Examining the Effectiveness of Transitional Employment Assistance (TEA) in Arkansas

Background and Purpose: Arkansas ranks 30th for gainful employment, with 3.7% of Arkansans unemployed and 16.8% living below the poverty line (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023; U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). The Arkansas Transitional Employment Assistance (TEA) program addresses these issues by helping adults secure employment and cash benefits. However, since the Arkansas TEA program was implemented in 1996, TEA participation has decreased dramatically from 23,000 families receiving assistance in 1996 to 949 families in 2023 (U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 2023), while unemployment and poverty rates have increased. The Arkansas Department of Workforce Services (ADWS) and an Arkansas university formed a collaborative partnership to understand TEA users' perspectives, identify TEA's strengths, and improve service delivery.

Method: For this mixed methods program evaluation, ADWS provided the email addresses of all adult (age 18+) TEA users to a research team at a local university. The research team designed a web-based survey in Qualtrics consisting of nominal scale and open-ended questions. Upon completion of the survey, a $15 Walmart gift card was provided to participants. A response rate of 10.8% resulted in 364 completed surveys. Descriptive statistics were reported. Chi-Square and Fisher Exact tests were run to determine relationships between multiple variables. Qualitative thematic analysis was conducted to explore gaps in TEA services.

Results: Most Arkansas TEA participants (82.5%) are single adults with children, 94% are female heads-of-household. Participants (73%) reported earning under $5,000 per year. Only 47% of participants said TEA helped them secure employment. Further, 16% of the participants reported no longer seeking employment. These findings are of particular concern, as securing employment is TEA's overarching goal.

Participants who reported that they secured cash benefits via TEA (62%) also reported higher program satisfaction levels than those who did not. However, 50% of participants receiving cash benefits reported that the amount was insufficient and should be increased substantially. This finding was echoed in the qualitative responses. Respondents (41%) stated that cash benefit amounts are too low (e.g., “does not keep up with inflation” and “needs to be increased to help set up a good foundation for the future so people will not immediately struggle once they leave the program”).

Most respondents (84%) indicated that their employment income and cash benefits were insufficient to purchase food for their families. Living situations further exacerbate this financial strain, as 66% of those who reported food insecurity also stated they did not have stable housing.

Conclusions and Implications: TEA programming provides additional services (e.g. childcare vouchers and transportation assistance). However, the most essential and valuable components help recipients secure gainful employment while receiving cash benefits. Although 57% of TEA recipients also receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits, the vast majority of these recipients still suffer from food insecurity, exposing significant gaps in meeting basic needs. Challenges faced by TEA participants are multifaceted and interconnected. To strengthen the social impact of TEA, advocacy for increased cash benefits and expanded income eligibility standards is crucial.