Economic 

Research 

Service

Electronic Publications from the Food Assistance & Nutrition Research Program

Using One-Stops To Promote Access

to Work Supports—Lessons From

Virginia’s Coordinated Economic

Relief Centers

Final Report

By Diane Paulsell and Melissa Ford, Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc.

ERS project representative: Karen S. Hamrick, 202-694-5426,

khamrick@ers.usda.gov

Abstract

Policymakers and program administrators have become increasingly concerned about declines

in participation in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other work supports. As a result, interest

has grown in identifying promising strategies for improving low-income families’ access to

these programs and benefits. In early 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia implemented a

new initiative: To provide the services of many agencies at one-stop career centers, called

Coordinated Economic Relief Centers (CERCs). This report describes the results of a study

on how the CERCs were implemented and their potential for increasing low-income families’

access to the FSP and other work supports and provides operational lessons for other States

and communities seeking to implement a similar one-stop approach to service delivery. The

results indicate that the CERCs helped some customers get information about where to find

services and made obtaining services more convenient. However, resource constraints hampered the CERCs’ efforts to operate as envisioned, the level of referrals to food assistance

programs was low, and expectations in some communities exceeded what the CERCs could

realistically accomplish.

E-FAN-03-010

November 2003

This report was prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under

a research contract from the Economic Research Service. The views

expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of ERS

or USDA.
ii 

CONTENTS 

Chapter Page 

 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...........................................................................................................vi 

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................vii

I INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................1 

THE STUDY ON PROMOTING ACCESS TO THE FOOD STAMP 

PROGRAM AND OTHER WORK SUPPORTS THROUGH 

COORDINATED ECONOMIC RELIEF CENTERS...........................................................2 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS...........................................................................................................3 

METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................3 

II OVERVIEW OF SELECTED LITERATURE ON ONE-STOP SERVICE 

 CENTERS ........................................................................................................................................7 

CHALLENGES TO INCREASING ACCESS TO FOOD STAMPS AND 

OTHER WORK SUPPORTS THROUGH ONE-STOP CENTERS..................................8 

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING ACCESS TO WORK SUPPORTS 

THROUGH ONE-STOP CENTERS.......................................................................................11 

III BACKGROUND ON THE CERC COMMUNITIES..........................................................17 

PLANT CLOSINGS AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ...................................................17 

CHARACTERISTICS OF DISLOCATED WORKERS ......................................................19 

IV OVERVIEW OF THE CERC MODEL ..................................................................................27 

 GOALS FOR THE CERCs.........................................................................................................27
iii

Chapter Page 

PLANNING ACTIVITIES.........................................................................................................28 

FUNDING.....................................................................................................................................29 

APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION ...........................................................................29 

SUPERVISION AND STAFFING...........................................................................................31 

PARTNERING AGENCIES .....................................................................................................33 

V SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CERCs .............................................................................37 

 COMMUNITY OUTREACH ACTIVITIES...........................................................................37 

SERVICES PROVIDED BY CERC STAFF...........................................................................38 

SERVICES PROVIDED BY PARTNERING AGENCIES................................................45 

VI LEVELS AND PATTERNS OF SERVICE USE IN THE CERCs ...................................51 

CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS .............................................................................51 

REFERRALS TO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS ...........................................................52 

PARTICIPATION IN DSS BENEFIT PROGRAMS...........................................................58 

VII SUCCESSES, CHALLENGES, AND LESSONS ..................................................................63 

SUCCESSES...................................................................................................................................63 

CHALLENGES.............................................................................................................................66 

IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS.............................................................................................70 

REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................75 

APPENDIX A: SITE VISIT PROTOCOLS .................................................................................A.1 

APPPENDIX B: PROTOCOLS FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH 

STATE OFFICIALS ..................................................................................................................B.1 
iv

TABLES 

Table Page 

 I.1 SITE VISIT RESPONDENTS.........................................................................................................5 

 III.1 POVERTY RATES IN THE CERC COMMUNITIES ............................................................18 

 IV.1 CERC PARTNERS, BY SITE ........................................................................................................35 

 VI.1 TOTAL REFERRALS TO PARTNERING AGENCIES BY CERC, 

 MARCH 2002 THROUGH MARCH 2003..................................................................................54
v

FIGURES 

Figure Page 

 III.1 CERC LOCATIONS AND SERVICE AREAS ....................................................................... 20 

 III.2 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE , BY QUARTER, CLARKSVILLE ......................................... 21 

 III.3 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE , BY QUARTER, MARTINSVILLE.................................. 21 

 III.4 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE , BY QUARTER, SOUTH BOSTON................................ 22 

 III.5 UNEMPLOYMENT RATE , BY QUARTER, MARION .............................................. 22 

 V.1 PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC 

 FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES, CLARKSVILLE.............................................. 39 

 V.2 PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC 

 FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES, MARTINSVILLE........................................... 39 

 V.3 PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE 

 CERC FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES, SOUTH BOSTON............................ 40 

 V.4 PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC 

 FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES, MARION ......................................................... 40 

 VI.1 VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, 

 BY MONTH, CLARKSVILLE.................................................................................................... 55 

 VI.2 VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH, 

 MARTINSVILLE ........................................................................................................................... 55 

 VI.3 VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH, 

 SOUTH BOSTON ......................................................................................................................... 56 

 VI.4 VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH, 

 MARION.......................................................................................................................................... 56 

 V1.5 NUMBER OF TANF CASES IN THE CERC SERVICE AREAS, BY MONTH............ 60 

 VI.6 NUMBER OF FOOD STAMP PROGRAM CASES IN THE CERC SERVICE 

 AREAS, BY MONTH.................................................................................................................... 61 

 VI.7 NUMBERS OF FAMILIES USING SUBSIDIZED CHILD CARE IN THE 

 CERC SERVICE AREAS, BY MONTH ................................................................................... 62
vi 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 This project was made possible by a group of partnering agencies. Funding was 

provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Economic Research Service 

(ERS) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). Technical assistance was provided by the USDA’s Food and 

Nutrition Service (FNS), the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Employment and Training 

Administration (ETA), and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Necessary cooperation and 

access was provided by the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) and the Virginia 

Department of Social Services (DSS). The Federal agency representatives were as follows: 

Karen Hamrick and Margaret Andrews (USDA-ERS), Elizabeth Lower-Basch (HHS-ASPE), 

Nancye Campbell (HHS-ACF), Deborah Slater (USDA-FNS), Joan Burchell (DOL-ETA), 

and Stan Griffin (IRS). The Commonwealth of Virginia representatives were Dolores Esser 

and Robert Ashby (VEC), and Duke Storen and Maurice Jones (DSS). 

 We would also like to acknowledge the contributions made by many individuals from 

local VEC offices and partnering agencies who participated in site visit interviews for this 

project. In particular, we would like to thank the managers of the Coordinated Economic 

Relief Centers (CERC), who helped us schedule interviews for the visits and shared with us 

their experiences and insights. They are Carolyn Leslie, Clarksville CERC; Joyce Snead, 

Martinsville CERC; Linda Daniel, South Boston CERC; and Betty Keith, Marion CERC. 

 Karen Hamrick and Elizabeth Dagata at ERS, and Elizabeth Lower-Basch at ASPE, 

carefully reviewed drafts of this report and provided helpful comments. Leslie Meyer at 

ERS participated in the early development of this project and provided important 

background information. At Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Jim Ohls and Anu 

Rangarajan provided invaluable guidance throughout the project and thoughtful comments 

on early drafts of this report. Roy Grisham and Laura Berenson carefully edited the report, 

and Bryan Gustus skillfully produced it. At ERS, Linda Hatcher provided valuable technical 

and publishing assistance. 
 

 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In recent years, policymakers and program administrators have become increasingly 

concerned about declines in participation in the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other work 

support programs. Interest has grown in identifying promising strategies for improving lowincome families’ access to, and participation in, the FSP and other work supports. States 

have begun to implement and test such strategies as community outreach campaigns, 

streamlined application procedures, and service co-location. Offering work support 

programs in One-Stop Career Centers, which have proliferated since passage of the 

Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), is another potential strategy for increasing lowincome families’ access.1

 

In early 2002, the Commonwealth of Virginia implemented a new initiative that used

One-Stops, called Coordinated Economic Relief Centers (CERCs), to provide dislocated 

workers and other low-income community members with access to a broad range of 

programs and services in one location. This report describes the results of a study of the 

CERCs sponsored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service 

(ERS) and the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, and conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR). The purpose 

of the study was to learn about how the CERCs were implemented, and to assess their

potential for increasing low-income families’ access to the FSP and other work supports,

such as medical coverage and child care assistance. 

1

The WIA consolidated numerous federal employment and training programs and 

required states and localities to provide most federally funded employment services through 

One-Stop career centers.
viii 

COORDINATED ECONOMIC RELIEF CENTERS 

 On February 1, 2002, Mark Warner, governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, issued 

an executive order establishing the Virginia Economic Strike Force. This working group of 

state-agency representatives, chaired by the Virginia Secretary of Commerce and Trade, was 

charged with addressing the economic crisis faced by several Virginia communities that were 

losing large numbers of jobs, primarily in the textile and furniture-manufacturing industries.2 

Governor Warner directed the Strike Force to establish CERCs in affected communities to 

serve as the single point of contact for dislocated workers, their families, and other lowincome members of the community. According to state officials, the CERCs are modeled 

on the approach of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which sets up temporary 

service centers in which people affected by natural disasters and other emergencies can 

access a range of federal and state services. 

 To date, the Strike Force has established CERCs in four communities. The first, in 

Clarksville (Mecklenburg County), opened on March 12, 2002, about six weeks after 

Governor Warner issued the executive order. The Martinsville CERC opened on March 15 

to serve the city of Martinsville, as well as Henry and Patrick counties. The third CERC, 

located in South Boston, opened on April 12 to serve residents of Halifax County. The 

fourth CERC was established in Marion on June 10 to serve residents of Smyth County. 

THE STUDY ON PROMOTING FOOD STAMP PROGRAM AND OTHER 

WORK SUPPORTS ACCESS THROUGH COORDINATED ECONOMIC 

RELIEF CENTERS 

 This study is a process study designed to learn about the CERCs’ implementation and 

to glean lessons that can be useful to future initiatives. Specifically, the study is designed to 

answer the following key questions: 

• How do the CERCs deliver food assistance and other work supports, and to 

what extent are these services integrated with other services provided at the 

CERCs? 

• What are the levels of service receipt and program participation in the CERC 

communities? 

 2

The Strike Force includes representatives from the Departments of Social Services, 

Education, Agriculture and Consumer Services, Business Assistance, Housing and 

Community Development, Labor and Industry, Medical Assistance Services, and Minority 

Business Enterprise; the Virginia Community College System; the Virginia Employment 

Commission; the Virginia Economic Development Partnership; and the Virginia Tourism 

Authority. 
_____________________________________________________________________ ix

 

• What lessons can be drawn from Virginia’s experience operating the CERCs? 

We used a case study approach as our primary research method for gathering and analyzing 

qualitative information on CERC implementation. A team of two researchers conducted 

intensive site visits to each of the four CERCs, as well as a series of telephone interviews 

with state-level officials from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) and the Virginia 

Department of Social Services (DSS). We supplemented this qualitative information with a 

brief literature review, to provide context for the study, and with an analysis of data on the 

use of CERC services and participation in DSS benefit programs. 

KEY IMPLEMENTATION FINDINGS 

 This section provides an overview of how the CERCs have been implemented and 

operated, the types of partnering agencies that have participated in the CERCs, the main 

services provided, and the overall levels of service use and referrals to other service 

providers. 

• The VEC took lead responsibility for implementing and operating the 

CERCs. Within the Strike Force, the VEC took lead responsibility for 

establishing and operating the CERCs, and for providing services to customers. 

Because no state resources were allocated to pay for CERC operations, VEC 

officials decided to use Rapid Response funds (approximately $330,639 from 

March 2002 through April 2003) from the U.S. Department of Labor to pay for 

overhead costs, including office space and equipment.3

 Once decisions were 

made to open the CERCs, the VEC determined on a case-by-case basis where 

they would be located and how they would be operated. Two approaches to 

CERCs emerged from this process: (1) a satellite office approach, in which the 

CERC is housed in a separate location from the VEC and serves as a satellite 

office; and (2) an in-house approach, in which the CERC operates within the 

local VEC office (and WIA One-Stop). Local VEC directors manage the 

CERCs, and VEC staff conduct initial intake and provide referrals to partnering 

agencies. 

• Almost all services provided at the CERCs are VEC services. Most 

customers come to the CERCs seeking employment-related services, such as 

help with Unemployment Insurance (UI), job service registration, or job search 

assistance. Because these are VEC services, and because the VEC provides core 

3

The WIA of 1998 requires states to provide Rapid Response Activities after permanent 

plant closures, mass layoffs, or natural disasters that result in dislocation of workers. Rapid 

Response Activities aim to help dislocated workers find new employment as soon as 

possible. 
x 

staff for the CERCs, most CERC services are provided by the VEC. Across the 

CERCs, the average number of contacts with walk-in customers ranged from 

240 per month in Martinsville, a satellite office, to 1,494 per month in South 

Boston, a CERC located within the VEC’s WIA One-Stop. The CERCs located 

within VEC offices count all customers who come to the office as CERC 

customers, regardless of the services sought. 

• The VEC initially recruited a broad range of partnering agencies to 

participate in the CERCs, but participation waned over time. The VEC 

took lead responsibility for organizing meetings of staff from the local VEC 

offices and other service providers in the community to gain their cooperation as 

partners, and to plan their participation in the CERCs. Across the CERCs, 

partnering agencies offer a range of services, including employment services, 

education and training, social services, health and mental health services, and 

emergency assistance. Partners include state and local government agencies, as 

well as community-based and faith-based organizations. Many partnering 

agencies outstationed staff at the CERCs for at least a few hours per week 

initially. Most of these partners suspended their regular visits after a few weeks 

or months, citing low levels of referrals and lack of resources. 

• Several food assistance providers participated in the CERCs. DSS, which 

administers the FSP, participated in the CERCs and took FSP applications on 

site at three of the four CERCs. Community action agencies and charitable 

organizations that provide emergency food assistance partnered with the CERCs 

in some sites, but most did not provide on-site services. In addition, CERC staff 

reported referring customers in need of emergency food assistance to local 

churches and food banks. 

• The level of referrals to partnering agencies that participated in the 

CERCs was low. Almost all referrals made by the CERCs were for 

employment-related services (41,507 of 42,810 referrals). Of these, nearly all 

were made to either the VEC, for help with UI or job search activities, or to 

WIA programs. Fewer than one percent of referrals were for social or 

emergency services (313 referrals). A small number of referrals were made for 

education services (221 referrals) and health services (172) referrals. Several 

factors may explain the lower-than-expected levels of referrals to non-VEC 

services. Most CERC staff did not inquire about customers’ needs and did not 

offer referrals unless requested by the customer. Customer perceptions of their 

own needs may have been another factor. Most dislocated workers wanted to 

find employment as soon as possible; it took time for them to acknowledge that 

they needed retraining or emergency assistance while unemployed. Reporting 

problems, including inconsistencies in how referrals were tracked and recorded, 

may have also contributed to the pattern of low referrals. 
_____________________________________________________________________ xi

SUCCESSES AND CHALLENGES 

 This section highlights the main successes and challenges in implementing and 

operating the CERCs experienced by the VEC and partnering agencies. 

Successes 

• The CERCs may have increased access to services for some customers. 

Although the level of referrals to other service providers was lower than 

anticipated, VEC staff believe that the CERCs facilitated access to information 

about services available in the community. For example, all of the CERCs 

reported providing information about food assistance available from food banks, 

churches, and community action agencies. Moreover, the CERCs operating 

satellite offices were conveniently located for some customers and may have 

provided more personalized services to customers. Those who lived near the 

CERCs did not have to travel as far to access VEC services, and they could 

obtain information about services available through partners. Some state-level 

officials thought that the CERCs facilitated access to services that customers 

would not otherwise have received. Others thought that, while the CERCs were 

convenient, most customers would have found the same services on their own. 

• Participation in the CERCs enhanced community collaboration and 

increased service providers’ knowledge of community resources. VEC and 

partnering agency staff in the CERC communities reported that the CERCs have 

increased the number and nature of partnerships between the VEC and local 

service providers. Although the VEC offices and many CERC partners already 

were participating in WIA One-Stops, many reported that the process of 

planning and participating in the CERCs increased their knowledge of services 

available in the community. 

Challenges 

• The CERCs faced resource constraints that hampered efforts to operate 

them as envisioned, especially efforts to co-locate services. The lack of 

funds to cover the costs of both operating the CERCs and participation of 

partners limited the CERCs’ ability to achieve the state’s goals. Partners could 

not afford to outstation staff to the CERCs on a full-time basis without 

additional funding. At three of the four CERCs, space was not sufficient to 

house staff from more than two partnering agencies at a time. Moreover, 

operating the CERCs increased the workload of VEC staff significantly and 

strained the resources of partnering agencies. CERC staff at some sites also 

reported that finding community resources to meet customers’ needs became 

increasingly challenging. 
xii 

• Several factors, including constraints on planning time and 

implementation of recordkeeping systems, have limited the CERCs’ 

capacity to provide integrated services. Planning time was not sufficient for 

developing plans and procedures to integrate services across providers. Lack of 

training for CERC staff, as well as a lack of procedures for conducting needs 

assessments and making referrals may have contributed to the low level of 

referrals to partnering agencies and the limited coordination with the agencies. 

Moreover, some aspects of the customer tracking system were not fully 

implemented when the CERCs opened and have not functioned as efficiently as 

expected. 

• In some sites, community expectations exceeded what the CERC could 

realistically accomplish. Some communities expected the CERCs to promote 

economic development and creation of new job opportunities. In addition, 

some customers thought the CERCs would offer services beyond those already 

available in the community. For example, some expected to obtain health 

insurance coverage; others sought cash assistance payments. The CERCs could 

refer customers to existing programs, but many were ineligible for these 

programs, either because they were still receiving UI benefits, had assets that 

made them ineligible, or did not have minor children. 

IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS 

 The current research has focused on examining the implementation and operations of 

the CERCs. The study was not designed to determine whether the CERCs are effective in 

increasing access to services. Reflecting this, we did not collect individual-level data on 

CERC customers, and thus we are not in a position to make overall recommendations 

regarding whether the CERC model should be adopted more broadly. However, for those 

who have decided to implement a One-Stop approach to service delivery, we highlight a 

number of operational lessons from this study that may be useful in designing and 

implementing similar initiatives. In this section, we explore lessons from the CERCs related 

to co-location of service providers, integrating services, and conducting community 

outreach. 

Lessons for Enhancing Service Co-Location 

• Assess the value of co-locating individual service providers on site on a 

case-by-case basis. Some partners felt that their presence on site at the CERCs 

was not valuable to customers because they could only provide information 

about services offered at other locations. Others were already located nearby the 

CERCs and thus were accessible to customers without having to co-locate. 
_____________________________________________________________________ xiii

• Provide resources to cover the cost of co-locating essential services on site. 

Site visit respondents thought that enabling customers to apply for partnering 

agency services on site at the CERCs would be valuable if staff from these 

agencies were present on a daily basis, rather than for a few hours a week. 

However, partners reported that they could not afford to outstation staff at the 

CERCs for more than a few hours a week without additional resources. 

• Explore screening tools and resources available through the Internet as 

alternatives to service co-location. Since the CERCs opened, DSS has made a 

new screening tool available on its web site that customers can use to assess 

whether they are likely to be eligible for a variety of benefit programs. With the 

availability of this tool, some DSS officials felt that outstationing staff at the 

CERCs was neither necessary nor an efficient use of their resources. 

• Consider establishing CERCs within existing One-Stops, rather than in 

separate locations. Some VEC officials thought that all the CERCs should be 

operated within WIA One-Stops, rather than in separate locations. Although 

satellite offices were convenient, they duplicated services available nearby, 

strained the limited resources of the VEC and partnering agencies, and proved 

difficult to close. 

Lessons for Enhancing Service Integration 

• Devote more planning time to address service integration issues, such as 

developing common forms, referral procedures, and information systems 

for use by all partners. State officials believe they would have been able to 

integrate services across partners more fully if they had had adequate time to 

develop common forms and systems, and adequate time to train staff to use 

them. 

• Explore options for creating a customer tracking system that can be 

updated efficiently, and that can provide timely customer information. 

Because of difficulties obtaining customer outcome information from partners, 

some state officials suggested that an integrated tracking system, in which each 

partner would be responsible for entering outcomes for customers referred to it, 

would be a more efficient way to collect outcomes information. Such a system 

might also encourage more regular followup with customers and facilitate 

partners’ access to updated customer information. 
xiv

Lessons on Community Outreach 

• Conduct community outreach on an ongoing basis. In several communities, 

CERC staff suggested that more ongoing outreach about the CERCs and 

services available would have been helpful. In particular, some suggested that 

partnering agencies could have played a greater role in conducting outreach and 

in educating the community about the services they offered at the CERCs. 

• Communicate clear and realistic expectations about what the CERCs can 

accomplish before they open. Because residents in some communities had 

unrealistic expectations about what the CERCs could accomplish, state officials 

stressed the importance of communicating a clear message about what customers 

can realistically expect to obtain at the CERCs. 

• Establish a closing date for the CERCs before they open. VEC officials 

reported that some communities reacted negatively to attempts to close CERCs 

once the volume of customer contacts declined. Communicating a definite 

closing date at the outset may help establish more realistic expectations about the 

CERCs. In addition, partners might be more committed to participating and 

more willing to outstation staff if they knew there would be a definite end to that 

commitment. To date, none of the CERCs have been closed. 
 

C HAP T E R I 

I NTRODU CTIO N

n February 1, 2002, Mark Warner, governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

issued an executive order establishing the Virginia Economic Strike Force. This

working group of state-agency representatives, chaired by the Virginia Secretary of

Commerce and Trade, was charged with addressing the economic crisis faced by several 

Virginia communities that were losing large numbers of jobs, primarily in the textile and 

furniture-manufacturing industries.4

 The Strike Force was directed to provide a single point 

of contact for dislocated workers and other affected citizens, assist communities in 

developing strategies to address their economic problems, and identify opportunities for 

economic development. 

O 

Governor Warner directed the Strike Force to establish Coordinated Economic Relief 

Centers (CERCs) in affected communities to serve as the single point of contact for 

dislocated workers, their families, and other low-income members of the community.

During a press conference held in Clarksville, Virginia, to announce the deployment of the 

Strike Force and to announce plans to open a CERC in Clarksville, Governor Warner 

provided his rationale for establishing the CERCs to serve dislocated workers: “It is 

important that these individuals and their families have access to the full spectrum of 

services, both public and private, through a single intake process.” According to state 

officials, the CERCs are modeled on the approach of the Federal Emergency Management

Agency, which sets up temporary service centers in which people affected by natural

disasters and other emergencies can access a range of federal and state services. 

4

The Strike Force includes representatives from the Departments of Social Services, 

Education, Agriculture and Consumer Services, Business Assistance, Housing and 

Community Development, Labor and Industry, Medical Assistance Services, and Minority 

Business Enterprise, the Virginia Community College System, the Virginia Employment 

Commission, the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, and the Virginia Tourism 

Authority. 
2 

To date, the Strike Force has established CERCs in four communities. The first, in 

Clarksville (Mecklenburg County), opened on March 12, 2002, about six weeks after 

Governor Warner issued the executive order. The Martinsville CERC opened on March 15 

to serve the city of Martinsville, as well as Henry and Patrick counties. The third CERC, 

located in South Boston, opened on April 12 to serve residents of Halifax County. The 

fourth CERC was established in Marion on June 10 to serve residents of Smyth County. 

THE STUDY ON PROMOTING ACCESS TO THE FOOD STAMP PROGRAM 

AND OTHER WORK SUPPORTS THROUGH COORDINATED ECONOMIC 

RELIEF CENTERS 

This report describes the results of a study of the CERCs sponsored by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service (ERS) and the Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and conducted 

by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. The purpose of the study was to learn about the 

CERCs’ implementation and to assess their potential for increasing low-income families’ 

access to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and other work supports, such as medical 

coverage, child care assistance, and transportation assistance. In recent years, policymakers 

and program administrators have become increasingly concerned about declines in 

participation in the FSP and other work support programs, especially among former 

recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and their children. 

Consequently, interest has grown in identifying promising strategies for improving lowincome families’ access to, and participation in, the FSP and other work supports. States 

have begun to implement and test such strategies as community outreach campaigns and 

streamlined application procedures, both designed to increase families’ access to these work 

supports and to encourage their participation (Pavetti et al. 2002). 

Virginia’s initiative to establish the CERCs provides a unique and timely opportunity to 

examine whether One-Stop service centers, in which a broad range of services are colocated, offer another promising strategy for increasing low-income families’ participation in 

the FSP and other work supports. As a result of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 

(WIA), One-Stop career centers have proliferated in recent years. The WIA consolidated 

numerous federal employment and training programs and required states and localities to 

provide most federally funded employment services through One-Stop career centers. A 

guiding principle for this system is to provide universal access to services, so that anyone 

seeking employment or career advancement can obtain core employment services through 

the One-Stop system. In addition, creation of this system has increased interest in—and 

created new opportunities for—coordination between the welfare and workforce 

development systems. Recent research indicates that the level of collaboration between 

these two systems has grown substantially (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002a). 

In the rest of this introductory chapter, we present the study’s research questions and 

methodology. Chapters II and III provide important background and information that set 

the stage for the study’s findings. Chapter II synthesizes findings from several recent studies 
_____________________________________________________________________ 3

of service integration through One-Stops and strategies for increasing access to food stamps 

and other work supports. In Chapter III, we describe the communities in which the CERCs 

have been implemented; our description includes a time line of plant closings, data on 

unemployment rates, and a profile of dislocated workers. Chapter IV describes CERC 

planning efforts at the state and local levels. Chapter V describes CERC implementation 

and the services provided, and Chapter VI presents data on the levels and patterns of service 

use. In Chapter VII, we present findings on the CERCs’ successes and implementation 

challenges and then describe a number of implementation lessons that can be derived from 

the study. 

RESEARCH QUESTIONS 

The key goals of this study are to gain a detailed understanding of how the CERCs have 

been implemented and how they operate, assess their potential to increase participation in 

the FSP and other work supports, and glean implementation lessons from the CERCs’ 

experience that will be useful to policymakers and program operators seeking to design and 

implement similar strategies. The study’s research questions reflect these goals. Specifically, 

the study is designed to answer the following key questions: 

• How do the CERCs deliver food assistance and other work supports, and to 

what extent are these services integrated with other services provided at the 

CERCs? How are the CERCs organized? How are cases managed? How are 

the CERCs funded? How do they facilitate communication across participating 

public agencies? What is the nature of their relationship with employers? Do the 

CERCs conduct community outreach? Do nongovernmental food assistance 

organizations participate in the CERCs? 

• What are the levels of service and program receipt participation in the CERC 

communities? How did the levels of participation change in the FSP, TANF, 

and other assistance programs after the CERCs opened? 

• What lessons can be drawn from Virginia’s experience operating the CERCs? 

What successes and failures did the CERCs experience? Do they have sufficient 

resources to meet their goals? Do they represent a model that shows promise, 

and one that could be replicated? What implementation lessons can be drawn 

from the experience with CERCs? 

METHODOLOGY 

This study is a process study designed to learn about CERC implementation and to 

glean implementation lessons that can be useful to future initiatives. We used a case study 

approach as our primary research method for gathering and analyzing qualitative information 

on CERC implementation. We supplemented the qualitative information with a brief 

literature review to provide context for the study, and with an analysis of service use data. In 

this section, we describe our methods for these three study components. 
4 

Case Studies 

Much of the data collection for this study occurred during intensive site visits to each of 

the four CERCs.5 Each visit, conducted by a team of two researchers, included individual 

interviews, small group discussions, observations of service delivery, and reviews of program 

documents relevant to CERC operations. In each site, we conducted individual interviews 

and group discussions with CERC administrators, CERC line staff, administrators from 

DSS, and representatives of partnering agencies that participated in the CERCs (Table I.1). 

In some sites, we also conducted interviews with local government officials and CERC 

customers. After the visits, telephone interviews were conducted with a few respondents 

who were not available when we were on site. 

Prior to the visits, we developed prototype interview protocols. We adapted them as 

necessary to address variations across the CERCs and communities. (The prototype 

protocols are included in Appendix A.) Discussions with administrators focused on CERC 

organization, operations, funding, approach to case management, and coordination across 

programs. The discussions also explored respondents’ perceptions of the CERCs’ successes, 

the challenges to coordinating across systems, and the strategies CERCs have developed to 

overcome such hurdles. Interviews with CERCs and partnering agency line staff focused on 

their experiences delivering services through the CERCs and coordinating services across 

programs, and on their approach to helping customers access the services they need. 

 After completing the site visits, we conducted a series of telephone interviews with 

state-level officials from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) and the Virginia 

Department of Social Services (DSS).6

 These interviews focused on the state’s rationale for 

establishing the CERCs, goals for the CERCs, state policies related to CERC 

implementation, perceptions of the CERCs’ key successes and implementation challenges, 

lessons learned from designing and implementing the CERCs, and any other state-level 

issues that surfaced during the site visits. (Appendix B contains our protocol for state-level 

interviews.) 

We based our analysis of the case study data on detailed site narratives prepared after 

each site visit. The narratives summarize and synthesize information collected from all 

respondents and other data sources. They include detailed descriptions of CERC planning, 

operations, and service delivery, as well as site visitors’ observations and judgments about 

the relationship between CERC policies and procedures and the extent to 

 5

We visited the Clarksville CERC on December 16-17, 2002; the Martinsville CERC on 

December 18-20, 2002; the South Boston CERC on January 22-24, 2003; and the Marion 

CERC on February 11-13, 2003. 

6

At the VEC, we interviewed the associate commissioner, director of field operations, 

and administrative services manager. At DSS, we interviewed the commissioner, manager of 

the Job Readiness and Employment Unit, and a regional director. 
_____________________________________________________________________ 5

Table I.1: Site Visit Respondents 

Respondent 

Clarksville Martinsville 

South 

Boston Marion 

Virginia Employment Commission 

CERC Manager and VEC Director X X X X 

CERC Supervisor X 

Regional Director X 

Workforce Services Representatives X X X X 

WIA Coordinator X 

WIA Case Manager X X X X 

Office Services Specialist X 

Department of Social Services 

Director X X X X 

Assistant Director X 

Eligibility Supervisor X X 

Employment Services Supervisor X 

VIEW Coordinator X 

Partnering Agencies 

Adult Basic Education X X 

Area Agency on Aging X X X 

Child Support Enforcement X 

Community Action Agency X X 

Community College Representatives X X X 

Department of Rehabilitative Services X X 

Experience Works X X 

Faith-Based Service Providers X 

Health Care Providers X X X 

Mental Health Care Providers X X 

United Way X X 

Local Government Officials 

Mayor X X 

CERC Customers X X 

which the CERCs were able to meet their goal of increasing access to a broad range of 

services. The concluding section of each narrative summarizes the CERCs’ key successes 

and implementation challenges. We used the site narratives to conduct cross-site analyses 

that compared and contrasted operations, approaches to service coordination, and key 

implementation issues across the four CERCs. 
6 

Literature Review 

To provide a broader research context for the study, we reviewed several recent studies 

that examined service integration through One-Stop centers and strategies for increasing 

access to food stamps and other work supports. In our review of these studies, we focused 

on examining key barriers to service integration in One-Stop centers that have been 

identified in prior research, as well as the promising strategies implemented to enhance 

service integration. A summary of barriers and strategies gleaned from the literature review 

is presented in Chapter II of this report. 

Analysis of Administrative Data 

 In addition to deriving implementation lessons from the process analysis, this study 

aims to document the extent of service use by CERC customers and to examine patterns of 

service use and program participation in the CERC communities. To conduct this analysis, 

we obtained weekly reports on CERC activities from the VEC. These reports include the 

number of walk-in customers and telephone calls, sources of referrals to the CERCs, job 

placements made through the CERCs, and referrals made by the CERCs to partnering 

agencies. We aggregated these data into monthly counts of CERC customers and referrals 

and then examined the patterns of service use in the CERCs over time. In addition, we 

obtained data from DSS on levels of participation in the FSP, TANF, and the child care 

assistance program in the CERC communities. We report our findings in Chapter VI. ERS 

also requested data from the VEC on levels of service use prior to CERC implementation, 

but the agency was not able to provide this information. 
 

C HAP T E R II 

O VERVIEW OF S ELECTED L I T E R A T U R E ON

O N E - S T O P S E R V I CE C ENTERS

n recent years, states and communities have begun to implement and test a variety of 

strategies designed to increase low-income families’ access to work supports. There has 

been a focus on increasing access to employment and supportive services through 

increased coordination across service delivery systems, such as workforce development 

systems and welfare programs (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002b). In particular, many 

states have made an effort to co-locate and coordinate services through One-Stop career

centers established under the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). Co-locating a 

broad range of services and benefit programs in One-Stops may increase convenience for 

customers, because the customers can apply for multiple programs in a single visit, rather

than having to travel to the offices of several agencies. Customers also may be able to access 

information about various programs more easily in One-Stops and thus may learn about 

services and programs that they would not have otherwise known about. Moreover, when 

services are coordinated across programs, customers may be more readily linked to the range 

of services they need. For example, states have reported efforts to coordinate services in 

One-Stop centers that include (1) formal linkages (for example, memoranda of 

understanding), (2) informal linkages (such as referrals), (3) coordinated planning, (4) shared 

intake and enrollment, (5) integrated case management, (6) shared customer tracking, (7) and

shared performance measurement (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002b). 

I 

This chapter provides an overview of findings from selected previous studies about the 

major barriers to integrating services through WIA One-Stop centers.7 It also examines

strategies that may be useful for enhancing service integration in these centers. To provide a 

backdrop for understanding the experiences of the four CERCs discussed in this report, 

particular emphasis is placed on challenges to, and strategies for, co-locating service 

7

Fieldwork for some of the reviewed studies was conducted before WIA had been fully 

implemented. 
8 

providers and integrating services to increase access to the Food Stamp Program (FSP) and 

other work supports. The first section describes the challenges to increasing access to 

programs and services through One-Stop centers, while the second suggests promising 

strategies for improving access. 

 Research indicates that rural residents face significant barriers to accessing employment 

and services because they must travel farther than urban residents to reach agency offices or 

worksites, and public transportation is often not available (Duncan et al. 2002; and Fletcher 

et al. 2002). Because service co-location and integration are often seen as having the 

potential to ease barriers faced by low-income families in rural communities, such as those in 

which the CERCs are located, where appropriate, we highlight specific challenges and 

strategies that are relevant to rural settings. 

CHALLENGES TO INCREASING ACCESS TO FOOD STAMPS AND OTHER 

WORK SUPPORTS THROUGH ONE-STOP CENTERS 

Prior research has identified factors that may influence participation in the FSP, 

Medicaid, and other work support programs (Dion and Pavetti 2000; Gleason et al. 2001; 

Rosso 2001; Schirm and Castner 2002; and U.S. General Accounting Office 1999). In 

addition, a growing body of research has examined the difficulties involved in providing 

coordinated services to low-income individuals through One-Stop centers—that is, through 

physical co-location of service providers. Building on research in both these areas, this 

section explores some of the challenges to increasing low-income families’ access to food 

stamps and other work supports through the use of One-Stop centers. First, we describe 

barriers to service co-location. We then we discuss several barriers to service integration 

within One-Stop centers, including logistical and philosophical constraints; differences in the 

missions of co-located service providers; differences across programs in performance 

standards, funding streams, and reporting requirements; and the lack of compatible 

information systems. 

Agencies face logistical and philosophical barriers to co-location. 

Agencies that seek to co-locate services in a One-Stop center face the logistical 

challenges of relocating various partnering agencies and housing them in one office building. 

In some cases, the facility in which a One-Stop center is located does not have adequate 

space to accommodate all partners at one time (Pindus et al. 2000; and U.S. General 

Accounting Office 2002a). In addition, some partnering agencies may have long-term lease 

contracts that are costly to break, thus making the cost of relocation relatively high for the 

agency. Alternative strategies to co-location—such as outstationing staff from one agency to 

another agency on a rotating basis—have been adopted in some cases in which full-time colocation was not an option (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002a). These alternatives have 

been implemented primarily in collaborations involving the welfare and workforce 

development agencies. Outstationing staff to One-Stop centers could become increasingly 

complex and challenging to implement if more partners are added. 
_____________________________________________________________________ 9

Differences in geographic service areas, distances between One-Stop centers and 

welfare offices, and the location of these offices all pose logistical barriers (U.S. General 

Accounting Office 2002a). For example, some social service agencies in West Virginia 

reported a reluctance to coordinate Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) 

services with One-Stop centers, because of differences in the geographic boundaries of the 

welfare offices and the One-Stop centers. In some cases, welfare officials were not sure 

which One-Stop centers had a service area that included the area served by the welfare 

agency (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002a). In other states, welfare agency officials felt 

that there was an insufficient number of One-Stop centers to accommodate all TANF 

customers, or that customers would have to travel long distances to reach the centers. For 

example, in Alabama, officials reported that there were welfare agency offices, but not OneStop centers, in every county. 

In addition to logistical barriers, some agencies do not want to co-locate their services 

because they believe they can more effectively serve customers at their own office (U.S. 

General Accounting Office 2002a). Staff may think that each agency has expertise in its own 

service area, and that these services can best be provided in separate locations. For example, 

in some cases, officials from agencies that provide TANF have been reluctant to integrate 

services with workforce development agencies because they fear that those agencies will not 

give sufficient priority to addressing the multiple barriers to employment that some TANF 

recipients face (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002a). Moreover, because of TANF’s 

work requirements and many states’ work-first approach to serving TANF customers, few 

TANF customers may be eligible for training through the workforce development system. 

Research indicates, as well, that concerns over “turf” have made collaboration between 

TANF providers and workforce development staff difficult (Pindus et al. 2000). Such issues 

also can stem from distrust of other agencies and from the fear of losing agency autonomy. 

Staff at each agency may resist co-location because they perceive it as a threat to their job 

security, fearing that their services will no longer be needed. Such fears about job security 

have been exacerbated in recent years by the decline in TANF caseloads and by the fact that 

many workforce development services can now be provided through on-line and automated 

systems (Pindus et al. 2000). 

Differences in mission among co-located agencies may hamper efforts to integrate 

services. 

In the absence of a common mission, One-Stop partner agencies may have very 

different philosophies about how best to serve their customers. For example, an early study 

of One-Stop centers that have combined TANF and workforce development services prior 

to enactment of WIA have found that, while welfare reform has been guided by a “workfirst” strategy, workforce development staff place greater value on longer-term strategies, 

such as improving job skills and increasing wages (Pindus et al. 2000). Consequently, 

workforce development agencies sometimes feel that TANF customers are placed in 

employment before they have developed the job skills needed to be successful in the labor 

market. By extension, one can imagine that in a One-Stop setting in which the primary 

focus is on providing employment services, assessing customers’ need for supportive 
10 

services (or for basic money to live on) may not receive sufficient attention. Given the 

competing demands on caseworkers’ time, some agencies may be tempted to focus on 

providing the services that support the mission of their agency and on which the agency’s 

performance will be assessed. 

In addition, when One-Stop centers have not implemented a shared-intake system or 

when the intake process is not comprehensive, each agency participating in the One-Stop is 

likely to assess customers for the needs that must be met to accomplish its own goals. For 

example, employment and training service providers are likely to focus on assessing 

employment-related needs but may not ask customers about their needs for food stamps, 

medical insurance, and other support services. Moreover, earlier research indicates that even 

in the welfare office setting, caseworkers do not always provide information and determine 

eligibility for all the programs for which individuals may qualify (Quint and Widom 2001; 

and Pavetti et al. 2002). Instead, they may choose to determine eligibility only for the 

programs for which participants express the greatest need (Quint and Widom 2001). Yet, 

focus groups reveal that, although customers may not think they have a need for such 

services as food stamps, they still may be engaging in practices that would suggest otherwise 

(for example, cutting back on meal portions or eating at other people’s homes) (McConnell 

and Ponza 1999). In a One-Stop setting with no central intake function, customers may not 

articulate their need for supportive services, such as food assistance or help with 

transportation, to caseworkers from agencies that focus on, say, employment or education 

services. 

Differences in funding streams, procedures, performance standards, and reporting 

requirements across agencies pose barriers to service integration. 

Differences in how program services are defined, funding is allocated, performance is 

measured, and outcomes are reported can hinder efforts to coordinate services across 

agencies (Pindus et al. 2000; and U.S. General Accounting Office 2002a). Program rules and 

requirements often are determined by legislation and may not allow for a great deal of 

flexibility at the local level. In such cases, coordination may be difficult, since each agency 

likely will define “success” differently (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002a). For 

example, co-located programs may have different eligibility criteria, which can pose a 

challenge to service coordination, because public agencies may be required to reimburse the 

funding agency if they serve customers who are ineligible for their programs (Pindus et al. 

2000). Similarly, agencies that receive funding based on their ability to meet certain 

performance standards may be less inclined to refer customers to other agencies or to accept 

referrals if they cannot be assured of positive outcomes on certain measures (Pindus et al. 

2000). Reporting requirements may cause agencies to be reluctant to refer customers to 

other service providers unless they can be sure of receiving the outcome data that must be 

reported to funders in a timely way. Research suggests that keeping track of performance 

indicators for multiple programs in a One-Stop setting can be overwhelming for agency staff 

and can even foster competition among programs (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002b). 
_____________________________________________________________________ 11

Incompatible information systems can hinder agencies’ efforts to share information. 

Agency policies that restrict information sharing due to customer confidentiality rules 

may hamper coordination by creating barriers to sharing customer records through 

information systems (Pindus et al. 2000). In the absence of these barriers, partnering 

agencies could use shared information systems to access customer information from other 

agencies’ databases—for identifying customer needs, determining eligibility, or verifying 

participation in program activities (Pindus et al. 2000; and U.S. General Accounting Office 

2002a). In this way, customers would not have to reproduce the same documentation and 

verification multiple times when they apply for more than one service or benefit program. 

In addition, shared information can facilitate discussion of specific cases across agencies and 

thus enable staff to work together to resolve issues that customers may be facing (Pindus et 

al. 2000). 

However, the experiences of One-Stops that aim to coordinate service delivery between 

TANF and workforce development service providers suggest that, often, each agency has 

developed paperwork and information systems that are unique to its data collection needs 

(Pindus et al. 2000). In some cases, partnering agencies have made efforts to use common 

forms and paperwork, but differences between agencies in federal and state reporting 

requirements often preclude them from further coordination (Pindus et al. 2000; and U.S. 

General Accounting Office 2002a). Without shared information systems, One-Stop centers 

are not likely to relieve the burden on customers associated with application processes, 

because customers may still be required to go through lengthy application processes and 

provide documentation and verification separately for each program. Moreover, at the same 

time, agency policies that restrict information sharing due to customer confidentiality rules 

may impede coordination by creating barriers to sharing customer records through 

information systems⎯thus making it difficult to discuss and resolve issues related to 

individual customers (Pindus et al. 2000). 

STRATEGIES FOR INCREASING ACCESS TO WORK SUPPORTS THROUGH 

ONE-STOP CENTERS 

Recent research on service integration and participation in work support programs 

indicates that several strategies may be useful for increasing access to work supports through 

One-Stop centers. This section discusses the following strategies: (1) developing integrated 

information systems, (2) providing integrated case management, and (3) using innovative 

strategies to simplify the application and recertification processes. 

Develop information systems that avoid duplication of effort and ease the burden on 

customers. 

One-Stop centers that develop integrated information systems in order to determine 

eligibility for various programs and to verify customer information can reduce duplication of 

effort across agencies and ease the burden on customers of applying for multiple work 

supports. For example, a recent study found that sophisticated information systems can aid 
12 

the application process for food stamp and Medicaid programs by (1) reducing the burden 

on customers and staff, and (2) reducing the potential for error on the part of staff (Pavetti 

et al. 2002). Thus, partner agencies that want to increase program access may also want to 

develop information systems that either are integrated or interface with one another. 

Sophisticated, automated systems that determine eligibility for various programs can 

help ensure that customer needs are met, even when they are not identified through a 

thorough needs assessment. One such promising practice is the use of an information 

system that automatically determines eligibility for all programs for which customers might 

qualify, without depending on the customers to inform caseworkers of their needs (Pavetti et 

al. 2002). Subsequently, customers are able to enroll in each of the programs for which the 

system finds them eligible. Such a system could be particularly beneficial in a One-Stop 

setting, because caseworkers often are responsible for identifying needs and for linking 

customers to a broad array of programs and services but face competing demands on their 

time. 

Partnering agencies in One-Stop centers can integrate their information systems so as to 

automatically identify customers’ eligibility for a number of programs and services, all at the 

same time. The experiences of programs that have fully integrated their eligibility 

determination systems for the Food Stamp and Medicaid programs demonstrate how 

sophisticated information management systems can be used to increase access to, and 

participation in, programs, even when individuals have not sought out the program for 

which eligibility is determined (Pavetti et al. 2002). For example, some offices have 

developed their systems in such a way that, when information is entered with which to 

determine an individual’s eligibility for Medicaid, the system will automatically consider that 

person’s eligibility for food stamps, or it may prompt the caseworker to do so. 

Another strategy that partnering agencies may use is to allow their information systems 

to interface with other databases. This strategy would likely work particularly well when full 

system integration is cost-prohibitive or infeasible due to different reporting requirements, 

or when partnering agencies wish to supplement an integrated system. For example, some 

state agencies have allowed their databases to interface with those of departments of vital 

statistics, labor, and motor vehicles, in order to verify information on customer age, 

citizenship status, income, and value of assets (Pavetti et al. 2002). Similarly, other states 

have automated eligibility systems that interface with the child support collection system and 

the unemployment insurance system; they can determine whether a customer receives 

income from child support or has experienced recent changes in earnings or employment 

status, respectively. By sharing access to customer records across agencies, One-Stop 

partners can reduce the burden on customers of having to verify information multiple times. 

In this way, agencies can ensure that the benefits of participation in various work support 

programs outweigh the costs of the application and recertification process. 
_____________________________________________________________________ 13

Provide integrated case management to ensure a more efficient approach to service 

delivery. 

One-Stop centers can use comprehensive needs assessments and integrated case 

management to provide a more efficient approach to service delivery. Two approaches to 

integrated case management explored here are (1) training caseworkers to be “generalists,” 

and (2) organizing services by function. 

One-Stops that conduct a comprehensive assessment of customer needs at a single 

access point not only may provide customers with a more seamless approach to service 

delivery, but also may reduce the frustrations caused by a complex system with numerous 

overlapping services and requirements. Historically, customers seeking services through 

multiple agencies have felt frustrated by the challenges of navigating a complex system that 

has multiple programs, varying access points, and separate intake and assessment procedures 

for each program (Pindus et al. 2000; and U.S. General Accounting Office 2002b). Families 

often find it both difficult and confusing to deal with multiple caseworkers; their frustrations 

could partially be alleviated if caseworkers shared information with one another through 

regular communication or through effective management information systems (Pavetti et al. 

2002). This problem may also be resolved through the use of a “primary case manager” who 

is responsible for helping customers navigate the system and coordinate service delivery 

(U.S. General Accounting Office 2002b). 

One approach to providing integrated case management is to train caseworkers as 

generalists, so that they are able to determine eligibility for all the programs offered. Some 

agencies that have implemented such an approach find that it promotes program 

participation and may even give caseworkers more time to devote to other responsibilities, 

such as follow-up phone calls (Pavetti et al. 2002). Training caseworkers at One-Stop 

centers to be generalists is likely to be difficult, given the broad array of programs and 

services about which they would need to be knowledgeable. Nonetheless, there is some 

precedent for this; a One-Stop in Connecticut cross-trains caseworkers to provide both 

TANF and WIA services (U.S. General Accounting Office 2002b). 

As an alternative to training caseworkers to be well versed in all the programs offered 

through the One-Stop, staff can be organized in groups with representatives from other 

agencies that provide similar services. In this way, services would be organized according to 

function, rather than affiliation or funding source. For example, a One-Stop center in Ohio 

has taken staff from different agencies and created integrated work teams that share 

common caseloads, goals, and outcomes. These teams use mutually agreed-on protocols for 

case management (John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development 2002). By using 

this approach, One-Stop partners may, to some extent, be able to avoid the unnecessary 

duplication of effort that results when multiple service providers conduct interviews with 

customers only to extract the same information (Pindus et al. 2000). 
14 

Use innovative approaches to simplify the application and recertification processes. 

The issue of applicant burden is especially relevant when it come to increasing access to 

benefit programs and other work supports (supports that sometimes require completion of 

lengthy applications) and for rural settings (where customers face transportation barriers). 

Research indicates that the customer burden created by application processes for food 

stamps and Medicaid may discourage eligible applicants from accessing services (McConnell 

and Ponza 1999; and Pavetti et al. 2002). Application processes typically include mandatory 

face-to-face interviews with caseworkers, as well as extensive documentation of applicants’ 

personal income and assets (Pavetti et al. 2002). Moreover, because the application 

processes and documentation requirements for some work supports may require multiple 

appointments to complete the applications, reducing applicant burden may increase 

participation in work support programs, especially in rural settings. 

Innovative approaches to service delivery that simplify the application process can be 

used to reduce the burdens of application and periodic certification. Among these strategies 

are (1) implementing state options and waivers in the FSP; (2) determining eligibility or 

accepting applications by mail or fax, through call centers, or over the Internet; and (3) 

developing “common access applications” for use across multiple programs and service 

providers in One-Stops. Such strategies can minimize the amount of time and money 

customers have to spend making trips to partner agencies’ main offices, especially in rural 

communities. The strategies may be particularly useful in One-Stop centers where 

formidable barriers to co-location exist, since they can make it easier for applicants to 

complete the application or eligibility determination process without necessarily having to 

meet with an agency representative. 

In the case of the FSP, simplification could be achieved through the implementation of 

various options states have at their disposal. In general, these options fall into one of three 

categories: (1) granting longer certification periods—that is, the period of time that elapses 

before recipients are required to reapply for benefits; (2) requiring fewer face-to-face 

interviews with staff in the local food stamp office; or (3) requiring fewer and less frequent 

reports of changes in income and circumstances (Rosenbaum 2000). 8 In addition, the Farm 

Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 gives states the option of excluding certain types 

of income that are not counted under the state’s TANF or Medicaid programs when 

determining eligibility for the FSP. 

Similarly, the use of technology could allow application and eligibility determination to 

be conducted through One-Stop centers by making it easier for individuals to complete 

applications online, through the mail, or over the telephone. On-line applications typically 

 8

Under the “hardship exemption,” states must waive the face-to-face interview if the 

interview would present a hardship for the applicant. Instead, these applicants are 

interviewed over the telephone or through visits to their homes (Rosenbaum 2000; see also 

Federal Register, vol. 65, no. 40, p. 10865). 
_____________________________________________________________________ 15

are short so as to reduce the burden of initiating the eligibility determination process (Pavetti 

et al. 2002). These forms usually can capture enough information to determine whether 

individuals or households may qualify for a program; typically, however, applicants are 

required to complete the eligibility determination through a face-to-face interview. Because 

traveling to these interviews can be burdensome for residents in rural areas, one county in 

Minnesota is planning to use an innovative approach to technology, by allowing food stamp 

applicants to conduct their mandatory face-to-face interviews through video telephones 

stationed at two community-based offices (a university extension office and a local assistance 

office) (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2003). 

Another strategy that could be particularly useful for One-Stop centers is the 

development of a “common access application,” which would allow individuals to apply for 

a variety of programs at once. For example, the Georgia Common Access Application was 

created by a workgroup made up of several state agencies (U.S. Department of Agriculture 

2003). The form consolidated a total of 64 pages of individual program applications into an 

eight-page document that allowed applicants to simultaneously apply for food stamps, 

Supplemental Security Income, welfare, Medicaid, housing assistance, and the Special 

Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children. 
16 
 

C HAP T E R III 

B ACKGROUND ON THE CERC

C O MMUNITIES

he CERCs were opened in rural communities in which many residents have been 

employed in manufacturing jobs. Three of the CERCs—in Clarksville, Martinsville, 

and South Boston—are in southern Virginia, near the border with North Carolina (an

area known as Southside Virginia). The fourth, in Marion, lies in the western part of the 

state. Three CERCs serve a one-county area, whereas Martinsville serves Martinsville City 

and Henry and Patrick counties (Figure III.1). All of the CERC communities are high 

poverty areas with poverty rates ranging from 11.7 percent in Henry County to 19.2 percent 

in Martinsville City (Table III.1).9 This chapter provides background information on the 

CERC communities, an overview of plant closings and unemployment rates in the past

several years, and a description of the key characteristics and needs of dislocated workers in

these areas. 

T

PLANT CLOSINGS AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATES 

The CERCs were opened in response to large numbers of layoffs and rising 

unemployment rates in the CERC communities. Nationally, manufacturing went into a

downturn in late summer 2000, and has yet to recover. In March 2001, the U.S. economy 

slipped into recession. The CERC communities were particularly hard hit by the 

concentration of plant closings; however, the overall soft labor market meant that there were 

limited job opportunities elsewhere. In this section, we give an overview of these trends in 

each community. 

9

Virginia is the only state that distinguishes independent cities as separate entities from 

counties. Thus, poverty rates for Martinsville City are reported separately. 
18 

Table III.1: Poverty Rates in the CERC Communities 

CERC Service Area 

Percent of Residents in 

Poverty in 1999 

Clarksville Mecklenburg County 15.5 

Martinsville Henry County 11.7 

Patrick County 13.4 

Martinsville City 19.2 

South Boston Halifax County 15.7 

Marion Smyth County 13.3 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. 

All the CERC communities have lost a significant number of jobs, primarily from the 

closing of textile, furniture manufacturing, and candy production plants. 

 In all the CERC communities except Clarksville, extensive layoffs from manufacturing 

jobs began in the late 1990s and were continuing at the time of the site visits in late 2002 and 

early 2003. In Clarksville, layoffs began in late 2001. Below, we summarize the most 

significant layoffs in each of the CERC communities: 

• Clarksville. Mecklenburg County lost more than 1,400 jobs in 2001 and 2002. 

In November 2001, Russell Stover Candies announced the closing of its 

Clarksville plant. The company laid off 500 workers on December 23, 2001, and 

an additional 180 workers in 2002. Burlington Industries, a textile manufacturer, 

laid off about 750 workers in its combing and finishing divisions in 2002. 

• Martinsville. Officials from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) 

estimate that, since 1999, 9,000 workers in the Martinsville area have been 

displaced due to layoffs and plant closings. The layoffs began when DuPont 

announced layoffs of 1,000 workers in early 1999, and Pluma, a textile company, 

announced plans to close its factory and lay off 800 workers in late 1999. In 

December of that year, Tultex, another textile company, gave just a few days’ 

notice to nearly 1,000 employees that it would close due to bankruptcy. In 

2002, V.F. Imagewear closed its plant and laid off more than 3,000 employees. 

In addition, Basset Furniture, Hooker Furniture, and American Furniture laid 

off more than 1,000 employees between 2000 and 2002. 

• South Boston. According to VEC officials, Halifax County lost about 2,000 jobs 

between 1999 and 2002. As in Martinsville, the Tultex bankruptcy resulted in 

layoffs in late 1999; 350 Tultex workers were laid off from the Tultex plant in 

Halifax County. In August 2000, J.P. Stevens, another textile company, closed 

its plant and laid off 350 workers. Burlington Industries laid off 600 workers 

from its weaving division in 2001. During this time, smaller factories, such as 

International Industrial Fans, also closed; that factory laid off 50 workers. 

Finally, the closing of the Russell Stover Candies plant and the Burlington plant 

in adjacent Mecklenburg County affected some workers who commuted from 

Halifax. 
 19

• Marion. An estimated 2,380 workers lost their jobs in Smyth County between 

1998 and mid-2002, mostly from layoffs in furniture and textile plants. In 2000, 

Natalie Knitting and U.S. Gypsum closed their plants and laid off 160 and 200 

workers, respectively. In 2001, four plants—Lea Industries, American of 

Martinsville, Utility Trailer, and Titan Wheel Corporation—each laid off over 

100 workers. In early 2002, closings and layoffs at the Dana Corporation, 

Virginia House Furniture, American Furniture, and Springford Knitting 

precipitated the opening of the CERC. 

Unemployment rates in the CERC communities rose in 2001 and 2002, as factories 

laid off large numbers of employees. 

 Because of the layoffs in the CERC communities that began in the late 1990s, 

unemployment rates in the first quarter of 2001 were already high, ranging from 6.9 percent 

in Clarksville to 9.1 percent in Marion (Figures III.2 to III.5). In contrast, the statewide 

unemployment rate in Virginia during the same time period was 2.6 percent, much lower 

than the national unemployment rate of 4.2 percent. In Martinsville and South Boston, 

unemployment rates began rising in late 2001, reaching a high of 12.7 percent in Martinsville 

in the second quarter of 2002, and 11.6 percent in South Boston in the fourth quarter of 

2001. In Clarksville, after layoffs at Russell Stover Candies, unemployment rose from 7.8 

percent in the fourth quarter of 2001 to 12.4 percent in the first quarter of 2001. 

Unemployment in Marion rose to its highest point of 10.2 percent in the third quarter of 

2002, after closings and layoffs at several plants. 

 From the first quarter of 2001 through the fourth quarter of 2002, employment in the 

CERC communities grew somewhat, but did not keep pace with growth in the labor force as 

more dislocated workers began looking for work. For example, in the Martinsville service 

area, employment grew by 1.1 percent, but the civilian labor force grew by 5.5 percent (not 

shown). Likewise, in Mecklenburg County, the service area for the Clarksville CERC, 

employment grew by 2.3 percent; the size of the civilian labor force increased by 6.7 percent. 

In contrast, the employment growth statewide was 3 percent during the same period, while 

the civilian labor force grew by 4 percent. 

CHARACTERISTICS OF DISLOCATED WORKERS 

 VEC staff reported that most CERC customers are dislocated workers from factories 

that have closed. Some customers are working in low-wage jobs, such as at fast-food 

restaurants, and want to increase their work hours or find higher-paying jobs; a small 

proportion have been unemployed on a long-term basis. Most live in the CERC service 

areas, although some who previously commuted to work from adjacent counties or from 

North Carolina have sought services at the CERCs. Although the CERCs do not collect 

information on the household composition of their customers, VEC staff reported that 

customers came from a range of family types, including two-parent, single-parent, and 

single-adult families. Staff at the Clarksville and Martinsville CERCs reported that dislocated 

workers, particularly those laid off from textile plants, predominantly are women. 


Marion South Boston

Martinsville Clarksville 1

2 3 4 5

N

W E

S

CERC LOCATION SERVICE AREA POPULATION COUNTY LABELMarion Smyth County 33,081 1Martinsville Martinsville City 57,930 Patrick County 15,416 2 Henry County 19,407 3 South Boston Halifax County 37,355 4Clarksville Mecklenburg County 32,380 5 

Figure III.1

CERC Locations and Service Area

Commonwealth of Virginia

Source: Population sizes are from the 2000 Census.
 21

FIGURE III.2

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BY QUARTER,

CLARKSVILLE

10.4 10.4

10.9

12.4

7.8

6.9 7.4 6.9

3.7 4.1 4.2 4.5 4.23.8

3.2

2.6

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

Quarter 1

2001

Quarter 2

2001

Quarter 3

2001

Quarter 4

2001

Quarter 2

2002

Quarter 1

2002

Quarter 3

2002

Quarter 4

2002

Mecklenburg County Virginia

Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

CERC 

Implementation

March 2002

Percentage

FIGURE III.3

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BY QUARTER,

MARTINSVILLE

Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

11.8

14.1

11.7 12.7

10.7

9.1

7.9 8.1

3.7 4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3

3.8

3.2

2.6

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

Quarter 1

2001

Quarter 2

2001

Quarter 3

2001

Quarter 4

2001

Quarter 2

2002

Quarter 1

2002

Quarter 3

2002

Quarter 4

2002

Martinsville City, and Patrick and Henry Counties Virginia

CERC 

Implementation

March 2002

Percentage
22 _____________________________________________________________________

FIGURE III.4

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BY QUARTER,

SOUTH BOSTON

Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

9.9

10.6

10.0 11.6 10.9

10.2

8.1 8.0

3.7

4.1 4.2 4.2 4.3

3.8

3.2

2.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Quarter 1

2001

Quarter 2

2001

Quarter 3

2001

Quarter 4

2001

Quarter 2

2002

Quarter 1

2002

Quarter 3

2002

Quarter 4

2002

Halifax County Virginia

10.0 10.2

7.5

8.5

9.1

8.7

8.1

9.1

3.7 4.2 4.1 4.2 4.33.8

3.2

2.6

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Quarter 1

2001

Quarter 2

2001

Quarter 3

2001

Quarter 4

2001

Quarter 2

2002

Quarter 1

2002

Quarter 3

2002

Quarter 4

2002

Smyth County Virginia

Source: Local Area Unemployment Statistics from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor.

CERC 

Implementation

April 2002

CERC Implementation

June 2002

Percentage

FIGURE III.5

UNEMPLOYMENT RATE, BY QUARTER,

MARION

Percentage
 23

Many dislocated workers in the CERC communities are older workers; most have 

little work experience beyond jobs in manufacturing and textile plants. 

 Staff in all the CERCs reported that dislocated workers from textile and apparel 

(“textile”) and furniture plants typically worked in the same jobs for 10 to 20 years, some for 

as long as 30 years. According to staff, most of these workers have no work experience 

beyond the factory work they have done, and they come to the CERC hoping to find similar 

types of jobs. These types of jobs, however, are not readily available in the CERC 

communities. 

 With the exception of staff at the Marion CERC, CERC staff reported that dislocated 

workers range in age from the early 30s to the mid-50s, and that dislocated workers from 

textile plants predominantly are women over age 40 years. For example, a dislocated-worker 

survey of former V.F. Imagewear employees in Martinsville found that about 65 percent of 

workers are over 40; staff estimated that most former Tultex employees are 45 or older. 

Staff reported that these older workers often felt insecure about seeking employment in a 

new field or returning to school for retraining. In Marion, staff reported, customers are 

somewhat younger, typically between 25 and 45 years old. 

CERC staff identified several barriers to employment faced by dislocated workers: 

low levels of education, little work experience beyond factory work, poor job-seeking 

skills, and, in some cases, lack of transportation. 

Across all four CERCs, staff reported that a low education level, especially the lack of a 

high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma (GED), was the most significant 

barrier to employment faced by many dislocated workers. VEC officials explained that most 

jobs, even in factories, now require that applicants have a high school diploma or GED, 

even if the applicant has prior experience doing similar work. In addition, workers without 

these credentials may not be able to enroll in training courses at local community colleges. 

Staff estimated that the proportion of customers without these credentials is substantial, but 

less than half of their caseloads. In Clarksville, for example, VEC officials reported that, of 

the 5,000 job seekers registered with the South Hill VEC’s job service (the VEC office in 

Mecklenburg County), 54 percent have a high school degree or GED, and 17 percent have 

some postsecondary education. In Mecklenburg County, 68 percent of adult residents have 

at least a high school diploma or a GED. 

CERC staff reported that many dislocated workers lack the skills needed to obtain 

employment in fields other than sewing or furniture manufacturing. For example, staff said 

that workers from these industries have very low technical skills, such as proficiency with 

computers, and that the workers fear using computers and other technologies. Many 

workers, however, have been willing to enroll in education and training programs to prepare 

themselves for entering a new employment field. CERC and VEC staff reported that 

customers often sought training in the medical field (for jobs such as certified nursing 

assistant, licensed practical nurse, medical transcriber, or billing clerk), information systems 

technology, business management and administration, human services, and trucking. 
24 

In addition to low education and skill levels, staff reported that some dislocated workers 

lack basic job-seeking skills. For example, some do not know how to conduct a job search 

or to interview with a potential employer. According to VEC staff, these workers sometimes 

experience emotional barriers as well, such as fear of looking for a new job or lack of 

confidence in their own abilities. In addition, staff reported that the long-term unemployed 

sometimes lack basic work skills, such as the ability to be punctual or to take directions from 

a supervisor. 

Overall, CERC staff reported, transportation is not a major barrier to employment. The 

absence of public transportation in the CERC service areas may serve as a barrier for those 

who do not own a car, cannot afford to maintain one (to pay, for example, for gasoline, 

registration, repairs, and insurance), or will need to commute longer distances to find 

employment. Across all sites, however, staff thought that most dislocated workers owned 

cars. Moreover, CERC and partnering agency staff reported that churches and charities have 

been helpful in transporting customers to appointments with doctors and other service 

providers. In addition, many customers obtain funds to pay for transportation to attend 

training through the Workforce Investment Act and Trade Act programs (described in 

Chapter V). 

Staff report that an increasing number of dislocated workers in the CERC 

communities need emergency assistance and lack access to health care. 

At the time of the site visit, many dislocated workers had not yet exhausted their 

unemployment insurance benefits but were nearing the end of their eligibility. Staff reported 

that an increasing number of dislocated workers are requesting emergency assistance, such as 

assistance with utility bills, rent and mortgage payments, and gasoline. Others struggle to 

make car payments and purchase auto insurance. In every site except South Boston, CERC 

staff reported an increase in requests for food assistance; CERC and partnering agency staff 

in all the sites reported an increase in requests for emergency financial assistance. 

The local Department of Social Services (DSS) offices in the CERC communities 

reported an increase in the number of requests for emergency assistance and applications for 

benefit programs. For example, in Mecklenburg County, DSS reported a sharp increase in 

applications for benefit programs, including the Food Stamp Program, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Medicaid—from 10 applications per day before 

the layoffs began to 30 to 40 per day at the time of the site visit. In Martinsville, DSS 

reported that across all types of benefit programs, the number of families receiving 

assistance rose from 8,010 in January 2000 to 10,188 in November 2002. TANF cases 

increased by 28 percent, food stamp cases by 26 percent, and Medicaid cases by 31 percent. 

These increases in requests for assistance and applications to DSS benefit programs occurred 

before the CERCs opened. 

CERC and partnering agency staff identified health insurance coverage as one of the 

most pressing needs of dislocated workers and their families. Most children in dislocated 

workers’ families qualify for Medicaid or Family Access to Medical Insurance Security, 
 25

Virginia’s child health insurance program. However, adults who lose their employerprovided health insurance do not have an alternative source of medical coverage unless they 

qualify for Medicaid. In particular, service providers reported that many dislocated workers 

cannot afford to purchase prescription drugs for such chronic conditions as asthma, high 

blood pressure, diabetes, or depression. Some must choose between purchasing medicine 

and purchasing food or other necessities. 
26 
C HAP T E R IV 

O VER V I E W OF T H E CERC M ODEL

roviding services through CERCs represents a new approach to service delivery in 

Virginia. The state previously had not implemented a service delivery system that

aims to offer such a broad range of services in one location. The Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) One-Stop career centers are similar, in that a range of service 

providers are co-located in a single location, but these centers focus almost exclusively on

providing employment and training services. With the CERCs, Virginia is attempting to

extend the One-Stop concept to the co-location of a much broader array of services, ranging 

from education and training programs to health care and emergency assistance. 

P 

This chapter provides an overview of Virginia’s model for the CERCs. We begin by 

describing the initial goals for the CERCs; we then examine how they were funded and

planned. We also describe the two approaches to CERC implementation that have been

used, the CERCs’ supervision and staffing structure, and the roles of partnering agencies. 

GOALS FOR THE CERCs 

Governor Warner intended for the CERCs to serve as single points of contact in

communities affected by widespread job loss, and thus ensure that residents could obtain 

information about, and apply for, all available services and benefits in one location. Several

officials said that the CERCs were modeled after the approach of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA), which sets up service centers in which people affected by 

natural disasters and other emergencies can access a range of federal and state services. 

One official from Virginia’s Department of Social Services (DSS) said that this OneStop service center model for the CERCs was chosen because of concerns about two

barriers faced by residents of the affected communities. First, because these communities 

are rural, and in some cases service providers are not centrally located, lack of transportation 

was seen as a potential barrier to accessing services for some community members. 

Establishing the CERCs was expected to ensure that customers found the help they needed 
28 

in a single location. Second, Virginia Economic Strike Force members wanted to make sure 

that community residents had adequate information about the range of services and benefit 

programs available to help them. Strike Force members thought that co-locating service 

providers at the CERCs would (1) facilitate customers’ access to information about 

community resources, and (2) raise customers’ awareness of the range of supports available. 

State officials reported that, initially, they expected to achieve extensive co-location of 

services in the CERCs—with staff from various agencies available nearly full time to take 

applications and determine eligibility for a range of programs. They also expected to provide 

services in an integrated fashion⎯by coordinating services for individual families across 

participating agencies. Local staff also were optimistic that co-location and service 

integration could be achieved, because the governor was promoting the initiative and 

because communities showed a great deal of enthusiasm and interest in achieving these 

goals. 

Staff from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) shared similar goals. They 

also noted that the Strike Force had always intended for the CERCs to be temporary. As 

with FEMA operations, the Strike Force wanted to bring together state and local agencies 

and resources so they could have a major impact in affected communities soon after layoffs 

occurred—and then to close the centers once community members were able to apply for 

the services and benefits that the state and local communities could offer. 

PLANNING ACTIVITIES 

 Planning time for the CERCs was very short, a factor that has limited the ability of state 

officials to develop operational procedures and systems to promote the integration of 

services across agencies and providers. Indeed, early in the process, when an additional 

company announced layoffs in the Clarksville area, the planning process was accelerated, 

with the goal of opening a CERC in Clarksville within 30 days. Despite the short planning 

phase, participating agencies at the state and local levels engaged in several important 

planning activities that enabled them to establish the CERCs and to begin providing services 

quickly.

The VEC led the CERC planning process in each community. 

 The VEC took the lead responsibility for coordinating the logistics of opening the 

CERCs and for operating the CERCs, once they opened. State-level VEC officials 

coordinated the procurement of office space, furniture, computers, and Internet hookups, as 

well as other equipment. Staff in the local VEC offices helped identify potential locations 

for the CERCs and handled logistics locally. For example, they set up mail service, created 

floor plans for desks and office equipment, and oversaw the installation of computers and 

telephone lines. In the two CERCs that operate within the VEC’s WIA One-Stop career 

centers, local VEC staff oversaw the renovation of office space needed to create space for 

partnering agency staff. 
 29

 CERC and local VEC staff reported that the state provided ample support to the local 

offices during each phase of a CERC’s planning, thus ensuring that all needed supplies and 

equipment were in place when the CERC opened. Partnering agencies concurred that the 

CERCs provided all the supplies, computer hookups, and space they needed to serve 

customers. 

The Strike Force served as a forum for coordination among state agencies. 

 At the state level, the Strike Force coordinated planning activities across agencies. For 

example, staff from the local DSS offices needed access to the agency’s computer database, 

called the Application Benefits Delivery Automation Project (ADAPT), to determine 

eligibility on site at the CERCs. This issue was brought to the Strike Force, and plans were 

developed for installing the computer equipment necessary to make ADAPT available at the 

CERCs. A state-level liaison at DSS was appointed to coordinate with all parties. Similar 

issues related to the participation of various state entities were raised and addressed at Strike 

Force meetings. 

FUNDING 

 One of the most significant difficulties the Strike Force faced during the CERC 

planning process was obtaining funding to implement and operate the CERCs. No state 

resources had been allocated to pay for CERC operations. After conducting some initial 

research about whether the funds could be used, VEC officials decided to use Rapid 

Response funds from the U.S. Department of Labor, approximately $330,639 from March 

2002 through April 2003, to pay the costs associated with opening the CERCs, such as 

renting office space and installing computer equipment.10 No funds were available, however, 

to cover partnering agencies’ costs associated with outstationing staff at the CERCs. 

According to state officials, several partners felt that they should receive reimbursement for 

staff time contributed to the CERCs. Because the resources of most service providers were 

already stretched thin in the CERC communities, lack of funds to defray these costs limited 

some partners’ willingness and ability to participate. 

APPROACHES TO IMPLEMENTATION 

 Within the Strike Force, the VEC took lead responsibility for establishing and operating 

the CERCs and for providing customers with services and referrals. Once the Strike Force 

decided to open a CERC, state-level VEC officials and local staff worked together to 

 10The WIA of 1998 requires states to provide Rapid Response Activities after 

permanent plant closures, mass layoffs, or natural disasters that result in dislocation of 

workers. Rapid Response Activities aim to help dislocated workers find new employment as 

soon as possible. 
30 

determine where the CERC should be located, and how it should be operated. These 

decisions were made on a case-by-case basis, after considering the needs of dislocated 

workers in the community, the capacity of the local VEC office to operate the CERC and 

house staff from partnering agencies, and the location of key service providers in the 

CERC’s service area. Two types of CERCs have emerged from this process: (1) a satellite 

office approach, in which the CERC is housed in a separate location from the VEC and 

serves as a satellite office; and (2) an in-house approach, in which the CERC operates within 

the local VEC office. The rest of this section describes these approaches. 

Clarksville and Martinsville implemented the CERCs as satellite offices of the local 

VEC office. 

 When the Strike Force began planning for the implementation of the first CERC, in 

Mecklenburg County, officials decided that it should be located in Clarksville, because both 

of the plants that closed were located there. The VEC office in Mecklenburg County is 

located in South Hill, approximately 30 miles from Clarksville. Staff from that office have 

been responsible for operating the CERC and for coordinating with partnering agencies in 

the county. The Clarksville CERC is located in a storefront office on the main street of 

Clarksville. 

 The VEC took a similar approach in Martinsville. Office space for the CERC was 

located in nearby Ridgeway, approximately eight miles from the VEC’s Martinsville office. 

Staff from Martinsville have been temporarily outstationed to the CERC to provide services 

and referrals. Although the Martinsville office is centrally located and accessible to 

dislocated workers, the CERC was implemented in a separate location, primarily because the 

Martinsville office lacks sufficient space to house partnering agencies. Due to layoffs in the 

area, the volume of customers seeking services at the Martinsville CERC has risen 

substantially; the waiting room has been crowded, and staff needed all the available office 

space. 

 In both locations, CERC and partnering agency staff reported that the satellite offices 

are convenient for customers. In Clarksville, the CERC is especially convenient for 

customers who live in the western half of Mecklenburg County. Customers who live in or 

near Clarksville can travel 5 minutes to the CERC, compared with the 40 minutes required 

to reach the VEC’s South Hill office. In Martinsville, site visit participants felt that the 

CERC was conveniently located and accessible for the majority of dislocated workers in the 

service area. A few participants, however, thought that the CERC should have been located 

in Martinsville—that its location in Ridgeway was more convenient for customers who 

reside in Henry County. 

 In addition to being conveniently located, the CERCs are convenient for dislocated 

workers because the volume of customers seeking services is substantially less than at the 

main VEC offices. As a result, wait times are shorter, and staff thought CERC customers 

received more personalized attention than did customers at the VEC. 
 31

The South Boston and Marion CERCs operate within local VEC offices, which also 

serve as WIA One-Stop career centers. 

Initially, the VEC considered opening the South Boston CERC in a separate location. 

One potential site was in a shopping center about a mile from the VEC office. However, 

because the VEC was already operating a WIA One-Stop career center in its office, and 

other potential sites for the CERC were nearby, the South Boston VEC director 

recommended operating the CERC out of the VEC office. She felt that this arrangement 

represented a more efficient use of resources, as the VEC would not have to pay for 

additional office space, and the South Boston office would not have to outstation any staff at 

another location. Moreover, partnering agencies that were already sending staff to the OneStop center probably would not be able to outstation staff at a CERC simultaneously. 

 In Marion, the VEC director also recommended housing the CERC within the VEC 

office. Since 2000, the VEC had been operating a WIA One-Stop career center in its Marion 

office. The director felt that locating the CERC at the VEC would impose less burden on 

partnering agencies that were already sending staff to the WIA One-Stop. Moreover, several 

partnering agencies, such as the Smyth County Free Clinic and the Department of 

Rehabilitative Services, are located across the street from the VEC office; others are located 

within several miles. 

SUPERVISION AND STAFFING 

 This section examines how the CERCs are managed and staffed. Our focus is on staff 

provided by the VEC, because they provide most of the services. Participation by partnering 

agencies is discussed in the next section. 

Local VEC directors provide supervision and oversight of the CERCs. 

 Locally, responsibility for operating the CERCs lies with the VEC office located within 

the CERC’s service area; the local VEC director also serves as the CERC manager. In South 

Boston and Marion, where the CERC is located within the VEC office, oversight is relatively 

straightforward and is integrated into the director’s oversight of overall office activities. 

 In Clarksville and Martinsville, where the CERCs are satellite offices of the local VEC 

offices, the VEC director must manage and oversee the work of both offices. The additional 

responsibility of managing the CERC has added significantly to the responsibilities of these 

directors. In Clarksville, the VEC director/CERC manager is not located on site at the 

CERC on a full-time basis. However, she reports visiting the CERC frequently and 

maintaining regular contact with the CERC staff by telephone and e-mail. In Martinsville, 

the VEC director has overall responsibility for managing the CERC; she has delegated 

responsibility for overseeing day-to-day CERC operations to a VEC supervisor in the 

Martinsville office. Due to the high volume of work in the Martinsville office, however, this 

supervisor is not located at the CERC. Nonetheless, she maintains frequent contact with 
32 

VEC staff that are on site at the CERC via telephone, interoffice instant messaging, and email. She also visits the CERC at least once every two weeks. 

The CERCs are staffed by experienced VEC employees. 

 In the CERCs that operate as satellite offices, several VEC staff are outstationed at the 

CERCs, where they provide most of the services to customers directly or through referral to 

a partner. VEC directors reported that, because CERC staff needed to be able to provide a 

broad range of services and answer questions about many VEC programs, they found it 

necessary to assign some of their most experienced staff to the CERCs. Losing these highly 

skilled staff in the main VEC offices has been a strain on these offices, especially at a time 

when the volume of customer traffic has increased sharply. In the CERCs that operate 

within VEC offices, responsibility for serving CERC customers has been spread across most 

of the office staff. Typically, workforce service representatives (WSRs) staff an intake desk 

on a rotating basis to determine the reason for customers’ visits and to refer them to the 

appropriate VEC or partnering agency staff. The rest of this section summarizes the staffing 

arrangements of each of the four CERCs. 

Clarksville. The CERC in Clarksville is staffed by two full-time VEC WSRs. Typically, 

these staff are generalists who can take Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims, register 

customers for the job service, and provide information about WIA and Trade Act programs. 

Initially, three WSRs worked full time at the CERC; after several months of low customer 

traffic, however, the VEC director decided to move one person back to the VEC office in 

South Hill, the VEC’s main location in Mecklenburg County, where customer traffic was 

high. 

 One WSR assigned to the Clarksville CERC was a new VEC employee who was hired 

in March when the CERC opened. The other is an experienced WSR who was redeployed 

from the South Hill office. The VEC director said that, because learning the guidelines and 

procedures for UI and other VEC services takes several months, she decided to pair the new 

employee with one of the most experienced WSRs in South Hill. On rare occasions when 

South Hill has been short of staff for the CERC, such as when staff are sick or on vacation, 

she has been able to use experienced staff from the VEC’s South Boston or Farmville office. 

In addition to the new WSR at the CERC, the South Hill office hired four part-time staff 

after learning of impending layoffs at Russell Stover Candies and Burlington Industries. 

These staff were hired before plans for the CERC were announced. 

Martinsville. In Martinsville, the CERC is staffed by two full-time WSRs and one 

office services worker who staffs the CERC’s resource room, prepares weekly reports about 

CERC activities, and provides clerical support. As in Clarksville, the VEC director reported 

that she has had to deploy two of her most experienced staff from the Martinsville office to 

work at the CERC. New staff could not be hired for these positions, because they would 

not be familiar enough with the full range of VEC services and programs. Before the CERC 

opened, some new staff had already been hired in Martinsville in response to the increased 
 33

volume of dislocated workers seeking VEC services. In addition, the VEC hired several 

part-time staff to assist in the VEC office after the CERC opened. 

 South Boston. The VEC office in South Boston has a staff of 17, most of whom are 

WSRs who can provide help with UI claims, job search, and referrals. When the CERC 

opened, the VEC office hired one new WSR to help with the anticipated increase in service 

provision. To manage CERC intake, WSRs take turns staffing an intake desk in the lobby 

during two-hour shifts. The intake worker determines the purpose of the customer’s visit 

and then refers the customer to the appropriate VEC or partnering agency staff member. 

Marion. The Marion VEC office has a full-time staff of six (in addition to the VEC 

director), most of whom are WSRs. In addition, six part-time staff work on an as-needed 

basis. When the CERC opened, the VEC office hired two new part-time staff to help with 

the anticipated increase in requests for services. One is a clerical worker; the other is a WSR. 

PARTNERING AGENCIES 

In addition to the VEC, Virginia intended to co-locate a wide range of other service 

providers in the CERCs, including state agencies and community- and faith-based agencies. 

This section describes how the VEC recruited and coordinated with partnering agencies, as 

well as the types of agencies that have served as CERC partners.

The Strike Force mandated that state agencies participate in the CERCs, but each 

agency determined the extent to which it would participate. 

 Member agencies of the Strike Force, such as DSS and the community college system, 

were expected to participate in the CERCs as partners. Expectations for the extent of this 

participation were negotiated during the planning phase. For example, local DSS offices 

initially were expected to staff the CERCs on a full-time basis, to determine customers’ 

eligibility for various benefit programs. Some DSS staff, however, did not think that 

demand for DSS services at the CERCs would be sufficient to justify outstationing a fulltime worker. One DSS official said that, because many of the CERC customers had recently 

lost their jobs, most were still receiving UI benefits and/or had assets that made them 

ineligible for most DSS benefit programs. Moreover, local DSS offices in the CERC 

communities were already stretched thin, because the number of applicants had increased 

significantly, but local offices did not have the additional resources to manage the increased 

workload. 

In negotiations between state- and local-level DSS staff, it was agreed that local DSS 

offices would supply staff to determine eligibility at the CERCs for at least two days a week 

initially, with the understanding that the DSS presence might be scaled back further if the 

level of referrals to DSS at a particular site was low. Officials also reported that the DSS 

offered to be available by telephone to do initial eligibility screenings, and to provide training 

to CERC staff on basic eligibility criteria for DSS programs. Because local-level DSS staff 
34 

are city or county, rather than state employees, the state-level DSS agency cannot mandate 

local participation in the CERCs as the VEC did (local VEC staff are state employees). 

The VEC recruited and coordinated with partnering agencies in each community. 

 At the local level, to gain their cooperation and plan their participation in the CERCs, 

the VEC took lead responsibility in organizing meetings of staff from the VEC and other 

partnering agencies. In three of the four communities, an associate commissioner from the 

VEC convened and participated in on-site meetings with potential partners, including state 

agencies, community colleges, local government agencies, and nonprofit and faith-based 

organizations that provide services in the community. The local VEC director convened an 

initial partner meeting in the fourth community. During these meetings, participants 

discussed the goals for the CERCs, types of services that could be provided, and the logistics 

of service co-location. Local VEC office directors followed up with subsequent meetings 

and negotiations to establish partner schedules and to resolve other logistical issues. 

 The associate commissioner encouraged the partners in each community to continue 

these meetings on a regular basis as long as the CERCs continued to operate. At the time of 

the site visits, only Martinsville was continuing to convene partner meetings on a regular 

basis. Most of the CERCs held one or two partner meetings after the CERCs opened in 

order to discuss the referral process and the level of referrals partners were receiving. 

However, in part because of the logistics of convening staff from partnering agencies, which 

tended to be dispersed throughout the county, most CERC managers chose to coordinate 

with partners by telephone on an as-needed basis. 

The CERCs include a wide variety of partners. 

Across the CERCs, partnering agencies offer a range of services, including employment 

services, education and training, social services, health and mental health services, and 

emergency assistance (Table IV.1). For example, Experience Works and several Area 

Agencies on Aging offer employment and training services to low-income, older workers. 

Area school districts, adult education programs, and community colleges offer General 

Equivalency Diploma preparation, adult basic education, and short- and long-term training 

programs. Social and health services are provided by government agencies, such as the local 

DSS, and by private organizations, such as the Smyth County Free Clinic. Local churches, 

charities, and community action agencies provide emergency assistance, such as food or help 

in paying rent or utility bills. 

In the two CERCs located within VEC offices, fewer new partnerships have been 

forged. The Marion and South Boston VEC offices had established One-Stop career centers 

in their offices, as required by WIA, before the CERCs were opened. Many of the CERC 

partners in these two communities were already providing on-site services in the VEC 

offices, on either a scheduled or an on-call basis. However, the CERCs attracted some new 

partners, and some on-site partners increased their participation or range of services they 

offered. One notable addition was DSS, which had not been a mandated partner in the WIA 

One-Stops, but which became a partner in the CERCs. 
 35

Table IV.1: CERC Partners, by Site 

Partner Clarksville Martinsville 

South 

Boston Marion 

State and Local Public Agencies

Area Agency on Aging X X X 

Department of Health X X 

Department of Rehabilitative Services X X X 

Department of Social Services X X X X 

Office of Child Support Enforcement X X 

Adult Education Programs X X 

Community Colleges

Patrick Henry Community College X 

Southside Virginia Community College X X 

Virginia Highlands Community College X 

Wytheville Community College X 

Nonprofit Organizations 

Center for Behavioral Health X 

Piedmont Community Health Services X 

Experience Works X X 

Family Access to Medical Insurance 

Security Outreach Initiatives X X X X 

Family Life Services X 

Halifax County Community Action X 

Mountain Community Action Agency X 

People, Inc. X 

Saltville Medical Center X 

Smyth County Free Clinic X 

United Way X X 

Faith-Based Organizations 

Area churches X X X X 

Good Samaritan X 

Lake Country Community Assistance 

Association 

X 

Salvation Army X 

Smyth County Ministerial Association X 
36 
C HAP T E R V 

S E R V I CES P ROVIDED BY THE CERC S

o learn how the CERCs operate and to derive lessons that may be useful to future 

One-Stop initiatives, it is important to understand how the CERCs have been 

implemented and what services they provide. Officials from the Virginia 

Employment Commission (VEC) reported that they did not develop standardized

procedures for service provision because circumstances in each local community, which 

varied widely across the CERCs, dictated much of their operations. For example, the types

of partnering agencies participating in the CERCs, and their level of participation, vary from 

community to community. Moreover, officials said that the accelerated planning schedule 

within the Strike Force did not allow time for in-depth discussion of service integration 

issues, such as developing common intake forms or tracking systems. Nevertheless,

although many procedures and systems have been developed locally, service provision is 

similar across the four CERCs. This chapter describes the services provided by the CERCs,

including their community outreach efforts; services provided by VEC staff who operate the 

CERCs; and services offered by partnering agencies. Where relevant, we highlight 

similarities and differences in the services provided across the four sites. 

T

COMMUNITY OUTREACH ACTIVITIES 

In each community, state and local officials organized high-profile ribbon-cutting

ceremonies to publicize the opening of the CERCs. All of these events were attended by 

state and local officials; Governor Warner attended the ceremonies in Clarksville and

Marion. The local media covered the openings, thus providing the CERCs with 

considerable publicity. During the initial period of operation, CERC managers reported 

continued coverage by local newspapers and television and radio stations. In most cases, 

however, coverage waned after a month or so. 

In addition to the publicity generated by the ribbon-cutting ceremonies, the CERCs

employed several community outreach strategies. VEC staff tried to inform dislocated 

workers about the CERCs directly. For example, the VEC sent a letter to all former
38 

employees of Russell Stover Candies, inviting them to visit the CERC in Clarksville and 

informing them of the services available. When layoffs are announced, VEC Rapid 

Response teams typically provide information and services to workers on site in factories 

and other workplaces. Staff reported that they provided information about the CERCs 

during these sessions and encouraged workers to seek services at the CERCs. In addition, 

several CERCs placed regular public service announcements on local radio stations. 

Meanwhile, the VEC produced a brochure for each CERC, describing the services offered 

and including a schedule informing people when each of the partnering agencies would be 

on site. The Marion CERC, in particular, reported distributing these brochures widely to 

local churches and other service providers. Finally, each CERC placed a large sign in front 

of the building that reads “Coordinated Economic Relief Center.” 

 In most CERC communities, VEC and partner staff felt that it would have been helpful 

to have more publicity on an ongoing basis, such as ongoing weekly advertisements in the 

local newspapers, to inform the community about the services available. VEC staff in some 

sites thought that more advertising and outreach by partnering agencies, in addition to 

outreach conducted by the VEC, could have helped publicize services offered by the 

CERCs. In South Boston, however, staff reported that, because the volume of customers 

was already so high at the VEC office (where the CERC is located), they did not feel the 

need to conduct an extensive outreach campaign to promote the CERC. 

 CERC staff in all sites ask customers to complete an initial intake checklist, which 

includes a question on how they found out about the CERCs. Customer responses suggest 

that most of them learned about the CERC from the VEC; these responses ranged from 21 

percent in South Boston to 81 percent in Martinsville (Figures V.1 to V.4). A substantial 

percentage reported “another source,” ranging from 6 percent in Marion to 45 percent in 

Clarksville and South Boston. During the site visits, some staff speculated that many 

customers heard about the CERC by word of mouth, rather than as a result of CERC 

outreach efforts. Thus, the “other source” reported by some customers could have been a 

word-of-mouth referral from a family member, friend, or former coworker. Few customers 

reported that they were referred to the CERC by another service provider. With the 

exception of Marion, few of them reported learning about the CERC from public service 

announcements on television or radio, and few learned about the CERC from newspaper 

articles or advertisements. 

SERVICES PROVIDED BY CERC STAFF 

 This section describes the services provided on site at the CERC by VEC staff. These 

staff provide core intake and referral services to CERC customers. They also provide the 

full range of VEC services, including job service registration, job search assistance, and 

assistance with Unemployment Insurance (UI), Trade Act, and Workforce Investment Act 

(WIA) services. 
 39

FIGURE V.1

PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC 

FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES

CLARKSVILLE

50% 45%

2%

.5% .2%

FIGURE V.2

PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC 

FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES

MARTINSVILLE

81%

9%

3%

2%

6%

VEC

N = 4,291

Note: Sources do not total to 100 percent due to rounding error.

VEC

Other Source

Other Agencies

Newspaper

Radio

N = 5,683

Note: Sources do not total to 100 percent due to rounding error.

Other Agencies

Newspaper

Radio

Other Source 
40 

FIGURE V.3

PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC

FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES

SOUTH BOSTON

21%

53%

8%

5%

12%

Other Sources

Radio

VEC

Newspaper

Other Agencies

Note: Sources do not total to 100 percent due to rounding error.

FIGURE V.4

PERCENTAGE OF CUSTOMERS WHO LEARNED ABOUT THE CERC

FROM VARIOUS REFERRAL SOURCES

MARION

9%

39%

6%

22%

15%

9%

VEC

Other Agencies

Newspaper

Radio

TV

N = 1,492

Note: Sources do not total to 100 percent due to rounding error.

Other Sources

N = 1,412
 41

VEC staff at the CERCs provide all intake and referral services to CERC customers. 

 When customers come in to CERC, they meet with a VEC worker at the intake desk 

who logs them into the computer system and records their name, social security number, 

referral source, and services sought. In Marion and South Boston, customers are then called 

in the order in which they arrive in the waiting area for a one-on-one interview with the next 

available workforce service representative (WSR) or with a representative from a partnering 

agency, if an appropriate person is on site. In Clarksville and Martinsville, the two VEC staff 

on-site provide intake for both CERC and VEC services. Typically, as soon as they are 

logged in, customers are served by VEC staff or are referred to a partnering agency. 

Customers in Clarksville and Martinsville usually are served in the front room, where other 

customers may be waiting to be served, but VEC staff will sometimes take them to a private 

office to discuss issues that are personal or sensitive. 

 CERC staff members conduct minimal needs assessments. With the exception of the 

Marion CERC, customers’ needs are not routinely assessed at intake, and staff typically do 

not offer services unless a request is made or unless there is an observable need for specific 

services. Staff thought that because most dislocated workers have worked and supported 

themselves for years, and because many have never used any type of government assistance 

program, asking for help can be difficult and embarrassing. Consequently, because they do 

not want to stigmatize or offend them, most CERC staff are reluctant to ask customers 

about their need for services beyond those requested. Instead, they tend to think that 

customers will learn about the availability of services from information posted in the waiting 

areas and will request referrals as needed. VEC staff at the Marion CERC, on the other 

hand, said they consistently ask customers about their needs, regardless of whether 

customers express needs or request non-VEC services. As in the other sites, intake staff first 

ask customers to complete a one-page intake form indicating the services and referrals 

sought. In Marion, however, a WSR then reviews the intake form with the customer and 

conducts an informal verbal assessment in which the WSR probes about various needs. 

 Strategies to link customers to non-VEC services range in intensity from providing a 

directory of service providers to helping customers schedule appointments with partner 

agencies. Intake staff generally serve as the liaison between customers and partnering 

agencies by providing customers with information about other service providers and linking 

them to the appropriate services through appointments and referrals. Once a need has been 

identified, staff may ask customers to complete a one-page form indicating the services they 

are interested in receiving and the agencies to which they would like to be referred. Intake 

workers then refer customers to the appropriate agency representative on site at the CERC, 

if one is available. If a representative is not on site that day, the intake worker provides the 

customer with a schedule indicating the days and times the representative will be on site, and 

suggests that the customer return on the appropriate day or go directly to the agency’s main 

office for more immediate assistance. 

 Staff then fill out referral forms for customers, which can include a statement of the 

customer’s needs or simply his or her name and social security number, depending on the 

site. In most cases, staff have customers contact the partnering agency themselves; however, 

occasionally staff will contact the agencies by telephone and may even schedule 
42 

appointments for customers. This usually occurred when a customer had an urgent need for 

such services as emergency food assistance. As an alternative to making referrals, some 

workers said that they simply provide customers with a directory of community service 

providers and suggest they call agencies in the directory to get the help they need. 

 The CERCs do not provide ongoing case management. Due to the high volume of 

customers served, CERC staff believe it is a more efficient and equitable approach to have 

customers meet with the next available staff person, rather than to assign a specific case 

manager to each individual. This is viewed as more efficient, because customers can be seen 

almost immediately and do not have to wait for a particular case manager to become 

available. It is considered more equitable because it ensures that all WSRs work with 

approximately the same number of cases. Moreover, because CERC staff do not coordinate 

services across providers or provide ongoing case management, assigning customers to 

specific staff members was considered unnecessary. 

 VEC staff do not systematically follow up with CERC partners on the outcome of their 

referrals. In all four CERCs, referral forms that are given to CERC partners provide space 

for agencies to report back to the VEC on customer outcomes. CERC staff in all sites 

reported, however, that they usually do not receive completed forms back from their 

partners. In Marion and South Boston, some WSRs said they made concerted efforts to 

follow up with partners and customers, to determine whether the customer obtained the 

service sought, and the outcome of the service. 

 Partnering agencies in some sites said they could not provide outcome information on 

specific customers due to confidentiality restrictions. In response to this concern, staff at 

the Clarksville CERC were attempting to obtain aggregate, rather than individual, reports on 

CERC customers’ outcomes from partnering agencies. For example, the CERC would 

provide DSS with the names of 10 customers referred from the CERC. DSS would report 

back that three of them had enrolled in the Food Stamp Program (FSP), and two had 

enrolled in Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. 

Customers can register for the VEC’s job service and conduct job search activities in 

CERC resource rooms. 

 When a customer comes to any of the four CERCs in search of a job or to file an 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) claim, intake workers check the VEC’s computer system to 

see whether the person is already registered with the job service. Customers typically are 

required to register for the job service when they file a UI claim or ask to search the VEC’s 

database of job listings. Customers begin the process by filling out a form and supplying 

information on their qualifications and the type of work they desire. Once this form is 

complete, staff register customers by entering the information into the VEC’s job service 

system. Next, staff conduct a computer search of all job orders, to generate a list of jobs 

that match the customer’s qualifications and interests. If the customer is interested in any of 

the jobs, CERC staff look up additional information on the job order and provide it to the 

customer. Once customers have registered with the job service, staff notify them by letter 
 43

when they receive job orders from employers who are a good match with customers’ 

qualifications and interests. Customers can return to the CERC as often as they like to 

conduct job searches. 

 Job search is primarily self-directed through the use of “resource rooms.” All four of 

the CERCs provide a resource room in which customers can use computers to search the 

VEC’s database of current job orders or to create resumes. They can also make copies, 

make telephone calls, and fax resumes to employers. The resource rooms also contain 

videos and printed materials about creating resumes, conducting job searches, and improving 

interviewing skills. In addition to the resource room, the lobby of the Marion CERC (also 

the VEC office) is arranged so that customers have access to information on a broad range 

of services from the moment they walk in the door. It contains several kiosks and tables 

with brochures, schedules, and flyers from service providers, educators, and employers. The 

lobby and the resource room contain computers for those who want to search the VEC’s 

database for jobs that match their interests and skills. 

 In Martinsville and Marion, VEC staff assigned to the resource rooms provide 

customers with personal attention and assistance with job searches. These staff members 

identify customers’ qualifications and interests and direct them to various resource books 

and resume-preparation programs. In Marion, a WSR staffs a help desk in the VEC’s lobby. 

This person can assist customers in registering for the job service and in accessing an online 

database to conduct their job search. Once customers have compiled a list of job orders that 

match their interests and skills, they can meet with a WSR to obtain more information about 

the positions. Similarly, in Martinsville, the VEC office services specialist helps customers 

with a variety of activities, such as resume preparation, contacting employers, and obtaining 

driving directions to interview sites using mapping software. At the time of the site visit, the 

Martinsville CERC was planning to offer in its resource room typing and computer tests 

(such as for Word, Excel, and Power Point), which are required for some positions. In 

addition, both resource room staff persons assist customers with computer-based job 

searches, resume and cover letter preparation, and improving their job interviewing skills. 

These staff are able to give customers personal attention and to address barriers to 

employment, such as inability to use a computer. 

Customers can receive immediate assistance with UI at all the CERCs. 

 Customers can file UI claims at the CERCs; this is one of the most commonly sought 

services in all of the sites. Intake staff can provide customers with information about UI and 

can answer questions about eligibility, use of the automated UI verification system, and 

extension of benefits. CERC staff in Clarksville noted that many customers initially have 

difficulty calling into the verification system, and that they sometimes are confused by the 

menus or make mistakes in keying in information on the telephone. When this occurs, 

CERC staff take customers to a private office, call the verification system by speakerphone, 

and help them enter the required information. 
44 

 Staff thought that CERCs not housed within the VEC office were providing more 

personal attention to UI claimants. In all four sites, VEC staff have witnessed an increase in 

the volume of UI claims in recent years as a result of mass layoffs and plant closings in their 

service areas. The increase in UI claims has increased the burden for staff, as VEC offices 

are serving more customers without additional staff or resources. As a result, staff have less 

time at their disposal to provide personal attention to customers and to identify needs for 

non-VEC services. Because stand-alone CERCs serve a lower volume of customers than do 

the main VEC offices, staff at the Clarksville and Martinsville CERCs felt that they had been 

able to provide more personal attention to UI claimants; for example, they could answer 

more questions and give a more thorough explanation of how to use the automated 

reporting system. 

Customers can file Trade Act claims at the CERCs and can receive assistance 

enrolling in education and training programs through the Trade Act. 

 Trade Act programs provide assistance and services (such as education, training, and 

some supportive services) to dislocated workers who have become unemployed because of 

increased imports (Trade Adjustment Assistance), or because of imports from Canada or 

Mexico or a shift in production to these countries (North American Free Trade AgreementTransitional Adjustment Assistance).11 Workers laid off from companies that obtain 

certification from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) under one of these programs 

qualify for Trade Act programs. Once a worker group has been Trade Act-certified, 

employees can apply for benefits and services through the VEC. The Marion and South 

Boston CERCs, both of which are housed in the VEC office, have staff on site who can 

accept Trade Act claims. In Martinsville and Clarksville, CERC staff are able to provide 

information and answer questions about Trade Act eligibility and services, as well as 

schedule appointments for customers to file Trade Act claims at the CERC. 

 Many of the plants in the four CERC service areas that have closed in recent years are 

Trade Act-certified. In Marion, most of the textile plants and many of the furniture 

manufacturers that have closed were able to obtain Trade Act certification, and several 

others were awaiting a decision about certification as of February 2003. Burlington 

Industries, formerly one of Clarksville’s largest employers, was certified by DOL. Similarly, 

in South Boston, Tultex, J.P. Stevens, and Burlington Industries were all certified by DOL. 

Almost all the plants in the Martinsville-Henry County area that have closed in the past few 

years are Trade Act-certified. 

 11With the passage of the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002 in 

November 2002, the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade 

Act-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) were merged into a single program. 

However, most dislocated workers in the CERC communities would have applied for 

certification before November 2002 under either TAA or NAFTA-TAA. 
 45

In three of the four CERCs, customers can enroll in WIA programs and receive 

ongoing case management from WIA staff. 

 The WIA combined several federal funding streams for employment and training 

services to create a more streamlined, flexible workforce development system. Through 

WIA dislocated worker and disadvantaged adult programs, customers typically receive 

education, training, and supportive services, such as assistance with transportation and child 

care. Because WIA does not provide money for living expenses, students sometimes need to 

obtain additional funding through UI or the Pell Grant. Some customers opt for short-term 

training programs, such as truck-driving courses, that can be completed before their 

eligibility for UI ends. In South Boston and Marion, WIA staff are available on site at the 

CERC to enroll customers. In Clarksville, staff from the VEC’s South Hill office come to 

the CERC periodically to enroll customers in the program. Initially, the Martinsville CERC 

had four VEC staff on site to enroll customers in WIA and to provide case management. In 

July 2002, however, Patrick Henry Community College assumed responsibility for providing 

WIA services. Since that time, WIA case managers have been located at the college. 

 VEC staff reported that they often enroll customers in both the WIA and Trade Act 

programs, because WIA can pay for some supportive services that Trade Act programs do 

not cover. For example, the Trade Act programs do not cover the cost of child care during 

trainings; but WIA does. Trade Act programs pay for transportation to training only if the 

training is more than 25 miles from the customer’s home. WIA can cover transportation 

costs for shorter distances. Generally, when customers are eligible for both WIA and Trade 

Act services, an attempt is made to combine the services available under both programs to 

better meet customers’ needs. 

SERVICES PROVIDED BY PARTNERING AGENCIES 

 This section describes the services that partnering agencies have offered through the 

CERCs—either on site or through referral—including social services, emergency assistance, 

education, training, employment services, health insurance enrollment, and free or low-cost 

medical services. We also examine the extent to which the services provided by partnering 

agencies have been co-located at the CERCs. 

Public, faith-based, and charitable organizations provide social services and 

emergency assistance through the CERCs. 

 The Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS) is a partner in each of the CERCs 

and the main provider of social services. These services include public benefit programs, 

such as TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, as well as supportive services like child care, 

transportation, and emergency assistance. DSS also enrolls eligible participants in the 

Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare program, Virginia’s employment program 

for TANF recipients. In addition, DSS offices in some communities provided limited 

emergency assistance and referrals to churches and charities for shelter, food, clothing, and 

help with bill payment. 
46 

 The extent to which DSS workers can provide a full range of services while on site 

varies across the CERCs. DSS eligibility workers at the CERCs in Clarksville, Martinsville, 

and South Boston have access to the agency’s databases, computerized applications systems, 

and eligibility charts. In Clarksville and South Boston, DSS workers are able to take 

applications for TANF, the FSP, and Medicaid while on site at the CERC. However, they 

reported that most customers need to take the additional documentation necessary to 

complete their application to the main DSS office on a later day. In Clarksville, if customers 

do not have all the documentation an application requires, they can mail it in without having 

to visit the DSS office. DSS workers in Clarksville will also schedule recertification 

appointments at the CERC upon request. Initially, the DSS staff at the Martinsville CERC 

could not take applications; at the time of the site visit, the agency had begun accepting 

applications at the CERC for fuel assistance, Family Access to Medical Insurance (FAMIS), 

air-conditioning assistance, and other programs that do not require an in-person interview 

with an eligibility worker at the main office. 

 In Clarksville, Martinsville, and South Boston, DSS staff usually visit the CERCs for 

two half-days a week. The DSS office in Marion outstationed staff at the CERC twice a 

week for the first two months of operation. They received few referrals, however, and most 

customers referred by CERC staff requested information only. Moreover, because most 

customers who wanted to file an application did not have all the documentation necessary to 

complete it, they often went to the main DSS office to apply for benefit programs. At the 

time of the site visit, DSS no longer visited the CERC on a regular basis, although staff said 

they would go to the CERC to take an application if requested. 

 None of the DSS staff could take applications for supportive services, such as child care 

or transportation assistance, while on site at the CERCs. They could set up appointments 

for customers with workers in the services department at DSS. They also provided 

pamphlets about these services and information on how to apply. 

 Churches, charitable organizations, and community action agencies typically do not 

outstation staff to the CERCs, but they are available to receive referrals from the CERCs. 

Especially in Martinsville, CERC staff reported sending customers to a number of churches 

for emergency assistance. In South Boston, staff reported referring a substantial number of 

customers to the local community action agency and a faith-based organization, Good 

Samaritan, for help with food assistance, rent and utility payments, and other types of 

emergency services. Typically, these organizations have, at most, two or three staff or 

volunteers to provide services, and they cannot afford to outstation one of them at the 

CERC. Moreover, because these organizations tend to provide tangible emergency 

assistance (such as food, clothing, and shelter), in some cases it is not possible to provide 

services at a location other than their main office. 
 47

Partners provide access to education, training, and employment services that 

complement VEC services. 

 Aside from DSS, partners that have been most likely to outstation staff to the CERCS 

are those that provide education, training, and employment services. Many customers 

receive funds for education and training through the Trade Act or WIA, so community 

colleges and other training programs often complement the services provided through the 

VEC. However, in all the CERCs except South Boston, community college staff reported 

that they suspended their regular visits to the CERCs after several months because they 

received few referrals. Community college representatives at the CERCs provided 

information about courses and financial aid, but customers still had to go to the college 

campuses to register for classes or to apply for financial aid. 

 Some community colleges reported adapting their programs to reflect the needs of the 

dislocated workers in the CERC communities by developing short-term training programs in 

fields with strong job prospects. In Clarksville, for example, with support from corporate 

sponsors, the college developed a six-week course in truck driving. College staff reported 

that most graduates found immediate employment. For workers willing to enroll in longer 

education programs, the community colleges generally encourage enrollment in fields with 

high demand for workers, such as information systems technology, business management 

and administration, human services, and nursing. 

 In addition to the community colleges, adult education programs offer General 

Equivalency Diploma preparation courses for dislocated workers who lack a GED or high 

school degree. For example, in Marion, Mount Rodger Adult Education provides GED 

preparation classes on site at the CERC. 

 Training programs offered through initiatives such as Job Corps, the Area Agency on 

Aging, and Experience Works can offer assistance to special populations of workers who are 

either younger or older than the average working-age population. For example, staff from 

Experience Works, which provides community service jobs for low-income older workers, 

holds weekly workshops at the Martinsville CERC for jobseekers over 40 years of age. In 

Marion, these agencies did not maintain regular office hours at the CERCs, though they 

agreed to accept referrals. 

The CERCs provide customers with access to health insurance and medical care. 

 Some dislocated workers with children qualify for Medicaid, which is available through 

DSS. Other families may have children who qualify for FAMIS, which is Virginia’s child 

health insurance program for low- to moderate-income families that do not qualify for 

Medicaid but need health insurance coverage. Initially, all of the CERCs had representatives 

from partnering agencies on-site who could accept applications for FAMIS; however, due to 

the low volume of customers who wanted to apply and were eligible, these partners decided 

that it would be more cost-effective to accept referrals instead. 
48 

 In some sites, CERC partners also provided access to health care for adults. CERC 

customers often lost their health insurance when they lost their jobs; therefore, many needed 

access to insurance and free or low-cost medical care. According to the local DSS offices, 

the majority of CERC customers do not qualify for Medicaid, so they needed to have free or 

low-cost medical care and prescription drugs available through referrals to partnering 

agencies. For example, the CERC in Marion referred customers with no health insurance to 

the Smyth County Free Clinic, located across the street from the CERC. 

 In Clarksville and Martinsville, partnering agencies offered mental health services when 

the CERCs opened but discontinued their regular visits after receiving few referrals. In both 

communities, providers said they would accept referrals or travel to the CERC to meet with 

customers if requested. In Martinsville, Piedmont Community Health Services also offered 

two sessions of a workshop, “Coping with Job Loss and Life Changes,” led by training 

counselors. 

While the CERCs achieved a moderate level of co-location in the initial months of 

operation, over time, most partnering agencies discontinued their regular visits to the 

CERCs. 

 Initially, a number of partnering agencies outstationed staff at the CERCs for at least a 

few hours a week; however, many of these partners discontinued these visits after a few 

weeks or months. Other partners never provided on site services at the CERCs, but they 

did agree to accept referrals. With the exception of Martinsville, after a few months of 

operation, most of the partnering agencies that were not already on site as part of the WIA 

One-Stops discontinued their office hours at the CERCs. Several reasons emerged for the 

low level of service co-location achieved by the CERCs: resource constraints, low levels of 

referrals to the partners, and a perception by some partners that co-location was unnecessary 

or an inefficient use of resources. 

 Resource constraints limited the ability of partnering agencies to provide services on site 

at the CERCs. With the exception of Martinsville, the CERCs did not have sufficient space 

to house all the partners on site at the same time. Instead, each CERC created a partner 

schedule designed to ensure that all partners had office space at the CERC for one or two 

days a week. In addition, most partners could not afford to outstation staff at the CERC for 

more than a few hours a week. Partners reported that sending staff to the CERCs strained 

their resources at a time when demand for services at their main office had increased and 

staff were already stretched thin. 

 Despite the efforts of CERC staff to link customers to needed services, most partnering 

agencies reported receiving far fewer referrals at the CERCs than anticipated. In some cases, 

the population of displaced workers coming to the CERCs was somewhat different than the 

population served by partner agencies, and CERC customers did not necessarily meet the 

partnering agencies’ eligibility criteria. In other cases, customers were not aware that agency 

services were available at the CERC or were accustomed to seeking these services through 

the agency’s main office. Whatever the reason, partnering agencies found that their staff did 
 49

not serve many customers at the CERCs, and that the staff often did not have enough to do, 

whereas their main offices were overloaded with customers seeking services. 

 Some CERC and partner agency staff said that co-location of some services at the 

CERC was unnecessary or an inefficient use of resources. Especially in South Boston and 

Marion, some partnering agencies are located only a short walk or drive from the CERC. 

Other partners asserted that even though they had staff on site at the CERC, customers were 

already familiar with their main offices and preferred to go there for services. Some noted 

that, because the service areas of the CERCs are rural and customers are geographically 

dispersed, the CERC location may be convenient for some residents, and the main offices of 

partner agencies more convenient for others. 

 Moreover, staff from other partnering agencies pointed out that, although staff at the 

CERC could provide information about the availability of services at their main offices and 

the eligibility criteria for various programs, in most cases customers still need to travel to 

other locations to actually apply for or receive the services. Although some agencies, such as 

DSS, take applications on site, customers often have to return to the main office to complete 

the application or to provide missing documentation. In addition, if a customer comes to 

the CERC at a time when staff from the appropriate partner are not on site, they still have to 

travel to the agency’s main office if they need immediate assistance. Because most partners 

have had staff on site at the CERC for only a few hours a week, the likelihood that a 

customer would find the appropriate partner on site has been small. 
50 
C HAP T E R VI 

L EVELS AND P ATTERNS OF S E R V I CE U S E

IN T H E CERC S

n addition to learning about the types of services and referrals the CERCs offer, we 

examined the extent to which customers have received these services. Drawing on 

counts of customer contacts collected by CERC staff, we begin the chapter by 

discussing the volume of customer contacts CERC staff have had over time. Next, we 

discuss the types and levels of referrals CERC staff made to partnering agencies and other 

community service providers. Data on referrals are drawn from weekly reports, produced by

the CERC staff and submitted to the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), of referrals 

by agency. We also report on the levels of program participation in DSS benefit programs in 

the CERC communities. 

I 

CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS 

South Boston and Marion, the CERCs that operate within local VEC offices, reported 

much higher levels of customer contact relative to the levels in Clarksville and Martinsville,

which operate as satellite offices in separate locations. South Boston reported an average of 

nearly 1,500 face-to-face contacts with walk-in customers per month, and Marion reported 

nearly 1,200 contacts, on average. In contrast, Clarksville averaged 323 face-to-face contacts 

per month; Martinsville had an average of 233. 

In both types of CERCs, staff counted all walk-in customers and telephone calls as 

CERC contacts, regardless of the types of services requested. Thus, in South Boston and 

Marion, staff counted as CERC customers all customers who sought services at the main

VEC office. It is likely that many of these customers would have come to the VEC to file 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims, look for employment, or enroll in Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) programs, regardless of whether the CERC had been established. It 

is not possible, however, to determine which of these contacts were with customers who

sought CERC services, or how many contacts would have occurred if the CERC had not 

been there. 
52 

In Clarksville, the number of customer contacts was fairly low during the first three 

months of operation (March through May), averaging slightly more than 11 contacts with 

walk-in customers per day, or 207 contacts, on average. By July, the number of contacts had 

increased to 318, and by September, the number had reached 425 (Figure VI.1). During the 

site visit, some respondents speculated that the volume of customers increased as more 

community residents found out about the CERC. Most, however, attributed the increase to 

the fact that many dislocated workers were nearing the end of their UI benefits. In addition, 

several respondents thought that community residents were initially optimistic that another 

major company would establish a factory in the area. Thus, many dislocated workers waited 

some time before deciding to seek services and retraining for other types of jobs. 

The volume of customer contacts in Martinsville grew steadily from March through July 

2002, until responsibility for administering WIA in Martinsville shifted from the VEC to 

Patrick Henry Community College. Four WIA case managers had been outstationed by the 

VEC to the Martinsville CERC on a full-time basis; in July, these staff moved back to the 

main VEC office. The new WIA case managers met with customers at the college campus, 

rather than at the CERC. As a result, in-person customer contacts dropped dramatically, 

from 355 in July to 72 in August (Figure VI.2). According to the CERC staff, when WIA 

relocated to the community college, many customers thought the CERC had closed. In 

subsequent months, customer traffic increased somewhat, to about 170 contacts with walkin customers per month from September 2002 through March 2003. 

The patterns of service use have been similar in South Boston and Marion. In both 

sites, the number of face-to-face contacts with walk-in customers jumped substantially in the 

second month of operations (Figures VI.3 and VI.4). The VEC director in Marion 

attributed the increase in customer volume to the publicity surrounding the opening of the 

CERC and to initial outreach done by the VEC about the services available on site. The 

VEC director in South Boston attributed the increase, which continued rising for several 

months, to the county’s high unemployment rate and the number of residents seeking to file 

UI claims or requesting help looking for a job. In both sites, although the volume of 

contacts with clients has remained high, the number of contacts began to decrease somewhat 

in early 2003. 

REFERRALS TO OTHER SERVICE PROVIDERS 

In addition to tracking the number of contacts with CERC customers, the CERCs also 

tracked the number of referrals they made to partnering agencies and other service 

providers. This section describes the types and levels of referrals made, examines potential 

explanations for the relatively low level of referrals to non-VEC services, and reports on the 

status of efforts to track the outcomes of referrals made by the CERCs. 

Almost all referrals made by the CERCs were for employment-related services. 

Of 42,810 referrals reported by the CERCs through March 20, 2003, 41,507 were made 

for employment-related services (Table VI.1). Of those, nearly all were made either to the 
 53

VEC—usually for help with UI or job search activities—or to WIA programs. 

Approximately 1 percent of referrals for employment services were made to other service 

providers, such as Experience Works, the Area Agency on Aging, Department of 

Rehabilitative Services, and Job Corps. 

Fewer than 1 percent of referrals were for social or emergency services. Across the 

CERCs, staff made 214 referrals to local offices of the Department of Social Services (DSS), 

primarily to apply for benefit programs such as the Food Stamp Program (FSP), Medicaid, 

or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Other referrals were made to 

community action agencies, charities, and food banks. Although the level of referrals 

reported here is generally consistent with site visit findings, as discussed in more detail 

below, inconsistencies in reporting and tracking referrals may have contributed to this 

pattern of low levels of referrals. 

CERC staff also made referrals to adult education programs and community colleges. 

The Marion CERC, where an adult education program offers General Equivalency Diploma 

preparation classes on site, made the most referrals to adult education—85 out of 94 

referrals. In addition, CERC staff made 127 referrals to various community colleges. 

The CERCs made 172 referrals for health-related services. Although many CERC 

customers reported needing access to health services, according to CERC staff, few 

community resources were available for adults not eligible for Medicaid. The CERCs made 

40 referrals to Family Access to Medical Insurance Security, Virginia’s child health insurance 

program. Twelve referrals were made to the Department of Health; 120 were made to 

health care providers. Particularly in Marion, CERC staff referred customers who needed 

health care to the Smyth County Free Clinic, which is located across the street from the 

CERC. 

Several factors may explain the lower-than-expected levels of referrals to non-VEC 

services, including practices of CERC staff, the needs of CERC customers, and 

inconsistencies in reporting and tracking referrals. 

These low levels of referrals to non-VEC service providers are generally consistent with 

reports from partner agencies that they received few referrals from the CERCs. In part, the 

low levels may be due to the practices of CERC staff. For example, in three of the four 

CERCs, staff said that they did not inquire about customers’ needs and did not offer 

referrals to other service providers unless requested by the customer. CERC staff said that 

they believed it might offend customers to ask about needs the customers themselves had 

not mentioned. Moreover, they thought customers would ask for the referrals they needed. 

Although brochures and other literature about partnering agencies are available in CERC 

lobbies, customers may not have been aware of the range of services that are available, and 

thus may not have known to ask for specific referrals. In one site, CERC staff said that, if a 

customer expressed a need, such as help paying utility bills, but did not request a referral to a 

specific partnering agency, staff would provide a resource directory and suggest that the 

customer identify and contact the appropriate service providers. 
54 

Table VI.1: Total Referrals to Partnering Agencies by CERC, March 2002 Through March 2003 

Partner Clarksville Martinsville 

South 

Boston Marion Total 

Employment and Training Services 

Area Agency on Aging 2 7 4 13 

Blue Ridge Job Corps 1 9 9 19 

Department of Rehabilitative Services 2 6 3 12 23 

Experience Works 286 3 3 292 

People, Inc. 14 14 

Veterans Employment Services 8 111 119 

Virginia Employment Commission 4,238 1,472 19,037 12,263 37,010 

Workforce Investment Act Program 153 990 2,600 274 4,017 

Total Employment and Training 4,394 2,756 21,667 12,690 41,507 

Education Services 

Adult Education Program 9 85 94 

Patrick Henry Community College 51 51 

Southside Virginia Community College 26 38 64 

Virginia Highlands Community College 5 5 

Wytheville Community College 7 7 

Total Education Services 26 51 47 97 221 

Social Services and Emergency Assistance 

Consumer Credit Counseling 1 1 

Department of Social Services 60 13 86 55 214 

Information and Referral Center 3 3 

Lake Country Community Assistance Association 8 8 

Legal Aide Society 1 1 

Mountain Community Action Agency 31 31 

Mountain Shelter, Inc. 4 4 

People, Inc. 20 20 

Project Crossroads 2 2 

Salvation Army 3 3 

Second Harvest Food Bank 1 3 4 

Smyth Counseling Center 1 1 

United Way/Project Care For 21 21 

Total Social Services/Emergency Assistance 81 40 94 98 313 

Health Services 

Department of Health 1 11 12 

Family Access to Medical Insurance Security 26 9 2 3 40 

Piedmont Community Health Services 32 32 

Saltville Medical Center 7 7 

Smyth County Free Clinic 81 81 

Total Health Services 26 42 2 102 172 

Total Referrals 4,527 2,889 21,810 12,987 42,213 

Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 2003. 
 55

FIGURE VI.1

VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH,

CLARKSVILLE

410

381 389

456

349

425 419

291 318

262

182

251

188

98

152 158

217

108

156

200

126 103 129

56

117

87

0

100

200

300

400

500

aMarch 2002 includes estimated customer counts beginning on March 12, 2002, the CERC’s opening day. The VEC provided a cumulative count of customer contacts in March and April. We prorated these contacts across the two months.

bIncludes customer counts through March 20, 2003.

Note: These counts of customer visits and telephone calls do not represent the unduplicated number of customers who have sought CERC services. Instead, they are cumulative counts of the number of customers who seek services each day. Some customers, particularly those who are looking for work, return many times to use the job service and resource room.

Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 2003.

Number of Contacts

FIGURE VI.2

VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH,

MARTINSVILLE

Walk-In Customers Telephone Calls

3 0 6

2 2 9

1 6 0

1 1 2

2 0 9 1 9 7

1 2 4

7 2

355

4 5 8 4 1 7

4 3 4

2 1 7

241

6 4 6

1 4 4 191

1 2 3

2 4 3 2 6 4

1 9 8

6 5 8 6 8 6

5 1 1

2 9 4

1 4 7

0

1 0 0

2 0 0

3 0 0

4 0 0

5 0 0

6 0 0

7 0 0

aMarch 2002 includes estimated customer counts beginning on March 15, 2002, the CERC’s opening day. The VEC provided a cumulative count of customer contacts in March and April. We prorated these contacts across the two months.

bIncludes customer counts through March 20, 2003.

Note: These counts of customer visits and telephone calls do not represent the unduplicated number of customers who have sought CERC services. Instead, they are cumulative counts of the number of customers who seek services each day. Some customers, particularly those who are looking for work, return many times to use the job service and resource room.

Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 2003.

April 

2002

May

2002

June

2002

July

2002

Sept 2002

Aug

2002

Oct

2002

Dec 2002

Nov 2002

Jan 2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b

March 

2002a April 

2002

May

2002

June

2002

July

2002

Sept 2002

Aug

2002

Oct

2002

Dec 2002

Nov 2002

Jan 2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b

March 

2002a

Number of Contacts

April 

2002

May

2002

June

2002

July

2002

Sept

2002

Aug

2002

Oct

2002

Dec 2002

Nov 2002

Jan 2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b March 

2002a April 

2002

May

2002

June

2002

July

2002

Sept

2002

Aug

2002

Oct

2002

Dec 2002

Nov 2002

Jan 2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b March 

2002a

Walk-In Customers Telephone Calls
56 

FIGURE VI.3

VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH,

SOUTH BOSTON

1 , 463 1 , 4 1 6

1 , 608

1 , 765

1 , 608

1 , 3 3 5

1 , 8 6 1 1 , 720

1 , 884

1 , 4 2 8 1 , 420

786 916

1 , 199

7 4 8 7 4 8

8 9 5

745 8 6 5

547

9 1 4

644 677

487

0

2 5 0

5 0 0

7 5 0

1 0 0 0

1 2 5 0

1 5 0 0

1 7 5 0

2 0 0 0

aApril 2002 includes customer counts beginning on April 10, 2002, the CERC’s opening day.

bIncludes customer counts through March 20, 2003.

Note: The South Boston CERC is located in the VEC’s South Boston One-Stop career center. VEC staff do not distinguish between CERC and 

One-Stop customers. Therefore, counts of CERC customers include all customers who visited or called the One-Stop. In addition, these counts of customer visits and telephone calls do not represent the unduplicated number of customers who have sought CERC services. Instead, they are cumulative counts of the number of customers who seek services each day. Some customers, particularly those who are looking for work, return many times to use the job service and resource room. 

Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 2003.

Number of Contacts

FIGURE VI.4

VOLUME OF CONTACTS WITH CERC CUSTOMERS, BY MONTH,

MARION

Walk-In Custome Customers Telephone Calls

April 

2002a May

2002

June

2002

July

2002

Sept

2002

Aug

2002

Oct

2002

Dec 2002

Nov

2002

Jan

2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b

April 

2002a May

2002

June

2002

July

2002

Sept

2002

Aug

2002

Oct

2002

Dec 2002

Nov

2002

Jan

2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b

1 ,2 6 7

1 ,0 0 5

124 3

8 9 9

1 2 2 1

1011

1 219

884

1551

957

815

695

1 ,4 3 5

1 1 3 1 1 ,2 7 4

1 ,053

9 6 2

1 ,037

1 ,690

7 8 3

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

1800

Walk-In Customers Telephone Calls

June

2002a July

2002

Aug

2002

Sept

2002

Nov 2002

Oct 2002

Dec 2002

Jan

2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b

June

2002a July

2002

Aug

2002

Sept

2002

Nov 2002

Oct 2002

Dec 2002

Jan

2003

Feb

2003

March

2003b

aCustomer counts are from June 10, 2002, when the CERC opened.

bIncludes customer counts through March 20, 2003.

Note: The Marion CERC is located in the VEC’s Marion One-Stop career center. VEC staff do not distinguish between CERC and One-Stop customers. Therefore, counts of CERC customers include all customers who visited or called the One-Stop. In addition, these counts of customer visits and telephone calls do not represent the unduplicated number of customers who have sought CERC services. Instead, they are cumulative counts of the number of customers who seek services each day. Some customers, particularly those who are looking

for work, return many times to use the job service and resource room. 

Source: Virginia Employment Commission, 2003.

Number of Contacts
 57

Customers’ perceptions about their own needs may have been another factor leading to the 

low level of referrals. CERC staff reported that most customers came to the CERC seeking 

help with UI benefits and/or employment. Initially, most dislocated workers want to find 

another job as soon as possible, and at the time of the site visits, many dislocated workers in 

the CERC communities had not yet exhausted their UI benefits. According to staff, it takes 

time for customers to recognize that they may need to seek training in a new field to find 

employment, and that they may need other services, such as food stamps or emergency 

assistance, until they find employment. As dislocated workers near the end of their UI 

benefits, they may begin seeking a broader range of services from the CERCs, and thus, the 

level of referrals to other partnering agencies may rise. Moreover, some partnering agencies 

thought that most community residents knew where DSS, community colleges, and other 

service providers were located, and that they would most likely seek assistance directly from 

a provider rather than go to the CERC. 

Finally, although the levels of referrals shown in the VEC’s referral data are generally 

consistent with site visit findings, some reporting problems may have added to the pattern of 

referrals reported here. CERC staff did not take a consistent approach to recording and 

tracking referrals. In some sites, if customers asked for a referral to a partnering agency at a 

time when they were not on site at the CERC, the intake worker would ask them to return 

on the appropriate day, or to go directly to the partner’s main office for immediate 

assistance. CERC staff did not credit these situations as referrals. Similarly, if CERC staff 

called partnering agencies to schedule appointments for customers, they did not provide a 

written referral. Some staff said they sometimes gave customers copies of community 

resource directories, rather than write referrals. Others reported sending customers to food 

banks, churches, and local charities for emergency food assistance and other similar services 

but without counting this type of assistance as a referral because the provider was not listed 

as a formal CERC partner. 

The VEC developed a system to track customers’ outcomes, but staff have had 

difficulty obtaining outcome information for customers referred to non-VEC 

services. 

Because of the short planning time line, the VEC created a system for tracking CERC 

customer referrals and outcomes that was very limited, and that built on the VEC tracking 

system already in place. VEC officials asked each agency to develop a list of codes for 

tracking customer outcomes. For example, codes were created to indicate whether 

customers referred to DSS enrolled in the FSP, TANF, Medicaid, or other program. 

According to VEC officials, this tracking system did not work as well as they had expected. 

The intention had been for staff to enter an outcome for each referral made by the CERC. 

Although the level of referrals to other service providers proved to be lower than initially 

expected, partners did not report customer outcomes back to the CERCs as had been 

anticipated. Over time, the tracking system developed a backlog of referrals with no 

outcomes entered. Staff at the state level have generated reports of these cases for the local 

offices, so the offices can follow up with partners to obtain the outcomes. Staff reported 

that this followup has been time-consuming and has added significantly to the workload of 

local VEC staff. 
58 

PARTICIPATION IN DSS BENEFIT PROGRAMS 

The level of participation in benefit programs administered by the Virginia Department 

of Social Services (DSS) rose in the CERC communities in 2001 and 2002, as factory 

closings and layoffs increased. In this section, we describe the levels of participation in 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), the Food Stamp Program (FSP), and the 

child care assistance program in the CERC communities in 2001 and 2002, based on 

aggregate monthly counts of program participants provided by DSS. This study was not 

designed to measure the effects of the CERCs on program participation; thus, we are not 

able to determine the extent to which increases in participation are due to the CERCs. 

TANF caseloads in three of CERC communities rose in 2001 and 2002, ranging from 

10 to 21 percent; in Marion, the TANF caseload declined by 8 percent. 

In Clarksville, Martinville, and South Boston, TANF caseloads grew substantially 

between March 2001 and December 2002. Most of this growth occurred prior to 

implementation of the CERCs in March (Clarksville and Martinsville) and April 2002 (South 

Boston). For example, in Martinsville, the TANF caseload rose from 406 cases in March 

2001 to 491 cases in March 2002, an increase of 21 percent (Figure VI.5). From March 2002 

through December 2002, however, the caseload increased less than 1 percent, from 491 to 

493 cases. In South Boston, the caseload increased by 13 percent between March 2001 and 

2002, and then decreased by 2 percent between April 2002 and December 2002. 

In Marion, the TANF caseload declined by 16 percent between March 2001 and June 

2002, the month when the CERC opened, from 152 to 127 cases. Between June and 

December 2002, the caseload increased by 10 percent, to 140 cases. 

The FSP caseload increased in all of the CERC communities in 2001 and 2002, 

ranging from 14 percent in Marion to 23 percent in Clarksville. 

Growth in the FSP caseload followed a similar pattern as that of the TANF caseload, 

with more of the growth occurring prior to CERC implementation. In Clarksville and 

Martinsville, FSP caseloads increased by 13 and 12 percent, respectively, before the CERCs 

opened, and then by 8 percent after CERC implementation (Figure VI.6). In South Boston, 

the caseload grew by 13 percent before the CERC opened in April 2002, and then by 2 

percent between April and December 2002. In contrast, growth in the FSP caseload in 

Marion accelerated after the CERC opened in June 2002. It grew by 3 percent before CERC 

implementation, and by 11 percent after implementation. 

The number of families receiving state child care subsidies in the CERC 

communities fluctuated in 2001 and 2002. 

The number of families receiving child care assistance in the CERC communities was 

fairly small in 2001 and 2002. When the CERCs opened, Clarksville had a caseload of 49 

families, Martinsville had 182 families, South Boston had 39 families, and Marion had 40 
 59

families (Figure VI.7). In Virginia, four types of child care assistance are available for lowincome families who need child care while they work: (1) TANF child care for families 

enrolled in TANF, (2) transitional child care for families in the first year after they leave 

TANF for employment, (3) fee child care for other low-income, working families, and (4) 

Head Start wrap-around child care. The fluctuations in levels of participation in child care 

assistance result, in part, from fluctuations in the availability of funds for families receiving 

fee child care, rather than in the demand for child care assistance. For example, in Smyth 

County, the sharp drop in participation in June 2002 is due to a drop in the use of fee child 

care, from 107 children in May 2002 to 32 children in June 2002, near the end of the funding 

cycle. In addition, counties sometimes must maintain waiting lists of eligible families who 

have applied for fee child care when funds are insufficient to serve all of the families who 

apply. Thus, it is possible that more eligible families have applied for child care assistance, 

but are not receiving it due to funding limitations. 
FIGURE VI.5

NUMBER OF TANF CASES IN THE CERC SERVICE AREAS, BY MONTH

133 1

115 121 118 129 127 119

478 490 4

406 404 414

470 491

220 223 230

263 248 255 259 2

152 142 139 141 137 127

1

0

75

150225300375450525600

March June September December March June September Dec

133

Source: Virginia Department of Social Services, April 2003.

indicates date of CERC implementation.

Number of Cases

Martinsville ClarksvilleMarion South Boston

2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2
FIGURE VI.6

NUMBER OF FOOD STAMP PROGRAM CASES IN THE CERC SERVICE AREAS, 

BY MONTH

801 799 885 905 885 889 

798

3,

3,577

3,469 3,478 3,454

3,115 3,219 3,182

1,595 1,589 1

1,491 1,604 1,626 1,481 1,444

1,358 1,357 1,318 1,344 1,448 1,424 1,392 1

0

400800

12001600200024002800320036004000

March June September December March June September Dec

Source: Virginia Department of Social Services, April 2003.

indicates date of CERC implementation.

Number of Cases

Martinsville ClarksvilleMarion South Boston

2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 
FIGURE VI.7

NUMBERS OF FAMILIES USING SUBSIDIZED CHILD CARE IN THE CERC 

SERVICE AREAS, BY MONTH

40

38

42 39 49 40

38 

173 183

202

142

183 182

120

33

36 36 26

39 

25 25

100

84

54 68

5

87 79

0

255075

100125150175200225250

March June September December March June September Dec

Source: Virginia Department of Social Services, April 2003.

indicates date of CERC implementation.

Number of Families

Martinsville ClarksvilleMarion South Boston

2001 2001 2001 2001 2002 2002 2002 2
C HAP T E R VII 

S UCCES S E S , C H A L L E N G E S , AND L ESSONS

he experiences of state officials, local staff of the Virginia Employment Commission 

(VEC), and partnering agency staff in implementing the CERCs can help guide 

policymakers and program administrations as they design and implement similar

One-Stop initiatives. The current research has focused on examining the implementation 

and operations of the CERCs. The study was not designed to determine whether the 

CERCs are effective in increasing access to services. Reflecting this, we did not collect 

individual-level data on CERC customers, and thus we are not in a position to make overall 

recommendations regarding whether the CERC model should be adopted more broadly.

However, for those who have decided to implement a One-Stop approach to service 

delivery, we highlight a number of operational lessons from this study that may be useful in 

designing and implementing similar initiatives. 

T

Lessons from the CERCs are likely to be especially helpful in planning One-Stop

initiatives that are located in fairly rural communities, where the volume of customers is 

likely to be similar to that experienced by the CERCs. In addition, some lessons may be 

most relevant to One-Stop initiatives that, like the CERCs, are intended to be temporary in

nature. In this chapter, we first review successes achieved by the CERCs and the key 

implementation challenges they faced; we then discuss implementation lessons derived from 

the study. 

SUCCESSES 

Through the CERCs, Virginia attempted to implement a new approach to service 

delivery in which a broad array of services are available in one location. This approach 

extended beyond the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) One-Stop model to include new 

partners that typically do not participate in the VEC’s One-Stop career centers. For 

example, all of the CERCs reported providing information about food assistance available

from food banks, churches, and community action agencies. In this section, we describe 
64 

successes experienced by the VEC and partnering agencies as they sought to implement 

these expanded One-Stops. 

The CERCs may have increased access to services for some customers. 

• The CERCs helped customers obtain information about where to find the 

services they needed. 

 Although the level of referrals to other service providers was lower than anticipated, 

VEC staff believed that the CERCs facilitated access to information about services available 

in the community. Most service providers were on-site no more than one or two days per 

week; however, CERC staff were able to connect customers to the services they needed by 

providing information and community resource guides, referring customers to partnering 

agencies’ main offices, and helping customers make appointments with partners. 

• The CERCs made obtaining services more convenient for some 

customers. 

 State and local officials concurred that the CERCs, especially those in locations separate 

from the main VEC office, made obtaining services and information more convenient for 

some customers. Those who lived near the CERCs did not have to travel as far to access 

VEC services, and they could obtain information about services available through partners. 

Officials did not agree, however, about whether the CERCs facilitated access to services that 

customers would not otherwise have received. Some felt that this may have happened. 

Although the number of referrals was small, officials said that anecdotal information about 

specific families indicated that some families benefited tremendously from the CERCs. 

Other officials and CERC staff thought that, while the CERCs made obtaining services 

more convenient, most customers would have found the same services on their own. 

• Staff in Clarksville and Martinsville, the CERCs that operate as satellite 

offices, believed they were providing more personalized attention to 

customers. 

CERC staff and VEC directors felt that customers at these CERCs received better 

services than they would have received at the main VEC offices. Because the CERCs were 

not as crowded, staff felt they could spend more time with customers, get to know them 

better, and provide more personalized attention. In addition, staff thought they provided 

more referrals and information about other service providers than did staff at the VEC 

offices. Especially in the Martinsville VEC office, wait times were long relative to the wait 

times at the CERC; due to the high volume of customers, many services were provided in 

group sessions, rather than one-on-one. 
 65

Participation in the CERCs enhanced community collaboration and increased 

service providers’ knowledge of community resources. 

• The CERCs improved communication and strengthened ties among 

community service providers. 

 CERC and partnering agency staff reported that the CERCs increased the number and 

nature of partnerships between the VEC and local service providers. A number of service 

providers, especially faith-based and community-based organizations that had not been 

involved in the WIA One-Stops, began participating in the CERCs. Staff believed that this 

growth in partnerships has improved service delivery in the community. Many site visit 

respondents reported that sharing information about the services each agency provides was 

the first step toward working more closely together on behalf of customers and 

communicating more closely about referrals. 

• Participation in the CERC planning process increased service providers’ 

knowledge of community resources and services. 

 Although the VEC offices and many CERC partners were participating in WIA OneStops, many reported that the process of planning and participating in the CERCs increased 

their awareness of services available in the community. During the planning process, 

providers shared information about their services, and the VEC produced resource guides 

for each community that staff from all agencies can use to make referrals. A number of 

CERC and partnering agency staff reported that, as a result of this information-sharing 

process, they felt better equipped to link customers to appropriate service providers. 

• The CERCs established closer ties between DSS and the VEC. 

 One DSS official felt that successful coordination between the VEC and DSS was a 

significant, positive outcome, because working together more closely through the CERCs 

has served to begin integrating traditional DSS customers into the mainstream employment 

services system. Low-income residents who typically receive services from DSS have 

become more exposed to WIA and other employment services available through the CERCs 

and the VEC. The official, citing recent state legislation intended to expand the range of 

One-Stop partners and to facilitate DSS customers’ access to the state’s workforce 

development system, viewed increasing low-income customers’ access to the employment 

services available to dislocated workers as an important goal for the CERCs. 
66 

• Communities in which CERCs were established responded positively and 

appreciated the effort made to help them. 

 Some officials indicated that the overwhelmingly positive response from community 

residents and local governments is a strong indication that the CERCs were successful. By 

establishing the Virginia Economic Strike Force and the CERCs, Governor Warner wanted 

to send these communities a strong message that the state government was aware of the 

widespread job loss they were experiencing, and that it wanted to do what it could to help. 

Several respondents felt that this message had been effectively conveyed through the 

CERCs, and that the CERCs’ presence has boosted morale in the community. 

CHALLENGES 

 Although the CERCs achieved some successes in linking customers to services, 

providing information about community resources, and fostering community collaboration, 

they have not been able to fully implement the One-Stop model initially envisioned by the 

state. In most sites, only a few partners that did not already provide on-site services through 

the WIA One-Stops continued regular visits to the CERC after the first few months of 

operation. Consequently, customers who requested help from partnering agencies were 

frequently referred to off-site locations, just as they had been before the CERCs opened. 

Moreover, resource and time constraints hindered efforts to integrate services across 

providers. In this section, we describe the main implementation challenges the CERCs 

faced, including resource constraints, insufficient planning time, and community 

expectations that exceeded what the CERCs could accomplish. 

The CERCs faced resource constraints that hampered efforts to operate them as 

envisioned, especially efforts to co-locate services. 

• The Strike Force struggled to identify resources that could be used to 

operate the CERCs. 

 The lack of funds to cover the costs of operating the CERCs and of the participation of 

partners limited the CERCs’ ability to achieve the state’s goals. Partners could not afford to 

outstation staff to the CERCs on a full-time basis without additional funding. Most were 

already facing an increased workload and resource constraints, and they felt they could not 

afford to lose staff at their main offices. Moreover, three of the four CERCs did not have 

sufficient space to house staff from more than two partnering agencies at a time. 
 67

• Operating the CERCs increased the workload of VEC staff significantly.

 Especially in sites with separate locations for the CERCs, local VEC directors had to 

manage satellite offices in addition to their main offices. They also had to coordinate with 

CERC partners, which often comprised a somewhat different set of partners than those 

participating in the WIA One-Stop run by the VEC. In addition, maintaining the tracking 

system, especially following up on customer outcomes, was very time-consuming for line 

staff. Staff in CERCs operated within VEC offices reported that paperwork and 

recordkeeping duties increased substantially since the CERCs opened. Moreover, according 

to state officials, at the same time the CERCs were being implemented, the local VEC 

offices were facing a sharp increase in their workload; in some offices, the number of 

Unemployment Insurance (UI) claims doubled. 

• Participating in the CERCs strained the resources of partnering agencies.

 Partnering agencies have been expected to provide services to customers on-site at the 

CERCs, but they have not received additional resources to cover the cost of doing so. Some 

agencies reported that staff were already stretched thin at their agencies, which made the loss 

of staff at their main offices difficult to manage. As described in Chapter V, many partners 

suspended regular visits to the CERCs after several months of operation. 

• The level of referrals to food assistance programs was low. 

 The number of referrals to DSS, which administers the FSP, was low, ranging from 13 

referrals in Martinsville to 86 referrals in South Boston. The level of referrals for food 

assistance made to food banks, churches, and community action agencies was also much 

lower than anticipated before the CERCs opened. In part, this could be due to 

inconsistencies in reporting referrals made to agencies that were not co-located on site or 

were not formal CERC partners. During site visits, CERC staff reported providing 

information about sources of food assistance in the community when customers expressed a 

need for help with food. 

• CERC staff in some sites reported that finding resources to meet 

customers’ needs has become increasingly challenging.

 According to CERC and partnering agency staff, the increased demand for emergency 

services and economic assistance has left some agencies and charities with little or no 

funding for ongoing assistance with basic needs. Emergency funds that were once available 

through churches, nonprofits, and local DSS offices have been depleted. In particular, staff 
68 

in several sites identified prescription drugs and resources to help with housing (for example, 

mortgage, rent, and utility bills) as areas with significant gaps in services. 

Several factors, including constraints on planning time and implementation of 

recordkeeping systems, have limited the CERCs’ capacity to provide integrated 

services.

• Planning time was not sufficient for developing plans and procedures to 

integrate services across providers.

 VEC and DSS officials stressed the importance of having adequate time to plan for 

service co-location and integration. All of them concurred that planning time for the 

CERCs was not sufficient for the Strike Force to address such issues as developing common 

intake and needs assessment tools or an integrated tracking system. These types of tools 

might have fostered greater communication among providers about customers’ needs. In 

addition, they might have enhanced the referral process and facilitated coordination across 

providers. More time would have been required, however, to ensure that new tools and 

systems met the needs of participating agencies, and that it was feasible to implement them. 

• Lack of training for CERC staff, as well as a lack of procedures for 

conducting needs assessments and making referrals, may have 

contributed to the low level of referrals to partnering agencies. 

 VEC officials reported that, because the CERCs had to be opened so quickly, they were 

not able to provide training for staff who would work at the CERCs. Moreover, because of 

the short planning time and differences in implementation across communities, VEC 

officials said that they could not create standardized procedures for conducting needs 

assessments or making referrals. In three of the four CERCs, staff said they did not conduct 

a needs assessment or did not ask customers about needs unless such a discussion was 

initiated by the customer. Moreover, staff did not report consistent referral practices across 

or within sites. If an on-site partner was not available for the service requested, staff 

reported that they often told customers to return on the appropriate day, directed them to 

the provider’s main office, gave them a community resource guide to use in identifying an 

appropriate service provider, or contacted the provider by telephone to help the customer 

make an appointment. When CERC staff provided written referrals to partners, most did 

not include information about customers’ needs. Moreover, varying interpretations of rules 

on sharing confidential customer information across partnering agencies also may have 

limited information sharing in service integration. 
 69

• Some aspects of the customer tracking system were not fully implemented 

when the CERCs opened and have not functioned as efficiently as 

expected.

 VEC staff in Richmond worked to get the tracking system in place as rapidly as 

possible. However, in part because the CERCs were planned and opened quickly, some 

aspects of the CERC tracking and outcome reporting system were not in place when most of 

the CERCs opened. Moreover, local VEC staff reported that their priority was opening 

CERCs and providing services to the community, rather than focusing on the tracking 

system. To track customer outcomes, CERC staff asked partnering agencies to report back 

on the outcomes of customers referred to them from the CERCs. Because this system has 

not functioned well, the tracking system has accrued a large backlog of customers whose 

outcomes have not been reported. At the time of the site visit, VEC staff were spending 

time reviewing electronic records and contacting customers and partners, to identify and 

record both the services received and the outcome of those services. 

In some sites, community expectations exceeded what the CERC could realistically 

accomplish.

• Some communities expected the CERCs to promote economic 

development.

 Officials reported that, while all the communities appreciated the efforts made by the 

CERCs, in some cases the expectations of community members were unrealistic. For 

example, one official noted that some communities expected economic development to 

follow after the CERCs were established. Most officials recognized that what community 

residents wanted most from the CERCs was jobs. Without new employment opportunities 

in the CERC communities, however, CERC staff were limited in their ability to help 

customers find employment. 

• Some customers thought the CERCs would offer services beyond those 

already available in the community.

 Others expected the CERCs to deliver more services than was possible. A number of 

site visit respondents noted that, especially in the first month of operation, some customers 

were frustrated when they learned they could not receive every service on-site. In one site, 

staff noted that initial press releases about the CERC led some customers to believe they 

would be able to obtain health insurance and cash assistance payments; however, the 

customers found that they did not meet the eligibility requirements for Medicaid, FAMIS, 

UI, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families. Typically, customers who did not meet 
70 

eligibility requirements for DSS benefit programs were still receiving UI benefits, had assets 

that made them ineligible, or did not have minor children. 

IMPLEMENTATION LESSONS 

 This study was designed to examine the implementation and operations of the CERCs, 

rather than to assess the CERCs’ effectiveness. Thus, we cannot report on whether the 

CERCs increased customers’ access to services, nor can we report on customer outcomes. 

We also cannot make overall recommendations regarding whether the CERC model should 

be adopted more broadly. We can, however, derive operations lessons from the CERCs’ 

experiences that may be useful to states and communities that have decided to implement 

similar One-Stop initiatives. In this section, we explore lessons from the CERCs related to 

co-location of service providers, integrating services, and conducting community outreach. 

Lessons for Enhancing Service Co-Location

• Assess the value of co-locating individual service providers on-site on a 

case-by-case basis.

 Some CERC partners felt that their presence on-site at the CERCs was not valuable to 

customers. These partners usually provided information about services offered at another 

location, but they could not provide services on-site. For example, community colleges 

could provide information about courses and financial aid, and they could answer questions; 

however, interested customers had to go to the campus or to an off-campus center to enroll 

in and attend classes. It was felt that this information could be provided more efficiently 

through group workshops or pamphlets, rather than by having representatives keep weekly 

office hours at the CERCs. In some cases, partnering agencies were already located near the 

CERC and thus were accessible to customers without having to co-locate. 

• Provide resources to cover the cost of co-locating essential services onsite. 

 Many site visit respondents thought that allowing customers to apply for partnering 

agencies’ programs and services on-site could be a valuable service for CERC customers. 

Several said, however, that for the CERC to fulfill its mandate of providing access to a wide 

range of services in one location, agencies that could accept applications on-site would need 

to be located at the CERC on a daily basis. Otherwise, customers who requested services 

would likely need to travel to another location, as they had done before the CERCs opened. 

Partners reported that, without additional resources, they could not afford to outstation staff 

at the CERCs for more than a few hours per week. 
 71

• Explore screening tools and resources available through the Internet as 

alternatives to service co-location. 

 DSS officials noted that, since the CERCs opened, DSS has made a new screening tool 

available on its web site that customers can use to assess whether they are likely to be eligible 

for a variety of benefit programs. With the availability of this tool, some DSS officials felt 

that outstationing staff at CERCs was an unnecessary and inefficient use of their resources. 

They reported that most CERC customers are ineligible for most DSS benefit programs; the 

customers have too many assets or receive UI. Customers interested in DSS benefit 

programs could be directed to the screening tool, rather than to a DSS worker at the CERC 

or the DSS office. Although customers would still have to go to DSS to apply for benefits, 

they would be able to find out before making the trip whether they were likely to be eligible. 

• Consider establishing CERCs within existing One-Stops, rather than in 

separate locations. 

 Some VEC officials thought that it might have been better to establish all the CERCs 

within WIA One-Stops, usually operated within the VEC offices, rather than in separate 

locations. Although separate CERCs have been a convenience to customers, they duplicate 

services already provided in a nearby location. In some cases, partners must outstation staff 

to both the CERC and the One-Stop, thus straining limited resources. Managing these 

centers has led to a sharp increase in the workload of CERC managers and other VEC staff. 

Moreover, the CERCs in satellite offices have been difficult to close. Although they were 

always intended to be temporary, community residents oppose their closing. 

Lessons for Enhancing Service Integration

• Devote more planning time to addressing service integration issues, such 

as developing common forms, referral procedures, and information 

systems for use by all partners. 

 State officials believe they would have been able to integrate services across partners 

more fully if they had had adequate time to develop common forms and systems, and 

adequate time to train staff to use them. Several respondents stressed that these issues take 

significant time and effort to resolve, and that they cannot be resolved quickly. 
72 

• Explore options for creating a customer tracking system that can be 

updated efficiently, and that can provide timely customer information. 

 The CERC tracking system has not been effective because partners have not reported 

the outcomes of customers referred to them. In addition, the system has led to an increase 

in the workload for VEC staff, who are responsible for following up on customers to 

determine outcomes and for entering outcome codes into the tracking system. Some VEC 

officials thought that an integrated tracking system, in which each partner would be 

responsible for entering outcomes for customers referred to them, would be a more efficient 

way to collect outcomes information. Such a system might also encourage more regular 

followup with customers and facilitate partners’ access to updated customer information. 

Lessons for Community Outreach 

• Conduct community outreach on an ongoing basis.

 In several communities, CERC staff said that more community outreach about the 

services offered at the CERCs might have helped to increase participation. CERC staff 

reported that, although the CERCs received a great deal of publicity when they opened, 

continued efforts to educate the community about the CERCs would have been helpful. In 

particular, some CERC staff suggested that partnering agencies could have played a greater 

role in conducting outreach and educating the community about the services they offered at 

the CERCs. For example, partners could have displayed CERC brochures in their lobbies, 

and they could have informed customers about the services obtainable at the CERC. Some 

staff speculated that referrals to partners might have been higher if community residents had 

been better informed about CERC services. 

• Communicate clear and realistic expectations about what the CERC can 

accomplish before it opens. 

 In some communities, residents have had what state officials consider to be unrealistic 

expectations about what the CERCs could accomplish, such as expectations about economic 

development or new services. Officials stress the importance of communicating a clear 

message about what customers can realistically expect to obtain from a CERC prior to its 

opening. 
 73

• Establish a closing date for each CERC before it opens. 

VEC officials reported that some communities have reacted very negatively to attempts 

to close some of the CERCs. Although data on customer traffic indicate a decline in the use 

of the CERCs, communities want them to remain open. Communicating a definite closing 

date at the outset may establish more realistic expectations about the CERCs at the local 

level. In addition, the commitment and the willingness of partners to outstation staff at the 

CERCs have waned over time. VEC officials felt that partners might be more willing to 

commit to participating in the CERCs and to sustaining their participation if they knew there 

would be a definite end to their commitment. To date, none of the CERCs have been 

closed. 
74 
REFERENCES 

Dion, M. Robin, and LaDonna Pavetti. “Access to and Participation in Medicaid and the 

Food Stamp Program.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., March 

2000. 

Duncan, Greg, Leslie A. Whitener, and Bruce A. Weber. “Lessons Learned: Welfare 

Reform and Food Assistance in Rural America.” In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform,

edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener. Kalamazoo, MI: 

W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, 2002. 

Fletcher, Cynthia Needles, Jan L. Flora, Barbara J. Gaddis, Mary Winter, and Jacquelyn S. 

Litt. “Small Towns and Welfare Reform: Iowa Case Studies of Families and 

Communities.” In Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform, edited by Bruce A. Weber, Greg J. 

Duncan, and Leslie A. Whitener. Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for 

Employment Research, 2002. 

Gleason, Phil, Carole Trippe, Scott Cody, and Jacquie Anderson. “The Effects of Welfare 

Reform on the Characteristics of the Food Stamp Population.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., July 2001. 

John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce Development. “One-Stop Innovations: Leading 

Change Under the WIA One-Stop System.” Final report prepared for the U.S. 

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce 

Security. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, Edward J. 

Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce 

Development, March 2002. 

McConnell, Sheena, and Michael Ponza. “The Reaching the Working Poor and Poor Elderly 

Study: What We Learned and Recommendations for Future Research.” Washington, 

DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 1999. 

Pavetti, LaDonna, Katheleen Maloy, and Liz Schott. “Promoting Medicaid and Food Stamp 

Participation: Establishing Eligibility Procedures that Support Participation and Meet 

Families’ Needs.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 2002. 

Pindus, Nancy, Robin Koralek, Karin Martinson, and John Trutko. “Coordination and 

Integration of Welfare and Workforce Development Systems.” Washington, DC: The 

Urban Institute, March 2000. 

Quint, Janet, and Rebecca Widom. “Post-TANF Food Stamp and Medicaid Benefits: 

Factors That Aid or Impede Their Receipt.” New York: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation, January 2001. 
76 

Rosenbaum, Dorothy. “Improving Access to Food Stamps: New Reporting Options Can 

Reduce Administrative Burdens and Error Rates.” Washington, DC: Center on Budget 

and Policy Priorities, September 2000. 

Rosso, Randy. “Trends in FSP Participation Rates: 1994 to 1999.” Washington, DC: 

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 2001. 

Schirm, Allen, and Laura Castner. “Reaching Those in Need: State Food Stamp 

Participation Rates in 1999.” Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 

2002. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service, Food Stamp Program. “The 

Nutrition Safety Net: At Work for Families. A Primer for Enhancing the Nutrition 

Safety Net for Workers and Their Children.” Available online at 

[http://www.fns.usda.gov/fsp/public_advocacy/pdfs/access_guide.pdf]. Accessed 

March 2003. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. “Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to 

Declining Participation.” Washington, DC: GAO, 1999. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. “Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities 

Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on 

Effective Approaches.” Washington, DC: GAO, July 2002a. GAO-02-696. 

U.S. General Accounting Office. “Workforce Investment Act: Coordination of TANF 

Services Through One-Stops Has Increased Despite Challenges.” Testimony before the 

Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training, Committee on Health, Education, 

Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: GAO, May 2002b. 
APPENDIX A 

SITE VISIT PROTOCOLS

A.3 

CERC MANAGER INTERVIEW

OVERVIEW OF VISIT

Describe the purpose of the visit and answer questions. 

Review site visit schedule. 

COMMUNITY CONTEXT 

Please give us an overview of the timeline of plant closings and layoffs in this community. 

What is the history of collaboration among service providers in this community? 

- Joint projects? 

- Service coordination? 

- Other one-stop service centers? 

What employment opportunities are available in the community? 

- For dislocated workers? 

- For other low-income or unemployed adults? 

What are the main barriers to employment that CERC customers face? 

In addition to employment, what are the most pressing needs of typical CERC customers? 

- Are services available through the CERC, or in the community, to address those 

needs? 

To what extent do the needs and challenges faced by CERC customers differ from those of 

dislocated and unemployed workers in the rest of the state? 

CERC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

How long did planning for implementation of the CERC take? 

- How long did it take for the CERC to open once the initiative was announced? 

Who were the key staff at the local VEC office involved in developing the CERC? What 

were their roles? 

Who were the key players in the community involved in the CERC’s planning and 

development? 

- How did they get involved in the initiative? 

- What roles did they play? 
A.4

- Are these key players still involved in the CERC? 

What kinds of support did the state provide during the planning and development phase? 

- Training or technical assistance? 

- Logistical support? 

- Staff? 

- Funding? 

Are there other types of support from the state that would have been helpful? 

CERC ORGANIZATION

How is the CERC organized? 

- What is the management and supervisory structure? 

- Which agency has fiscal responsibility for the CERC? 

When did the CERC open? 

What are the main services provided within the CERC? 

What are the hours of operation? 

- Usual wait times for clients? 

What is the geographic service area of the CERC? 

Have accessible is the CERC for customers? 

- How do clients get to the CERC? 

- Is public transportation available? 

- From what distance does the typical CERC customer travel to reach the office? 

Is the CERC located within the VEC office or in a new location? Why? 

How many staff work in the CERC? 

- From which agencies? 

- Has this changed over time? 

Is the CERC staffed by new personnel hired to provide CERC services, or by redeployed 

personnel? 
A.5 

- If so, from which offices? 

- After the CERC closes, will redeployed personnel return to their former jobs? 

What is the customer flow during a typical week? 

- Has the volume of customers increased or decreased over time? 

- If so, why? 

- How do you manage staffing levels to match customer flow? 

FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

How is the CERC funded? 

- By the VEC, or by multiple agencies? 

- If by multiple programs, how are costs allocated across programs? 

- Across overhead and staff costs? 

Did the state provide special funding for the CERCs, or do funds come from existing program 

budgets? 

What are the main costs of operating the CERC? 

- Staff? 

- Overhead costs such as rent and utilities? 

- Equipment? 

CERC PARTNERS

Who are the main partners who have participated in the CERC? 

- What are the main services that each partner provided? 

What non-governmental organizations have participated in the CERC? 

Do CERC partners contribute in-kind to the CERC? 

- For example, do they provide staff or equipment? 

To what extent are the services offered by partners integrated? 
A.6

Recruitment 

How were these partners recruited? 

- How did partners find out about the opportunity to participate in the CERC? 

Once potential partners were recruited, was there a selection process, or were all interested 

organizations included? 

Coordination 

What systems are in place to facilitate coordination across participating service providers? 

- Do participating providers have regular meetings? 

- Produce regular reports? 

- Share electronic data? 

How do participating service providers communicate across programs? 

- Exchange referrals? 

- Information about customer needs? 

Do participating service providers use common application or other forms? 

- Automated case management systems? 

- Shared electronic data? 

Do participating service providers report on follow up and customer outcomes? How? 

COMMUNITY OUTREACH 

Has the CERC conducted community outreach to potential customers, employers, service 

providers? 

- TV, radio, newspapers? 

- Outreach to other organizations? 

What information is disseminated in the community about the availability of services, technical 

assistance providers, and economic development grants through the CERCs? 

Have you conducted outreach to reduce the stigma associated with applying for benefits and 

services? 

- For example, have you marketed food assistance and other economic assistance 

offered at the CERC as work supports? 
A.7 

Has the CERC developed working relationships with area employers? 

- How does the CERC inform employers about the types of assistance and 

services offered? 

SUPPORT FROM THE STATE

What kinds of support has the state provided to the CERC on an ongoing basis? 

- Training or technical assistance? 

- Logistical support? 

- Staff? 

- Other resources? 

LESSONS 

What are the main successes of the CERC? 

- Customer outcomes? 

- Coordination across service providers? 

- Rapid start-up? 

- Convenience and accessibility? 

- Service co-location? Service integration? 

- Other? 

What has been most challenging about operating the CERC? 

- Recruitment of partners? 

- Coordination across partners? 

- Information sharing? 

- Start-up time? 

- Sufficient resources? 

- Other operational difficulties? 

What strategies have you tried for overcoming those challenges? 

Were the resources available to operate the CERC sufficient to meet the CERC’s goals? 

- If not, what was lacking? 

- Were facilities, equipment, and staff for the CERC sufficient? 
A.8

How useful do you think the CERC has been for customers? 

- Is it more convenient? 

- Are services more accessible? 

Do you think customers accessed services they would not otherwise have received if they were 

not co-located in the CERC? 

Has service co-location enhanced case management? In what way? 

If you could, would you want to continue operating the CERC on a longer-term basis? 

- Why or why not? 

If you could change any aspect of the CERC, what would you change? 

- Do you have other recommendations for improvement? 

Would waivers of any specific requirements of federal or state programs have improved the 

CERC’s ability to serve customers? 

- Do you have suggestions for ways that federal and state programs could better 

support the mission of the CERCs? 

Would training, technical assistance, or other resources have helped you implement the CERC 

more successfully? 

- If yes, what would have helped? 

Are there any services that would be helpful to have in CERC that are not available? 

What advice would you give to other states and communities that are considering implementing 

similar initiatives? 

Documents to request: 

Newspaper articles about the CERC 

Brochures and other community outreach literature 

Intake, assessment, and referral forms 

Procedure manuals 
A.9 

CERC SUPERVISOR INTERVIEW

INTRODUCTION 

Describe the purpose of the visit and answer questions. 

Tell me about your job as CERC supervisor. 

- What are your primary responsibilities? 

- Describe the flow of your daily activities. 

OVERVIEW OF CERC OPERATIONS

Describe the services provided at the CERC. 

- Intake 

- Assessment 

- Referral to various services (please list) 

- Resource room 

- Group orientations and workshops 

- VEC/WIA services 

- Other 

Which services are provided most often? 

How many customers does the CERC serve in a typical week? 

- Has this changed over time? 

How long does a typical customer receive services? 

CERC STAFFING AND SUPERVISION

How many staff work at the CERC? 

- How many are VEC staff? 

- How many are staff from other agencies? Which ones? 

- Are the CERC staff new hires, or were staff redeployed from other positions? 

Which positions? 

- What are the qualifications of CERC staff? 

Has staffing changed over time? 

- If so, why? 
A.10

Describe the main responsibilities of each position. 

Have staff received special training or technical assistance in providing CERC services? 

What is the CERC’s supervisory and reporting structure? 

- How are staff supervised across agencies? 

 

CERC PARTNERS

Who are the main partners who have participated in the CERC? 

- What are the main services that each partner provides? 

- Which services do you think are most useful for customers? 

Which partners receive the most referrals from intake workers or case managers? 

Do customers request referrals to some partners more frequently than others? 

What systems are in place to facilitate coordination across participating service providers? 

- Do participating providers have regular meetings? If so, which staff attend? 

- Produce regular reports? 

- Share electronic data? 

How do participating service providers communicate across programs? 

- Exchange referrals? 

- Information about customer needs? 

Do participating service providers use common application or other forms? 

- Automated case management systems? 

- Shared electronic data? 

Do participating service providers report to the CERC on follow up and customer outcomes? 

How? 

 

CASE MANAGEMENT

Describe the CERC’s case management system. 

How are clients assigned to case managers? 
A.11 

What information do staff collect at initial intake? 

- How is this information shared with CERC partners? 

How are customers informed about the benefits and services available to them and about 

application processes? 

- Do family characteristics influence the types of services offered? If so, which 

ones? 

- Do TANF time limits influence the types of services offered? 

- Do UI benefits influence the types of services offered? 

- How do intake workers present food and other economic assistance programs to 

reduce stigma? Are they marketed as work supports? 

Do customers receive all services through a single case manager? 

- After referrals are made to other service providers? 

- Before and after employment? 

Once customers are approved for specific services, do they receive ongoing case 

management through the CERC or through another agency? 

- Do they continue to receive services at the CERC office, or at another location? 

How do CERC staff follow up on referrals? 

- What type of follow up information do you collect? 

How do you track customer outcomes? 

- Which outcomes do you track? Employment? Service receipt? 

Has the CERC set specific performance goals for service provision or customer outcomes? 

- If so, what are they? 

- Has the CERC met these goals? 

WORKING WITH EMPLOYERS 

Has the CERC developed working relationships with area employers? 
A.12

What services does the CERC provide to employers? 

How does the CERC inform employers about the types of assistance and services offered? 

EXPERIENCES WORKING IN THE CERC 

Prior to supervising the CERC, what was your position? 

What are the similarities and differences between the responsibilities of your previous 

position and your current position as CERC supervisor? 

Have you received any training or technical assistance to support your in your job as CERC 

supervisor? 

- If so, what types of training and technical assistance? 

- How helpful was it? 

- Are there other types of training and support that would be helpful? 

LESSONS 

What are the main successes of the CERC? 

 

- Customer outcomes? 

- Coordination across service providers? 

- Rapid start-up? 

- Convenience and accessibility? 

- Service co-location? Service integration? 

- Other? 

What has been most challenging about operating the CERC? 

- Recruitment of partners? 

- Coordination across partners? 

- Information sharing? 

- Start-up time? 

- Sufficient resources? 

- Other operational difficulties? 

What strategies have you tried for overcoming those challenges? 

Were the resources available to operate the CERC sufficient to meet the CERC’s goals? 
A.13 

- If not, what was lacking? 

- Were facilities, equipment, and staff for the CERC sufficient? 

How useful do you think the CERC has been for customers? 

- Is it more convenient? 

- Are services more accessible? 

Do you think customers accessed services they would not otherwise have received if they were 

not co-located in the CERC? 

Has co-location of services enhanced case management? If so, how? 

Has co-location of services reduced stigma associated with applying for food or other economic 

assistance? How? 

If you could, would you want to continue operating the CERC on a longer-term basis? 

- Why or why not? 

If you could change any aspect of the CERC, what would you change? 

- Do you have other recommendations for improvement? 

Would waivers of any specific requirements of federal or state programs have improved the 

CERC’s ability to serve customers? 

- Do you have suggestions for ways that federal and state programs could better 

support the mission of the CERCs? 

Would training, technical assistance, or other resources have helped you implement the CERC 

more successfully? 

- If yes, what would have helped? 

Are there any services that would be helpful to have in the CERC that are not available? 

What advice would you give to other states and communities that are considering implementing 

similar initiatives? 
A.14
A.15 

CERC INTAKE WORKER INTERVIEW

INTRODUCTION 

Describe the purpose of the visit and answer questions. 

Tell me about your job as CERC case manager. 

- What are your primary responsibilities? 

CUSTOMER CHARACTERISTICS

Tell me about the customers you serve. 

- Socioeconomic characteristics? 

- Families with children? 

- Families on TANF? 

- Dislocated workers? 

- Other low-income families? 

What are the main barriers to employment that CERC customers face? 

In addition to employment, what are the most pressing needs of typical CERC customers? 

- Are services available through the CERC, or in the community, to address those 

needs? 

How do customers find out about the CERC? 

From what distances do customers travel to get to the CERC? 

- What kinds of transportation do typical customers use to get to the CERC? 

- Is public transportation available? 

CASE MANAGEMENT

Please describe your first meeting with a customer. 

- Is it usually an individual meeting or a group meeting? 

- What topics do you cover? 

- How long does the first meeting usually last? 

How do you assess customers’ needs? 

- Is this done during your first meeting with a customer? 
A.16

- What assessment tools do you use? 

- How do you use the results of these assessments? 

- Do you share the results with other CERC partners? 

- How effective do you think the assessment process is at identifying and 

understanding customers’ needs? 

- Do you have suggestions for how the assessment process could be improved? 

Do you develop service plans with customers? 

- If yes, when is this done? 

- What does the plan contain? Goals? Services? Timelines? 

- How is the customer involved in developing the service plan? 

- Is this plan shared with other CERC partners? 

How are customers informed about the benefits and services available to them and about 

application processes? 

- How do you decide which services to offer customers? 

- Do family characteristics influence the types of services offered? If so, which 

ones? 

- Do TANF time limits influence the types of services offered? 

- How do intake workers present food and other economic assistance programs to 

reduce stigma? Are they marketed as work supports? 

Do customers receive all services through you or do they work with other case managers as 

well? 

- After referrals are made to other service providers? 

- Before and after employment? 

Once customers are approved for specific services, do they receive ongoing case 

management through the CERC or through another agency? 

- Do they continue to receive services at the CERC office, or at another location? 

How do CERC staff follow up on referrals? 

- What type of follow up information do you collect? 

How do you track customer outcomes? 

- Which outcomes do you track? Employment? Service receipt? 
A.17 

Does the CERC have any performance goals for service provision or customer outcomes? 

- If so, why are they? 

- What progress have you made toward meeting those goals? 

WORKING WITH PARTNERS

Who are the main partners that you refer customers to? 

- What services do they provide? 

- Which services do you think are most useful for customers? 

Do customers request referrals to some partners more frequently than others? 

How do you share information about customers’ needs with partners? 

- Do you exchange referrals? 

- Do you share intake forms or electronic information about customers? 

Do CERC partners use any common application or other forms to facilitate information 

sharing? 

What systems are in place to help you coordinate services with partners? 

- Do you have regular meetings with partners? If so, which staff do you meet 

with? 

- Do you exchange regular reports on customers’ progress? 

- Do you share electronic data? 

Do partners report back to the CERC on follow up and customer outcomes? 

- If so, in what form? Electronic? Paper? 

- How long do they report on customers’ status? 

WORKING WITH EMPLOYERS

Have you developed working relationships with area employers to place customers in jobs? 

What services do you provide to employers? 

How do you inform employers about the types of assistance and services the CERC offers? 

EXPERIENCES WORKING IN THE CERC

How many active cases do you typically have? 
A.18

- How many customers do you see in a typical day? A typical week? 

- Has this changed over time? 

How often are you typically in contact with customers and under what circumstances? 

- Does this vary according to customer needs? 

- Are most contacts made in the office, by telephone, other? 

How long do you work with a typical customer? 

Do you feel like you have a good handle on your caseload and the needs of your customers? 

How much of your time is spent on paperwork versus working directly with customers? 

- Do you have enough time to meet with customers? 

Prior to working at the CERC, what position did you have? 

- What are the similarities and differences between the responsibilities of your 

previous position and your current position at the CERC? 

Have you received any training or technical assistance to support you in your job at the 

CERC? 

- If so, what type of training or technical assistance? 

- How helpful was it? 

- Are there other types of training or support that would be helpful? 

LESSONS

What are the main successes of the CERC? 

- Customer outcomes? 

- Coordination across service providers? 

- Rapid start-up? 

- Convenience and accessibility? 

- Service co-location? Service integration? 

- Other? 

What has been most challenging about operating the CERC? 

- Recruitment of partners? 

- Coordination across partners? 
A.19 

- Information sharing? 

- Start-up time? 

- Sufficient resources? 

- Other operational difficulties? 

What strategies have you tried for overcoming those challenges? 

How useful do you think the CERC has been for customers? 

- Is it more convenient? 

- Are services more accessible? 

Do you think customers accessed services they would not otherwise have received if they were 

not co-located in the CERC? 

Has co-location of services enhanced case management? If so, how? 

Has co-location of services reduced stigma associated with applying for food or other economic 

assistance? How? 

If you could, would you want to continue operating the CERC on a longer-term basis? 

- Why or why not? 

If you could change any aspect of the CERC, what would you change? 

- Do you have other recommendations for improvement? 

Would training, technical assistance, or other resources have helped you implement the CERC 

more successfully? 

- If yes, what would have helped? 

Are there any services that would be helpful to have in the CERC that are not available? 

What advice would you give to other states and communities that are considering implementing 

similar initiatives? 
A.20
A.21 

CERC CUSTOMER INTERVIEW 

How did you find out about the CERC? 

How far did you travel to get here? 

What kind of transportation did you use? 

Is the CERC conveniently located for you? 

What resources or services were you hoping to find at the CERC? 

Have you received the services you needed? Expected? 

What services have you received? 

Who coordinated these services for you? 

What referrals have you received to other agencies or service providers? 

Have you used these services? 

How easy or difficult has it been for you to do that? 

How useful have the CERC and referred services been? 

Have you been able to access services from multiple agencies at the same location? 

Are there any services that you would have liked to access that are not available through the 

CERC? 

Do you have any recommendations for improving the CERC? 
A.22
A.23 

CERC PARTNER INTERVIEW 

INTRODUCTION 

Describe the purpose of the visit and answer questions. 

BACKGROUND OF ORGANIZATION

What is the primary mission of your organization? 

What services do you provide? 

What is your service area? 

How long have you provided services in this community? 

What are your major funding sources? 

What are the characteristics of the families you serve? 

- Is the client population you serve through the CERC different than your usual 

client population? 

CERC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

How did you find out that the CERC was being planned? 

- When did you find out? 

Was your organization involved in the CERC’s planning and development? 

- What role did your organization play? 

SERVICES

What services does your organization provide through the CERC? 

Which staff from your organization work at the CERC? 

How often are staff at the CERC? 

- Has this changed over time? 

- If so, why? 

How are CERC clients referred to your organization? 

What information do you receive about CERC clients’ needs? 
A.24

Do all CERC clients have the opportunity to apply for your services, or only those referred 

by CERC workers? 

Once clients are referred to you, what role do CERC workers play in case management? 

- Do they continue to receive ongoing case management from the CERC, or does 

your organization take over the case? 

Do CERC staff follow up on referrals? How? 

Do you track the outcomes of CERC clients? 

- Do you report them back to the CERC? 

COMMUNICATION AMONG PARTNERS

What systems are in place to facilitate communication across participating service providers? 

- Do participating providers have regular meetings? If so, which staff attend? 

- Produce regular reports? 

- Share electronic data? 

How do participating service providers communicate across programs? 

- Exchange referrals? 

- Information about customer needs? 

Do participating service providers use common application or other forms? 

- Automated case management systems? 

- Shared electronic data? 

LESSONS

What are the main successes of the CERC? 

- Customer outcomes? 

- Coordination across service providers? 

- Rapid start-up? 

- Convenience and accessibility? 

- Service co-location? Service integration? 

- Other? 
A.25 

What are the main success of your involvement in the CERC? 

What has been most challenging about providing services through the CERC? 

- Coordination with the CERC? 

- Information sharing? 

- Start-up time? 

- Sufficient resources? 

- Other operational difficulties? 

What strategies have you tried for overcoming those challenges? 

How useful do you think the CERC has been for customers? 

- Is it more convenient? 

- Are services more accessible? 

How useful do you think your agency’s presence has been for CERC customers? 

Do you think customers accessed services they would not otherwise have received if they 

were not co-located in the CERC? 

Has co-location of services enhanced case management? If so, how? 

Has co-location of services reduced stigma associated with applying for food or other 

economic assistance? How? 

If you could, would you want to continue operating the CERC on a longer-term basis? 

- Why or why not? 

If you could change any aspect of the CERC, what would you change? 

- Do you have other recommendations for improvement? 

Are there any services that would be helpful to have in the CERC that are not available? 

What advice would you give to other states and communities that are considering 

implementing similar initiatives? 
A.26
APPENDIX B 

PROTOCOLS FOR TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS WITH STATE OFFICIALS
B.2
B.3

INTERVIEW PROTOCOL FOR STATE OFFICIALS

Describe the purpose of the interview. 

CERC GOALS

What goals did the state establish for the CERCs? 

Did the state aim to achieve service co-location at the CERCs? To what extent? 

 

Did the state intend for the CERCs to offer information about available community services, or 

opportunities to actually apply for needed services and benefits? 

Did the state intend to achieve service integration or coordinated case management? 

CERC PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

What was the state’s rationale for establishing the CERCs? 

Who made the decision to establish the CERCs? When was the decision made? 

What factors led to this decision? 

How did the state decide which CERC to open first? Are there specific criteria for when a 

CERC should be opened in a particular community? If so, what are they? 

Why did the state decide to establish the CERCs as temporary, rather than permanent, offices? 

How long did planning for implementation of the CERCs take? How long did it take for the 

first CERC to open once the initiative was announced? 

Who were the key state-level VEC staff involved in developing the CERCs? What were 

their roles? 

Were staff from other agencies involved in developing the CERCs? If so, who were they 

and what roles did they play? 

What was the division on labor for CERC planning activities between state-level and local 

VEC staff? 

What kinds of support did the state provide to local VEC offices during the planning and 

development phase? Training or technical assistance? Logistical support? Staff? Funding? 

CERC ORGANIZATION AND OPERATIONS

Why does primary responsibility for operating the CERCs rest with the VEC? How was this 

decision made? 
B.4

Who supervises the work of the CERCs at the state level? VEC staff? Strike Force 

members? 

How much direction do state-level VEC staff give to the CERC managers? For example, do 

state-level staff provide guidance on whether needs assessments should be conducted, what 

services should be offered, which partners should be recruited, or other issues? 

How are the CERCs funded? By the VEC, or by multiple agencies? State funds? If by 

multiple programs, how are costs allocated across programs? Across overhead and staff 

costs? How were decisions about CERC funding made? 

What are the main costs of operating the CERCs? Staff? Overhead costs such as rent and 

utilities? Equipment? 

What is the state’s policy on when CERCs are closed? 

CERC PARTNERS

Who are the main partners who have participated in the CERCs? 

Did the state mandate participation of specific agencies? If so, which ones? Why? 

How do the various state agencies involved in the CERCs coordinate at the state level? 

What kinds of issues are addressed through state-level coordination? 

To what extent are the services offered by partners integrated? What factors have influenced 

the level of service integration achieved? 

REPORTING SYSTEM

How did the VEC develop its data collection and reporting system for the CERCs? What 

factors led to this design? Did the VEC consult with other state agencies in planning this 

system? 

How are the CERC referral and outcome data used? Who receives these reports? 

How has implementation of this system gone? Have there been difficulties collecting 

outcome information on referrals? 

How much has this increased burden on local and state-level VEC staff? 

LESSONS 

To what extent have the initial goals set for the CERCs been met? What factors have aided 

or impeded the CERCs in meeting these goals? 
B.5

What are the main successes of the CERCs? Customer outcomes? Coordination across 

service providers? Rapid start-up? Convenience and accessibility? Service co-location? 

Service integration? Other? 

What has been most challenging about operating the CERCs? Recruitment of partners? 

Coordination across partners? Information sharing? Start-up time? Sufficient resources? 

Other operational difficulties? 

What strategies have you tried at the state level for overcoming those challenges? 

Were the resources available to operate the CERCs sufficient to meet the CERCs’ goals? If 

not, what was lacking? Were facilities, equipment, and staff for the CERCs sufficient? 

How useful do you think the CERCs have been for customers? Are they convenient? Are 

services more accessible? 

Do you think customers accessed services they would not otherwise have received if they 

were not co-located in the CERCs? 

Has the level of referrals to non-VEC services been what you expected, higher, or lower? 

What factors do you think contributed to the level of referrals reported by the CERCs? 

Has service co-location enhanced case management? In what way? 

If you could, would you want to continue operating the CERCs on a longer-term basis? 

Why or why not? 

If you could change any aspect of the CERCs, what would you change? The planning 

process? The reporting system? Partner recruitment? Other? Do you have other 

recommendations for improvement? 

Would waivers of any specific requirements of federal or state programs have improved the 

CERCs’ ability to serve customers? Do you have suggestions for ways that federal and state 

programs could better support the mission of the CERCs? 

Would training, technical assistance, or other resources have helped local offices implement 

the CERCs more successfully? If yes, what would have helped? 

 Are there any services that would be helpful to have in CERCs that are not available? 

 What advice would you give to other states and communities that are considering 

 implementing similar initiatives? 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, 

religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.