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 

statutory mission is carried out through a 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. T’heOIG also informs the 

Secretary of HHS of program and managementproblems and recomrmmdscourses to correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIG’SOffIce of Audit Services (oAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeingtiuditwork done by 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 OIG’SOffice of Investigations(01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations 

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 OIG’SOffIce of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and


program evaluations(called inspections)that focus on issues of concern to the Department, the


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


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


effectivenessof departmental programs, This report was prepared in the Dallas regional offtce


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


REGION HEADQUARTERS


Elsie Chaisson Ann O’Connor


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 state’s 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 program’s 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 President’s 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 

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 Manager’s 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 program’s efforts A or B. A majority of the 

mandatory participants (68 percent) also believed the program could help them get off 

welfare. 

II 
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 OC.CUpafiOnS in&lviduals obtained after 

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 TO The .lOBS Pro&ram

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 Manager’s 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 participant’s 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 manager’s 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 

Service or Activities 

Transportation


Car Repair


Child Care


Transitional Child Care


Education


Vocational/Technical Training


Dental


Transitional Medicaid


.——-

Not Received .-

——--—.. 

———... 

—-—.. -

.—.. 

— 

Financial Assistance with tuition, books, uniforms, etc. 

Job Search/Help with finding employment 

Not Receiving 

(n=92) 

_Percent Number 

33.7 31 

13.0 12 

20.7 19 

7.6 7 

18.5 17 

14.1 13 

13.0 12 

6.5 6 

8.7 8 

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, breakdown 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 manager’s 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 program’s 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 study’s guide, this guide included both closed-ended and openended 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 hour’s 

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 President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

A -2

--

sse-a -------

APPENDIX B 

PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 

(N = 183’I 

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) 

less than a high school education 

high school diploma or equivalent 

some cone e-level course-w - .- .-x �OU - . . . . . .Oa188Iil ..... .oaloo tto 

-“”[. II. II soal!lo$10]1!

-..,0- ,,0,1{ o 

. -. -,,-.., 

completed a college degree or more 

43 23.5 

59 32.2 

82 44.8 

11 II!I 

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 QO’J MOLK~ III wO-~SSL hSL!Oq PQ[oL~IOB2 

. ~..a
 -. 

== ---* ~.-.> . .. ~. .== - ._ -. ,--- - .. . - . ..—. 

i! )“:::’” 12.;

separatedldivorced 

� CHILDREN: average# on AFDC grant per participant + 

1.9 childrel 

parents with children age 3 and under ’75 41.0 

� RESIDENCE: urban 137 74.9 

� EDUCATION- BeforeJOBS: averageyearscomplet~ 11.8 years enrolledin training(education(self-initiators) 43 23.5 lessthana highschooleducation 59 32.2 highschooldiplomaor equivalent	 T82 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