. '
~~~ ~~~::: ::: ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~..~ ~ ., . ::q 
An OvervieW

Inspect()r 
C)fflce  Get1 
tClI
of 
QJfici3,oiEvaluation. a':dll1  tioQ 
:/:H:  :Ki:i:  fJ;  mhm mKE  :Hm  ti: ifW!'t  W#W  :n:::   ..................~.......~.'...~. . . . ,, .."  .,'  ..     .. ..':. .:: ,., .':. :  : . . : .:..' .:..........,.................'., :....~ :  :. ~: ., ..' ~..  ..~"..~.'.:~.  :. .~: :.' .  :.".. .....,...,...,. ,... ." ... ." , '. .. . .  .. ".,, . ..  ..  . . ............,...,..~ ... ,~.....' ~ ..........,....."..~........~....... ~. .. ... ,... .'...~.. .   ~.  ...".'~. ...,.,"....,...... ....,...,.,.  .. ,  ..,.... , .  .  . . .'. . -."  . .......'.  ,.,..:..~, . .:....... ..'...... . ~.... .'~ .~....~.'"..  ,~   ....,."........",  ,.. .  . .  , ."....,,.,...'........ ."....,.....".,.. .... . ...., ,'. .  .,.   .. . ,.',......~. ".. .~.....: ..~~:...'.....~ ..'..~,...."....,...    .  ... ..,.".. .. , ... ." .  .. ".~....,".~".....'~,.....~.'.,....,'..........'.........'........',..........'.......~....'.....'.~...'..'""'.~.......'',....,,.''......'........',...""''..."'...'"'...,.'.'....'..'...'..,'......,..............................._...,.,...,-.......'........,..,.........".-,.,...'..,.......-....,....-..,.........,.,..............,..,,....,'.-.'....',....'.~,..'....'..,~',...'..,.,,'.~,'......'...'..".'..,...',',."...'...'...'.".,...'.'.....'"...,'..'......'"..'..."'"..,.',................",.....,......."........,...."...,.,......,.."..~............"~."...,...~.."........,...".,,..,........".........,,,,.".......,.....,...,..................,....."......,....".,."......."..........,...............,..
l!il:!::l:iii!I:I:Il_illl,  !I:I!:1:'1:'  ::I:  :::!!I :IIi:i :::::::i!::iIil:ii:i::::I::::illiliIi:l:li:l'Ill:i:I::I:i:II!:i!ll:l:Ii:::i::ii:ll,li:::::'I!II' ::iiiili:li: iii' ::"i::::1":1 1ilii!i:i!!Il':il:Ii::I:Iiii,li:!i': ili i:l:iII,.il l::"'l i"' 'll'lil'l!'l' il'ii'll'li'iI'II'II'IJ'I'!11.:1!'1I:'1IJ'1I1.:I:'1:I1'I!1'i1i'l:l':i'!:':l'ili'll'il'li-ll-ii-ll'lll'll0:1-:-ll-ill'll-ll-!I'I:'II-I'II
IIIIIiiIlIlIiI:!iIllIiIJ:lJlilJl:lii!il:lii!l!!lIiIllIi!lIlIlil,l1:::i:lIlI!IiIliIlI!:
An Overview 
Richard P. Kusserow 
Inspector General 
:r: 
OEI-12-89-01320  FEBRUARY 1990  PURPOSE 
This report, and related technical reports, describes the operation of a sample of 
mature, well-regarded and comprehensive pre-JOBS work programs for AFC re
cipients and the insights of the admnistrators of those programs. Our purose 
was to provide infonnation useful to State and county welfare agencies imple
menting JOBS. 
BACKGROUND 
The Famiy Support Act of 1988, requires the States to implement a new, more 
comprehensive work program for Aid to Families with Dependent Children 
(AFC) recipients. This program, called Job Opportunities and Basic Skills or 
JOBS, wil replace the current AFC Work Incentive (WN) programs. A few of 
WI 
the highly regarded  and WIN demonstration programs were used as models 
for JOBS. 
The Federal Government will fund JOBS as a capped entitlement at an enhanced 
AFDC matching rate. Federal expenditures for JOBS in Fiscal Year 1989 were 
capped at $600,000 00. The cap rises each year until Fiscal Year 1995 when it 
wil be $1 300 000,000. After that funding is expected to be somewhat lower. 
All States must implement the JOBS program by October 1990. Upon approval 
of its plan , a State may implement its program as early as July 1 , 1989. Manda
tory paricipation rates for AFDC recipients wil be expected of the States. Rates 
wil increase from 7 percent in 1990 to 20 percent in 1995. 
JOBS includes four mandatory components which all States must offer. These 
are: (1) education, (2) job skils training, (3) job readiness activities, and (4) job 
development and job placement. 
The States must also offer two of the following: (1) group and individual job 
search, (2) on-the-job training, (3) work supplementation, or (4) the Community 
Work Experience Program (CWEP) or some other work experience. 
States must provide supportive services to their JOBS paricipants. These ser
vices must include child care, transportation, and compensation for some work-re
lated expenses. States may use JOBS funds to provide case management 
servIces. 
Working Toward JOBS  Executive Summary  In addition to these components, States are required to (1) inform all AFC recipi
ents of the services available under JOBS, (2) perform an initial assessment of 
each JOBS paricipant, and (3) work with each JOBS parcipant to prepare a plan 
of action leading to employment. 
METHODOLOGY 
We selected eight States which had a matur, comprehensive and well-regarded 
AFC 
work program prior to JOBS. These programs were also selected because 
they var by certain characteristics (i.e., program strcture, geogrphy, employ
ment and training services provided). The paricipating programs are: California 
Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washing
ton. Because the program in California is county run, the County of San Diego 
was also invited to participate. 
Data collection for this study was done from April to September of 1989. The in
formation in this overview report, and related technical reports, is based on pre-
JOBS work programs for AFDC recipients. 
Site visits were conducted at the Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Washington, and 
County of San Diego programs. All of the paricipating programs completed ex
tensivemail survey guides.

The directors of the paricipating programs took par in an OIG sponsored confer
ence, August 1- , 1989. At this conference, which utilized a varant of the focus 
group discussion method, the program directors discussed problems encountered 
lessons leared and model practices. 
We consulted regularly with an advisory group formed of representatives from the 
Family Support Administration, the Offce of the Assistant Secretar for Planning 
and Evaluation, and the Office of the Assistant Secreta for Management and 
Budget. 
FINDINGS 
In choosing the information to highlight in this overview report, we concentrated 
on findings which represent trends visible in a significant number of the programs 
studied. We also chose to direct most of our attention to issues which the Family 
Support Act leaves to the discretion of the States. 
Job readiness is integrated into other activities. 
The progrm administrators defined job readiness activities as those which teach 
life skils and specific  They feel that it is not a 
job search or job retention skils. 
Working Toward JOBS  Executive Summary  discrete activity, but is integrated through every component. Group job search 
usually contains a wide spectrm of job readiness activities. The program admin
istrators report including job readiness activities in orientation, education, job 
skills traiing and work supplementation. 
Group job search is the best regarded of the JOBS components. 
progrs 
All of the programs studied offer group job search. The majority of 
namng their most effective and most cost effective components, named group job 
search. 
The specific form of group job search vares. Usually it is divided into two sec
discussion of job search and work related issues, and (2) a super
tions: (1) the 
vised job search including calls to employers from a telephone bank. Many of the 
, personal drve and 
group job search components emphasize building self-esteem
developing supportive relationships between the panicipants. 
Case management is also highly regarded. 
All of the programs studied employ a case management approach. When we dis
cussed case management with the program administrators, they emphasized four 
basic concepts: accountability, continuity, encouragement, and empowerment. 
Each of the case management models includes a specific case manager assigned 
to a panicipant on an ongoing basis. The case manager is responsible for tracking 
and encouraging the participant s progress and assuring that the paricipant re
ceives needed services. Beyond this, however, there is wide varation in the defi
nition and implementation of case management. 
The majority of the programs emphasize local Ie vel flexibilty. 
Only one of the State programs studied, California s Greater Avenues to Indepen
dence (GAIN), is actually run by local level government. However, the majority 
of the other progr..ms studied, including all in the heavily populous States, encour
age local level variation by allowing local State welfare offices discretion in how 
they implement the work program. 
These programs acknowledge the importance of the line worker and strve to enhance 
their effectiveness.

The program administmtors stressed that the line worker can "make or break" the 
program. The progr..m administrators considered attitude central to the success 
of a line worker. They try to create a proper attitude through a varety of meth
ods, including recognizing achievement and giving awards. 
Working Toward JOBS  Executive Summary  iii  . . ..  ,.  ,.  ..  ..  . ..  ..  ..  .,  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  ..  .. ; ..:.;.:..:...,:..:...:...;..:...:..;.. :...:.. :...:..;...;.:....:..:...:.-.:...:..:..;. ..:...:. . .:...:-- :...:....:. ..;...;:.... ;.:...;.;...:;. ...:;...... :::..  .. :.::......:..: ..-:  .  :.-.;....:..;.. .:   ;...;.....;....: . .  :.......:... :   ..;......-.:.  .  - ; :....;......:..:.      ;.:. ...;......:.. .     ;:.....;;.........:      ...;.........:..      :.......:.....;  .    ..:........ :. .     .;..........;..      ;........:...:      ...:.........:.  .    :.........:..  :.    ..;........;.  .    .:........:...  ;    ..:.........;  .  .  ;.........;..  ;    -.;..-.....;-  .    :--......-;.      :.....;.....-.;      -.:........:.  .    ;.........;..  :    ...:......-.:.      -.;........:..      .:....;......:.      ..;........:..      .:......:.......:       ...:........:..    . . ;......;......;      ..:.........;. .    .  :.......;...,. :     . .:........,.;.  .      .;.........:..   :    .....:.......  ;. .    ,.:..... ...: ...  : .  .. : ........:..:,.   .  .; : .....;....:....:.    ;  . ..::.........;.; .    .. :....,:...;... . :.:    ....;.:.... ...: ;.;.. .  . :.,.;:. ....:... :;..,..-:- .:   -.:. .:..: .....-..;:."..  .   :.: -......;;.......- :    .  :..:...,.-,.... ;: .;  ..   .:..,;-,..... .... . :;. . . .. ,,:.:. "..... .; .'.. . ,; , .. .;. .. -...'.,.   _ "   ..,....,   .    ,....,.,.   .   . -,...,. ;.. "   .. ; ,.,.. .;. ....  .;,  . ...:..,....;....  .....:,.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 
INTRODUCTION 
. 1

PURPOSE 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

BACKGROUND 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

METHODOLOGY. 
PRODUCTS. 
FINDINGS.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 
The programs studied offer a wide range of 
activities. Most offer a wide range of supportive 
services. ....................,.......................'"  , 7 
Job readiness is integrated into other services. It 
not a discrete, easily defined activity. 
Group job search is the best regarded of the JOBS 
components. .  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 9 
Case management is also highly regarded. . 
The majority of the programs emphasize local level 
flexibility and input. . 
The program administrators stressed the 
importance of constructing work programs 
relation to specific State and local characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . , 12 
These programs acknowledge the importance of 
the line worker and strive to enhance their 
effectiveness. .,.............,.,.......,.....,.."  ." 13

APPENDIX  A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  A- 1
Working Toward JOBS  Table of Contents  i__

PURPOSE 
This report, and related technical reports, descrbes the operation of a sample of 
AFC 
mature, well-regarded and comprehensive pre-JOBS work programs for 
recipients and the insights of the admistrators of those programs. Our purpose 
was to provide infonnation useful to the State and county welfar agencies 
implementing JOBS. 
BACKGROUND 
History of Work Programs for Recipients of Aid to Familes with Dependent Children 
(AFC) 
The idea that Aid to Families with Dependent Children  should be 
temporar assistance for families on their way to self suffciency is not new. 
1962, the Community Work and Training Program fIrst brought the Deparment 
of Health, Education and Welfare (HW), precursor to the Deparment of Health 
and Human Services (HS), together with State and local welfare agencies in an 
attempt to provide work for welfare recipients. In 1967, this program was 
replaced by the Work Incentive (WN) program. All States were required to 
implement WIN programs to be jointly overseen by HEW and the Deparment of 
Labor (DOL). Although some successes were achieved under WIN, many felt 
that the program was too limited and did not allow enough flexibility. 
In 1982, States received the option to create WIN Demonstration programs (WIN 
Demos) as an alternative WIN. Under the WIN Demo, the State welfare 
deparent is given sole authority for running the work program. States can 
devise specific processes and services adapted to their own circumstances and 
priorities. Before the July 1989 initial implementation of JOBS , WIN Demo 
projects were run by 26 States. 
Before the initial implementation of JOBS, slightly more than half of the States 
were also operating Community Work Experience, Employment Search Program 
and/or Work Supplementation with AFDC funding. These welfare work 
programs did not fall under the same authority as WIN. These programs were 
under the authority of and funded by the AFDC program. 
The Family Support Act of 1988 
Over time, the funding and support available to these work programs lessened. 
Although many States were recognized as running model programs, other State 
programs were thought meager and ineffective. Some interested Federal and 
Working Toward JOBS  Introduction  WI 
State offcials raised concerns that AFDC, and most WIN and  Demo 
programs, were sustaning rather than alleviating povert. 
In 1985 and, 1986 the movement toward welfar refonn accelerated. In July 
1985, the American Public Welfar Association published "One Child in Four 
which called for a re-evaluation of the nation s welfar program and commtment 
to helping the poor. Fonner President Reagan voiced simlar concern in his 1986 
State of the Union Address and asked Congress to work with him on an overhaul 
of AFDC priorities. The Governors, workig through the National Governors 
Association, expressed their interest in refonnng the welfare system to help 
AFC 
recipients move toward self-sufficiency. 
Congress, the Admnistration, and the States worked together to refonn the 
welfare system. The resultant legislation, the Famly Support Act of 1988, aims 
to refonn AFDC income maintenance into a program that can enable welfare 
recipients to become independent. The Act made many important amendments to 
the AFDC program, including strengthening child support enforcement, requiring 
transitional day care and extended Medicaid benefits for clients moving from 
AFC 
to self-sufficiency and establishing the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills 
Traning (JOBS) program.

Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) 
The Family Support Act of 1988 mandates that the earlier work programs be 
replaced by the new, more comprehensive, JOBS program. 
The Federal Role 
The Federal Government will fund JOBS as a capped entitlement at an enhanced 
AFDC matching rate. The Act caps Federal expenditures for JOBS in Fiscal Year 
1989 at $600,  000 and raises it each year until Fiscal Year 1995 when it hits a 
high of $1 ,300,000,000. After that funding is expected to be somewhat lower due 
to the number of AFDC recipients who wil already have moved into 
employment. 
The Federal oversight role in JOBS wil be perfonned through the HHS Family 
Support Administration (FSA). The FSA is responsible for (1) issuing regulations 
implementing the JOBS progrm, (2) approving State plans, (3) assisting and 
overseeing State implementation, and (4) coordinating with the DOL and other 
Federal agencies involved in other work and education programs. 
Requirements for States 
Orientation/Assessment/Employability Planning: 
 Under JOBS, States ar required to (1) 
infonn all AFC recipients of the services available under JOBS; (2) initially as
sess the educational, child car, medical, and other support service needs of each 
JOBS program parcipant, as well as the paricipant s job skills, work history and 
Working Toward JOBS  Introduction  employabilty; and (3) work with each JOBS parcipant to prepar an employabil
ity plan. The employability plan wil establish an employment goal and specify 
progr 
the JOBS  activities and supportve services which wil be offered to help 
possible, the employability 
the paricipant achieve the goal. To the gratest extent 
plan should reflect the desires and goals of the parcipant. It should also take 
into account available JOBS resources and local employment opportunities. 
To addrss these assessed needs the States must offer (by provid
Required Components: 

all of the following JOBS activities and services: 
ing diectly or contracting for) 
(1) education, includig high school or equivalency, basic, remedial and English 
as second language; (2) job skils training specific to jobs available in the local 
marketplace; (3) job readiness activities which help parcipants gain social skills 
and atttudes necessar for work; and (4) job development (identifying and en
couraging the creation of job openings) and job placement (referrals to specific 
available jobs).

The States must also offer at least two of the following: (1) 
Optional Components: 

group and individual job search to assist paricipants in seeking employment; (2) 
on-the-job training in which the JOBS program parally subsidizes a paricipant 
wage durng a limited training period; (3) work supplementation programs under 
which the State pays employers all or par of the paricipant s AFC benefits to 
subsidize their salar for some limited amount of time; or (4) the Community 
Work Experience Program (CWEP) or some other work experience in which 
AFC recipients work, without pay, for non-profit organizations or government 
agencies. In addition to the above requirements, States may choose to offer addi
tional education (post-secondar) or any other activities that are allowed by regu
lations. 
States ar not required to implement case management, but may use 
Case Management: 

JOBS funds to provide case management services. Although specific definitions 
of case management var, it is generally understoo to include an ongoing rela
tionship between a worker and a paricipant which lasts the entire time a parci
pant is in the program. The worker is generally responsible for tracking the client 
and helping them access needed services. 
States must provide supponive services to their JOBS paricipants. 
Supportive Services: 

These services must include child car, transportation, and compensation for 
some work-related expenses. 
States may not require that a welfare recipient accept a job which 
Minimum Income: 

would result in a net loss of cash income unless the State offers a supplement 
which brings the total income to at least the fonner benefit level. 
Working Toward JOBS  Introduction  The JOBS program tagets for paricipation: AFC applicants or re
Target Populations: 

cipients with a long-tenn history of welfare receipt, parents under 24 without a 
high school diploma or work experience in the previous year, and members of a 
AFC. 
famly in which the youngest child is within 2 years of being ineligible for 
Mandatory minimum parcipation rates for AFC recipients wil 
Participation Rates: 

be expected of the States, with some exceptions. Rates wil increase from 7 per
cent in 1990 to 20 percent in 1995. 
All States must implement the JOBS program by October 1990. Upon 
Implementation: 
approval of its plan, a State may implement its program as early as July 1 , 1989. 
Each State JOBS program must be operating statewide as of October 1992. 
Interaction with other Federal States may not use JOBS 
, State and Local Resources: 
monies to fund activities which are already available from other Federal, State or 
local government sources. For example, JOBS money can not be used to pay for 
high school classes, equivalency classes where those are aleady avaiable 
through local public education. 
For many States, implementing JOBS wil involve entirely new programs or 
major enhancements of existing ones. 
METHODOLOGY 
We selected eight States and one county which had comprehensive, mature and 
well-regarded work programs for AFDC recipients prior to JOBS. These 
programs were also selected because they vared by certain characteristics such as 
We conducted site visits at four of the 
services offered and client charcteristics. 
progrs 
and conducted a mail survey of all of the programs. All of the program 
day series of focus group discussions on work program 
directors attended a 3-
issues. While conducting this study we regularly consulted with experts within 
the Federal Government and outside organizations. 
Data collection for this study was done from April to September of 1989. The 
infonnation in this overview report, and related technical reports, is based on 
pre-JOBS work programs for AFDC recipients. As these progrms have 
converted to JOBS, they may have made some changes to meet JOBS legal and 
regulatory requirements. Where possible, we have noted the changes the program 
administrators anticipated at the time of our data collection. 
Site Selection 
Eight States were selected through a two-tier process. The first tier was designed 
to insure that the programs studied would all be mature programs from which 
model practices could be derived. Our research showed that there were 20 States 
Working Toward JOBS  Introduction  that met the criteria established for the ftrst tier. The second tier reftned that list 
progrs 
into a ftnal sample of eight  which are diverse in strcture and 
so that study findings would have meaning for 
cirumstance. This was done 
For an in-depth 
States with disparate goals, circumstances and resources. 
discussion of the selection process, please see appendix A. 
The States parcipatig are: California, Delaware, Florida, Massachusetts, 
progr 
Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Washington. Because the 
California is county run, the County of San Diego was also included to provide 
the local level implementation perspective. 
Site Visits and Mail Guides 
Site visits were conducted at the Massachusetts, Oklahoma, Washington and San 
guides
Diego County programs. While on site we interviewed State program 
admnistrators, local welfare offce staff, training contractors, paricipating 
employers, and paricipating AFDC clients. All of the paricipating programs 
designed to detennine program strcture and 
completed extensive mail 
characteristics.
Focus Group Discussion 
The adnistrators of the progrs studied parcipate in an OIG spnsored, 3-day 
conference caled "Working Toward JOBS". The conference used a varant of the 
focus group discussion method to elicit the progr diectors' views on the effective 
adnistration of work programs. Discussions centere on problems encountered, 
lessons leared and model practices. The speific topics discussed were drwn from 
the site visits, and meetings with outside interest grups and relevant offcials within 
Deparnt.  for encourging parcipant 
the  The topics discusse included: strtegies 
success, coordnatig with other programs, identifyig and assistig potential 
progr. 
employers, stamg issues, and establishing a work 
Contacts with Experts in the Field 
Outside consultation and advice is an integral par of this project. Input has been 
solicited from the American Public Welfare Association (APWA), the National 
Governors Association (NGA), and other interested groups. 
Relevant actors within the Deparment were asked to paricipate in a JOBS 
Advisory Group (JAG) established to give expen counsel at imponant points 
Offce of the 
within the inspection. Members of the JAG are drawn from the 
Assistant Secreta for Management and Budget, the Offce of the Assistant 
guides.
, and the Office of Program Evaluation and 
Secretar for Planning and Evaluation
The 
the Office of Family Assistance within the Family Suppon Administration. 
JAG met to provide input during initial research, to assist in site selection, and to 
The JAG also
offer suggestions for topics to be covered in the mail 
Working Toward JOBS  Introduction  , "

suggested topics for focus group discussions at the conference and commented on 
draft reports. 
PRODUCTS 
In addition to this overview report, we have prepared technical reports profiing 
each of the parcipating programs. While this report contains infonnation on the 
practices common to several of the programs, the profies provide detaled 
infonnation about each of the programs and their unique practices and 
experiences. The profiles include an activity listing which describes all of the 
program services and how they ar provided. The profies also include an 
overview statement submitted by the program admnistrator and sample 
ar 
documents. The profiles  entitled: 
The California Greater Avenues for Independence  (OEI-12-89-01321); 
(GAIN) Program 
(OEI-12-89-01322);
The Delaware First Step Program 

(OEI-12-89-01323);
The Florida Project Independence Program 

The Massachusetts Employment and Training (Ef)  (OEI-12-89-0l324); 
Program 
(MOST) Program (OEI-12-89-01325);
The Michigan Opportunity and Skils Training 

(OEI-12-89-01326);
The Nebraska Job Support Program 

(OEI-12-89-01327);
The Oklahoma Employment and Training Program 

The Washington Opportunities and Family Independence (FIP) Programs 
(OEI-12-89-01328); and 
The County of San Diego Greater Avenuesfor Independence (GAIN) Program 
(OEI-12-89-01329). 
We have also published a technical repoI1 summarzing the conference  Working 
Toward JOBS: Conference Summar" (OEI-12-89-00920). The conference 
summar  of the parcipating program managers on such 
repOI1s the opinions 
subjects as: encouraging voluntar parcipation, staffng, and encouraging client 
success. 
Working Toward JOBS  Introduction  Our review of these work programs has generated a 
grat deal of information. In 
choosing the information to highlight in this overview repon we concentrated on 
fmdings which represent trends visible in a significant number of the programs 
studied. Information on the unique features of each of the programs is available 
in the technical repons. 
Given that the purpose of this effon is to provide useful information to States and 
counties developing JOBS programs, we also chose to diect most of our attention 
to issues which the Famly Suppon Act leaves to the discretion of the States, 
rather than aras where State action is diectly prescribed by the Act. 
The programs studied offer a wide range of activities. Most offer a wide array of 
supportve services. 
As required under JOBS, almost all of the programs studied begin with orienta
tion, assessment and employability planning. They also offer a varety of educa
tion, job services and skills training activities. 
Almost all of the programs include adult basic education and high school classes. 
Most also offer post-secondar education and about half offer English as a second 
language. Among the job services, group job search is offered by all of the pro
, job placement 
grams and almost all of the programs include individual job search
referrals, and job development. Nearly all of the programs offer the following 
community work experience, specific skils training, and 
skils training services: 
on the job training. Slightly more than half of the programs offer work supple
mentation. Three of the programs offer post-placement services in which they 
check in" on employed fonner parcipants. 
Child care and transponation ar offered universally. Many of the programs paid 
for work and training related expenses, such as safety equipment or uniforms. A 
few also offer medical expenses, necessar for training or work, which are not 
covered by Medicaid. These include pre-employment physicals, and sometimes 
needed optical or dental services. A small number also pay for personal counsel
ing if it is necessar to help a participant or their family adjust to employment. 
Job readiness is integrated into other services. It is not a discrete, easily defined 
activity. 
progrs 
The Family Suppon Act requires that State JOBS  include job readiness 
activities. The implementing regulations define job readiness activities as "activi
ties that help prepare parcipants for work by assuring that panicipants ar famil-
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  , "

iar with general workplace expectations and exhibit work behavior and attitudes 
necessar to compete successfully in the labor market. 
conference we asked the program admiistrators to 
At the  Working Toward JOBS 

defme job readiess activities in detail. While some expressed uncertainty, many 
admis
expressed agreement with the definition given by the Michigan program 
tttor: 
It's a combination of abilty-to-cope kinds of skils: counseling, 
family management, self-esteem, self confidence, communications 
skils, money management, parenting. The whole mileu of social 
skils. Getting along in the work place for people that haven t and 
combining that with essential remediation to bring people whose 
education levels were not at a point where they would be 
whatever scarce jobs were in the community and 
competitive for 
tying that whole package together and that becomes the job 
readiness activities. 
Other program directors felt that job readiess was better described as teaching 
such as interviewing tech
specific job and job search related skils and attitudes: 
niques, proper work attitudes, fillng out an application, etc. Elaborating on this 
point, the Oklahoma program administrator said  You teach them what the sys
tem is, how work is, what the expectations of work are, you help them to under
stand the impact of not working on their lives... 
The program administrators agreed that job readiness is not a discrete activity, but 
is ideally integrated through every component. According to the Washington pro
Job readiness activities are an ongoing piece of the program 
gram admistrator: "
for the duration of the time that your client is with you ... It isn t a discreet activ
ity, its something that goes on throughout the process in order to help a client be 
ready to go to work when the training or whatever is completed. 
Group job search usually contains a wide spectrm of job readiness activities. It 
is the component in which job readiness issues are most commonly addressed. 
Any group job search wil deal with the basic skils needed to perform a job 
search. Many also emphasize life skils, often using a group dynamic approach to 
increase self confidence. 
Job readiness activities are also incorporated into a number of other program com
ponents. In Oklahoma job readiness is combined with orientation in five, four-
hour sessions which cover: program information, exercises to build 
self-confidence, employer expectations, interviewing, completing job applica
tions, setting goals and managing home and work. Life skils are also incorpo
rated into Delaware s adult basic education program. 
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  Some programs combine job readiness with job skils training. One traiing con
trctor in Massachusetts runs a mock company for 2 weeks of each training ses
parcipants to get a sense of how a company operates and to 
sion. This enables 
understand work world pressurs.

progrs 
One of the work supplementation  in Massachusetts begins with 2 weeks 
of job readiness training which includes setting long term goals, balancing work 
and famly, self confidence, and working against the expectation of failure. 
Groupjob search is the best regarded of  components.
the  JOBS 
Group job search is the only optional JOBS activity offered by all of the programs 
studied. We asked each of the programs studied to name the components they 
into unsupported work 
considered to be the most effective in placing paricipants 
and the components they considered most cost effective. Of the five programs 
namng their most effective component, four named group job search. Of the five 
programs which named their most cost effective components, four named group 
of the program administrtors to describe a model 
job search. We also asked each 
practice or procedure, three described their group job search. 
The program administrators offered a varety of reasons for placing emphasis on 
rates. For 
group job search. Some of the program administrators cited placement 
instance, the Kent County, Michigan group job search regularly maintains a 35 to 
50 percent obtained employment rate. A few of the program administrators em
phasized that these significant placement rates corne after low program dollar in
vestment. Group job search simply costs less than a training or education activity, 
and yet it results in significant numbers of placements. A few of the program ad
ministrators valued group job search as an early activity because it allows the 
local labor market to detennine a paricipant s job readiness and need for further 
training. 
The specific form which a group job search takes vares; even the name vares 
with some programs callng it group job search, others job workshops, and still 
others job club. The programs which offered detailed description of their group 
job search usually divided the component into two pars. In the first par work re
lated issues are discussed in a classroom or roundtable setting. These issues in
clude: identification of skills and interests, self confidence, job application 
techniques, labor market characteristics, personal grooming, work place behavior 
interviewing, identifying job leads, and job retention. The second par consists of 
, with paricipants making calls to employers, applying for 
supervised job search
jobs and doing interviews. 
Many of the group job search components emphasize the interrelation of parici
pants. The sessions include a great deal of group discussion. Paricipants are en
couraged to give feedback to one another on their efforts, to discuss problems and 
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  , "  , "

...  ... 
challenges, and offer each other encouragement. The Nebraska program admnis
The group dynamcs methodology is very important in the work
ttator stated, "
shop (group job search). It helps the clients build the self-esteem that many lack. 
This approach also enables the clients to build their interpersonal skills, which 
wil be needed in the workplace. Most important to this methodology, the parici
pants in the workshop have the opportnity to develop frendships which can be a 
source of support in dificult times. 
The importance of building self-esteem and personal drve was emphasized by 
many of the program admisttators. The County of San Diego program adminis
ttator reinforced this point by saying "The biggest par of what goes on there (in 
group job search) for 99.9 percent of those folks is the issue of motivation and 
self esteem. 
Case management is also highly regarded. 
All of the programs studied employ a case management approach. When we dis
cussed case management with the program admnistrators, they emphasized the 
importance of case management as a way to achieve four basic goals: account
ability, continuity, encouragement, and empowerment. In the words of the 
County of San Diego program administrator: 
I think the concept of a single case manager has to do with you 
need to have somebody accountable from the staff side of the 
house making sure that these people get assessed, that they are 
doing what they are supposed to be doing. They can provide 
services, counseling, advice, encouragement and enthusiasm. 
They are a cheerleader. It s a relationship. You can t be passing 
So having somebody
this thing  It gets lost in the translation 

who can do the whole gamut is a key ingredient. 
Accountability assures that there is one person who knows that it is their job to 
Continuity enables the case man
help meet the needs of a specific paricipant. 
ager to have a long term understanding of the needs of the parcipant and to de
them to be, in the words of the 
velop a relationship with the paricipant. It allows 
Washington program administrator  a constant force in a person s life. 
Many of the program administrators spoke of the importance of encouragement 
stressing how that increases self-esteem and empowers the parcipant. Elaborat
ing on this point, the Delawar program administrator said that the case 
manager s role is "empowering that client, acknowledging when that client has 
been successful in overcoming an obstacle ... encouraging them to develop the 
strengths that they aleady have  . Another aspect of empowerment was discussed 
by the California program administrator  We teach them how to do it and then 
they go out and do it. ... That s what life is about ... You make people self-suffi-
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  of the mechanisms that 
cient in whatever regard it is, whether its child car or any 
go wrong in a person s life so they can t go to ajob. 
Each of the.case management models includes a specific case manager assigned 
is responsible for tracking 
to a paricipant on an ongoing basis. The case manager 
s progress and helping the paricipant access 
and encouraging the paricipant 
needed services. 
Beyond this, however, there is wide varation in the definition of case manage
ment and its effective implementation. In many of the programs the case man
ager is responsible for conducting the assessment and working with the 
parcipant to develop an employabilty plan. In some programs the case manager 
acts as a broker, helping the parcipant identify and access varous services. In 
some models a case manager interacts with other staff (such as an employment 
and training or child care specialist) who also provide assistance and encourage
ment to the paricipant on an ongoing basis. Some programs see the case man
ager as an advocate, representing the paricipant within the AFDC system. 
The majority of the programs emphasize local level flexibility and input. 
Only one of the State programs studied, California s GAIN, is actually run by 
local level government. However, the majority of the other programs studied, in
cluding all in the heavily populous States, encourage local level varation by al
lowing local State welfare offices discretion in how to implement the work 
local labor market 
program. This allows local level offces to fit the program to 
var 
and client needs. These can  greatly as most States include both densely pop
ulated, developed areas and remote rural areas. 
One program, ET Choices in Massachusetts, changed from a centrally run pro
gram to an emphasis on local level input. When we asked why, the program ad
ministrator responded: "It was staring not to work. We needed the help. Local 
offices were the ones that were making the program work and they were feeding 
back to central saying you ve got to get out of the ivory tower and into the field, 
and we did." The program administrator from Michigan reinforced the impor
tance of local level input by saying, "I don t think there is any question but you 
have to have local investment. The practitioner level people have to be invested 
in development, planning and awareness of what the overall objectives are. ... 
to do. It' 
Local people have the best feel for what their communities ar able 
easy to  mandate things but then you find out it just doesn t work. There has 
tr to 
to be real local investment and incentive to be involved. 
California s GAIN progrm is administered at the local level by the county wel
the basic strctur of the program is set at the State 
far deparments, although 
implement their GAIN programs, they are required to de
level. Before counties 
velop a plan that specifies the arangement and method by which services wil be 
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  provided. The county GAIN plan is approved by the County Board of Supervi
sors and then submitted to the State Deparment of Social Services for their ap
proval. County plans are updated annually. The State also meets on a monthly 
basis with the County Welfare Directors Association and its varous subcommt
tees to get their input into program policy development and decision makng. 
Varations of this pattern are used by those programs which allow flexibility to 
the local level State welfare offices. For instance, in Florida the State detennnes 
program policy, guidelines and goals. Within those centrally detenned parame
ters the State s 11 geogrphic distrcts develop implementation plans. The central 
State welfare office monitors the implementation of these plans to ensure that 
they meet Federal and State requirements. 
progrs 
A few of the  also report meeting with local level State offces and com
munity representatives while developing or during the course of their program. 
For example, the State Welfare Commissioner of Massachusetts convenes 
monthly meetings of the directors of the State s 57 local welfare offices. The all-
day meeting includes discussion of ET Choices perfonnance and planning issues. 
The greatest area of varation between local level offices is in the provision of ser
detennine centrally the basic menu of services to be of
vices. States generally 
fered, but allow the local offces or regions to detennine how best to provide the 
service. The local offices often decide how to strcture the services and whether 
they should be provided in house or by contract. 
The program administrators stressed the importance of constructing work programs in 
relation to specifc State and local characteristics. 
We asked the program administrators what types of infonnation ar needed to con
strct a JOBS program. Drawing on their experience with their pre-JOBS pro
grams, they first came up with a list of infonnation points they would insist upon 
knowing before undertaking a JOBS program. The point which came up most 
often was the extent of administrative and legislative support for the program. 
Another point that was strssed was knowing the purpose of the program and the 
goals it would be expected to achieve. Other issues mentioned include: available 
financial resources; how the State has dealt with social issues; the extent of the 
provider community; the level of commitment from other Government agencies 
and community resources; what related services are currently being provided 
who is doing it, and what can/wil they do for JOBS parcipants. 
Before designing the progrm, the program administrators felt they would need to 
know a number of different client characteristics. These would help them deter
mine the needs of the client population and thus the proper emphasis for the pro
gram. They were paricularly interested in the client population s numbers to be 
served by: education level, geographic distrbution, job skils, employment expe-
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  , "

rience, number and age of children, proporton of AFC-Unemployed Parent to 
AFC. 
single parent famlies, languages, refugee status, and length of spell on 
When developing their pre-JOBS work programs, many of the progrm adminis
trators sought this infonnation though a review of a sample of AFC income 
maintenance case files. One State, California, reponed that they also conducted a 
AFC 
telephone surey of a sample of  clients. 
Most States detennned education level by last grde completed. Delaware, how
ever, discovered that could be misleading. When they gave an assessment test to 
a sample of their clients, they discovered that education levels were much lower 
than judged under the last grade completed standard. The realization that educa
tion levels were lower than previously believed, led the Delaware program to 
place more emphasis on adult basic education. 
Other State characteristics that the program administrators felt greatly effect 
program design are the S tate and local economy, labor market and child care re
sources. The program administrators felt that to be effective, a program must 
know what kinds of skils ar needed in the marketplace in order to plan appropri
ate training. 
These programs acknowledge the importance of the line worker and strve to enhance 
their effectiveness.

Throughout our discussions the program administrators stressed that the line 
progr 
worker, as the Nebraska  administrator said, "can make or break a pro
gram." The program director from Michigan crystallzed this point, when he said 
Employment and training is an an. There is no question about its being the peo
ple that are doing the program ar the program. And I think more and more there 
has to be the understanding that those folks that are doing it are the ones that 
make it a viable program. 
The program administrJtors also agreed on what makes a good line worker. As 
the Florida program administrator explained  By goo people I am not saying 
that you hire people with a certin degre or a certin educational background or 
even a certain experience background. It' s a question of commitment. It' s a ques
tion of having a feeling for what it is we are tring to do. Having some kind of al
most spirtual or religious commitment to the idea of really helping people get the 
Government off their back." As the Massachusetts program administrator said 
Attitude is key. 
This confIrmed our observations at orientation and group job search sessions 
where parcipant response seemed closely linked to the line worker s ability to 
project enthusiasm. We were, at one site, given the opportunity to talk with mem
bers of a job club about what they liked best about the club and what they thought 
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  made the biggest difference. They had nothing but praise for their job club leader 
and al agreed that it was their leader that made the club a success. 
We asked the program admistrators how they create and foster line worker atti
tudes that lead to the success of the program. Each of the programs attempts to 
do this in a varety of ways. The San Diego County program administrtor men
tioned many of these methods when he said, "We provide a lot of high visibilty. 
tals. 
We provide a lot of pep  We provide certficates. We tr to take people out 
even for local conferences within the county or to offer them some special train
ing. 
What we heard most often was the importance of recognizing achievement and 
progr 
administrtor explains, "The fight is how 
giving awards. The California 
do you keep that enthusiasm up among your workers and how do you build their 
self esteem as a worker just like you have to keep up the enthusiasm of the cli
ents. So you have got to be doing the same things for the worker, almost, that 
you do for the clients  which is catching people doing something good instead 
of doing something bad. Recognizing the positive so you can keep them excited. 
Building a sense of ownership and team spirit was another important issue. The 
program administrators said they tred to do this in a varety of ways. Many of 
the program managers said that local level flexibility and including the line work
ers in decision making ar the most important ways to create a sense of owner
stories from successful clients and visits from 
ship. Newsletters featuring 
successful clients, were frequently mentioned. Two of the programs require that 
workers wear program pins. Two States have sponsored birthday paries for their 
work program. 
Echoing the views of many, the Massachusetts program administrator said, "Atti
tude is key and attitude stas at the top." Most of the program administrators said 
that their Governor and deparment heads had made visits to local offces and 
stressed the importance of the work program. The Washington program adminis
Governor and deparment heads "would fly to each new site and 
trtor said, the 
the offce would have a little pary for them. ... To have them go out and literally 
do ribbon cutting and say this is a really important offce has done wonders." The 
program administrtors saw a great benefit to this , as the Nebraska program ad
ministrator said "You really can tell the difference when the top gets involved. 
While we principally discussed the importance of the work progrm staff, many 
of the program administrators emphasized that all welfare office staff need to be 
aware of the program and work for its success. This includes everyone from the 
income maintenance staff to the receptionist at the door. The program administra
tors said that it was paricularly important to include non-work program staff in 
awards ceremonies and share client success stories with them. 
Working Toward JOBS  Findings  Eight States were selected through a two-tier process. The first tier was de
signed to insure that the programs studied would all be mature programs from 
which model practices could be derived. The second tier analysis was per:' 
formed so that the final sample would include programs which are diverse in 
was done so that study findings would have 
strcture and circumstance. This 
meaning for States with disparate goals, circumstances and resources. 
Tier I

In the first tier we crated a sample of those States which have faily matu, com
progrs  AIC 
prehensive and well-regarded work  for  recipients. This sample 
was drawn from suggestions made in interviews with the American Public Wel
far Association, the National Governors Association, and members of the JOBS 
Advisory Group (JAG). The States in this initial sample were: CA, cr, DE, FL 
, n., lA, KS, MD, MA, MI, MN, NE, NJ, OR, OK, OR, PA, WA, and WI. 
Tier II

The initial sample was refined to a final sample of eight States which var by cer
tan characteristics. So that site visits could be conducted in a timely manner, two 
States were selected immediately. Those States, Massachusetts and Oklahoma, 
were selected because of their prominence in the field and the contrsts between 
their program. 
To aid in selecting the remainder of the final sample, the JAG developed the fol
var. 
lowing list of characteristics by which programs in the final sample should 
Geography and State economic conditions.
State descriptors: 

AFC 
Caseload, benefit levels, and whether State  pro-
State AFDC program descriprors: 

gram has an Unemployed Parnt component. 
Admistrative strctur, State dollars spent, vol
State AFDC work program descriprors: 

progr, 
untar or mandatory nature of  program components, support services, 
service providers, number of panicipants, percentage of urban vs. rual panici
pants, and taget groups. 
To determe the characteristics of the States in the initial sample, we conducted 
telephone interviews. A summar report and chans showing the varations on cer
tain key charcteristics were distrbuted to members of the JAG. The JAG met to 
consider the findings and offer advice on the selection of a final sample. 
, DE, FL, MA, MI, NE, OK and WA.
The States participating are: 

Working Toward JOBS  Appendix