Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
PARTICIPANTS  RATE  THE  JOBS

PROGRAM  1994

8m7c4 
*&# 
b% 
JUNE  GIBBS  BROWN 
Inspector  General 
MARCH  1995 
C)EI-06-93-00560 
m
 OFFICE  OF  INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
The mission of the OffIce of Inspector General (OIG), as ma[ldatrd by Public  Law 95-452, as 
amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) 
programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiariesserved by those programs.  This 
statutorymissioniscarried outthrougha nationwidenetworkof m~dits,investigations,and 
inspectionsconducted by three OIG operating componenfi: Ihe OffIce of Audit Services, the 
OffIce of Investigations, and the OffIce of Evaluation and Inspections. TheOIG also informs the 
Secretary of HHS of program and managementproblems and recomrmmdscourses to correct them. 
OFFICE  OF  AUDIT  SERVICES 
The OIGSOffIce of Audit Services (oAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 
conductingauditswithitsownauditresourcesor byoverseeingtiuditwork doneby others.  Audits 
examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out 
their respective responsibilitiesand are intendedto provide independentassessmentsof HHS 
programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagementand to promote 
economy and efllciency throughout the Department. 
OFFICE  OF  INVESTIGATIONS 
The OIGSOfficeof Investigations(01)conductscriminal, civil, andadministrativeinvestigations 
of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment 
by providers.  The investigativeefforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, administrative 
sanctions, or civil money penalties.  The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which 
investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program. 
OFFICE  OF  EVALUATION  AND  INSPECTIONS 
The OIGSOffIce of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and

programevaluations(calledinspections)that focuson issuesof concernto the Department,the

Congress, and the pub]ic.  The findings and recommendationscontained in these inspection reports

generate rapid, accurate, and up-to-date informationon the efficiency, vulnerability, and

effectivenessof departmentalprograms,  This report wasprepared inthe Dallasregionalofftce

under the direction of Chester Slaughter, Acting Regional Inspector General.  Project staff.

REGION  HEADQUARTERS

Elsie Chaisson  Ann OConnor

Carol Cockrell

Carolyn Neuwirth

Sarah Taylor

For additional copies of this report, please contact the Dallas Regional OffIce at (214) 767-3310.
 Department  of  Health  and  Human  Services 
OFFICE  OF 
INSPECTOR  GENERAL 
PARTICIPANTS  RATE  THE  JOBS

PROGRAM  1994

JUNE  GIBBS  BROWN 
Inspector  General 
MARCH  1995 
OEI-06-93-0056(J  EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY 
PURPOSE 
This report provides  information  about the experiences,  opinions andattitudes  of Job 
Opportunities  and Basic Skills Training  (JOBS) program  participants. 
BACKGROUND 
The Family  Support Act (P.L.  100-485) required  all States to establish  the Job 
Opportunities  and Basic Skills Training  (JOBS) program  to assure that needy families  with 
children  obtain the education,  training  and employment  that will help them avoid 
long-ten-n welfare  dependency. 
Between  April and June  1994, we completed  a total of 183 face-to-face  interviews  with 
participants  who were located at eight sites: Eugene and Cottage  Grove,  Oregon; 
Minneapolis  and Chisago,  Minnesota;  New Orleans and Hahnville,  Louisiana;  and, 
Wilmington  and Georgetown,  Delaware.  Fifty-six participants  had completed  their 
participation  in the JOBS program,  74 were currently  active and,  at that time,  53 had 
dropped  out.  This report  reflects  experiences  with the JOBS program  as seen from the 
unique perspective  of the participants  themselves. 
This is our second report  on this subject.  We conducted  a similar  survey between 
October  1991 and February  1992 and issued a report,  Participants  Rate the JOBS 
Program  (OEI-06-90-00150),  in September  1993.  In that survey we found a majority  of 
the surveyed participants  gave the JOBS program  high ratings.  They believed  the 
program  would help them get off welfare.  Nevertheless,  some respondents  experienced 
problems  and voiced complaints  about insufficient  information  on prog~m  activities  and 
services,  not receiving  needed  support services,  and unsatisfactory  case manager  services 
and attitudes. 
FINDINGS 
MOST  OF  THE  PARTICIPANTS  SURVEYED  GAVE  HIGH  MARKS  TO  THE 
OVERALL  JOBS  PROGRAM,  ITS  ACTMTIES  AND SUPPORT  SERVICES. 
As in our previous  survey,  a majority  of the respondents  gave the JOBS program 
high marks. 
Seventy percent  graded  the overall  JOBS program  A or B. 
Ninety-two  percent  said they would recommend  the JOBS program  to a family 
member  or friend. 
i  Sixty-nine percent  believed the JOBS progmnl  WOUMhelp them get off welfare. 
Sixty-eight percent  gave high grades to their case mana,giws. 
Respondents  generally  gave high grades to those JOBS program  activities  in which 
they participated  and the support services they received:  orientation,  assessment, 
developing  an employment/education  plan,  education,  life skills training,  job  skills 
(vocational/technical)  training,  job  search,  transportation,  child care,  transitional 
child care and medical  services. 
NEVERTHELESS,  MANY  RESPONDENTS  SAID THEY  DID NOT  RECEIVE,  OR 
HAD PROBLEMS  UTILIZING,  NEEDED  SERVICES  AND EXPERIENCED  WHAT 
THEY  VIEWED  AS SERIOUS  PARTICIPATION  PROBLEMS. 
In the aggregate,  over half of the respondents  cited needed activities  or support 
services  which they did not receive.  Services mentioned  most often were 
transportation  (34 percent),  child care  (21 percent),  education  (19 percent)  and 
vocational/technical  training  (14 percent). 
Sixty-eight  percent  said they experienced  problems  which affected  their 
participation  in and completion  of the JOBS program.  Out of the  145 people  who 
answered  this question,  48 percent  reported  there  were times they felt like 
dropping  out of the program. 
Approximately  one out of every five participants  cited problems  in utilizing  each of 
the following  key services:  transportation,  child care and education  or training. 
Problems  cited included:  access barriers,  services not available  when needed, 
breakdown  in services,  transition  problems,  difficulty paying for services  and 
inadequate  quality of training/education. 
Eighty percent  suggested  needed improvements  to  achieve  self-sufficiency  and 
improve  support  services,  e.g.,  more emphasis  should be placed on education  and 
training. 
AGENCY  COMMENTS 
We reviewed  our report  at an exit conference  with staff from the Administration  For 
Children  and Families.  They provided  informal  comments  and requested  additional 
information.  Some of their  comments  have been inco~orated  in this report;  some of the 
additional  information  requested  will be addressed  in supplemental  reports.  Since this 
report  contains  no recommendations,  it is being  issued directly  in final. 
ii  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
. 
PAGE 
EXECUTIVE  SUMMARY  . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .. . . .  . . . . . ..o.  i

INTRODUCTION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

FINDINGS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4


Participants  Ratingofthe  JOBS Program  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4


Problems Experienced..  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

CONCLUSIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...13

A:  Methodology  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..A-l

B:  ProffleOfSurvey  Respondents  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..B-1

c: Participants  Grades  forActivities,  Services,Teachers  andCaseManagers.  . . . .C-l  INTRODU(YIWX!J 
PURPOSE 
This report  provides  information  about the experiences,  opiniom  andattitudes  of Job 
Opportunities  and Basic Skills Training  (JOBS) program  Par@xmts. 
BACKGROUND 
The Family  Support Act (P.L.  100-485) required  all States to establish  the Job 
opportunities  and Basic Skills Training  (JOBS) program  to assure  that needy families  with 
children  obtain the education,  training  and employment  that will help them avoid 
long-term  welfare  dependency.  To accomplish  this, the JOBS program  and related 
provisions  of the Family  Support Act are intended  to: (1) encourage,  assist and require 
applicants  for and recipients  of Aid to Families  with Dependent  Children  (AFDC)  to fulfill 
their responsibilities  to support their children  by preparing  for,  accepting,  and retaining 
employment;  (2) provide  individuals  with the opportunity  to acquire  the education  and the 
skills necessary  to qualify for employment;  (3) provide  necessary  support services  so that 
individuals  can participate  in JOBS.  Additionally,  states are required  to provide 
transitional  child care and transitional  medical assistance  to enable individuals  who have 
completed  JOBS to accept and retain employment;  (4) promote  coordination  of services at 
all levels of government  in order  to make a wide range of services available,  especially 
for individuals  at risk of long-term  welfare  dependency;  and (5) emphasize  accountability 
for both participants  and service providers. 
Where  State resources  permit,  all AFDC  recipients  living in a subdivision  covered  by a 
JOBS program  and for whom the State IV-A  (welfare)  agency has guaranteed  child care 
(in accordance  with the provisions  of the child care laws and regulations)  shall be required 
to participate  in JOBS unless the recipient  is exempt from participation. 
Federal  regulations  provide  that a State JOBS program  ~  include  the following  four 
components:  (1) educational  activity  (which shall include  high school or high school 
equivalency  training;  basic and remedial  education  that will provide  a literacy  level 
equivalent  to at least grade  8.9,  and education  in English proficiency);  (2) job  skills 
training;  (3) job  readiness  activities;  and,  (4) job  development/job  placement.  States are 
also required  to include  at least two of the following components:  (1) on-the-job  training, 
(2) work supplementation,  (3) community  work experience,  (4) group and individual job 
search.  Additionally,  under certain  conditions,  a states JOBS program  may include 
referral  of a participant  to post secondary  education.  States are required  to guarantee 
child care,  and provide  transportation  and other  support  services if the State agency 
determines  these services are necessary  for an individual  in the family to accept 
employment,  remain  employed,  or to participate  in an education  or training  component. 
This is our second report  on this subject.  We conducted  a similar  survey between 
October  1991 and February  1992 and issued a report,  Participants  Rate The JOBS 
1  Program  (OEI-06-90-O0150), in September  1993.  In that survey we found a majority  of 
the surveyed participants  gave the JOBS program  high ratings.  They believed  the 
program  would help them get off welfare.  Nevertheless,  some respondents  experienced 
problems  and voiced complaints  about insufficient  information  on program  activities  and 
services,  not receiving  needed support services,  and unsatisfactory  case manager  services 
and attitudes. 
METHODOLOGY 
We contacted  the Administration  for Children  and Families  (ACF) program  managers  and 
solicited their input about sampling,  methodological  issues and the survey instrument  that 
we had refined.  We incorporated  their suggestions,  and we made the following  decisions 
and took these actions regarding  the methodology  and sampling. 
Between April and June  1994, we interviewed  current  and former  JOBS participants  in 
person,  using telephone  interviews  as a last resort. 
We selected a purposive  sample of four states Orezo n. Minnesota.  Louisiana,  and 
Delaware.  State-level  officials in each of our four states selected an urban  site and a d 
w.	 Local-level  officials  at each site sent us a list of JOBS program  participants  who 
completed  the program  (comdeter~),  dropped out of the program  (dropouts),  or were 
active in the program  (active$.  We drew independent  random  samples of completers, 
dropouts  and act.ives at each site.  At every urban site, we wanted fifteen participants  in 
each status (for a total of 45).  At every rural  site, we wanted five participants  in each 
status (for a total of  15).  We were able to complete  a total of 183 interviews  which 
included  56 completers,  53 dropouts  and 74 actives. 
The findings from this study are purely  descriptive  and cannot be considered  generalizable

to any other JOBS program  sites either within the sampled states or within non-sampled

states.  See Appendix  A for more details.

Respondent  Characteristics  (See Appendix  B for a more detailed profile.)

  Fifty-four  percent  were African  American  and 42 percent  were white.

  Forty-one  percent  had children  age three or younger.

  Sixty-seven  percent  had a high school diploma or more when they entered  JOBS

(45 percent  had only a high school diploma). 
  Twenty-four  percent  were self-initiators  (i.e.,  participants  who were already  in an 
education  or training  activity before  they entered  the JOBS program). 
	 Sixty-one percent  worked in the two years prior  to their participating  in the JOBS 
program.  Their  employment  appeared  stable,  lasting an average  of  14 months out 
of the 24 month period  about which we inquired.  Occupations  were primarily 
clerical  and service  work (e.g.,  secretaries,  fast-food restaurant  cooks, janitors, 
2
 housekeepers  at hotels and cashiers).  The average  hourly wage from employment 
Was $5.76. 
  Before JOBS, only  17 percent  had any type of job-related  benefits;  these were 
usually health or life insurance. 
	 At the time of the survey,  91 percent  were receiving food stamps;  36 percent  were 
receiving  public housing assistance;  and only 22 percent were  receiving  child 
support payments. 
This report  contains information  on participants  understa.ndkg  of the programs  services 
and requirements,  positive  and negative experiences  in the program,  and suggestions  for 
program  improvement.  This report  reflects  experiences  with the JOBS program,  as seen 
from the unique perspective  of the participants  themselves. 
We conducted  our study in accordance  with the Qua@  Standanis for  Inspections  issued 
by the Presidents  Council on Integrity  and Efficiency. 
3
 FINDINGS

MOST  OF  THE  PARTICIPANTS  SURVEYED  GAVE HIGH  NIARKS  TO  THE 
OVERALL  JOBS  PROGRAM,  ITS ACTIVITIES  AND SUPPORT  SERVICES. 
A majority  of the  respondents  (70 percent)  gave the JOBS  program  high  grades,  as in 
our  prior  survey,  Participants  Rate  The  JOBS  Program  (OH  06-90-00150). 
We asked JOBS participants  to give a grade of A, B, C, D or F to the JOBS program 
overall.  As shown in table  1, of the  177 individuals  who respmlded to the question,  70 
percent  graded  the program  A or B. 
Since mandatory  participants  do not have a choice about participating  in JOBS, we were 
especially  interested  in their attitudes  towards the program.  We found mandatory 
participants  appeared  to have positive  feelings about the program,  with 70 percent  giving 
the program  overall  a grade of A or B.  Further,  48 percent  of the mandatory  participants 
said they were participating  in the JOBS program  not only  because  this was required,  but 
also to obtain education  or training. 
Table  1:  JOBS  Participants  Gave  High  Marks  TO The JOBS  Program 
II  1 
Factors  Rated  Grades 
A  B  c  D  F  n 
JOBS  Program  Overall  33%  37%  23%  5%  2%  177 
JOBS  As A Means  To  43%  26%  17%  9%  5%  176 
Get  Off Welfare 
Case Managers  Efforts  To Assist  44%  24%  18%  7%  7%  178 
Participants 
Ninety-two  percent  of the  respondents  said  they  would  recommend  the JOBS 
program  to a family  member  or friend. 
A majority  of the  respondents  believed  the JOBS  program  would  help  them  get off 
welfare. 
As shown in table  1, 69 percent  of the respondents  believed  the JOBS program  could help 
them get off welfare  and graded  the programs  efforts  A or B.  A majority  of the 
mandatory  participants  (68 percent)  also believed  the program  could help them get off 
welfare.  More  than  two-thirds  of the  respondents  gave high  grades  to their  case managers. 
As shown in table  1, 68 percent  of the respondents  graded the assistance provided  by their 
case managers  as A or B.  When we asked participants  what,  or who, helped them the 
most to stay in or complete  the JOBS program,  19 percent  (26/138) cited the help 
received  from their JOBS case manager. 
Welfare  benefits  were  greatly  reduced  for JOBS  completers  who  were  workkg  when 
surveyed. 
At the time of our survey 75 percent  (42/56) of the completers  reported  they were 
currently  employed  and were either completely  off AFDC  (57 percent)  or receiving  a 
reduced  grant  (18 percent).  Twenty-three  percent  (13/56),  despite prior  employment, 
were not working  and had returned  to AFDC.  One completer  was not working and was 
in the process  of reapplying  for AFDC.  Fifteen percent  of the completers  reported  they 
had not worked in the two years prior  to participating  in JOBS. 
The  post-JOBS  employment  of completers  shows  a sizeable  gain  in work-related 
benefits,  plus  a modest  increase  in average  hourly  wages. 
As shown in table 2, the number  of completers  who were employed  following JOBS and 
were receiving  work-related  benefits  such as health and life insurance  more than tripled, 
increasing  from 6 to 22.  Median  hourly  wages  of post-JOBS employment  increased  by 23 
percent,  rising from $5.00  to $6.16 per  hour.  The median number of hours worked per 
week increased  by two hours. 
Table  2: JOBS  Completers  Employment  History 
Pre-JOBS  Post-JOBS 
EmploymentInformation  Employment**  Employment 
(n = 35)  (n = 56) 
Numberof ParticipantsWith: 
OneJob  16 (46%)  31 (55%) 
TWOJobs  11 (31%)  23 (41%) 
Three Jobs  6 (17%)  1  (2%) 
Four Jobs  2  (6%)  1  (2%) 
Number  of Hours  Worked  Per Week*  37  39 
Number  of Months  Employed*  24  10 
Hourly  Wage*  $5.00  $6.16 
Participants  With Work-Related  Benefits  6 (17%)  22 (39%) 
Medians are shown because of the rmge  of extreme values in this variable.  For example,  wages  ranged from 
$2.15  to $20 an hour. 
** Pre-JOBS Employment  refers to respondents work history two years prior to their participation in the JOBS 
program. 
5
 The number of individuals  working 40 hours a week increased  14 percent  after 
participating  in JOBS.  The most frequent  types of  in&lviduals obtained after 
OC.CUpafiOnS 
participating  in JOBS were clerical,  building maintenance,  janitor-id,  cashier,  fast-food 
restaurant  cook and nurse aide.  Of those employed when  swwqvd,  about half did not 
consider  it likely that their employment  would be permanent  due to such reasons as the 
job pays low wages,  the work is temporary  in nature,  the job  does not provide  medical 
benefits,  and the participants  desire to obtain more education. 
JOBS program  completers  who were working,  and not receiv~ng AFDC  payments, 
continued  to rely on some government  services: 
  Food Stamps  78percent 
  Transitional  Medicaid  90 percent 
  Housing  Assistance  24percent 
  Transitional  Child Care  39 percent 
Dropouts  were  less  educated,  were  more  apt to have  a history  of welfare  assistance, 
had  fewer  self-initiated  plans,  and  experienced  more  service  problems  than 
completers.  Their  ratings  of the  overall  JC)BS program  were  noticeably  lower  than 
those  of completers. 
In our sample,  56 respondents  were JOBS program  completers  and 53 were dropouts. 
Dropouts  and completers  had differences  in background  experiences  which may have 
affected  their program  participation  outcomes.  Thirty percent  of the dropouts  had a 
history of welfare  assistance  (received  AFDC  as a child),  versus 20 percent  of the 
completers,  Thirty-four  percent  of the dropouts,  as contrasted  with  18 percent  of the 
completers,  had less than a high school education.  A higher proportion  of completers  (36 
percent)  than dropouts  (15 percent)  had self-initiated  development  plans.  Further, 
dropouts  grades  are noticeably  lower than the grades given by completers  as shown in 
table 3. 
Table  3: Comr)leters  And Dro~outs  Gave  Fairlv High  Marks  .lOBS  Pro&ram
. .  .- TO  The 
Activities  A  B  c  D  F  n 
JOBS  Program  Overall 
Completers  37.0%  33.3%  25.9%  1.9%  1.9%  54 
Dropouts  18.0%  34.0%  30.0%  14.0%  4.0%  50 
JOBS  As A Means  To  Get 
Off  Welfare 
Completers  50.9%  18.9%  18.9%  5.7%  5.6%  53 
Dropouts  32.7%  16.3%  18.4%  20.4%  12.2%  49 
Case  Managers  Efforts  To 
Assist  Participants 
Completers  46.3%  20.4%  20.3%  7.4%  5.6%  54 
Dropouts  38.0%  22.0%  18.0%  6.0%  16.0%  50 
6
 Dropouts  (54.9 percent),  somewhat more than completers  (50 pe~c,ent), reported  not 
receiving  needed services.  A higher proportion  of dropouts (75 ptxcent)  than completers 
(35.7 percent)  said their participation  was limited because of not receiving  needed 
services. 
Respondents  generally  gave  high  grades  to those  component  activities  in which  they

participated  and  the  support  services  they  received.

(See  Appendix  C for  details.)

Most respondents  participated  in the initial activities  of the JOBS program:  orientation, 
assessment,  and preparing  the employment  development  plan.  Orientation  and assessment 
can be a group or one-on-one  activity.  Participants  were then assigned to other JOBS 
program  components  as determined  by the case manager  and/or  participant.  Most 
respondents  were assigned to the following  components:  education, job  skills 
(vocational/technical  school) training,  job  search and life skills training.  The support 
services  most often used were child care,  transitional  child care,  and transportation 
assistance. 
Orientation.  Eighty-nine  percent  of respondents  participated  in a JOBS orientation. 
About 3 of 4 participants  graded  the orientation  session A or B for providing  complete 
information.  Almost  80 percent  graded  the orientation  worker  A or B, with 75 percent 
saying the explanation  of program  activities  and services  was clear and understandable. 
Assessment.  Eighty-seven  percent  of respondents  participated  in an assessment,  most 
often with their case managers.  Eighty-one  percent  gave their assessment  a grade  of A or 
B in regard  to its completeness. 
Emdovment  Develo~ment  Plan @DP).  The EDP  states the participants  education, 
training,  work goals,  and support services  needed to complete  the JOBS program.  Of 
those who participated  in this activity,  89 percent  said they helped the case manager 
develop their  EDP.  Four of five said their  EDP contained  their own personal  employment 
and education  goals.  About  87 percent  thought their EDP would help them achieve  what 
they wanted  in the JOBS program.  A little over two-thirds  of the participants  graded  their 
EDP A or B and 74 percent  gave the case managers  efforts an A or B. 
Education  Component.  About  89 percent  of the participants  gave the education 
component  an A or a B in terms of helping them get a job.  Similarly,  over 90 percent 
gave their  instructor(s)  an A or B. 
Job Skills (Vocational/Technical  School) Training  Com~onent.  About two-thirds  of 
participants  in this component  gave the training  either an A or B, and an even higher 
proportion  (87 percent)  gave the instructor(s)  an A or a B. 
7  Job Search Com~onent.  Eighty-five  percent  of the participants  in this activity  thought 
their job  search training  was sufficient to enable them to find work.  Sixty-seven percent 
graded the component  A or B.  Eighty-two  percent  gave their instructors  an A or a B. 
Life Skills Training.  About three  of four participants  in this component  gave the training 
an A or B.  Eighty-six  percent  graded the instructors  A or B. 
Child-Care  Assistance.  About 60 percent  of respondents  received  child-care  assistance  and 
89 percent  gave this service an A or B grade. 
Transitional  Child Care Assistance  (TCCj.  Almost 40 percent  of JOBS completers 
received  TCC assistance  and over two-thirds  graded the service A or B. 
Trans~ortation  Assistance.  Seventy-four  percent  of our survey participants  received 
transportation  assistance  and 79 percent  graded  the assistance  A or B. 
NEVERTHELESS,  MANY  RESPONDENTS  SAID  THEY  DID  NOT  RECEIVE,  OR 
HAD  PROBLEMS  UTILIZING,  NEEDED  SERVICES  AND  EXPERIENCED  WHAT 
THEY  VIEWED  AS  SERIOUS  PARTICIPATION  PROBLEMS. 
Sixty-eight  percent  (125/ 183) of the respondents  reported  experiencing  problems  which 
they claim affected  their participation  or successful completion  of the JOBS program.  Out 
of the  145 people  who answered  this question,  48 percent  reported  there  were times they 
felt like dropping  out of the program.  Of those who gave a reason for considering 
dropping  out of JOBS (64/69),  the most often cited problems  were agency 
workers/teachers  (19 percent,  12/64),  training  (17 percent,  11/64), child care  (16 percent, 
10/64) and lack of available jobs  (12 percent,  8/64).  Fifty-one  percent  of the respondents 
surveyed  reported  there  were  services they needed but did not receive.  Thirty-two  percent 
(57/178)  of the respondents  were not satisfied with their case managers.  They reported 
case managers  were condescending,  not available,  and did not provide  needed services. 
Of respondents  grading  the orientation  C or below,  31 of 39 reported  not receiving 
sufficient  information  about the program  activities  and services. 
In the  aggregate,  over  half  of all  respondents  cited  needed  activities  and  support 
services  which  they  did  not  receive. 
Fifty-one  percent  (92/ 181) of respondents  reported  there  were certain  services  they needed 
but did not receive.  The  services  mentioned  most often were transportation  (34 percent), 
child care  (21 percent),  education  (19 percent)  and job  skills training  (14 percent).  Of the 
28 completers  who reported  not receiving  needed services,  7 said they did not receive 
transitional  child care  (TCC) and 6 said they did not receive  transitional  Medicaid.  These 
are  services  essential  to gain or maintain employment.  Further,  states are required  to 
provide  payment  or reimbursement  for child care,  transportation,  TCC  and transitional 
Medicaid  services  and other  work-related  expenses,  including  support  services,  that the 
States determine  are necessary  to enable an individual  to participate  in the JOBS program 
or maintain  employment.  Table 4 shows the services and activities  most respondents  said 
they needed but did not receive. 
8  Table  4: Percent  And  Number  Of Respondents  Reporting  Nut  Receiving  Needed 
Services  Or Activities 
.-
Not  Receiving 
Service  or Activities  Not  Received  (n=92) 
.-
_Percent  Number 
--.. 
Transportation
 33.7  31 
... 
Car Repair
 13.0  12 
Child Care
 20.7  19 
Transitional  Child Care
 7.6  7 
-..  -
Education
 18.5  17 
... 
Vocational/Technical  Training
 14.1  13 
 
Dental
 13.0  12 
Transitional  Medicaid
 6.5  6 
Financial  Assistance  with tuition,  books,  uniforms,  etc.  8.7  8 
Job Search/Help  with finding employment  7.6  7 
Respondents  gave multiple  reasons for Q  receiving  the services they needed.  As table 5 
shows, the most mentioned  reason was the case manager  refused or was disinterested. 
Table  5:  Reasons  Why  Services  And  Training  Not  Provided 
Reported  Reason Service(s)  Not Provided  Not Receiving 
(n=92) 
Percent  Number 
Case Manager  Disinterest  *  42.4  39 
Agency Did Not Provide  26.1  24 
Respondent  Did Not Know About  or Did Not Ask For The  21.7  20 
Service 
Service  Not  Available  In Community  20.7  19 
State Did  Not  Provide  13.0  12 
- Also includes case manager refusals. 
9
 Approximately  one  out  of every  five  participants  cited  problems  in utilizing  each  of 
the  following  key  services:  transportation,  child  care  and joh  skills  training. 
Problems  cited  included  access  barriers,  services  not available  when  needed,  break-
down  in services,  transition  problems,  difficulty  paying  for  services  and  inadequate 
quality  of training. 
Trans~ortation.  About  19 percent  (25/135) of those who used transportation  assistance 
said they had problems  obtaining the service.  Most of these 25 participants  explained 
there  was a lack of available  transportation  when they needed it and that they had 
problems  paying  for it. 
Child Care.  Twenty-two  percent  (24/ 109) of those participants  who received  child care 
assistance  said they had problems  obtaining  or keeping child care.  Most of those offering 
an explanation  told us they had difficulties  paying for services  or that there  was a lack of 
available  child care at the time they needed it.  Three participants  in the job  skills 
(vocational/technical  school) component  had problems  obtaining child care at the times 
their courses  were offered,  particularly  in the evening.  Additionally,  24 percent  of the 71 
respondents  in the jobs  skills component  and  11 percent  (8/71) in the education  component 
said they had breakdowns  in their child-care  arrangements. 
Three  respondents  said they had problems  changing  from AFDC  child care to transitional 
child care  (TCC) assistance.  Nine completers  told us they had problems  paying  for their 
part of TCC.  This was especially  the case for six mandatory  participants.  One completer 
reported,  I quit working.  I could not afford to pay $190 a month for child care.  
Jobs Skills Training.  About 23 percent  (16/71)  of the participants  taking 
vocational/technical  training  said they experienced  problems  in the training  they needed. 
Of these,  5 had problems  with the quality  of the courses  and/or  the instruction,  saying 
they did not get what they  wanted  out of the training  and that the training did not prepare 
them for the real world.  Four had problems  paying  the tuition. 
We  found  some  differences  in problems  experienced  by  participants  based  on  race. 
African  Americans  generally  were satisfied with JOBS and gave the overall program  high 
grades.  A higher proportion  of African  Americans  (24 percent,  11/45) than whites (19 
percent,  8/43)  said they needed but did not receive  child care.  Of the 27 program 
completers  who reported  they did not receive  needed  services,  14 were African  American 
and  13 were white.  Forty-three  percent  (6/14) of the African  Americans  and 8 percent 
(1/ 13) of the whites  said they needed but did not receive transitional  child care.  In 
addition,  36 percent  (5/14) of the African  Americans  and eight percent  of the whites said 
they needed but did not receive  transitional  Medicaid. 
We also found differences  in the reasons participants  gave for not receiving  needed 
services.  A higher proportion  of African  Americans  (28 percent,  13/45) than whites (12 
percent,  5/43)  said that services  were not received  because  the worker  refused.  More 
whites (23 percent,  10/43) than African-Americans  (nine percent,  8/45) reported  needed 
10  services  were not received  because the services were not available.  Eighteen  percent 
(8/45) of the African  Americans  but only seven percent  (3/42) of Ihe whites did not know 
about the availability  of the services they needed,  Related to this finding,  two percent 
(1/45) of the African  Americans  but  19 percent  (8/43) of the whites  said they did not ask 
for the service. 
While  most  participants  said  they  helped  the  case  manager  to  develop  their 
employment  development  plan,  some  said  they  did  not help  and  that  their  personal 
goals  were  not  included. 
Eighty-nine  percent  (126/ 142) of the respondents  with an employment  development  plan 
said they helped to develop their plan,  and 82 percent  (116/142) said the plan contained 
their goals.  Although  states are required  by Federal  regulations  to develop the EDP in 
consultation  with the participant  (including a participant  in a self-initiated  activity)  and to 
the maximum  extent possible  include the preferences  of the participants  in their EDP,  11 
percent  reported  they did not help to develop their plan and  18 percent  said their goals 
were not included  in their plan.  Of those respondents  grading their employment 
development  plan C, D or F,  68 percent  (30/44)  reported they were  told by the case 
manager  to set different  goals.  For example,  they were  required to seek employment  at 
their present  skill level rather than participate  in education  or job  skills training.  Other 
respondents  reported  they wanted immediate  employment  but were  required  to participate 
in education  or training. 
About  one-third  (57/178)  of the  respondents  graded  their  case  manager  C,  D or F and 
were  not  satisfied  with  the  case  managers  assistance  and  attitudes. 
Respondents  experiencing  problems  reported  case managers  were not helpful and 
sometimes  not available  (40 percent,  23/57),  condescending  (39 percent,  22/57),  and 
sometimes  refused to provide  needed  services  (20 percent,  11/57).  Even some 
participants  grading  the case managers  A and B reported  case managers  were not helpful. 
Forty-two  percent  (39/92) of the respondents  who said they did not receive  needed 
services  attributed  this to either the managers  lack of interest  or refusal to provide  the 
service.  Additionally,  11 percent  reported  case managers  caused them the most problems 
with participating  in the JOBS program. 
About  one-fourth  of those  receiving  an  orientation  graded  it low  due  to unclear  or 
insufficient  information;  eleven  percent  said  they  received  no  orientation  at all. 
Twenty  participants  reported  they did not participate  in an orientation.  Of those who 
participated  in an orientation  24 percent  (39/163)  graded  it C or below.  Twenty-five 
percent  (41 /163)  of the respondents  said the information  provided  was  unclear.  However, 
the major criticism  was  that insufficient  program  information  was provided,  with  24  (62 
percent)  of the 39 respondents  grading  the orientation  C or below  stating this view. 
11
 Eighty  percent  (146/183)  of the  respondents  suggested  needed  JOBS  program 
improvements  to achieve  self-suftlciency  and  improve  support  services. 
	 Twenty-six  percent  (38/146)  suggested placing  more emphasis on education  and 
training  to prepare  participants  for a career  which would increase their earning 
capacity  above the minimum-wage  level.  Some believed  minimum  wages would 
force them to remain on welfare or to return to the public assistance  rolls because 
their  wages would not be sufficient to replace  lost medical,  AFDC,  and/or  Food 
Stamp benefits. 
	 Twenty percent  (29/ 146) suggested identifying  and linking participants  with good 
paying jobs  in the community. 
	 Five percent  (7/146)  suggested allowing participants  a trial work period  and let 
them receive  their first pay check before terminating  benefits. 
	 Fourteen  percent  (20/ 146) suggested providing  and extending  beyond a year 
transitional  services  (child care,  medical) to participants  whose AFDC  benefits  will 
be terminated  due to earned  income. 
	 Thirty-six  percent  (52/146)  suggested  improving  key support services,  such as 
child care and transportation.  This would include assisting participants  to find 
quality,  affordable  child care and transportation  services.  Some respondents 
suggested child care  should be provided  during all phases of the program  (e.g., 
orientation,  assessment,  job  search training,  etc. ). 
12
 CONCLUSIONS 
This survey was conducted  to gain some insight into the ideas and opinions of those 
individuals participating  in the JOBS program.  We believe this information  could be 
useful to program  managers  and line workers  in their work with participants. 
Many participants  are attracted  to the JOBS program  because of the promise  of obtaining 
an education  or skills that will enable them to obtain a good paying job  and get off 
welfare.  Most participants  rated the overall JOBS program  high and would recommend 
the program  to friends and relatives. 
Nevertheless,  many participants  experienced  problems  in going through  the program. 
Many participants  did not receive  services they needed,  and some felt like dropping  out. 
These are problems  which need to be addressed.  Availability  and easy access to key 
support services,  for example  child care,  are critical  to an individuals  successful 
completion  of JOBS and,  ultimately,  to the success of the program. 
The experiences  of JOBS completers  offer hopeful signs of the programs  promise  to help 
individuals  move from dependency  to work.  Seventy-five  percent  of the completers  were 
working  and were either  completely  off AFDC  (57 percent)  or were receiving  a reduced 
grant  (18 percent).  The median hourly  wages of completers  increased  23 percent  and the 
number  of participants  with work-related  benefits tripled.  However,  many completers 
continue  to receive  government  benefits,  such as food stamps and Medicaid.  Further, 
many completers  noted that low-paying jobs  available  to them will not be enough to 
enable them to become  self-sufficient  over the long term. 
An obvious key to JOBS program  success is the availability  of good paying jobs  in the 
community.  Strengthening  linkages between the program  and job  sources,  including job 
development  and marketing  of JOBS participants,  will be a major continuing  challenge. 
The roles played  by JOBS case managers  and teachers/trainers  seem to be vital ingredients 
of a successful program.  This  supports the need for continuing  efforts to strengthen  the 
training  of these workers  to provide  positive  support and assistance  to participants. 
We believe  interviews  of JOBS program  participants  can provide  useful insights into the 
problems  and successes of the program.  We would encourage  the Administration  for 
Children  and Families  to continue  such direct participant  feedback  activities  through  future 
surveys at other  states and sites. 
AGENCY  COMMENTS 
We reviewed  our report  at an exit conference  with staff from the Administration  For 
Children  and Families.  They provided  informal  comments  and requested  additional 
information.  Some of their comments  have been incorporated  in this report;  some of the 
additional  information  requested  will be addressed  in supplemental  reports.  Since this 
report  contains  no recommendations,  it is being issued directly  in final. 
13
 APPENDIX  A 
-.
METHODOLOGY 
For this second JOBS participants  survey,  much of the background  work and relevant 
literature  review  had been accomplished  in the first survey,  Participants  Rate the JOBS 
Program  (OEI-06-90-00150,  September  1993).  We contacted  the Administration  for 
Children  and Families  (ACF) program  managers and rdicite$  their input about sampling, 
methodological  issues and the survey instrument  that we had refined.  We incorporated 
their suggestions,  and we made the following decisions and took these actions  regarding 
the methodology  and sampling: 
  Between  April and June  1994, we interviewed  a.nmmt and former  JOBS 
participants  in person,  using telephone  interviews as a last resort. 
	 We pretested  the structured  interview  guide at a local  site in Dallas,  Texas, 
and made appropriate  changes and corrections  to the interview  guide.  Like 
the previous  studys guide,  this guide included both closed-ended  and open-
ended questions. 
	 We selected a purposive  sample  of four states from a list  of twelve  ACF 
program  managers  gave  to us.  The twelve  states were  geographically 
diverse,  a mix of  smaller  and larger states,  and different  program  types 
(e.g.,  human capital development  vs. intensive job  search).  The four states 
we selected were:  Oregon,  Minnesota,  Louisiana,  and New Jersey.  The 
state of New Jersey  withdrew  from the study at the last moment,  so we 
replaced  it with Delaware. 
	 We briefed  state-level  officials in each of our four states about the study 
and asked them to select an ~rban  si~  and a rural  site (within an hours 
drive of the urban  site) for the study.  We asked officials  not to choose the 
best or the worst programs.  They  selected the following  sites (urban  site 
followed by rural  site):  Eugene  and Cottage  Grove,  Oregon;  Minneapolis 
and Chisago,  Minnesota;  New Orleans and Hahnville  (St. Charles  Parish), 
Louisiana;  and,  Wilmington  and Georgetown,  Delaware. 
	 We then contacted  local-level  officials at each site and asked them to send 
us a list of those who had participated  in JOBS sometime  during  1993, 
indicating  also the status of each participant  in terms of completing  the 
program  (comdeter$,  dropping  out of the program  (j!ropout~), or still 
currently  active in the program  (jctive$). 
	 To maximize  our learning  from participants  who might have different 
experiences  in the JOBS program,  we drew indemmdent  random  samdes  of 
comr)leters. droDouts and actives at each site.  At every  urban  site,  we 
wanted to end up with fifteen participants  in each status (for a total of 45), 
A -1
 so we oversampled  by two,  sometimes three,  times the number  we wanted. 
At every  rural  site, we wanted to interview ai least tive participants  in each 
status (for a total of 15), so we oversampled  by three  times the desired 
number.  Based on the lists of randomly-selected  participants  we sent to the 
sites, local-level  managers  and case managers  tek@oned  participants  and 
set up a schedule of face-to-face  interviews  for us.  We interviewed 
participants  from April  1994 to June  1994.  Also,  at every  site we talked 
with at least one administrator  and supervisor  about activities  and services 
available  and program  operations  to get a feel for the JOBS program 
there. 
	 We planned to obtain 240 face-to-face  interviews,  60 per  state.  With 
oversampling  and diligent effort,  we were able to complete  183 interviews 
76 percent  of our goal.  This included 56 participants  who had completed 
their participation  in the JOBS program,  74 were currently  active and at the 
time 53 had dropped  out.  Telephone  interviews  comprised  about ten 
percent  of the sample and were conducted  when participants  did not appear 
for the in-person  interview. 
	 The findings from this study are purely descriptive  and cannot be 
considered  generalizable  to any other JOBS program  sites either  within the 
sampled states or within non-sampled  states. 
We conducted  our study in accordance  with the Qnality Standurds for  Inspections  issued 
by the Presidents  Council  on Integrity  and Efficiency. 
A -2
 APPENDIX  B 
PROFILE  OF  SURVEY  RESPONDENTS 
(N  =  183I 
VARIABLES  %  average 
. 
Q  AGE:  averagefor all participants  0.0 years 
for mandatory participants  68.8  l.4 years 
for volunteer  participants  31.1  7.0 years 
  .. 
.  TEENAGE  PARENTS  (19 years  or younger)  5.5 
.  GENDER:  females  i 66  90.7 
. 
.  RACE/ETHNICITY:  African  Americans  99  54.1 
Whites  ?7  42.1 
  MARITAL  STATUS:  single,  never  married  106  57.9 
currently  married  X3  12.6 
separatedldivorced  52  28.4 
  CHILDREN:  average  # on AFDC  grant per participant  .9 children 
parents with children  age 3 and under  75  41.0 
  RESIDENCE:  urban  137  74.9 
  EDUCATION  - BeforeJOBS: average  years  completed  1.8 years 
enrolled  in training/education  (self-initiators)  43  23.5 
less  than a high school  education  59  32.2 
high school  diploma  or equivalent  82  44.8 
some  cone  e-level  course-w 
- .- .-x  OU1 88Iil 
- .... ......  .Oa
.soaoloao l!lo$tto1  0]1
-[.  II.  II  !
o.   -..,0--. -,,-,,.0.,,1 { 11  II!I 
completed  a college  degree  or more  4  2.1 
  EDUCATION-During/AfterJOBS: averageyearscompleted  2.2  years 
lessthana highschooleducation 
42  23.0 
high school  diploma  or equivalent  85  46.4 
some  college-level  course-work  48  26.3 
completed  a college  degree  or more  8  4.3 
.  EMPLOYMENT  - Before  JOBS 
worked  in two-year  period  before  JOBS  111  60.7 
..  - 11  QOJ 
MOLK~  III wO-~SSL  hSL!Oq  PQ[oL~IOB2 
~..a

. sse-a
-=. =  -~--.--..*_> . .. ~.-------
.==  ,---
---.  - ...  -
.  ... 
i!  )1:2.:; :
separatedldivorced 
  CHILDREN: average# on AFDC  grant per participant  + 
T1.9 childrel 
parents with children  age 3 and under 
75  41.0 
  RESIDENCE:  urban 
137  74.9 
  EDUCATION- BeforeJOBS: averageyearscomplet~ 
11.8 years
enrolledin training(educatio(nself-initiators) 
43  23.5
lessthana highschooleducation 
59  32.2
highschooldiplomaor equivalent	
..  82  44 R VARIABLES  n  %  average 
.  EMPLOYMENT- After JOBS 
had employment  or currently working  91  49.7 
average  # of months worked  6.9  months 
average  # of hours worked  per week  31.0  hours 
average  hourly wage  $6.45 
work-related  benefits  27  29.7 
  WELFARE  HISTORY/C~NT  STATUS 
received  AFDC  assistance  as a child  51  27.9 
average  # of years  on welfare  5.8  years 
received  AFDC  for 36 of the preceding  60 months  89  48.6 
currently  receiving  AFDC  146  79.8 
currently  receiving  Unemployed  Parents assistance  12  6.6 
currently  receiving  child  support payments  41  22.4 
currently  receiving  public  housing  assistance  65  35.5 
currently  receiving  food stamps  166  90.7 
while  in JOBS,  one or more benefits  were  terminated  12  6.6 
while  in JOBS,  benefits  were  reduced  (sanction  status)  31  16.9 
custodial  parents under the age of 24 who,  at the time of  29  15.8 
application,  were  not enrolled  in high school  and had 
little or no work  experience 
youngest  child  ineligible  for AFDC  within  2 years  1  0.5 
B-2  APPENDIX  C 
.
Participants  Grades  For  Activities/Servic.~,  Teachers  and  Case  Managers 
~_2... 
Activities/Services  A  B  c  :0  F  No  n 
Response
. 
Orientation  30.7%  43.6%  17.2%  4,9%  1.8%  1,8%  163 
Worker  46.6%  32.5%  10.4%  7.4%  0.6%  2.5% 
Assessment*  43.4%  37.1%  13.2%  4.4!%  1.3%  0.6%  159 
- 
Employment  142 
Development  Plan  38.0%  30.3%  15.5%  9.,9%  5.6%  0.7% 
Case  Manager  48.6%  25.3%  12.7%  8.4%  4.2%  0.8% 
Education  54.9%  33.8%  8.5%  1.4%  0.0%  1.4%  71 
Teacher  63.8%  27.7%  2.1%  0.0%  4.2%  2.2% 
Jobs  SkiUs  Training**  45.1%  22.5%  18.3%  4.2%  4.2%  5.7%  71 
Teacher  54.9%  32.4%  8.4%  2.8%  0.0%  1.5% 
Job  Search  Training  37.7%  29.5%  19.7%  4.9%  4.8%  3.4%  61 
Teacher  50.8%  31.1%  6.5%  4.9%  3.3%  3.4% 
Life  Skills  Training  41.9%  32.5%  18.6%  0.0%  2.3%  4.7%  43 
Teacher  62.8%  23.3%  4.6%  2.3%  2.3%  4.7% 
Child  Care*  67.0%  22.0%  9.2%  0.9%  0.9%  0.0%  109 
Transitional  22 
Child  Care  40.9%  27.3%  22.7%  4.5%  0.9%  3.7% 
Case  Manager  59.1 %  18.2%  13.6%  4.5%  0.0%  4.6% 
Transportation*  60.7%  17.8%  13.3%  3.7%  1.5%  3.0%  135 
*  A case manager  grade  was not obtained  for this activity. 
**	 Jobs Skills Training  =  Training  received  from a vocationalkchnical  school or community 
college. 
c-1