Department  of  Health  and Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
PARTICIPANTS  RATE 
THE  JOBS  PROGRAM 
SEPTE~ER  1993  OFFICE  OF  INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
The  mission of the  Office of Inspector  General  (OIG),  as mandated  by Public Law 95-452, as 
amended,  is to protect  the  integrity of the  Department  of Health  and Human  Services (HHS) 
programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This statutory 
mission is carried  out  through  a  nationwide  network  of  audits, investigations, and  inspections 
conducted  by three  OIG  operating  components:  the  Office of  Audit  Services, the  Office of 
Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections.  The OIG also informs the Secretaty 
of HHS of program, and management problems, and recommends courses to correct them. 
OFFICE  OF AUDIT  SERVICES 
The  OIGS Office of  Audit  Services (OAS)  provides all auditing services for  HHS,  either  by 
conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others.  Audits 
examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out their 
respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent  assessments of HHS programs 
and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to promote economy and 
efficiency throughout  the Department. 
OFFICE  OF  INVESTIGATIONS 
The OIGSOffice of Investigations (01) conducts criminal,civil,and administrative investigationsof 
allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment  by 
providers.  The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, administrative sanctions, or 
civil money penalties.  The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which investigate and 
prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
OFFICE  OF EVALUATION  AND  INSPECTIONS 
The OIGSOffice of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and program 
evaluations (called inspections) that focus on issues of concern to the Department,  the Congress, and 
the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection reports generate rapid, 
accurate, and up-to-date information on the efficiency,vulnerability, and effectiveness of departmental 
programs.  This report  was prepared  in the  Dallas regional office under  the  direction  of Ralph 
Tunnel], Regional Inspector General and Chester B. Slaughter, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 
Project Staft? 
REGION  HEADQUARTERS 
Elsie A. Chaisson, Project Leader  Ruth Folchman, Program Analyst

Michelle J. Adams, Program Analyst

Leah K  Bostick, Program Analyst

Nancy J. Watts, Program Assistant

For additional copies of this report, please contact the Dallas Regional Office at (214) 767-3310.
 Department  of  Health  and Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
PARTICIPANTS  RATE 
THE  JOBS  PROGRAM  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
This report  provides  information  about the experiences,  opinions  andattitudes  of Job 
@pofiunities  and Basic Stills  Tmining  (JOBS) progmmpafiicipants.  Specifically,  the 
report  contains  information  about participants  (1) understanding  of the programs  services 
and requirements;  (2) positive  and negative  experiences  in the program;  and (3) 
suggestions for program  improvement.  This report  reflects  early experiences  with the 
JOBS program  as seen from the unique perspective  of the participants  themselves. 
BACKGROUND 
The Family  Support Act (P.L.  100-485) required  all States to establish the Job 
Opportunities  and Basic Skills Training  (JOBS) program  to assure that needy families  with 
children  obtain the education,  training  and employment  that will help them avoid 
long-term  welfare  dependency.  To accomplish  this,  the JOBS program  is intended  to: 
(1) encourage,  assist and require  applicants  for and recipients  of AFDC to fulfill their 
responsibilities  to support their children  by preparing  for,  accepting,  and retaining 
employment;  (2) provide  individuals  with the opportunity  to acquire  the education  and the 
skills necessary  to qualify for employment;  (3) provide  necessary  support  services, 
including  transitional  child care and medical  assistance,  so that individuals  can participate 
in JOBS and accept employment;  (4) promote  coordination  of services at all levels of 
government  in order  to make a wide range of services available,  especially  for individuals 
at risk of long-term  welfare  dependency;  and (5) emphasize  accountability  for both 
participants  and service providers.  Where  State resources  permit,  all AFDC  recipients 
living in a subdivision  covered  by a JOBS program  and for whom the State IV-A agency 
(i.e.,  welfare  agency)  has guaranteed  child care  (in accordance  with the provisions  of the 
child care  laws and regulations)  shall be required  to participate  in JOBS unless the 
recipient  is exempt  from participation. 
Between  October  1991 and February  1992, we completed  a total of 232 telephone 
interviews  with participants  who were located at five sites: Denver,  Colorado; 
Albuquerque,  New Mexico;  Florence,  South Carolina;  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania;  and, 
Janesville,  Wisconsin.  We interviewed  67 JOBS program  completers,  98 currently  active 
participants  and 67 dropouts. 
FINDINGS 
A  MAJORITY  OF PARTICIP~TS  SURVEYED  GAVE  HIGH  RATINGS  TO  THE 
OVERALL  JOBS  PROGRAM,  ITS  ACTWITIES  AND  SUPPORT  SERVICES. 
	 Almost three  out of four respondents  rated the overall  JOBS program  as good or 
very good. 
i    Significantly,  84percent  of respondents  said they would recommend  the program. 
  Eighty -three percent  ofrespondents  believed  the JOBS program  would help them 
get off welfare. 
  Eighty -two percent  of respondents  whohadcompleted  the program  reported  they 
were working  at the time we interviewed  them. 
  About two-thirds  of respondents  rated the public assistance  agency and its staff 
high for providing  the support and services they needed to complete  the program. 
  Respondents  graded  high those JOBS program  activities  in which they participated, 
  A majority  of respondents  who received  support services gave them high marks. 
NEVERTHELESS,  A  SIGNIFICANT  NUMBER  OF RESPONDENTS  EXPERIENCED 
PROBLEMS  AND/OR  VOICED  COMPLAINTS  THAT  MERIT  THE  ATTENTION  OF 
PROGRAM  MANAGERS. 
Imuficient  Information.  Some respondents  said they were not told about or 
received  insufficient  explanations  or information  on the availability  of specific 
program  activities  or services.  For example,  46 percent  of respondents  said they 
were not told about transitional  child care. 
Lack  of Sumort  Services.  Ninety-eight  respondents  said there  were certain  services 
they needed but did not receive.  For example,  47 of the 98 respondents  reported 
they did not receive  the child care they needed. 
Deficient  Case Manager  Services and Attitudes.  Thirty-one  percent  of respondents 
noted problems  with support and services provided  by case managers.  Some said 
case managers  condescending/negative  attitudes  also discouraged  them. 
Understanding  Penalties.  While  most respondents  knew about possible  non-
compliance  penalties  and benefit  reductions,  some did not understand.  Twenty-two 
respondents  had their AFDC  and/or  Food  Stamps benefits  reduced,  12 as a result 
of receiving  student educational  loans. 
EIGHTY-SIX  PERCENT  OF RESPONDENTS  SlZ4RED  SPECIFIC  SUGGESTIONS 
FOR  IMPROVING  THE  JOBS  PROGRAM. 
  Emphasize  education  and training  in order  to achieve  self-sufficiency. 
  Improve  support  services  such as child care and transportation. 
	 Strengthen  case managers  performance  of the orientation,  service  explanation,  and 
assessment  processes;  and provide  empathetic  support to program  participants. 
ii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS

PAGE


EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  . . . . . . . . . . . ...**********  ..**  *  i 
INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0000*oo  SOOOOl 
FINDINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..  0000  osco  o*  4 
Participants  RatingofTheJOBS  Program  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . d 

Problems  Experienced  By Participants  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*..  000008 
Participants  Suggestion  sFo  rImproving  TheJOBS  Program  . . . . . . . . . .  12 
APPENDICES

A:  Profile  of Survey  Respondents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .o*oo  A-1

B:  Illustrative  Profiles  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OOOSO.  B-l
 INTRODUCTION 
PURPOSE 
This report provides  information  about the experiences,  opinions,  andattitudes  of Job 
@pofiunities  and Basic Stills  Tmining  (JOBS) progmmpatiicipants.  Specifically,  the 
report  contains  information  on participants  (1) understanding  of the programs  services 
and requirements;  (2) positive  and negative experiences  in the program;  and (3) 
suggestions for program  improvement.  This report  reflects  early experiences  with the 
JOBS program  as seen from the unique perspective  of the participants  themselves. 
BACKGROUND 
The Family  Support  Act (P.L.  100-485) required  all States to establish  the Job 
Opportunities  and Basic Skills Training  (JOBS) program  to assure that needy families  with 
children  obtain the education,  training  and employment  that will help them avoid 
long-term  welfare  dependency.  To accomplish  this,  the JOBS program  is intended  to: 
(1) encourage,  assist and require  applicants  for and recipients  of AFDC  to fulffll their 
responsibilities  to support their children  by preparing  for,  accepting,  and retaining 
employment;  (2) provide  individuals  with the opportunity  to acquire  the education  and the 
skills necessary  to qualify for employment;  (3) provide  necessary  support services, 
including transitional  child care and medical assistance,  so that individuals  can participate 
in JOBS and accept employment;  (4) promote  coordination  of services at all levels of 
government  in order  to make a wide range of services available,  especially  for individuals 
at risk of long-term  welfare  dependency;  and (5) emphasize  accountability  for both 
participants  and service providers. 
Where  State resources  permit,  all AFDC  recipients  living in a subdivision  covered  by a 
JOBS program  and for whom the State IV-A agency (i.e.,  welfare  agency)  has guaranteed 
child care  (in accordance  with the provisions  of the child care laws and regulations)  shall 
be required  to participate  in JOBS unless the recipient  is exempt  from participation. 
Federal  regulations  provide  that a State JOBS program  u  include the following  four 
components:  (1) educational  activity  (which shall include high school or high school 
equivalency  training;  basic and remedial  education  that will provide  a literacy  level 
equivalent  to at least grade  8.9,  and education  in English proficiency;  (2) job  skills 
training;  (3) job  readiness  activities;  and,  (4) job  development/job  placement.  States are 
also required  to include  at least two of the following  components:  (1) on-the-job  training, 
(2) work supplementation,  (3) community  work experience,  (4) group and individual job 
search,  or (5) additional  education,  as allowed by the State.  Additionally,  States are 
required  to guarantee  child care,  and provide  transportation  and other  support  services  if 
the State agency determines  these services are necessary  for an individual  in the family to 
accept employment,  remain  employed  or to participate  in an education  or training 
component. 
1
 METHODOLOGY 
The focus of this study was a survey of the experiences  and perceptions  of JOBS program 
participants  at selected  sites in five States.  Each  site selected provided  all of the optional 
JOBS program  components  in addition to the mandatory  components.  Two sites were 
non-urban  and three  sites were urban.  We did not survey State or local JOBS program 
administrators.  We did,  however,  interview  local office managers  to obtain a broad 
overview  of program  operations  and to learn the terminology  used to assist us to better 
communicate  with the respondents  about the program. 
In order  to learn more about the JOBS program  and participants  attitudes  about welfare, 
we performed  the following  steps. 
First,  we reviewed  the JOBS program  laws,  regulations,  State plans,  and current  literature 
pertaining  to participant  perspectives  about JOBS and welfare programs  in generai. 
Second,  we talked  with JOBS program  experts  and others who had completed  participant 
perspectives  studies. 
Third,  from the literature  review and discussions  with experts,  we formulated  issues for 
inclusion  in a structured  interview  guide which focused on qualitative  information,  and 
was pretested  at one site in Texas.  The interview  questions  contained both closed and 
open-ended  questions.  The open-ended  questions allowed the participants  to elabomte  on 
their experiences  and opinions about the JOBS progmm. 
Fourth,  to maximize  our learning  from participants,  we categorized  participants  in three 
groups:  (1) JOBS program  completers,  (2) currently  active participants  participating  in a 
JOBS component,  and (3) dropouts  (i.e.,  participants  who dropped  out before  completing 
the program).  For this study we used the following  definitions.  Program  Completers 
include - (1) individuals  who completed  the JOBS program,  are employed  and are off 
welfare;  (2) individuals  who completed  the JOBS progmm,  are employed  but continue to 
be on welfare because  their wages are  insufficient  to make them ineligible  for AFDC 
benefits;  and (3) individuals  who completed  the JOBS progmm  but are not employed  
e.g.,  have not been able to find work.  Current  Actives  were individuals  actively 
participating  in the JOBS program  during  the survey period.  Dropouts  were individuals 
who attended  at a minimum  the orientation  session, then dropped  out of the progmm  at a 
subsequent  stage. 
We asked the State public  assistance  agencies  to: (1) identify a site within our pre  selected 
area;  (2) identify all current  and former  JOBS participants  having actual experience  with 
the JOBS progmm  in 1990 and  1991; and (3) stratify participants  according  to our broad 
groups  (completers,  currently  actives and dropouts)  and generate  a related  list. 
Our target  sample was 300,  100 each of completers,  current  actives and dropouts.  We 
over-sampled  to reach our target  of 300.  Thus,  from each completed  list the study team 
randomly  selected a sample of 30 to 40 individuals  from each group in each site 
2  participating  in the survey.  See Appendix  A for some general  characteristics  of survey 
respondents. 
In September  and November  1991 we visited each of the five sites.  We interviewed 
JOBS program  managers  and conducted  face-to-face  interviews  with two JOBS program 
completers  and two dropouts  at each site.  See Appendix B for illustrative  profiles. 
Between  October  1991 and February  1992, we completed  a total of 232 telephone 
interviews  in five sites: (1) Denver,  Colorado;  (2) Albuquerque,  New Mexico,  (3) 
Florence,  South Carolina;  (4) Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania;  and (5) Janesville,  Wisconsin. 
We interviewed  67 completers,  98 currently  active participants,  and 67 dropouts.  Eighty 
percent  of the respondents  were mandatory  participants  and 20 percent  were volunteers. 
We found JOBS participants  were articulate  and interested  in speaking out about their 
experiences  in the JOBS program. 
Unless otherwise  indicated,  weighted  averages,  based on the number  of respondents  in 
each site,  were used to calculate percentages  in report  findings.  Although we selected our 
sample from the three  categories  of participants,  we do not report  responses by type of 
category.  However  in our analysis,  we did consider participant  category  to help in 
understanding  some responses.  For example,  we looked at categories  of participants 
reporting  not receiving  or knowing about transitional  child care or medical  services.  Not 
knowing about these services could have a greater  impact on program  completers  than 
currently  active participants  and dropouts. 
We conducted  our review  in accordance  with the Quality Staruiids  for  Inspections 
issued by the Presidents  Council on Integrity  and Efficiency. 
3
 FINDINGS

A MAJORITY  OF PARTICIP~TS  SURVEYED  GAVE  HIGH  RATINGS  TO  THE 
OVERALL  JOBS  PROGRi4M,  ITS  ACTIVITIES  AND  SUPPORT  SERVICES. 
Almost  three  out  of every  four  respondents  gave the JOBS  program  good marks.

We asked JOBS program  participants  to give their overall  rating of the JOBS program.

Of the 232 respondents  surveyed,  73 percent  rated the JOBS program  as good or very

good,  as shown below.  Another  19 percent  rated it fair,  with only eight percent  assessing

the program  as poor or very poor.

Participants  Overall Ratings Of JOBS Program 
(Participants- 232) 
901 
80-
70 
m 
.c-  60-
Uc 
0n   50-
a
c? 
4(-
30 
19% 
20 
8% 
10 
I 
0
Good/Very  Good  Fair  Poor/Vefy  Poor 
Participants Ratings 
Significantly,  84 percent  of the  respondents  said  they  would  recommend  the  program 
to others. 
Eighty-three  percent  of respondents  believed  the JOBS  program  would  help  them  get 
off welfare. 
Both mandatory  and volunteer  respondents  frequently  said they participated  in the JOBS 
program  to obtain an education  or training.  Many viewed education  and training  as tools 
to help them obtain employment  paying  above the minimum  wage which,  in turn,  would 
allow them to get off welfare.  This was often expressed  as a strong motivation  to 
4  participate  in the program.  When asked what would cause a person to stay on public 
assistance  after completing  the JOBS program,  41 percent  said low wages or no jobs  in 
the community. 
Since mandatory  participants  do not have a choice regarding  participating  in JOBS, we 
were interested  in their attitudes  about being required  to participate.  Many  mandatory 
respondents  expressed  positive  attitudes  about participating  in the program.  In fact,  one 
out of every two mandatory  participants  said they participated  in the JOBS program,  not 
only because  this was required,  but to obtain an education,  training,  or to get a job. 
Eighty-two  percent  of respondents  who had  completed  the JOBS program  reported 
they  were  working. 
Very promising  is the fact that,  among  respondents  who had completed  the program,  82 
percent  reported  they were employed  and were either  entirely  off AFDC  (64 percent)  or 
receiving  a reduced  grant  (18 percent)  at the time we interviewed  them. 
About  t we-thirds  of respondents  rated  the  public  assistance  agency  and  its staff 
highly  for  providing  the  support  and  services  they  needed  to complete  the JOBS 
program. 
Sixty-two percent  of the respondents  rated the performance  of the public  assistance  agency 
and its staff as good or very good in helping them complete  the program.  Also,  68 
percent  gave good or very good ratings to the staff for arranging  support  services they 
needed to complete  JOBS activities,  Sixty-nine percent  of the respondents  said they were 
encouraged  by their case manager  who,  in many instances,  motivated  them to enhance 
their education  or obtain  employment. 
Respondents  graded  high  those  JOBS program  activities  in which  they  participated. 
The first stage activities  of the JOBS program  are orientation,  assessment  and 
employability  planning.  Generally,  almost all participants  take part  in these activities. 
The orientation  is usually a group activity.  The assessment  can be a group or one-on-one 
activity.  Participants  are assigned  to other JOBS program  components  as determined  by 
the case manager  and client  after completing  an assessment  and an employability  plan. 
Most respondents  were assigned  to either an education,  job  search,  life skills training,  job 
skills training,  or job  readiness  component.  Of the 232 respondents,  few were assigned  to 
job  development/job  placement  (4); on-the-job  training  (1 1); work supplementation  (4); 
community  work experience  (10); and/or  other  state education  components  (9).  The 
critical  first stage activities,  orientation,  assessment  and employability  planning,  were 
rated  fairly  high by most participants,  as shown in table  1.  All other JOBS program 
activities,  except job  search,  were also rated  high. 
5
 Table  1:  Respondents  Grading  of JOBS  Program  Activities 
11,.  .,:..:.,...,.:...:.. .,, :::....:.:..  ........ .........,.:..,:...............,:..:,,,,.....,: 
Orientation  31%  36%  21%  10%  2%  232 
Assessment  29%  37%  19%  10%  5%  198 
Employability  35%  32%  18%  9%  6%  189 
Plan 
Education  68%  22%  6%  2%  2%  S6 
JobSearch  16%  33%  18%  14%  19%  64 
LifeSkills  72%  14%  7%  6%  1%  35 
JobSkills  39%  21%  28%  8%  4%  25 
JobReadiness  68%  13%  14%  5%  22 
Orientation  -- During  the orientation  sessions JOBS participants  are informed  about a 
variety  of program  activities  (e.g.,  education,  training,  job  readiness,  job  search) and 
support  services  (e.g.,  child care,  transportation). 
Ninety-eight  percent  of the participants  surveyed  said they were given general  information 
about the JOBS program.  A majority  (67 percent)  of participants  were  satisfied with the 
explanation  of these services,  grading  it A or B.  Further,  69 percent  of the respondents 
said the orientation  activities  encouraged  and motivated  them to participate  in the 
program. 
Assessment  -- Sixty-six percent  of the respondents  gmded  the assessment  of their 
educational  background,  employment  history,  interests,  and service  needs as either  an A 
or a B. 
Employability  Plan  -- Generally,  the employability  plan includes  information  about JOBS 
participants  employment,  training,  and education  goals and support services an individual 
needs to participate  in JOBS employment,  education  or training  activities.  Most 
respondents  indicated  their employability  plan contained  the following:  1) current 
education  level (93 percent);  2) necessary  support  services  (81 percent);  3) future 
education  goals (85 percent);  4) employment  goals (80 percent);  and,  5) training  needs 
(70 percent).  Thirty-four  out of 189 respondents  said their employability  plan  included 
information  about their personal  interests.  Eleven participants  did not remember  or did 
not know what was included  in their employability  plan. 
Sixty-seven  percent  of 189 respondents  graded  their employability  plan A or B.  They 
generally  agreed  with the plans  contents  and felt the plan could be changed  if they 
wished. 
6  Education  -- Participants  could receive  high school course work,  GED course  work, 
vocational  or technical  training,  junior  college course-work,  and college or university 
course-work. 
Among the 86 participants  receiving  and rating education  services,  high satisfaction  was 
evident,  with 90 percent  grading  the service A or B.  Fifteen  respondents  were especially 
satisfied with their education  classes and the degree they received  as a result of the JOBS 
program. 
Job  Search  -- Participants  were more critical  of job  search.  Of the 64 participants  that 
took part in this activity,  only 49 percent  graded  it an A or a B. 
A majority  of JOBS  participants  who received  support  services  gave the  services  high 
marks. 
Participants  in the JOBS program  often brought  with them multiple problems.  For 
example,  in addition  to needing child care and transportation  services,  some respondents 
said they also needed  sick child care and assistance  with finding a house because  many 
landlords  did not want to rent to welfare  recipients.  One out of every three  JOBS 
participants  in our sample had two or more problems  that impacted  on their participation 
in the program.  Sixty percent  of them obtained  services that assisted with solving their 
problems.  As shown in table 2, participants  receiving  support  services  indicated  their 
general  satisfaction  by giving most of the services fairly  high grades. 
Child Care  47%  27%%  11%  3%  11%  98 
Transportation  to JOBS Component  40%  31%  20%  2%  7%  116 
Transportation  (child care)  39%  19%  36%  6%  19 
Transitional  Medical Services  51%  1%  24%  24%  13 
Counseling  75%  25%  12 
E*  I  76%  I  16%  I  8%  I  I  I  7.7  ~ 
*  Otherserwcesreceivedincludedental,substance abuse treatment,  supphes for 
school, tools for work,  license fees, and clothing. 
Child  Care  -- Seventy-four  percent  of the 98 respondents  who reported  receiving  child 
care graded  the service  A or B.  Respondents  feelings  can be summed up as  I was 
afraid Id get stuck  with something poor,  yet I had a great,  high quality  care center for 
my child,  and  me  agency] provided  on-site [child care] for  those in class.  We COUH 
go in and ou~ and check  on the kids... it was very good.  
7  Transportation  -- Transportation  service costs were usually covered through  vouchers  or 
reimbursements  to participants.  One State,  in addition to vouchers  and reimbursements, 
provided  the transportation  directly.  Most JOBS participants  gave high grades to 
transportation  services received.  Seventy-one percent  of the participants  graded  the 
transportation  for employment  service A or B, while 58 percent  graded transportation  to 
child care A or B. 
Transitional  Services  -- Eleven out of 13 respondents  receiving  transitional  medical 
services graded them A or B.  Six individuals  received  transitional  child care,  three  out of 
the six graded  the service A. 
NEVERTHELESS,  A  SIGNIFICANT  NUMBER  OF RESPONDENTS  EXPERIENCED 
PROBLEMS  AND/OR  VOICED  COMPLAINTS  THAT  MERIT  THE  ATTENTION  OF 
PROGRAM  MANAGERS. 
Insufficient  Information  -- While almost all participants  said they were informed  about 
the overall JOBS program,  some said they were not told about,  or received  insufficient 
explanations  or information  on, the availability  of specific services. 
When asked what specific  services they were told about,  a significant  number  of 
participants  said they were not told or do not remember  being told about the availability  of 
some JOBS program  activities  and support  services,  as shown in table 3.  Many of these 
services  are essential  to gain and/or  maintain  employment  or successfully  complete  a 
JOBS program  activity. 
Table  3: Percent  of Respondents  Who  Said  They  Were  Not  Told  About  Required 
Activities  And  Support  Services 
Education:  (e.g.,  education designed to  22%  176 
prepare  for high school equivalency certificate 
and Basic Education

Education in English Proficiency
 67%  72 
I 
1  I 
Job Skills Training
 I  22%  I  166 
Job Readiness
 32%  148 
Child Care
 11%  185 
Transportation
 16%  I  178 
~ 
Transitional  Child Care
 46%  101 
I  I 
I 
Transitional  Medical Services
 I  42%  114 
8
 The services  respondents  were not told about most often included:  (1) education  in English 
proficiency  (67 percent);  (2) transitional  child care (46 percent);  (3) transitional  medical 
services  (42 percent);  and (4) job  readiness  (32 percent).  Additionally,  11 percent 
reported  they were not told about,  or did not remember  being told about,  the availability 
of child care,  and  16 percent  said the same regarding  transportation  services.  This might 
explain  why some participants  reported  they did not receive  needed  services.  The 
following  statement  sums up the attitudes  of those participants  who did not receive 
sufficient  information  about the JOBS program:  The agency did not explain the program 
sujiciendy.  Some services I asked about,  I did not know was [were] available.  They 
would not discuss educa~ion or training.  
Problems  with insufficient  information  were also evident  in the low ratings  which some 
respondents  gave to their JOBS orientation.  Of 232 respondents,  33 said they received 
insufficient  information.  Thirteen  respondents  felt the information  given was not clear or 
on their  level.  The following  is a composite  of these respondents  comments:  me  JOBS 
case managers] did not explain  what they would do to help you.  The workers did not 
erplain  well.  /7%e JOBS  case managers] said they wouki help,  but explained  the program 
in a sophisticated  way using sophisticated  words.   Also,  a few  pamcipants reported the 
stafs  explaruxion  of the program  and i~sservices  did not ma~ch their own needs. 
Lack  of SUDDOt-t Services  - Almost half, 98 of 208, respondents  reported  there  were 
certain  services they needed but did not receive.  When  specifically  asked which services 
were needed but not provided  they indicated:  child-care  (47 of 98); transportation  for 
employment  (42 of 98); and transportation  to the child-care  facility  (11 of 98).  Other 
unmet service  needs mentioned  include:  car repair  (15 of 98); counseling  (13 of 98); 
transitional  child care  (8 of 98); and transitional  medical treatment  (7 of 98). 
As table 4 shows, participants  gave various  reasons for not receiving  services they needed. 
Forty-nine  and 40 percent,  respectively,  believed  they did not receive  child care or 
transportation  services because  the State did not provide  the service.  In one State, 
participants  reported  public  transportation  was not always available  at the time needed to 
attend the JOBS activity.  Another  20 and 27 percent  reported  they did not receive  child 
care or transportation  services because  they were not included  in the plan.  Also, 
participants  believed  they did not receive  car repair  (59 percent),  counseling  (25 percent) 
or transportation  to the child care facility  (46 percent)  because  it was not included  in their 
JOBS employability  plan. 
9
 Table  4: Reasons  Respondents  Gave  For  Not Receiving  Needed  Services 
The need for support  services could surface at all stages of program  participation  .  Some 
support  services problems  were expressed  by respondents  during comments  about their 
employability  plans.  Seventeen participants  said they received  inadequate  information 
about their plan,  or said that services  listed in the plan were not delivered  as promised  due 
to insufficient  resources.  Fourteen  participants  felt pressured  by the JOBS staff to set 
different  goals from what they preferred.  For example,  they were required  to seek 
employment  at their present  skill level rather  than participate  in education  or training. 
Fifty-two  percent  of the respondents  who said they did not receive  services did not know 
they could,  or believed  they could not, change their employability  plan to solve new 
problems  or to change their education  and employment  goals.  When we asked 
respondents  if they helped to develop their employ abiMy plan,  43 out of 194 respondents 
reported  they did @  help.  Six participants  either did not have an employability  plan or 
did not remember  devising  a plan. 
Eight respondents  needed but did not receive  transitional  child care  services.  Five of the 
eight needed both transitional  child care and medical  services.  Seven were individuals 
who completed  the JOBS program.  They reported  they did not receive  the service 
primarily  because  it was not included  in the plan.  However,  seven indicated  they were 
not told that the services  were available. 
Deficient  Case Mana~er  Services  and  Attitudes  - Thirty-one  percent  of respondents 
thought the agency  should provide  better  screening/assessments,  encouragement,  case 
management,  and follow-up  of JOBS participants.  Thirty-four  percent  of 198 respondents 
10  were not fully satisfkd  with the assessment process,  grading  it C, D or F.  Of these,  37 
reported  their assessment  was inadequate  and did not reflect  their education,  employment 
skills,  experiences,  and interests.  Eight respondents  indicated that a personal  interview 
was ~t  even conducted;  another  six respondents  said the activity  was merely  a paperwork 
process.  Twenty participants  felt their assessment  interview  was incomplete,  either 
excluding  their full work and personal  history or their long-term  education  and 
employment  goals.  Five respondents  felt stigmatized  by the assessment process. 
Twenty-one  respondents  reported  they either felt coerced  or humiliated  or felt that the case 
managers  were not helpful during their orientation. 
In some cases,  participants  criticized  what they believed  were condescending  attitudes  and 
the inability  of case managers  and staff to provide  more support.  However,  they 
recognized  that there  were staff shortages,  and that staff needed more training.  Of the 
232 participants  in the sample,  66 individuals  reported  they felt like dropping  out of the 
program at some point,  and  15 out of the 66 attributed  this feeling to the case managers 
condescending  attitude.  The following  is a composite  of the attitudes  expressed  by 
discouraged  participants:  me  worker  ... was not supportive...  made me feel  inferior and 
treated me like I was stupid.  i%e worker acted as though she did not want me to anend 
school.  
Additionally,  some participants  expected  more support than they received  from the agency 
and its staff in identifying  available jobs  and in being prepared  for interviews.  For 
example,  a few participants  thought the agency  should develop jobs,  and the case manager 
should coach them for job  interviews,  (i. e.,  tell them what skills are necessary  before 
sending them on interviews  so they could better prepare  and converse  on the job  skills 
needed). 
Understandin~  of Penalties  - While the majority  of participants  knew about penalties  for 
non-participation  or non-compliance  with program  requirements,  some did not understand. 
A majority  of the participants  surveyed knew about the penalties  for not participating  in 
the JOBS program  or not complying  with program  requirements.  Participants  knew they 
could lose AFDC  benefits  for one of the following  reasons:  (1) refusing to participate  in 
the JOBS program  without a good reason  (87 percent);  (2) rtxeiving  income or wages 
from JOBS-related  employment  -- e.g.,  on-the-job  training  (79 percent);  and (3) not 
following  the terms  of their  employability  plan (83 percent).  Twenty-one  percent  said 
they did not know they could loose benefits by refusing  to participate  in the program  or 
due to earnings  obtained  from participating  in a JOBS activity,  e.g.,  on-the-job  training. 
Twenty-two  respondents  reported  losing benefits  while participating  in the program. 
Twelve  reported  their  AFDC  and/or  Food Stamps benefits  were reduced  after receiving 
student loan funds.  Participants  felt they should not have been penalized  when they 
received  student loan or grant funds targeted  for school or training  needs. 
Disenchanted  Minoritv  - A minority  (30 respondents)  experienced  multiple  problems  and 
gave consistently  low ratings  to program  activities  and support  services.  This minority 
included  mandatory  and volunteer  participants,  JOBS program  completers,  currently  active 
11  participants  and dropouts.  Twenty-two  of them were mandatory  participants  who said 
they participated  in the JOBS program  only because they were required  to do so as a 
condition  of eligibility  for AFDC  and Food Stamp benefits.  They differed  from others  in 
the study sample in that they expressed  dissatisfaction  with four or more activities/services 
of the JOBS program.  Nineteen  rated the JOBS program  poor or very poor and believed 
the program  would not help them get off welfare.  Twenty-two  needed  services they did 
not receive.  Seventeen  felt like dropping  out of the program,  and 7 did drop out.  Some 
characteristics  of these dissatisfied  individuals  were: 
  33  median Age. 
  14  were single,  never married;  6 were married;  5 were  separated;  4 were 
divorced;  and  1 was unknown. 
b  12  had a high school diploma;  8 had less than  12 years of schooling;  4 and 5 
respectively  had some vocational  and college education;  and 1 had an 
unknown amount  of education. 
b  15  were receiving  AFDC  assistance  for 36 of the previous  60 months. 
F  27  had prior  work experience. 
b  7  were working  and were off welfare. 
  6  were working  and were  still on welfare. 
EIGHTY-SIX  PERCENT  OF  THE  RESPONDENTS  SH~D  SPECIFIC 
SUGGESTIONS  FOR  IMPROVING  THE JOBS  PROGRAM. 
Eighty-six  percent  of the 232 respondents  suggested the program  needed improvements  to 
ensure  its success.  Their  suggestions  fell into three broad categories:  (1) achieving  self-
sufficiency,  (2) improving  support services,  and (3) strengthening  case manager 
performance. 
Achievinz  Self Sufficiency  - In order  to become  self-sufficient,  25 percent  of the 
participants  believed  more emphasis  should be placed on education  and training  in order  to 
prepare  them for a career  which would increase  their earning  capacity  above the 
minimum-wage  level.  They felt low (minimum  wage) wages would force them to remain 
on welfare  or to return  to the public assistance  rolls because their  wages would not be 
sufficient to replace  lost medical,  AFDC,  and/or  Food Stamp benefits. 
Some participants  suggested  two services  which,  if provided,  would motivate  and assist 
participants  to become  independent  of welfare:  (1) allow participants  a trial work period 
and let them  receive  their first pay check before terminating  benefits.  The AFDC  benefits 
obtained  during  this period  could be used to meet employment  start-up costs (e.g., 
transportation  and clothes);  and,  (2) provide  transitional  services  (child care,  medical)  to 
participants  whose AFDC  benefits  will be terminated  due to earned  income.  Participants 
believed  these services  would provide  a smooth transition  off welfare,  or back on welfare 
if the employment  was unsuccessful. 
12  Immovin~  SuDDort  Services  - Thirty-five  percent  of the participants  recommended 
improving  key support  services  such as child care,  transportation,  education,  and 
counseling.  This would include assisting participants  in finding quality,  affordable  child 
care and transportation  services. 
Strentiheninz  Case  Mana~er  Performance  - Eleven percent  of the participants  suggested 
that the agency and staff improve  the process  for explaining  JOBS program  services. 
Thirty-five  percent  of the participants  suggested that case managers  should do a better job 
of explaining  the JOBS program  activities  and support services,  assessing clients needs, 
and should be more empathetic  and supportive  and not condescending. 
13  American  Public Welfare  Association,  W MEMO  Vol.  1 Nos 8-9, November  1, 1989. 
Center  for Law and Social Policy,  Family Matters,  Volume  1 No.  3, Spring  1989. 
Dixon,  Wilfred  J.  and  Massey,  Frank  J.,  Jr.,  Introduction  to  Statistical  Analvsis,  Third 
Edition,  New York,  San Francisco,  St. Louis,  Toranto,  London  and Sidney:  McGraw-Hill 
Book Company,  1969. 
Gueron,  Judith M.,  Reforming  Welfare  With Work,  New York:  Manpower  Demonstration 
Research  Cooperation,  1987. 
National  Puerto Rican Coalition,  Inc.,  Implementing  The Family  Support Act Perspectives 
of Puerto  Rican  Clients,  Handout  No. 1, The Urban  Institute  Welfare  Reform  Workshop, 
19900 
Sar A Levitan,  Progra ms in Aid of the Poor, Sixth Edition, Baltimore and London:  The Johns 
Hopkins  University  Press, 1990. 
Social Research  Center  Calvin College,  Attitudes Toward  the MOST Promzim: A Survev of 
MOST  Program  Sanctionees  for  the  Kent  Countv  Department  of  Social  Services  Grand 
RaDids. Michiz an, March  1987. 
U.  S.  Department  of Health  and  Human  Services,  Office  of Inspector  General,  Working 
Toward  JOBS, June  1990. 
U.S.  Department  of Labor,  Bureau of Labor  Statistics,  Employment  and Earninm,  Volume 
38 No.  2, February  1991, 
U.S.  General  Accounting  Office,  Work  And  Welfare:  Analysis  of  AFDC  Emdoyment 
Pro~rams in Four  !jtate$, GAO/HRD-88-33FS,  January  1988. 
U.  S. General  Accounting  Office,  Work  and Welfare:  Current  AFDC  Work  Pro~rams  and 
Irnrdications for Federal  Policy,  GAO/HRD-87-34,  January  1987. 
Quiroz,  Julia  Teresa  and  Tosca,  Regina,  On My  Own:  Mexican  American  Women  Self
sufficiencv  and the Family  Sup-mrt Act,  National  Council  of Id&a,  1990.  APPENDIX  A 
PROFILE  OF SURVEY  RESPONDENTS  * 
(# Respondents  =  232) 
Basic  Demographics

.  32  median age of survey participants.

.  33  median age of mandatory  participants.

.  30  median age of volunteer  participants.

  91  percent  were females.

.  52  percent  were African-Americans;  26 percent  were Whites;  14 percent  were

Hispanics;  two percent  were Asians and Native Americans;  and seven percent 
were unknown. 
Singnlee,v renr afi~2;9
.  46  percent  were  percent  were separated  or divorced;

14 percent  were married;  three percent  were widowed;  and nine percent  were 
unknown.

.  70  percent  had one or two children.

.  30  percent  had from three  to six children.

.  22  percent  of the children  were age 3 and under.

.  1  percent  were teenage parents  at the time of the survey.

.  81  percent  were mandatory  participants.

Education

.  35  percent  had a high school diploma or general  equivalency  degree.

  35  percent  had less than a high school degree.

.  11  percent  had some vocational  training  or college.

.  12  percent  had completed  a college  or university  degree.

.  7  percent  had an unknown  amount of education.

Work  History

.  84  percent  had a work history.

.  8  percent  did not have a work history.

.  8  percent  had an unknown  work history.

Welfare  History

.  83  percent  were  receiving  AFDC

  7  percent  were  reeeiving  Unemployed  Parents  assistance

.  10  percent  were former  recipients  whose benefits  were terminated.

.  8  percent  were  recipients  whose AFDC  benefits  were reduced  (sanction  status).

.  60  percent  reeeived  AFDC  for 36 of the preceding  60 months.

.  61  percent  were custodial  parents  above the age of 24.

.  10  percent  were custodial  parents  under the age of 24 who had not completed

high school and at the time of application  were not enrolled  in high school

and had little or no work experience.

.  1  percent  had a youngest  child within 2 years of being ineligible  for AFDC

because  of age.

  -.  . . . . .  ..

* Demographic  data was obtained  from case files and provided  by the local weltare

offices.

A-1  APPENDIX  B 
The following  stories illustrate  participants  experiences  in the JOBS program.  The 
information  was obtained  during face to face interviews  with these individuals. 
Pseudonyms  are used  to protect  the  confidentiality  of  the  individuals. 
B-1  The  Monday  Family 
Mrs.  Monday  is  a 32 years  old,  single  (never  married)  African-American  who  has  two 
sons,  ages  4 and  9.  She  is a high  school  graduate.  The  family  received  Aid  to Families 
with  Dependent  Children  between  1985  and  1990. 
Mrs.  Monday  was  required  to participate  in the  JOBS  program.  However,  before  the 
agency  approached  her about  participating  in the program,  she volunteered,  after  hearing 
about  it from  a friend.  She  believed  the program  could  help  her get  a job  and  off of 
welfare.  She  said  this  is a dream.   I have  been  a long  time  waiting. 
Overall,  Mrs.  Monday  was  satisfied  with  the  assessment  of her education  and  skills  and 
employability  plan.  However,  she  would  like  to have  received  more  education  to  improve 
her reading  skills.  Her  long  range  goal  is to obtain  a  college/university  degree.  She 
participated  in on-the-job  training  at the  Department  of Social  Services.  There  were  times 
she felt  like  dropping  out  of the program  because  of the  attitudes  of some  of the  agency 
staff.  She  felt  unwelcome,  and  her filing  job,  was  not  rewarding.  She  said  all  she did 
for three  weeks  was  file  papers. 
She  felt  her JOBS  case  tnanager  was  very  supportive  and  encouraged  her  to complete  the 
program.  She  was  pleased  with  the  services  she received  (child  care,  transportation, 
counseling,  transitional  child  care  and  transitional  medical  services).  She  completed  the 
JOBS  program  and  obtained  a job  providing  housekeeping  services  for  welfare  recipients 
in need  of such  services.  She  said  she got  what  she wanted  out  of the program  a job 
and  to get  off  welfare.  However,  the  most  important  benefit  she received  from 
participating  in the  program  was  my  self esteem  -- my kids  love  me  working  and  they  are 
proud  of me. 
Mrs.  Monday  believes  the  program  is very  good,  and  it could  help  AFDC  recipients  get  off 
welfare.  She  would  recommend  the  progratn  to other  recipients.  She suggested  that the 
agency provide  more counseling.  Recipients  need to know that there is better life than 
welfare.  She suggested  encouraging  recipients  to get off welfare  by helping them to find 
employment,  providing  medical  benefits,  and continuing  child care when AFDC benefits 
are terminated  due  to earned  income. 
B-2  The  Thursday  Fatnily 
Mrs.  Thursday  is a 26 year  old  divorced,  Mexican-American  who  receives  AFDC

assistance  for  herself  and  two  children  (daughter  age  4 and  son  age  2).  She  is a high

school  graduate.

Mrs.  Thursday  began  receiving  AFDC  in April  1989.  She  volunteered  to participate  in the

JOBS  program  to obtain  assistance  with  finding  employment  and  child  care  payments.

During  the  orientation,  she  was  told  about  all the  services  JOBS  would  provide,  except

transitional  medical  services.

She  was  very  satisfied  with  all  aspects  of the  program  except  Job  Search.  Initially  she

thought  the  JOBS  program  would  provide  a job,  and  was  disappointed  when  it did  not.  As

a result,  she thought  Job  Search  was  not  helpful.  She  was  without  child  care  for  a short

time  during  her participation  in JOBS,  (the  states  child  care  funds  ran  out).

Nevertheless,  she  was  very  satisfied  with  the  child  care  and  transportation  services  she  did

receive.

Mrs.  Thursday  felt  her case  manager  was  supportive  and  encouraged  her to complete  the

program  and  get  off  welfare.  She  is working  (clerical  worker  for  a taxi  company).  Her

wages  are  not  sufficient  to impact  her  AFDC  benefits.  She  expects  an increase  in her

wages  and  believes  her  AFDC  benefits  will  either  be terminated  or reduced.  She  believes

the  JOBS  program  is very  good,  could  help  recipients  get  off  welfare,  and  said  she  would

recommend  it to others.  She  believes  the  program  could  be improved  if the  agency

informed  clients  they  can  volunteer  for  the program  and  that  services,  especially  child  care

and  transportation,  are provided  to  help  individuals  complete  the program).  Also,  the

agency  can  do  a better  job  of informing  clients  that  they  do  not develop  jobs  nor  do they

provide  a lists  of available  jobs.

B-3  The  Stamp  Family 
(3
(ii?  & 
Mrs.  Bell  Stamp  is a 34-year-old  white  female,  She  lives  with  her two  daughters  (Laura, 
age  15, and  Doris,  age  8), two  sons  (Matthew,  age  11, and  James,  age  9) and  her disabled 
brother  who  has  multiple  sclerosis.  She  is separated  from  her  husband.  Mrs.  Stamp  is a 
high-school  graduate  and  has  only  worked  part  time. 
Mrs.  Stamp  participated  in the JOBS  program  only  because  she  was  required  to as a 
condition  of eligibility  for  AFDC  benefits.  There  were  times  that  she felt  like  dropping 
out  of the  progratn,  but  did  not  because  she feared  losing  AFDC  benefits.  Her 
participation  in the  JOBS  program  was  impacted  by multiple  problems.  In addition  to 
caring  for  her four  children  alone,  she cared  for  her disabled  brother,  was  abused  by  her 
husband  and  was  evicted  from  her  home  and  had  much  difficulty  finding  another  house. 
Mrs.  Stamp  wanted  child  care  provider  training  but  was  told  she  had  to participate  in job 
search.  She  said  she did  not  want  to participate  in job  search.  She  was  interested  in 
becoming  a child  care  provider  because  she could  do  this  in her home  and  still  be readily 
available  to her  children  and  her  brother.  Currently,  Mrs.  Stamp  provides  child  care 
services  for  two  children.  She  does  not  know  if this  meets  the  agencys  work  requirement. 
However,  her goal  is to expand  her day  care  operations  and  to get  off welfare. 
Mrs  . Stamp  reported  that  overall  the  program  appears  to be good  but  she  gave  it low 
marks  because  the program  did  not  serve  her needs  and  the  workers  were  condescending. 
I felt  like  a little  kid  in a class  room.  
She  said  the  program  could  be improved  by giving  recipients  choices  and  by providing 
services  and  counseling  that  could  help  participants  resolve  personal  problems  that  impact 
on participation  in the  program.  For  example,  case  managers  should  be more  supportive  of 
clients  with  problems,  and  help  clients  find  houses.  She  also  said  recipients  might  not 
want  to obtain  employment  that  would  result  in terminating  their  AFDC  benefits  because 
they  are  afraid  of losing  medical  benefits. 
B-4