Department of Health and Human Servces 
OFFICE OF

INSPECTOR GENERAL

THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 1988:

WHAT DO FRONT-LINE WORKERS KNOW?

WHAT DO THEY THINK?

.. sH.Vlq' 
Richard P. Kusserow 
INSPECfOR GENERAL 
'0 
.tltd30  OEI-05-89-01220  EXECUTIVE  SUMMAR 

PUROSE 
To determine the knowledge, attitude and degree of acceptance by front-line workers 
and their immediate supervsors of the Family Support Act of 1988. 
BACKGROUN 
The Family Support Act (the Act) was a comprehensive restructuring of the welfare 
term dependency on welfare programs. The centerpiece of the 
system to reduce long-
Act is the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, which 
provides Aid to Familes with Dependent Children (AFDC) familes with the 
opportunity to take part in educational activities, training programs or job activities. 
The Act strengthens the child support program and provides supportive servces and 
transitional benefits for current and former AFDC clients. Front-line workers, who 
are usually the first who deal with the potential JOBS participants, play an important 
role in the new environment. More than half currently refer clients to other servces. 
Therefore, the better they understand the new benefits and requirements of the Act 
the more effectively they can make referrals. Furthermore, whether they refer clients 
or not, the knowledge and attitude of front-line workers about the Act can influence 
the way they present this new program to AFDC clients. 
METHODOLOY 
We surveyed front-line workers and their immediate supervsors by drawing a random 
AFDC funding each 
sample of 30 counties weighted on the amount of Federal 
received in 1988. We sent out 3 861 questionnaires and received 2 118 responses. 
FIINGS 
Only one-thid of front-line workers and supervsors report they are "familiar 
or "very familar" with the specific provisions of the Act. 
Overwhelmingly, front-line workers and supervsors believe the Act will increase 
client self-sufficiency.

Front-line workers and supervsors who know about the Act s specific provisions 
are even more likely to believe it will increase client self-sufficiency. 
An inverse correlation exists between the knowledge and burnout of front-line 
workers and supervsors.  COMM 
AGENCY 
We wish to thank both the Administration for Children and Families and the Assistant 
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation for commenting on the draft report. Both were 
concerned with the reported low level of program familiarity among staff. Their 
comments identify some potential reasons why this may have been so during the time 
our survey was conducted. We will be conducting a follow-up survey on front-line 
workers' familiarity with the Act that will be compared to our baseline data. The 
complete text of agency comments can be found in Appendix F. Our response to 
these comments is contained on page 10.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...  . ..  ..  ..  ..  ...,  
. . . . . . . ..  ..  ...   ...   ...   ....    .....     .....     .....     .... .   . ... .   . ... .   . ... .   . ... .   . ... .   . ... .   ". ...  .   .. . .. ..   .  ... ..   .  .... .    . .... .    . .... .    .. ...  .   .. ...  .  . . . ....     .....     .....     .....     ....   . .. .  . .. . . .  .. ..    .....     .....     .....     ....    ....    ...   ...   ...   ..  . .. 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE 
EXCU SUMY

INODUCfON . 
FININGS 
On one-thid of front-lie workers and supervors report 
they are "famar" or "very famar" with the specic 
proviions of the Act. ........................................... 5

Overwhelmgl, front-lie workers and supervors 
believe the Act wi increase client self-sufciency.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
Front-lie workers and supervors who know about 
the Act's specic provions are even more liely 
to believe it wi increas  client self-sufciency  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
An inverse correlation exits between the 
knowledge and burout of front-lie workers and supervors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Agency Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
OIG Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
APPENDICI 
Fam  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. A
Support Act Questionnaie 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. B-
Collectg the Data

Creatig Binar Varables  . .. C-

Analis. .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D
Burnout Inventory Analis  .. E-

. . . . . . . . ., F-
Agency Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  INTRODUCTION

PUROSE 
, attitude and degree of acceptance by front-line workers 
To determine the knowledge
and their immediate supervsors of the Family Support Act of 1988. 
BACKGROUN 
The Family Support Act (the Act) was a comprehensive restructuring of the welfare 
system to reduce long-term dependency on welfare programs. The centerpiece of the 
Act is the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, which 
provides Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) familes with the 
opportunity to take part in educational activities, training programs or job activities. 
The Act strengthens the child support enforcement program and reimburses 
participants for child care and transportation servces during JOBS. The Act also 
requires transitional child care and Medicaid benefits to ease client s transition from 
welfare to the work force. Many AFDC recipients will have to participate in the 
JOBS program to receive their full AFDC cash grant. 
The AFDC program (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) is a cash assistance 
program begun in August 1935. It provides aid to familes with children who are 
deprived of parental support or care because of the death, disability, unemployment or 
continued absence of a parent from the home. The State IV-A agencies, through local 
welfare offices, administer the AFDC program. Many States have a staff separate 
from the AFDC program that admister the JOBS program. 
Whether the AFDC and JOBS program are administered by the same or separate 
staff, it is usually the front-line worker of the AFDC program that first deals with the 
potential JOBS client. The structure of welfare offces varies by State and county, so 
that front-line workers' responsibilties vary. However , since front-line workers 
administer the AFDC program, they have routine contact with welfare clients during 
initial AFDC eligibilty determinations and/or periodic redeterminations for AFDC 
benefits. 
In addition to administering the AFDC program, front-line workers also disseminate 
information about other Federal programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid and Child 
Support Enforcement. They may take applications and determine eligibility for Food 
Stamps and Medicaid as well. 
Front-line workers provide one link between welfare clients and both the JOBS 
program and the child support agency. The degree of involvement front-line workers 
and supervsors have with the child support agency varies since generally a separate  agency admsters that program. However, the AFDC and child support programs 
often have the same clients. In some offces, front-line workers must advise AFDC 
clients of child support benefits, take preliminary child support information, and refer 
clients to the chid support agency. Also, front-line workers can make critical decisions 
about which clients are referred to the JOBS program and sanction those not meeting 
JOBS participation requirements. 
Because of their contact with welfare clients, front-line workers can provide 
information and referral for clients who need additional servces beyond their cash 
line workers might use their knowledge of the Act to assist clients with 
grant. Front-
information about the Act's provisions. For example, durig an intervew to 
redetermine AFDC eligibilty, a welfare client may indicate they have, on their own 
applied for a job but are worred about accepting the job because of the expense and 
lack of child care. The front-line worker could make a referral either to the JOBS 
program or another appropriate program to 
assist this client. 
Furthermore, the knowledge and attitude of the front-line workers about the Act can 
infuence the way they present the new program to AFDC clients. Their confidence 
enthusiasm, and optimism might subtly affect the clients' receptivity to the JOBS 
the Act and its intent might give them a better 
program. Their knowledge of 
understanding of the clients' situations and affect the way they treat their clients. 
The role of front-line workers is an evolvig one. In the 1960' , these workers 
functioned more as social workers who worked closely with clients to meet their needs. 
More recently, the role of the front-line worker was separated from the social servce 
components of welfare, leavig front-line workers more as administrative offcers. 
This resulted in minimal worker and client interaction.! As a result of the Act, with 
its emphasis on developing client self-suffciency, the role of the front-line worker is 
being re-examined.

METHODOLOY 
Collctig th Data

We drew a random sample of 30 counties weighted on the amount of Federal AFDC 
Within these counties, we sent surveys to 3 861 front-line 
funding received in 1988. 
workers and their immediate supervsors. The respondents work in 72 different 
Deite th shift evide gathed in tWo stdies sugg thlhe workes contied to provid some lTadonal social 
serices to c/iem such as information , referal and advocacy.  (1)  U)er, Norm L 1980. Whtever happend to the income 
mainenance lin worke? Social Work  25  (Jul):  259-263;  an  (2)  uy, Norm L  1983.  Income maintene worke an social 
work: A broke tie. Social Work  28  (JullAugut): 261-268. 
2 The 30 counes included in the samle were from th fol/owing States: California, Conncticur, Georgia, flinis, Iowa, 
KentUcky, Louisan Main Marlan Minora, Misour NIM Jerey, Ohio, Oklma Penlvania Uta Viria, Washigton 
an 
WISCOnsin  welfare offces located in 19 States. We mailed the surveys on December 3
, 1990. 
Data was collected in the fist quarter of calendar year 1991. Out of the 3 861 
possible respondents, 55 percent, or 2 118, responded. Appendix A contains the 
Family Support Act questionnaire. Appendix B contains details on our sampling 
procedure, criteria to be a respondent and sampled counties. 
Anlysi 
We analyzed respondents' familarity with provisions of the Act , their attitudes about 
the Act, their attitudes about the affect of the Act on the welfare system, and their 
level of burnout according to the Gilespie-Numerof Burnout Inventory (GNBI). 
Using the statistical softare package PC SAS, we analyzed the data with frequencies 
crosstabulations, and multivariate logistic regression. The report presents results of an 
unweighted analysis. Appendices C, D and E contain a detailed description of our 
statistical methods. 
CHCfRISTCS 
REPONDEN 
Front-line workers and supervsors report that they: 
work in 72 diferent welfare offces. These offces are located in 30 
counties in 19 States;

have attended college. Fifeen percent have post-graduate experience

30 percent have a 4 year college degree, 14 percent have a 2 year 
college degree, 28 percent have some college experience, and only 13 
percent have not attended college; 
are experienced. Twenty-seven percent have 11 or more years 
experience on the job, 23 percent have 6 to 10 years of experience, 31 
, and 19 percent have 1 year or less 
percent have 2 to 5 years experience
job experience;

, not specialists. Only 29 percent spend over half of their 
are generalists
work time in the AFDC program, and 71 percent spend half or less of 
their time working in the AFDC program; 
refer clients to other programs. Six-four percent of respondents report 
they regularly refer clients to at least one of the following: the child 
Capygl  1983.  Dr. David F. Gillesie an Dr. Rita E. Numeraf Refer to appen E for deails on the GNBL  support agency, an education program, a training program, a job search 
a child care program, or community organizations; 
are line workers. Only 13 percent are supervsors; 
work in both State and county-administered offices. Fifty-six percent 
work in State administered offces, and 44 percent in county 
administered offices; and 
work in and around cities. Ninety-four percent work in urban offices 
and 6 percent work in rural offces.  FINDINGS

TH 
ONLY ONE- OFF FAROMNT-L" IN WORKRFS AANM S"U PwERrV ISTORHS  
REPORT THY AR " OR liVERY 
TH 
SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF  ACT. 
When rating respondents' knowledge of 21 specific Act provisions , only 33 percent 
" 4 This percentage varies 
average a response of "familiar " or "very familiar.
depending on the specific provision. For example, by excluding the child support 
provisions, 43 percent of the respondents average a response of "familar" or "very 
familiar" for all other Act provisions. 
Respondents' knowledge of the child support provisions is low compared to knowledge 
of other Act provisions. For example, 66.2 percent of the respondents know about the 
transitional Medicaid benefit but only 20.7 percent of the respondents know about 
Although half 
immediate wage withholding for new and updated child support orders. 
, only 21.8 percent of these 
of the respondents make regular child support referrals
know about this specific provision. 
If front-line workers and supervsors who regularly make client referrals know little 
about specific Act provisions, their effectiveness in informing clients about available 
services may be lessened. It may even be that welfare clients targeted for help may 
not receive timely notification of Act servces and lose valuable tools such as child care 
and job training to achieve self-sufficiency. 
' knowledge of specific Act provisions. The first column 
Chart 1 shows respondents
The second column shows the 
lists the provisions included in our questionnaire. 
percentage of all respondents who report they are "familiar" or "very familar" with 
each provision. 
H compare the knowledge of the following four pairs of respondents: 
Columns A-
workers versus supervsors, respondents from State-run offices versus county-run 
offices, urban respondents versus rural respondents, and respondents who spend over 
half of their work time in AFDC versus those who spend half or less of their work 
.Is  indicate that respondents in that group are at least 1.5 times 
time in AFDC. The 

(rounded to the nearest half) more likely to know about a specific provision than their 
paired group. The comparisons are made within a pair, not between pairs. For 
example, looking at columns A and B, for 16 of the 21 Act provisions, supervsors are 
more likely to know about the Act's provisions than workers. Where there is no check 
mark in either column, both groups are equally likely to know about the provisions. 
inpetly 
For the remairn of the report we refer 10 th respondmLS' reported familarty as knwledge. We did not 
verfy thir knwledge levels. See appen  for details  . . .. .
. . .
....  . ... . . .. . ..........  .. .. .."...."... .'...  . .'""... ...   ..........  ..., ........... ".....,., .... .... .. . ... ...  .. . . ....... ....  ,..  .. ....... ..........................".... . . . . .... ".......... ".... ..' .. . " ........' .... .....,.. .......'. ..' ..".. "... . .. .  ..'. ..  "  . . ....... .... ..."....".... .. . '....,... ...  ..........,. . ...  .,... ...  ...... ... ....,.  ... . ." ... . .. ..'...'.... .... ...  ,',.,/...'/.,. .  /"'.. " '.'/ //....   ..,.. .  .. . . . ...... .... . ...."...,"...."" .'.. .. .. .. ...,...'. "... ' '''/.."/'. . '..  '". ..'.. " .'  .."",...'". '  .... ,..'...  ... ..... ... ...,.../.., /.. .. .... ".... ..  ,  .... 
REPONDEN' KNOWLE OF TH FAMY SUPPORT ACf 
Ch 
FAM Y SUPORT ACf PROVION  KNOW 
Periodic adequacy review of child support orders 
1994 JOBS participation rates  18.2% 
Mandatory guidelines for support orders  19. 
Immediate wage withholding on new & updted orders  20. 
199 JOBS participation rates  21.9%
Paternity establishment standards  245% 
No los of income because of accepting a job  37. 
Development of employabilty plan  40.9% 
Up to 12 months of child care for JOBS participants  41.0% 
Required asment of client needs  45.2% 
JOBS targeting of long-time AFC recipients  453%
Transitional chid care for up to 12 months  51. % 
JOBS targeting of recipients without high school diploma  51.5% 
or with little work exprience 
ca 
Referral of new  to child support agency  54.8% 
within 10 days

JOBS targeting of categories of welfare clients  56.9% 
JOBS targeting of young parents  57.9% 
AFC grant reduction for failure to meet  59.6%
JOBS participation requirements 
Exemption from JOBS participation in certin  64.5%
Transitional Medicaid for up to 12 months  66.2% 
Required participation in education, training  66.2% 
and job activties 
Reimbursement for child care, transporttion, and work  69.2% 
expns 
related  for JOBS participants 
J=IJ: 
KEFOR.qoLONS.. 
A-FRON.;INEWORKER  c.ATE  ONOFFiCI; .  NOFFI  G;?  bf'n  E'INAFDC 
B-UPER!SOR  O:CQONT"AUNOFFI . FAOLQFFI  OfllMEI  AFbC . 
;,.rndfcat&s that resp6ndents . 'n. .1I. destgr1  .gfo  re.at.  Ut1:  tJm $(t6Jric1 ator1eEUe$half..trrelikely 
know about a &pecifprovisiohthantheir  (jl'erpart:s.  LI 
OVEWHGLY, FRONT- WCOLRK  AN SUPERVIRS 
BELVE TH ACf Wl INCRE  SEL-SUFCICY. 
Despite varyng levels of knowledge about specific provisions, when calculating an 
average score for the provisions in Chart 2, 85 percent of front-line workers and 
supervsors feel that many of the Act provisions encourage client self-suffciency. 
The 85 percent score represents those respondents who on average, answered "greatly 
ll in response to the questions about how the 
increase" or "somewhat increase Act will 
affect client self-suffciency.

This percentage varies depending on the specific Act provision. Chart 2 includes the 
percentage of respondents who think specific provisions will increase client 
self-suffciency. 
WI TI 
HOW  CLF AMY SUPPORT ACT 
AFCT  SEL-SUFCICY? 
Chrt 2

th 
Proion  wh  it wi increa 
client self-suffciency 
12 months transitional Medicaid 
12 months transitional child care 
Reimbursement of child care, transportation and work 
related expenses when in JOBS 
Required participation in education, training or job 
activities 
Employabilty plan based on client assessment 
Assessment of client needs 
Immediate wage withholding for all new support 
orders 
Mandatory State guidelines to determine amount of 
support orders

Cae management 6

AFC 
Periodic adequacy review of -all  support orders 
Requirement for genetic blood testing 
5 We di not ask resondts this question about all of th provisions of the Act dicused in Finding  1,  only the 11  lirted in the 
char 
maget  an 
6 Case  was recommended, but not required by th Act Sine  17y  SUItes  counties practice some form of case 
inlud 
manafPent in implemtig th Act, we  this quesOTL  == 
, we show how respondents, over time, rate how the Act affects the welfare 
In Chart 3
providing adequate servces to clients, providing timely 
system in the following areas: 
servces to clients, improving client self-suffciency, permitting you (front-line workers 
and supervsors) to help your clients, not wasting the taxayers' money, and improving 
your job satisfaction. 
Chart 3 shows that respondents think the Act will positively impact the welfare system 
in the areas listed above. Using an average score for the 6 areas, 43 percent of 
respondents thin the welfare system wil be "good" or ''very good" 2 years from now. 
Only 14 percent thought this was true when asked how the welfare system performed 
2 years ago.

Chart 3

FS ACT AFFECT ON THE WELFARE SYSTEM 
100  WILL THE SYSTEM IMPROVE OVER TIME? 
u. 
Area Raed 
fa 
Aduate Servce 
- TI 
CD 
Se-Sufenc 
11111111 
S! 
Perit yo to hep 
........ Job saUsfactn

Not wasng ta $ 
a: 
YES  YES 
NOW 
AGO  FROM 
7 For this avera  score, a response of "good" or "ver good' incat a favorable resonse an a resnse of ''fail  'poor '' or "ver
poor" incates a negatve resonse.  FRONT-LI WORKRS AN SUPERVISORS WHO KNOW ABOUT 
ACf SPECIC PROVISIONS AR EVEN MORE LILY TO BELIVE IT 
WI INCRE CLNT SELF-SUFCINCY. 
Respondents are twce as likely to believe the Act will increase client self-sufficiency if 
they know about the provisions. As respondents' level of knowledge increases , their 
support for the Act increases. The vast majority of respondents think the Act will 
increase client self-sufficiency. The relationship between knowledge and attitude 
suggests that the number of respondents who support the Act could grow even larger 
if more respondents knew about the provisions of the Act. This is important whether 
or not a front-line worker or supervsor makes client referrals since it may affect the 
presentation of the Act's provisions to clients. 
The relationship between knowledge and attitude is strongest for transitional benefits. 
Respondents who know about transitional Medicaid are four times more likely to 
believe it will increase self-sufficiency. Respondents who know about transitional child 
care are three times more likely to believe it will increase client self-sufficiency. 
Respondents who know about the child support provisions, the required education 
training or job activities, an employability plan and the supportive servces are twce 
likely to think those provisions will increase client self-sufficiency. 
AN INRSE CORRLATION EXIST BETWEN TH KNOWLDGE 
BUROUT OF FRONT-LIN WORKRS AN SUPERVISORS. 
A respondent s level of knowledge has a statistically significant inverse correlation with 
burnout of an individual. As respondents' knowledge increases , their chances of being 
burned out decrease. 
Only knowledge has a significant relationship with an individual's burnout level. No 
other variable we tested relates to the burnout of a respondent. The following factors 
as related to burnout, are insignificant: whether respondents are supervsors or 
workers, whether respondents work in urban or rural offices, whether respondents 
work in State-administered or county-administered offices, and whether respondents 
spend greater than 50 percent of their time working in the AFDC program or less 
AFC 
time working in the  program. 
AGENCY COMMNT 
Both the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the 
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) commented on the report. Both 
were concerned about the reported low level of program familiarity with the Act. 
They suggested that the timing of the survey, along with the tye of respondents we 
included in the sample, may have influenced the reported degree of familarity with 
the Act.
 OIG REPONSE 
We do recognize that not all States in the sample had the same or comparable 
But, our objective was to 
experience with implementing and administering the Act. 
collect baseline data that could then be compared to data collected at a later point 
time. 
Both ASPE and ACF suspect that the low level of familiarity with the Act could, in 
part, be explained by the varied job responsibilties of the sampled respondents. The 
ASPE states that some front-line workers might be expected to provide clients with 
information about the JOBS program, while others may be solely responsible for 
income maintenance functions with the expectation that they will refer clients to JOBS 
and child support enforcement to learn about these programs.

Undoubtedly, the respondents in the survey had varied duties and responsibilties as 
far as implementing and administering the Act's provisions. However, as stated in the 
report, we believe that front-line workers, who are usually the first to deal with 
potential JOBS participants, can playa critical role in shaping recipients' attitudes 
about JOBS and child support programs. The better they understand the new benefits 
and requirements of the Act, the more effectively they can present the program to 
clients. 
We will conduct a follow-up study that will resurvey respondents in order to measure 
any change in their familarity with the Act. As they have requested, we will work 
with ACF and ASPE in designing this study.  APPENDIX A

FAMY SUPPORT ACf QUETIONNAI  .. 
Family support Act Questlonn."'.

First we want to know to what extent you have been acquainted with the law. Please
respond to th..e .tatement. by circling the number that repr..ent. your familarity with 
the following. U.. the following scale.

Very  Somewhat  Not  Not at all 
Familar  Familiar  Familar  Sure  Familiar 
Circle a number  Circle a number 
Immediate wage with. 
holding for all new  Q12  Exemption from partici
child support order.  pation in certin cases 
Mandatory State  Q13 Targeting categories of 
guidelines to  welfare recipients for 
determine the amount  the JOBS program 
of child support orders 
Q14  Targeting of young 
Three year adequacy  parents for the 
review of all AFDC  JOBS program 
support orders 
Q15  Targeting of non-diploma
Federal standards to  custodial parents under 
establish paternity  age 24 who have 
no work experience 
Requirement for AFDC  for the JOBS program 
staff to refer potential 
child support cases within  Q16 Targeting of famme. who 
10 days of receipt to the  received AFDC three 
child support agency  year. 
of the la.t fie 
AFDC famile.  Q17  Mandatory partcipation
are assured  in .aving. plan 
education, 
training, or  Q18  The required assess
employment  ment of client needs 
AFDC benefits wil be  Q19 The requirement to 
reduced if Job 
devllop an Imploya

Opportunity and Basic bilty plan for JOBS
Skils (JOBS) program partcipants 
partcipants fail to 
fulfil their JOBS  Q20  A wllfarl family must 
program obligation.'"  not lOll incoml because 
of Job acceptance 
Partcipants in JOBS will 
be reimbursld for child  Q21  The requirement for the 
care, transportation, and 
development of a family 
work related Ixpenses 
budgeting plan

JOBS partcipants are 
Q22  Up to 12 months of 
required to partcipate  child care is guaranteed 
in educational, training,  for participation in 
or job actlviti..  JOBS 
QlO  7% of eligible AFDC 
Q23  Up to 12 months of 
clients must be 
child care is guaranteed 
partcipating In JOBS 
after loss of AFDC 
in 1990  lligibllity due to 
acceptance of a job 
Qll  20% of eligible AFDC 
clients mUlt bl  Q24  Up to 12 month. of 
partcipating in  Medicaid benefits are 
JOBS in 1995  guaranteed for families 
of clients after loss of 
AFDC eligibility due to 
.. Your State or county may call thl. welfare.to-work acceptance of a job
program by another name. In thl. que.tlonnalre,
however, we wil reter to It  JOBS, the Federal
de.lgnatlon. 
A  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
g.g,., 
Family SUPPQrt Act Questionnaire

How much Information. have you received What effect do you think the child support
from each of the following sources provisions wil have on the self-sufficiency
regarding the Family Support Act? of your clients?
Use the following scale.  Use the following scale. 
Gre81  Not  Gre.tly  Somewhat  Somewhat  Greatly 
Deal  Some  Much  None  Incre..e  Incre..e  Effect  Decreale  Decrease 
Circle a number  Circle anum ber 
Q38 Adequacy review of all
Q26 Conversations at work  AFOC support orders 
Q27 Media (e.g., ne  Q39 Immediate wage with-
papers, magazlnel,  holding for all new
TV or radio)  child lupport orders 
Q28 Official sources (e.  040 Mandatory State guide.
training, memoranda,  lines to determine 
newsletters)  amount of child 
support orders

Q29 Organizations (e. 
American Public Welfare  041 Requirement for genetic 
Association, National  blood testing 
Eligibility Workers Asso
ciation, etc. 
How wil the following parts of the JOBS
Q30 Other (pleue specif):  program effect client self- sufficiency?
Use the following scale. 
No 
Ore.tly  Somewhat  Somewhat  Greatly 
Incre..e  Incre..e  Effect Decr....  Decrease 
Which of the following do you think helps
define self-sufficiency? Circle a number 
(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)  042 Required participation in 
education, training, or 
employment activities
Q31 getting and keeping a job above 
the minimum wage level  043 Assessment of client 
needs 
Q32 life skils 
Q4 Employabilit plan based
Q33 responsibilty for children assumed  on client assnsment 
by both parents 
045 C..e management 
Q34 literacy 
046 Reimbursement of child 
Q35 education up to high-school  care, transportation and 
level  work related expenses 
when participating in 
Q36 advanced education  the JOBS program 
(above high school level) 
047 Reimbursement of up 
Q37 other (please specif)  to 12 months of child care 
aftr 1088 of AFDC as a 
relult of accepting a job 
Q4 
12 month Medicaid 
exten.ion aftr 1088

of AFDC u a result 
of accepting a job 
A  Family Support Act Questionnaire 
How wen do you think the following items measure the help provided to welfare clients by
the Family Support Act? 
Very  Pretty  Not Too  Very 
Good  Good  Not  Good A  Poor 
Me..ure  Me..ure  Sur.  M...ur.  Mea.ur. 
Circle a number 
Child suppo  Circle I number 
Chld cae 
Number of AFDC
Q50 
terminations  064  Number of children 
due to receipt of  covered by child 
child support  care benefits 
Q51  Number of child  065  Number of parents 
support orders
 who can partcipate 
in a training or educa. 
Q52  Number of paternites  tion program because 
established  of the child care benefit 
Q53  Dollar amount of child  066  Number of parents who 
support collections on  can accept a job 
AFDC cases  because of the 
child care benefit 
Increase in child
Q54 
support enforcement 
collections 
Transpotion and wor relaed expeses 
067  Number of users of 
JOBS 
transportation benefit

Q55  Client participation rates 1  !Q8  Number of parents who 
can participate in an 
Q56  Completion of education  educational or training 
or training program  program because of 
the new transportation 
Q57  Completion of a full  benefit 
assessment 
069  Dollar amount paid 
Q58  Regular attendance  for transporttion 
in a program 
Q70  Dollar amount paid for 
Q59  Number of job  work related expenses 
placements 
060  Average wage at 
placement upon  Meicid 
entrance into a job 
Q71  Dollar amount paid 
061  Number of clients  by Medicaid for 12 
removed from the 
month extended

welfare rolls  benefits 
062  Receipt of educational  Number of parents 
degree 
who can accept a 
job because of the 
063  Increase in literacy level 
Medicaid extension

A  --------------------------------------_--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Family Support Act Questionnaire 
Estimate the effect the Family Support Act Using the scale below, estimate how often
wil have on your duties.  your office currently provides the
following services to clients. 
Gre.tly Somewh.t  Somewh.t Gre.tly
Incre... Incre..e  Effect  Decre..e Decre..e  A Gre.t  Not
D..I  Some  Much  None 
Circle. number 
Circle a number 
suppo 
Child  provisions  084 
Education referrals 
Q74  Case related  085 Training referrals 
paperwork 
sQ86 Employment referral. 
Contact with clients 
Q75 
087 Alleaament of client 
Q76  Contact with other  needa 
agencies 
088 
Development of an 
employabilty pl.n 
provi 
JOBS  089 Reimbursement for 
child care expenses 
Q77  Case related  5Q90 
paperwork  Reimbursement for 
tranaportation expenses 
Contact wit clients 
Q78 
Q91 Reimbursement for 
Q79  Contact with other  work related expenses 
agencl.. 
Family Suppo Act as a whole 
080  Case rel.ted 
paperwork 
081  Contact wit clients 
082  Contact wit other 
agencies 
Q83  Other (plu.e specif): 
A  --------------__-__--__--------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------- ---
FamilY suppon Act Questionnaire 
Congrell Intended &0 overhaul the welfare  Not wa.tlng the taxpayer. ' money 
system with the pa..a  of the Family 
like to know how 105' Prior to the Family 
weG I Pyoorut  tAhcint.k W It ew wil oauclcomplish this.  Support Act
P lease compare the following welfare (2 yurs ago) 
systems; 
QI06  Today 
1) before the Family Support Act

(at least two years ago);  QI07  Two years from now 
2) while the Famn 
being ImplementeJ I S aunpdp;ort Act Is  improving your Job .atl.factlon 
two years from now  QI08  Prior to the Family 
Support Act
(2 yurs ago) 
Very Good  Good  Fair  Poor  Very Poo :109  Today 
QllO  Two years from now 
Circle a number 
Providing adequa. 
.ervlc.. to client. 
Approximately what percentage of your
Q93  Prior to the Family  work time Is spent on the following 
Support Act programs? (TOTAL MUST EQUAL 100%) 
(2 yurs ago) 
Q94  Today  sQlll Food stamps '" 
095  Two years from now  sQ1l2 AFOC 

Q1l3 Medicaid '" 
Providing timely .erlc.. to cliets 
Ql14  General assistance % 
Prior to the Family 
Q96  Support Act Q1l5 Other % 
(2 yurs ago) 
1l6 (pluse specify): 
Today 
Q97 
Q98  Two yura from now 
TOTAL 100'"
Q1l7 
1m proving c let .e/f..u1tlency

Q99  Prior to the Family
Approximately what percentage of your
Support Act
(2 yurs ago)  work time Is spent in the following Job
duties?  100%) 
(TOTAL MUST EQUAL 
Q100  Today
QIOl  Two years from now sOl18 Initial client intake '" 
Ql19  Ongoing cas.. % 
Permitng you to help your cliets 
Q120 Supervision '" 
QI02  Prior to the Family  Q121 Other'" 

Support
(2 yurs ago)  122 
(please specify): 
Q103  Today
Q104  Two years from now 
TOTAL 100'"
Q123 
A  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Family Support Act Questionnaire 
Approximately what percentage of your  About how often do you refer clients for
work time Iss  nt In each of tne activities  the following services?
listed below? (TOTAL MUST eaUAL 100%) 
Every  Le.. Than 
Day  W..kly  Monthly  V..rly  Once a Year 
Q125 Time with clients % 
Q126 Case related paperwork %  Clrcl. anum ber 
Q127 Administrative duties %  Q147 Child support 
Q128 Client Assessment %  Ql48 Education programs 
Q129 Training %  Q149 Training programs 
Q130 Contact with other agencies %  Q150 Job surch 
Q131 Coothnetrasc rt ewlaitthe de mtop cloasyeesrs % a nd Q151 Child care 
Q132 Supervision %
Q152 Community

Q133 Other %  organizations 
Q134 (please specify): 
At your present skil level, how much 
confidence do you feel in assessing the
capabilties of clients for referral to any of
the following? 
TOTAL 100% 
Q135 
AO Gr.eaat'  Not
100%)  Some  Much  None 
To do a better lob, what percentage of your. 
time at work should you spend in the Q153 An education program 
following areas? 
(TOTAL MUST EaUAL
program 
Q154 A training 
Q155 A job 
Q136 Time with clients % 
Q156 Child care 
Q137 Case related 
paperwork % 
Ql38 Administrativ. duties % 
Ql39 
Client Assessment %  About how often do you evaluate clients
for the following services? 
Ql40 Training % 
A Gr.at  Not 
Q141 Contact wit other agencies 
O.a'  Some  Much  None 
Q142 Contact with employers and 
others related to cases % 
Q157 An education program 
Q143 Supervision % 
Q158 A training program 
Ql44 
Other % 
Q159 A job 
Q145 (please specify): 
Q160 Child care 
Q146  TOTAL 100% 
A  Family Support Act Questionnaire 
How much Flmlly s.uPgort Act training do  SUPERVISORS ONLY: How much Family 
you need In tlch Irea elow?  SUPlort Act training do your eligibilty
wor er. need In each area below? 
Adequate  Don  Adequate  Don 
Not  Training  Need Thla  Not  Training  Need Thla 
Extenalve  Some  Much  Received  For My Job  Extenalve  Some  Much  Received  For Their Job 
Circle a number 
Circle a number 
Q173 Immediate wage 
Q162  Immediate wage  withholding 
withholding 
Q174 Mandatory State 
Q163  Mandatory State  guideline. 
guidelines 
Q175 Review of all .upport
order. 
Q164  Review of all support 
orders 
Q176 Paternity establishment 
Q165  Paternity establishment  and genetic blood 
testing 
and genetic blood 
testing 
Q177  Education, training, 
Q166  Education, training,  employment activities 
employment actiities 
Q178  Client need. 
aueument 
Q167  Client need. 
a..eument 
Q179  Development of 
Q168  Development of  employabilty plan

employabilty plan 
Q180  C..e management 
Case management 
Q169 
Q181  Child care benefits 
Q170  Child care benefits 
Q182  Transporttion benefits 
Ql71  Transporttion benefits 
Q183  Medicaid benefits 
Ql72  Medicaid benefi 
Ql84 Do you think your job Is important to the 
.ucc... of the Family Support Act? 
yes ---- no ---

A  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
- , 
Family Support Act Questionnaire 
How much education have you received on the following topics? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 
Non.  Forl  Inforl 
College  College  Wor  In-House  In-House 
Course  Course  Shop  Training  Training  None 
186  187  188  189  190  191 
Juvenile delinquency 
192  193  194  195  196  197 
Teen pregnancy 
198  199  200  201  202  203 
developnt 
Adolescent 
204  205  206  207  208  209 
Adolescent psycholog 
210  211  212  213  214  215 
Substance abuse 
216  217  218  219  220  221 
Employment services 
222  223  224  225  226  227 
Training services 
228  229  230  231  232  233 
Parentng 
234  235  236  237  238  239 
Early-childhoo developnt 
240  241  242  243  244  245 
Case management 
246  247  248  249  250  251 
Evaluation of dlents 
252  253  254  255  256  257 
Literacy testing 
Q258 What Is your current job title? (pLEASE DO NOT ABBREVIATE OR USE ACRONYMS) 
Q259 How many years have you held your current job or have been perorming the same work? 
Totl years

(If you have ever been a supervisor give the number of years) 
Q260 Supervisor 
A  Family Support Act Questionnaire 
forl 
Check the bo by yor highest level of  education and wre In your major; 
Q262 Docorl degree  major 
Q263 Masters degree  major 
Q264 Som graduate scoo  major 
year colege degree  major 
Q265 4-
year colege degree  major 
Q266 2-
Q267 Som colege 
equivalent) 
Q268 High schoo diplom (or 
Q269 Less than high schoo 
Please circle the number which comes closest to the way you act or feel about your current job. 
Never  Sometimes  Always 
Q270 I'm fed up with the job. 
crbby at wor. 
Q271 I feel 
Q272  I feel that everyhing Is caving In at wor. 
Q273 I feel enthusiastic abo my wor. 
Q274 I feel unable to get ou fro under my work. 
Q275 I' m discorage abo my wor. 
Lite things don t bug me. 
Q276 
Q277 I feel burled In my Job. 
Q278 I feel like givng up on the job. 
Q279 I' m disillusion wit my wor. 
Q280 My job makes me angry. 
Q281  I loo fOlrd to cong back to 
wor when 
I leave. 

Q282  My job has me at th end of my rop. 
A  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------- ------ ---------------------------  ---------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   ---------------- ------------
Family Support Act Questionnaire 
We lollclt yourcommentl. The Family Support Act illntended to improve client lelf-sufficiency.
Q284  il neeed? 
What elll 
SURVEY
END  OF 
THNK YOU FOR YOUR PARTIPATIN 
endos 
envelop. 
Pteae retrn this questionnaire in the 
-a us. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 199-5-M3  APPENDIX 

Collecg the Data 
Drawig th Sample

To collect the data, we used a single stage cluster sample. Our universe included the 
084 counties in the United States who received Federal AFDC funds in 1988. Each 
determing the size of each cluster based on the 
county constituted a cluster. After 
total amount of Federal AFDC funds  , we randomly selected 38 
received in 1988
clusters, including 8 designated alternates, with probabilty proportional to size. 
Once a county was selected for inclusion in the study, we contacted the State and the 
county to determine the number of welfare offces in the county and the number of 
possible respondents in those offices. 
Using this information, we determined the counties where 100 percent of the workers 
would be surveyed versus those counties which would be subsampled. We used the 
following criteria to determine which counties should be subsampled. 
Counties with under 300 total workers or with only one offce were sampled 
the 100 percent level. 
All other counties were subsampled. These counties have more than one 
welfare offce within county/entity boundaries and have over 300 workers. 
To determine the number of workers we would survey from each of the six counties in 
our subs ample, we first determined the number of respondents we wanted from our 
subsampled counties. Based on estimates of response rates, we needed to survey 
We obtained the 
approximately 2400 respondents in our subsampled counties. 
number of front-line workers, or possible respondents, in each county of our 
subsample. We determined that we had a total of 7 312 possible respondents for the 
entire subsample. For each  we calculated the approxiate number of 
county, 
respondents we would need based on the following formula: 
Yi = x/7 312 * 2 400 
= a particular county in the subsample 
Y = the number of front-line workers surveyed from a particular county 
X = the total possible respondents from a particular county 
Based on the above calculations, we subsampled the following counties: Cook County, 
Ilinois; Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; and, Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, San 
Bernardino, and Santa Clara Counties of California. In all other counties, we sampled 
at the 100 percent level.  rend 
Crer 
to be a 
The sampled population includes front-line workers and their immediate supervsors. 
To qualify as a respondent, people had to meet the following profie. Each 
respondent must be: 
a worker involved with AFDC, including workers who split their time between 
AFDC and any other programs; or 
a Medicaid worker who also does AFDC work, or located in the same 
office as 
AFDC workers. No Medicaid workers are included if they are located in a 
different physical location; or

an immediate supervsor of the above workers. 
Excluded from the sample were the following: 
Food Stamp workers who did only Food Stamp work; or 
any clerical staff or technicians; or 
any upper management except if they function as an immediate supervsor of 
the respondents as described above.

diutg  resnd 
Metho for  qutinnires to 
On December 3, 1990, we sent each welfare offce the appropriate number of 
questionnaire packets, a cover letter and a script for the contact person to administer 
the questionnaires. A script was prepared to ensure that each respondent receive 
identical instructions for completing the questionnaire. Respondents self-administered 
their questionnaires. To ensure confdentiality, each respondent received a 
pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope to send the completed questionnaire to Russo 
and Associates, the contractor responsible for compilng the data for analysis. 
We received questionnaires throughout the first quarter of 1991. Out of the 3 861 
questionnaires we sent out, we received 2 118 for a 55 percent response rate.  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
coun wi 
Selecte  replacemts 
STATE  County  County- Urban 
State-ru  Rural 
Californa  Kern  County  Urban 
California  Los Angeles  County  Urban 
California  Riverside  County  Urban 
California  San Bernardino  County  Urban 
California  Santa Clara  County  Urban 
Connecticut  Litchfield  Urban 
Sta te 
Georgia  Chatham  County  Urban 
Georgia  Clark  County  Urban 
Georgia  Columbia  County  Urban 
llinois  Cook  State  Urban 
llinois  Iroquois  State  Rural 
Iowa  Clay  State  Rural 
Kentucky  State  Rural
Knox 
Louisiana  State  Rural 
St.  James
Maine  Lincoln  State  Rural 
Maryland  Kent  County  Rural 
Minnesota  Beltrami  County  Rural 
Minnesota  St. Louis  County  Urban 
Missouri  Scott  State  Rural 
New Jersey  Hudson  County  Urban 
Ohio  Franklin  County  Urban 
Ohio  Medina  County  Urban 
Oklahoma  Cotton  State  Rural 
Pennsylvania  Philadelphia  State  Urban 
Utah  Cache  State  Rural 
Virginia  Bristol City  County  Urban 
Virginia  Virginia Beach City  County  Urban 
Washington  King  State  Urban 
Washington  Pierce  State  Urban 
Wisconsin  Wood  County  Rural 
At the time of thi sUlVey, thes counties had not implemented the JOBS program.  However, they represnt . 
percent of the total sample. 
parttig 
Non- State 
Three States, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts refused to participate in our 
survey. We used eight replacement counties to complete our sample and to 
compensate for the States who chose not to participate. In spite of these 
non-participating States  e believe the survey results sufficiently represent the 
universe of front-line workers, based on the number of respondents and the broad 
geographic representation of the sample.  APPENDIX 

Creatig Binar Varables

To analyze the data in the survey, we created binary variables. 
In questions 1-24 regarding a respondent's familarity with provisions of the Act 
we asked respondents: 
stte 
the  cilig th nuer tht 
Plee resnd to  by  represen your
famiri wi th  th follwig 
follwig. Use  scale. " 
Very Somewhat  Not 
Not at al 
Famar  Famar  Famar  Sure  Famar 
Respondents used this scale to rate their knowledge of 21 specific provisions of 
the Act. We omitted question six from our analysis because the question was 
confusing. We also omitted questions 17 and 21 because they were not 
provisions of the Act and were included only as a check of respondents 
answers. 
When we analyzed this data, we created a binary variable for each question 
according to the following code:

Know  (1)  response of 1 or 2 on the five point scale 
above 
Don t Know (0)  response of 3, 4 or 5 on the five point scale 
above 
Average Score: Using the scale above, when we report overall knowledge of 
respondents, we use an average score of the 21 Family Support Act provisions 
from page 1 of the survey. The average scores were coded in this manner: 
Know  (1)  an average response .c 2.5 on the five point 
scale above 
Don t Know (0)  = 2.5 on the five 
an average response

point scale above 
C - 1  For both of the questions below, respondents used the followig scale: 
Greatl  Somewhat  Somewhat  Greatl 
Increas  Increa  Efec  Decea  Decrease 
In questions 38-41 on Client Self-Suffciency, we asked respondents: 
su 
Wht efect do youc tlhii? t h chi suport prvins wi hae on th self-
of your 
In questions 42-48 on Client Self-Suffciency, we asked respondents: 
cli self-su?' 
How wi th foUowig part of the JOBS prgrm afect 
Respondents used the scale above to rate whether 11 specific provisions of the 
Act wil increase client self-sufficiency. 
When we analyzed this data, we created a binary variable for each question 
according to the following code: 
Increas Clent  (1) = response of 1 or 2 on the five point 
Self-Sufciency  scale above 
Not Increae  (0) = response of 3, 4 or 5 on the five point 
Clent Self-Sufciency  scale above 
Average Score: When we report a respondent s opinion on how the Family 
Support Act will irpprove client self-suffciency overall, we use an average score 
of the 11 questions, 38- , on client self-suffciency. We coded the average 
scores in this manner: 
Increa Clent

Self-Sufciency  5 on the five point scale 
(1) = an average response c: 2.
above 
Not Increase Clent 
Self-Sufciency 
= 2.5 on the five point scale 
(0) = an average response 
above 
C - 2  In questions 93-110, we asked respondents: 
Plee 
compare th foUowig welfare system; 
th Fami 
before  Support Act (at leas two years ago);
whi th Fami Support Act is beig impleed; an 
two yea frm now. 
Goo Go 
Very  Fai  Poor  Very Poor 
Respondents used the scale above to rate the welfare 
system in the following 
areas: 
Providing adequate servces to clients 
Providing timely servces to clients 
Improving client self-suffciency 
Permtting you to help clients 
Not wasting the taxpayers' money 
Improving your job satisfaction. 
When we analyzed this data, we created a binary variable for each question 
according to the followig code: 
Favorable  (1) = response of 1 or 2 on the five point scale above 
Not Favorable  (0) = response of 3, 4 or 5 on the five point scale above 
Average Scores: When we report respondents' opinion on how the welfare 
system performed 2 years ago, we use an average score of the questions asking 
respondents to rate areas of the welfare system ' 1Jefore the FS Act (at least two 
years ago)." This includes questions 93, 96, 99, 102, 105 and 108. 
C - 3  We coded the average scores in this manner: 
Favorable  (1) = an average response 
oe 2.5 on the five point scale 
above 
(0) = 
Not Favorable  an average response :: = 2.5 on the five point scale 
above 
When we report respondents' opinion on how the welfare system will perform 2
years from now, we use an average score of the questions asking respondents to 
rate areas of the welfare system "2 years from now.
" This includes questions 
, 98, 101, 104, 107 and 110. 
Favorable  (1) = an average response 
oe 2.5 on the five point scale 
above 
Not Favorable  . (0) = an average response :: = 2.5 on the five point scale 
above 
Indpe 
Varible 
When examining factors which may affect the responses to 
the above questions, our
independent variables were: 
Super:  This variable indicates whether a respondent is a supervsor or a worker. 
If a respondent answers question 260 "If you have ever been a
supervsor give the number of years , in addition to questions for 
supervsors only, 173-183, we refer to that respondent as a "supervsor
Otherwse we refer to a respondent as a "worker  We cross-checked 
this method for determning who was a supervsor against 
questions 120 
132, and 258. 
Supervsor  responded to questions 173-183 and 260 
Worker  all other respondents 
Using this method 1 percent of the respondents are supervsors and 
, 13. 
75.9 percent of the respondents are workers. 
C - 4
 Urban:  Ths variable indicates whether a respondent works in an urban office or 
a rural office. We entered the urban or rural designation based on 
Metropolitan Statistical Area data (MSAs).. 
According to the MSAs, we surveyed 59 urban offces and 13 rural 
offces. These offces provided us with 94 percent urban respondents and 
6 percent rural respondents. 
Urban  respondent works in urban office based on MSAs 
Rural  respondent works in rural offce based on MSAs 
State:  This variable indicates whether a respondent works in a State where the 
IV-A program is administered by the State versus a State where the 
IV-A progr m is administered by each county. 
State  respondent works in State-administered welfare 
office 
County  respondent works in county-administered welfare 
offce 
Ten of the States we surveyed have State-administered IV-A programs 
A programs. The

while nine States have county-administered  IV 
respondents are fairly evenly distributed between the two 
tyes of
programs with 56 percent working in State-administered programs and 
44 percent working in county-administered programs. 
AFC: 
We used this variable to distinguish between those respondents who 
spend over 50 percent of their time in the AFDC program and those 
who spend 50 percent or less time in AFDC. We created the variable 
based on responses to question 112 which asks what percentage of time 
a respondent spends on AFDC. 
50 AFDC  respondents who spend over 50 percent of 
their time in AFDC 
c: =50 AFDC respondents who spend 50 percent or less 
time in AFDC 
Few respondents specialize in the AFDC program with 29 percent 
spending over 50 percent of their time in AFDC and 71 percent 
spending 50 percent or less of their time in AFDC. 
C - 5
 APPENDIX D

Analis of 
Respondent Knowledge and Atttude 
Knwlege Anlysi

We hypothesize that a respondent s knowledge of the Family Support Act is partially 
dependent upon factors including: 1) whether the respondent is a worker or 
supervsor, 2) whether the respondent works in an urban office versus a rural office, 3) 
whether a respondent works in a State run welfare office versus a county run welfare 
office, and 4) whether a respondent spends greater than 50 percent of their time in 
AFDC versus spending less time in the AFDC program. To test the hypothesis, we 
, if any, have 
constructed a multivariate model to determine which of the above factors
a significant relationship with each respondent s knowledge of the Act. 
Constrtin of th Modl 
For this analysis, we created a series of binary variables that characterize each 
respondent. Table I lists the variables and the method for coding each of these 
characteristics. The variable "knowledge" serves as our dependent variable in the 
model. 
Table I 
Variables Used in Logistic Model 
1 = 
Knowledge  Knows about specific 
provision of Family Support Act 
o = Does not know about specific 
provision of Family Support Act 
Supervr 
1 = Supervsor 
o = Worker

1 = 
Urban  Urban office 
o = 
Rural office 
1 = 
State  State-administered office 
o = 
county-administered office 
AFC  1 =  50% of time in AFDC 
Spends 
= 50% of time in AFDC
o = Spends 

D - 1
 +..
p, 
We used a linear logistic model to fit this data. Using this model, the probabilty of a 
respondent knowing about specific provisions of the Act  equals a linear 
combination of the independent variables in the logistic scale. This gives 
In(p  (l-p))=Bo +B  +BkXk' 
is the coefficient to be estimated by the equation, X is the value of the 
where 
is the number of independent variables in the equation.
independent variable and 

With this construction, the negative exponential of each coefficient  or e 
represents the estimated odds ratio of the effect due to the accompanying variable. 
From the multivariate model, we can determne the adjusted effect of each variable on 
a respondent s knowledge of a provision. The adjusted effect measures the strength of 
the relationship between an independent variable and the dependent variable while 
taking into account the effect of other independent variables in the equation. 
Res 
Anlysi 
of 
Table II  logistic model for an 
gives the results of the analysis using the multivariate 
average score of knowledge of the Act (appendix C describes the composite score of 
knowledge.  We conducted this analysis using the same independent variables for 21 
The results are similar 
questions on the Act provisions included in the questionnaire. 
to those reported here. We do not include the details of these models here, but 
specific results of this analysis are available upon request. 
Table n 
Pareter 
Estiates & Adjusted Odds Ratios for Overal Knowledge of Act 
Pareter  Stadad 
Varable  Odds  95% C. 
Estiate  Eror  Ratio  (lower upper) 
Intercept  6089  2018  .54 
Supervor  0.5755  1316  1.78  (1.37 2.30) 
Urban  0427  1970  (0.  1.41) 
State  1606  0968  (0.  1.03) 
1956  1056  1.22  (0.  1.50) 
Odds ratios greater than one indicate that the presence of the factor increases the 
likelihood that a respondent is familar with the specific provisions of the Act, while 
odds ratios less than one indicate that the presence of the factor reduces the 
D - 2  , "
likelihood that a respondent is famiiar with the specific provisions of the Act. These 
relationships are signifcant only when the confidence interval does not include one. 
For example, the results show that supervsors are 1.78 times more likely to report 
that they are familar with the different provisions of the Act than workers. 
In the example above, only the "supervsor" variable has a significant impact on a 
respondent' s overall familarity with the Act after adjusting for the impact of the other 
variables. Respondents who are supervsors are nearly twce as likely to be familar 
with the different provisions of the Act as workers. 
Att 
Anlysi 
Using the multivariate logistic model described above, we analyzed respondents 
attitude toward the Act. We designated "attitude" as the dependent variable. In this 
model  represents the probabilty that a respondent believes the Act will increase 
client self-sufficiency. In addition, for this model  knowledge" becomes an 
:pendent variable. The complete list of variables for the model are coded below. 
Atttude  1 =  Increase client self-suffciency 
Does not Increase client self. 
sufficiency 
Knowledge  1 =  Knows about specific provision of 
Family Support Act 
Does not know about specific 
provision of Family Support Act 
Supervor  1 =  Supervsor 
Worker 
Urban  1 =  Urban offce 
Rural offce

State  1 =  State-run office 
county-run offce

1 =  Spends:; 50% of time in AFDC 
Spends c: = 50% of time in AFDC 
D - 3
 ----    .... ((((  .  ...

When including a "knowledge" variable, we used the knowledge question 
corresponding to the specific provision of the Act named in each self-suffciency 
question. For example, we wanted to examine factors which may affect a response to 
question 48. This question asks respondents whether they think 12 months of 
Medicaid extension after obtaining a job will increase client self-suffciency. The 
independent variable called "knowledge" in the model would be the response to 
question 24, which asks how familar a person is with the provision of Medicaid after 
obtaining a job. 
Table III gives the results of the analysis for question 48. We repeated this model for 
each of the eleven questions which ask about client self-suffciency, questions 38-48. 
The results are similar to those presented. We omit the detailed results here, but they 
are available upon request. 
Table il

Parameter Estiates and Adjusted Odds Ratios for Respondent Atttude 
Varable  Parameter  Stadad  Odds  95% C. 
Estiate  Eror  Ratio  upper) 
(lower 
Intercept  - .4732  2758  1.61 
Knowledge  1.3247  1332  (2.  , 4. 88) 
Supervor  0848  2039  1.09  , 1.62) 
Urban  3979  2631  1.49  , 2.49) 
State  1962  1382  1.22  , 1.60) 
1210  1485  1.13  , 1.51) 
The table shows that, of the variables we tested, only knowledge has a significant 
correlation with a respondent's opinion on whether the Medicaid extension will 
increase self-sufciency. 
D - 4
 , pp.  pp.  , " , "
APPENDIX E

Burout Inentory Analis 
Initially, the Gilespie-Numerof Burnout Inventory (GNBI) was included in this survey 
' attitudes toward the Act. 
to determine whether burnout might bias respondents
When our analysis revealed that support for the Act was high (and burnout relatively 
low), it was not necessary to pursue a relationship between respondent burnout and 
, we found an inverse correlation between respondent 
attitude. During further analysis
knowledge and burnout. This correlation supports our conclusions about respondents 
knowledge. 
To estimate a level of burnout for respondents, we used a modified version of the 
GNBI.  In questions 270-275 and 277-282, respondents rated how they feel about 
their job for 12 items. They used a scale from 0 to 7, where 0 represents "never" and 
7 represents "always" on a continuum. Question 276 was deleted from our analysis 
because we determined the question was ambiguous. 
In our sample, Cronbach's coefficient of test reliabilty, alpha, was very high at .93 on 
a scale of 0 to 1. The alpha coefficient measures the internal consistency of the scale 
or measures the likelihood that respondents repeating the test under similar conditions 
would give similar answers. 
, we formed a composite burnout score by totaling the individual 
Using the 12 items
scores. Respondents each received a score between 0 and 84. Eighty-four represents 
the highest score and the highest possible level of burnout. 
Using the composite burnout score, we created a binary variable  burnout" 
coded the variable as follows: 
Bured Out  (1) =  burnout score;: 42, or, on the upper half of the 
burnout scale 
Not Bured Out (0) =  burnout score oe = 42, or, on the lower half of the 
burnout scale. 
8 see David Gilesie and Ria Numerof, "Bunut Among Health Serice Provid, Adminisation an Policy  in  Menl Health
an  Acade of 
VoL  18,  No.  161-171  and Rita Numerof  Joseph Sell Superisory leadehip an jUbordiate bumout, 
Mana  t Joura  VoL  No.  2,  439-446.  for exples of its use. 
E - , .

((  ..
, " , " , "
To identif factors which may affect whether a respondent is burned out, we 
conducted a multivariate analysis similar to those described in appendix D. In this 
case  represents the probabilty that a 
burnout" is the dependent variable and 
respondent is burned out. Independent variables for the equation include "supervsor 
urban  state  AFDC", and an average score of "knowledge . Table I shows the 
results of this analysis.

Table I 
Odds Ratios for Respondent Burnout 
Parameter Estiates and Adjusted 
Varable  Pareter  Stadad  Odds  95% C. I. 
Estiate  Eror  Ratio  , upper) 
(lower
Intercept  6540  2140 
Knowledge  2377  1146  99) 
Supervor  2826  1606  ( .55, 1.03)

Urban  2248  2045  ( .53, 1.19) 
State  0969  109  1.11  , 1.36) 
0944  1189  1.10  , 1.39) 
In this table, an odds ratio less than one indicates that the presence of a factor 
decreases the likelihood of burnout. These relationships are significant only when the 
confidence interval does not include one. Only a respondent s level of knowledge has 
a significant correlation with burnout of an individual. Those who do not know about 
the Act are much more likely to be burned out than those who know about provisions 
of the Act. 
E - 2
 APPENDIX 

COMM 
AGENCY 
F - 1
 Of 
anrARTMENT OF HEALTH a. HUMAN SERVICES  of the Secretay 
Wasinvton. DC. 
20201 
MAR 3 0 !S92 
TO:  Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General

FROM:  Assistant Secretary for 
Planning and Evaluation

SUBJECT :  Draft Inspection Report on Front-Line Workers 
l-().5- Z-2.D
8q - 0 I 

Thank you for sharing with us your draft report. Your study
finds that there is widepread support among front line-workers

for the provisions of the Family Support Act, even though their

low. It 
knowledge of specific Act provisions is generally  would 
have been helpful to get a better idea what the actual functions

of the respondents were. 
For example, some front-line workers 
might be expected to provide clients with an orientation to the

JOBS program. Other front-line workers may be solely responsible

for income maintenance functions with the expectation that they

will refer their clients to JOBS and child support enforcement to

learn about these programs. 
The data do not tell us to what 
extent respondents had any direct responsibility for JOBS and

child support enforcement. It is unclear whether respondents had

a sufficient level of knowledge about the Act for them to carry

out their jobs effectively. Nonetheless, we hope that since the

survey was conducted a year ago, as States have made further

progress in implementing the Family Support Act's provisions, the

knowledge level of front-line workers about the Act' s provisions

will have increased. 
Please keep us informed about all your studies related to the

Family Support Act and JOBS. 
I understand that your staff have 
just completed a draft report on JOBS Skills Assessment practices

staff 
and we would appreciate receiving a copy for review. My 
would also like to be invited to any future briefings that your

staff provides about such \ studies . Notices of such briefings

should be directed to Jane Baird, Deputy Assistant Secretary for

POlicy, 
Human Services  (245-2409). Thank you. 
Martin 
H. Gerry  ~~~
.,..,

.. 
&. HUMAN SERVICES 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH 
1'''10  ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIE, 
Office of the Assistant Secretary;'suite =600

370 L' Enfant Promenade, S. 
Washington, D.C. 20447

April 
13, 1992 
DATE : 
TO:  Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General 
M I-/' 
Jo Anne B. Barnhart 
FROM: 
Assistant Secretary  amilies 
for Children and 
e Family support Act of 1988: 
SUBJECT:  OIG Draft Report:  What  Do They Think?" 
What Do Front-Line Workers Know? 
OEI-05-89-01220 -- COMMENTS 
report. 
The 
Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft 

comments and suggestions we made during the exit conference have

report. We believe the

all been incorporated into this draft 
report clearly and effectively presents the findings of your

survey. 
are 
findings. We 
We must admit to having mixed views about the 
time. 
optimistic about the high expectations of front-line staff

concerning the effects of the Family support Act over 

staff. 
the same time, we are disappointed about the reported low level

Over the past few
of program familiarity among front-line 

years we have worked hard to promote the Family support Acts yastse man.

important catalyst in changing the culture of the welfareef
forts;
Your study demonstrates that we need to continue these 

obviously more work needs to be done in educating workers about

the Act' s provisions and the potential of the welfare system to 
assist families in becoming self-sufficient.

s early and

We agree with your argument that front-line staff'

ecipients can shape recipients'

oangtoitngi c otntuactd wieth sAF DCa
 bout JOBS and child support programs. As an agency, 
we believe that successful implementaitnisotni touft itohne aFlalmyi.l y support

staff and 
Act means changing welfare agencies 
clients alike need to understand that cash assistance is a

temporary measure which supports families while they take steps

to become economically self-sufficient.

For certain methodological reasons, your study may overstate the

Also, the

problems with the knowledge level of welfare workerTsh.e
  research 
timing of the study could be a mitigating factor.  1991. 
Among
was conducted in the first quarter of calendar year 

sample, 25 percent w re relatively new to

the 19 states in the  Page 2 - Richard P. Kusserow

the program: four states implemented JOBS in October 1990, and a 
1990. 
Also, not all programs were
fifth began JOBS in July 
statewide. 
Perhaps, there is a relationship between the start 
date and level of kneorwvliecdgees .a nd the extent of referral for JOBS

Thus, we would be interested in
and child support 

knowing whether there is a plan to re-survey these or other staff

at some later time.

re-survey, we would lisktea tfhfe.
 
If you decide to conduct a 
For
opportunity to discuss design changes with your 

example, we wonder if there is a direct relationship between the

level of staff knowledge and the amount of time spent working on

AFDC. Chart 1 shows, consistently, that less time spent in AFDC 
However, we

is associated with less JOBS program familiarity. 
example, we 
can I t tell much more from the data collected; for 
cannot tell to what extent those with little familiarity of the

Family support Act were Medicaid workers rather than AFDC

workers. 
Finally, we wonder if there is a possibility of your providing us

wi th further information or doing further analysis of the

existing data. 
First, there seems to bree pa olrott.  of data on the 
For example: a) 
survey which are not discussed in the 
(p. A-8); b) how

what specific training needs were identified 
common is training for workers in areas like case management and

c) how much do agencies rely on in

evaluation of clients; and 
Also, what are the specific 
house training versus other forms? 
knowledge rates of the sub-categories of respondents in Chart 

Secondly, there seems to be more analysis possible on the

knowledge, and

relationships between worker education, attitudes, 
responsibilities. For example: a) is the knowledgec llieevnetls ;h igher

b) are
or lower for workers who spend the most time with  education,
workers who spend a lot of time evaluating clients for 

training and jobs particularly positive about the potential

(c) are there differences between 
effectiveness of JOBS; and 
and others? 
college-educated workers. 
It would be helpful to know if you looked at some of these

nothing, or if you did not have

questions, but the data showed  depth. 
the opportunity to analyze the data in this much 
Addi tional analysis might be helpful; my staff is available to 
meet with your staff if you think additional work would be

tful. 
frui 
F-4  Page 3 - Richard P. Kusserow

comments. 
Following are some editorial 
under BACKGROUND, after Basic Skills and

bPagee if, tohirrd e (JOBS), linei  nsert "Training. " A similar point on page 1 
under BACKGROUND.

Page 1, last paragraph says that the JOBS and child support

agency are separate. In some States, they are in the same

agency. 
If you or your staff have questions or need additional

call. 
information, please do not hesitate to