EDP occur in the first few weeks of a client's benefit receipt, whereas the TEEM assessment and social contract do not typically take place for at least four months. Therefore, as with the assessment, a JOBS counselor has already worked with a client to develop a written plan for finding employment and achieving self-sufficiency before the TEEM manager has introduced the social contract.

The overlap in case management responsibilities has made it difficult for TEEM managers to assume a lead role in clients' cases. Yet the tension between JOBS and TEEM roles may be indicative of a larger issue. The original TEEM model, in which case management was a key component, was never fully implemented. TEEM was envisioned as a streamlined program for providing support to clients on public assistance. As planned, Food Stamps, TANF, and heating assistance would be bundled so that clients could learn to better manage their money and plan for self sufficiency. Clients would interact with a single TEEM case manager who would be their primary contact at the agency. Unfortunately, benefits were never fully bundled, and these three programs currently operate distinctly. As a result, the TEEM manager may not be a client's only contact at the agency. Coupled with the duplicative roles of JOBS counselors and TEEM managers, it is perhaps not surprising that TEEM staff have had a difficult time assuming the lead role in managing clients' cases.

We strongly recommend that DHS clarify the roles of TEEM managers. Staff reported that they were unclear about DHS' expectations of them, and did not necessarily feel that they had the expertise or training to serve in the role of case manager. As discussed in our interim report, the expectation that TEEM managers should be active case managers must be reinforced strongly both in the training materials and in the in-person case management training. Even in counties where staff had previous experience and training in case management, some TEEM managers were unsure about the appropriate breadth of their roles. Emphasizing this expectation as much as possible may help TEEM managers feel more empowered to assume the TEEM manager role. Joint training with JOBS staff may also help to clarify roles and develop mechanisms for sharing information or coordinating service delivery.

Teem Managers Reported Difficulty Assessing Barriers and Needs.

The TEEM automated assessment, discussed in greater detail later in this chapter, is the main tool that staff have for assessing clients' needs and providing case management. Based on the assessment results, TEEM managers refer their clients to appropriate service providers in the community. The assessment process also provides TEEM managers with an ideal opportunity to establish a rapport with clients that can last throughout their participation in the program. Unfortunately, for reasons discussed further below, the assessment process has not been as effective in identifying clients' needs as envisioned.

Much of the effectiveness of the assessment process relies on self-report of barriers by clients. Because assessment questions raise very personal issues, such as domestic violence and substance abuse, the ability to elicit forthcoming responses from clients is often dependent upon the rapport established between the client and her case manager. Nearly all case managers interviewed noted that they had difficulty obtaining truthful responses from clients, and therefore created few referrals beyond the three mandatory ones. Consequently, they felt that a major part of managing cases-assessing needs and referring to services-was lost, and their role as a TEEM manager was beginning to resemble that of an eligibility worker under AFDC.

The few TEEM managers who thought that the assessment was an effective tool stressed the importance of having good interviewing and case management skills. Those staff incorporated the assessment interview into a broader conversation with clients, and were not afraid to deviate from the assessment questions to pursue other issues or explain the purpose of questions. To facilitate case management, it is critical for DHS to provide staff with ongoing training, including additional training on conducting needs assessments, as well as interviewing skills.

Teem Staff Are Coordinating with Jobs, However, Increased Information Sharing Would Greatly Facilitate Case Management.

To effectively fulfill their role as the central figure in a client's case planning process, case managers must coordinate services with other agencies working with their clients, monitor their clients' progress toward meeting their goals within each agency, and revise their clients' service plans throughout the process as appropriate. These goals require that case managers maintain ongoing communication with both clients and service providers.

The extent to which TEEM staff coordinated with JOBS staff and other service providers varied among counties. Most of the counties we visited held monthly meetings with JOBS staff to discuss policy and program procedures. Furthermore, most TEEM and JOBS staff regularly communicated by phone about individual clients, and occasionally met in person with other relevant counselors or service providers. Despite these communications, TEEM managers were surprisingly unfamiliar with the specific requirements and activities of the JOBS program. Moreover, TEEM managers did not appear to use information collected by JOBS for case planning. Neither JOBS nor TEEM assessments were shared with the other agency. And although clients' EDPs are shared with TEEM staff, TEEM managers did not routinely include the EDP in discussions with clients. TEEM social contracts are not shared with JOBS

A few counties established more extensive communication between agencies to ensure that both TEEM and JOBS staff were informed of ongoing changes. For example, TEEM staff occasionally held meetings with different service providers to discuss individual clients or relevant policy changes on a broader, programmatic scale. In one county, TEEM staff included representatives from Vocational Rehabilitation to ensure that the full range of clients' needs were considered. Members of participating agencies familiarized themselves with the range of services available at each partner agency and could better inform clients of these opportunities. Unfortunately, these types of meetings were time consuming to coordinate, and the few managers who conducted them did not have the time to hold them regularly.

In general, TEEM managers reported that their communication with service providers, beyond those that were mandatory, remained infrequent. Although case managers monitored clients' fulfillment of mandatory referrals, most did little to follow-up on clients' progress with non-mandatory referrals. As noted in our interim report, some clients may need assistance familiarizing themselves with appropriate agencies, scheduling appointments and attending meetings on an ongoing basis. In most counties, TEEM managers were not providing this assistance.

Ongoing Case Management Tended to Be Episodic.

Since the interim report, we have found very little change in the level of ongoing case management in the TEEM program. Case management in both demonstration and non-demonstration counties was sporadic, marked by intense periods of communication and long stretches during which there was little contact with clients. TEEM managers continued to spend the bulk of their time with clients at intake and during assessments. Yet, unless clients had questions regarding their monthly reports, or were sent conciliation notices threatening a sanction, most clients had very little further interaction with their TEEM managers.

Because the level of ongoing case management was no different than it had been at the time of our previous report, we repeat our prior recommendation: At a minimum, TEEM managers should maintain monthly or bi-monthly contact with all their clients. Although some cases do not demand a high level of management, case management needs to be a continual and ongoing process in order to maintain rapport with a client and monitor her progress. As TEEM managers increase their level of coordination with other service providers, they will need to discuss the information they gather with each client and incorporate new information into the individual's social contract.

Teem Managers Need to Be Better Prepared for Their Roles as Case Managers.

Our Interim Implementation Report stressed the need for more support and training for TEEM staff to fully internalize their changing roles and succeed in the case management function. At that time, DHS reported that they had planned a second round of training for 1999. Unfortunately, staff in demonstration counties did not receive any additional case management training in the year that has followed our report. Furthermore, although staff in both demonstration and non-demonstration counties received training on similar topics, in order to meet the tight implementation schedule, non-demonstration counties received a shorter, condensed version of the training received by demonstration counties. This may help explain why staff in non-demonstration counties felt less-supported and were less bought-in to the TEEM case management model than their counterparts in demonstration counties.

TEEM managers from both demonstration and non-demonstration counties reported wanting additional training on case management. Staff from non-demonstration counties felt that initial state TEEM training did not give sufficient attention to developing TEEM managers' case management and assessment skills. Consequently, many TEEM managers felt unprepared to undertake the assessment and referral process. Rather than initiating a conversation about service opportunities and discussing a client's need for such services up-front, they were more likely to wait for a client to approach them with a specific request for services. We strongly recommend that DHS develop a plan for ongoing staff development, and that they provide further training on case management to TEEM managers in all counties. We recognize that ongoing training can disrupt service delivery and staff schedules, particularly in smaller counties with few TEEM managers, and when travel is involved. To minimize the burden on staff and clients, we recommend that DHS make every effort possible to schedule training locally.

B. Assessment

TEEM clients may face multiple barriers that impede their progress towards self-sufficiency, including limited education or job experience, lack of child care or transportation, poor financial planning, problems with alcohol or other substance abuse, and experience of domestic violence. The assessment process and social contract aim to identify and address such barriers. The TEEM assessment relies on an assessment tool that TEEM managers use to identify clients' barriers to employment and long-term self-sufficiency. Based on a client's answers to a series of questions, the computerized assessment generates a list of local service providers to which clients are referred. These referrals-along with the mandatory referrals to JOBS, Health Tracks and Child Support Enforcement-are included in the client's social contract. This section describes findings about the assessment and social contract from both demonstration and non-demonstration counties

Teem Managers Have Become More Comfortable with the Computerized Assessment Tool over Time.

In the last round of site visits, TEEM managers indicated that they had become more comfortable with the computerized TEEM system that was introduced to facilitate program implementation. Despite this, they reported that obtaining the information needed to process a clients' case remained cumbersome and time-consuming. As noted in our Interim Implementation Report, TEEM managers maneuvered between three different systems to obtain and update client information: child care, TECS (which includes Food Stamps and Medicaid) and TEEM. Information in one system did not automatically transfer to the other systems, and consequently, managers had to re-enter the same information multiple times. Since the interim report, eligibility for the Low Income Heat and Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) has been debundled from the TEEM program, adding an additional step to the eligibility determination process.

To address these concerns, DHS plans to implement a new computer system that will integrate the existing systems used by county staff. The department expects to have TEEM and Medicaid on a single system within a year. Food Stamps, LIHEAP, and Child Care will be added to the system in subsequent years.

Staff regularly relied on the state help desk to answer technical questions regarding the TEEM computer system. However, as more counties implemented TEEM, it became increasingly difficult to reach staff through the help line. Furthermore, TEEM supervisors from several counties reported that existing state and regional technical support did not sufficiently meet staff assistance needs.

Teem Managers Have Had Difficulty Assessing Clients' Needs Using the Computerized Assessment Tool.

As discussed above, TEEM managers overwhelmingly believed that the assessment tool was ineffective. This sentiment was widespread in both demonstration and non-demonstration counties, and became stronger over time. In theory, TEEM managers recognized and were supportive of the assessment's potential to help clients identify needs and create strategies to address those needs. However, TEEM managers noted that the success of the assessment process hinged upon the willingness of clients to be forthcoming about their problems and need for assistance. As implementation progressed, managers reported that clients had learned to avoid receiving referrals by denying the need for services. Consequently, clients tended to answer "no" to assessment questions, and case managers provided few referrals to service providers.

This finding is particularly troublesome because the assessment component is truly the cornerstone of the TEEM program. It is the major tool for case management, and the only official mechanism for addressing clients' barriers to self-sufficiency and linking them to crucial services. Staff in many counties considered the assessment to be a major failure of the program, and felt defeated by it. Whereas staff interviewed for our previous report had suggestions for improving the assessment, many staff interviewed subsequently believed that the process should be discontinued altogether. We urge DHS to invest both energies and resources toward improving the assessment component. We provide three recommendations for strengthening this piece.

First, as noted previously, TEEM managers need additional case management training that covers interviewing skills and conducting assessments. TEEM managers, particularly those in non-demonstration counties, reported that they wanted more direction for completing assessments. Assessment training should not simply demonstrate how cases are entered into the computer, but rather should focus on strategies for building client-staff trust and handling sensitive issues. Some staff felt that clients were less likely to be candid in their responses to TEEM managers out of fear that any information they revealed could affect their benefit levels. Many clients in our focus groups indicated that they did not understand the purpose of the interview, and found some of the questions to be invasive. Training could better prepare staff to draw connections between assessment questions and self-sufficiency, and make clients feel more comfortable during the process.

Second, as noted in our interim report, the assessment could benefit from being more flexible. Case managers felt that the current assessment process was too rigid in its ability to respond to individual circumstances. TEEM managers did not know if they could deviate from the computerized questions and were tentative about exploring other issues with clients, even if they thought these issues might be important. Providing the opportunity for TEEM managers to add relevant questions as they arise might allow for a more meaningful dialogue between clients and case managers. TEEM managers could collect individualized information on each client's strengths and barriers, and may be able to better plan for services as a result.

Flexibility should be built in to the re-assessment process as well. Both TEEM managers and clients noted that, because the annual reassessment asks identical questions of the client, it was unnecessarily tedious. Certain information included in these assessments (such as veteran status) is unlikely to change from one year to the next. Additionally, clients noted that the wording of the assessments was identical and felt, therefore, that the process was not sensitive to the changes that had occurred over the course of the year. Linking these two forms so that certain information is automatically transferred from the assessment to the re-assessment would limit the number of unnecessarily repetitive questions. Furthermore, asking questions that build on previous responses would more clearly recognize clients' changing circumstances.

Finally, DHS should consider linking the JOBS and TEEM assessments. Detailed options for doing so are discussed in our interim report. However, it is very important to either conduct joint assessments, or develop a mechanism for sharing the assessment information between JOBS and TEEM staff. Assessments are not currently shared between these agencies, and TEEM managers often knew little about what was discussed between clients and JOBS staff. Furthermore, the TEEM assessment does not address job-readiness issues and staff felt it was important to know more about a client's basic education needs, employment history, and career goals. These issues are typically covered in meetings with JOBS staff. If TEEM managers were privy to that information, they would have a much better understanding of clients' existing strengths and limitations. In order for information-sharing or joint assessments to be useful, however, the TEEM assessment must occur much earlier in the flow of services than it currently does. This issue is discussed in detail below.

Delaying the Assessment Hinders Teem Managers' Ability to Work with Clients.

TEEM managers have four months from a client's enrollment to conduct an assessment. Nearly all TEEM managers reported that they typically waited the full four months to do so.⁽¹⁷⁾ The rationale behind postponing the assessment was that it is very time-consuming, and some clients are only on cash assistance for a short period of time. By delaying the assessment for several months, case managers can avoid spending unnecessary time and resources on clients who may not need it. Although we understand this reasoning, we strongly believe that the current practice of delaying the assessment process seriously undermines its goal.

The implications for case management have already been discussed. An earlier assessment would allow TEEM managers to forge a closer relationship with clients from the start. TEEM managers would be better positioned as the central person in coordinating a client's case. In addition, clients could begin to work on potential barriers to employment at the same time they were looking for work, rather than four months later. The assessment may identify issues that do not prevent clients from finding work, but inhibit them from maintaining a job or becoming self-sufficient. Thus, even clients who are likely to leave for employment within the first few months of assistance may benefit from the assessment and referrals to service providers.

Several TEEM managers noted that clients may feel overwhelmed if immediately required to participate in an assessment and fulfill social contract obligations in addition to meeting their JOBS requirements. This concern could be remedied by establishing later deadlines for the completion of the activities enumerated in a client's social contract, enabling them to prioritize their JOBS commitments up-front.

Social Contracts Are a Good Tool for Specifying Mandatory Referrals, but Are Not Effective for Encouraging Clients to Follow Through with Other Referrals.

Barriers identified during the assessment process are operationalized into action steps within a client's social contract. The social contract serves as an agreement between the client and her TEEM manager to meet the responsibilities required for program participation. Each social contract contains three mandatory referrals required by the TEEM program: child immunization through North Dakota Health Tracks; cooperation with Child Support Enforcement efforts; and a commitment to attending and participating in JOBS activities for non-exempt clients.⁽¹⁸⁾ Additional referrals developed to help clients meet needs identified during the assessment process are voluntary and may include referrals to nutrition or parenting classes, family counseling, and clothing or food banks.

Failure to comply with the three mandatory referrals leads to progressively severe sanctions and ultimately, if not addressed, case closure. Because such enforcement mechanisms are tied only to mandatory referrals, TEEM managers felt that social contracts were not very effective for encouraging clients to follow through on other referrals. Perhaps as a result, TEEM managers only tracked mandatory referrals and did little to monitor clients' fulfillment of the voluntary ones. Unless the TEEM managers received notification from an agency that a client had kept an appointment, they were unlikely to know whether or not the client had met this goal.

Recent communication with state administrators indicated that several pilot projects have been initiated to address both the difficulty in encouraging clients to comply with non-mandatory referrals and the challenge case managers reported in eliciting honest client responses to the assessment questions. A project currently being developed in one county would refer individuals who have been sanctioned to a North Dakota Human Services Center. Clients would be required to follow through with the referral, which would be included in their JOBS EDP. It is hoped that through working with the trained staff at the Human Services Center, clients will be more likely to provide honest responses regarding the barriers they face than they are with their TEEM case managers. By targeting participants who have been previously sanctioned for non-compliance, the project hopes to provide more intensive services to those individuals who have not successfully identified or addressed their barriers to self-sufficiency through the standard TEEM assessment and referral process.

A second pilot project that targets participants who have received assistance for an extended period of time is currently in development. The pilot project will design creative strategies and incentives for clients to work toward self-sufficiency.

C. Work Requirements

TEEM's work activity requirements are guided primarily by federal TANF requirements. TEEM mandates that all cash aid recipients who are not deemed exempt participate in a minimum of 30 hours of work activities each week. Work activities may include job search activities, unsubsidized employment, community service placements, and a narrow selection of short-term vocational education. TEEM managers refer clients to the JOBS program for assistance in accomplishing their work requirement goal.

In each county, JOBS offers a variety of job placement and employment services including employment interest and aptitude assessments, vocational counseling, and job search assistance (job placement services, job club, resume writing, and interviewing workshops). Although TEEM clients must report to JOBS, they are not obligated to use JOBS' services. Clients can seek and find employment using other sources, as long as they fulfill their work activity requirement. Each county has one or more JOBS counselors who work primarily with TEEM clients. The caseload size of these individuals varies greatly, ranging from 30 to 50 clients per counselor in the counties we visited.

Our Interim Implementation Report described the flow of TEEM clients through JOBS, and outlined the work activities that clients participate in at JOBS. In this section, we discuss the progress that counties have made in implementing TEEM work requirements, and the challenges that remain. We begin by describing job programs that have been implemented to address the needs of specific populations, such as Welfare-to-Work, Tribal Native Employment Works (NEW), and a JOBS program for refugees. Several counties reported that their caseload was becoming more heavily comprised of clients with multiple barriers to long-term employment and self-sufficiency. Accordingly, we discuss those barriers and describe the support services provided to address them. Finally, we report on efforts by JOBS to address employee retention, as well as efforts to involve employers in hiring TEEM recipients. Our discussion is based on on-site observations of JOBS activities and assessments, interviews with JOBS and TEEM case managers, and interviews with supervisors at community service sites and employers.

Jobs Programs Are Beginning to Target Populations with Special Needs.

In addition to the regular JOBS program, there have been several programs established to address the special needs of specific populations. The largest of these initiatives is the federal Welfare-to-Work program funded through the U.S. Department of Labor to target long-term welfare recipients for intensive job services. In addition, the Tribal NEW program, which recently replaced Tribal JOBS, provides employment services to certain Native American populations. Finally, to address concerns that Job Service was not meeting the special language and cultural needs of refugee clients, Cass County recently implemented a JOBS program for refugees administered by Lutheran Social Services. More detail about each of these three programs follows.

The Welfare-to-work Program Targets Long-term Recipients of Cash Aid, as Well as Clients Who Have Characteristics Associated with Long-term Dependency.

Welfare-to-Work programs target TANF recipients who are considered to be difficult to place in sustained work. Clients who meet a set of federally-mandated criteria are eligible to participate in the Welfare-to-Work program. At the time of our visits, federal regulations required that programs spend at least 70 percent of Welfare-to-Work funds on serving recipients who were both long-term (those on TANF or AFDC for 30 or more months or are within one year of reaching a time limit) and who faced two of three labor market barriers: (1) no high school diploma or GED and low reading or math skills; (2) require substance abuse treatment for employment; or (3) have not worked more than 13 consecutive weeks full-time in unsubsidized employment in the prior 12 months. Up to 30 percent of the remaining funds could be used for serving recipients who had characteristics associated with long-term dependency, such as teen pregnancy or high school dropout.

In general, Welfare-to-Work programs can provide a range of employment-related activities, including on-the-job training, job placement services, community service and work experience, and job retention services. The program can also pay for supportive services to the extent that they are not available through another source. Although the program can offer training and education, it can only do so when a client is placed in subsidized or unsubsidized employment. Therefore, the primary goal of the project is similar to that of the JOBS program: to move clients into the workforce as soon as possible. However, whereas JOBS services end when an individual closes their TEEM case, the Welfare-to-Work program can provide post-program support services and money for training.

The state's Welfare-to-Work programs are administered by the JOBS provider, Job Service North Dakota. In the counties we visited, JOBS staff were typically responsible for the Welfare-to-Work program as well. Perhaps because of this arrangement, staff did not differentiate much between the two programs. JOBS counselors tended to think of Welfare-to-Work not as a separate program, but rather as an additional funding source for them to utilize when they had expended available JOBS monies. They treated the Welfare-to-Work program as an extension of JOBS, and considered the goals and basic services to be the same.

This attitude may help explain why TEEM managers were very uninformed about the Welfare-to-Work program. Although some managers had heard of the program, virtually no one knew what services it could provide or who was eligible for those services. Because TEEM staff are responsible for helping clients achieve self-sufficiency and leave cash assistance permanently, it is critical that they are aware of all the resources available to help recipients become job-ready. This is particularly crucial for clients who have multiple barriers to employment. TEEM managers should know how long clients have been receiving cash assistance, and whether they have been on assistance before. Therefore, they should also be able to note on a JOBS referral any individual that they identify as being a potential Welfare-to-Work participant.

JOBS staff reported that they had very few clients who met the eligibility requirements for the 70 percent category of Welfare-to-Work. Consequently, although they typically had many clients who they could serve under the 30 percent category, they were unable to do so. The strict eligibility requirements of Welfare-to-Work has been a major concern across the nation, as states have reported difficulty in identifying eligible clients and spending available funds. To address this problem, guidelines for using the Welfare-to-Work funds were recently revised. As a result, long-term recipients no longer have to meet additional barriers to employment to be eligible for services under the 70 percent category of spending. Furthermore, the amendments expanded the eligibility criteria for the 30 percent provisions, adding additional categories. We hope that these changes will enable programs to better utilize their resources to assist hard-to-place recipients.

In Rolette County, the Tribal New Program Is Providing Expanded Education and Training Opportunities to Native American Teem Clients Who Are College-bound.

The Native Employment Works (NEW) program, which replaced Tribal JOBS, was designed to provide work-related education and training services to tribal members. Tribal NEW programs were given flexibility in determining the program's target population and services, to best meet the needs of local tribal members. Consequently, Tribal NEW programs may differ both across and within states. In North Dakota, the majority of Tribal NEW programs focus on higher education, serving Native American TEEM clients who have graduated from high school or received a GED. Because Tribal NEW is not required to adhere to the same restrictions as JOBS, clients are able to participate in education and training that they might otherwise have been unable to pursue. In Rolette County, Tribal NEW staff reported that they targeted TEEM clients who specifically expressed an interest in attending college. If clients did not have a GED or high school diploma, or were not interested in pursuing additional education, they were referred to the regular JOBS program.

The process for referring clients to Tribal NEW is very similar to that of the JOBS program. Once referred to one of the two programs, a client works with the Tribal NEW or JOBS counselor to develop an Employment Development Plan (EDP) that is sent to the client's TEEM manager. For JOBS clients, the EDP identifies work activities geared to help them find a job. In contrast, Tribal NEW clients typically enroll in a two or four year education program as their assigned work activity. In Rolette County, Tribal NEW clients are required to participate in a job readiness class in addition to their educational program. Tribal NEW staff reported that the job readiness class provides information that can better prepare clients for employment and help them ensure long-term job retention in the future.

Technically, Tribal NEW clients are disregarded from JOBS work requirements, and are recorded in the state's administrative data base as such. However, TEEM staff reported that in effect, the NEW program serves as an alternative to the JOBS program. NEW clients are expected to participate in education or training programs and demonstrate their participation each month by having their teacher sign a form indicating that they have attended at least 75 percent of their classes. This slip is then passed on to the TEEM manager in order to authorize the clients' support service expenses.

Tribal NEW programs currently pay for the majority of their clients' supportive service needs. As with JOBS clients, DHS pays for Tribal NEW participants' child care expenses while they are participating in activities outlined in their EDP. Starting on May 1, 2000, counties will be able to pay for the mileage and transportation costs of Tribal NEW TEEM clients as well. Tribal NEW will continue to cover all additional costs, such as testing fees, tuition, clothing, auto repair, and uniforms.

The Refugee Jobs Program Is Assisting Refugees in Cass County.

In Cass County, a large population of refugees face both language and cultural barriers to obtaining employment. At the time of our previous report, JOBS was working to address this barrier with translators and classes that taught English as a second language (ESL). However, many clients were unable to find work given their limited English proficiency. Furthermore, ESL classes did not count toward meeting their work participation requirements. Some refugee clients chose to go into sanction for non-compliance, an activity that did not result in case closure under the old AFDC program, but would ultimately close their cases under TEEM.

Since our interim report, Cass County has implemented a separate JOBS program for refugees. Through a one-year grant from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Lutheran Social Services (LSS) developed a JOBS program specifically tailored to refugee populations. LSS has a long history of working with refugees and had expressed concern that the special needs of refugees-both language and culturally-related-were not being met by the existing JOBS program. Furthermore, because LSS assisted clients in obtaining refugee cash assistance, agency staff had typically established a relationship with individuals before they even applied for TEEM benefits. Therefore, they felt that they were more suited to provide services to this population. Although Job Service of North Dakota handled the majority of TEEM referrals, LSS began to serve all refugee clients in the county.

Despite their experience working with the refugee population, LSS did not have direct knowledge of the JOBS program, federal reporting requirements, or procedures for communicating with DHS. Therefore, Job Service staff worked with LSS staff to prepare them for their new responsibilities. Staff from Job Service, LSS, and TEEM met on a monthly basis to discuss the programs. Job Service also shared all of their JOBS forms with LSS and explained their practice of reporting information to DHS. Although implementation was slow and not without hurdles, staff from all agencies reported that service delivery was improving. LSS is currently negotiating a contract with DHS to continue the program through a subcontract with Job Service.

Lack of Transportation and Child Care Were the Most Serious Barriers to Completing Work Requirements.

JOBS counselors in many counties reported that their caseloads were markedly different than they were prior to TEEM implementation. They felt that a larger proportion of the clients who were left on aid had multiple barriers to employment. Although some found work, many were not able to sustain employment for long. Consequently, staff reported that they were seeing many of the same clients returning to the program repeatedly. This section discusses some of the most common barriers to completing the work requirements and securing employment.

Staff and clients in both demonstration and non-demonstration counties cited a lack of transportation and child care as the primary obstacles to meeting work requirements. This was true in rural, urban, and reservation counties. Many clients lacked the ability to secure a regular means of transportation to look for work, get to and from work, and travel back and forth from child care. Transportation can be particularly difficult in rural counties, where the distances between services is often quite far. Most rural areas do not have public transportation systems, and clients frequently live far from employment opportunities, social service providers, and day care centers. Although we did not collect data about car ownership, studies suggest that nearly 57 percent of the rural poor do not own a car.⁽¹⁹⁾ According to recipients and staff, TEEM clients are often forced to rely on friends to piece together rides or pay for taxis, which tend to be expensive and unreliable, if they exist at all. Since North Dakota is one of the most rural states in the country, with farms covering more than 90 percent of the land, transportation issues are difficult to address. However, we recommend that DHS explore creative solutions to providing transitional transportation needs to TEEM clients in these counties. We also hope that DHS will encourage counties to spend existing resources, including Welfare-to-Work funds, to help clients secure reliable transportation.

In more urban counties, transportation systems exist, but are often inadequate for meeting clients' needs. Buses do not always run through the night and sometimes do not service areas where clients live or work. Furthermore, some individuals reported that it took them several hours to make the multiple trips to drop off children at different day care providers and go to work, Job Service, or other service providers.

Child care also continued to be a problem, especially during off hours, weekends, and for special needs such as drop-ins, infants or children with disabilities. Child care is especially important because many of the higher paying jobs available are evening and weekend shift work. For parents who worked during the day, child care was more difficult in summer months when children were out of school. Child care needs may be particularly difficult to meet in rural counties, where there demand for care is more dispersed. According to the Rural Policy Research Institute, rural areas tend to have fewer trained professionals, and fewer regulated child care slots than urban areas.⁽²⁰⁾ Furthermore, on average, rural families travel greater distances to obtain child care than urban families.

During our second round of data collection, Cass County reported that they had implemented a pilot child care program that reserved a number of child care slots for children of TEEM recipients. The county reported that the program was helping families meet their child care needs, particularly larger families with many children. Unfortunately, DHS did not re-fund the program, and by our last visit in July 1999, it had been discontinued.

In addition to a lack of transportation and child care, JOBS staff reported that there were less tangible barriers that kept clients from becoming self-sufficient. For example, some staff felt that the current support services available to clients could not account for the fact that many lacked a basic understanding of what it meant to maintain a job. They reported that clients were routinely late or absent from work and often failed to call in advance or with an explanation. Although some absences could be attributed to problems with transportation and child care, clients did not feel responsible for alerting their work and were more apt to quit than to problem-solve with their boss. JOBS staff stressed that "generational welfare" clients, who had grown up in households with no working adult, had neither a role model nor work experience to draw on when entering a job.

JOBS programs in some counties required clients to attend job preparation classes to better prepare them for work. However, those classes were often geared toward finding employment, rather than dealing with issues on the job. Thus, the classes sought to build job search skills, such as resume writing, interviewing, and calling employers. In one county, however, the JOBS program implemented a more comprehensive job skills class that most clients were required to attend. The course met six hours per day for four weeks and covered a range of issues, including self-esteem and job retention. In addition to work-related topics, clients were urged to discuss more personal issues, such as unhealthy patterns that inhibit them from taking control of their lives. In a single observed class, participants discussed issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and depression; they provided emotional support, offered advice, and referred each other to counselors and other service providers that they had found useful. JOBS counselors had attended intense training on family counseling to supplement their employment development skills in preparation for this four-week class. As a result, the JOBS counselors were able to ensure that participants focused on identifying their needs and strengths, and drew connections between addressing barriers and becoming more self-sufficient.

We recognize that not all counties have the staff or resources to provide such a comprehensive life skills course. Nor do they necessarily have a large enough caseload to warrant such services. However, we do urge counties to think creatively about how to address some of the more intangible barriers that clients may have to face in finding and sustaining work. We also recommend that counties explore the use of Welfare-to-Work resources, which can sometimes provide more comprehensive services. As noted previously, the primary challenge for clients may not be finding work, but being able to sustain a job in spite of the many obstacles they face.

Job Retention Services Are Not Being Offered to Teem Clients.

Little Outreach to Employers Is Taking Place.

Across the nation, there has been increased attention on the importance of involving employers in welfare to work efforts. Although many welfare agencies have made great strides in addressing clients' needs and preparing them for work, most have not focused on understanding and connecting with their local labor market. Yet, the labor market will ultimately determine the success of efforts to move clients into the workforce. Researchers have found that few resources are devoted to cultivating relationships with firms and industries, to developing jobs for individuals, or staying informed about occupational changes that may dictate the skills required in the workplace.⁽²¹⁾ Our findings in North Dakota are similar.

With the exception of Rolette County, JOBS staff reported that the economy was strong, and that there were enough jobs available for TEEM clients. Furthermore, many employers advertised open positions at Job Service centers, which serve a wide population in addition to JOBS participants. In many cases, JOBS clients were able to find work with minimal assistance from JOBS counselors. As a result of the high demand for employees in most counties, JOBS counselors reported that they did not spend much effort on outreach to employers. Rather, employers often contacted Job Service to find employees, hold job fairs, or interview job candidates. Nevertheless, some JOBS staff admitted that there was still a stigma attached to welfare, and believed that some employers were wary of hiring TEEM recipients. To address this issue, the JOBS counselor in one county spoke to employers at a meeting of local business leaders. She described the goals of both the JOBS and Welfare-to-Work programs and discussed subsidized employment opportunities. In Rolette County, where unemployment rates were high, JOBS designated a staff person to coordinate client activities with employers and provide employer outreach activities.

We believe that DHS should make an effort to involve businesses in welfare to work efforts. Some employers may be hesitant to hire welfare recipients because they believe that they are unreliable or unqualified. Efforts by JOBS or TEEM staff to educate employers about welfare to work and connect them with viable job candidates may help alleviate some of their fears. Furthermore, staff can ensure that employers are aware of the many supportive services that are available to clients to help them sustain employment. Finally, a closer relationship between the business community and TEEM/JOBS would give staff a better understanding of employers' needs. Additional county staff may be required to accomplish this goal. In some counties, other agencies may already be making an effort to engage employers in hiring or training disadvantaged populations. If that is the case, TEEM and JOBS staff should be aware of these efforts.

We understand that staff may not feel a need to reach out to employers in a time when businesses are clamoring for workers. However, it is precisely because the economy is so strong that such an ideal opportunity exists for human service agencies to involve the business community in making welfare to work successful. Any relationships that are forged during this time are likely to continue into the future when the demand for employees may not be so high. DHS should take advantage of this opportunity by creating lasting partnerships with businesses, involving them in efforts to train, coach, and hire recipients. In turn, staff should seek to better understand employers' needs so that they are aware of the skills that recipients will need to enter specific industries.

Job development efforts may be particularly important in rural areas that are dependent on farming. Although unemployment rates were very low throughout most areas of the state, staff did report that the farming crisis was making job placement increasingly difficult in agricultural areas. However, job development and job creation initiatives are likely to be difficult and do not necessarily fall within the purview of the TEEM or JOBS programs. For example, local Chambers of Commerce, Economic Development Corporations, or community colleges may be addressing regional employment issues, while JOBS and TEEM staff focus on an individual's work readiness. In such cases, it is critical that staff are aware of local economic development efforts, including job creation initiatives and retraining programs. Communication between DHS and other involved agencies can help ensure that the needs of TEEM clients are incorporated in their efforts.

D. TEEM Sanctions

Non-exempt TEEM clients can be sanctioned or penalized for not meeting any of the following mandatory requirements:

• 30 hours (as of October 1999) participation in work activities (sanction);
• complying with Child Support Enforcement (sanction);
  

• completing the child health screening (penalty of 7% reduction in grant amount); and
  

• submission of monthly progress reports (results in case closure, but client can reopen case and receive benefits that are prorated to the timing of reopening).
  

Sanctions are progressively punitive, and can eventually result in case closure. According to TEEM managers, clients were most commonly sanctioned for non-compliance with work requirements or failing to report to the JOBS provider. Clients can not be sanctioned for disregarding any of the non-mandatory referrals that appear in their social contracts as a result of their assessment. These may include services such as mental health counseling, parenting classes, and financial management.

For the most part, TEEM managers thought that the current sanctioning process was effective for encouraging compliance, and appreciated the leverage that it gave them. However, some staff reported that clients were often able to adjust to the lower benefit, and therefore, had little incentive to rectify their sanction. Furthermore, some clients took advantage of the drawn out process of conciliation. For example, several counties reported that clients have been able to avoid sanctions by cooperating temporarily when threatened with a sanction, and again falling into noncompliance when the immediate threat is removed.

Approaches to sanctioning varied from county to county, and depended somewhat on TEEM managers' attitudes towards case management. For example, some staff thought that if the sanctions were more severe, clients would take them more seriously. Others considered sanctions to be overly punitive, and believed that threatening clients was not an appropriate means of helping them gain self-sufficiency.

The primary weaknesses in the sanctioning process appeared to be the lack of follow-through by TEEM managers. TEEM staff did not routinely intercede when they received a recommendation for sanctioning a client. Sanctions should signal to the TEEM Manager that a client may have persistent needs that are not being met or issues that are not being addressed. As we report in Chapter V, administrative data indicate that sanctioning has increased over time. To avoid further sanctioning, TEEM managers should follow through by actively pursuing these issues with clients. If staff limit themselves to enforcing the three mandatory components of TEEM without attempting to gain an understanding of their clients' situations, they will end up policing work requirements rather than helping clients to dismantle barriers.

E. Time Limits

The five-year lifetime limit for receipt of public assistance was one of the most contested policy developments of welfare reform. Clients' TANF clocks officially began to register months of program participation as of July 1997, the date of TANF implementation.

Our findings indicate that clients were well-informed about the time limit policy, both by TEEM managers and JOBS staff. As implementation progressed, TEEM managers were more likely to remind clients of the policy. In fact, both TEEM managers and JOBS staff would occasionally talk to clients about closing their cases when their benefit level was low. Although some clients were beginning to respond to the pressure of time limits, TEEM managers thought that most clients were focused on meeting basic daily needs. Furthermore, TEEM clients' circumstances were often turbulent. For many, it was too difficult to predict what their situations would be in five years, and they felt that managing the present was more important than planning for the unknown.

Although clients were aware of the time limit policy, few could specifically cite how much time they had been receiving welfare, and, consequently, how much time remained until they reached the time limits. Likewise, although TEEM managers were increasingly likely to discuss time limits with clients, several mangers were unaware of specifically how much time each client had remaining on assistance. It is critical that both TEEM and JOBS managers are aware of clients' remaining time on aid in order to help clients strategize how to most effectively manage their remaining assistance.

Both clients and staff were concerned that some individuals would be unable to reach self-sufficiency within their lifetime limit. Although most clients planned to leave assistance within their five-year limit, many were not confident in their ability to achieve self-sufficiency and independence from assistance within that time frame. In particular, clients noted the difficulties that individuals with disabilities (not severe enough to qualify for SSI, but serious enough to affect their earning ability) will face if forced to abide by the five-year time limit. Staff reiterated this concern, and noted that although the time limit provides a useful incentive for motivating those able to work to do so, exemption from the time limit will be critical to the well-being of families that face severe and prolonged barriers.

Although staff assumed that many of their clients would fall into the 20 percent of cases exempt from the time limit, they reported that they had no guidelines for determining who would be exempt from the time limits. TEEM managers from most counties indicated that they lacked direction from DHS on who would be exempt from the time limit policy. State administrators reported that the exemption policy would adhere to federal guidelines: incapacitated individuals and those individuals living in an area with an unemployment rate exceeding 50 percent will be exempted from the five-year time limit. State officials were reluctant to provide further policy guidelines to the counties until they determined whether the federal time limit guidelines would be revised. Because DHS plans to follow federal guidelines, federal policy changes could affect state time limit policy. Nonetheless, to best help clients strategize their future assistance as the time limit approaches, the state should be sure to provide information to the counties regarding state time limit policy guidelines in an appropriate time frame.

F. Benefit Cap

The benefit cap policy prohibits a TANF recipient from receiving increased benefits due to the birth of a child if that child was conceived in a month while the parent was receiving TEEM assistance. Although family cap policies were a controversial aspect of welfare reform dialogue across the country, North Dakota's policy seems to have attracted little attention on a local level. Indeed, TEEM managers in most counties indicated that the benefit cap was not a subject that they typically stressed with clients. Some managers reported that they were unlikely to even discuss the benefit cap with clients unless a client specifically inquired about it or became pregnant. Nonetheless, clients interviewed in recent site visits were often aware of the policy.

Although most staff supported the philosophy behind the policy, they were concerned about the well-being of children in families with reduced benefit levels. Regardless of their support for the policy, both clients and staff doubted the efficacy of the benefit cap in affecting family child-bearing decisions. Neither believed that the benefit cap produced any effect on client behavior, and agreed that child-bearing decisions are rarely driven by economic factors. Staff did not think the program should rely on the benefit cap policy alone to influence client child-bearing choices, but rather TEEM should provide increased information and access to family planning services to help clients make informed choices regarding this issue.

Chapter Highlights

• Although declining through much of the 1990s, the TEEM caseload remained steady during 1999. The population of adult included cases decreased over this time period and the population of adult not included cases remained steady.
  
• TEEM head characteristics changed between January 1998 and September 1999, including higher proportions of both Native American and more highly educated recipients over time. Children in adult included cases were also more likely to be Native American over time.
• Over time the ANI caseload was increasingly comprised of children living with parents who received federal disability payments. In January 1998, 19 percent of ANI cases had children living with a parent who received disability payments. By September 1999, 29 percent of ANI cases had such a parent.
• There has been an increase in work activity participation among non-exempt TEEM heads from 47 percent in January 1998 to 62 percent in September 1999. More than half of those participating in work activities did so for at least the minimum required number of hours. Unsubsidized employment was the most common work activity.
• Sanction rates and amounts increased over time. In January 1998, 13 percent of TEEM cases were sanctioned for an average amount of $117. By September 1999, 24 percent of cases were sanctioned for an average amount of $155. In September 1999, 6 percent of cases that closed did so due to sanction.
• Thirty percent of TEEM adult included cases had used up between 19 and 21 months of their time on aid as of September 1999. This is a third of their lifetime limit on aid.
• Longer-term recipients (those on aid for between 15 and 21 months) were more likely to be Native American and less educated.
• Cases were more than twice as likely to close for "state policy" reasons than employment, and the rate of closures for employment has fallen over time. This may be of particular concern to policy makers because TEEM's main goal is workforce participation.
• Twenty-two to 30 percent of TEEM adult included cases that exit TEEM returned to aid within a year. This rate of return is slightly higher than other states' TANF programs. Native Americans were more likely to return to aid than their White counterparts. The Native American recidivism rate was 24 percent, compared to a White recidivism rate 15 percent.

Introduction

This chapter documents changes over time in the TEEM caseload, including caseload levels, characteristics, work participation, and case closures. We also provide a detailed analysis of time on TEEM and the factors that influence length of time on aid. Data for this chapter come from the TANF Emergency Reporting Data Reports, which are submitted quarterly by the North Dakota Department of Human Services (DHS) to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

In this chapter we build on BPA's Interim Implementation Report, which reported similar trends over a shorter time period. Because TEEM was implemented in phases, the previous report concentrated on comparisons between demonstration counties, which had already implemented TEEM, and non-demonstration counties, which were still in the process of program implementation. In this report, we examine all counties together, noting trends over time which are likely indicative of ongoing program implementation issues. We focus largely on describing changes in caseload composition and activities between January 1998 and September 1999.

Caseload Trends

In this section we examine changes over time in the TEEM caseload as well as differences in its composition over time. We examine adult included (AI) and adult not included (ANI), or child-only, cases. AI cases are those that include an eligible adult caretaker. When no eligible adult caretaker is residing in the home, the children may be in the care of another relative, such as a grandparent. As will be discussed in more detail below, in some ANI cases children may be living with a parent, typically one who is receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI). See the Appendix for a detailed description of how we define the AI and ANI caseloads for this report.

The Teem Caseload Remained Steady in 1999.

In the November 1998 Interim Implementation Report, BPA analyzed cash aid caseload trends from June 1993 to June 1998. We reported a significant decline in the cash aid caseload of close to 50 percent over the five years, and a decline of 18 percent from June 1997 to June 1998. Since that time, the cash aid caseload has continued to fall, but at a much slower rate. In Figure V-1, we examine data on the TEEM caseload composition from January 1998 to September 1999. During that time period, the total cash aid caseload (shown in green) fell by 11 percent from 3,418 to 3,053. However, between January and September 1999, the cash aid caseload remained relatively unchanged.

Adult Included Cases Decreased over Time and Adult Not Included Remained Steady.

The blue and red lines in Figure V-1 show the number of AI and ANI cases, or child-only cases, respectively. The overall decline in the TEEM caseload was driven by a decline in AI cases. Between January 1998 and September 1999, the number of AI cases decreased by 13 percent, from 2,841 to 2,472. Over the same time period, the number of ANI cases remained steady, fluctuating only slightly in the 21 months observed. As a consequence of the decline in AI cases, ANI cases have increased in representation among the North Dakota cash aid caseload. As of September 1999, ANI cases comprised almost 19 percent of the caseload, compared to 17 percent of the caseload almost two years earlier.

Counties Experienced Differing Caseload Trends

Despite the statewide trend of a declining TEEM caseload, not all counties have experienced the same success. Figure V-2 presents county caseloads between January 1998 and September 1999 for those with total caseloads over 50 as well as the balance of the state. Counties' AI and ANI caseloads are shown separately and demonstrate very different trends.

Between January 1998 and September 1999, 12 of the 15 large counties shown in Figure V-2 showed a decrease in their AI caseloads of between 1 and 52 percent. The remaining three counties saw caseload increases of between 4 and 11 percent. Richland County saw the largest drop in AI cases (52 percent). Stark, Stutsman, and Ramsey Counties also saw larger decreases of about 30 percent. Rolette County, the county with the largest TEEM caseload in the state, showed an 11 percent decline in AI cases, which is below the statewide average of 13 percent. The balance of the state, which includes counties with caseloads of smaller than 50, averaged a decline in AI cases of 15 percent.

As was shown in Figure V-1, the ANI caseload statewide remained steady between January 1998 and September 1999, increasing less than 1 percent. However, counties saw very different trends in their ANI caseloads. Six of the large counties shown in Figure V-2 saw an increase in their ANI caseloads, and 11 large counties as well as the balance of the state saw a decrease. For instance, Benson County showed a 40 percent increase (20 cases) in ANI cases over this time period. Cass County showed a 29 percent increase (14 cases) and Rolette County showed a 20 percent increase (23 cases).

Client Characteristics

In this section we provide an examination of the TEEM population by a range of client characteristics. Significant changes in the characteristics of TEEM participants over time may require changes in the range of assistance and support services offered through the program. Figure V-3 shows the characteristics of the TEEM adult caseload in both January 1998 and September 1999. Below we compare these two time periods.

TEEM household heads were more likely to be Native American over time.

As has occurred throughout the U.S., the TEEM adult caseload became increasingly comprised of ethnic and racial minorities during the time period we examined. Figure V-3 shows that in January 1998, 43 percent of TEEM heads were White, 54 percent were Native American, and 3 percent were from another racial or ethnic background. By September 1999, there was a decrease in the percent of TEEM heads who were White (38 percent), an increase in the share who were Native American (57 percent), and an increase in the share who were another racial or ethnic group (6 percent). If we look at an even longer time period, this change is more pronounced. As recently as 1995, White clients comprised 57 percent of the cash aid caseload while Native Americans comprised 40 percent. This may be due to the relative increase in the Native American population in North Dakota.⁽²²⁾

Figure V-3

Characteristics of TEEM Household Heads

^aRace/Ethnicity data are for August 1999 instead of September 1999. September 1999 data had a relatively high level of missing data which prevents a comparison over time.

TEEM household heads became more highly educated over time.

The most striking change in TEEM heads' characteristics is in their education levels. In January 1998, nearly half of TEEM heads (48 percent) had less than a high school education. By September 1999, the percent without a high school diploma dropped substantially to 29 percent. Commensurate with this change, there was a large increase in the percent of TEEM heads with a high school diploma or GED. In January 1998, 48 percent of the TEEM caseload had a high school diploma or GED and by September 1999, 63 percent of the caseload achieved this level of education. Over this time span, we also see an increase in the number of clients with associate's and bachelor's degrees as well as with other credentials. One explanation for this trend may be the implementation of Tribal NEW, which provides education and training services to Native Americans. This program permits Native American TEEM recipients on reservations to access longer-term education (including college), thereby allowing them to remain on aid while pursuing advanced degrees.

Other characteristics of TEEM heads show lesser changes. For instance, TEEM heads were more likely to have never been married over time, with 54 percent of heads having never been married in January 1998 and 59 percent having never been married in September 1999. We see very few changes over time in age, which averages about 30 in both time periods.

Over time, children in adult included cases were more likely to be Native American or another ethnic minority.

As with their adult head counterparts, children in AI cases became increasingly comprised of minority groups, most prevalently Native Americans, during the time period we examined. Figure V-4 shows that in January 1998, 35 percent of children in AI cases were White, 60 percent were Native American, and 5 percent were another ethnic group. By September 1999, 31 percent were White, 62 percent were Native American, and 7 percent were another ethnic group.

Figure V-4

Characteristics of Children in Adult Included Cases

^aRace/Ethnicity data are for August 1999 instead of September 1999. September 1999 data had a relatively high level of missing data which prevents a comparison over time.

Other characteristics of children in AI cases did not change to the same degree. Overall, we see a slight increase in the average age of these children. It should be noted that nearly 30 percent of children in September 1999 were under the age of four. Having younger children may affect parents' abilities to obtain employment due to the limited availability of child care facilities for this age group in some areas.

Native American TEEM recipients on reservations faced more barriers than others.

As was reported in Chapter IV, Native American TEEM recipients living on reservations face a number of barriers that other TEEM recipients may not face. For instance, reservation counties tend to have much higher unemployment rates than other counties. Two reservations in the State, Turtle Mountain in Rolette County and Spirit Lake in Benson County, have unemployment rates of over 50 percent. TEEM recipients living on these reservations do not have their time on aid counted toward the five-year time limit.

In addition to high unemployment, we find evidence of other employment barriers among Native Americans living in reservation counties. Figure V-5 below shows the characteristics of adult TEEM heads for Native Americans living in reservation counties, Native Americans living in non-reservation counties, and all other TEEM recipients.⁽²³⁾ Note, although we expect that the majority of Native American TEEM clients in these counties live on the reservation, it is possible that some do not. Data from the former AFDC program indicated that in each of the reservation counties, 80 to 100 percent of Native American aid recipients in the county lived on the reservation.

Figure V-5 shows that Native Americans in reservation counties have some different characteristics than Native Americans in non-reservation counties as well as other ethnic groups in the state. Native Americans in reservation counties comprised 42 percent of the state's adult TEEM heads in August 1999, compared to Native Americans in non-reservation counties, who comprised 15 percent. These adult heads were much less likely to have completed a high school diploma or GED than both other groups. Thirty-seven percent of Native American TEEM recipients in reservation counties completed less than a high school education, compared to 22 percent of Native Americans in non-reservation counties and 24 percent of non-Native Americans. The fact that Native Americans on reservations were less educated than those in other counties may reflect the fact that a key reason for leaving the reservation is to pursue higher education. Many young adults living on reservations who leave their homes, do so to pursue advanced degrees at universities throughout the state.

^aData are for August 1999 because September 1999 data had a relatively high level of missing data for Race/Ethnicity.

Furthermore, Native Americans in reservation counties tended to have more children and were more likely to have never been married than their non-Native American counterparts. This is consistent with the higher out-of-wedlock birth rates on reservations than in the state as a whole.

Although there are explanations for the demographic trends found among the Native American TEEM population in reservation counties, the fact remains that this population may be harder to serve than others in the state for a variety of reasons. We therefore recommend that the Department of Human Services work closely with tribal leaders throughout the state to assist this population in making progress toward self-sufficiency.

Children in adult not included cases were more likely to be living with parents receiving disability payments.

As was discussed previously, children in ANI cases may live with a related adult caretaker, typically a grandparent, or under certain circumstances, they may be living with a parent. For instance, if the parent receives federal disability payments, their children are eligible for TEEM benefits. As is shown in Figure V-6, in January 1998, 48 percent of children in ANI cases lived with a grandparent and 34 percent lived with a parent. Sixteen percent lived with other relatives and 2 percent lived with non-relatives. By September 1999, 36 percent of children in ANI cases were living with a parent and 45 percent were living with a grandparent. Nineteen percent were living with other relatives and fewer than 1 percent lived with non-relatives.

The slight increase in the percent of children living with parents is due entirely to an increase in the share of parents who received federal disability benefits, such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI). In January 1998, 19 percent of ANI cases had children living with a parent who received disability payments. By September 1999, 29 percent of ANI cases had such a parent. This increase in the share of cases with a parent receiving disability payments may be due to the enhanced assessment in TEEM which is geared toward identifying barriers to work, including disabilities.

Figure V-6

Characteristics of Children in Adult Not Included Cases

^aRace/Ethnicity data are for August 1999 instead of September 1999. September 1999 data had a relatively high level of missing data which prevents a comparison over time.

Client Work Activities

In this section we focus on the work-related activities undertaken by TEEM clients. The discussion is limited to AI cases because ANI cases are not subject to work requirements. We first document clients' exemption status and then examine work activities among non-exempt clients.

The percent of TEEM clients participating in Tribal NEW increased.

As is shown in Figure V-7, over the time period examined, between 57 and 59 percent of TEEM adult heads were required to participate in work activities.⁽²⁴⁾ However, there has been a large increase in the absolute number as well as the percentage of TEEM heads who were disregarded from the work participation requirement because of their participation in Tribal NEW. As was discussed in Chapter IV, Tribal NEW is a welfare to work program tailored for the specific needs of North Dakota's Tribal population. In January 1998, 258 TEEM clients (22 percent of those not required to participate in work activities) were participating in the Tribal NEW Program. By September 1999, 437 clients, or 41 percent of those not required to participate in work activities, were participating in the Tribal NEW Program. Tribal NEW activities generally focus on educational activities, mainly post-secondary education. If we include these Tribal NEW participants in the count of those required to participate in work activities, we see an increase in the percent required to participate from 68 percent in January 1998 to 74 percent in September 1999.

In contrast, fewer parents are being disregarded because they have a child under 12 months old. In January 1998, 42 percent of those not required to participate in JOBS were disregarded because they had a child under 12 months. By September 1999, this fell to 17 percent. This trend is consistent with data shown in Figure V-4 which showed a slight aging of the population of children in AI cases.

Figure V-7

Work Participation Status of TEEM Adult Heads

Work activity participation rates among work-mandatory TEEM clients increased over time.

Among TEEM clients who were required to participate work in activities, Figure V-8 shows that work participation rates increased tremendously over the time period examined. In January 1998, 47 percent of work-mandatory clients participated in a work activity. By September 1999, this percentage had risen to 62 percent.⁽²⁵⁾ In January 1998, the minimum required number of hours for the work activity to count toward the federal work participation rate was 20. In that month, 76 percent of work-mandatory TEEM clients who were engaged in a work activity participated in one or more activities for 20 or more hours. By September 1999, the minimum number of hours in a work activity was 25, and 62 percent of work-mandatory TEEM recipients were engaged in work activities for at least that many hours.⁽²⁶⁾

Figure V-8

TEEM Client Participation in Work Activities

^aThis includes teen heads attending school and parents of children between 4 months and 6 years.

^bPercent of those in work activities.

^cPercent of those in work activities. People may participate in more than one activity at once.

Unsubsidized employment was the most common work activity.

Figure V-8 also shows the types of work activities in which TEEM clients were engaged.⁽²⁷⁾ Unsubsidized employment was the most common work activity and the one which accounted for most of the increased proportion of individuals participating in a required activity. In January 1998, 38 percent of those engaged in a work activity were in unsubsidized employment. By September 1999, the proportion of those in work activities that included unsubsidized employment increased to 58 percent. Second most common was work experience, or unpaid jobs at various locations, which accounted for 25 percent of those in work activities in September 1999. Job search and readiness activities were the next most common, although over time these activities seem to have decreased in prominence to 15 percent in September 1999. Finally, vocational education was also a common work activity, with 13 percent of those in work activities engaged in vocational education in September 1999. Note, the majority of clients who engaged in work activities were in only one activity at a time. However, in September 1999 15 percent were engaged in more than one work activity simultaneously.

Although 40 to 50 percent of the non-exempt population did not participate in any work activity, we are unable to document the reasons for their non-participation or the types of other activities in which they may have been involved. As reported in Chapter IV, the main reasons for not engaging in work activities include lack of child care and transportation problems. It would also be useful to examine the types and number of referrals made and the activities contained on the TEEM contract, however this information is also not contained in the data we examined. An analysis of these data would prove valuable to DHS in understanding clients' barriers to employment and their ability to use referral services to address barriers.

Sanction rates increased over time.

Figure V-9 shows the sanction status of TEEM heads of household in AI cases. In January 1998, 13 percent of TEEM clients were sanctioned. By September 1999, 24 percent were sanctioned. North Dakota's sanction policy is progressive, with each sanction being more severe. When non-compliance persists, the result is case closure. As the number of sanctions grew, so did the average amount. Among those sanctioned in January 1998, the average sanction amount was $117, and this increased to $155 in September 1999.

^aPercents in this row refer to the percent of all closures.

Case Duration, Closure, and Recidivism

Examining the duration of case participation, how and why cases close, and their rates of recidivism (return to cash aid) is key to understanding TEEM's effectiveness. We examine these issues over the 21 months from January 1998 to September 1999.

Thirty percent of TEEM adult included cases used a third of their lifetime limit on

aid by September 1999.

Individuals who receive cash assistance for longer periods of time are commonly presumed to have more barriers to employment than those who receive assistance for shorter periods. Such individuals may have less success in the labor market when they leave TEEM and may require more intensive services to achieve long-term employment and self-sufficiency. Because of TEEM's five-year lifetime limit, length of time in the TEEM program has important consequences for recipients.⁽²⁸⁾ Given the incentives for recipients to minimize their time on aid, the TEEM caseload may become increasingly comprised of long-term recipients with multiple barriers who will find it difficult to transition off of assistance.

In Figure V-10, we examine the total time on aid for AI cases on TEEM between January 1998 and September 1999. Note, AI cases may have been on aid (TEEM or AFDC) prior to our observation period and we do not have the data to include this time on aid. Thirty percent of AI cases in September 1999 were on aid for between 19 and 21 months of the observation period, a third of their lifetime limit on aid. Seventeen percent were new to TEEM, having been on aid for only one to three months.⁽²⁹⁾ On average, cases in September 1999 had spent 12 months on aid. Although the time period examined is not long enough to indicate whether time on aid has increased, the data is suggestive that there is a substantial portion of the caseload that has been unable to exit TEEM despite more than a year and a half of services. This population may have multiple barriers to self-sufficiency and may be in need of more in-depth services.

Figure V-10

Length of Time Receiving Cash Assistance

AIl Cases in September 1999

Longer-term recipients are more likely to be less educated or Native American.

Figure V-11 shows the characteristics of short-term (1-7 months), medium-term (8-14 months) and long-term (15-21 months) AI TEEM heads between January 1998 and September 1999.⁽³⁰⁾ Note, these terms refer to their time on aid during only these 21 months. It should be noted that even short-term recipients could go on to have long spells of time on aid, even though they are not observed as of September 1999. This analysis focuses on a snapshot of the caseload at a point in time. A longitudinal analysis over a longer time period could show differing results.

As is evident from the figure, longer-term recipients differed from their short- and medium-term counterparts in several ways. On average, long-term recipients were older, less educated, had more children and were more likely to be Native American.

Figure V-11

Characteristics of Short-, Medium-, and Long-Term TEEM Heads

AI Cases in September 1999

Data indicate that longer-term recipients were much more likely than short-term or medium-term recipients to not have finished high school. A third of long-term recipients did not have a high school diploma or GED, but 26 percent of short-term and 25 percent of medium-term recipients were high school dropouts. We might expect lesser educated TEEM recipients to be more likely to stay on aid longer given that many jobs require a high school diploma or GED. Further, given the rise in Tribal NEW participation, we might expect that lesser educated TEEM recipients living on reservations would stay on aid to complete their education.

Further, in September 1999, 70 percent of long-term recipients were Native American, compared to 38 percent of short-term recipients and 53 percent of medium-term recipients. This too is expected, given that many reservations in North Dakota experienced very high unemployment rates during this time period.

Other differences between long-term and other TEEM recipients include the number and ages of their children. Long-term recipients had more children than their short- and medium-term counterparts. This may further inhibit their ability to leave TEEM for employment given the increased cost of care necessary. However, children of long-term recipients were older, with fewer newborns than their short- and medium-term counterparts.

Finally, long-term recipients were a bit older than short- and medium-term recipients. They were more likely to be 30 or older than either of the other two groups. Older recipients may have been out of the labor force for longer time periods than younger recipients (who by virtue of their age would be closer to school age). This may further inhibit their ability to leave TEEM for employment.

Cases were more likely to close for reasons related to state policy than employment.

Figure V-12 shows the various ways TEEM cases closed over time. As TEEM was conceptualized, cases would close due to clients' realization of their self-sufficiency goals, i.e., due to increased earnings associated with employment. In reality, cases close for a variety of reasons, including: employment, marriage, sanctioning, state policies, and other (unclassified) reasons. We find that the most common reason for case closure is not employment, but state TEEM policies (excepting the sanction policy). This might include cases that closed because the client failed to submit a monthly report, failed to sign a TEEM social contract, had excess assets, and other administrative and policy-related reasons.⁽³¹⁾ Over time, a larger proportion of cases closed due to state policy, and this accounted for two-thirds of closures in September 1999.

In contrast, employment accounted for only 19 percent of closures in September 1999, down from 32 percent in January 1998. Consistent with the increase in sanctions discussed earlier, we find an increasing proportion of cases closed due to sanctions over time (6 percent in September 1999). Finally, fewer cases closed for "other" reasons over time. Only 9 percent recorded this code in September 1999.

Figure V-12

TEEM Case Closure Reasons

Note: Months in which there is both a case closure and a cash payment are not counted as closures. This situation occurred in between 13 and 21 percent of the case closures observed in these months. This could occur if a client's case closes due to failure to submit a monthly status report and the client re-opens his or her case in the same month.

The finding that the rate of closures due to employment fell over time is somewhat troubling, given TEEM's goal to move people into the workforce. One reason for this may be the imprecision of these case closure codes. Many cases close with the client failing to make an appointment or submit a monthly report. In these cases, it is possible that the client has earnings that make her ineligible for benefits and she therefore lets her case close without informing her case manager of the reason. The case would appear to close due to "state policy" but really close due to employment. It may therefore be useful for case managers to follow up with clients who close their case for unknown reasons in order to properly track closure reasons.

Statewide recidivism is on par with or slightly higher than other states' recidivism rates.

Figure V-13 shows the statewide recidivism rates, or rates of return to cash assistance, by exiting AI cases. Ideally, one would like to observe former recipients over a period of years to assess whether they have been able to continue to stay off aid after exiting. Unfortunately, the data available do not allow us to examine this long a time frame. We present data for both six-month and 12-month return rates.⁽³²⁾

The data indicate that between 22 and 30 percent of those who exited TEEM between January 1998 and September 1998 returned to aid within one year. Looking at six-month return rates, between 15 and 18 percent of those who exited TEEM between January 1998 and March 1999 returned within six months. Although varying, the 12-month return rate appears to have no consistent trend. The six-month rate appears to be declining slightly over time. These recidivism rates may fluctuate for a number of reasons. The health of the local and regional labor markets will have a significant effect on the number of clients returning to cash assistance. Also, client characteristics (e.g., education level or prior work experience) can influence return rates, so as the population changes, so may recidivism. Changes in program features such as the availability and type of services offered to TANF recipients and therefore fluctuations in rates of return may reflect some effects of the different stages of implementation of TEEM. Seasonal variations in the labor market may also influence return rates.

Systematic data on recidivism rates in other states are not yet available. However, there are a few recent comparisons that indicate that North Dakota's recidivism rate is either on par with or slightly higher than other states' rates. For instance, Washington and Maryland reported 12-month recidivism rates of about 23 percent.⁽³³⁾ Colorado and Arkansas, in contrast, had slightly lower recidivism rates of about 17 percent over the same time period.⁽³⁴⁾

Native Americans were more likely than other racial and ethnic groups to return to aid after exiting.

Over the entire January 1998 to September 1999 period, there were a total of 4,975 exits from AI TEEM cases. Although more than 50 percent of AI cases were Native American over this time period, only 43 percent of exits included Native American case heads. Fifty-two percent of TEEM exits included White case heads. Among Native American exits, the recidivism rate was 24 percent. In contrast, 15 percent of White case heads who exited returned to aid during the time period.

Figure V-14 below explores other characteristics of recidivists and non-recidivists who exited TEEM between January 1998 and July 1999. The characteristic that varies the most between the two groups is race/ethnicity. TEEM heads who had never been married as well as those who were between the ages of 20 and 29 were also more likely to return to aid.

There may be a number of reasons Native Americans were more likely than their White counterparts to return to aid. As mentioned previously, unemployment in reservation counties was much higher than in the rest of the state. It could be that Native Americans who left aid did so in hopes of obtaining a job, and when they were unable to do so, they returned to aid. In addition, with greater child care and transportation barriers in these areas, Native American recipients may have found maintaining employment more difficult than their White counterparts.

Figure V-14

Characteristics of Returning and Non-Returning TEEM Heads

VI. Recommendations

This chapter presents a summary of the findings discussed in the preceding chapters, and offers a set of recommendations for refining the TEEM program. As discussed previously, many of our findings mirror those from our Interim Implementation Report. Therefore, we reiterate several of our recommendations from that report. The following ten recommendations are based on information reported in Chapters III, IV, and V.

• We recommend that DHS ensures that TEEM managers are knowledgeable about and inform recipients about their post-TEEM eligibility for various social programs, including the Earned Income Tax Credit.

As was discussed in Chapter III, TEEM recipients are eligible for a variety of benefits while receiving cash aid. Their eligibility for many of these programs continues even after they leave aid. Because the TEEM intake process includes eligibility determination for TEEM, Food Stamps, Medicaid and LIHEAP, former recipients may not realize that they continue to be eligible for these programs after leaving TEEM. Further, child care assistance is determined separately from TEEM eligibility, and can be vital to assisting working parents. Finally, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) can supplement earnings for low-income families tremendously. However, this credit is only available to families that file federal taxes, even if they are not required to do so. Hence, former TEEM recipients must be aware of the EITC and know they need to file an IRS 1040 form in order to receive its benefits.

Our interviews and observations indicated that TEEM staff did not always discuss information about the various programs recipients can access after leaving TEEM. TEEM recipients should be informed of these options prior to their exit so that if their case closes without further contact with their TEEM manager, they will be aware of their options. Further, all TEEM recipients who are working while in the program should be informed about the EITC so they can claim its benefits even before exiting TEEM.

• We recommend that DHS develop a plan for ongoing staff development, and provide further training on case management to TEEM managers in all counties.

As discussed in Chapter IV, the roles of staff have changed significantly since TEEM's implementation. Although they have made strides in implementing case management, staff need more support and training to internalize fully their changing roles and succeed in the case management function. Merely linking clients with services is not enough to help them address their barriers to self-sufficiency. Case managers also need to coordinate with these service providers on an ongoing basis, reassess clients' needs, and update their service plans as necessary. They need to meet with clients regularly to understand better whether the services they are receiving are indeed helping them make progress in the labor market. Most importantly, case managers should work more closely with the JOBS provider to monitor their clients' work activities in order to provide more integrated services aimed at the common goal of client self-sufficiency.

Unfortunately, staff reported that they were unclear about DHS' expectations of them, and did not necessarily feel that they have the expertise or training to serve in the role of case manager. This was particularly true in non-demonstration counties where TEEM managers had not received the same intensity of training as managers in demonstration counties. To facilitate case management, it is critical for DHS to provide additional training and ongoing support to staff in every county. The case management model should be expanded to include better integration of case management with the assessment tool, and more comprehensive follow-up, monitoring, and ongoing contact with clients and referral agencies. Additional training provided by DHS should be focused on these issues. DHS can also use staff development as an opportunity to clarify the roles of TEEM managers.

• There is overlap in case management responsibilities between the JOBS provider and TEEM manager. We recommend DHS shorten the time between TEEM intake and assessment, consider ways to link JOBS and TEEM assessments, and improve information-sharing between the two programs.

Although TEEM managers can conduct the assessment any time within the first four months of a client's benefit receipt, they typically wait a full four months. Because clients are usually referred to JOBS before they complete their TEEM assessment, the JOBS case manager takes on the role of primary case manager for the first four months of TEEM participation. During this time, the TEEM manager does not have face-to-face contact with clients and is not aware of the types of activities they are undertaking or their barriers to employment. By the time the client is assessed by TEEM, the JOBS case manager has already worked with the client to identify barriers to employment, created an employment development plan, and helped clients to seek out necessary services.

This overlap in services undermines the TEEM manager role, making it difficult for them to assume a lead role in managing a client's case. DHS might consider a number of ways to remedy this problem. First, decreasing the time lag between intake and assessment would help promote the TEEM manager as the primary case manager. By having clients assessed early in their TEEM participation, TEEM managers can establish a rapport with clients and coordinate with JOBS, as well as the other service providers, to ensure clients are making progress toward self-sufficiency. Second, linking the JOBS and TEEM assessments would help coordinate services, avoid duplication, and inform both JOBS and TEEM staff of the employment and other barriers clients face. This would lead to a more integrated service approach. Third, TEEM staff must increase communication and coordination of service delivery both with JOBS and with other service agencies. Increased communication is key to improved case management.

• The assessment should be more flexible to accommodate clients' individual needs, strengths, and interests. A more flexible screening tool would be most useful for re-assessment purposes.

Because each staff person uses identical scripts for the assessment, the tool ends up being too rigid to adequately account for individual circumstances. TEEM managers do not have the flexibility to add questions or tailor the assessment to a specific population. There may be county-specific or individual-specific issues, such as gang involvement, or concerns that are specific to certain populations, such as language and cultural barriers, that pertain to certain areas or individuals. Incorporating these issues may better assist clients in overcoming barriers to employment.

Making the system adaptable is even more crucial for the re-assessment process. As currently structured, the re-assessment interview is identical to the initial assessment. The second interview should be a time for clients and case managers to seriously plan for self-sufficiency and strategically address obstacles that remain. The process would be better served by including questions about client progress and by not repeating time-invariant questions.

• JOBS activities should be expanded to include job retention services.

As discussed in Chapter IV, both JOBS and TEEM staff reported that job retention was one of the biggest issues that needed to be addressed. The primary challenge for clients may not be finding work, but being able to sustain a job in spite of the many obstacles they face. However, neither the JOBS coordinator nor the TEEM manager in most counties provided any follow-up services for clients who left TEEM because of employment.

Providing retention services is complex and entails working closely with clients to address many different issues, such as time management, problem-solving skills, and confidence. Therefore, staff will likely need a variety of strategies to successfully address retention with clients. To be most effective, these efforts should be ongoing, starting before a client has even found a job. For example, retention issues should be addressed in job clubs and other employment-related workshops, as well as individual meetings between staff and clients. In addition to incorporating retention services into regular JOBS offerings, staff should consider more targeted efforts to provide support to individuals who lack work experience, or for whom job retention has been a problem. For example, linking clients with mentors or job coaches may help clients ease into the world of work without placing an undo burden on JOBS staff.

• DHS should make an effort to involve employers in welfare to work efforts.

As discussed in Chapter IV, jobs are plentiful in most of the counties we visited and staff have, therefore, not focused their energies toward developing job opportunities or building relationships with employers. However, we believe that the strong economy presents the ideal opportunity to involve employers in welfare to work efforts. Some employers may be hesitant to hire welfare recipients because they believe that they are unreliable or unqualified. Efforts by JOBS or TEEM staff to educate employers about welfare reform and connect them with viable job candidates may help alleviate some of those fears. Furthermore, staff can ensure that employers are aware of the many support services that are available to clients to help them sustain employment. Finally, a closer relationship between the business community and social service or job service agencies would give staff a better understanding of employers' needs. We recognize that counties may require additional staff or resources to accomplish this goal.

• 
  DHS should provide information to the counties regarding state time limit policy guidelines in an appropriate time frame.

TEEM managers from most counties indicated that they lacked direction from DHS on who would be exempt from the time limit policy. Although state administrators reported that the exemption policy would adhere to federal guidelines, they were reluctant to provide further policy guidelines to the counties until they determined whether the federal time limit guidelines would be revised. Because DHS plans to follow federal guidelines, federal policy changes could affect state time limit policy. Nonetheless, to best help clients strategize their future assistance as the time limit approaches, the state should be sure to provide information to the counties regarding state time limit policy guidelines in an appropriate time frame.

• DHS should work with Tribal leaders to help Native American TEEM recipients meet their self-sufficiency goals.

Data presented in Chapter V indicates that Native American TEEM recipients are, on the whole, more disadvantaged than their White counterparts in the state. The TEEM caseload is becoming increasingly comprised of Native American adults and children, and these families are likely to stay on aid for longer time periods. When they exit, Native American families are also more likely to return to aid within six months or a year. We are encouraged by the increasing participation in Tribal NEW programs and would recommend that DHS continue to work with Tribal leaders to help Native American TEEM recipients meet their self-sufficiency goals.

Data from Chapter V indicate that a substantial proportion of the TEEM caseload (30 percent) is well on its way to reaching the lifetime limit on aid. It is important for TEEM managers, JOBS coordinators, and recipients themselves to know how much time they have left on aid so that they can begin to make provisions for leaving. Providing more information to county staff regarding who will be eligible for the hardship exemption to this lifetime limit may also assist in case planning.

This Appendix provides a more detailed explanation of the methodology used to define case types in the Emergency TANF Data Reports which are used for the analysis in this report. As was discussed in Chapter V, the data include both adult included (AI) and adult not included (ANI), or child-only, cases. We used the following methodology to identify each of these case types for our analyses.

The first step in differentiating the AI and ANI caseloads was to examine the data element "type of family for work participation" in the family-level section of the Emergency TANF Data Report. This data element is used to calculate state work participation rates. ANI caseloads were first delineated as those with type of family equal to three, or those not counted in the work participation rate. Included in AI cases were those with type of family equal to one, or single parent families that are counted in work participation rates.⁽³⁵⁾ For federal reporting purposes, this definition is how the data are reported by North Dakota.

14.

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) is a program begun under the Family Support Act of 1988. Under North Dakota's current program, JOBS provides direction for all work-related activities.

36. The reasons for the inclusion of families who would be exempt, disregarded, or deemed eligible for work in the type of family data element are unknown. It appears these cases may have been miscoded as family types to be excluded from work participation calculations when they should have been included.

ACF Home | Questions? | Site Index | Contact Us | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act | Disclaimers
Department of Health and Human Services | First.Gov: The U.S. Government's Homepage

Administration for Children and Families • 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W. • Washington, D.C. 20447