OWS Research Exchange 

 

Office of Workforce Security 

Occasional Paper 2000-04

U.S. Department of Labor

Alexis M. Herman, Secretary

Employment and Training Administration

Raymond L. Bramucci, Assistant Secretary 

Office of Workforce Security

Grace A. Kilbane, Administrator

Office of Career Transition Assistance

Eric Johnson, Director

Division of Research and Reporting

Esther R. Johnson, Chief

2000

The OWS Research Exchange series is published

periodically by the Office of Workforce Security,

Division of Research and Reporting, to

present research findings and analyses dealing

with workforce security issues. Crystal R.

Woodard served as Editor for this issue.

The Exchange welcomes research articles from staff 

members of the Federal-State workforce security

system (Unemployment Insurance, Employment

Service, and One-Stop Career Centers) and

individual researchers. All correspondence

regarding this publication should be sent to:

OWS Occasional Papers

Office of Workforce Security

Frances Perkins Building, Room S-4231

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20210

email: OWSPapers@doleta.gov

http://www.ttrc.doleta.gov/owsdrr/
ii

iv

Table of Contents

Forward....................................................................................... v

Submitting to the Exchange ................................................................... vii

Contributed Papers ........................................................................... 9

Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Unemployment 

 Insurance with the One-Stop System ........................................... 11

The Massachusetts One-Stop Model: Working or Not? ................................... 21

Fixing to Change: A Best Practices Assessment of One-Stop

 Job Centers Working with Welfare Recipients ....................................... 59

Workforce Development ............................................................. 149

Legislative Developments and Financial Status ................................................. 153

Changes in Unemployment Insurance Legislation in 1999 ............................... 157

Financial Status and Economic Conditions ............................................. 171

Seminars, Meetings, Conferences and Training ................................................ 173

Research Project Summaries and Status ...................................................... 177

Office of Workforce Security Research and Development Projects ....................... 179

Office of Workforce Security Technical Assistance Projects ............................ 189

Office of Workforce Security Demonstration Projects .................................. 196

Appendix A: Federal OWS Contact Information ................................................ 199

Appendix B: State OWS Contact Information ................................................... 203

Appendix C: OWS Occasional Paper Series ................................................... 211
v
vi

Forward

The Office of Workforce Security Research Exchange is published by the Office of

Workforce Security, Division of Research and Reporting. The Exchange provides a

means of communication between researchers, both inside and outside government ,

and policymakers. The Exchange is designed to be an open forum for all researchers

and program personnel. However, the views expressed in the Exchange do not

necessarily reflect the official position or policy of the U.S. Department of Labor. Thank

you to all contributors to this issue. 
vii
viii

Submitting to the Exchange

Individuals interested in submitting papers to the Exchange should follow these

guidelines. The next issue(s) of the Exchange will address the topic of Contingent

Workforce (independent contractors, temporaries, etc.). Manuscripts are due by

December 31, 2000. Notification of acceptance will be provided by February 28, 2001. 

Manuscripts not selected for publication will be returned to the authors.

Submission Guidelines

# Manuscripts should be factual and analytical in tone and should, preferably,

contain research on the topics of the Contingent Worker. Manuscripts should be

submitted in a style suitable for publication in a journal and should include an

abstract. There is no word count limit. All manuscripts will undergo a peer review

and no manuscript is guaranteed publication.

# Submit one, unbound manuscript with all appendices as well as an electronic file

(3.5" diskette, IBM compatible) saved in WordPerfect, MSWord 6 or 7, or Rich

Text Format (.RTF). Charts and graphs should be saved as WordPerfect

Graphics (.WPG), Windows Metafile (.WMF), or Bitmap(.BMP) format.

# Please reserve use of tables for crucial data that would otherwise make text

dense with numbers. A table should be an integral part of the text but should also

be intelligible on its own. Figures (graphs, charts, drawings) should be clear and

simple. We cannot print color Figures so please use pattern fills.

# Please include a short biography for all authors/contributors.

# Previously published manuscripts will be considered if author(s) provide or

secure appropriate copyright license for reprinting by the Department of Labor

and the UI Research Exchange.

# For seminars, conferences, meetings and training, please include exact dates

and times, locations, title and purpose, who may or will attend, and appropriate

contact or registration information.

Submissions may be sent to:

Ms. Crystal Woodard

Office of Workforce Security

U.S. Department of Labor

200 Constitution Ave, NW, Rm S-4231

Washington, DC 20210

Email: OWSExchange@doleta.gov
ix
10

Contributed Papers
11
12

Challenges and Opportunities for Integrating Unemployment 

Insurance with the One-Stop System

William F. Sullivan, Jr.

Spring 1999
13
14

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR INTEGRATING UNEMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE WITH THE ONE-STOP SYSTEM

William F. Sullivan, Jr.

Spring 1999

Since the creation of Unemployment Insurance (UI) over sixty years ago, there have been

significant changes in the U.S. labor market. Manufacturing employment, once a mainstay of the

economy, has declined dramatically while employment in the service sector has risen. These

employment shifts have contributed to increased volatility in the labor market as workers have

become more likely to experience job and career changes. In addition, there has been a rise in

temporary, part-time and other non-traditional work relationships.l

Just as the labor market has changed, so has the profile of UI customers. When UI was created, it

was intended to provide short-term financial support to workers who were temporarily laid off and

were likely to return to their previous jobs. The typical customer was the manufacturing employee

who was laid off during an economic downturn and then hired back when the economy recovered.

Today's UI claimants are less likely to return to their previous jobs or even their previous industries.

They are also more likely to exhaust benefits and require intensive reemployment services.2 And

today's UI claimants are more likely to have extended spells of joblessness. According to a recent

analysis, the average duration of unemployment has climbed sharply between the 1950s and 1990s.3

Another analysis demonstrates that the average duration of UI benefits has remained high in the

1990s, despite low unemployment rates.4

Federal and state officials have attempted to meet the needs of a changing UI population by building

a "seamless" system that provides workers with temporary financial support as well as a battery of

reemployment services. Such a system generates economic benefits for workers, employers and

society as a whole. Workers benefit from improved access to job search assistance and training

while they are still eligible for UI benefits. Employers and society benefit from a reduction in the

duration of unemployment and in the costs of providing income support.

Over the last 30 years, there have been many initiatives to improve the linkages between UI and

employment and training services. These include using technology to expand and facilitate access to

employment services, coordinating UI and dislocated worker services and introducing UI profiling.

With the passage of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998, there is a new opportunity to

forge closer links between UI and the reemployment services provided by emerging one-stop

career center systems. By making UI a mandatory partner in WIA, the Congress recognized that

UI is the gateway to the workforce development system for the unemployed.

1 U.S. Department of Labor, A Dialogue: Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Programs, 1998, p. 2. 

2 U.S. Department of Labor, A Dialogue: Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Programs, 1998 

3 William Baumol and Edward Wolff, "Side Effects of Progress;" July 1998; and Gene Koretz, "Solving a Labor Market

Puzzle," Business Week, April 26, 1999. 

4 Mathematica Policy Research, An Analysis of UI Durations Since the 1990-1992 Recession (March 1999).
15

This paper explores the challenges and opportunities for integrating UI with the one-stop career

center system authorized by WIA. It includes a brief history of earlier initiatives to connect UI with

reemployment services, a discussion of the challenges for UI and a series of recommendations. In

addition, the appendix describes how a number of states belonging to the National Center on

Education and the Economy's High Skills State Consortium have begun to connect UI and the onestop system.

Historical Background

UI was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 to provide temporary income protection to

millions of unemployed workers. Since its origin in the Great Depression, there have been many

efforts to improve the connection between UI and employment and training services.

Role of Technology in Expanding Access to Employment Services

As a result of technological advances since 1935, UI claimants have gained greater access to a

range of employment services. In the early days, services to the unemployed were delivered

through a system of local offices and relied heavily on staff assistance. UI staff worked closely

with Job Service staff in local offices, who reviewed job openings with customers and made

referrals to employers. Beginning in the 1970s, states began to establish Job Banks-computerized

job listings that were updated daily and made available to workers seeking employment. State Job

Bank openings were later incorporated into an Interstate Job Bank and made available throughout

the country. The Interstate Job Bank evolved into America's Job Bank, a state-of-the-art, Internetbased system that contains millions of job openings. In addition, America's Talent Bank, an Internetbased system that pools individual resumes, was established. These national systems are now

widely available-in public employment offices, employment and training providers' offices, even in

workers' homes and employers' facilities-and have provided UI claimants with improved access to

job matching services.

Links Between UI and Dislocated Worker Programs

There have also been increasing links between UI and dislocated worker programs. The passage of

the Manpower Development and Training Act (MDTA) in 1962 marked the first time that UI

became involved in reemployment systems other than those traditionally operated by the

Employment Service. MDTA's customers were mostly males who had been displaced as a result of

technological change and needed more than routine job matching services to become reemployed.

In many states, this marked the first time that UI staff had to inform workers of the availability of

training programs and to interact with training providers. This was because program enrollees, many

of whom were UI recipients, generally were paid a stipend while attending training.

With the passage of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) in 1982, the links between UI and

dislocated worker services grew closer. JTPA had a significant effect on the operations of the UI

Program through Title HL which was enacted in response to worker dislocation caused by business

closings, consolidations and downsizing. A significant number of the enrollees in Title III programs

were UI beneficiaries. UI agencies worked closely with program operators to keep them informed

of prospective layoffs and the types of occupations that might be affected. In many states, 
16

the UI Service and the Economic Dislocation and Worker Adjustment Assistance Program

operator jointly participated in rapid response teams to provide services to individuals

adversely affected by plant closings. Systems were jointly developed to report enrollments

in programs to the UI agency so that enrolled individuals could continue to receive UI

benefits while participating in training. The relationships developed between UI agency staff

at all levels and staff from agencies delivering reemployment services facilitated the

delivery of appropriate services to customers.

The Development of UI Profiling 

The development and institution of profiling for the unemployed has also tightened the links

between UI and employment and training services. The Worker Profiling and

Reemployment Services System (WPRS), which was enacted in 1993, is designed to

identify claimants who are likely to exhaust their UI benefits and are in need of

reemployment assistance and refer them as quickly as possible to reemployment

services. Some states have been very successful in implementing the WPBS, while

others have only operated it perfunctorily. In those states where the WPRS has operated

as a coordinated system with the agencies that deliver reemployment services, results

have been good. This process of early identification and referral will serve as an excellent

foundation for partnering with other WIA service providers to meet the needs of UI

claimants.

UI Challenges

WIA, which was enacted in 1998, offers a new opportunity for improved linkages between

UI and a range of workforce development services. WIA requires UI to be a mandatory

partner in one-stop career center systems and calls for information on filing UI claims to be

made available to all adults using the one-stop system. In addition, UI wage records must

be made available for tracking performance and creating consumer report cards on

training providers. One-stop career centers are intended to provide customers with easy

access to a comprehensive range of workforce services, including job search assistance,

labor market information and training.

While WIA provides new opportunities for providing enriched services to UI claimants to

facilitate their reemployment, there are major challenges. One of the biggest challenges is

coordinating statewide UI systems with local implementation of WIA. The UI program is

generally operated by a single state agency and has become increasingly centralized in some states

as a result of the movement toward telephone claims systems. WIA, by contrast, relies on multiple

service providers and focuses on local strategies designed to meet local needs. The challenge will

be to ensure that state-level service strategies for UI complement and promote localized

implementation under WIA.

Other challenges include:

Linking dislocated workers with other employment and training services

A significant number of states have moved from in-person and/or mail-in filing of initial claims for

UI benefits to a telephone application process. As a result, local offices have been closed and staff

have been redeployed to a centralized facility utilizing state-of-the-art Interactive Voice Response

(IVR) and computer and telephone integrated systems. Although implementation of telephone

claims has made filing UI claims more efficient and convenient, it also creates challenges. One 
17

major challenge is connecting dislocated workers (UI claimants who are not likely to return to their

previous jobs or previous industries) with the reemployment services they need to return to work.

Unless there are clear links between the telephone claims system and one-stop career centers,

these customers may not be aware of the full range of services and programs that are available,

and even more importantly, how to access them through the centers.

Designing programs for workers who no longer qualify for UI

The decline in the number of individuals eligible for UI benefits represents one of the challenges for

UI. The recipiency rate (the share of the unemployed receiving benefits) has declined significantly

since the inception of the UI program. The national rate now averages 36 percent, with rates in

individual states ranging from 17 to 67 percent. Recipiency rates have declined in part due to:

• state policy changes that tightened eligibility requirements; 

• employment declines in manufacturing and other industries, which generally have high claims

rates; 

• the decline of unionization; 

• the growth of intermittent and part-time work; and

• employment growth in states with traditionally low recipiency rates.5

Individuals who are unemployed but not eligible for UI may need to enter specially designed shortterm training programs in order to become reemployed as soon as possible. Those individuals who

are eligible but who have low benefit rates may require similar interventions.

Designing systems which offer intensive services to those who may exhaust benefits

Far too many individuals exhaust their UI benefits without receiving reemployment services.

Currently, the exhaustion rate at the national level averages 32 percent, with rates in individual

states ranging from 4.4 to 55.5 percent. Under WIA, profiling and other strategies must be used to

identify and link claimants to appropriate services in a timely manner.

Recommendations for UI under WIA

WIA offers states and local areas an opportunity to improve the connection between UI and

reemployment services. As states move forward with WIA implementation, they can take specific

steps to improve the integration of UI with the one-stop system. These steps include:

Provide Multiple Points of Access to UI

While many states have moved to fully automated remote claims-taking systems, they should

identify additional ways of providing access to UL To the extent that funding allows, the UI Service

should consider stationing a staff person in the one stop center on either a full or part time basis.

This individual, who would be the "resident 

5

 Based in part on U.S. Department of Labor, A Dialogue: Unemployment Insurance and Employment Service Programs,

1998, p. 15.
18

expert" on the UI Program, could make sure that customers are aware of UI services and can use

the telephone claims system to file a claim. This "resident expert" should also provide appropriate

outreach materials to staff of the workforce development partners, obtain input from staff on the

appropriateness of the materials and keep the UI manager updated on recommendations for

changes. In addition, this individual could serve as the crucial link between UI and the service

providers to resolve any problems for individual customers. If assigning UI staff to one-stop centers

is not be feasible, other options should be considered. For example, the UI Service could train the

one-stop staff on the basics of UI requirements and ways to assist customers in accessing the UI

system.

Ensure that technology facilitates the referral of UI claimants to reemployment services The

effective use of technology is essential to deliver timely and effective UI and reemployment

services. At the state level, the Ui Service should take the initiative to develop a system that will act

as a "gateway to the workforce development system" by electronically registering claimants for

reemployment services, including America's Talent Bank, based on the information provided in the

initial claim. The effective use of technology is also important to ensure that the profiling system is

functioning properly.

Conduct eligibility review in the one-stop

UI staff in most states systematically review a claimant's continuing eligibility for benefits. In some

states, this is done through automated systems, while in others it is done by telephone and/or through

personal interviews. The eligibility review program should serve a dual purpose. It should serve to

ensure that an individual is fulfilling the requirements of the law from a UI perspective, but it should

also serve as a reemployment assistance interview. It might make sense to conduct the review in

the one-stop center where the individual can be directly referred to reemployment services.

Deepen Partnerships with Public and Private Workforce Development Board Members 

As a member of the state and local workforce development boards which are led by private sector

members, UI is offered new opportunities to keep employers, labor representatives and other public

board members fully aware of developments in the UI program and obtain valuable input from

them. These private and public board members can, in turn, help UI improve services to the

unemployed. Employer members of the boards can serve as part of an early warning system to

alert the UI Service when they are going to reduce their workforce or when they hear of reductions

in force at other employers. Labor representatives and other public members of local boards can

help UI by serving as outreach staff to keep the public informed about UI filing requirements and to

provide input to ensure that UI materials are user friendly and understandable by diverse

populations.

Develop informational materials for UI claimants and one-stop staff about the broad array of

workforce services 

Clear, concise and understandable informational materials should be prepared for three different

audiences. First, UI claimants require information on available reemployment services and how to 
19

access them. Second, individuals applying for reemployment services must be made aware of how

to file a claim for UI benefits. These materials should be developed in such a way as to encourage

filing and should be prepared in languages that are representative of the diverse population in the

state. Third, staff from the agencies that deliver reemployment services need easy-to-use materials

that will provide them with a basic understanding of the UI program.

Convene a national forum to devise a range of options for connecting UI and the one-stop

system 

Many states across the country have already taken steps to connect UI and the onestop system. It

would be beneficial to build on this combined knowledge and experience by holding a national forum

for states and the U.S. Department of Labor. Participants could use the forum to share key lessons

learned and different approaches to connecting UI and the one-stop system. The ultimate goal

would be to devise a range of practical options for improving integration between the two systems.

Appendix: How HSSC States are Integrating UI and the One-stop System

Members of the National Center's High Skills State Consortium, a group of about ten states, have

already begun to link UI and the one-stop system in various ways. Here are a number of specific

examples from the states that responded to our survey:

Vermont: Staffing the One-Stop with a UI Expert

Vermont, which is moving to implement a telephone claim system for UI in September 1999, plans

to connect UI and the one-stop system in several ways. Once the telephone system is in place, the

state's 12 one-stop career centers will have phones that can be used for filing UI claims. Each

center will also have staff on-site (partially funded by UI) to help people file claims by phone and

answer questions about UI. In addition, customers will receive information about the location, hours

and services of one-stop centers when they apply for UI and further information will be mailed to

them.

Washington: Boosting Reemployment Services for Low-Income Workers

Washington has recently begun to implement a new program called Reemploy Washington

Workers, which is designed to link unemployed low-income workers with reemployment services.

The program targets UI claimants who are former Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

(TANF) recipients as well as other low-income workers. Program services include an intensive job 

search workshop, highly structured job search activities, development of a personalized skill

portfolio, child care and transportation assistance during the period of job search, job clubs and a

reemployment bonus for those who return to work quickly. This initiative is supported by TANF

funds and relies on close partnerships with UI and the one-stop system.

Rhode Island: Rethinking the Eligibility Review Program and Staffing the One-stop with a

UI Expert Rhode Island has established several crucial links between its emerging one-stop

system and its telephone claims system for UI, which was implemented during 1998. First, UI

applicants receive information about reemployment services, such as the location of one-stops and

service offerings, while they are waiting to access the telephone claims system. UI staff also have

information on reemployment services and are regularly informed of special events, such as job 
20

fairs. Second, the state has recently reinstated the Eligibility Review Program. Employment Service

staff in one-stop centers will make appointments with customers who have been 

on UI for at least eight weeks to check on their progress and provide information on reemployment

services. Third, a "UI liaison" entirely funded by UI is stationed in every one-stop center. The

liaison is the local UI expert and can provide on-site assistance and information to customers.

Wisconsin: Improving the Links between UI and Local WIA Boards

Wisconsin, which was one of the first states to implement a telephone claims system for UI, is

planning to take several steps to improve the links between UI and the one-stop system. Each local

board established under WIA will have a UI representative and the state will assign a different

representative to each board. This will enable UI managers to become more attuned to local

circumstances and needs. In addition, Wisconsin will implement Internet-based UI claims-taking by

July 2000. Customers who use the Internet will be able to link to America's Job Bank and

America's Talent Bank and complete a resume at the same time they are filing a UI claim. Finally,

Wisconsin is seeking additional funding to increase the number of UI claimants who can be profiled

and directed to reemployment services.

Maine: Cross-Training Staff in the One-stop System 

Maine, which has implemented a telephone claims system for UI, is considering steps to improve

integration between UI and one-stop services. Initial plans include developing videos and

information sheets on UI that will be available to one-stop customers and providing cross training to

staff.
21
22

The Massachusetts One-Stop Model: Working or Not?

Prepared by Clyde W. Barrow, Ph.D

Center for Policy Analysis

University of Massachusetts Dartmouth

January 1998
23
24

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 25

1.00 THE COMPETITIVE MODEL OF REINVENTING GOVERNMENT 29 

1.10 Purpose of the Report 29 

1.20 The Economics of Privatization 29

1.21 Service Reductions 30

1.22 Inappropriate Referrals 31

1.23 Service Disruption 32

1.24 False Efficiencies 32

1.25 Fictitious Competition 33

1.26 "Politicization" of Service Delivery 34

130 Massachusetts' Pacheco Law 35

1.40 Reconsidering the Competitive Model in Massachusetts 36

1.41 Privatization is Not Choice/Choice Does Not Require Privatization 36

1.42 The False Promise of Privatization 37

2.00 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS 39

2.10 The Standard Model 39

2.11 Universal Access 40

2.12 Customer Choice 40

2.13 Integration 41

2.14 Accountability 41

 2.20 The Massachusetts Model 41

3.00 THE PERFORMANCE OF ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS 44

3.10 Barriers to Effective Implementation of One-Stop Career Centers 44

3.20 Performance Measurements 45

3.30 Legal Issues in the Competitive Model 46

3.31 Federal 46

3.32 Massachusetts 47

3.40 Performance Failures in the Massachusetts Model 47

3.41 Denial of Universal Access 47

3.42 Denial of Customer Choice 50

3.43 Obstacles to Integration 51

3.44 Questions About Performance 52

4.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 54

SOURCES CONSULTED 56
25
26
27
28
29
30

1.00 THE COMPETITIVE MODEL OF REINVENTING GOVERNMENT

1.10 Purpose of the Report

Massachusetts was one of the first nine states to receive a U.S. Department of Labor

implementation grant for the creation of One-Stop Career Centers. The purpose of the One-Stop

Career Centers is to improve the delivery of employment services by integrating numerous employmentrelated categorical programs into “one-stop” centers offering a wide choice of employment services.

Massachusetts is the only state to adopt a “competitive model” for the One-Stop Career Centers that:

(a) requires public agencies to compete with private vendors for career center contracts and (b) requires

the winning bidders to compete against each other for performance-based contract renewals. The

“Massachusetts model” of One-Stop Career Centers has received national attention among proponents

of privatization and the competitive model as an example of how competition and privatization can

improve the delivery of public services.

This report is a preliminary review of the existing qualitative and quantitative data on One-Stop

Career Centers in Massachusetts. The report’s findings are based on performance reports submitted to

the Massachusetts Job Council, legal briefs, legislative reports, independent newspaper investigations,

and numerous other sources. The purpose of the report is to evaluate existing information on the

relative performance of the competitive system of One-Stop Career Centers in Massachusetts.

1.20 The Economics of Privatization

There are many definitions and forms of privatization, but generally privatization involves the

transfer of government services from the public sector to the private sector by divesting state-owned

enterprises (transferring assets), raising user fees (shifting costs), and allowing private sector vendors to

manage the delivery of government-financed services in lieu of government agencies. Privatization

usually takes place through a competitive bidding process in which contracts are awarded to private

vendors on the combined basis of lowest cost (efficiency) and maintenance of service levels

(effectiveness) [Beacon Hill Institute 1992; Goodrich 1988; Schlesinger et al 1986]. 

Thus, the economic and public policy rationale for “privatization” proposals is the claim that

competitive or private-sector vendors can: (1) maintain the same level of program effectiveness

at less cost (i.e., more efficiency) or (2) better achieve program goals at the same cost (i.e. more effectiveness).

Importantly:
1

 See, Sclar [1997, 6]. Transaction costs include the costs of administering the

contracting process, monitoring the work of contractors, and evaluating/validating the

information collection from contractors.

2

 One agency, for example, asked its employees to record their work performed

every fifteen minutes of the day [Baldwin 1990; Ebben et al 1991; Motenko et al., 1995].

31

in order to justify such a dramatic departure from standard models of public

administration, claims of reduced cost or increased effectiveness should be

“significant” and “measurable,” rather than marginal or merely asserted by

proponents to justify the proposed policy changes.

The advocates of public service privatization have asserted a range of potential cost

savings and service benefits from privatization, but empirical evidence for these claims is

generally lacking and, in many cases, the available evidence on privatization now suggests

that:

the “transaction costs” of contract compliance tend to offset any

nominal cost savings from privatization and competition.1

Indeed, the tendency of private firms (both for-profit and non-profit) to seek

“reimbursement opportunities” and to “cream” client bases that enhance nominal

productivity requires a substantial increase in contract monitoring, data collection, data

analysis, and intensive outside auditing. These requirements often increase the actual

“bureaucracy” involved in program administration, while offsetting the apparent savings

associated with privatization and outsourcing. The result is that more and more case studies

from throughout the country document that the internal reorganization of public agencies

tends to produce greater real efficiency than privatization [Sclar 1997]. This has certainly

been the predominant experience in Massachusetts with the competitive model in several

areas of public service delivery.

1.21 Service Reductions

A major problem with the competitive model has been a tendency to increase case

loads, for purposes of “productivity,” to a level that actually results in higher levels of

employee “burnout,” employee turnover, and low worker morale. A related problem is that

external monitoring of efficiency and productivity has caused employees to spend more time

documenting their work load to secure contract renewals. Paradoxically, this reduces the real

time available for client service and colleague consultation.2 When the reduced effectiveness
3

 For example, in Massachusetts, one study documents that “the loss of staff and

services in some agencies was so drastic” it was no longer possible to meet agency and

program goals [Motenko et al, 1995, 460].

4

 Following the privatization of mental health delivery in Massachusetts, for

instance, the Department of Mental Health was downsized from 7,765 employees (January

1, 1991) to 4,708 (May 1, 1997). While much was made of the staff reductions, most of

these employees’ workload was merely outsourced to private vendors. Yet, in 1997, a

Boston Globe “Spotlight Investigation” documented that as many as 1,800 patients per year

were being incorrectly committed to private psychiatric hospitals under the privatization

plan. Thus, while outsourcing nominally “reduced” state expenditures on health care, it

merely shifted payments to the federally reimbursed Medicare and Medicaid programs at

an additional costs of $ 18 million per year [Kong and O’Neill 1997; Zuckoff 1997].

Notably, the Massachusetts involuntary psychiatric commitment law “is in the mainstream

when compared with similar laws throughout the United States.” The main difference

32

of employees is balanced against these false efficiencies, it is unlikely that any improvements

in overall productivity have occurred [Ebben et al 1991; Orfield 1991; Wineburg et al,

1991]. 3 

1.22 Inappropriate Referrals

Another problem with competitive privatization has been the tendency of private

vendors to make inappropriate referrals which increase long-term costs. As early as 1990, a

study of “the economics of contracting” in Massachusetts predicted that professional

employees working in private vendor service delivery firms would be driven by the economics

of competitive operations to generate increased “reimbursement opportunities,” rather than

client-oriented service [Baldwin 1990]. By 1995, an unrelated study found that professional

employees in such firms actually did perceive an increased emphasis on drawing or keeping

clients inside the delivery system to generate reimbursement opportunities, particularly in

private for-profit companies [Motenko et al, 1995, 457]. This behavior actually leads to a

long-term ratcheting up of costs over time as clients requiring no service or minimal service

are over-diagnosed or over-served in order to generate increased fees and budgets. These

problems have been documented in Massachusetts and elsewhere throughout the United

States involving the privatization of services as diverse as auto repairs and vehicle

maintenance, state highway maintenance, mental health, and health care for the poor and

elderly [Sclar 1997]. There are increasing numbers of documented cases from throughout the

country of fraudulent reporting, billing for services not performed, double billing for services,

and the performance of non-required services.4 At the same time, there is a consistent
between Massachusetts and other states is that the law’s use has increased each year since

the privatization initiatives was launched in 1992, partly because “the law has been abused

and misused by workers at insurance-hungry hospitals eager to tap into a boom in Medicare

and Medicaid payments [Zuckoff 1997]. Similarly, the Massachusetts State Auditor

recently found that a Florida-based medical firm with a $36 million a year contract to

provide medical care to Massachusetts prisoners overcharged the state $1.5 million in 1994

for unsubstantiated AIDS-related treatments by filing “false and questionable invoices”

[Phillips 1996].

5

 A private bus company operating under a contract with the MBTA doubled senior

citizen fares and raised regular fare rates by 50% on MBTA routes, while continuing to

receive a tax-payer financed subsidy [Jordan 1996b]. Thus, while MBTA could claim to be

spending “less” on the bus routes, the actual costs of operating the routes was not reduced,

33

tendency for systems operated under the rules of competitive privatization to shift service

delivery away from areas of greatest client need into areas of greatest fee generation. This

results is reducing the services available to those clients who are most in need of services, but

least able to afford services [Jordan 1996b].

1.23 Service Disruption

For-profit and non-profit private corporations can and do go bankrupt while

administering public service contracts, particularly when under pressure to meet strict

standards for cost reduction and savings. In Massachusetts, for example, a private bus firm

declared bankruptcy in the middle of a February snow storm and left a town’s residents

without bus service for two days, while the MBTA sought another private vendor to take

over the service [Jordan 1996b]. Similar disruptions may occur as a transaction cost of

transferring operations from public agencies to private vendors.

1.24 False Efficiencies

The nominal cost savings attributed to competition and privatization are often “false

efficiencies” that accrue from cost shifting and from unaccounted or hidden costs. The

nominal cost savings attributed to privatization, in particular, are frequently false efficiencies

generated by shifting costs from one program to another program, from one level of

government to another level of government, from reduced service delivery, from increased

costs to customers, overstatements of actual in-house costs of service delivery, or vague

assertions of “labor cost savings” which fail to specify the actual salaries and benefits that

will be paid to comparable private sector employees.5 Similarly, the nominal cost savings
but merely shifted onto riders in the form of fare increases.

6

 In a typical example, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

secured authorization from the State Auditor to privatize its real estate management

department. Although the MBTA claimed it would save $7.5 million over five years, the

State Auditor found that the actual savings was only $200,000 over five years, because the

agency had overstated the cost of doing the work in-house and understated the price of

hiring a private vendor [Globe State House Bureau 1996]. Interestingly, the MBTA has

spent more than $1 million over three years (1993-96) studying privatization [Globe State

House Bureau 1996]. Likewise, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation claims

to have saved millions of dollars by privatizing highway maintenance services, although an

investigation by the state legislature’s House Post Audit and Oversight Committee found

that such claims were unsubstantiated and “questioned whether costs actually have been

cut” [Palmer, Jr. 1996].

34

attributed to privatization are often false efficiencies generated by failing to account for the

full costs of privatization. These costs can include consultant studies of privatization

procedures, the costs of public employee termination (e.g., severance pay, unemployment

insurance, increased pension liabilities of retained employees), the loss of eligibility for

federal reimbursements, the imposition or increase of service fees on customers, and the costs

of new employee training or retraining.6

1.25 Fictitious Competition

Despite the goal of creating competition for public service contracts, a major obstacle

to successful implementation of the competitive model in Massachusetts has been the

frequent lack of bidders on new contracts. Moreover, the bidding process often pits

unqualified and inexperienced private firms against public employee union bids that continue

to win on the basis of efficiency and effectiveness. A growing body of case study evidence,

as well as institutional economic theory, suggests that this problem may occur because public

officials are attempting to extend competition from standardized “spot markets” (e.g., for

automobiles, office supplies) where it is appropriate to narrowly defined niche “contract

markets” where buyers such as government are seeking a highly specialized, custom designed

product or service [Sclar 1997, 6-7]. In such markets, there ordinarily will not be many

bidders, since few sellers will be able to offer the particular product or service being

contracted by the public agency. Thus, there will actually be very little competition in such

markets and, therefore, no improvements in efficiency or effectiveness are likely to result

from this fictitious competition. 
7

 In Massachusetts, for example, a $22 million per year mental health contract

was awarded to Public Consulting Group, despite a competing bid from another firm to

deliver the same service for only $15 million. However, as documented by the Boston

Globe [May 11, 12, 1997, Public Consulting Group operates as a “virtual shadow

government” headed by an individual who formerly worked in the same private

accounting firm with the governor’s Secretary of Administration and Finance. A

Boston Globe “Spotlight Investigation” concludes that Public Consulting Group was

“overpaid for underachieving.” In another 1996 example, a $350,000 contract to

demolish tollbooths on the Massachusetts Turnpike was awarded in apparent violation of

state bidding laws to a company whose principals consistently donated to the campaigns

of then Governor William Weld and Lt. Governor Paul Celluci [Jordan 1996a].

8

 For example, since 1993, when Massachusetts began privatizing its state mental

health system, the state’s free-care pool for uninsured persons has spent $14 million to

care for psychiatric patients that the state formerly treated in state-owned mental hospitals

at less cost. In Fiscal Year 1998, private hospitals estimate that they will spend an

additional $22 million in caring for such patients, but will only recover a fraction of the total

cost from the free-care pool which is already too underfunded to fully cover the thousands

of uninsured Massachusetts residents who need medical and surgical care [Kong 1997].

Similarly, in January of 1996, the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

solicited management consultants for ideas converting the Greater Boston public

transportation system into a “collection of private firms” [Nealon 1996]. The most

dramatic proposal was to privatize the operations of 40% of the MBTA’s bus routes [Blake

1996]. However, after accepting competitive bids, the State Auditor rejected the proposal

under provisions of the Pacheco Law, because no evidence could be shown documenting

claims that privatization would save the $30 million claimed by the authority, improve the

quality of service, or meet the requirements of numerous other state laws [Palmer, Jr.

1997b].

35

1.26 “Politicization” of Service Delivery

Finally, despite claims that privatization and competition make it possible to “run

government like a business,” the experience of Massachusetts and other states suggests that

the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery is routinely subordinated to the “political”

concerns of elected and appointed officials. Vendor contracts and “outsourcing” are

sometimes used to confer patronage on political supporters and to reward campaign

contributors at the expense of customer service, program goals, and program effectiveness.7

1.30 Massachusetts’ Pacheco Law

Competition and privatization of public services can end up costing more than public

sector service delivery if efficiency claims are not carefully monitored and audited by an

independent entity.8 Consequently, Massachusetts adopted the so-called “Pacheco Law” in

1993 as a check on the inflated claims and unsatisfactory results of privatization initiatives

pursued in the early 1990s. The Pacheco Law requires state officials to document the
36

efficiency and effectiveness of competitive proposals to deliver public services through

private vendors. Any government official proposing to privatize a public service must

develop a work statement, determine the in-house cost of services, seek competitive public

bids, and compare the cost of outside bids to the cost of in-house provision. Moreover,

under the Pacheco Law, the existing public employee unions are allowed to submit bids. The

contracting agency must then document the cost savings and maintenance of service levels

and submit these documents to the State Auditor for review. The Auditor may accept a bid,

return it for revisions, or reject it if it fails to adequately meet the provisions of the law, i.e., if

the Auditor determines that the proposal fails to save money or ensures at least equal service

(M.G.L. Chapter 7, Sections 52-55; M.G.L. Chapter 268A, Section 5; M.G.L. Chapter 110,

Section 274). Thus, Massachusetts has a well tested procedure for evaluating and monitoring

claims by private 

vendors concerning cost savings and maintenance of service. However, 

Massachusetts’ One-Stop Career Centers have never been evaluated

against the efficiency and maintenance of service standards established

by the state’s Pacheco Law.

1.40 Reconsidering the Competitive Model in Massachusetts

1.41 Privatization is Not Choice and Choice Does Not Require Privatization

 A main thrust of public policy in Massachusetts has been to provide a wider range of

choices to consumers of public goods and services, but increasing customer choice has not

generally required the privatization of service delivery. Hence, 

even if marginal improvements in efficiency and effectiveness are

attributable to “competition,” the alleged improvements do not require

privatization.

On the one hand, privatization does not necessarily provide choice it may merely replace a

system of public monopoly with local private monopolies (e.g., local telephone service). On

the other hand, competition among service delivery agents does not necessarily require

privatization, since competition can be introduced among public agencies (e.g., public school

choice) or through a mix of public/private vendors (e.g., higher education and the U.S. Postal

Service). This view was expressed in Massachusetts by former Governor William Weld who

emphasized that the real issue “is not a question of public versus private, but competition
37

versus monopoly” [quoted in Boston Globe, January 3, 1997; Palmer, Jr. 1997a]. Moreover,

this idea is a key tenet of the competitive model for “reinventing government” that has

explicitly oriented the Massachusetts initiative [Osborne 1992].

Importantly, therefore, even where competition introduces incentives for increased

efficiency and effectiveness, 

there is growing evidence to suggest that internal reorganization of

public service delivery can achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness

without the transaction costs involved in monitoring and enforcing

contracts with private vendors.
9

 For example, highway maintenance work in Massachusetts was done entirely

by full-time state workers until 1993 when much of the work began to be outsourced

through competitive bidding. Significantly, much of the “outsourced” work continues to

be awarded to union bidders who represent state workers. As a result of successful

competitive bids, half of all highway maintenance work in Massachusetts remains under

the purview of public employees [Sclar 1997, 4] working in union consortia to trim costs

and compete effectively against private companies [Palmer, Jr. 1996]. Similarly, a

proposal to save $25 million by privatizing Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

bus routes from Boston to the South Shore was countered by a list of union proposals to

save $30 million without privatization or competitive bids [Jordan 1997].

38

In those instances where public agencies and public employee unions are allowed to bid on

outsourced contracts, civil administrators and public employees are frequently able to provide

superior service at lower cost.9

1.42 The False Promise of Privatization

Although the number of privatization initiatives in Massachusetts has increased

steadily since 1992, these initiatives have consistently failed to meet the expectations and

claims of their original proponents in areas such as public transportation, mental health,

general health care for the poor and elderly, real estate management, custodial services, and

public housing management. Consequently, in August of 1997:

the new Acting Governor of Massachusetts, Paul Celluci, announced

that his Administration was “reexamining privatization initiatives”

because the initiative were failing to meet documentation and costbenefits standards mandated by Massachusetts law and private vendors

were putting profits before client interests [Aucoin 1997; Jordan 1997].

In this respect, it should be emphasized that general claims about the success of the

Massachusetts competitive model, as well as specific claims about the success of its

competitive One-Stop Career Centers, are being exaggerated by proponents. In fact,

the competitive model of One-Stop Career Centers is still an

experimental pilot project in Massachusetts [MJC 1997]. Three-fourths

(3/4) of the Massachusetts labor market is still covered by the existing

public Employment Security system.

Therefore, any comparison of the performance of competitive One-Stop Career

Centers to the performance of the public agency employment system is premature nationally

and in Massachusetts. In fact, 
10 The “Section 200" report was filed with the House Committee on Government

Regulation in late December 1997. The report will be received during the Winter legislative session.

39

because of suspected performance failures, the Massachusetts

legislature has halted any further expansion of the experimental system

of One-Stop Career Centers until completion and review of an extensive

cost-benefits analysis.10

Similarly, following a less than satisfactory experience with the competitive

model of One-Stop Career Centers as the only available model, 

the Massachusetts Job Council, which oversees the centers in

Massachusetts, has “relaxed” the competitive model by permitting

local program administrators to use the collaborative or co-located

model (non-bid designation) of implementation.

The MJC’s authorization of the collaborative and co-location models will maintain

competition between service delivery units, since each employment region will have at least

two one-stop career centers (see Section 2.20 below). Moreover, the one-stop career centers

will still be evaluated on the basis of statewide comparative performance standards; thus,

achieving competition and accountability without privatization.

2.00 ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS

2.10 The Standard Model
40

The United States Department of Labor (DOL) launched the One-Stop Career

Centers initiative in 1994 to unify the patchwork of categorical workforce development

programs into a single coordinated workforce development system. By the end of Fiscal Year

1995, the DOL had awarded 3-year implementation grants to 16 states, 18-month grants for

the development of local One-Stop Learning Laboratories to 10 local areas, and 12-month

planning and development grants to 27 states to support the creation of interagency

partnerships and plans for One-Stop Career Center systems. In January 1997, DOL

announced that another 17 states would receive One-Stop implementation grants by July

1997, bringing the total number of implementation states to 33. When fully operational,

One-Stop Career Centers in these 33 states will have the capacity to serve up to 80% of the

nation’s civilian labor force [SPRA, A-1 to A-2].

One-Stop Career Centers are being implemented through diverse and flexible program

structures that vary somewhat from state to state. However, the implementation strategy

that is used most frequently involves the designation of a state human resources investment

board (SHRIB) to guide the program, set policy, establish evaluative criteria, and monitor

compliance. One-Stop Career Centers are chartered by local agencies, most frequently by

private industry councils (PICS), to deliver coordinated one-stop career services.

The One-Stop Career Centers initiative has established four overall goals: (1)

universal access, (2) customer choice, (3) integration of services, and (4) accountability for

customer satisfaction and participant outcomes (SPRA 1997). In August 1997, DOL

received the first departmentally-funded program evaluation of One-Stop systems from

Social Policy Research Associates (SPRA). The SPRA evaluation is the first comprehensive

assessment of the early stages of One-Stop implementation based on qualitative and

quantitative data gathered from 9 state and 14 local One-Stop systems [SPRA 1997, A-2 to

A-3]. The SPRA evaluation finds that states and local areas are achieving One-Stop

implementation goals, but are still in the early stages of program implementation.

2.11 Universal Access

One-Stop Career Centers are providing universal access primarily through

technological innovations that rely on the Internet and World Wide Web. Thus, universal

access consists mostly of Internet or other computerized access to labor market information
41

and job listings. However, there are serious problems in relying on electronic media as the

main point of universal access (see Section 3.41a below).

2.12 Customer Choice

One-Stop Career Centers typically provide customer choice in three ways. First,

customers may receive services from two or more different One-Stop Career Centers within

the same service delivery area. Second, One-Stop Career Centers offer a three-tier pyramid

of services [SPRA 1997, 1-27 to 1-28]. Tier 1 services consist of “self-service” or “selfaccess” services that customers can access with a minimum of staff assistance such as

Internet-based job listings. Tier 2 services consist of “guided services” such as assessment,

counseling, or brokering additional services that require individualized attention from a OneStop staff member. Tier 3 services consist of more intensive education and training services

as well as ongoing counseling or case management. Universal access is provided mainly to

Tier 1 services, although several states require local One-Stop Career Centers to make some

Tier 2 and Tier 3 services available to all One-Stop customers [SPRA 1997, 1-29]. Finally, a

third type of customer choice is offered by making referrals and brokering additional services

with other programs or agencies.

2.13 Integration

Most states and local areas have promoted the integration of employment services by

emphasizing the coordination of diverse categorical funding streams to support the local

centers and by creating physical sites that bring together different employment services at a

single location. However, fully integrated funding and “fully integrated intake was not

usually achieved during the early stages of One-Stop implementation” [SPRA, ES-5].

2.14 Accountability

Most states and local areas made significant in developing One-Stop performance

measures progress during the initial stages of One-Stop implementation [SPR, ES-5 to ES-6].
42

However, systematic program evaluations based on these measures are still forthcoming and

many states are awaiting further guidance from the Department of Labor.

2.20 The Massachusetts Model

In October 1994, the U.S. Department of Labor awarded $11.6 million to implement

a statewide system of One-Stop Career Centers in Massachusetts. Massachusetts was one of

the first nine states to receive an implementation grant, while it is the first and only state to

adopt the competitive model of “reinventing government” for the one-stop centers (Osborne

1992). While the competitive aspects of the Massachusetts model have received nationwide

attention, it should be noted that competition, as such, is not the main goal of the one-stop

career centers. Instead, the central goals of the Massachusetts One-Stop Career Centers is to

emphasize a customer-driven perspective (universal access/choice/accountability) that is

understandable (integration) to customers. 

The Massachusetts competitive model of One-Stop Career Centers still maintains a

state-level steering mechanism in the Massachusetts Jobs Council (MJC) which was

designated as the official state human investment resources board in 1993. The MJC is

responsible for establishing general policies and performance/output measures for local

career centers. Operating within the MJC guidelines, the state’s career centers are

administered locally by Regional Employment Boards consisting of business, labor,

education, government, and community leaders. While this is the typical administrative

model adopted by most states [SPRA 1997, 1-16],

Massachusetts is the only state that initially required public agencies to

compete with private vendors (1994-1997) for career center contracts

and also required winning bidders to compete against each other for

performance-based contract renewals. 

The original vision of the Massachusetts model was to establish at least two

competing career centers operated by different vendors in each of the state’s sixteen (16)

service delivery areas (SDA). However, the exact number of charters issued in each SDA is

determined by individual REBs so as long as the two center minimum is met by the REB.

Career Center contracts are awarded to vendors through a competitive request for proposals

(RFP), but may not exceed a 3-years’ duration. At the end of each three-year period, career
43

centers are required to undergo a rigorous rechartering process based on performance criteria

outlined in the center’s charter by the REB. Funding for the One-Stop Career Centers is

provided through Interagency Service Agreements with the Massachusetts Jobs Council.

There are currently seven competing One-Stop Career Centers in Massachusetts (see

Table 1). Each center operator won the contract through a competitive bidding process run

by the local Regional Employment Board (private industry council). Thus far, three Regional

Employment Boards -- Hampden County, Boston, and Metro North -- had chartered OneStop Career Centers by the end of Calendar Year 1997. There is continuous monitoring of

customer satisfaction at each career center through customer surveys. At this time, all OneStop Career Centers use a “Tell Us What You Think” questionnaire designed by the statelevel One-Stop Career Center Office. Survey results indicate that 95% of customers

currently rate the One-Stop Career Center experience as -having met or exceeded their

expectations, while employer repeat business ranges from a low 50% to a higher of 99% of

employers served (MJC 1997e).

Table 1. One-Stop Career Centers in Massachusetts, December 1997.

 REB: Name City Type Charter Vendors

 Hampden: CareerPoint Holyoke Public/Private RFP Mass.

Div. of Emp. & Training/

Holyoke Chamber of

Commerce./

Holyoke Community

College

FutureWorks Springfield Private/for-profit RFP Employment &

Training Inst.

 Boston: Career Link Boston Private/non-profit RFP

Dimmock Comm. Health Ctr./

Morgan Mem. Goodwill

Industries/

Women’s’ Industrial

Educ. Union

WorkPlace Boston Private/non-profit RFP Jewish

Vocational Service/
44

City of Boston/Econ.

Development

 & Industrial Council

Job Net Boston Public/Private RFP

Mass. Div. of Emp. & Training/

Drake, Beam, & Morin

 Metro North: Career Source Cambridge Private/for-profit RFP

Employment Resources, Inc./

Sullivan & Cogliano

Career Place Woburn Private/Public RFP

Middlesex Community College

3.00 THE PERFORMANCE OF ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS

3.10 Barriers to Effective Implementation of One-Stop Career Centers 

Social Policy Research Associates’ study of 9 state programs and 14 local career

service centers is the most extensive study of the one-stop initiative to this point. The main

purpose of the SPRA evaluation was “to identify key factors that have facilitated or impeded

state and local One-Stop systems in their ability to meet the federal One-Stop themes of

universal access, customer choice, service integration, and accountability for customer

outcomes” [SPRA, ES-1]. 

The SPRA’s study’s overall conclusion is that “both employer and jobseeker customers are enthusiastic in describing One-Stop career

centers as improvements over the previously uncoordinated system”

[SPRA, ES-1]. There is no evidence in the study that Massachusetts’

competitive model performs better than the public agency one-stop

centers in other states.

However, the SPRA [1997, ES-3] study concludes that the implementation of

integrated One-Stop Career Systems is “occurring in the face of significant barriers in a

number of sites.” The most significant barrier identified in the SPRA study is the failure of

the 104th Congress to approve workforce development block grants. However, this has left

One-Stop program administrators with the problem of how to integrate separate federal

categorical funding streams, each with its own mandated targeted population, into a single

one-stop system. A second major barrier to program implementation identified in the SPRA
11 SPRA [1997, ES-4] concludes that “in the absence of federal legislation providing

additional funding for universal services (e.g., through state workforce development block

grants), most states and local sites have been able to offer only limited staffed or guided

One-Stop services to the general public beyond the services traditionally provided by the ES

and UI programs).”

45

[1997, ES-3] study is “declining overall public investments in workforce development

program and services.”11 Hence, a number of program administrators and 
46

program staff around the country “indicated their concern that they were being asked to ‘do

more with less’” [SPRA, ES-3].

These funding barriers exist regardless of whether local sites implement a One-Stop

system through public agencies or competitive private vendors. Advocates of privatization

and the competitive model may argue that private vendors have a greater capacity to

overcome this barrier through enhanced productivity and efficiency. However, 

nowhere in SPRA’s list of recommendations does the study find or

suggest that privatization or the competitive model offers a potential

solution to overcoming the barriers to successful program

implementation [SPRA, ES-6 to ES-7]. Importantly, the study includes

an evaluation of the Massachusetts one-stop delivery system, but

nowhere does the report find that the Massachusetts system or

individual vendors provide enhanced efficiency or productivity.

More importantly, 

the state-level performance reports that are now becoming available

also do not indicate that private for-profit or private non-profit vendors

are any more or less effective in achieving program goals than public

agency providers of job placement services [MJC 1997c].

Thus, advocates of privatization and the competitive model should not secure

authorization for such proposals on the basis of vague general arguments and unsubstantiated

assertions, but should be required to document how privatization and the competitive model

will (or has) actually helped solve/mitigate the identified real challenges to one-stop

implementation. Furthermore, proponents of the competitive model should be required to

document that privatization and competition will offer significant improvements that cannot

be achieved by any of the alternative public sector models detailed in the SPRA study.

3.20 Performance Measurements

A key objective of the One-Stop Career Centers initiative is to develop performance

measurement criteria as a basis for conducting systematic and comparative outcomes

assessments of the new centers. State human investment resource boards are still in the early

stages of developing these performance criteria and in collecting data on performance

measurements. At this time, 
47

no state has performed a comprehensive outcomes assessment

comparing the previous system to the One-Stop Career Centers. Thus,

there is absolutely no systematic empirical or qualitative basis for

definitively judging the comparative performance of the Massachusetts

system to other state systems, or for definitively judging the

performance of the competitive one-stop system with the existing public

agency system.

3.30 Legal Issues in the Competitive Model

3.31 Federal

The Wagner-Peyser Act and the Social Security Act both contain numerous

references to the public nature of Employment Services (ES) and Unemployment Insurance

(UI) provision. The purpose of Wagner-Peyser is “to promote the establishment and

maintenance of a national system of public employment offices” [29 U.S.C., par. 49]. To

receive Wagner-Peyser funds, states are required to “designate or authorize the creation of a

State agency” [29 U.S.C., par. 49c]. Similarly, the Social Security Act requires states to pay

“unemployment compensation solely through public employment offices or such other

agencies as the Secretary of Labor may approve” [42 U.S.C., par. 503(a)(2)]. Finally, because

of these statutory provisions concerning the public nature of ES and UI provision, the Office

of Management and Budget has designated “Employment Security (Unemployment Insurance

and Employment Services)” as programs with “a statutory requirement for the establishment

and maintenance of personnel standards on a merit basis” [5 CFR Subpart F, Appendix A].

Consequently,

the implementation of One-Stop Career Centers through private

vendors may violate federal laws. Therefore, a further expansion of

these centers should not be allowed until this legal issue is resolved at

the federal level.

3.32 Massachusetts

The National Association of Government Employees (NAGE) filed a lawsuit on

April 3, 1997 to shut down the One-Stop Career Centers in Massachusetts. The suit charges

that implementation of the One-Stop Career Centers through competitive private vendors

violates the Massachusetts’ “Pacheco Law” which bans public agencies from making any

privatization contract unless agency officials can document cost savings or improved quality
48

of service [Benavides 1997]. If this suit is successful, it will either force the closure of the

centers, modification of program implementation, or a more systematic documentation of the

centers’ efficiency and maintenance of service.

3.40 Performance Failures in the Massachusetts Model

Although a systematic, comprehensive, and comparative performance evaluation of

the One-Stop Career Centers has not been conducted in Massachusetts, several problems

have identified by various stakeholders in the system. Importantly, these problems have been

reported by members of both political parties in the Massachusetts House of Representatives,

legal service attorneys, union officials, state and local civil administrators, business

executives, and investigative journalists with the Boston Globe. Moreover, the limited

statistical evidence currently available supports their observation of performance failures

within the Massachusetts system. Furthermore, many of the problems with Massachusetts’

system of private competitively operated One-Stop Career Centers are not unique to the onestop initiative, but are reported frequently in conjunction with other privatization efforts in

Massachusetts. Thus, 

the problems appear to be systemic failures built into the process and

dynamics of privatization. 

3.41 Denial of Universal Access

The denial of universal access to the One-Stop Career Centers has taken a variety of

forms in Massachusetts:

a. Poorly educated users are denied effective access to the system. A major problem

with the One-Stop Career Centers, particularly private ones, is the emphasis on automated

“self-access” services that rely on the Internet and World Wide Web for making job listings

available to clients. Self-access job listings are becoming the main Tier 1 vehicle for

providing “universal” access to the One-Stop system. However, self-access through a

computerized system assumes the ability to use computers, search engines, and other data

base programs. However, many of the individuals who most need employment services are

precluded from accessing this system because they (a) have a basic education, but lack

computer skills and search engine capabilities, (b) are poorly educated and in many cases

cannot read, (c) do not read or speak English.
12 For example, computerized and Internet job listings record a “hit” each time it is

accessed by individual. Each hit counts as a person served by the center. Thus, a vendor

recording large of numbers of computerized hits (presumably from a more highly educated

and computer literate clientele) can boast a misleading persons-served-to- employee

productivity ratio than a center that spends more time on Tier 2 and Tier 3 services for less

educated and non-computer literate clients. 

49

Thus,

insofar as computer self-access and the Internet are adopted as the

main point of universal or first entry to the system, it may provide

enhanced “efficiency,” but at the cost of reduced effectiveness through

failure to service those most in need of One-Stop services and referrals.

b. Private vendors have been less successful at moving welfare recipients into jobs

than the public sector offices [Grunwald 1996b]. In Fiscal Year 1997, the One-Stop Career

Centers in Massachusetts not only made placements far below their own projections, the

state-run network of employment services they are supposed to replace actually exceeded its

welfare-to-work goals. The state-run system placed 10 times more welfare recipients into

jobs than the One-Stop Career Centers in the first four months of Fiscal Year 1997 and, yet,

average wages for placements tended to be the same in both systems (i.e., $7.50 per hour).

Significantly, among the seven competitive One-Stop Career Centers, there is evidence to

suggest that the Centers with public agency partners (e.g., the Massachusetts Division of

Employment & Training) have higher rates of job placement for welfare recipients than those

without public sector partners [MJC 1997a, 1997b].

Consequently, suspicions have been voiced by public officials that private vendors are

“creaming” the unemployed pool by concentrating on the easiest to place individuals. This

means that private vendors put less effort into more time consuming Tier 2 and Tier 3

services that result in lower performance and efficiency ratings (e.g., counting the number of

persons “served” by each center).12 

c. Migrant workers have not been well served by the private career centers. Federal

law singles out migrant workers for special consideration and treatment in the delivery of

employment services. Migrant workers routinely move from job to job and, therefore, need

quick notice of openings around the state. However, the private career centers have not

transmitted job information quickly enough to be useful to these workers.
50

d. The growth of fee-based services restricts access by unemployed and low-income

customers. Massachusetts and Minnesota are the only states, among the first nine

implementation states, to encourage One-Stop Centers to develop fee-based services,

including customized applicant testing and screening services, the customized analysis of

labor market information, and assessment of the skills of incumbent workers [SPRA 1997, 1-

30 to 1-32]. Thus, the incentive to collect fees, especially when coupled to federal funding

difficulties, is driving the private career centers, in particular, to cater to middle-class job

seekers and high-end employers at the expense of unskilled and less educated workers, lowincome workers, and the unemployed, who cannot afford fee-based services.

e. Reliance on computer access is contrary to Massachusetts unemployment

insurance law. 

The Massachusetts unemployment insurance law requires that claims be taken in a face-toface interview. Consequently, electronic access to One-Stop Career Centers will not comply

with state law.

f. There is no evidence that competitive vendors provide better job placements for

non-welfare recipients than public agency ES delivery. The average wage for public

agency ES placements for UI claimants was $9.83 per hour (i.e., 31% higher than for the

placement of welfare recipients), but existing data do not allow a comparison of the public

agency system to the private vendors.

3.42 Denial of Customer Choice

There is also some evidence that private vendors are sacrificing the goal of customer

choice to achieve reimbursement opportunities and inflated performance measurements.

a. Private vendors are hoarding job listings. Job openings called into one center by an

employer are often not shared with other vendors or state offices. Consequently, these

listings do not appear in the systemwide job database. Job hoarding not only undermines the

program goal of maximizing customer choice, creates the absurdity that job openings within a

single metropolitan or labor market area may not be listed in the “competing” centers.

Importantly, individual centers, particularly private for-profit centers, have an incentive to

hoard job listings in the competitive model, rather than share these listings with other private

vendors or public agencies. The Massachusetts experience suggests that a competitive
51

system of job listings will tend to “balkanize,” rather than integrate, the employment market.

Private vendors would rather hold onto job listings, rather than lose the opportunity to fill a

job themselves, since each private career center has an incentive to prove that it can deliver

the better services to its clients in order to win additional contracts or contract renewals.

While job hoarding may be in the interests of private career center operators, it is contrary to

the national intent that established the Employment Service.

b. Private vendors fail to make appropriate referrals. In Massachusetts, UI recipients are

eligible to receive additional benefits if they enroll in a training or education program.

However, to be eligible for such benefits, an individual must apply for a training program

within the first 15 weeks of receiving UI benefits. Individuals have been denied additional

benefits because the private vendors failed to notify them that there was a deadline for

applying for training. Again, in order to document performance, competitive career centers

have an incentive to move clients into jobs, even lower paying jobs, as quickly as possible,

rather than refer clients to Tier 3 services provided by other agencies or vendors. 

Similarly, private firms have an incentive to push customers into any placement they

can find in order to document performance, while the UI program requires that customers be

referred to “suitable” work.

c. Private vendors are reluctant to offer a full menu of “other ES-related” services. In

Massachusetts, the private vendors have explicitly indicated their reluctance to provide

“other” ES-related services such as the Alien Labor and WOTC program. For example, the

for-profit facility in Springfield (Future Works) has explicitly indicated that it does not want

to administer the Migrant Seasonal Farmworkers program. Yet again, there are incentives in

a competitive model to not make these referrals so that individuals can be moved through the

system more quickly and accounted for as a “success.”

3.43 Obstacles to Integration

a. The lack of additional federal funding for workforce development has created

general pressures throughout the One-Stop program to reserve staff intensive services

(i.e., Tier 2 and Tier 3) for customers who are eligible for assistance under specific

categorical programs. A continuation of this situation may create increased administrative

pressures to continue the fragmented categorical program structure [SPRA, ES-4]. Thus, the
52

competitive model of service delivery may create additional pressures toward fragmentation

as staff-intensive services are shifted back into categorical programs.

b. Competition and privatization may actually impede program integration by

refragmenting the service delivery system among a number of private vendors

operating with a different menu of services. In Massachusetts, the One-Stop Career

Centers are allowed considerable flexibility, but if generalized to a wholly private competitive

system, this flexibility would not offer “choice” to employer clients, but confusion to

employers who must deal with uneven services, different delivery systems, and a range of fee

structures within states and between states [SPRA, p. I-31].

3.44 Questions about Performance

An important goal of the One-Stop Career Centers initiative is to create an

employment service that is accountable to taxpayers and customers. Thus, important policy

changes in the program should be adopted only after reliable performance measurements are

available to decision-makers. For precisely this reason, the Massachusetts state legislature

halted additional expansion of the pilot project pending the results of an extensive costbenefit analysis of the traditional public labor exchange administered by the state versus the

competitive privatized centers. The legislature “put the brakes on” the new career centers

because various stakeholders, including the Regional Employment Board Association, made

up of management, labor, and public representatives, raised major concerns about the quality

and cost of the experiment [Grunwald 1996a, 1997a, 1997b].

a. The available reports do not indicate that private vendors are any more successful

in securing job placements than the existing ES system.

b. The Massachusetts state legislature has refused to expand the competitiveness

model because of skepticism about the quality of the initiative. The Massachusetts

House of Representatives received numerous complaints about the One-Stop Career Centers

and, after a legislative inquiry, found significant bi-partisan support to delay/reject the

opening of additional One-Stop Centers in Fiscal Years 1997 and 1998. Indeed, the

legislature has sought to discontinue the experiment altogether in each of the last two fiscal

years, but finally agreed to continue funding the seven existing Career Centers conditional on
13 David Osborne, the author of Reinventing Government, chairs the Massachusetts

Job Council’s Career Center Committee. In Fiscal Year 1997, the MJC voted to “stay the

course” with the competitive model of one-stop career centers, despite serious concerns

voiced by the Massachusetts legislature [MJC 1997d]. Thus, the MJC’s vote to relax the

competitiveness requirement beginning in Fiscal Year 1998 marks a significant departure

and perhaps a reversal of the previous policy regarding the administration of one-stop

career centers.

53

the development of uniform policies and procedures for measuring the performance of the

centers.

c. The Massachusetts Jobs Council is “relaxing” the competitiveness model. In

February of 1997, business members of the Boston Private Industry Council proposed

relaxing the competitiveness model in areas that oppose it or that remain skeptical about its

success [Grunwald 1997a]. In May of 1997, a compromise was reached that now allows the

local REB to designate an entity, or collaboration of entities (including public agencies), to

operate career centers without going through a competitive bid process. 13

d. The official policy of the Massachusetts Job Council now encourages public

agencies to bid on contracts where competitive bidding continues to be used for

awarding contracts. Public agencies have often demonstrated a superior ability to meet the

goals of the One-Stop initiative. Therefore, public agencies are actively encouraged to bid on

contracts to insure that the highest performers actually receive contracts.
54

4.00 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The preliminary evidence discussed in this report, the Massachusetts Job Council’s

relaxation of the competitive model, and the Massachusetts state legislature’s restrictions on

further expansion of the competitive One-Stop Career Centers model, all suggest that,

a dramatic departure from standard models of public administration

should be allowed only if claims about reduced cost or increased

program effectiveness are “significant” and “measurable,” rather than

marginal or merely asserted by proponents of the competitive model. 

For this reason, Massachusetts adopted the so-called “Pacheco Law” in 1993 as a

check on the inflated claims and unsatisfactory results of privatization initiatives. Public

agencies seeking to “outsource” service delivery must document cost savings and

maintenance of service levels and submit these documents to the State Auditor for review.

Thus, Massachusetts now has a well tested procedure for evaluating and monitoring claims by

private vendors concerning cost savings and maintenance of service.

The preliminary evidence discussed in this report warrants the following conclusions

and recommendations:

1. One-Stop Career Centers should be required generally to comply with the

auditing standards for efficiency and maintenance of service established by

Massachusetts’ Pacheco law or similar laws in other states.

2. A multiple (3-5) year longitudinal analysis comparing the performance of

private for-profit and private non-profit one-stop career centers with public

employment services should be conducted using Massachusetts as a pilot

project. 

3. Federal decision-makers and other state policy-makers should heed the

Massachusetts experience and be extremely cautious in authorizing additional
55

pilot projects in other states, much less an expansion of the competitive

model to an entire state system of One-Stop Career Centers, since the existing

evidence does not warrant such expansion.

4. Additional pilot projects should be authorized only in states with

independent systems for monitoring and auditing privatization claims similar

to the Massachusetts Pacheco Law and only if such systems are explicitly

subject to the provisions of such a law.

5. Application of the competitive model to an entire state system of OneStop Career Centers is warranted only if a comprehensive study can document

that competitive private delivery systems are significantly more efficient or

more effective than public agency delivery systems.

Otherwise, given the absence of substantive evidence to support the claimed

advantages of privatization, when compared to the documented problems with privatization

and the competitive model in Massachusetts, it is premature to authorize any significant

expansion of the competitive model of private One-Stop Career Centers.
56

SOURCES CONSULTED

Aucoin, Don. 1997. “Celluci Aims for Labor Peace: Says He’ll Review Privatization

Plans.” Boston Globe, August 1, pp. B1, B9.

Baldwin, D.M. 1990. “Meeting Production: The Economics of Contracting Mental

Illness.” Social Science and Medicine (30): 961-68.

Beacon Hill Institute. 1992. Privatization of Human Resources: Panacea or Placebo? Boston: 

Author, Suffolk University.

Benavides, Lisa. 1997. “Career Center System Challenged: Union Files Suit Over

Privatization of Job Centers.” Boston Business Journal, Vol. 17, no. 9 (April 11-17): 1,

36.

Blake, Andrew. 1996. “Bus-Route Privatization Plan Raises Community Concern.” Boston

Sunday Globe, North Weekly, April 14, pp. A1, A4.

Ebben, P.A., D. Bliss, and B. Perlman. 1991. “Brief Report: Problems and Issues in

Community Mental Health Service Delivery in the 1990’s.” Community Mental Health

Journal (27): 225-29.

Globe State House Bureau. 1996. “T Wins Grudged OK to Privatize Real Estate Arm.”

Boston Globe, June 11, p. A63.

Goodrich, J.N. 1988. “Privatization in America.” Business Horizons (January-February): 6-7.

Grunwald, Michael. 1996a. “Career-Center Program Still in Business: Unique Jobs

Initiative Given Another Year to Prove its Worth.” Boston Globe, August 22, pp. B1,

B5.

Grunwald, Michael. 1996b. “Jobs Initiative Starts Slowly: Welfare Placements Lag.” Boston 

Globe, November 20, pp. B1, B5. 

Grunwald, Michael. 1997a. “Squabbling Erupts Over Jobs Initiative.” Boston Globe, 

February 11, pp. B1, B7.

Grunwald, Michael. 1997b. “Mass. One-Stop Job Centers Jeopardized.” Boston Globe, 

June 25, pp. A1, A13.
57

Jordan, Robert A. 1996a. “Taxpayers May Still Pay the Toll for Weld’s Transportation 

Gambits.” Boston Globe, October 20, p. C5.

Jordan, Robert A. 1996b. “Privatization May Also Require Public -- and Public’s --

Assistance.” Boston Globe, December 8, p. D4.

Jordan, Robert A. 1997. “The Costly Truth About Privatization.” Boston Globe, January 28,

p. C4.

Kong, Dolores. 1997. “Free Psychiatric Care Costing Hospitals.” Boston Globe, June 18, p.

B2.

Kong, Dolores and Gerard O’Neill. 1997. “Locked Wards Open Door to Booming

Business.” Boston Globe, May 11, pp. A1, A18.

Massachusetts Department of Employment and Training. 1996. Employment Service UI 

Claimants, FY’ 96 (7/95 to 6/96 YTD). Boston, Mass.: author.

Massachusetts Jobs Council, Inc. 1997a. Career Center Monthly Report: February 1997. 

Boston, Mass.: author.

Massachusetts Jobs Council, Inc. 1997b. Career Centers Performance Report: Department of

Transitional Assistance, March 1997. Boston, Mass.: author.

Massachusetts Jobs Council, Inc. 1997c. One-Stop Career Center Performance Report, Fiscal Year

1997 -- April/June. Boston, Mass.: author.

Massachusetts Jobs Council, Inc. 1997d. Building a Better Way to Work: Year III of the 

Massachusetts One-Stop Career Center Implementation. Boston, Mass.: author.

Massachusetts Jobs Council, Inc. 1997e. One-Stop Career Center Performance Report, Fiscal Year

1997, July - February. Boston, Mass.: author.

Motenko, Aluma Kopita, et al. 1995. “Privatization and Cutbacks: Social Work and Client

Impressions of Service Delivery in Massachusetts.” Social Work 40 (July): 456-63.

Nealon, Patricia. 1996. “MBTA Asking Consultants for Privatizing Ideas.” Boston Globe, 

January 6, p. A20.

Orfield, G. 1991. “Cutback Policies, Declining Opportunities, and the Role of Social

Service Providers.” Social Science Review (65): 516-30.

Osborne, David. 1992. Reinventing Government: The Rise of an Entrepreneurial Public Sector. 

Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
58

Palmer, Jr., Thomas C. 1996. “Unions Still Capturing Roadwork Contracts.” Boston Globe, 

June 7, 1996, p. A49.

Palmer, Jr., Thomas C. 1997a. “Bumpy Road Toward Privatization Hasn’t Stopped the

MBTA.” Boston Globe, February 3, p. B2.

Palmer, Jr., Thomas C. 1997b. “DeNucci, Kerasiotes Clash Over Bus Plan.” Boston Globe, 

May 17, 1997, p. B2.

Phillips, Frank. 1996. “Auditor Says Firm Overbilled State $1.5 Million for Inmates.” 

Boston Globe, January 5, p. A-21, A-25.

Schlesinger, M., R.A. Dorwart, and R.T. Pulice. 1986. “Competitive Bidding and States’

Purchase of Services: The Case of Mental Health Care in Massachusetts.” Journal of 

Policy Analysis and Management (5): 69-74.

Sclar, Elliott. 1997. Contracting and Public Sector Efficiency: Lesson From Three Case Studies. 

Washington, D.C.: Economic Policy Institute.

Social Policy Research Associates. 1997. Creating Workforce Development Systems That Work: 

An Evaluation of the Initial One-Stop Implementation Experience, 3 Vols. Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.

“Wheeling and Dealing.” Boston Globe, January 3, 1997, p. A-26.

Wineburg, R.J., P. Sparks, and J. Finn. 1983. “Budget Cuts and Human Services: One 

Community’s Experience.” Social Casework (64): 489-96.

Zuckoff, Mitchell. 1997. “Flawed Law Turns Patients Into Prisoners: ‘Section 12’

Admissions Fuel a Booming Hospital Business.” Boston Globe, May 12, p. A1,

A10.
59

Fixing to Change:

A Best Practices Assessment of One-Stop Job Centers

 Working with Welfare Recipients

James L. McIntire

 Amy F. Robins

 Fiscal Policy Center University of Washington

March 1999

The research upon which this report is based has been funded through a grant award from the

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services. The findings and conclusions presented herein are those of the authors' and do

not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the U.S. Department of Health and

Human Services.
60
1Note that our goal was to highlight promising practices in One-Stop Centers and therefore the sites we

selected and the people interviewed should not be considered a random or representative sample. 

61

Executive Summary

This study was undertaken in an effort to assess the impacts of recent policy, organizational, and

technology changes on the delivery of employment services to welfare recipients. The study

examines five of the most developed and promising One-Stop Job Centers around the country to find

out what makes them work well, and to understand their potential for moving people from welfare to

self-sufficiency. This study does not provide a formal evaluation of these model programs, but

identifies those approaches and practices that seem to be working well in different locations.1

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) created a new policy and program framework for

workforce preparation and employment. Under the WIA, states and local areas must establish

workforce investment boards to oversee the delivery of a broad array of services for youth, adults,

and dislocated workers, including federally funded job services. Job-seekers and business are

expected to benefit from a One-Stop delivery system designed to offer a full range of employment

and career counseling services to the general public via a single location or a system of linked

service centers. These One-Stop Job Centers are expected to provide customers with:

• A preliminary assessment of their skill levls, aptitudes, abilities, and support service needs;

• Information on a full array of employment-related services, including information about local

education and training service providers;

• Help filing claims for unemployment insurance and evaluating eligibility for job training and

education programs or student financial aid;

• Job search and placement assistance, and career counseling;

• Access to up-to-date labor market information which identifies job vacancies, skills necessary

for in-demand jobs, and provides information about local, regional and national employment

trends.

Through One-Stop Job Centers, employers are intended to have a single point of contact to provide

information about current and future skills needed by their workers and to list job openings, creating

a single system for finding job-ready skilled workers who meet their needs.

Many One-Stop Job Centers have already been established in response to earlier initiatives by the

U.S. Department of Labor, and in response to federal and state welfare reforms. Some of these

centers have been operating long enough to develop an understanding of how well they serve

different client groups. The purpose of this study is to examine some of the most promising OneStop models to better understand what makes them work well and the potential they offer for

moving people from welfare to self-sufficiency.
62

Methodology

Five One-Stop models were selected based on their success in addressing welfare-to-work issues,

geographic distribution, and urban/rural diversity. One-Stop officials at each site were asked to

provide background information and to set up separate focus group interviews with One-Stop

management, staff, current welfare clients, previous welfare clients, and local employers of welfare

clients. Researchers conducted focus group interviews on site, guided by a structured set of

questions.

Each One-Stop site was also asked to provide three types of data to support this research: (1) the

characteristics of welfare clients in the area, (2) service records and characteristics of a sample of

between 70 and 150 welfare clients served by the One-Stop, and (3) data on employment and

training outcomes for the sample of clients.

Five One-Stop Models

The five One-Stop models included in the study are:

· Workforce Development Center, Marshalltown Iowa: This Center is the collocation of

seven agencies, including strong participation of the local community college, with oversight by a

local Workforce Development Board.

· Kenosha County Job Center, Kenosha Wisconsin: This Center offers one of the most

integrated collocation models in the country, with a long list of state, county, non-profit and forprofit organizations collocated in a small, urban shopping center.

· Tarrant County Resource Connection, Fort Worth Texas: The Resource Connection

offers another collocation model for 14 agencies in 12 buildings on a 92 acre campus near the

South Campus of the Tarrant County Junior College and not far from several of the highest need

areas in the city.

· Northwest Michigan JobNet, Traverse City Michigan: JobNet serves a predominantly

rural, 10-county area on the south shore of Lake Michigan.

· Whatcom County Network Consortium, Bellingham Washington: The WorkNet

Consortium offers a “first stop” or a “no wrong door” model of service delivery, where a client

can go to any of the four partners in northwestern Washington and get information about

services available from all the partners.

These models were selected based on their progress in implementing the One-Stop concept for

welfare-to-work initiatives, their reputation for innovation and success, and their geographic
2

 Milwaukee is a good example of the first of these circumstances, Boston the second, and Renton (Seattle

metropolitan area) the third.

63

dispersion and diversity. All but one, Whatcom County, had received implementation funding

from the US Department of Labor (DoL). Note that very few major urban centers had established

a One-Stop model that was ready for assessment when the study started in early 1997. This

observation may reflect the difficulties inherent in coordinating or integrating multiple services in the

complex organizational settings typical of major cities.

All of the sites have a number of similar characteristics. Some of the similarities include similar

origins of the initiative to create the One-Stop, a common set of core partners, programs and

program elements, and a familiar set of personnel, space, technology, and state/local issues.

Several unique characteristics in each of the One-Stop systems underscore the diversity of local

circumstances, capacities, and system designs. Differences in partnerships and integration, work

requirements, data systems and funding reflect the variety of One-Stop responses to the welfare-towork mandate. To some degree, the evolution of local One-Stop systems in the local economic,

policy, and institutional environment is an ongoing, dynamic adjustment process, with different

systems examined here illustrating different points on the learning curve. Given this diversity, it is

unrealistic to expect that a single One-Stop model will be appropriate for all localities. Similarly, it

would be too simplistic to assume that all One-Stop Centers will be able to provide the same level or

quality of services.

Successful Models

In our national scan for successful models, we found very few One-Stop systems that had been

operating for a period of time in large urban areas. Most of those that we did find were either

overshadowed in their reported success by other sites within the same state, were simply too new to

be usefully assessed, or did not sufficiently focus their services on welfare recipients.2 Our sample

of One-Stop models thus contains only one system in a major metropolitan area, Tarrant County

(Fort Worth). 

We infer from this experience that the One-Stop concept may be easier to implement, and in some

cases, more appropriate to smaller metropolitan areas and rural business centers. In many of these

areas, One-Stop models may have emerged in part because it is easier to identify the appropriate

institutions and resources for inclusion and exercise local leadership, without the complex systems

and often overlapping constituencies and politics associated with human services in larger urban

areas. However, the difficulty in establishing a One-Stop system may not reflect on the system’s

success, once established. As a result, it simply may be necessary to wait longer to evaluate the

success of the One-Stop model in major urban labor markets.

In all of the sites visited, it was clear that established One-Stop systems have all had to address a

similar set of challenges. Inclusion of partners, co-location or coordinated system approach,

technology and data systems, facility management, contracting out – all of these issues must be
64

addressed and agreed to by multiple agencies for the One-Stop to be successful. To some degree,

the “success” of a local One-Stop may depend on how long it has been working at resolving these

issues, allowing the system to evolve as institutions and partners learn from their interaction and

adapt to changes in federal and state policies and programs.

Key Factors

Based on our observations and interviews, three key factors tend to contribute to the success of a

One-Stop center:

· Service Integration Enhances Retention of Clients: Generally, it appeared that the greater

the level of service integration, the better the One-Stop was able to retain clients after

orientation.

· Co-location of Welfare and Employment Services Has Benefits: Co-location of welfare

and employment services seems to offer significant net benefits for TANF clients and improves

relationships with welfare caseworkers. We found no evidence of any negative stigma

associated with co-location for traditional, non-welfare clients of employment service agencies.

· Individualized Attention Matters: It is not clear that any of the One-Stop models reviewed

has the resources to reliably expect that clients will achieve self-sufficiency, but it is clear that

the individualized attention that some clients received played a key role in their personal success.

This attention is often reflected via informal, ongoing contact with clients through different

phases of assistance and employment. These relationships appear to be easier to maintain in

rural and small metropolitan areas than in larger, urban centers.

Promising Program Elements

There are several promising program elements among the five One-Stop models. While the

excellence of each of these elements may not imply overall program effectiveness, they do tend to

help illustrate some of the activities being done well in the context of the One-Stop concept. Some

highlights include:

· In-Depth Assessment and Adult Education: Despite the current disfavor of assessment

within the national policy community, Kenosha has developed an individualized, in-depth

approach to skills and labor market assessment and education that is particularly effective. 

· Employer Outreach and One-Stop Design: In Traverse City, One-Stop managers actively

solicited the suggestions and advice of the local business community in the original design of the

One-Stop. These contacts also help keep the door open for contacts and requests from OneStop case managers.

· The Data System Linkage: Tarrant County’s new data system is more than just a centralized

mechanism for storing files, it is expected to form a communications system that allows case

workers to communicate with each other, reducing paperwork and the number of phone calls
65

and unproductive appointments necessary to line up multiple services for clients. Traverse

City’s experience with shared systems of this kind suggests the potential for freeing up some of

the time that case workers must spend dealing with administrative issues, allowing them to

provide more one-on-one services.

· American Indian Council: Marshalltown includes the American Indian Council as one of its

partners, providing employment services for the Misquake Tribe in eastern Iowa. This DoL

funded employment and training program has thrived in the context of the One-Stop

environment, expanding referral and work experience opportunities for tribe members while

providing an additional resource to serve a key population in this largely rural region.

· Project Self-Sufficiency Program: A pilot program in Whatcom County worked with young

single mothers to provide child care, case management support, and skill training in a limited

selection of fields to provide a “wrap-around” package of services and peer group support to

this targeted population

The degree to which these individual elements contribute to job retention and long term selfsufficiency remains unclear. Nonetheless, it was clear in discussions with clients and former clients

that many of these elements played a critical role in their positive experiences within the One-Stop

environment.

Common Problems

Some of the common problems with One-Stop centers raised by participants in focus groups tended

to focus on issues of location and transportation, child care funding, availability and scheduling,

dealing with substance abuse, and assistance with job retention and ongoing education and training.

All of the sites visited are to some degree pioneers of the One-Stop concept within their state

employment systems. In most cases, the design and emergence of the local One-Stop has more to

do with local initiatives than with any program-wide redesign efforts initiated at the state level. In

some instances, these model sites have been useful to state officials in structuring elements of their

approach to One-Stop systems. In others, systems developed locally don’t always match the designs

subsequently developed by the state and create tensions around issues of local flexibility.

Each of the sites reviewed has struggled with a series of issues that makes each local One-Stop

Center unique, including:

· Breadth of Partners: The number of state and local public and community-based agencies

involved as partners in the different One-Stop systems ranges from 4 (Bellingham) to 18

(Kenosha). While there are many similarities, this range is often a reflection of different local

capacities and the unique roles that some institutions play in the local area.

· Site and Service Integration: The level of integration of partners and services varies

considerably, from integration by referral and coordination between multiple sites to the full

integration of service teams at a single location.
66

· Data Systems: Quality and design of data systems, including the ability to share client data via

a common system, varies dramatically from site to site.

· Work Requirements: Different states have significant differences in their work requirements

for welfare recipients, with some requiring work search for all parents of children older than 12

weeks to others requiring work search only after the youngest child is 4 years old.

· Training Focus: Different states provide different levels of resources for training efforts,

either as part of the transition from welfare to work or as a supplement for improving skills after

employment has been found. Connecting welfare recipients with training on an ongoing basis

after finding employment appears to be a challenge for all One-Stop systems.

Institutional Factors

Several other institutional factors may contribute to the success or failure of a One-Stop, including:

· Shared Systems Administration: Those One-Stop models that are highly integrated have

typically developed a method of overhead charges to support shared systems, including

everything from space and janitorial services to computer and data system capital costs and

maintenance.

· Technology: The importance of technology in the success of a One-Stop should not be

underestimated. Easy to use, customer-friendly touch screen systems for labor market

information and labor exchange are vital to encouraging the kind of self-service environment that

allows case managers to focus their time and energies on those with the greatest needs.

· Consolidated Budgets: Only Kenosha had anything that remotely resembled a consolidated

budget statement that enabled partners to plan together for the full package of resources. Lack

of consolidated budgets illustrates the fact that in all but the most integrated system, the partner

agencies continue to operate on a collaborative basis rather than as an integrated system.

· Multiple Collective Bargaining Units: In some sites, it was not uncommon for employees

doing similar work, such as staffing the resource room, to be represented under different

collective bargaining units. Most managers felt this was a manageable problem.

· Wage Disparities: In most sites, there are considerable wage disparities between different

agency personnel that did not appear to match differences in caseloads or difficulty of cases.

· Learning Curve: Each of the sites reviewed is at a somewhat different level of development.

The development of a One-Stop can require anywhere from 3 to 5 years to bring partners

together and begin working through many of the coordination and joint operating challenges. It

does not happen overnight, and even some of the best are still refining their approach after

nearly 10 years.
67

Suggested Improvements

Suggestions for improving One-Stop models came from focus groups with management, staff,

current and former participants, and participating employers. Their recommendations include:

· Managers: Wanted to see more funding for specific skill training modules, and support for

ongoing education and training after clients have found employment.

· Staff: Would like to see greater recognition by state officials of the increasing difficulties of

helping those still on TANF rolls as caseloads decline.

· Current Participants: Want an effective reform of child support that includes mandatory

work effort or job search by non-custodial parents. They also noted serious difficulties in

obtaining part time or swing shift child care and child care for children with medical needs.

· Former Participants: Were more appreciative of the work requirements; several argued for

more flexibility on specific work rules and greater case manager discretion. They also focused

on the need for ongoing support for transportation and child care, especially after normal

working hours, if they were to have any hope of getting more education or training.

· Employers: Would like a single point of contact for listing jobs; most were willing to train new

hires but were concerned about job readiness.

Challenges in Reaching the Welfare Population

Not all One-Stop clients have the same abilities or employment needs, and by design, not all clients

will receive the same services. The intent of the inverted pyramid model of One-Stop service

delivery is to provide multiple points of access to a variety of services, beginning with easily

accessed self-service opportunities and culminating with intensive, one-on-one services for clients

with the greatest needs.

For the most part, the self-service job matching and education, training, and career planning systems

seem to have been more than adequate to service the experienced labor force. However, there are

seve ral points at which TANF recipients may have difficulty gaining access to the

employment and training services provided by One-Stop systems. First is the challenge of

getting TANF recipients through the door, given that some are reluctant to participate on their own.

Second, there may be issues of location and logistics and retention affected by system design. Third,

there are issues about how well the services offered meet the needs of the clients. And finally,

there are issues of follow-through once TANF recipients are placed in employment.
3

 JOBS was the parrallel employment and training program for AFDC clients.

68

· Engaging the System: One thing that became very clear during our focus groups is that

mandatory work requirements are very important in getting many TANF recipients through the

door. Frequently, the issue is not a reluctance to work, but a lack of self-esteem or selfconfidence in their ability to juggle family and work challenges. Job readiness programs that

break the challenges into discreet, achievable goals help open doors to new opportunities and

overcome this reluctance.

· Falling Through the Cracks: The fall-off between initial registration for TANF benefits and

participation in job readiness or work-search activities can be quite considerable. For example, in

Kenosha, managers estimate that this fall-off rate is as high as 50 percent. While many initial

registrants will ultimately end up following through, evidence from Iowa suggests that these may

be slightly older and better educated clients, with better employment prospects. Since none of

these systems is perfect, some portion of this fall-off rate may be due to location and logistics of

the system design. However, given that some of the highest fall-off rates reported were in

some of the most integrated systems, it would be difficult to argue that this is a major factor.

· Matching Services to Needs: It was our sense in talking with managers, staff, and clients,

that those TANF clients best served by the One-Stop model tend to be persons who are capable

of meeting their needs through self-service, or who would benefit from limited adult education,

life skills training, job search workshops, and general motivational counseling. Those that may

not fare as well tend to be those with no high school education and little or no work experience,

especially when combined with substance abuse or physical or mental health problems. OneStop systems are often ill-equipped to identify or address substance abuse or mental health

problems. As TANF caseloads have fallen dramatically in some states, increasingly higher

proportions of clients are “high needs” cases with multiple problems requiring higher levels of

one-on-one assistance. Under these circumstances, traditional staffing ratios may be less

appropriate, raising questions about how much depth of service One-Stops are expected to

provide for clients with high needs.

· Follow-Up and Lifelong Learning: Most of the sites reviewed were well accustomed to

conducting follow-up surveys for Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)3 clients 90-days or

four months after exiting the program. However, few indicated that they conducted any

systematic follow-ups to offer services for continuing training, education, or counseling on job

conflicts and job retention. Generally, this lack of follow-up is due to the lack of funding and

resources for making these contacts, or for providing the kinds of child care, transportation and

training services and assistance necessary to help program completers move up from low-wage

jobs to self-sufficiency.

The current pattern of One-Stop centers to provide welfare recipients with the minimum level of

employment services necessary to move them from welfare to low-wage employment offers an

optimum strategy for reducing caseloads during the strongest economy in several decades.

However, even a relatively mild recession could force a serious reallocation of resources within

many One-Stop centers once these employment opportunities evaporate. These centers might be
69

better suited than the traditional “unemployment office” for handling high volumes of experienced

workers via self-service job search tools. But if they are unable to move TANF recipients into

employment, severe financial and caseload strains may result durning an economic downturn,

especially since the flow of federal funds will no longer be driven by changes in caseloads.

Occupations and Employers

Employer focus groups reflected a remarkable level of understanding of the complexities and

challenges of recruiting and retaining a low-skilled labor force. For the most part, employers who

participated were typical of this labor market, employing relatively large numbers of workers with

very modest skills in firms with relatively few opportunities for serious training or advancement.

Most of these employers expressed a genuine willingness to provide the limited training necessary

for individuals ready to work, but frequently expressed frustration at the lack of such readiness, and

the seeming lack of screening for this preparation by One-Stop personnel.

Most of the client focus groups reported very positive results from work experience activities,

indicating that these positions frequently became permanent positions or offered real experience that

could be used in obtaining permanent employment. Employer reactions tended to reflect the way in

which the worker was treated – employers who provide work experience workers serious work

were most likely to be pleased with the results, while those treating it as “make work” often were

not. Several employers, both public and private, reported hiring work experience workers on a

permanent basis, often noting the loyalty and sense of responsibility these workers brought to their

jobs.

Given the distribution of low-skill, entry-level jobs in today’s economy and the narrow scope of

education and training funding under most state welfare reforms, it appears that many of the OneStop welfare-to-work programs tend to place their clients in a fairly limited set of typical

occupations. In some cases, the following occupational paths are emphasized by design through

specific training and employment agreements with large employers:

· Certified Nurse Assistant: By far the most prevalent occupation we encountered in our

focus groups was that of Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), or in some cases, other health care

services. This occupation was very commonly connected with a specific training regime

connected to the One-Stop.

· Clerical Support: At most sites, focus group participants indicated that they had employment

in clerical support positions, frequently in partner agencies, both public and non-profit. In several

cases, these workers had been placed in these positions as work experience slots and were later

brought on as permanent employees.

· Sorting and Packaging: Several of the employers, and some of the current participants,

identified sorting and packaging employment activities in a variety of light manufacturing

settings.
70

· Light Manufacturing: A few light manufacturing employers reported positive experience in

hiring former TANF workers. Generally these were persons with at least a high school

education and some work experience.

· Retail Trade: A couple of former participants had found placement in retail establishments –

some in Goodwill Industries type sheltered work environments, and others in stores like WalMart.

· Self-Employment: A few, generally male, former participants had started their own businesses

(such as cleaning, landscaping, and appliance repair). Most of these workers also had at least a

high school education and previous work experience. Generally these were self-motivated

individuals. None of the sites we reviewed had programs designed to foster self-employment –

most felt this option would work for only a limited portion of TANF participants.

One employer that was present in at least three of the locations was Manpower, Inc. As a

temporary employment agency, Manpower can often offer One-Stop clients a useful point of access

to employment opportunities, and they frequently share their listings with the One-Stop employment

services. However, they also tend to do more job readiness and skill screening than the One-Stop,

and not all welfare-to-work clients may be deemed “job ready” by their standards.

Empirical Evidence of Success

Most analysts would agree that real success in moving welfare recipients to self-sufficiency should

be measurable in terms of employment and wage outcomes. A review of administrative records

from three of the five sites, and management tracking reports from a fourth, suggest that for the

most part, these One-Stop models have been at least partially successful. However, these data also

highlight some of the gaps and limitations in the One-Stop concept as it has been implemented so far.

· Employment and Wage Outcomes: Based on limited data that varies from site to site, the

employment and wage outcomes reported for a sample of welfare clients referred to a OneStop center during a given 12-month period hovers between 40 percent and 50 percent, with

wages typically averaging between $5.50 and $6.50 per hour. With hours averaging between 30

and 35 hours per week, these jobs are clearly dominated by entry level work and by no means

could be considered sufficient to support a family without continued public assistance for food,

health care, child care, and possibly housing. Employment outcomes tend to be somewhat better

for clients with more education and fewer dependents who are young enough to be resilient in

the job market. These clients tend to use fewer services and progress faster through the system

· Matching Needs and Services: Welfare clients without a high school education, clients with

large numbers of dependents, and clients who are 40 and older tend to have greater needs, use

more services, take longer to progress through the system, and have less encouraging

employment outcomes. While this information is not particularly new, the fact that One-Stop

systems are tending to provide higher need clients with more services and assistance is
71

encouraging, even if their employment outcomes are not entirely comparable with those of other

clients.

· Difficulties Facing One-Stops: The administrative data compiled also confirm some of the

difficulties facing One-Stop systems in terms of addressing the needs for all subgroups of

welfare clients. Non-compliance seems to range from 10 percent to 17 percent. High

proportions of welfare clients continue to drop out after orientation, and length of participation

and employment rates seem to suggest that some groups of welfare recipients are either slipping

through the cracks or are not responding well to the services provided. For example, in two

sites, ethnic and racial minority groups tended to have high proportions of cases receiving a

single service, low average lengths of participation, and low employment rates and wages. Both

of these cases involve only small samples of these subgroups, limiting our ability to generalize,

but sufficient to raise cause for caution.

The variation in the characteristics of the populations served across sites illustrates the need for

flexibility in defining services and designing service systems that respond to unique local needs.

Differences in local economies are very important in understanding the types of work skills

necessary to be successful, yet differences in education levels, age distribution, number of

dependents, and racial/ethnic diversity also persist, requiring careful attention to unique local design

issues.
72
73

Table of Contents

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . 61

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . 73

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 75

Background . . . . . . . . . 75

Methodology . . . . . . . . . 76

Organization of This Report . . . . . . . 78 

Chapter 1: Five One-Stop Models . . . . . . . 79

Site Selection . . . . . . . . . 79

Brief Descriptions . . . . . . . . 82 

Common Characteristics . . . . . . . 83

Major Differences . . . . . . . . 85

Chapter 2: Successful Models and Program Elements . . . . 88

Successful Models . . . . . . . . 88

Promising Program Elements . . . . . . 

 91

Remaining Challenges . . . . . . . 93

Local Initiatives and State Systems . . . . . . 94

Other Institutional Factors . . . . . . . 96

President for the Day . . . . . . . . 98

Chapter 3: Challenges in Reaching the Welfare Population. . . . 

 101

Engaging the System . . . . . . . . 101

Improving Service Integration vs. Service Reduction . . . 

 104

Follow-Up and Lifelong Learning Goals . . . . . 106

What Happens When the Economy Goes Bust? . . . . 107

Chapter 4: Occupations and Employers . . . . . . 109

Reduced Education, Training and Screening . . . . 

 109

Managing Career Expectations . . . . . . 110

Valuing Work Experience . . . . . . . 111

Typical Occupations . . . . . . . . 111
74

Employer Views on Job Readiness and Retention . . . . 113

Employer Outreach and Involvement . . . . . 

 

1

1

4
75

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter 5: Links to Other Policy Initiatives . . . . . 

1

1

5

Unemployment Insurance Call Centers . . . . . 115

School to Work . . . . . . . . 116

The Community College Connection . . . . . . 116

Economic Support for Working Parents . . . . . 117

Chapter 6: Empirical Evidence of Success . . . . . . 119

Methodology . . . . . . . . . 119

Policy Changes and Limitations of the Data . . . . . 120

Kenosha County Job Center . . . . . . . 120

Tarrant County Employment Net . . . . . . 123

Northwest Michigan JobNet . . . . . . . 126

Whatcom County . . . . . . . . 128

Which Clients Are Best Served by One-Stop Shops?. . . . 128

APPENDIX: One-Stop Model Summaries 133

Workforce Development Center, Marshalltown IA . . . . 133

Kenosha County Job Center . . . . . . . 135

Tarrant County Resource Connection Center 140

Northwest Michigan JobNet . . . . . . . 143

Whatcom County WorkNet Consortium, Bellingham WA . . . 146
76

Introduction

The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) created a new policy and program framework for workforce

preparation and employment. Under the WIA, states and local areas must establish workforce investment

boards to oversee the delivery of a broad array of services for youth, adults, and dislocated workers, including

federally funded job services. Job-seekers and business are expected to benefit from a One-Stop delivery

system designed to offer a full range of employment and career counseling services to the general public via a

single location or a system of linked service centers. These One-Stop Job Centers are expected to provide

customers with:

• A preliminary assessment of their skill levls, aptitudes, abilities, and support service needs;

• Information on a full array of employment-related services, including information about local education and

training service providers;

• Help filing claims for unemployment insurance and evaluating eligibility for job training and education

programs or student financial aid;

• Job search and placement assistance, and career counseling;

• Access to up-to-date labor market information which identifies job vacancies, skills necessary for in-demand

jobs, and provides information about local, regional and national employment trends.

Through One-Stop Job Centers, employers are intended to have a single point of contact to provide information

about current and future skills needed by their workers and to list job openings, creating a single system for

finding job-ready skilled workers who meet their needs.

Many One-Stop Job Centers are just now being established in response to initiatives by the U.S. Department of

Labor, and in response to federal and state welfare reforms. Some of these centers have been operating long

enough to develop an understanding of how well they serve different client groups. The purpose of this study is to

examine some of the most promising One-Stop models to better understand what makes them work well and the

potential they offer for moving people from welfare to self-sufficiency.

Background

The evolving nature of these workforce development models can be illustrated with the following example. We

had just finished reviewing the new computer network designed to provide 14 different agencies on the Tarrant

County Resource Connection campus with user-friendly communications and access to a cutting edge data

system. The system has the capacity to automatically assess the potential eligibility of each client for all assistance
4

 Note that the term “welfare” is used in this report as being synonymous with Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC) or Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Because the timeframe for this

study encompassed the transition from AFDC to TANF, this term is used to avoid conceptual confusion. 

Where a distinction between AFDC and TANF is necessary to articulate a change in policy, these more

specific terms are used.

77

programs on campus, and allow the case manager to enable each agency where the client is potentially eligible for

help to gain controlled access to the appropriate information to help the client. We had tracked Donald Duck

and other fictitious characters through the system, which was only hours away from being placed into operation. 

“It’s not quite perfect yet,” declared Sheryl Kenny, “but we’re fixing to change that real quick.” 

“Fixing to change” is an appropriate description for much of the restructuring of state and local agencies around

federal welfare reforms, One-Stop Job Centers, and the introduction of new technologies into social and human

service delivery systems.4 Systems are being redesigned to place a stronger emphasis on coordinating public

resources to move welfare recipients into employment and hopefully, to self-sufficiency. In most local labor

markets, these changes have only just begun, and oftentimes as the result of prompting by federal and state policy

initiatives. However, in a few areas these changes have been underway for several years, frequently prompted by

major upheavals in the structure of the local economy, and encouraged along with federal grant assistance.

While the concept of consolidated service delivery is not new, the Department of Labor’s interest in bringing

together employment and training programs under one roof has resulted in renewed interest in the One-Stop

service delivery concept. One-Stop models take many forms; the Department of Labor lists four principles as

keys to their idea of what constitutes a One-Stop: (1) universality, (2) customer choice, (3) integration, and (4)

performance driven/outcome-based measures. They have used these standards to make funding decisions to

One-Stop models around the country, but the range of services provided by the different models often goes well

beyond these four features.

The purpose of this study is to examine some of the most promising One-Stop models in five locations around the

country to better understand what makes them work well and the potential they offer as a format for moving

people from welfare to self-sufficiency. This study is not an attempt to provide a formal evaluation of these

models, but rather to identify those approaches and practices that seem to be working well in different locations. 

From this information, this study also attempts to glean a better sense of the assistance that the One-Stop models

might offer to welfare recipients of different backgrounds as they seek employment to support their families.

Methodology

The methodology used for this study combines the use of on-site focus group discussions and administrative data

analysis. Local One-Stop models were selected based on a national scan of state and local One-Stop systems

and plans. A more in-depth discussion of the site selection is included in the first chapter.
5

 In most cases, these employer focus groups were fairly representative of the employer community making

the highest use of the One-Stop for hiring welfare clients.

78

At the outset, selected One-Stop models were asked to provide several items of background information. These

included a summary of the One-Stop structure and agencies involved, summary data on employer and welfare

client characteristics in the One-Stop service area, One-Stop staffing information, and information about the

accessibility of administrative data.

Focus group discussions were conducted with several groups at each of the five sites. Separate focus groups

were held with One-Stop officials, staff, and clients (including current and former welfare recipients as well as

employers). Topics raised in each of the focus groups included:

· One-Stop Officials (including the senior management team) were asked to provide a brief history of how the

One-Stop was formed, including the community, political and bureaucratic forces shaping the effort. They

were asked about relations with state authorities and among the agencies represented in the One-Stop. 

Budgeting, staffing, and management decisions were also discussed, along with questions about client flow,

collective bargaining agreements, workplace design, data systems and data sharing, and future plans and fiscal

expectations.

· One-Stop Staff were invited to comment on many of the same issues as were the officials, with an emphasis

on client flow, caseloads and intensity of caseloads, staffing, collective bargaining issues, workplace design,

and data systems. Staff were also asked to describe their personal approaches to collaboration, and to

provide illustrations for how they approach the resolution of staff-level problems.

· Current Recipients were invited to comment on the circumstances under which they came in contact with

the One-Stop, their feelings about the service they received or were receiving from different agencies, and the

helpfulness or usefulness of the services they were receiving. Recipients were invited to compare their

experience in the One-Stop with previous experiences with public assistance and employment agencies, and

describe how they would represent the One-Stop to a friend. Recipients were also invited to comment on

any particular barriers or difficulties they had encountered with the One-Stop and whether or how these

difficulties were resolved.

· Previous Recipients were invited to comment on many of the topics raised with current recipients. In

addition, they were invited to comment on how they found their current employment and how the One-Stop

helped in that process. They were also invited to comment on any difficulties they had encountered in making

the transition to employment, and whether or how the One-Stop had played a constructive role in that

transition.

· Employers of One-Stop clients (identified through the One-Stop) were invited to comment about their

interaction with the One-Stop, including whether or how they had used its facilities or services.5 They were

invited to comment on their experience with job seekers referred to them by the One-Stop, including those

that were hired and retained and those that were not. Employers were also invited to comment on the nature
79

of the local labor market, the general level of job readiness relative to One-Stop clients, and any job

development activities they might have pursued in conjunction with the One-Stop.

Virtually every group was invited to be “President for the day” and offer their suggestions for improving the OneStop and its related programs. Information and comments collected in these focus group discussions serve as the

primary source of information for the analysis presented in Chapters 2 through 5 of this report.

In addition to the focus group discussions, each One-Stop was asked to provide administrative data on the

characteristics of the welfare population in their service area, and for a random sample of anonymous One-Stop

clients, limited data on the services provided or accessed via the One-Stop and subsequent records of

employment and wages. This data request had three components:

· Characteristics of welfare recipients in the service area: Aggregate data on households, dependents,

and employment were requested.

· Characteristics of welfare clients served by the One-Stop: Aggregate and individual sample data on

households, dependents, employment, and services accessed were requested. Sample data (stripped of all

personal identifiers) was requested for between 70 and 150 cases entering the One-Stop during a 12-month

period.

· Outcomes for welfare clients served: Aggregate and individual sample data on employment and training

outcomes were requested, with sample outcome data matched to sample characteristics data.

As with any applied policy research project, the data available and provided did not always correspond to that

desired and requested. However, a good faith effort was made by all parties to fulfill the requests, and the

analysis attempts to make the most of the data provided. As a result, the data analysis for some of the One-Stop

models is more robust than for others.

Organization of This Report

This report is organized into six chapters. Chapter 1 describes the selection of the One-Stop Models,

summarizes the features of each model, and assesses the common and unique elements of each model. Chapter 2

identifies successful models and program elements, including those institutional factors that seem to be contributing

factors. Chapter 3 discusses the question of what groups are best served by the One-Stop model, based on

information from the focus group discussions. Chapter 4 examines the occupational strategies and employers

who are working with the model One-Stop programs, including the linkages and levels of connection between

public services and private employers. Chapter 5 discusses the linkages between the One-Stop models, welfare

reform, and other public sector initiatives related to workforce development. Chapter 6 works with the data 

provided by the five models to develop an empirical assessment of the potential of these models for making

successful transitions from welfare to self-sufficiency.
6

 Robert Watrus, Emily Torkelson, and Elizabeth Flynn, One Stop Career Center Systems: Lessons from the

Field, Northwest Policy Center, Graduate School of Public Affairs, University of Washington, April 1996.

80

The Appendix to the report contains additional details on each of the model One-Stop programs included in the

study.

Chapter 1: Five One-Stop Models

This study focuses on five local One-Stop models for its analysis. While these sites may not be the “five best

One-Stop job center models” in the country, they were certainly considered among the best by their peers and

other national associations and researchers at the time of site selection. The five sites included are:

· Workforce Development Center, Marshalltown, Iowa;

· Kenosha County Job Center, Kenosha, Wisconsin;

· Tarrant County Employment Network, Fort Worth, Texas;

· Northwest Michigan JobNet, Traverse City, Michigan; and 

· Whatcom County NetWork Consortium, Bellingham, Washington.

These five selected locations work with most segments of the welfare population and have employed various

methods and philosophies in providing service to this population. All have demonstrated some success at moving

welfare recipients from cash assistance into work. Although not every useful aspect of the One-Stop concept can

be captured by just five sites, these sites provide a broad spectrum of information and insight from which we can

learn.

Site Selection

This project expands on work previously conducted for the Washington Employment Security Department

(WESD) on national models for state one-stop-shop career center systems.6 The selection of sites for in-depth

analysis was aided by the information developed for the WESD project, which included a national review of onestop-shop programs and in-depth field investigation and interviews with officials in Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa,
7

 The national review also included careful consideration of programs in Kentucky, Massachusetts,

Michigan, Minnesota, and Texas.

8

 These included the Welfare Information Network, Corporation for a Skilled Workforce, Interstate

Conference of Employment Security Agencies, American Public Welfare Association. and the National

Center on Education and the Economy.

81

Maryland, New York, Ohio, Washington, and Wisconsin.7 Additional information was also incorporated from

U.S. Department of Labor (DoL) grants to 25 states, along with information available through phone interviews

with analysts at the National Governor’s Association, the National Association of Counties, and several other

national organizations.8

This national scan was used to select five One-Stop models demonstrating success in providing employment and

training programs to welfare clients. Three primary criteria were used for selecting the final sites for inclusion:

· Focused on welfare-to-work: The site had to be actively and effectively working with the welfare

population and getting them to work. Many One-Stops were established to address issues of local economic

dislocation when major employers closed down operations, not welfare-to-work. As a result, this focus,

though it is now increasing, was not present in all sites at the time of the study.

· Established track record: One-Stop models had to have been established long enough to have

demonstrated successful outcomes. Although the Department of Labor’s One-Stop Initiative was launched in

1994, we quickly found out that relatively few states and local sites had One-Stop programs serving welfare

clients for more than a few months by the fall of 1996, and most were still in some stage of start-up or

transition.

· Urban and rural diversity: We felt it imperative to include urban and rural models in order to reflect the

diversity of welfare clients and different economic, social and institutional capacities and environments. 

Interestingly enough, most of the earliest models were located in small to medium-sized metropolitan areas

where true collaboration among community institutions may be easier to achieve. As a result, the pool of

large, urban models was much smaller than expected.

In addition to these three criteria, our selection was also guided, but ultimately not dictated by, the following

secondary considerations:

· DoL implementation funding: Although many states that received implementation funding from DoL were

more advanced than others in their One-Stop systems, we intentionally looked for at least one site that did

not receive this funding to better capture the range of approaches to the One-Stop concept.

· Concentration of welfare clients: While we wanted to focus on service to welfare clients, we also wanted

to understand how these clients were served in the context of a larger customer base. As a result, we may

have excluded some sites with a proportionally very small welfare client base, but did not intentionally seek

out sites with high concentrations of welfare clients.
82

· Inclusion of specific services, models or methods: We did not limit our focus to a particular set of

services in choosing sites. For us to decide what scope and method of service delivery we wanted to look at

seemed counter-intuitive. If it was successful, then it was worth considering.

· Geographic distribution: Although we did keep geography in mind, we focused more on the urban/rural

mix of sites than on the national distribution. A thorough geographic distribution is not possible with just five

sites.

· Previous studies: We did not seek to exclude sites that had been the subject of previous studies and

evaluations of One-Stops, largely because the questions we were focusing on, i.e., services for welfare

clients, had not previously been examined in this context. One site did decline participation due to the fact

that they were already being studied by three other federal and state agencies.

Staff from each of the organizations contacted provided valuable information about the progress of One-Stop

systems in states as well as insight on which local models were working effectively with welfare clients. From

these conversations, twelve states emerged as the clear forerunners: Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Iowa,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, Washington, and Wisconsin. In these

states, we talked with state One-Stop contacts to get a clear sense of how the state structured their One-Stop

system, how long their local sites had been in operation, and how interested they might be in participating in the

study. State One-Stop officials were also helpful in identifying the local sites that were doing the best job of

working with welfare clients. Based on these discussions, the five local sites were selected.

Brief Descriptions

Following is a short description of each of the five sites selected for study. Each description includes a summary

of the state One-Stop and/or workforce system, the status of welfare reform, the local economy, the One-Stop

model, its services and partners, and its data systems and budget. Additional information about each site is

included in the Appendix.

· Workforce Development Center, Marshalltown Iowa: This Center is the collocation of seven agencies,

including strong participation of the local community college, with oversight by a local Workforce

Development Board. The welfare agency was intentionally not collocated with the Center. The Center

serves a predominantly rural, four-county region with county satellite offices. Services and offices are

partially integrated – i.e., offices are clustered by program, program referrals are coordinated personally by

staff, and the Resource Room is jointly staffed. Significant focus is placed on services to support community

college education and training, despite recent declines in direct funding for education and training as part of

Iowa’s PROMISE JOBS program.

· Kenosha County Job Center, Kenosha Wisconsin: This Center offers one of the most integrated

collocation models in the country, with a long list of state, county, non-profit and for-profit organizations

collocated in a small shopping center. Applicants for welfare and other economic assistance benefits (Food
83

Stamps, child care, health care, etc.) are assisted in the same reception area as all other Center users. 

Economic assistance, support services, job readiness, and job search are coordinated by case managers in

interagency teams which work together in an open office arrangement. The Center serves this intermediatesized urban location midway between Milwaukee and Chicago under the leadership of Kenosha County and

the partners collocated there, with two satellite locations to serve rural portions of the county.

· Tarrant County Resource Connection, Fort Worth Texas: The Resource Connection offers a

collocation model for 14 agencies in 12 buildings on a 92 acre campus near the South Campus of the Tarrant

County Junior College and not far from several of the highest need areas of the county. The state welfare

agency (not now collocated) is currently constructing offices on the campus, the former site of a state school

for persons with mental retardation. Services are partially integrated with interagency collaboration aided by

a state-of-the art data system for client intake, eligibility determination and referral, and case management that

serves all partner agencies. Under the Texas JOBS Program, mandated work requirements were among the

least restrictive of the sites examined, exempting parents with children under five years of age. Oversight is

provided by an advisory board representing partner agencies, with the county taking the role as lead financial

and management partner.

· Northwest Michigan JobNet, Traverse City Michigan: JobNet serves a predominantly rural, 10-county

region on the south shore of Lake Michigan. Grand Traverse County is the primary urban center for a region

that is emerging as a destination tourist location, but still suffers from structural changes in the automobile

industry. The collocation model emerging at the central site in Traverse City brings together state employment

services, JTPA, community college resources, and will soon include economic services (welfare) offices in a

new facility. As in Marshalltown, services are partially integrated with offices clustered by program and

program referrals handled personally. Outlying counties are currently served by four other sites, with an

additional 3 sites anticipated. Oversight is provided by a local Workforce Development Board, with

significant leadership by the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments.

· Whatcom County WorkNet Consortium, Bellingham Washington: The WorkNet Consortium offers a

“first stop” or “no wrong door” model of service integration for four partners in northwestern Washington. 

This model provides communications linkages for physically separate state employment services, economic

services (including welfare), the area PIC, and technical and community colleges. Clients at any one of these

sites can obtain information on and referral to the services in the rest of the system – which also maintains a

common Center for Workforce Training – hence, the “first stop” or “no wrong door” concept. Unlike the

other sites, the WorkNet Consortium did not have early funding from DoL, and was experiencing high

unemployment relative to the national rate. At the time of our visit, Washington had not yet implemented its

WorkFirst program and was in the midst of a short-lived attempt to tighten mandates for participation in the

JOBS program under waivers from the federal law.

As these site summaries begin to illustrate, local institutional and economic circumstances, along with the

evolutionary status of state welfare programs, can play a significant role in the design and focus of one-stop

systems. As a result, it is important to pay close attention to these contextual factors as we assess the strengths

and weaknesses of the different models.
9

 Wagner-Peyser programs are those labor exchange and employment services mandated by federal law and

funded by DoL. These include the posting of job openings and job counseling and referral for job seekers.

84

Common Characteristics

All of the sites have a number of similar characteristics. Some of the similarities include similar origins of the

initiative to create the One-Stop, a common set of core partners, programs and program elements, and a familiar

set of personnel, space, technology, and state/local issues:

· Origins: In each site visited, the creation of a One-Stop was one form of responding to a significant pattern

or event of economic dislocation in the area or region’s economy. The decline of the timber industry in

Bellingham, the loss of the Chrysler plant in Kenosha, the loss of a major manufacturer in Marshalltown, the

decline of the auto industry in Traverse City, and the closure of a state facility and military bases (along with

the decline in the defense industry) in Fort Worth. In a few of these cases, these economic challenges

provided the opportunity to pursue a One-Stop strategy that was already in progress, while in most, the crisis

helped local leaders focus on the need for better integrated service delivery for employment and training

services. In almost all cases, these efforts did not originate with the intent of boosting transitions from welfare

to work, but with the goal of assisting dislocated workers to make successful career transitions out of

declining industries.

· Strong Local Economies: Despite the common origins in the dislocation of local economies, all of the OneStop sites visited enjoyed strong economies at the time of the site visit. Unemployment rates for each location

were well below the national average, with the exception of Bellingham, where unemployment was still well

below previous peaks. In most cases, this meant that most of the resources of the One-Stop are now

focused on welfare-to-work efforts and on assisting employers in employee recruitment.

· Partners: Each One-Stop system has a minimum of four partners, although not all of them operate from a

common location. These core partners include the state’s primary employment services agency responsible

for operating the federally mandated labor exchange, the local Private Industry Council or JTPA program

service provider, the state or county agency responsible for operating the TANF program, and a local

community or technical college. The one exception to this pattern is in Marshalltown, where the Department

of Human Services has a working relationship with the Resource Center but is not co-located at the site or

included in the Center’s list of partners. In most cases, this partnership is mandated by state laws which

frequently included other public agencies, although in all cases reviewed here, local One-Stop systems work

closely with an even broader array of community-based organizations and other federal, state and local

agencies than is required of them.

· Programs: All of the One-Stop systems include a core set of federal programs, including JTPA, WagnerPeyser labor exchange and employment services,9

 worker dislocation assistance, and JOBS. While the state

or county agency responsible for operating the TANF program is, in all but one case, one of the core

partners, TANF, Food Stamps, child care, and Medicaid programs were not typically administered as part of
10 For example, the Marshalltown Resource Center includes the American Indian Council JTPA Program,

while the Kenosha Job Center includes the United Migrant Opportunity Service.

85

the One-Stop system. However, most sites also included several additional programs, several of which were

targeted to special populations or designed around special circumstances or capacities in the local area.10

· Welfare-to-Work Program Elements: All of the One-Stop systems have several common elements to

their welfare-to-work programs, although in most cases, the design of these programs is in flux as each state

implements TANF and, in most cases, additional state welfare reforms. In all cases, One-Stop welfare

clients are treated to an orientation session and a workforce skills and barriers assessment (although this is

changing some for states implementing a “work first” concept). Virtually all site managers considered this an

important step, though some made greater use of assessment than others (see: Chapter 2, “Successful

Program Elements”). Typically, clients are then directed toward some combination of job search, job

readiness (using “job club” or job search skills workshops), GED or high school diploma completion, work

experience, and/or life skills development.

· Funding: The inclusion of several federally funded programs in the One-Stop systems results in some

similarities in funding. In most cases, funds for workforce activities (JOBS and JTPA) tend to dominate other

uses – funding for Wagner-Peyser activities, though important, has dwindled, and most One-Stops

interviewed indicated that they would have difficulty staffing their resource rooms without partner agency

personnel. All but one (Bellingham) received start-up funding from DoL, and several received initial support

to establish the One-Stop from local sources.

· Personnel and Space Issues: Each of the One-Stop systems seeks to blend multiple personnel systems,

some with collective bargaining agreements and some without, most with different pay scales and

expectations about training, technology, and agency reporting requirements. Most, though not all of the OneStops are in the midst of restructuring their physical space arrangements to achieve some greater level of

integration or to improve service delivery. Three of the five sites were primary sites with similar, satellite

facilities and outposts for serving less populated areas.

· Technology and Database Issues: One-Stop systems invariably are struggling with efforts to use new

technology to enhance job search and help integrate service delivery, regardless of location. In many cases,

the principal issues revolve around shared access to data, state verses locally designed systems, and varying

levels of staff comfort and skill among partners in working with computerized data systems. Most of the

One-Stops that have developed their own data system have also experienced some difficulties blending their

systems with state data systems and reporting requirements.

· State/Local Issues: Each of the One-Stop sites visited is, or has been, a pioneer in the design of One-Stop

employment services for that state. In most cases, much of the impetus and vision for the creation of these

sites came from local community leaders, creating some ongoing tension between state agencies and local

initiatives over issues of accountability and local control. These tensions typically focus on issues like data

system design, performance measurements, and flexibility in interpreting program rules and regulations. In
86

some cases, these tensions also arise from funding and job security issues, including declining caseloads,

diminished funding, and state proposals for competitive bidding and the contracting out of employment

services.

Major Differences

Several unique characteristics in each of the One-Stop systems underscore the diversity of local circumstances,

capacities, and system designs. Differences in partnerships and integration, work requirements, data systems and

funding reflect the variety of One-Stop responses to the welfare-to-work mandate. To some degree, the

evolution of local One-Stop systems in the local economic, policy, and institutional environment is an ongoing,

dynamic adjustment process, with different systems examined here illustrating different points on the learning

curve. Major differences include:

· Breadth of Partners: The number of state and local public and community-based agencies involved as

partners in the different One-Stop systems ranges from 4 (Bellingham) to 18 (Kenosha). Both Tarrant

County and Traverse City report 14 partners, while Marshalltown has 7 partner agencies. Those sites with

high numbers of partners typically reflect the unique character and capacities of the site: in Traverse City,

three different community colleges from the 10-county service area are included as partners, while in Tarrant

County, several partners are providers of health care that are often not typically associated with One-Stop

systems. Three of the sites (Marshalltown, Kenosha, and Tarrant County) have partnerships with

community-based organizations, and only one site (Kenosha) has incorporated for-profit partners as part of

their One-Stop system. Vocational rehabilitation agencies are partners in three of the five sites, and in some

cases, this partnership has been reluctant and ultimately the result of state mandates.

· Site and Service Integration: The level of integration of partners and services varies considerably. For

example, in Bellingham, services are integrated by referral and coordination by system partners, but these

services are often delivered in multiple locations by individual partners. Services for welfare clients in

Bellingham, Marshalltown, Traverse City and Tarrant County all require referrals from economic assistance

officials located in a separate facility. In the cases of Bellingham and Marshalltown, this separation is by

design, while in the cases of Traverse City and Tarrant County, site changes currently in progress will bring

welfare caseworkers on site. Kenosha offers the highest level of site and service integration, with TANF and

other economic assistance services located on-site, and caseworkers from multiple partners working in the

same space as a team. Several sites staff their resource rooms, available to all clients, with personnel from

partners located on site.

· Data Systems: The quality of data systems, and access to them, also varies among the One-Stop systems

studied. Tarrant County’s new, state of the art data system was developed by a private vendor, linking each

of the 14 partners on its 92-acre campus. Intake can be accomplished via a user-friendly system at any

computer terminal, and intake data is then automatically evaluated for potential eligibility for other programs

on campus, allowing the caseworker to enable other partners to gain access to the appropriate client data

(with confidentiality safeguards specific to each program). Kenosha has been perfecting its facility-wide data
87

systems for 9 years, with an emphasis on using them to generate management level data to track client flows

and program performance. Data sharing for client services is not an issue with the co-location of multiagency teams. Traverse City’s state Employment Security staff developed a common data system for case

management that is being carefully introduced to other partner agencies, and adapted for use on a statewide

basis. Bellingham has been using an earlier generation of the Tarrant County data system, but without state

authorization to allow direct access to files across agency lines, diminishing the data system’s usefulness as a

tool for improving communications and coordination.

· Work Requirements: Most of the states visited were tightening work requirements for TANF recipients. 

However, there were still a few variations that seemed to have significant implications. For example, in

Texas, single parents with children under age 4 were exempt from work requirements, resulting in what

appeared to be a significantly lower demand for employment services. By contrast, in Iowa, only parents

with children under 6 months of age are exempt, while in Wisconsin, parents with children under 12 months

were exempt at the time of our visit. The exemption window in Michigan was only 12 weeks, the same as

what Wisconsin and Washington have moved to during the past year. Although it is difficult to draw a causal

relationship based on observation, caseloads and the level of activity within the One-Stop central locations

appeared to be higher in states with more stringent work requirements. Work requirements appeared to

place greater strains on child care capacity in all sites, including Tarrant County where both child care

capacity and work requirements were at lower levels. 

· Training Focus: Emphasis on providing training for welfare clients varied more than expected. 

Marshalltown places probably the greatest current emphasis on training, frequently using JTPA funds to

provide transportation and child care services to recipients pursuing two-year degrees at the community

college; some limited state funds and Pell grants are used to finance tuition at two- and four-year institutions. 

Kenosha focuses on GED or high school completion, employing a mix of intensive assessment and (for-profit)

adult education services. Bellingham had probably the strongest training focus during the time frame for data

collection, but at the time of our site visit they were rapidly shifting to a WorkFirst approach, rather than a

“training first” approach, which is fairly consistent with the approach of Traverse City. Connecting welfare

recipients with training on an ongoing basis after finding employment appears to be a challenge for all OneStop systems, due largely to the demands on a working single parent’s time and the lack of funding for child

care, tuition and off-hours training opportunities.

· Learning Curve: It is quite clear that each of the sites reviewed is at a somewhat different level of

development. Kenosha has been developing its program and facility for 9 years, and still had not completed

all of the space redesign when we conducted our site visit. Traverse City had been in operation for a few

years, but still had yet to integrate all of its partners. Tarrant County was still fairly recent to its site, and has

yet to incorporate their human services agency. Marshalltown has not been in operation long, but seems to

have well established itself within the community. In most cases, One-Stop systems have moved beyond the

old “gatekeeper” model for delivering employment services, and are beginning to provide self-service

opportunities that improve access for more employers and job seekers and reserve labor intensive assistance

for clients with special needs. Clearly, the development of a One-Stop can require anywhere from 3 to 5

years to bring partners together and to begin working through many of the coordination and joint operating
88

challenges. It does not happen overnight, and even some of the best are still refining their approach after

nearly 10 years.

Over time, it is likely that some of these differences will dissipate as innovations in data systems become more

widespread and local centers move up the learning curve. However, differences in the breadth of partnerships

and level of service integration are likely to persist, both within and across states. The differences among local

areas within states will reflect the natural variation in the strength and depth of the institutional capacities and levels

of need in each local area; they may also depend to some degree on the local flexibility allowed by different

states. For example, one area may have special work and housing search services for farm workers while

another may have special language-based services for legal immigrants. Some areas may have strong

relationships with community colleges while others work more closely with the local K-12 school system. These

differences might also not mean that different groups necessarily receive different levels of services, but they may

receive their services in different ways.

Differences in partners may persist due to the unique characteristics of state and local policy and politics. In most

cases, these differences may persist across states, due to differing levels of state control of local variation and

contracting arrangements – which are subject to a host of historical and political factors that reach far beyond just

the issue of One-Stop Job Centers. For example, state control of welfare and employment services in one state

such as Washington may result in different partners and levels of integration than in other states where welfare

administration is subject to greater local control and variation, such as Wisconsin.

For these reasons, it is unrealistic to expect that a single One-Stop model will be appropriate for all localities. 

Similarly, it would be too simplistic to assume that all One-Stop Centers will be able to provide the same level or

quality of services.
11 Milwaukee is a good example of the first of these circumstances, Boston the second, and Renton (Seattle

metropolitan area) the third.

89

Chapter 2: Successful Models and Program Elements

In many respects, all of the models reviewed by this study can be considered successful. They have established a

new set of program and community relationships for using new technology and limited public resources to help

welfare recipients find work. For veterans of social service and employment and training programs, this is no

small accomplishment. However, “success” is frequently an elusive term, and in this context it requires some

further definition.

Success in the context of this assessment of One-Stop models is intended to imply achievement of two

objectives. First, it implies a service delivery system that meets the needs of families who seek help with

employment barriers, and does not turn them away or let them slip through the cracks. Second, it implies a

service delivery system that improves the prospects for a family to become self-sufficient, rather than simply lower

caseloads by moving TANF recipients into low-wage work with little prospect for upward mobility.

While this assessment is not designed to definitively measure success, it is intended to identify some of the model

design and programmatic elements that might lead to success, based on early observations and measurable

patterns in client flows and outcomes. This section summarizes the authors’ conclusions regarding the potential

for success in the models reviewed, based on their observations and interviews with staff, clients, and employers.

Successful Models

It is important to note that in our national scan for successful models, we found very few One-Stop systems that

had been operating for a period of time in large urban areas. Most of those that we did find were either

overshadowed in their purported success by other sites within the same state, were simply too new to be usefully

assessed, or did not sufficiently focus their services on welfare recipients.11 Our sample of One-Stop models thus

contains only one system in a major metropolitan area, Tarrant County (Fort Worth). 

We infer from this experience that the One-Stop concept may be easier to implement, and in some cases, more

appropriate to smaller metropolitan areas and rural business centers. In many of these areas, One-Stop models

may have emerged in part because it is easier to identify the appropriate institutions and resources for inclusion

and exercise local leadership, without the complex systems and often overlapping constituencies and politics

associated with human services in larger urban areas. However, the difficulty in establishing a One-Stop system

may not reflect on the system’s success, once established. As a result, it simply may be necessary to wait longer

to evaluate the success of the One-Stop model in major urban labor markets.
90

In all of the sites visited, it was clear that established One-Stop systems have all had to address a similar set of

challenges. Inclusion of partners, co-location or coordinated system approach, technology and data systems,

facility management, contracting out -- all of these issues must be addressed and agreed to by multiple agencies

for the One-Stop to be successful. To some degree, the “success” of a local One-Stop may depend on how long

it has been working at resolving these issues, allowing the system to evolve as institutions and partners learn from

their interaction and adapt to changes in federal and state policies and programs.

· Service Integration and the Retention of Clients: Generally, it appeared that the greater the level of

service integration, the better the One-Stop was able to retain clients after orientation. Of the five One-Stop

models examined, the Kenosha County Job Center has been in operation the longest and has achieved the

greatest service integration. With on-site registration for TANF and combined orientation to TANF and

JOBS, the Job Center has minimized the potential for clients to slip through the cracks and fail to receive the

service they need. Of course, some families are served via one-time diversion assistance, while others are

able to secure other economic support services such as Food Stamps, health care, and/or child care

assistance at the same facility. Still, nearly half of potential clients choose not to show up for the orientation,

although the fall-off rate drops considerably after the orientation.

This pattern is not uncommon in the other models, and may be even more pronounced when clients register

for TANF at one location and are then referred to the One-Stop for employment related services. In

Marshalltown and Bellingham, the decision to separate the location of these services was intentional. Site

managers emphasized the need to be clear that the purpose of the One-Stop was to emphasize the

employment objective, and to avoid confusing the message about why clients were there. In Bellingham, staff

noted that the lack of co-location creates a “teachable moment,” i.e., an opportunity to help clients develop

the skills for getting from place to place. Marshalltown site managers estimated that roughly 40 percent of

TANF referrals to PROMISE JOBS have been through the process before but dropped out.

Both Tarrant County and Traverse City have plans to co-locate with their respective TANF administrative

agencies, thus increasing the level of integration between welfare and employment services available through

the One-Stop. While these moves are not seen as a panacea, managers at both sites felt that the difficulties in

coordinating employment services for their TANF clients could be eased through co-location, and they were

looking forward to including economic services case workers in their data networks.

· Welfare vs. Employment Services: Co-location of welfare and employment services seems to offer

significant net benefits for TANF clients and may improve relationships with welfare caseworkers. Some of

the most negative comments by current and previous One-Stop welfare clients were reserved for

TANF/economic services case workers in sites where these services were not co-located. TANF clients

frequently contrasted the services they received at the One-Stop as supportive, encouraging, and customer

friendly as compared with the more hostile environment of the welfare office. This contrast is not entirely

surprising given that TANF caseworkers are tasked with the responsibility of determining the availability and

amount of cash benefits. However, in most cases, One-Stop case workers have an equally unpopular task,

that of sanctioning or reporting for sanction those welfare clients who have failed to meet their work

requirements. This suggests that the need to play the role of benefit gatekeeper does not completely explain
91

why One-Stop caseworkers seem to have a better relationship with their clients compared to TANF

caseworkers.

The contrast between client perceptions of welfare and employment case workers was not entirely absent in

Kenosha, but was dramatically lower. Case workers and clients talked openly of their efforts to work

through other staff members of a given service delivery team to ease tensions and work out solutions to the

benefit of clients. These discussions reinforce what appear to be significant benefits from co-location with

the TANF agency, namely an improvement in relations between welfare case workers and their clients, fewer

opportunities for clients to fall between the cracks, and an improvement, or at least a perceived improvement

in the quality of client service.

In some respects, co-location can be thought of as the sharing of political or institutional capital of

employment agencies with welfare agencies. The symbolism of applying for TANF benefits at the Job Center

may have a net positive value for welfare recipients and the general public. By contrast, we saw no evidence

of any negative stigma associated with co-location for traditional, non-welfare clients of employment service

agencies. This issue is often raised as a potential concern, especially with organized labor constituencies of

employment service agencies, but it is clearly the belief of the Kenosha managers that there is no negative

stigma associated with seeking employment services in the same location where welfare clients receive

services. Of course, the potential for this negative association is also diminished by the use of call centers to

administer Unemployment Insurance benefits – which Wisconsin had fully implemented and other states were

moving toward. In Bellingham, the staff noted that co-location would probably be to the benefit of TANF

clients, especially younger clients.

· Achieving Self-Sufficiency: It is not clear that any of the One-Stop models reviewed has had the

resources to reliably expect that clients will achieve self-sufficiency. The experiences of the five One-Stop

models is mixed in terms of improving the prospects of welfare families for achieving self-sufficiency. Most of

the tracking information kept by these systems rarely goes beyond required 90-day follow-ups for JTPA and

JOBS participants, hardly long enough to capture the long term self-sufficiency prospects for participants. 

None of the models has developed a follow-up prevention strategy to help families avoid returning to welfare,

or to actively connect them to ongoing education and training activities once they leave JOBS and stop

collecting welfare benefits. Several managers lamented the lack of resources for such efforts, while others

noted the difficulties facing many single parents trying to pursue ongoing skill development when current

wages and support programs are barely sufficient to make ends meet now.

Nonetheless, informal ongoing support does take place as the personal bonds between clients and

employment services staff are retained. In many cases, these are relationships developed over the course of

several months, often when a client is completing an education or training program, working part time, and

continuing to receive cash assistance. In rural communities and relatively small metropolitan areas, it is not

difficult to maintain these relationships over time, but may be much more difficult in larger urban areas.

While each of the One-Stop programs emphasizes the need for clients to develop a career plan, the

philosophy and approach to implementing that plan varies considerably. For example, in Traverse City and

Bellingham, clients are typically urged to “take a job, any job” and work their way up from there. In
12 Testing of abilities includes vocabulary, reading, spelling, language, math, and problem solving. The

COPSystem is used to test interests, abilities and work values. Wonderlic tests are also used. Career

exploration assessment covers assets and barriers, testing results, program opportunities, labor market

opportunities, occupational videos, career counseling and setting employment goals. 

92

Marshalltown, case workers are emphatic in insisting that clients set their own goals, and then worked with

them to help make their goals realistic and to chart a path toward them -- a path which frequently includes

community college training. In Kenosha, labor market data systems (using touch screen technology) are used

to help clients develop a realistic understanding of the opportunities in the local market, but they are urged to

apply only for the jobs they want. Employment specialists there argue that this approach helps boost job

retention, and in a tight labor market it is a viable option for many clients. Each of these strategies can create

a path to long term self-sufficiency, though it is not at all clear which is the most effective, or appropriate to

the individual circumstance.

Promising Program Elements

There are several promising program elements among the five One-Stop models. While the excellence of each of

these elements may not imply overall program effectiveness, they do tend to help illustrate some of the activities

being done well in the context of the One-Stop concept. Some highlights include:

· In-Depth Assessment and Adult Education: Despite the current disfavor of assessment within the

national policy community, Kenosha has developed an individualized, in-depth approach to skills and labor

market assessment and education that seems particularly effective. Assessment typically lasts about 9 to 15

hours over the course of a two to three week motivational program; assessments are conducted in a

classroom/lab facility, typically involving a variety of physical and written test instruments.12 For clients who

need a high school degree or GED, a customized curriculum is then developed, allowing clients to focus on

their specific weaknesses. As a result, some clients are able to earn a high school diploma in as little as three

weeks, where three months ago they would have been reluctant to try. The success of this program appears

to depend on the customized curriculum for each individual client. Both the assessment and education

enterprises are run by private, for-profit entities co-located within the One-Stop. Although Wisconsin’s new

W-2 program calls for eliminating assessment as a specific step in the process, Job Center officials indicated

their hope to continue using assessment tools – possibly under a different name. They even hope to use

increased flexibility with other funds to open these services up to a wider group of clients coming into their

resource room.

· Employer Outreach and One-Stop Design: In Traverse City, One-Stop managers actively solicited the

suggestions and advice of the local business community in the original design of the One-Stop. This input

focused on setting up the reception area and resource room for job seekers and employers. Ongoing

meetings with this group of employers (which includes the human resource managers from some of the larger

local companies) give One-Stop managers a chance to get informal feedback on their assessment, training
93

and referral programs and help them keep abreast of developments within the employer community. These

contacts also help keep the door open for contacts and requests from One-Stop case managers.

· The Data System Linkage: Tarrant County’s new data system is more than just a centralized mechanism

for storing files, it is expected to form a communications system that allows case workers to communicate

with each other, reducing paperwork and the number of phone calls and unproductive appointments

necessary to line up multiple services for clients. Traverse City’s experience with shared systems of this kind

suggests the potential for freeing up some of the time that case workers must spend dealing with

administrative issues, allowing them to provide more one-on-one services.

· American Indian Council: Marshalltown includes the American Indian Council as one of it’s partners,

providing employment services for the Misquake Tribe in eastern Iowa. This DoL funded employment and

training program has thrived in the context of the One-Stop environment, expanding referral and work

experience opportunities for tribe members while providing an additional resource to serve a key population

in this largely rural region.

· Work Experience Access to Jobs: Clients and former clients in Bellingham emphasized the value of work

experience positions in developing the confidence, skills, and job references necessary to land paying

positions in similar fields. In focus groups at each of the sites, clients and former clients reported consistently

positive experiences in work experience positions. Some of these positions were within partner agencies,

while others were designed to help clients pursue their career interests.

· Project Self-Sufficiency Program: One small, pilot program in Bellingham worked with single mothers to

provide child care, case management support, and skill training in a limited selection of fields (office/clerical,

certified nurse assistant, or industrial sewing) at the Bellingham Technical College. Our focus group with

former TANF clients included a couple of program graduates who reported excellent employment outcomes,

although at the time of our site visit, it did not look likely that recent TANF reforms would allow the pilot to

continue. Client comments emphasized the benefits of lower caseloads and peer group support. Similar,

targeted programs have been used at some of the other One-Stop sites. For example, Marshalltown works

with the community college and a large nursing facility to provide certified nurse assistant (CNA) training,

work experience, and employment.

· Personal Relationships and Self-Confidence: As noted in the previous section, clients frequently noted

how employment services workers would show a personal interest in the client’s circumstance. Straight talk

about personal habits, assistance with an interview wardrobe, one-on-one counseling or help in dealing with a

household crisis -- acts of friendship which helped build self-confidence and self-esteem were some of the

most powerful motivators for clients. Kenosha’s Excel program, a three week motivational workshop that is

scheduled around assessment and other early “work-related activities,” was the only formal motivational

program that received repeated praise from clients. 
13 On a more positive note, the Kenosha County Job Center is located reasonably near to the center of town

on a busy arterial, and as we were told by clients, the bus drivers frequently direct job seekers to the Center. 

However, even in this location, clients complained that the community college was not easily accessible.

94

The degree to which these individual elements contribute to job retention and long term self-sufficiency remains

unclear. Nonetheless, it was clear in discussions with clients and former clients that many of these elements

played a critical role in their positive experiences within the One-Stop environment.

Remaining Challenges

This section is intended to identify some of the pitfalls raised in the focus groups, rather than serve as a laundry list

of criticisms. Some of these pitfalls are common to all or most of the sites visited:

· Location and Transportation: Young families who have been living under welfare rules that limit the

amount of assets that can be held, such as the value of the family car, are poorly equipped to search for or

retain work in rural or suburban locations. For many of these families, the location of the One-Stop, the

location of work opportunities, the location of child care, the location of the doctor’s office -- all of these can

affect the success of a transition from welfare to work. In Tarrant County, the current One-Stop site was the

result of a countywide effort to respond to the closure of a state school and make the best use of the facility. 

As a result, employment services were relocated from a more urban site to the current site which is located

near an industrial park at the urban periphery, with only one bus line for public transit access. In

Marshalltown, some clients drive as much as 50 or 60 miles one way to attend job club meetings, although

the One-Stop staff also “ride the circuit” visiting the Center’s outpost facilities once a week in each of the four

counties in order to maintain contact with clients. Many of these rural clients must choose between lowerpaying and less-skilled jobs closer to home and better opportunities that require a much longer commute. A

similar pattern exists in Traverse City, where resort real estate prices in the city itself tend to drive welfare

recipients into rural areas in search of affordable housing.13 While JTPA funds are frequently used to fund gas

and public transportation costs, several clients and managers suggested that small grants for auto repair would

be one of the most useful tools in boosting job retention.

· Child Care Funding, Availability, and Scheduling: Many of the clients expressed frustrations in dealing

with child care, although in most instances, they had found a way to work with the subsidies provided. The

most complaints were about availability and scheduling of part time child care and child care during the

evenings and odd hours. This is of particular concern to job seekers looking for entry level work with

employers that have second, third, or swing shifts where entry level workers typically start. Transportation

issues can compound this difficulty as well.

· Job Retention: As noted previously, none of the One-Stop models have well-developed strategy for

helping clients retain their employment. As several case workers pointed out, virtually all clients are

employable, but not all are capable of remaining employed. Some of the issues around job retention may be

more tractable than others. For example, making arrangements for doctors visits and medical care for a
95

chronically ill child may be problematic, but easier for a One-Stop staff to contend with than ongoing mental

health or substance abuse problems.

· Substance Abuse: One of the most frequently noted reasons for poor job retention by employers were

issues of alcohol and substance abuse. Questions about how these difficulties were dealt with were raised

with staff in each One-Stop site, yet very few case managers seemed to be particularly experienced in

contending with these issues. In some cases, case workers felt the clients frequently did a good job in

masking these issues when present at the One-Stop, but generally case workers seemed unprepared for

confronting and contending with clients with substance abuse problems.

· Ongoing Education and Training: Also noted previously was the lack of ongoing efforts to help former

clients further their education and training. While it is understandable that young, working families have little

time or money to pursue this option, its critical role in helping these families move to full self-sufficiency should

not be overlooked. One alternative strategy might be to assist former clients look for opportunities to find

better paying work, or an employer that offers more training opportunities, once the client has developed a

track record and some skills in their first job. However, an active strategy in this regard may prove to be

unwelcome in the employer community, and the availability of resources to assist clients who are successfully

employed were quite limited in all sites.

Local Initiatives and State Systems

All of the sites visited are to some degree pioneers of the One-Stop concept within their state employment

systems. In most cases, the design and emergence of the local One-Stop has more to do with local initiatives

than with any redesign efforts initiated at the state level. In some instances, these model sites have been useful to

state officials in structuring elements of their approach to One-Stop systems. In others, systems developed locally

don’t always match the designs subsequently developed by the state.

· Response to Local Crises: Most of the local One-Stop initiatives were developed in response to

significant, local economic crises when a major employer or industry either shut down operations or

permanently laid off large numbers of workers. In some cases, such as Kenosha and Tarrant County, the

local response was initiated by the chief executive in county government. In others, such as Bellingham and

Marshalltown, the response came from the local PIC or workforce development board. In Traverse City,

the response was more at the regional level, spearheaded by the Northwest Michigan Council of

Governments. In most cases, representatives of the partner agencies spoke highly of the vision of the

founding site manager as a driving force. In some instances, difficult political decisions and third party

facilitation were necessary to overcome institutional resistance to the One-Stop concept. For example, in

Kenosha, the county executive replaced the PIC leadership in order to gain its cooperation in establishing the

Kenosha County Job Center.

· Local Pioneers and State Initiatives: In some cases the local One-Stops were actually established before

the state created its state system for integrating employment services. For example, the client information
96

system developed by Traverse City was used as the prototype for the development of Michigan’s statewide

system. In Kenosha, a well developed local data system has led local officials to continue to press state

officials to adopt better performance measures. At the same time, the PIC in the Kenosha area has been

reluctant to reorganize itself under the state’s expectations of a regional workforce development board. In at

least one other site, state expectations about One-Stop partnerships have not always meshed well with

established local sites. For example, the vocational rehabilitation community has in some areas been reluctant

to participate despite mandates. This reluctance is typically based on concerns about the loss of agency

identity and infrastructure designated to serve this specific population. In addition, some partnerships are not

considered as politically or institutionally viable at the local level as they are at the state level -- this was

considered to be the case for organized labor in at least one instance.

· Local Flexibility: Most One-Stop managers expressed some concern about their freedom to experiment

and attempt innovative approaches to delivering employment services, particularly as states develop their own

systems. In most cases, local managers expressed support for federal block grant proposals for employment

systems, and noted that states would also do well to avoid imposing categorical or absolute system

requirements on the design of local One-Stops as well. In many respects, the tensions between state and

local institutions are quite similar to those between federal and state agencies, and local agencies are often

asking for the same kind of flexibility from states as the states are asking of the federal government.

· State vs. Local Service Delivery Systems: Tensions between state and local agencies seem to persist

regardless of whether the primary responsibility for administering human and employment services resides

with state agencies or is shared with local governments. For example, in Washington and Michigan, both

human services and employment services are administered by state agencies, with JTPA programs

administered at the local level via the PIC (as in most areas). For the model One-Stops examined in these

states, constructive interaction between state agency personnel at the local level has been critical to integrating

employment services, yet achieving that level of communication and coordination at the state level has proven

difficult. Some of the rigidity in fostering collaboration between these stovepipe state agencies may be due to

the range of other services they offer, such as Unemployment Insurance (UI), that may not be considered

essential to the One-Stop. However, even in Wisconsin, where UI claims are handled by phone via separate

call centers and the county government has responsibility for administering TANF and other food, child care,

and medical assistance, local flexibility in the design of One-Stop systems is still constrained by the state.

· Contracting Out: In Texas and Iowa, state workforce development agencies have continued to actively

entertain notions of contracting out for the provision of employment services at the regional or local area,

typically under the assumption that these contracts would exert competitive pressures that would improve

efficiencies and lower costs. While sufficient community capacity may exist in some urban areas to make

“competition” a viable option, most smaller metropolitan and rural areas do not have duplicative capacities. 

As a result, contracting for services typically means that many of the same people end up delivering the

services under a different organizational arrangement, such as for JTPA services in Marshalltown. In Tarrant

County, most of the workforce services are contracted out to public and nonprofit entities. In nearby Dallas,

most of these services are contracted out to private corporations. In both of these models, contracting out

does not seem to result in parallel systems that compete head-to-head, but in new organizational
14 The “inverted pyramid model” of service delivery refers to the use of technology to provide self-service

assistance to the broadest possible set of clients when they first contact or enter the agency, reserving

more individualized (and labor intensive) services for those who demonstrate a higher need for more

intensive services. This model is often contrasted with the traditional “gatekeeper” model of service

delivery, where all clients must first be assessed and then assigned to the right combination of services. 

The inverted pyramid assumes that many clients are capable of getting what they want or need on their

own, while the gatekeeper model tends to waste valuable time and resources screening the access of these

clients to the resources they seek.

97

arrangements of the existing labor supply and other local resources. It is unclear whether these alternative

organizational configurations actually result in improved service quality and/or reduced costs.

In Kenosha, where many services are contracted out to for-profit and non-profit organizations, it is useful to

note that these arrangements generally grew out of the need to find a way of delivering the desired services,

rather than from any theoretical assumptions about market forces and competition. For example, assessment

work is done by a separate firm, and adult education services are provided by a for-profit organization

formed by former staff of a larger non-profit community organization that had been running the program when

it ran into financial difficulty, necessitating termination of the contract. The community college did bid on this

service, but did not offer comparable service at a competitive price. In the case of this particular service, the

delivery of service appears to be highly efficient and effective.

Other Institutional Factors

Several other institutional factors may contribute to the success or failure of a One-Stop, including shared systems

administration, common technologies, budgeting, and differing pay scales and collective bargaining agreements.

· Shared Systems Administration: Those One-Stop models that are highly integrated have typically

developed a method of overhead charges to support shared systems, including everything from space and

janitorial services to computer and data system capital costs and maintenance. Policies on these charges are

generally worked out by the executive management team representing the major partner agencies, and

administered by the managing agency. In Kenosha, for example, the facility lease is financed by the County

through a contract with Goodwill Industries, and the physical space and administrative systems are managed

under contract by a for-profit management firm headed by the One-Stop manager. In Tarrant County, the

County owns the property and has responsibility for managing the administrative systems, with the Resource

Connection Executive Director employed by the County. It should be noted that these shared data systems

do require considerable design and training prior to effective operation in order to ensure system-wide

understanding of the codes, measures and terminology used.

· Technology: The importance of technology in the success of a One-Stop should not be underestimated. 

Easy to use, customer-friendly touch screen systems for labor market information and labor exchange

registration and use are vital to encouraging the kind of self-service anticipated in the inverted pyramid model

of service delivery.14 These technologies improve the capacity of multiple agencies to staff the resource
98

room, facilitating cross-training and staff appreciation of the broad array of resources available through

partner agencies. Where a common data system is introduced, careful attention to the level of computer

literacy in different partner agencies is necessary for training staff on the new system and getting them to use it

effectively.

· Consolidated Budgets: Of the five One-Stop models examined, only Kenosha had anything that remotely

resembled a consolidated budget statement for the activities of the One-Stop. Most sites seemed unable, or

unwilling, to prepare such a budget, which we would attribute to the lack of full integration of programs and

services. The Kenosha budget (illustrated below), suggests quite clearly that the bulk of the funding for the

activities at the Kenosha County Job Center goes to support human services, rather than employment

services. This pattern may vary from site to site, with higher numbers for employment services in those

systems where unemployment insurance claims are also processed at the One-Stop site, such as in

Marshalltown or Traverse City. Nonetheless, these funding proportions reflect the general tightness of the

labor market and the resulting emphasis on welfare-to-work rather than economic dislocation – a very

different focus for One-Stop job centers than when they were first conceived. However, the lack of

consolidated budgets illustrates the fact that in all but the most integrated systems, the partner agencies

continue to operate on a collaborative basis rather than as an integrated system.

Kenosha County Job Center - Consolidated Budget

Program Annual Budget

JOBS Program $3,728,820

Economic Support Administration $3,163,391

Child Support $1,369,936

Prevention Services $1,078,064

Food Stamp Employment and

Training

$1,050,000

Senior Aides $410,000

Wisconsin Job Service $367,000

PIC-JTPA $360,000

Fraud Prevention $332,762

United Migrant Opportunity Service $60,000

Total $11,919,973

· Multiple Collective Bargaining Units: In some of the One-Stop sites assessed, it was not uncommon for

employees to be represented under several different collective bargaining agreements, while others were

employed without representation and/or under contract. Given the overlapping design of some

responsibilities in a One-Stop system, such as the staffing of a resource room, multiple agreements and

different levels of coverage have the potential for raising several issues about roles and responsibilities in the

workplace. However, none of the managers indicated that this was an unmanageable challenge, but simply

that it was another issue that required careful negotiation and management attention. In one of the more

integrated sites, one public manager noted that he had a higher rate of grievances filed at the One-Stop than in
99

other operations, but this may be more a reflection of the diversity of the agency’s other operations than a

reflection on the One-Stop work environment.

· Wage Disparities: In the focus groups held with One-Stop staff, it became clear that for most sites there

were considerable wage disparities between different agency personnel. In some of these sites, these

differences did not appear to the staff to match differences in caseloads or the difficulty of cases. Staff

acknowledged that in some sites, these disparities caused some tensions, while in other sites, staff from

different agencies had little awareness of the disparities that did exist. In most cases where wage or workload

disparities were an issue, staff reported that they had been reasonably successful in working through the

tensions at the staff level, although in most cases there remained some level of discomfort with the realities of

these compensation differentials. This did not appear to be an issue that had been raised or addressed to any

degree at the management level.

President for the Day

In each of the focus groups, participants were encouraged to offer their suggestions for improving the welfare and

employment systems as part of the closing dialogue. Participants would ask what changes they would make if

they were appointed “President-for-the-Day” with special powers over Congress and the states. What additional

help could be provided, rules changed, or emphasis shift would make these two systems work better individually

and together? This question provided focus group participants an opportunity to talk about both what worked for

them (and hence, more is needed) and what didn’t work for them. This question provoked a number of heated

discussions, thoughtful comments, laughter, and affirmations of the One-Stop concept.

Responses reported here are grouped by the type of focus group. Surprisingly, few participants in any of the

groups called for dramatic spending increases in costly programs, major shifts in policy, or significant changes in

work requirements. Instead, participants generally offered specific, relatively modest suggestions for

improvements:

· Management: Several concerns were raised by managers that focused on two primary areas: expanding

resources and interagency coordination, primarily at the state level. Perhaps the most common concern was

to provide more support for training activities, both up-front and on-going. As one manager put it, “I’d like

to have more funding to add several specific skill training modules, and the programmatic authority to carry it

out without pushing people into the labor market with so few skills.” The lack of funding or programmatic

basis to continue education and training for those who are successful in finding work and getting off of welfare

troubled several managers. Increasing program flexibility with current funding -- especially the development

of a federal block grant for employment and training programs -- appealed to most of the participating

managers. A few felt that state agencies needed to hear the same message. Several expressed frustration

with the clash of cultures between state agencies.

· Staff: Focus groups with caseworkers, employment specialists, and other line staff within the One-Stop

systems tended to focus on the increasing difficulties of helping those who remain on TANF rolls as caseloads
100

decline. While caseloads vary from agency to agency within a given One-Stop, in most locations it was clear

that improving economies with declining caseloads, an increasing proportion of those TANF recipients still

receiving assistance are having serious difficulties securing and retaining employment. In many cases, these

families have multiple problems that case managers are unable to address in the context of the program due to

lack of resources for ongoing assistance. Some felt that more on-the-job training and work experience

opportunities were needed. Staff did note the lack of funds for intensive workshops, transportation

assistance, and follow-up (other than the JTPA 90-day tracking follow-up). At most sites, line staff felt that

too many program rules and procedures are set at the state level, sometimes requiring enforcement when it is

not in the best interests of the client and overall program objectives: “Allow local communities to establish the

outcomes to promote customer satisfaction.”

· Current Participants: The number one change that current TANF participants wanted to see in “the

system” was an effective reform of child support – they really want to see the welfare system make absent

fathers pay. In many cases, current TANF participants saw their dependence on TANF as the direct result

of the failure of the child support system. The second most pressing concern was about child care – how

much, where and when – with many participants expressing particular frustration about the lack of part time

and swing shift child care or care for children with special medical needs. Transportation problems also

ranked high on the list. Several noted the importance of “full service” assistance from case managers and

employment counselors who took extra one-on-one time to help with wardrobe, hygiene, transportation,

child care, and the other logistical challenges associated with finding and keeping a job. Assistance with what

would seem like incidental problems, especially car repair, often was seen as a personal investment that

provided additional motivation to the recipient. A few urged greater attention to transitional benefits to ensure

that clients about to make it don’t get dropped through the cracks. Although none of the participants

expressed a specific desire to see changes in the work requirements, some noted concerns about exhausting

benefits, while others were concerned with work requirements for pregnant women, given employer’s

reluctance to hire them. Several stated that they wanted to see a benefit cut-off for “system abusers,” but had

few specific suggestions for making such a cut-off operational. These opinions seemed to reflect a concern

about stigmatizing public assistance and to some degree, a certain intolerance or lack of appreciation of

others’ circumstances. In a few cases, participants voiced frustration at being expected to “take a job, any

job” rather than being allowed more time to develop skills and look for a more desirable job in terms of skill,

potential, and wages.

· Former Participants: Views of former participants echoed those of the current participants in many

respects. Many current participants and most former participants found the work requirements distasteful at

first, but after getting into it, they were frequently quite grateful for “the push.” More than one noted that the

work requirement was “...the best thing that ever happened to me, I am so much happier now...” A few

suggested that non-custodial parents be given the same work requirements and employment services. Some

felt that lower caseload rates would help provide the one-on-one assistance they found most important. 

Others noted that it would be helpful to have a little more flexibility on work hours and give counselors more

discretion (rather than have them exercise it without the authority). Most former participants said that in order

for them to continue pursuing education and training now that they are working, it would require One-Stops

and training programs to be available at night, with child care, in order for them to surmount the logistics. 

Many of these workers are single parents, who need to spend time with their children, and have to worry
101

about the logistics of dinner and homework, not to mention having the energy level to try and upgrade their

skills at the same time. As a result, very few former participants had continued their skill development after

leaving the program (outside of work), and most sites had very few resources to assist them. Some

comments focused on employers and the need for more jobs at higher wages, including increasing the

minimum wage. These comments generally support the need to connect these workers with jobs and/or

employers that can offer them a career ladder of wage progression that is attached to training they receive on

the job, rather than separate, stand-along programs.

· Employers: Employers who actively hire from the One-Stop labor pool were pretty clear about what they

thought would work. First, most wanted a single point of contact with employment related agencies where

they could post an opening. Employers in some sites were quite satisfied that they were receiving this service,

while others reported posting job listings with as many as six different public agencies or schools. Second,

most were quite willing to train new hires if they were job ready and reasonably motivated – most said they

were not looking for subsidies, just reliable workers, although a few argued for incentives. Many expressed

concerns about basic job readiness, i.e., familiarity with the work environment and work ethic, and a few

wanted improved screening of participants for substance abuse problems prior to referral. Many expressed

satisfaction with the programs and the hires they had made, and a few (typically nursing facilities and sheltered

workshops) were actively collaborating with One-Stop partners to link training and employment opportunities

for TANF recipients. In one location, employers suggested a performance driven federal block grant

available at the local level. In general, employers were well aware of the shortcomings of the child care

system -- a few large employers are trying to address this on an in-house, contractual basis, but most felt that

the demand for their products and services did not support higher wages or benefits.
102

Chapter 3: Challenges in Reaching the Welfare Population

Not all One-Stop clients have the same abilities or employment needs, and by design, not all clients will receive

the same services. The intent of the inverted pyramid model of One-Stop service delivery is to provide multiple

points of access to a variety of services, beginning with easily accessed self-service opportunities and culminating

with intensive, one-on-one services for clients with the greatest needs.

Many of the early One-Stop models were initially designed to assist dislocated workers re-tool their skills and

careers, helping them help themselves and opening opportunities for lifelong learning as they adjust their skills to

changes in the economy. However, a robust economic recovery has eagerly absorbed much of this experienced

labor pool, often transforming One-Stop centers into employer recruitment centers rather than career make-over

centers. In this context, the self-service job matching and education, training, and career planning systems in most

of the model One-Stops have proven to be more than adequate to service the experienced labor force.

With the advent of welfare reforms at the federal and state level, One-Stop systems have been thrust into the

somewhat different role of helping individuals with relatively few skills and little work experience enter the labor

force. This has brought a whole new set of partners, funding sources, and clients to the One-Stop concept. 

Under this new mandate, it is important to ask which of the One-Stop’s customer groups are being well served –

and whether any of these customer groups are being underserved by the different models examined. While this is

not an attempt to evaluate individual One-Stop systems, it is intended to recognize that One-Stop clients in

general, and TANF recipients in particular, are not homogeneous groups, but rather have diverse abilities and

needs that may or may not be well-served by different service delivery models.

This chapter examines the issues of access, services, and follow-up in the One-Stop models – what happens at

the front end, the middle, and the end. This assessment is then placed in the evolutionary context of One-Stop

systems by asking what might happen to these designs in the event of the next economic recession.

Engaging the One-Stop System

There are several points at which TANF recipients may have difficulty in gaining access to the employment and

training services provided by One-Stop systems. First is the challenge of getting TANF recipients through the

door, given that some are reluctant to participate on their own. Second, there may be issues of location and

logistics affected by system design. And finally, there are issues of retention and follow-through with this

population.

· Work Requirements Matter: One thing that became very clear to us in focus groups with current and

former participants was that many would simply not have come to the One-Stop without some mandatory

work or participation requirement. Equally clear from these meetings is the fact that once most recipients
15 PROMISE JOBS participants who do not meet the work requirements of the Family Investment Agreement

are placed on the Limited Benefit Plan. The LBP provides three months of reduced benefits, followed by 12

months of no cash benefits for the entire family, although non-cash assistance such as Food Stamps and

Medicaid continue. At the end of the six-month period, recipients can reapply for benefits, but must

comply with their Family Investment Agreement. No reconsideration is given for subsequent failure to

comply.

16 Thomas Fraker, Lucia Nixon, Jan Losby, Carol Prindle, and John Else, Iowa’s Limited Benefit Plan,

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 1997, p. 26. Note that these data are for Iowa as a whole, and not

the Marshalltown service area.

103

have become fully engaged in work search activities, they are glad they came and many wished they’d come

earlier. Frequently, the issue is not a reluctance to work, but a lack of self-esteem or lack of self-confidence

in their ability to juggle family and work challenges. Job readiness programs and a warm, encouraging

environment that breaks the challenges down into discreet, achievable goals and opens doors to new

opportunities seem to overcome this initial trepidation.

In Tarrant County, the lack of tight work requirements (64.5 percent of TANF recipients are exempt from

state work requirements) is compounded by the fact that benefit levels are very low, suggesting that those

who continue to remain on the welfare rolls have very little in the way of skills or work experience. Not

surprisingly, our focus group discussions indicate that those TANF recipients with the least skills or

experience are also the most reluctant to participate in work search, making it doubly difficult to get this

segment of the TANF population to actively engage One-Stop services. This was evident in discussions with

management and staff about client flow through the Resource Center and local participation rates.

This is not to say that as a group, TANF recipients are reluctant to work. Probably at least a third of the

current and former TANF participants in our focus groups indicated that they had sought or would have

sought One-Stop services without requirement or prodding. Additional TANF participants told stories of

seeking out employment assistance once they had stabilized their personal and family circumstances, without

being forced to do so. Several spoke of earlier, unsuccessful work or work search experiences. 

Nonetheless, a significant portion were clear about appreciating a “kick in the butt,” as one participant put it.

· Falling Through the Cracks: The fall-off between initial registration for TANF benefits and participation in

a JOBS or One-Stop work-search activities can be quite considerable. In Iowa, those PROMISE JOBS

participants who fail to comply with work requirements have their benefits restricted are placed on the

Limited Benefits Plan (LPB).15 Over 30 percent of those placed on LBP failed to even make an appointment

for orientation to work-search activities, and 58 percent failed to keep their orientation appointment16 --

suggesting that most of the sanctions for failing to comply with work requirements occur at the very beginning

of the process. In Kenosha, managers estimate that fully 50 percent of initial WorkFirst registrants were

dropping out before entering or completing the orientation process, but like Iowa, the dropout rate declined

dramatically following completion of the orientation sessions.

What happens to those who fall between the cracks? In Kenosha, anecdotal information suggests that many

find employment on their own, with a small increase in homelessness and doubling-up of families. Many of
17 Ibid., pp. 32-39.

18 Smart cards provide clients with a single identification card that carries with it most of their basic

information (coded on the magnetic strip) to use with several different agencies. Michigan experienced

some start-up difficulties in connection with their attempt to implement this concept.

104

those that drop out but are unsuccessful end up re-registering – only 10 percent to 20 percent of the

registrants are new to the system, about one-quarter are persons who have been through the program before,

and most of the rest are repeaters who didn’t make it through orientation the first time. In Iowa, just over half

of those placed on LBP decide to participate in the program and have their benefits restored (before losing

them entirely), and nearly two-thirds of those who don’t decide to participate drop out of the LBP early as

well – this latter group tends to be slightly older and better educated, suggesting better employment

prospects.17

The dramatic fall-off of TANF applicants between registration and orientation to One-Stop services is not

encouraging. However, given that this fall-off occurs almost regardless of whether the welfare office is colocated with the One-Stop suggests that many TANF applicants are either intimidated or turned-off by the

work requirements: this fall-off does not appear to be related to confusion over where to turn for help or

how to find the One-Stop office. For those TANF applicants with such low self-esteem that work search is

intimidating, this pattern suggests that more outreach may be necessary to engage them in One-Stop services. 

However, none of the One-Stop sites seemed to have sufficient resources to permit this kind of outreach, and

referrals to other agencies for mental health services seemed to be problematic at best.

· Transportation and Network Factors: One of the serious challenges to full access to One-Stop services

for TANF clients are transportation problems. In virtually every site visited, current TANF participants

raised transportation as a serious problem. Access to the One-Stop (Marshalltown and Tarrant County), to

training (Kenosha’s community college is not co-located, and is not close), and to work (Traverse City) are

impeded either by long commutes or poor public transit services, or both. As noted in Chapter Two,

transportation problems are often related to the location of affordable housing. In addition, in pre-reform

years, most of the states had fairly strict rules about the value of any vehicles a family could own and still be

eligible for AFDC. For example, in Washington State, AFDC recipients could not own a car worth more

than $1,500 – making it difficult for a family to maintain a reliable, non-public source of transportation to

work. While some of these rules have changed with welfare reform (Washington raised its limit to $5,000),

this issue continues to remain very important for working One-Stops with low-income clients.

One possible approach to this problem, at least for access to One-Stop services, would be to provide

computer-based communication networks for One-Stop clients. These connections could be provided either

through personal computers or via the facilities of partners with multiple locations, such as schools, libraries,

and other public agencies. While some of the job-matching services are currently available in this manner at

some of the sites (including the use of kiosks), we did not encounter much discussion of this approach to

providing services to TANF clientele (beyond Michigan’s experience with “smart cards”).18 Given the

current evolutionary status of shared data systems, it is understandable that this kind of approach may be

contemplated, but simply has not yet been developed. Alternatively, both clients and service providers may

be concerned about the lack of confidentiality of some electronic communications such as e-mail.
105

Improving Service Integration vs. Service Reduction

The efficiencies created as employment services are integrated are creating concerns among front line staff about

potential staff reductions, particularly as TANF caseloads decline. Long term funding plans in at least one state

visited suggest that this concern is not unfounded, raising several important questions about the purpose and

design of service integration.

One of the key factors helping to propel federally funded employment agencies toward One-Stop models is the

long term decline in funding for these services. During the last two decades, federal funding for many of the basic

job matching services has remained roughly constant in nominal terms, creating a significant decline in terms of the

purchasing power of these resources. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult for states to continue to

provide employment services in a staff intensive manner where employment counselors meet and work

individually with job seekers. By moving to a One-Stop model, the intent is to use new, electronic or computer

technologies to provide wider access to a broad spectrum of employment services on a self-serve basis, and

target more intensive, one-on-one assistance for those relatively few clients with more complex needs.

In essence, this approach, often referred to as the “inverted pyramid” model, is intended to reallocate scarce

resources to improve service to job seekers and employers. In many cases, both of these customer groups are

capable of gaining more access to more information and services under a self-serve model than under the

traditional gate-keeper model of employment agencies. Job-seekers can access computerized data bases at the

One-Stop or from off-site and post their own resume and conduct their own job search, while employers can

post their job listings and do key-word searches to recruit employees through posted resumes. Jointly staffed,

self-service resources at the One-Stop should also free up staff time to provide more in-depth assistance to high

need clients, such as long term TANF beneficiaries with few labor market skills or start-up businesses. While

these benefits were affirmed by the One-Stop models examined, several focus groups also raised questions about

whether the One-Stop model under current welfare reforms and work requirements tends to “invert the pyramid

and cut off the bottom.”

In particular, some of the One-Stop staff and current participant groups were concerned that the resources

derived from efficiencies on the self-service end of the pyramid may not be reallocated to helping families with

multiple problems. Instead, they fear that these efficiencies may be used to justify a slowdown in budget

increases (less than inflation) or staff reductions for the primary partners, while poorly prepared parents are being

pushed into the labor market with insufficient preparation. This is of particular concern for clients without a high

school education, little or no work experience, and substance abuse or physical or mental health problems.

It was our sense in talking with managers, staff, and clients, that those TANF clients best served by

the One-Stop model tend to be persons who are capable of meeting their needs through self-service, or

would benefit from adult education, life skills training, job search workshops, and general motivational

counseling. The groups that may not fare as well are those with substance abuse or physical or mental health

problems, in part because One-Stop services do not appear to be well equipped for identifying these problems
19 One group of clients that have particular difficulty in achieving self-sufficiency are those with several

children, given the income needs of the family. A few clients in our focus groups had four or five children,

which tends to raise their target wage.

20 Note that Kenosha also reports only 23 percent recidivism rate for JOBS program completers. These two

measures are not necessarily inconsistent – many of the welfare referrals may be for welfare applicants who

never fully engaged in the JOBS program, but dropped out prior to completion of the orientation and

motivation component.

106

and working with them. Several case managers argued that while these clients may certainly be employable, they

may not be able to stay employed for long periods of time or find employment that will lead to self-sufficiency.19

Further, it is unclear whether their referral networks are strong enough to ensure that clients with these difficulties

are served well by the entire system – that they are not simply “handed off” and thus disconnected from whatever

benefits they might derive from employment related services.

The challenge of serving clients with multiple problems is becoming greater for One-Stops in areas where TANF

caseloads have declined the most. In most of the locations visited, between 20 percent and 30 percent of TANF

clients are “high needs” cases that require one-on-one assistance. Typically these are clients who are much less

likely to make a successful transition to self-sufficiency (“who will never get off,” according to one caseworker),

and who also require significantly more staff resources than the typical TANF client who is searching for

employment. As TANF caseloads decline dramatically, these more difficult, resource-intensive cases will

account for a higher percentage of the total caseload. This was noted in Marshalltown, where the statewide

number of PROMISE JOBS cases has declined from 40,000 to 28,000 in recent years. A similar pattern was

emphasized in Kenosha, where the number of welfare cases has fallen by two-thirds, but staff estimate that only

20 percent of the current welfare referrals to employment services are new to the welfare system.20

Despite the dramatic declines in the number of TANF cases in places like Iowa and Wisconsin, caseloads do not

seem to have declined for other services such as Food Stamps, child care, or medical assistance. Nowhere is

this pattern more apparent than in Wisconsin, where food, child care, and health care assistance have been “delinked” to welfare eligibility. State spending on these assistance programs has actually risen, and at the same time,

the administration of these cases has become more complex as economic support specialists must now assess

family needs for these services based on independent sets of qualifying criteria. Nonetheless, state policy makers

in Wisconsin have indicated their expectation that staff resources can be reduced in the future due to declines in

welfare caseloads.

This pattern is clearly unsettling to many caseworkers, and certainly raises questions about how much depth of

service One-Stops are expected to provide for clients with high needs. It also calls into question whether the

objective of work requirements is to simply lower TANF caseloads by moving clients into low-wage jobs or to

provide sufficient and in some cases long term economic support for working parents to gain the experience and

skills to become self-sufficient.

Follow-Up and Lifelong Learning Goals
21 This is undoubtedly due in part to the methodology for drawing the completer focus groups. Although

One-Stop managers were asked to invite a cross-section of former clients representing a variety of

experiences and views, in reality, several of the former participants that actually showed up were likely

those who had tended to remain in contact with One-Stop staff.

107

The difficulties with repeat referrals and job retention raise several important questions about the efficacy of

follow-up contacts to One-Stop drop outs and program completers. Most of the One-Stop systems visited were

well accustomed to conducting follow-up surveys for JOBS clients, typically at 90-days or in some cases, four

months following exit from the program. However, few indicated that they conducted any systematic follow-ups

to offer services for continuing training/education or counseling on job conflicts and job retention.

In many respects, it is probably appropriate that One-Stop staff not be too aggressive in pursuing welfare

applicants or recipients who have been referred for employment services but fail to show up or drop out. Some

of these people will undoubtedly find employment on their own, while others may simply prefer to not receive

welfare payments, or prefer a short term, reduced payment, rather than engage in welfare-to-work programs. In

all of these instances, the referred client is exercising choice in a manner that may effectively screen out those

welfare referrals who lack the motivation to engage and complete the programs offered at the One-Stop. 

However, there may be some referred clients who face logistical hurdles, or who have significant, compounding

problems that either emerged recently or were not picked up in the initial assessment by the welfare agency. 

While none of the sites identified any useful mechanisms for being alert to these possibilities, the development of

some sort of strategy for improving early engagement could prove to be valuable, both for the clients but also for

the efficient allocation of One-Stop staff resources. Our sense is that for most TANF clients that make it through

the initial orientation period, One-Stop staff typically have the opportunity to try and address these issues before

the clients drop out.

Some sort of triage strategy in following up with program completers may also valuable. Some of the staff in

Tarrant County indicated that they do some follow-up work with completers, but didn’t relate any particular

organized approach. At most sites, much of the follow-up contact with program completers seemed to occur

either through recidivism or through personal friendships developed between clients and staff during the One-Stop

experience. This latter contact seemed to be somewhat more prevalent in the rural areas, but was frequently

mentioned in focus groups with program completers.21 Clearly, some follow-up contacts targeted to clients most

likely to have difficulty retaining employment might be aimed at dealing with job conflicts and other home/work

logistical issues that would improve employment retention. For the most part, this kind of follow-up is not

practiced due to the limitations of time and resources, and it does not appear that any of the sites have done any

systematic analysis that would allow them to target those clients most likely to have difficulty retaining

employment.

As noted earlier, former participants were very clear about the changes necessary for most One-Stop systems in

order to be useful in expanding education and training opportunities to help former welfare recipients move

beyond entry-level work and wages. Evening and weekend hours and child care during these times were

perhaps the most important ingredients in promoting lifelong learning for these clients. In most respects, these

needs are likely to be quite similar to the needs of other mainstream, working families that seek to boost their

careers and standards of living. If One-Stop systems are to truly become “career centers,” they will need to
108

redesign their services to more closely match the needs of their customers, including those who are currently

working. Only through this kind of redesign will One-Stops be able to fully address the lifelong education and

training aspects of the One-Stop concept.

What Happens When the Economy Goes Bust?

The shift in focus from economic dislocation to welfare-to-work has been a major transformation in the One-Stop

concept, resulting in part from the general improvement in the national economy. No longer are the One-Stops

that we examined inundated with experienced workers looking to retool their skills to find high wage employment. 

True, many of these systems continue to assist experienced workers in this process, but most have turned the

focus of their organizations and resources onto the task of moving welfare clients into long term employment. But

what happens when the business cycle inevitably turns down, employers stop hiring, and the surge of

unemployment, even among experienced workers, floods the One-Stop system? Will the focus of One-Stop

systems shift back to experienced workers, or will increasing TANF rolls provoke an even greater frenzy of

welfare-to-work services, even if the prospects for employment have declined?

In terms of the sheer volume of client flows, it is entirely possible that many One-Stops will be able to serve much

greater numbers of experienced job seekers than before via easier access to self-service job search tools. In

many cases, the services provided to the cyclically unemployed clientele may have actually improved since the last

recession, due to better access to labor market information and computerized job search systems. However, one

area of potential conflict is in the use of on-site facilities, such as the One-Stop’s resource room and computers

and other office equipment made available to all job seekers. A significant influx of cyclically unemployed but

more experienced workers could tend to displace those seeking to move from welfare to work, or vice versa. 

For example, many job clubs for welfare recipients use the resource room for resume preparation and job search

activities. Under high demand, it may become necessary to schedule these limited facilities for such designated

uses, limiting the access of other job seekers.

Unfortunately, as the ranks of the unemployed grow in a recession, the TANF rolls are also likely to increase as

TANF recipients find fewer employment opportunities. If the recession lasts too long, more and more families

may exhaust their unemployment benefits without finding employment, forcing them to rely on TANF assistance. 

These circumstances will place much greater stresses on the staff intensive activities of One-Stop systems,

especially those intended to provide one-on-one or small group job counseling for TANF recipients.

In the past, increases in TANF caseloads have been matched with increases in federal funds, however, now that

TANF is no longer a federal entitlement these federal dollars are not likely to be forthcoming in the event of a

recession. In fact, state revenues typically fall during a recession, creating fierce competition between education,

transportation, corrections and other established state services for these limited funds – and any tax increases a

state legislature is bold enough to propose. In this context, it is highly unlikely that many states or local

governments will raise funding to address the needs of higher TANF caseloads. The lack of funding and

increasing TANF caseloads will cause severe financial and caseload strains for most One-Stop systems during

the next recession – very possibly creating the circumstances for yet another set of “welfare reforms” by states. 
109

To the extent that these “reforms” are driven by an inhospitable labor market and fiscal necessity, the quality of

One-Stop services for TANF clients is likely to suffer.

Thus, when the next (inevitable) recession occurs, the factor that may have the greatest impact on the design,

funding, and function of One-Stop systems may have more to do with the rate of growth in TANF caseloads than

with the unemployment rate and the numbers of cyclically unemployed job seekers.
22 James L. McIntire, Marsha D. Brown, and Jan Nordlund, Minimum Wage Study: The Impacts of the

Minimum Wage Initiative in Washington State, Institute for Public Policy and Management, University of

Washington, January 1991.

23 James L. McIntire, “The Employer’s Decision to Train Low-Wage Workers,” unpublished dissertation,

Department of Economics, University of Washington, 1993.

24 Ibid.

110

Chapter 4: Occupations and Employers

Preparing welfare recipients for the world of work is a challenging task in One-Stop systems beset with current or

potential reductions in education and training funds. However, One-Stop staff have developed a number of

effective ways of helping these job seekers set and achieve realistic employment goals. Employers, too, have

helped to create employment and training opportunities, while at the same time they have learned to structure their

work environments to contend with the realities of the typically low-skilled workforce seeking to move from

welfare to work.

Reduced Education, Training, and Screening

All of the One-Stop sites visited are in states that are undergoing either a first or second generation set of welfare

reforms that tend to de-emphasize education and training programs and instead, focus on immediate job search

and other work experience or work search activities. In most cases, this shift dramatically limits the occupational

options facing many TANF recipients as they face the job market. No longer may they have the luxury of

contemplating occupational choices that entail a community college or bachelors’ degree, and in many places

even a community or technical college training certificate program may be unavailable. Instead, these options are

now reserved for workers to pursue (generally with their own resources on their own time) after they have found

employment. As a result, TANF recipients seeking employment are often limited to a set of employers who offer

entry-level employment at relatively low wages.

The bulk of the low-wage employment in today’s economy is concentrated in relatively few firms, typically in the

service and retail sectors.22 Many of these employers hire large numbers of low-wage workers but offer few

opportunities for upward mobility in terms of skill acquisition or wages; this is due largely to the occupational

structure of the firms and industries offering low-wage employment.23 In most cases, these employers are willing

to provide new hires with the minimal training necessary to perform low-skill tasks, but most of these skills are

job or firm specific and are not easily transferred to the rest of the labor market.24 Most, though not all, of the

employers represented in our focus groups confirmed this profile, suggesting that in most local areas, there are

likely to be no more than a few dozen key employers of low-skill workers. It is important to note, however, that

the lack of advancement opportunity in most low-wage employment is not the fault of the employer. To move up

the wage scale, most low-wage workers will need to change employers, and possibly industries, in order to find

employers whose firms offer the opportunity for real wage and skill progression.
111

Part of the redesign of employment services under the One-Stop concept has been to eliminate the laborious,

one-on-one intake of job seeker interviews with job counselors that were seen as a key component of screening

and referring applicants to employers. While these methods are still used in some One-Stop systems, they are

also augmented with self-service listings of job openings and applicants that allow job seekers and employers to

self-screen each other. Some One-Stop managers and staff noted that they have found job seekers to be

somewhat more severe in judging their skills in this process, which further limits their employment options. On the

other hand, employers of TANF recipients frequently expressed their desire for more and better screening of

referrals by One-Stop systems, although for the most part, their interests in screening focused more on screening

for job readiness and substance abuse problems than for skill levels. According to most employment services

personnel, this is not an uncommon complaint by employers, who are often under the impression that state

employment service centers have the resources to conduct in-depth testing and screening for all referrals, which is

clearly not the case. Screening for things like motivation and substance abuse are simply not possible under a

self-service system.

Lower levels of education, training, and screening – combined with the tighter labor market – have led employers

to become increasingly familiar with challenges and opportunities of working with the welfare-to-work population. 

These trends have also raised the importance of providing welfare recipients who are looking for work with a

realistic understanding of the local labor market.

Managing Career Expectations

It is a delicate balance that One-Stop staff must strike between motivating TANF recipients toward job search

and long-term employment goals while at the same time giving them a realistic appreciation of what to expect in

their first job. Typically, this process begins with some form of motivational exercises designed to help

participants set some long term goals for themselves – to articulate what it is they want to achieve for themselves

and their families. The second step is to help participants begin to understand what it might take to achieve these

goals.

As part of this second step, One-Stop staff will typically use local labor market information to help develop

realistic expectations about current employment opportunities and career ladders. This process also helps

acquaint participants with the self-service resources available through the One-Stop, giving them assistance in

learning to use a variety of computer and written resource materials. Touch screen systems, such as that used in

Kenosha, are particularly useful in helping even the most computer-phobic participants gain access to electronic

data systems. Because these systems use recognizable maps, visual graphics, and immediately useful information,

they are particularly effective in drawing participants into the exploration of the local labor market. With this

experience as a base, introducing participants to America’s Job Bank and other resources via the Internet is only

a few steps away.

As noted in Chapter 3, the on-going education and training linkage between the first job and the desired career

track may be the weakest part of most One-Stop systems for TANF recipients. Focus groups with former

participants made it clear that once they found their first job, the difficulties of juggling family and work life made it
112

difficult to pursue their initial goals without continued support and assistance. Nonetheless, this process opens up

a whole new world of resources for these clients as they struggle with their careers and future employment

challenges. Just the process of learning to use these tools frequently provides a boost in self-confidence as job

seekers gain a greater sense of control in understanding the labor market that they are trying to enter.

Valuing Work Experience

One important tool in helping TANF recipients with little or no work experience move from welfare-to-work is

community work experience. In most of the sites reviewed, TANF participants were placed in community work

experience positions as a condition for continuing to receive cash assistance if they were unable to find actual

employment. In some cases, private employers received a wage subsidy for employing participants. Current and

former participants were almost completely unanimous in their praise of work experience employment as an

opportunity to develop workplace skills and build their resume and references. And generally, employers were

also quite pleased with their experiences in hiring TANF recipients under a work experience program. Several of

these employers reported finding opportunities of hiring these workers on their permanent payroll.

Employer reactions to work experience often reflected the way in which the employer treated the worker. 

Several employers, both public and private, reported hiring work experience workers on a permanent basis, often

noting the loyalty and sense of responsibility these workers brought to their jobs. Others emphasized their

approach of treating work experience workers the same as all other employees, not hesitating to offer

constructive criticism or praise where warranted. Most of these employers were quite pleased with their

experience, and indicated a willingness to have more work experience employees. However, some employers,

typically nonprofit or public agencies, seemed to be less sure of how to treat work experience workers, assigning

them occasionally to make-work or remedial tasks. One public agency employer described a worker who

“spent too much time on the phone trying to organize her personal life, like trying to arrange doctor appointments

for her sick child,” only to be chastised by other private sector employers for being too rigid. In general,

employers that held work experience workers to the same standards as their other employees tended to report

the greatest satisfaction.

 

Typical Occupations

Given the distribution of low-skill, entry-level jobs in today’s economy and the narrow scope of education and

training funding under most state welfare reforms, it appears that many of the One-Stop welfare-to-work

programs tend to place their clients in a fairly limited set of typical occupations. In some cases, these

occupational paths are emphasized by design through specific training and employment agreements with large

employers. The following list is based on the occupations listed by employers as well as current and former

program participants:

· Certified Nurse Assistant: By far the most prevalent occupation we encountered in our focus groups was

that of Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA), or in some cases, other health care services. In both Marshalltown
113

and Bellingham, the One-Stop had a formal arrangement with large, local health care providers to offer

specific training courses at the local community or technical college that would prepare workers for providing

basic personal care services for hospital and nursing home patients.

· Clerical Support: At most sites, focus group participants indicated that they had employment in clerical

support positions, frequently in partner agencies, both public and non-profit. In several cases, these workers

had been placed in these positions as work experience slots and were later brought on as permanent

employees.

· Sorting and Packaging: Several of the employers, and some of the current participants, identified sorting

and packaging employment activities in a variety of light manufacturing settings. These jobs typically involve a

modest level of job-specific skill provided by the employer after the hire.

· Light Manufacturing: A few light manufacturing employers reported positive experience in hiring former

TANF workers. Generally these were persons with at least a high school education and some work

experience.

· Retail Trade: A couple of former participants had found placement in retail establishments – some in

Goodwill Industries type sheltered work environments, and others in stores like Wal-Mart. One store

manager had promoted several hires from One-Stop welfare-to-work programs, noting a slightly stronger

sense of loyalty and work ethic.

· Cleaning, Landscaping, Etc.: A few, generally male, former participants had started their own cleaning or

landscaping businesses, and one current participant was training to launch an appliance repair business. Most

of these workers also had at least a high school education and previous work experience. Generally these

individuals were more self-motivated – none of the One-Stop models that we reviewed had programs

designed specifically to foster this kind of self-employment – most saw this kind of option as something that

would work for only a limited portion of TANF participants.

One employer that was present in at least three of the locations was Manpower, Inc. As a temporary

employment agency, Manpower can often offer One-Stop clients a useful point of access to employment

opportunities, and they frequently share their listings with the One-Stop employment services. However, they

also tend to do more job readiness and skill screening than the One-Stop, and not all welfare-to-work clients

may be deemed “job ready” by their standards.

Not all One-Stop clients moving from welfare to work move into low-skilled employment. For example, in

Marshalltown, a few who have been able to combine Pell grants and JTPA assistance for child care and

transportation have been able to complete two-year degree programs. One older parent was able to secure

computer training and a position using computer-assisted design technology.
114

Employer Views on Job Readiness and Employee Retention

Focus group discussions with employers brought out several candid and insightful comments that suggest a

remarkably thorough understanding of the low-skill, low-wage labor force. Employers not only shared their

views on the services provided by the One-Stop systems, but also some of their insights on screening job

applicants and improving employee retention in tight labor markets. These insights include:

· Employment Screening: While some employers conduct initial interviews at the One-Stop facility, a couple

of employers noted that they have found it very useful to have job applicants visit the work site before hiring

them. Their argument is that they want to ensure a good match between the work and the employee, and the

employee needs to see and experience the work environment before feeling comfortable with the job. For

example, some low-wage positions have smells, noise or security systems that are discomforting enough to

affect turnover rates if employers aren’t careful about these issues. Prospective hires also need to be familiar

with how to get there – including any mass transit or other commuting issues.

· Job Readiness: In some locations, the local labor market was so tight that some employers indicated a

willingness to hire anyone that would show up to work everyday, regardless of skill level. Work ethic issues

seemed to vary by location. For example, in Traverse City, one human resources manager noted that he had

worked in several regions in the country and had never found a labor force more ready and eager to work. 

Another business owner in Bellingham reported just the opposite, citing repeated instances of employees not

reporting to work and not bothering to call to say they couldn’t, or wouldn’t be coming to work. Most

employers emphasized their willingness to train workers for entry level work, but cautioned that One-Stop

programs must push hard to ensure that persons referred to them should be familiar enough with basic work

rules regarding substance abuse, punctuality, dress, and appropriate behavior.

· Employee Retention: Generally the message from employers on attracting and retaining employees in a

tight market was to treat them with respect, to let them know they are valued, and to be flexible within clear

limits. One employer said that if an employee’s car was in the shop or the employee had to get themselves or

a child to a doctor’s appointment during the work day, the employer had an agreement with a cab company

to provide a cab ride at the company’s expense. She said it didn’t cost much, relative to lost work days, and

it really made and impression on employees – not to mention a big reduction in stories about failed auto

transportation. Several employers expressed concern about child care, some of whom had taken steps to

provide or subsidize child care. One employer argued that his flexible work schedule allowed him to poach

employees from his competitor at lower wages, while another employer with a rigid, 10-hour a day, 4-day a

week work schedule reported extreme difficulties with turnover among young parents. 

· Know Your Labor Force: Several employers noted that it is important to gauge the trade-off between

fringe benefits and wages according to the characteristics of your desired labor force. Some employers

voiced frustration with employees who would leave a job with health and pension benefits for another job

with only a slightly higher wage rate. However, most of these footloose employees were younger, with

relatively little appreciation of the value of the benefits offered.
115

Employer Outreach and Involvement

Some of the One-Stop sites have a long and close relationship with the employers in their communities, based on

their services to the “mainstream” labor market, while others are just beginning their employer outreach efforts. 

Economic development services have been incorporated in some One-Stop systems. However, in general, few

sites have spent much time developing an advisory group of employers interested and concerned with facilitating

the transition from welfare to work.

Most of the connections between One-Stops and employers revolved around serving the skilled and semi-skilled

labor markets. For example, the Kenosha County Job Center sends representatives to Japan (compliments of

the US Department of Defense) to recruit exiting military personnel with skills that would be attractive to local

employers. In Traverse City, local employers have actively helped structure the programs and physical space at

the One-Stop in order to handle the flow of UI claims along with JTPA and welfare-to-work clients. Employers

were quite adamant about the need to coordinate employment services among several agencies, preferring to

have one phone number, or website, where they could list an opening and thus get access to several sites within

the employment network. Most employers track these patterns well, and resent having to contact several public

agencies such as schools and colleges to list the same opening.

A few sites have incorporated economic development services into their One-Stop systems. In Marshalltown,

the community college has the authority under state law to issue bonds that can be used to finance training for

employment expansions, dedicating the revenues from the resulting wage growth in the area to retire the bonds. 

In Traverse City, local economic development councils are active members of the One-Stop partnership. While

many retail and service employers tend to view economic development as a boon that boosts the demand for

their goods and services, not all employers welcome economic development efforts, due to their impact on the

local wages and the resulting competition for skilled employees. Nonetheless, those programs that emphasize

training as an integral part of economic development activities appear to be best received by the employers in the

focus groups.

Some sites were just beginning their efforts at systematic employer outreach, even though several maintain an

account executive approach to employer relations with their regular customers, i.e., maintaining one point of

contact for all services provided via the One-Stop. In Waukesha County, a sister One-Stop model to Kenosha

County in Wisconsin, a computerized data base is used by multiple partners for employer outreach, combining

summary information about the firm with an historical record of contacts and notes from the different agencies and

individuals that have worked with the firm. Out of 11,000 employers in Waukesha County, roughly 1,000

employers are regular clients. However, this data base – and the employer wage and tax records maintained by

the state – have not yet been used to develop a strategic outreach plan to reach key employers.
116

Chapter 5: Links to Other Policy Initiatives

Welfare-to-work activities are just one of the policy initiatives around which One-Stop systems are organized. 

Other initiatives based in the U.S. Department of Labor are also driving the move toward One-Stop systems. These

include the move to Unemployment Insurance (UI) call centers for processing all UI claims and the school-to-work

transition initiative. The connections between One-Stop systems and community colleges are also important in the

national move to boost access to these educational opportunities via tuition subsidies. And finally, the status and

availability of economic assistance for working families – for child care, food, health, and housing – may prove to be

an important factor in determining the efficacy of One-Stop systems in helping these families become self-sufficient.

Unemployment Insurance Call Centers

State employment services agencies have been undergoing significant redesign in response to changes in

technology, customer demands, and the declining purchasing power of federal aid to support these services. One of

the critical elements in this transformation has been the shift of many states to the use of call centers for the filing

and processing of UI claims, eliminating the need for numerous local unemployment offices. For example, in

Wisconsin, 54 local UI offices were consolidated into two call centers, one in Milwaukee and one in Madison.

The rationale for this redesign was to create greater efficiencies for both the employment agency and its customers. 

UI call centers in Wisconsin have reduced space requirements and building maintenance by 50 percent, and have

incorporated an automatic profiling process for immediate referral of long-term dislocated workers to employment

services. Wisconsin estimates that this move reduced their staffing requirements by 25 percent, saving roughly $1

million annually in administrative costs. In addition, they estimate that customers realize as much as $11 million in

benefits through the elimination of long drives to local offices, parking, standing in lines, child care, and service

response time. 

The move to call centers has a significant impact on the design of the employment service delivery system at the

local level. Without the overhead support of local UI workers, many local Job Service centers have been financially

compelled to relocate and/or collaborate with other partners in the same space. This financial pressure is one of the

most compelling factors driving the development of One-Stop employment service systems. In Kenosha, no UI

claims are processed or serviced at the Kenosha County Job Center and all employment services are provided

under contract. Most of Kenosha’s employment specialists were quite clear that without the collaborative efforts of

their partners, they would not have the resources to staff their resource room and provide job search and placement

counseling for their welfare and other clients. Thus, the move to UI call centers has made the development of OneStop systems a necessity if employment services are going to continue to be made available.

The net effect of these linked policy initiatives on employment services does not necessarily have to be negative. 

Again, in Wisconsin, which combined these efforts with the implementation of JobNet, its computer-based

touchscreen employment exchange system, reports significant improvements in job referrals and employment rates

for registered job seekers.

Not all states are moving toward these complementary systems at the same rate. For example, in Michigan, initial

claims were still handled in person by the Michigan Employment Service Agency (MESA) at the One-Stop office,

but all subsequent claims contacts were handled by phone. However, not long after our site visit, Governor Engler
117

announced his intent to abolish MESA, although it is unclear what this might mean for the UI claims process. In

Marshalltown, UI claims were still handled at the Workforce Development Resource Center. In Bellingham, UI

claims were handled by the Employment Security Department in a separate building near the Center for Workforce

Training; although the state plans to implement UI call centers within the next 18 months. Thus, as some of these

states move to UI call centers, the financial pressures for maintaining local facilities and overhead may intensify the

mandate for local collaboration among the remaining workforce development services.

School-to-Work

During the early 1990s, several initiatives were launched to try and improve the transition from school to work for

many young workers (e.g. School to Work Opportunities Act). The thrust of this initiative was to provide persons

still in high school a greater connectivity to the expectations, realities, and opportunities of the workplace. This

experience is hoped to provide students with a better appreciation of the value and use of the education and training

they are receiving, and to help them think and plan realistically about how to start and shape a productive career.

The connection between this policy initiative and the One-Stop models visited was rather weak. A few of the OneStop managers reported serious and systematic efforts to reach out to the school system, going to make

presentations about the labor market and career services available at the One-Stop, and in at least one case, inviting

classes to visit on field trips. However, there was little evidence that the One-Stop systems are being used to bring

employers and schools together to any great degree, nor was there any real indication that schools are making

greater use of the local labor market information available at the One-Stop to help students understand the world of

work they are about to enter.

The relationship between promoting the transition from welfare-to-work and school-to-work did not appear to be a

major concern in our discussions with One-Stop officials. For many, the school-to-work initiatives lacked any

programmatic significance, either as a result of lack of resources (time, staff, and funding) or disinterest on the part

of local public school (K-12) officials. Only in Tarrant County was the local school district an active participant in

the One-Stop partnership. In this instance, the school district provided the adult education component of the OneStop services, and seemed to be genuinely interested in strengthening and expanding this partnership.

The Community College Connection

In most cases, the strongest connection between local educational institutions and the One-Stop was with the local

community or technical college. In Marshalltown, for example, the Promise JOBS counselors were hired under

contract with the local community college, which was located just across the freeway. A significant proportion of

the Promise JOBS participants in Marshalltown were enrolled or expected to be enrolled in community college

coursework. In Bellingham, a high share of the program participants in the focus groups were similarly connected

to the local technical college – although this connection is likely to change under Washington’s new WorkFirst

program.

However, connections to community or technical colleges were not the same in all locations. For example, in

Kenosha, program participants complained that the location of Gateway Technical College was inconvenient relative

to the Job Center. Even though the College is a partner in the Job Center, its presence at the Center was not as

strong as in other sites, especially with adult education services being provided by an independent contractor. By
25 It is useful to note that in the Waukesha illustration, the County has 11,000 employers and only 400

welfare cases.

26 Children might continue to be covered under Medicaid, depending on family income and the level of

coverage in a given state.

27 Richard Brandon and Carol Naito, Financing Child Care in Washington State, Human Services Policy

Center, University of Washington, October 1997.

28 Sandra J. Newman, “The Implications of Welfare Reform for the Housing Assistance System,” Paper

presented to the 1995 APPAM Research Conference, Washington DC, November 1995.

118

contrast, the One-Stop center in neighboring Waukesha County is located on the community college campus –

established and paid for in part by the community college, and serving almost as an employment placement center

for the college’s students and graduates.

There are several factors that seem to affect the relationship between the community or technical college and the

One-Stop systems. The first is simply a function of local institutional history and personalities of the participants. 

Leadership in some community colleges simply does not see welfare clients as a primary client base.25 In some

cases, the emphasis on “work first” models for welfare reform, which tend to de-emphasize post-secondary

education and training, may be causing community colleges to discount their relationships with welfare-to-work

programs. Unless these welfare reform initiatives make some provision for follow-up encouragement and support

for education and training once participants find employment, the relationships with community colleges may

deteriorate. On the other hand, active involvement by the community college in the One-Stop system from the start

seems to bring a greater emphasis on the need for this kind of follow-up support and encouragement.

Economic Support for Working Parents

If “successful” One-Stop service delivery models are defined as those that lead parents from welfare to selfsufficiency, then the focus of the One-Stop programs needs to expand beyond employment services to include a

wider array of economic supports for parents who work for low wages. Many of these supports are clearly

acknowledged in the welfare-to-work process, including the provision of child care, health care, and transportation

assistance. However, in most of the One-Stop models assessed by this report, these benefits are phased out after

welfare recipients find employment that raises their incomes past the threshold for cash assistance.

In most cases, health care coverage (generally Medicaid) is phased out for adults 12 months after termination of

cash welfare assistance.26 Child care and transportation assistance are somewhat more problematic, generally tied

to JTPA enrollment and thus dependent to some degree on local design. In most cases, funds for child care seemed

to be adequate for participants in the focus groups with the exception of children with health needs, although

availability of child care to match many low-wage work schedules and geographical locations is still a problem. In

most cases, the added funding for child care that accompanied the federal legislation has helped make the process

of job search more palatable, but the reality of the low-wage labor market is that most families who have made the

transition from welfare to low-wage work cannot often afford unsubsidized child care. Even some states that have

dramatically increased child care funding from their own resources, such as Washington, still find that these

combined federal and state resources fall far short of the support that is needed.27

Housing assistance is also problematic. Nationally, over 30 percent of AFDC recipients also received federal

housing assistance in the late 1980s.28 This proportion seemed to vary considerably in the sites visited, based on

anecdotal information provided during focus groups. Tarrant County seemed to be the only location where most
29 James McIntire, Richard Brandon, Robert DeWeese, Carol Naito, Julie So, and Abhay Thatte, Policy

Choices for Working Families in Washington: A Baseline Analysis of State Economic Support for

Working Families, Fiscal Policy Center, University of Washington, March 1997.

30 Ibid.

31 James McIntire and Julie So, Impacts of the 1998 Budget Agreements on King County, Fiscal Policy

Center, University of Washington, June 1997.

119

current welfare recipients lived in public housing or received Section 8 housing assistance. This is not surprising,

since it was by far the largest urban area included. It would appear that the overlap between cash welfare

assistance and public housing assistance declines as the service delivery areas become more rural. As a result,

most of the current program participants in the focus groups did not receive housing assistance. Under most

publicly financed housing assistance programs, housing costs are kept to 30 percent of a household’s monthly

income, and families are rarely ever forced out of publicly owned housing. However, some families earning higher

incomes may loose their eligibility for tenant based Section 8 assistance, but generally only after their incomes rise

above 80 percent of the area median family income.

Because federal Food Stamp and Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) assistance eligibility is based on income rather

than other program eligibility, this support continues to be available to many parents who find low-wage work. Thus,

the real household budget challenges for parents working at low-wage jobs continue to be child care, housing, and

health care.

Of the sites visited, Kenosha seemed to have the most complete set of economic supports available to serve parents

trying to reach self-sufficiency via low-wage employment. Wisconsin’s W-2 program is designed to provide both

health care and child care for working families on a sliding fee scale based on income, rather than program

eligibility. Additional economic supports, such as Food Stamps, can be accessed at the One-Stop as well. 

Economic service workers in Kenosha (and Waukesha as well) note that the caseloads for these programs have

remained relatively constant while welfare caseloads have dropped over time. This pattern illustrates the

importance of these services in maintaining working families as they acquire the work experience and on-the-job

skills necessary to earn higher wages. Nonetheless, several welfare advocates continue to question whether the

levels of co-payments for some of these services are appropriately scaled, recognizing that many families may not

reach self-sufficiency until their income reach or exceed roughly 200 percent of poverty.29

This concern was repeated in most of our site interviews. One-Stop caseworkers continually raised the question of

whether welfare reform meant moving families from welfare to low-wage work, or from welfare to selfsufficiency. Most of these workers tried hard to prepare families for the struggles of making ends meet once they

left the TANF program, making sure they understood issues of eligibility for other assistance programs. However,

given the lack of resources for follow-up education and training, many of these workers remained skeptical of

whether a higher proportion of their clients would achieve long term self-sufficiency, and many expressed concern

about the prospects for higher need clients who now make up a larger proportion of their current caseloads.

Thus, the availability of economic support services is often critical to achieving self-sufficiency for working parents. 

Although many of these services are provided by state or local public agencies, it is important to note that in some

states roughly half of the funding for these services is provided by federal aid.30 Planned reductions in discretionary

federal spending by roughly 10 percent (adjusted for inflation) during the next 5 years may mean that some of the

federal aid for these services will be at risk, and that the demands on state resources to provide these support

services may grow over time.31 Certainly as some of the states achieve significant reductions in welfare caseloads,
120

state policy makers will need to be increasingly concerned about the roll of these and other support services (such

as mental health and substance abuse treatment) if they expect the caseload decline to continue.
121

Chapter 6: Empirical Evidence of Success

Most analysts would agree that real success in moving welfare recipients to self-sufficiency should be measurable

in terms of employment and wage outcomes. The data we have been able to gather on the one-stop models

presented in this study do indicate that for the most part, these models have been at least partially successful. 

However, these data also highlight some of the gaps and limitations in the One-Stop concept as it has been

implemented so far. To the degree that most states’ welfare reform programs and all of the models examined are

still evolving, this by no means is a final commentary on the potential for one-stop centers to meet the needs of

families moving from welfare to self-sufficiency.

Methodology

The original design of this research called for the collection of administrative data from welfare, employment

services, and unemployment insurance records to assess the characteristics of welfare participants at different

stages in their contact One-Stop services. Specifically, participating One-Stop models were asked to provide three

types of data:

· General Characteristics: General characteristics of the welfare population within the service area of the

One-Stop center.

· Administrative Records: Administrative records for a sample of One-Stop welfare clients referred to the

One-Stop during a 12-month period, generally calendar 1996. Records were expected to contain characteristics

data (age, number of dependents, education, etc.) along with some measures of the length, type, and/or intensity

of services provided, along with data on termination reasons.

· Unemployment Insurance Records: Unemployment insurance records for the sample of clients for the most

recent eight quarters, including industry of employer, wage and salary payments, and hours.

The first and last of these requested data proved to be difficult to gather and/or acquire. In the case of the general

characteristics of the welfare population, the sites examined had little or no historical data tracking these measures. 

Acquisition of unemployment insurance data also proved to be very difficult, due to the lack of data sharing

agreements between agencies and their authority to share this information with outside researchers.

Fortunately, the administrative records for some of the sites proved to offer sufficient characteristic, service,

termination, and follow-up data to permit some limited, empirical assessment of three of the One-Stop models

examined – Tarrant County, Traverse City, and Bellingham. Records from Iowa simply did not contain enough

observations to include in this analysis. Administrative records from Kenosha were quite extensive with regard to

the services provided, termination, and follow-up outcomes, but we were not able to match these records with the

characteristics of the clients served. As a result, our analysis of Kenosha is limited to that which might be gleaned

from the aggregate data contained in quarterly management reports.
32 These figures represent only a cross-section of client characteristics in time, and therefore would not

capture the longitudinal effects of entrances of pregnant women who remain in the system for long periods

of time. However, this observation was confirmed by Kenosha Job Center managers.

122

Policy Changes and Limitations of the Data

The data presented in this chapter were gathered during one of the most tumultuous years for welfare policies in

recent history. Many states implemented their own welfare reforms in the wake of the federal welfare policy

changes. As a result, the empirical measures presented typically reflect characteristics, services and outcomes over

the course of multiple policy regimes, or during times when a new policy regime was anticipated and preparations

were being made for transition. Typically, the new policies meant increased work and work search requirements,

which may have the effect of motivating higher levels of service use and completion, and result in higher levels of

accepting initial employment. This study does not attempt to differentiate any of the measures reported according to

changes in policy, recognizing that to do so would introduce too many variables and uncertainties into the sampling

frame and would imply a level of analytic rigor that would be unsupported by the methodology. Rather, the basis for

this approach is the assumption that for the current time, state and local welfare programs are in a state of flux, and

any assessment of One-Stop employment services models should simply take this changing policy environment into

account.

As a result, the conclusions that can be reached based on the data presented here may be limited. Note that the

time frames, measures, and definitions vary from site to site, making each data set unique and not strictly

comparable to data from other sites. Nonetheless, these data do help us understand which subgroups of welfare

recipients seem to be getting better access to services or are having trouble with the One-Stop systems.

Kenosha County Job Center

Despite the very impressive shared data system for providing client services in the Kenosha County Job Center, we

were unable to obtain a sample of client service records that contained even limited client characteristics. Instead,

our analysis is based on a series of fourth quarter reports (cumulative) for calendar year 1996. These internal

reports are produced quarterly for purposes of Center management, tracking some very basic client characteristics

and outcomes for clients with dependents under age 2 years and clients with children between 2-18 years old. All

cases are included, including repeat clients. These data are summarized in Table 1. In addition, these reports track

the use of different services offered by the One-Stop (summarized in Chart 1).

Overall, more than half of the welfare clients served have graduated from high school or have a GED, and about 15

percent have at least one year of higher education or training. More than 40 percent of the Kenosha clients are

nonwhite. Key observations about the data from the Kenosha County Job Center include:

· Age of Youngest Dependent: Fewer than 30 percent of the JOBS participants served by the Center have

children younger than 2 years old, indicating that a large majority of clients are not entering the welfare system

as the consequence of a pregnancy.32 There are no significant demographic or educational differences

between clients with children under age 2 and those with children over 2 years of age.
123

Kenosha County Job Center

Age Youngest Voc WkEx Employment

All Dependent Skill To <=29 hours >29 hours FT Job Retained

JOBS 1 yr >2yr Train Job Emplyd % Wage % Wage 30 days 180days

All JOBS 100% 26.1% 67.8% 5.7% 4.8% 42.7% 12.5% $5.72 30.2% $6.22 100% 26%

Age Youngest Depend

1 year 27.8% 100% n.a. 5.1% 4.6% 46.6% 13.6% $5.34 33.1% $5.95 100% 26%

2-18 years 72.2% n.a. 100% 5.3% 4.9% 41.2% 12.2% $5.82 29.0% $6.30 100% 26%

Race/Ethnicity

White 58.4% 58.9% 58.1% n.a. n.a. 55.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

African American 26.7% 26.7% 27.1% n.a. n.a. 30.9% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Hispanic 14.1% 13.6% 13.9% n.a. n.a. 13.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Asian 0.7% 0.1% 0.7% n.a. n.a. 0.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Native American 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% n.a. n.a. 0.2% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Years of Education

<12 46.6% 46.8% 47.8% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

12/GED 37.4% 39.3% 37.4% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

13-15 13.2% 12.9% 13.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

16+ 1.3% 1.0% 1.5% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.

Rural 10.7% 10.6% 11.3% n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
124

· Vocational Skills Training: Only about 10 percent of clients are referred to specific vocational skills training and

about 6 percent are actively participating in the training. Clients with children under age 2 are much more likely to enroll

once referred to training than are clients with older children.

· Work Experience Leading to Employment: Most work experience placements lead to employment, although this is

not the most common route to employment. Roughly 5 percent of all clients are placed in community work experience

positions leading to employment. These employment results from work experience placements tend to be slightly higher

for clients with children over the age of 2 years.

· Employment: About 43 percent of all clients are employed, and almost three-quarters are employed full time (more

than 29 hours per week). Employment rates, both full-time and part-time, are slightly higher for clients with children

under 2 years of age.

· Wages: Wages tend to be about $.50 per hour higher for full-time verses part-time employment, with parents of

younger children tending to work for slightly lower wages.

· Job Retention: Full-time unemployed clients appear to have little difficulty with short-term (30 days) job retention, but

may have greater difficulty retaining employment on a long-term (180 days) basis. However, this measure may not

accurately reflect actual employment patterns, since the question reflects “retention of full-time placement”

employment, and some workers may have changed employers during the interim.

Services: Kenosha County Job Center

Service Component Referrals* Participants

Participation

Rate

Service Unit

Distribution

Motivational Workshop 731 453 62.0% 16.4%

Group Assessment 788 482 61.2% 17.4%

Vocational Exploration 758 380 50.1% 13.7%

Individual Assessment 53 35 66.0% 1.3%

Job Seeking Skills Workshop 162 73 45.1% 2.6%

Job Search 1262 806 63.9% 29.1%

Community Work Experience 454 161 35.5% 5.8%

Vocational Training 62 62 100.0% 2.2%

Adult Learning Lab 229 208 90.8% 7.5%

BA and BS Degree Programs 18 18 100.0% 0.7%

Other 166 89 53.6% 3.2%

TOTAL 4683 2767 59.1% 100.0%

*Includes multiple referrals, note that the number of participants is roughly half of the participation rate.

These data tend to confirm earlier characterizations of the Kenosha County Job Center based on focus group interviews, indicating a

strong emphasis on motivation, assessment, and job search with a relatively good track record for short-term employment. Although it is

difficult to tell from this data, case managers felt that the difficulty of cases was increasing – an observation that would be supported by

the fact that over 45 percent of JOBS clients had not completed their high school degree or GED.

· Job Search: Job search accounted for roughly 30 percent of the individual service elements provided to clients; nearly

two-thirds of those referred to job search actually participated as shown below.

· High Use Services: Almost 50 percent of the other service elements provided were divided pretty equally among the

motivational workshop, group assessment, and vocational exploration. All of these services are provided in group
33 One exception appears to be clients age 40 years and over, who have a lower number of case manager contacts. 

However, the small number of clients in this group makes it difficult to draw conclusions about this group.

34 “Long term” is defined as 36 or more months of welfare participation during the preceeding 60 months.

125

settings for entering groups of clients. The adult learning lab and community work experience accounted for the next

highest service volumes.

· Individual Assessment and Job Search Skills Workshop: Both of these activities combined accounted for fewer

than 5 percent of service volume. Individual assessment was the only service for which there was a significant

differential in participation (relative to referrals) between clients with older and younger children; clients with children

under age 2 had a much higher participation rate.

Tarrant County Employment Network

The Tarrant County Employment Network provided us with a sample of 72 JOBS cases drawn from entering participants

during calendar year 1996. This sample included information about client characteristics, case manager contacts, long term

welfare recipiency, and status at termination from the JOBS program. No consistent data were available regarding wages

and hours for those employed, nor follow-up data regarding employment retention.

Overall, JOBS participants at the Employment Network tend to be older, non-white, with a high number of dependents and

low levels of education. Over 62 percent have no high school diploma or GED, more than half are over age 25, and 44

percent have three or more dependents. Fewer than one-third are white, and more than half have participated in the

welfare system for 36 or more of the 60 months prior to entry to the JOBS program. It is useful to note that about 36

percent of all clients included in this data analysis were currently active in the JOBS program at the end of calendar 1996.

Note that the “termination status” reported in the table below lists a series of mutually exclusive reasons/status at

terminiation. Some were current participants, some were employed, others received assessment only, while others

completed a GED or were referred to training.

These data tend to confirm earlier characterizations of the Employment Network’s client population. Key observations

about the Tarrant County Employment Network data include:

· Case Manager Contacts: Age and length of time in the welfare system seem to have little relationship to the number

of case manager contacts.33 However, African American and Native American clients appear to have significantly

fewer case manager contacts on average. Clients with no dependents (a very small group) also tend to have fewer

contacts, while those with three or more dependents tend to have significantly more case manager contacts. The same

is true for the large majority of clients with fewer than 12 years of education or equivalent (GED). These variations in

case manager contact may not be well understood – they may mean that more clients are out of compliance, are

reluctant to seek help, or that fewer services are being made available to these groups.

· Long Term Welfare Participation: There were no significant racial or ethnic differences in long term welfare

participation.34 Clients with only one child tended to be less likely to have extensive prior experience with the welfare

system, although those with two dependents tend to have more prior welfare experience than those clients with three or

more children. Age does seem to be correlated with long term welfare participation, particularly for teens and those age
35 Note that the length of participation in the JOBS program is measured from entry until the end of calendar 1996.

126

40 and older; and participants with a high school diploma or GED tend to have higher long term participation rates as 

well.

· Length of JOBS Participation:35 Overall, the average length of participation was 162 days for the sample analyzed. 

African American and Native American clients tend to have a disproportionate share of short periods of participation in

the JOBS program, a corollary observation their lower average number of case manager contacts. The number of

dependents appears to be correlated with the length of JOBS participation, while clients age 40 and older tend to be

over-represented in both short and long-term program participation. Education seems to have a slight positive impact on

the distribution of short participation cases.

· Assessment Only: About 7 percent of all JOBS clients at the Employment Network participate in assessment only

prior to termination. This proportion is double for African American clients, and about half for clients of other

races/ethnicity. The data suggest higher rates of termination after assessment for clients with only one dependent and

those between the ages of 25 and 39, and for those with a high school diploma, GED, or some college.

· Employment at Termination: Overall, about 17 percent of JOBS clients were employed at the time their participation

in the JOBS program was terminated. Employment rates are considerably higher for African American and Native

American participants, reaching nearly one third of all participants in these racial/ethnic groups. The employment rate

averages 40 percent for clients with two dependents, but is much lower for clients with one, or three or more

dependents. Employment rates also tend to be higher for clients in their late teens and early twenties, and for those age

40 and older. There appears to be a strong correlation between years of education and employment – clients without a

high school diploma or GED (over 62 percent of all JOBS clients) have an employment rate of only 7 percent.

· Education and Training Outcomes: Over 30 percent of JOBS participants at the Employment Network terminate

their JOBS participation following an increased grade level, referral to training, or completion of a GED. Younger

clients, and those with two dependents, tend to have a higher education and training outcomes at termination.

· Negative Termination: Overall, roughly 17 percent of JOBS participants are terminated for negative reasons, such as

the failure to comply with work participation or eligibility rules. This rate is considerably higher for clients with two

dependents and those age 40 and over.
127

Tarrant County Employment Network

Ave Long Length of Participation Termination Status (exclusive outcomes)

All Csmgr Term Shortest Longest Ave Refer to Increas

JOBS Cntcts Welfare Quartile Quartile Length Active Assess Employ GED Training Grade Negative

All JOBS 100.0% 32.5 54.2% 25.0% 25.0% 162.0 36.1% 6.9% 16.7% 20.8% 4.2% 5.6% 16.7%

Female 97.2% 32.6 55.7% 25.7% 25.7% 162.2 35.7% 7.1% 17.1% 21.4% 4.3% 5.7% 15.7%

Single Parent 83.3% 33.2 53.3% 26.7% 26.7% 165.3 35.0% 8.3% 13.3% 20.0% 5.0% 5.0% 18.3%

Long-Term Welfare 54.2% 35.4 100.0% 25.6% 25.6% 157.2 33.3% 5.1% 17.9% 25.6% 7.7% 0.0% 20.5%

Race/Ethnicity

 White 31.9% 36.5 52.2% 26.1% 30.4% 171.2 39.1% 4.3% 8.7% 34.8% 4.3% 4.3% 13.0%

 African American 27.8% 20.2 60.0% 35.0% 25.0% 159.7 15.0% 15.0% 30.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 20.0%

 Hispanic 36.1% 40.4 53.9% 15.4% 19.2% 152.7 50.0% 3.9% 11.5% 15.4% 0.0% 7.7% 15.4%

 Asian 0.0% * * * * * * * * * * * *

 Native American 4.2% 14.3 33.3% 33.3% 33.3% 187.7 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3%

Number of Dependents

0 2.8% 13.5 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 81.5 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 50.0%

1 25.0% 25.5 38.9% 27.8% 11.1% 139.6 33.3% 11.1% 16.7% 16.7% 5.6% 11.1% 11.1%

2 27.8% 24.0 65.0% 25.0% 30.0% 178.7 10.0% 5.0% 40.0% 30.0% 0.0% 0.0% 30.0%

3+ 44.4% 42.8 56.3% 21.9% 31.3% 169.1 53.1% 6.3% 3.1% 18.7% 6.3% 6.3% 9.4%

Age

 <19 11.1% 33.1 25.0% 25.0% 0.0% 126.0 25.0% 0.0% 0.0% 25.0% 0.0% 37.5% 12.5%

 19-24 33.3% 30.1 54.2% 25.0% 33.3% 177.6 33.3% 4.2% 29.2% 25.0% 4.2% 0.0% 16.7%

 25-39 51.4% 35.8 59.5% 21.6% 24.3% 161.9 40.5% 10.8% 10.8% 18.9% 5.4% 2.7% 16.2%

 40+ 4.2% 8.7 66.7% 66.7% 33.3% 134.3 33.3% 0.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3%

Years Education

<12 62.5% 41.0 51.1% 20.0% 31.1% 178.4 35.6% 0.0% 6.7% 28.9% 4.4% 8.9% 22.2%

12 27.8% 20.0 65.0% 35.0% 10.0% 119.8 40.0% 15.0% 30.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0%

13-15 9.7% 13.4 42.9% 28.6% 28.6% 177.1 28.6% 28.6% 42.9% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

16+ 0.0% * * * * * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient cell size for accurate reporting.
36 Note that “complex cases” were defined and targeted by the One-Stop.

128

Northwest Michigan JobNet

The Northwest Michigan JobNet provided us with a sample of 150 cases entering their system between mid-1996 and mid1997. These data included basic characteristics (excluding years of education and number of dependents), number of

services and amount of supplemental cash assistance provided, termination data, and employment, wage and hours data.

In general, the welfare population served by Northwest Michigan JobNet appears to be rural, predominantly white, older

than 25 years, with a slightly higher proportion of males than perhaps some other sites. Less than one-third of JobNet

clients fell into the target group for potentially difficult and complex cases, including clients with a preceding welfare cases,

older children, or less than 24 years of age with no high school degree or work experience.36 Key observations based on the

data provided by the Northwest Michigan JobNet include:

· Number of Services: Most JOBS participants, nearly half, received multiple services via JobNet, while roughly 20

percent received no services and the remaining one-third had used one service. Rural clients and older clients tended to

receive slightly more services, as well as those clients with preceding welfare cases. The small number of African

American clients in the sample received significantly fewer services than the rest – likely a reflection of their

significantly shorter length of participation

· Orientation Only: In total, about 9 percent of JOBS participants terminated their enrollment after receiving only the

orientation to the program. This proportion was at least twice as high for African Americans and for both younger and

older clients, especially those younger clients with no high school degree, GED, or work experience. To some degree,

this measure reflects those JOBS participants who voluntarily choose not to participate for one reason or another.

· Termination for Non-Compliance: Just over 10 percent of JOBS participants were terminated for non-compliance. 

This measure was lower for younger and rural clients, and higher for those with preceding welfare cases, African

American clients, and Hispanic clients.

· Length of Participation: Overall, the average length of participation was 81 days. The relatively small group of

African Americans in the sample had much shorter periods of participation, as did a large share of clients under age 19. 

The group with the lowest share of short JOBS program attachments was that with ages 25 to 39 years. Hispanic

clients tended to have disproportionately short and long program stays.

· Supplemental Assistance: Just over half of all JOBS participants received some form of supplemental grant

assistance for auto repairs, transportation, and other incidental assistance. Clients with preceding cases and those

clients age 40 or more tended to be more likely to receive this assistance. Total supplemental assistance per client

generally averaged between $150 and $315 per recipient, with Hispanic clients receiving the lowest amounts ($38 on

average) and older clients receiving the highest ($360 on average).
129

Northwest Michigan JobNet

Termination Employed Length of Participation Supplemental

All Services Orient Non- Ave Ave Shortest Longest Ave Assistance

JOBS None Single Mulitiple Only Comply Employ Wage Hrs Quartile Quartile Days Receive Ave Amt

All JOBS 100.0% 19.3% 34.0% 46.7% 8.7% 10.7% 45.3% $ 5.89 31.8 25.3% 25.3% 81.4 52.0% $ 234.78 

Female 75.3% 18.6% 36.3% 45.1% 8.0% 10.6% 46.9% $ 5.68 30.5 24.8% 28.3% 84.0 52.2% $ 223.27 

Rural 54.7% 23.2% 26.8% 50.0% 11.0% 6.1% 46.3% $ 6.02 32.5 29.3% 20.7% 77.3 46.3% $ 152.77 

Target Group

Preceding Case 10.7% 18.8% 25.0% 56.3% 6.3% 18.7% 37.5% $ 5.83 29.8 37.5% 31.3% 79.6 62.5% $ 311.73 

Older Children 2.0% * * * * * * * * * * * * *

<24, no HS/Wk Exp 16.7% 32.0% 32.0% 36.0% 20.0% 4.0% 44.0% $ 5.74 33.7 36.0% 24.0% 73.0 44.0% $ 126.48 

Race/Ethnicity

White 90.7% 19.1% 33.1% 47.8% 8.1% 10.3% 45.6% $ 5.93 31.9 24.3% 25.7% 82.3 52.2% $ 238.04 

African American 4.0% 33.3% 50.0% 16.7% 33.3% 16.7% 16.7% $ 5.50 20.0 50.0% 0.0% 45.8 50.0% $ 312.32 

Hispanic 4.0% 16.7% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0% 16.7% 50.0% $ 5.58 36.7 33.3% 33.3% 82.2 50.0% $ 37.88 

Native American 1.3% * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Asian 0.0% * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Age

<19 4.7% 42.9% 14.3% 42.9% 28.6% 0.0% 42.9% $ 5.08 28.3 42.9% 28.6% 63.1 42.9% $ 115.07 

19-24 32.0% 22.9% 35.4% 41.7% 8.3% 10.4% 37.5% $ 6.00 33.6 29.2% 22.9% 79.7 45.8% $ 215.51 

25-39 50.0% 14.7% 38.7% 46.7% 4.0% 12.0% 52.0% $ 5.86 31.3 18.7% 25.3% 86.3 54.7% $ 217.04 

40+ 13.3% 20.0% 20.0% 60.0% 20.0% 10.0% 40.0% $ 6.12 31.9 35.0% 30.0% 73.3 60.0% $ 360.66 

*Insufficient cell size for accurate reporting.
130

· Employment: Roughly 45 percent of JOBS participants were employed upon termination. Clients in their early 20s

and those with preceding welfare cases had slightly lower employment rates, while African American clients had

employment rates that were significantly lower. Over half of the clients ages 25 to 39 were employed upon termination.

· Wages: The average wage for JOBS placements was about $5.90 per hour, with no significant variation in wage rates

for different demographic groups other than the average of $5.08 per hour for clients under age 19. Note that this latter

average wage is below the federal minimum wage. Younger workers have a slightly lower average hourly wage.

· Hours: Hours worked by JOBS participants average almost 32 hours per week, with little variation by demographic

group, other than African American clients, whose hours average only 20 hours per week. 

In interpreting these data, it is useful to remember that both African American and Hispanic categories have very few

observations (4 percent of the total for each), and so it is difficult to draw strong conclusions about these observations. 

Nonetheless, these data do tend to confirm earlier characterizations of the site in terms of the strong local emphasis on a full

time work ethic. The low percentage of clients with preceding welfare cases provides a strong contrast with Tarrant

County, Texas, where over half of all clients were long term welfare recipients.

Whatcom County NetWork Consortium

The Whatcom County NetWork Consortium provided us with a sample of 97 welfare clients who had used one or more of

the services of the Consortium during calendar 1996. In addition to basic client characteristics, these data included

information about the number of services provided, length of participation, and employment and wages upon follow-up.

Generally, the client base for Whatcom County is better educated and has fewer dependents than some of the other sites. 

Only 21 percent of all clients lack a high school diploma or GED, and 55 percent have only one dependent. Slightly more

than one-third had worked during the preceding 26 weeks, with the bulk of the racial/ethnic minority group comprised of

Hispanic clients. Key observations based on the data provided by the Whatcom County NetWork Consortium include:

· Services: About 46 percent of NetWork Consortium clients receive one service, while the rest of the clients receive

an average of between three and four services. A significantly higher proportion of clients who have worked during the

past 26 weeks receive multiple services, as do clients who are age 40 and older. On the other hand, nearly threequarters of Hispanic clients receive only one service, and over 60 percent of clients with more than a high school

education receive only one service. 
131

Whatcom County NetWork Consortium

Services Length of Participation Follow-Up

Ave # Shortest Longest Average Average

All TANF Single Multiple Multiple Quartile Quartile Length Employed Wage

All TANF 100.0% 46.4% 53.6% 3.6 24.7% 24.7% 212.4 33.0% $ 8.61 

Female 84.5% 46.3% 53.7% 3.7 24.4% 25.6% 219.1 29.3% $ 7.93 

Single Parent 77.3% 44.0% 56.0% 3.6 24.0% 26.7% 220.7 29.3% $ 8.30 

Worked in past 26 Weeks 36.1% 34.3% 65.7% 3.4 17.1% 31.4% 255.3 51.4% $ 9.34 

White

African American 79.4% 42.9% 57.1% 3.5 23.4% 26.0% 223.4 36.4% $ 9.00 

Hispanic 1.0% * * * * * * * *

Asian 15.5% 73.3% 26.7% 4.2 26.7% 13.3% 146.7 20.0% $ 5.50 

Native American 2.1% * * * * * * * *

2.1% * * * * * * * *

Number of Dependents

1 54.6% 47.2% 52.8% 3.9 24.5% 26.4% 203.0 34.0% $ 8.20 

2 24.7% 41.7% 58.3% 3.2 25.0% 20.8% 211.5 41.7% $ 8.72 

3+ 20.7% 50.0% 50.0% 3.5 25.0% 25.0% 238.3 20.0% $ 10.17 

Age

<19 8.2% 50.0% 50.0% 4.5 37.5% 25.0% 158.0 50.0% $ 5.88 

19-24 34.0% 51.5% 48.5% 4.2 27.3% 18.2% 184.4 27.3% $ 8.47 

25-39 44.3% 48.8% 51.2% 2.9 27.9% 20.9% 191.8 32.6% $ 9.79 

40+ 13.4% 23.1% 76.9% 3.9 0.0% 53.9% 384.8 38.5% $ 7.73 

Years of Education

<12 20.6% 40.0% 60.0% 4.0 25.0% 30.0% 211.3 30.0% $ 7.25 

12 62.9% 45.9% 54.1% 3.4 21.3% 21.3% 205.1 37.7% $ 8.61 

13-15 13.4% 61.5% 38.5% 3.8 46.2% 23.1% 206.5 23.1% $ 11.32 

16+ 3.1% * * * * * * * *

*Insufficient cell size for accurate reporting.
37 Note that in the case of the NetWork Consortium, the sample included clients served during calendar 1996, and

was not limited to clients entering the system during that year.

132

· Length of Participation: On average, clients participate in NetWork Consortium services for a total of 212 days. 

While this would appear considerably longer than in other sites examined, it is important to note that the sampling frame

here may not correspond to those in other sites.37 Clients with recent work experience are disproportionately

represented in the longest quartile of participation, as are clients age 40 and above, and clients with less than a high

school diploma or GED. Clients with more than a high school education are over represented in the shortest quartile of

participation, while clients age 40 and older, and those with recent work experience are under represented in the

shortest quartile.

· Follow-Up Employment: One-third of all NetWork Consortium clients reported being employed at the 90-day followup contact. For those clients with recent work experience and clients age 19 and below, the employment rate was over

50 percent, while for Hispanic clients and clients with three or more dependents, the employment rate was only 20

percent. Clients with higher levels of education also report lower rates of employment.

· Follow-Up Wages: Wages for NetWork Consortium clients employed at follow-up (90 days after termination)

average $8.61 per hour, considerably higher than other sites reviewed. However, this site also has substantially more

hourly wage variation among different groups. Clients with post high school education and those with three or more

dependents earn the highest hourly wages on average. Clients between ages 25 and 40, those with recent work

experience, and white clients are all groups that earn wages that are higher than the average for all clients. Hispanic

clients and clients age 18 and younger earn less than $6.00 per hour on average. Clients age 40 and over, and clients

with less than a high school education average less than $8.00 per hour.

Which Clients Are Best Served by One-Stop Systems?

The preceding unique data sets seem to confirm the answers identified through focus group interviews, i.e., that welfare

clients without a high school education, clients with large numbers of dependents, and clients who are older tend to have

greater needs, use more services, take longer to progress through the system, and have less encouraging employment

outcomes. While this information is not particularly new, the fact that One-Stop systems are tending to provide these clients

with more services and assistance is encouraging, even if the employment outcomes are not entirely comparable with those

of other clients. Of course, it should not go unnoted that the corollary of this pattern is also valuable information, that

welfare clients with more education, fewer dependents, and young enough to be resilient in the job market are consuming

relatively fewer services and are progressing faster through the system.

These data also confirm some of the difficulties facing One-Stop systems. Non-compliance seems to range from 10 percent

to 17 percent. High proportions of welfare clients continue to drop out after the orientation session, and length of

participation and employment rates seem to suggest that some groups of welfare recipients are either slipping through the

cracks or are not responding well to the services provided. For example, Hispanic clients in the Washington State site have

a high proportion of single service cases, a low average length of participation, and a low employment rate and wage rate

upon follow-up. A similar pattern emerges for African American clients in Traverse City. Both of these cases involve only

small samples of these subgroups and as such, limit our ability to generalize, but the presence of this type of pattern should

be cause for caution.
133

The variation in the characteristics of the populations served across sites illustrates the need for flexibility in defining

services and designing service systems that respond to unique local needs. Differences in local economies are very

important in understanding the types of work skills necessary to be successful, yet differences in education levels, age

distribution, number of dependents, and racial/ethnic diversity also persist, requiring careful attention to unique local design

issues.
134
135

APPENDIX: One-Stop Model Summaries

Workforce Development Center, Marshalltown Iowa

The Workforce Development Center serves a 4-county area in eastern central Iowa that is largely rural. Marshalltown

itself is a city of approximately 25,000. Roughly 15 percent of Marshalltown’s population is of Hispanic origin. Surrounding

counties served are very rural, and driving distance to the Center can be as much as 80 miles.

 ̈ State Workforce System: 1996 legislation created a consolidated Workforce Development Department, formalizing

the structure of the state Workforce Development Council and calling for the creation of local boards to select service

providers and monitor local workforce development centers. Local centers must include DoL funded programs (JTPA

Titles II and III, Employment Services, Veterans Employment Services, Senior Community Service Employment, and

Unemployment Insurance), as well as the Food Stamp Employment and Training Program and the state’s PROMISE

JOBS program for welfare clients. Participation of a variety of other partners is “strongly encouraged.” Service

delivery plans are approved by local and state boards, with an emphasis on performance-based community service

provider contracts.

 ̈ Welfare Reform: Iowa was one of the first states to enact a comprehensive welfare reform package under federal

waivers in October 1993. The new benefit system, called the Family Investment Program or FIP, took the place of Aid

for Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and made changes to the Food Stamp Program. Each FIP participant is

required to develop a Family Investment Agreement (FIA) which outlines the steps the individual will take toward selfsufficiency, including education, job training, and employment. Caregivers with children under age 6 months are exempt

from this requirement. PROMISE JOBS is the employment and training program under which FIAs are to be carried

out.

Those who enroll in FIP but fail to meet the program requirements are transferred into the Limited Benefits Plan (LBP). 

Most LBP participants end up in the program due to non-compliance with the FIP. The LBP provides three months of

reduced benefits, followed by six months of no cash benefits for the entire family, although non-cash assistance such as

Food Stamps and Medicaid continue. At the end of the six-month period, recipients can reapply to the FIP but must

develop and comply with their FIA. If recipients fail to meet the requirements of the FIP a second time, the case is

referred back into the LBP. The second time around, no cash benefits are provided for six-months and there is no

option for reconsideration for either LBP or FIP after the allotted time has expired.

 ̈ Local Economy: The impact of the nation’s farm crisis in Iowa during the early and mid 1980’s caused significant

hardship and restructuring of the local economy. During the late 1980s, Marshalltown experienced major, permanent

lay-offs by its largest employer, a manufacturing company paying some of the area’s highest wages and benefits. 

However, during the most recent recovery cycle the region’s economy has expanded and changed dramatically,

resulting in an unemployment rate of just over 3 percent in the county at the time of our site visit. Despite the strong

economy, job turnover in the adjacent rural counties served by the Workforce Development Center was quite low. 

Current job listings in some counties were extremely limited at the time of the visit.

 ̈ Location and Physical Space: Marshalltown is located on the freeway about 40 miles northeast of Des Moines. 

The Workforce Development Center is located between the center of town and the freeway, with the Iowa Valley

Community College within walking distance on the other side of the freeway. The Center is housed in a two-story
136

building constructed specifically for it’s use. Visitors walk into a large reception area and a receptionist is on hand to

direct them to services. The first floor accommodates a large meeting space, offices for most program staff and a

computer training lab. The second floor provides classroom space, more computers, a job research space, and a video

conferencing center. Most staff have individual offices, clustered by program and surrounding an open office

arrangement for the Center director.

 ̈ General Concept: The Center provides service based on an inverted pyramid concept. The Center is organized to

encourage clients, as a first step, to serve themselves in the Resource Room or in other areas of the Center. Center

staff have found that most client needs can be met through the self-service offerings. In our interviews, the most

frequently repeated phrase was focused on the client-oriented goal setting: “you can set your own goals here, what do

you want to do?” For those who require additional assistance, various groups are provided in order to meet specific

needs including resume workshops, computer skills, and career assessments. As a last step, clients needing intensive

services can obtain one-on-one service from on-site staff. This framework for service delivery means the Center can

meet the needs of most job seekers while focusing staff time on areas where the need is greatest.

 ̈ PROMISE JOBS Program: Since PROMISE JOBS participants who aren’t engaging in the system are usually enrolled in

the LBP, most of the clients seen by the Workforce Development Center are FIP enrollees. Most client FIAs call for

participation in one of two job clubs offered by the Center. These clubs are viewed as the first step towards gainful

employment. The first type of club is called Living Skills and focuses on basic programs for those clients who are

facing multiple barriers to employment. Through this program, clients work in a group setting and with case managers

to improve self-esteem and life skills, and address other barriers to prepare for the next level of job club called Job

Readiness. The Job Readiness program is designed to assist clients with job search skills. Job seeking information,

dress and interview workshops, and support networks are all provided through this program. 

The Center’s PROMISE JOBS program places a fairly heavy emphasis on community college training, and provides some

limited state resources to support education and training for enrolled clients. Most of this direct assistance comes in the

form of childcare and transportation support for clients enrolled in school. Tuition financing is generally provided via Pell

Grants and loans.

 ̈ Partners: Marshalltown’s PROMISE JOBS program is managed under contract by the Iowa Valley Community College

District. Co-located agencies at the Resource Center include:

• Iowa Department of Workforce Development

• Iowa Valley Community College District 

• Iowa Department of Vocational Rehabilitation 

• American Indian Council

• Mid-Iowa Community Action 

• Institute for Social and Economic Development 

The state welfare agency, the Department of Human Services (DHS), was intentionally not located at the Marshalltown

Center. The purpose of this design was to avoid a confusion of purposes for welfare clients, separating the agency

responsible for cash assistance from the Center’ focus on jobs, training and self-sufficiency.
137

 ̈ Job-Seeker Services: The Resource Center offers a wide array of services for both job seekers and employers. 

On-site agencies provide the following services for job seekers:

• Vocational rehabilitation 

• Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)

• GED (General Education Development) tests

• American Indian Council JTPA Program

• Title IV-A

• Career assessment

• Veterans benefits

• Unemployment insurance

• Resource center 

• PROMISE JOBS 

 ̈ Employer Services: The Center has several services designed specifically to meet employer needs. These include:

• Recruitment, selection and assist in hiring of employees

• Employment information seminars

• Downsizing assistance

• Workplace basics

• Manufacturing and industrial technology training

• Communication skills

• Computer applications

• Business management

• Conferences, meeting rooms, teleconferences and interactive communications network

 ̈ Data Systems and Fiscal Planning: The Center relies on the DHS to send monthly activity reports for all

PROMISE JOBS participants located in the Center’s Service Delivery Area (SDA). These reports include information

about those participants that have earnings in that month, those that have FIAs and those that need to develop FIAs. 

The Center uses class schedules and grades to track participants that are in school. The Center can access the DHS

database and works closely with income maintenance workers at DHS. Activity in the Center is monitored through

sign-in sheets, staff notes, and PROMISE JOBS forms. This information is entered into an on-site database.

Marshalltown does not have a formal budget for the Center. Operational funds come from the many different programs

located on-site and the Department of Human Services.

Kenosha County Job Center, Kenosha Wisconsin

The Kenosha County Job Center serves in southeastern Wisconsin. The County is located south of Milwaukee and Racine

along Lake Michigan and just north of the Illinois boarder. The County has a mix of both urban and rural areas, with a

population of approximately 135,000 people. The major urban area is the City of Kenosha, with a population of 85,000

people, located midway along the transit corridor between Milwaukee and Chicago. Ethnically, the County is 90 percent

European-American, 4 percent African-American, and 5 percent Hispanic-American.
38 Northwest Policy Center, One-Stop Career Centers.....

39 Social Policy Research Associates, “State of Wisconsin One-Stop Profile,” Menlo Park, CA, March 1996.

40 Thomas Kaplan, “Evaluating comprehensive state welfare reforms: An overview.” Focus, Institute for Research

on Poverty, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Vol. 18, No. 3, Spring 1997.

138

 ̈ State Workforce System: The One-Stop shop concept has been part of Wisconsin’s service delivery efforts since

1986, collocated with JTPA and Job Service Offices in the southwest corner of the state. In 1987, Wisconsin’s

legislature provided funding for welfare reform pilots in four of the state’s 17 service delivery areas. In 1988, the

Wisconsin Jobs Council was created to review employment and training plans from local areas, and in 1989, the State

Collaborative Planning Team was formed to formalize the local structure of these initiatives. This Team included

managers from the 9 different agencies, including Corrections, Development, Health and Social Services, Industry Labor

and Human Relations, Public Instruction, Veterans Affairs, the Educational Approvement Board, the Council on

Vocational Education, and the Technical College System Board.38

In 1994, the Human Resource Investment Council was created by order of the Governor, replacing the Wisconsin Jobs

Council, with the intent of providing oversight and direction to all education and employment and training programs. In

addition to the Local Collaborative Planning Teams that have been assembled in each of the 17 service delivery levels,

Human Resource Investment Boards were envisioned to be created in all local areas. However, there has been some

local resistance to overlaying these local policy boards in some service delivery areas where the integration of services

preceded this organizational structure. In 1996, the state Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations was

merged with the Department of Health and Social Services, consolidating some of the key One-Stop players in the

state.39

 ̈ Welfare Reform: Wisconsin has been a leader in developing the WorkFirst concept for the JOBS program. The

version of these reforms in operation at the time of our site visit emphasized the elimination of the time lag between

registration for cash assistance and work activity, requiring work activity for all welfare recipients whose youngest child

was 12 months or older. Clients registered for welfare benefits at the Job Center, and received an orientation to AFDC

and JOBS on the same day. Clients were then expected to engage in a simulated, 32 hour work week of program

activities, with placement into a work situation within 11 weeks. Work placement included full- or part-time

unsubsidized employment, on-the-job training positions, work supplementation (subsidized employment), and community

work experience. Persons with educational barriers (generally the lack of high school equivalency) could be excepted

from the work requirements, although the simulated work week must be maintained.

Starting in September 1997, Wisconsin Works (W-2) was to be implemented, replacing the WorkFirst program by

making cash assistance available only through work or participation in worklike activities. Participation is mandatory for

all parents whose youngest child is over 12 weeks old; assistance for disabled and grandparent or child only families has

been shifted out of the W-2 program. No cash grants are provided to work ready participants, who are eligible for child

care and medical assistance on an income-based, sliding fee schedule. A trial job subsidy is available, with the subsidy

flowing through the employer. Participants must engage in 4 weeks of work search after TANF application prior to

assessment. Those unable to find unsubsidized or subsidized employment must engage in community service

employment for 30 hours per week, and up to 10 hours per week of education and training. Transitional clients (based

on assessment by the state Vocational Rehabilitation agency) must engage in 28 hours of work activity each week, and

up to 12 hours of education and training. Trial jobs and community service jobs are eligible for subsidies up to 6 months,

with one 3 month extension, for a program maximum of 24 months for all jobs. Transitional benefits are limited to 24

months, with some potential for extensions.40
41 Kenosha County Job Center, “Expect Success,” Kenosha WI.

139

 ̈ Local Economy: The area has rebounded from the closing of a major automobile manufacturing complex in 1988,

diversifying its economic base in manufacturing, retail, and tourism. The county unemployment rate at the time of our

visit hovered around 3 percent. Roughly 40 percent of the resident work force commutes outside of the county for

employment, yet 12 percent of the total county employment is comprised of commuters into the county. Although

Kenosha County is linked with Racine County to the north and Walworth County to the west for purposes of the JTPA

service delivery area, this commuting pattern suggests that the effective labor market is composed of Kenosha County,

WI and Lake County, IL.41

 ̈ Location and Physical Space: The Job Center has been in operation since 1990, and is located in a shopping mall

on a primary bus route in the City of Kenosha. The Job Center has about 62,000 square feet of space, roughly 75

percent of the shopping mall, including on-site child care for parents using the facility. It provides all community

employment and training activities and economic support programs for the county, although some access is provided to

rural areas of the county via satellite offices. Over 18 agencies operating more than 20 programs are part of the

Center. The programs and staff are fully integrated. A single general reception area and a unified telephone system

serve all agencies in the facility. In most program areas, staff are seated according to function and integrated service

teams, not according to agency affiliation. The Job Search Resource Room, used for job search and placement services

for all clients, is staffed on a multi-agency and multi-program basis.

 ̈ General Concept: The Kenosha County Job Center is probably one of the most fully integrated One-Stop models in

the country. The Center has integrated its programs, staff, central services, and physical environment based on the

needs of its customers. This integration blends public, non-profit, and private sector service providers via inter-agency

agreements and contractual relationships that have been developed over time with strong local leadership and support

through the Center’s executive management structure. The most frequently repeated phrase during our interviews was

that “everyone is employable, with no exceptions,” reflecting a strong normative/motivational element in the program

design. Participants also report being advised not to apply for just any job -- “don’t apply for the job unless you want it”

-- recognizing that employment retention depends on a good match between job seeker and employer. The Center’s

attention to customer needs is not limited to job seekers, but also encompasses an active array of employer outreach

services.

 ̈ Kenosha County JOBS Program: In May 1997, the Center was preparing for the W-2 changes to go into effect. 

The JOBS program for public assistance recipients in place at the time of the site-visit was directly geared at getting

people into jobs and helping them become self-sufficient. From the moment an individual applies for cash benefits, the

message of economic self-sufficiency begins. The first step is to explore alternatives to enrollment in welfare and

JOBS, redirecting the applicant to other community resources when appropriate. If an individual is approved for

benefits and enrolls, he or she becomes a mandatory participant in the JOBS program and scheduled for an orientation. 

The JOBS program included the following major elements:

• Job Preparation Services: Orientation, motivational workshop, job seeking skills workshop, assessment, vocational

exploration, job search, and case management.

• Educational Services: Basic education, vocational skills training, customized training, other education, and case

management.

• Work Activities: Full-time employment, part-time employment, community work experience, other work experience,

on-the-job training, work supplementation, and case management.
140

Under W-2, Center managers expect to break down the job preparation services into discrete modules and make some

of these services, such as assessment, available to a broader range of Center clients.

 ̈ Partners: The collocated partner agencies are:

• Adult Educators, Inc.

• Child Care Resource and Referral of Greater Racine and Kenosha

• Children’s Service Society of Wisconsin

• Community Action Agency – WIC Program

• Gateway Technical College

• Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc.

• Hoppe – Orendorff, CPA

• Job Corps

• Kenosha County Department of Human Services

• Kenosha Unified Head Start

• Labor Management Council

• LJJ – Associates In Management Services, Inc.

• Professional Services Group, Inc.

• Senior Community Services of Southeastern Wisconsin

• Southeastern Wisconsin Private Industry Council, Inc.

• Systems Management, Inc.

• United Migrant Opportunity Service 

• Wisconsin Job Service

 ̈ Services for All Users: Services available for all uses of the Center include:

• Career information system

• Labor market information

• Education and training information

• Hiring requirements

• Referrals

• Job Search Assistance

• Community programs

• Resume preparation

• Computer, phone and fax access

• Typing and WP tests and skills

• General aptitude test

• Other tests

• On-site interviews

 ̈ Programs: Programs located on-site are:

• Fully integrated and consolidated public welfare delivery system
141

• Labor Exchange and Employment Security

• Mandatory Work Search Program of the Unemployment Compensation System

• Dislocated Worker Programs

• Older Worker Programs

• Senior Community Service Employment Program

• Veterans’ Program

• Job Training Partnership Act Programs

• Economic Support Programs

• Child Care Resource and Referral

• Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program

• Child Support Enforcement

• Child Care Services

• Migrant Seasonal Farm Workers Program

• Children First

• SSI Advocacy

• Women, Infants and Children (WIC)

• Extension Food and Nutrition Education Program

• Food Stamp Employment and Training Program

• Job Corps Recruitment

• Child Health Screenings

• Head Start

• Trade Adjustment Assistance

 ̈ Data Systems and Fiscal Planning: The Center has developed and maintains a central data system for managing

and tracking public assistance clients. This data system is valuable from a management perspective, as it allows

managers to track client flows and outcomes on a monthly basis. However, this system is not as heavily used for

individual case management, since JOBS case managers, economic support specialists, and job placement specialists are

all collocated as a unit. Labor market data systems include two statewide systems: Career Visions, the Wisconsin

Career Information System, and JOBNET, an automated touch screen system for posting resumes and job openings and

conducting job title and key word searches. In addition, local labor market information is provided by a regional labor

market analyst.

Kenosha County contracts with Goodwill Industries of Southeastern Wisconsin, Inc., to lease and maintain the Job

Center. As the leaseholder of the facility, Goodwill provides a variety of host services. Many of the direct services are

provided non-profit and for-profit organizations under contract with public partners. Following is a consolidated program

budget for the Job Center for 1996:

Program Annual Budget

JOBS Program $3,728,820

Economic Support Administration $3,163,391

Child Support $1,369,936

Prevention Services $1,078,064
142

Food Stamp Employment and Training $1,050,000

Senior Aides $410,000

Wisconsin Job Service $367,000

PIC-JTPA $360,000

Fraud Prevention $332,762

United Migrant Opportunity Service $60,000

Total $11,919,973

The executive management team for the Job Center is composed of a single upper level management representative

from each of the participating agencies. Policy guidance and oversight is provided by the Kenosha County Executive

and the Human Services Board. The Southeastern Wisconsin service delivery area does not have a separate Human

Resource Investment Board or Workforce Development Board.

Tarrant County Resource Connection Career Center, Fort Worth TX

Tarrant County has the sixth highest population density in Texas, with an employed population of just over 700,000. The

southeastern quadrant of the county (where the Resource Connection is located) contains 4 zip codes that accounted for 44

percent of calls to the United Way Call for Help line in 1996. This area also has 4 of the 7 zip code areas with the highest

concentrations of mandatory work participation clients.

 ̈ State Workforce System: Texas has a history of workforce program coordination and collocation dating back to the

1970s, but the evolution of its current system started in 1993 with legislation calling for the creation of the Texas Council

on Workforce and Economic Competitiveness. Once established in 1995, this Council replaced 5 advisory bodies, taking

responsibility for planning, developing, and evaluating an integrated workforce system. The Council provides the overall

development goals and policies which guide the Texas Workforce Commission, which was established in 1996 as a

“super agency” responsible for administering workforce development programs. The Commission consolidated the

workforce programs from 8 different state agencies, including Unemployment Insurance and most employment services,

JTPA and literacy programs, adult education and apprenticeship training, post-secondary vocational and technical

training, JOBS and Food Stamp Employment and Training, school-to-work planning, senior citizen employment, child

care, and community service activities. State legislation called for the establishment of One-Stop Career Centers and

encouraged the formation of local workforce development boards, but allowed local areas to retain separate advisory

and governing boards such as PICs and Job Service Employer Committees. Job training funds were also converted to

block grants to local boards.

 ̈ Welfare Reform: In November 1996, Texas implemented a new schedule of benefits under a five-year waiver which

differs from the new Federal TANF rules. For parents with a GED, high school diploma or at least 18 months of work

experience, benefits are limited to one year. For those with 6 to 17 months of work experience or 11th grade education

(but no GED or diploma), benefits are limited to two years. Parents with no GED and less than an 11th grade education

could receive up to 4 years of benefits. Anyone with work experience in 18 out of the past 24 months receives only one

year of benefits before work is required. All welfare recipients are required to participate in the Texas JOBS program;

those who fail to participate are subject to a $78/month sanction (from an average benefit rate of $188/month). 

However, any single parent with a child under age 5 is exempt from JOBS participation and work requirements as long

as they are not teenagers. Persons who are disabled or do not have reliable transportation are also exempt. This

schedule of benefits suggests that the least skilled parents and those with young children tend to have the fewest
143

immediate incentives for engaging the Center’s resources. At the time of our site visit, some parents had been

sanctioned but in general, the time limits had not yet really taken effect.

 ̈ Local Economy: The Fort Worth area’s economy received several shocks during the early and mid-1990s, with the

closure of Carswell Air Force Base, the loss of some primary industries and several major defense contracts. 

However, by early 1997, the economy had responded vigorously and unemployment in Tarrant County had fallen to 3.9

percent, compared with a statewide unemployment rate of 5.4 percent. Employers actively participating in the

Resource Connection tend to be concentrated among hospital, hotel, and electronic technology industries, with strong

demands for housekeeping, janitorial, entry level clerical, data entry, and electronic assembly and technician jobs.

 ̈ Location and Physical Space: The Resource Connection is located on a 92-acre campus just outside of the

beltway on the south side of Fort Worth. The site is in the middle of a 270-acre campus that was formerly used by the

Fort Worth State School for individuals with mental retardation. The South Campus of the Tarrant County Junior

College is nearby, and adjacent lands are either vacant or used for low income housing, commercial and industrial

purposes. The Resource Connection campus contains 14 buildings, 2 of which are used for support purposes and the

remainder (each with approximately 39,000 square feet) have been renovated to house the various collocated partners. 

The Texas Department of Human Services is currently constructing a new administrative building on the campus; at the

time of our visit, this agency was not collocated. All of the partners/buildings on campus are linked using common

computerized intake and referral system that operates on a state of the art local area computer network.

 ̈ General Concept: The Resource Connection Career Center reflects remarkable local leadership in establishing a

significant infrastructure for interagency collocation and collaboration. The conversion of the state school -- closed by

court order -- into the site for the Resource Connection is a demonstration of turning crisis into opportunity. The

Resource Connection Career Center is one of seven one-stop job centers in Tarrant County, yet this site offers a much

broader array of partner connections than any other. At the time of our visit, only about 27 percent of welfare

recipients were subject to mandatory job search and benefit cutoffs had not yet taken full effect. As a result, there was

a general sense that the facility was still new and its capacity somewhat underutilized. However, the staff seemed to be

experienced at working with a client base that has a disproportionate share of longer term welfare recipients.

 ̈ Texas JOBS Program: Welfare recipients subject to mandatory work search are referred by the Department of

Human Services to the Texas Workforce Commission JOBS facilitator at the Resource Connection Career Center. 

Clients work with career counselors and employment resource specialists to assess the steps they will need to take in

order to transition into work. Depending on the needs of the client, integrated case management is sometimes used as a

means of providing the best cross-section of services to the individual. The JOBS case manager provides

comprehensive employment and training services, and assists clients in referrals to appropriate resources for increasing

education and job related skills. Staff have developed several special programs for JOBS clients. One of the most

popular is a two-hour resume workshop conducted by Tarrant County Employment Network staff. Another is a lifeskills training program offered by an on-site social worker. This two-day program is offered twice a month, and covers

topics such as resume writing, interviewing skills, conflict management, job retention, and budgeting.

 ̈ Partners: The Memorandum of Understanding that establishes the organizational framework for the Resource

Connection Career Center identifies 14 partner agencies:

• Dallas Inter-tribal Center, Employment and Training Office

• Fort Worth Independent School District

• Goodwill Industries of Fort Worth
144

• Resource Connection Welcome Center

• Tarrant County Community Supervision and Corrections

• Tarrant County Department of Human Services

• Tarrant County Employment Network

• Tarrant County Junior College

• Tarrant County Veterans Services

• Texas Department of Human Services

• Texas Rehabilitation Commission

• Texas Workforce Commission

• The Working Connection MASTERS Program

• UTA Educational Opportunities Center

The Welcome Center is responsible for intake and initial referral of clients. The Tarrant County Employment Network

staffs the job search resource room and provides most of the employment services functions. The Texas Workforce

Commission staffs the basic labor exchange services, including computerized job matching services. Adult education is

provided by the Fort Worth Independent School District, and vocational evaluation and training is provided by Goodwill

Industries.

 ̈ Services: Service delivery begins at the Welcome Center, which is staffed by a multi-agency team of information

resource specialists and counselors. A Resource Room is available to drop-in customers and provides access to the

Internet and an automated resource and referral network provided through local United Way. Individuals have access

to a variety of services through the Resource Connection Career Center, including:

• Dislocated worker training,

• Veterans services

• Job placement and career counseling,

• Vocational aptitude and interest assessment,

• Vocational training workshops,

• Career resource library,

• Phone, fax and computer facilities,

• Employer resource room,

• Adult and youth learning centers,

• Unemployment compensation,

• Job readiness and job search seminars and workshops,

• JOBS,

• Case management and counseling.

 ̈ Data Systems and Fiscal Planning: The Resource Connection has implemented a computerized intake and

referral system with advanced, easy to use interface. All partner agencies are connected to the system through a local

area network that using software developed by Data Systems International that has been customized to the agencies

and site.

Tarrant County is the lead agency in the Resource Connection and as such, has lead responsibility for most management

functions, including contracting, tenant selection, rents, and hiring the Resource Connection Executive Director. The
42 The County Judge is the chief administrative officer for Tarrant County; four Commissioners are elected from

districts.

145

Resource Connection Advisory Board -- responsible for policy, community relations, and major financial development

strategy -- is composed of 8 members, including the County Judge and/or one Commissioner.42 Partner agencies were

responsible for their rehabilitation costs for their own facilities. Operation of the physical plant is funded via leases with

participating anchor agencies, including maintenance, utilities, administration, and a sinking fund/contingency fund

assessment. No comprehensive budget is maintained; individual agencies retain responsibility for financing services and

other operating costs.

Northwest Michigan JOBNET, Traverse City Michigan

Traverse City is the primary population center in the 10 county area of Northwest Michigan. The region is largely rural,

with four small cities and many small villages. Grand Traverse County (including Traverse City) is on the southern shore of

Lake Michigan, and has a permanent population of 70,000 which swells to 100,000 during the early summer with migrant

labor for the cherry crop and the onset of the tourist season.

 ̈ State Workforce System: [see REDBOOK] The concept of integrated service delivery in Michigan emerged in

the mid-1980s when the state attempted to institute the Michigan Opportunity Card. Eligible state residents were to

receive a card that provided access to a range of social services and was intended to streamline eligibility, give providers

basic client information, and create a mechanism to ensure continuity of service. While the card was never fully

institutionalized, it spurred service providers to pursue greater collaborative efforts. These efforts began to jell in

Northwest Michigan in 1991 with the leadership of the area Private Industry Council and Council of Governments, while

at the same time the state began to pull together workforce programs under the Michigan Jobs Commission. The

Michigan Employment Security Agency (MESA) was the last agency to join this constellation. A total of 26 Local

Workforce Development Boards with mandatory partners were established under the state framework, with Northwest

Michigan’s being the largest geographical area.

 ̈ Welfare Reform: Michigan currently operates a Work First program in the context of the new Federal TANF

program. All TANF applicants are referred to Work First by the Family Independence Agency (FIA). Work First is

fully integrated into JOBNET’s One-Stop system, which requires 20 hours per week participation for one-parent

families and 35 hours per week for one parent in two-parent families and 20 hours per week for the other parent. 

Participation in a joint orientation to Work First and JOBNET is mandatory for continued processing of the Work First

application for cash benefits. Only parents with children under 12 weeks of age are exempt. Continued satisfactory

participation in Work First is mandatory for the continuation of benefits; after “two strikes,” clients who fail to

participate are referred back to FIA for sanction. Those not working must be engaged in a highly structured job search

program. Design calls for continued contact to pursue education and training once 90 days of employment retention has

been achieved.

 ̈ Local Economy: The 10-county region of Northwestern Michigan spans a mix of relatively high income, low

unemployment counties in the northern part of the region with lower income, high unemployment counties to the south

and inland. For example, in Grand Traverse County, the heart of the region’s tourism industry, the unemployment rate

was about 4 percent at the time of our visit (June 1997), while in Manistee County, still struggling to recover from auto

industry related layoffs of the 1980s, unemployment was between 8 percent and 9 percent. The region has focused on

diversifying the local economy, with some success in expanding manufacturing and high technology industries, especially
146

in Grand Traverse County. However, with the importance of both tourism and the cherry harvest, even this area is

subject to seasonal swings in employment opportunities and labor market conditions.

 ̈ Location and Physical Space: The Traverse City JOBNET offices are the central hub of what is envisioned to be

a network of 8 sites scattered throughout Northwestern Michigan. At the time of our visit, 5 of the 8 sites were open

and operating, and Traverse City was preparing a new location that would bring together several of its partners in a

single facility designed for that purpose. The current JOBNET office, located between residential and industrial areas

not too far from a main thoroughfare, houses JTPA and MESA staff and provides a resource area adjacent to the

reception desk. Most of the Work First counseling and job search activities are located across the street. FIA is not

currently collocated with JOBNET, and some of the management team for JOBNET is housed at Northwestern

Michigan College. The new offices will accommodate a representative from FIA.

 ̈ General Concept: The Work First element of the JOBNET program places a heavy emphasis on immediate job

search and placement, with case management attention to individualized support services and follow-up education and

training activities. Participants noted that they were urged to “take a job, any job, and then work your way up.” 

Considerable attention has been paid to the development of common data systems for case management as a tool for

fostering collaboration and freeing scarce resources for high touch counseling and follow-up. Reading the JOBNET

literature and talking with staff and local businesses, one gets the sense of a strong local vision that is in a multi-year

process of being methodically developed one step at a time, almost regardless of state leadership and timetable.

 ̈ Work First Program: Following referral from FIA to JOBNET, Work First applicants participate in a joint Work First

and JOBNET orientation. Usually, the JOBNET intake and initial assessment with a case manager occur during the

initial contact with the JOBNET office; applicants are immediately entered into the labor exchange computer system as

part of the intake. Following the orientation, those who continue to participate enter a highly structured job search

program that includes the development of a Personal Plan of Action (PPA), assistance and referral for basic support

services (such as child care, health care, clothing allowance, and transportation), and a job club offering assistance in job

search skills, resume writing, interviewing, and labor market information. Case managers continue to work with

individual clients on their support service needs as they look for work and once they have found employment. For those

participants who chose to do so, they may continue to work with case managers to find ways of pursuing education and

training needs once employment retention for 90 days is a achieved -- whether subsidized work experience or

unsubsidized employment.

 ̈ Partners: The primary partner organizations of the Northwest JOBNET are:

• Northwest Michigan Council of Governments

• Michigan Employment Security Agency

• Michigan Rehabilitation Services

• Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District and Career Tech Center

• Char-Em Intermediate School District

• Wexford-Missaukee Intermediate School District and Career Tech Center

• Manistee Schools Cooperative

• Northwest Michigan College

• North Central Michigan College

• West Shore Community College
147

• Family Independence Agency

• Local Economic Development Councils

• Private Rehabilitation Agencies

• Area Agency on Aging of Northwest Michigan.

The primary partners in the Traverse City JOBNET office include JTPA contract employees, MESA, and Michigan

Rehabilitation Services.

 ̈ Services: The following services can be received directly in the Traverse City JOBNET offices:

• Common intake system

• Information and referral

• Self-service resources

• Assessment

• Job search skills workshops

• Resume lab

• Interview lab

• Employability planning and counseling

• Education, training and financial aid assistance

• Case management

• Job seeker support groups

• Rehabilitation assessment, planning and support

• Basic education and workforce literacy skills

• Orientation for public assistance recipients

• Job referral and placement

• Unemployment insurance

• Connection to subsidized training 

• Child care resource and referral

• Supportive services to enhance employability

• Special services for target populations (UI profiling customers, job club for Work First, etc.)

• Comprehensive business services.

 ̈ Data Systems and Fiscal Planning: The Northwest Michigan JOBNET blends two data systems in order to

provide One-Stop service to their clients. MESA’s employer records and job orders and automated labor exchange are

kept on MAJIC, while the Automated Case Management System (ACMS) maintains a shared database of client

records. The ACMS system was developed by the Northwest Michigan JOBNET, and is used to provide information

across agencies on common intake questions, assessment, career advancement plans and PPAs, case notes, and other

program-specific data and records of service. JOBNET staff use e-mail for internal communications, along with an

automated appointment scheduling system.

Management of the Northwest Michigan JOBNET is provided by the Advisory Committee, which consists of

management staff appointed by the area Workforce Development Board (formerly the PIC). This group oversees the

system design, implementation, and development, as well as being responsible for system changes, pooling of resources,

barrier removal, and evaluation of outcomes. No unified budget is maintained for all JOBNET partners.
148

Whatcom County WorkNet Consortium, Bellingham Washington

Whatcom County is located in the northwest corner of Washington State. Canada boarders to the north, the Cascade

mountain range rises to the east and the Pacific Ocean lies to the west. Seattle is 100 miles to the south. Bellingham

(population 55,000) is the urban center of the county and has strong historical ties to the major Pacific Northwest industries

of timber, fishing, and trade. As evidence of the area’s ties to natural resources, two thirds of the county is located within

the North Cascades National Park.

 ̈ State Workforce System: The attention of policymakers to the state’s workforce system started in the early 1990s

with a major study of human capital development. Study recommendations led to the creation of the Workforce

Development Board in 1992, with broad representation of state agencies and community interests. The Board has

responsibility for policy oversight and evaluation of the state’s workforce system, including school-to-work, community

and technical colleges, and employment services provided by several state and local agencies, yet the Board has no

significant control over individual agency budgets and policy and program decisions. Although local boards were

envisioned in the original legislation, they have yet to be created. Movement toward an integrated career center system

began in 1994, with the creation of a One-Stop Career Center System Management Team composed of cabinet-level

state officials and senior representatives from business, labor, and community groups. The 1995 vision of this group

called for integrating employment and training services to make them easier to use, and consolidating programs were

coordination and efficiencies can result.

Some local areas in western Washington, such as Whatcom County, began developing their own versions of One-Stop

centers as early as 1992, while others are just now establishing their own unique local designs.

 ̈ Welfare Reform: Washington State experimented with two different welfare reform efforts prior to enactment of its

current WorkFirst program in 1997. At the time of our site visit, the welfare program in place was operating under a set

of waivers from the federal TANF law. Welfare recipients with children over age 3 were required to enroll in the

JOBS program (administered by the state’s Employment Security Department), although the definition of work under

this program was inclusive of a variety of education and training activities. Beginning in 1995, cash benefits for

recipients were reduced after 48 months. It is unclear how many recipients were sanctioned during the relatively short

period that this program was in place, and there is some sense that follow-up for no-shows was lax. Generally, this

program was focused more heavily on supporting welfare recipients while they completed education and training prior to

searching for employment that would provide self-sufficiency.

By contrast, the WorkFirst program places heavy emphasis on job search immediately after application for cash

assistance and prior to assessment for job skills and employability, representing a significant shift from “education and

training first” “to “work first.” Only parents with children under 12 months and caretakers are generally exempt from

work requirements. Participants are expected to accept the first available job. Increased funding is made available for

child care, although reimbursement rates have been reduced and sliding fee schedule co-payments instituted.

 ̈ Local economy: The natural resource industries of timber and fishing had long served this area as base industries, but

declines in these industries have meant the loss of many high wage, often seasonal jobs. A boom in retail trade during

the early 1990s was fed largely by a strong influx of Canadian shoppers and the growth of a large retail mall on the

outskirts of Bellingham. However, an increasingly stronger American dollar relative to the Canadian dollar has severely
149

depleted this stimulus to the local economy. As a result, the unemployment rate in Whatcom County at the time of our

site visit was just under 6 percent, despite much lower state and national unemployment rates.

 ̈ Location and Physical Space: The Center for Workforce Training provides the focus for the WorkNet

Consortium. The Center is located in downtown Bellingham, adjacent to the Northwest Private Industry Council offices

and across the street from state Employment Security Department offices. The Center houses a computer lab,

classrooms, conference room, career development and job search center, and staff offices. In addition to the Center,

designated locations provide information on all available services, any eligibility requirements, and where and how to

access services. Designated sites include: job service centers (Employment Security Department), PIC offices,

community and technical colleges, community service offices (Department of Social and Health Services), and career

development centers.

 ̈ General Concept: The WorkNet Consortium is designed as a “first stop,” or “no wrong door” system that depends

more on collaboration of partners than on collocation of services. For example, all partner agencies can refer clients to

a common three-day orientation class which is held weekly and covers self-assessment, career exploration,

communication and job search skills, labor market information, resume writing, and interviewing skills. The class is

taught by Employment Security and/or PIC staff, and when the client completes the class he/she returns to the referring

agency, which acts as case manager. Interagency work teams are the primary mechanism used in the development of

an integrated service delivery system, led by a design team which meets every four to six weeks to identify tasks. Midmanagers and line staff form subgroups that have the responsibility to set up the structure to achieve these tasks. A

common set of Workforce Skill Standards are used to facilitate service planning and communication among the partner

agencies and to set performance goals.

 ̈ JOBS Program: At the time of our site visit, the JOBS Program was administered by the Department of Social and

Health Services (DSHS). Local DSHS social workers arranged counseling and support services, and referred clients to

Employment Security Department employment specialists to provide employment and training services, arranged training

at educational institutions, and helped co-enroll and/or transition participants into other programs that offer

complementary employment and training services, such as JTPA. JOBS components included assessment, basic

education, high school and GED completion, ESL instruction, job readiness activities, work experience, postsecondary

vocational training, and job search/placement. Child care, medical, and dental services were available for as long as one

year after a recipient was employed and no longer receiving an AFDC grant.

 ̈ Partners: The primary partners in the WorkNet Consortium are:

• Bellingham Technical College

• Employment Security Department, Bellingham Job Service Center

• Department of Social and Human Services, Bellingham Community Services Division

• Northwest Private Industry Council

The Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, which is part of the Department of Social and Health Services, is also

included in this partnership.

 ̈ Services: The services made available through WorkNet include:
150

• First-stop services: program information and eligibility, initial assessment, and referral

• In-depth assessment

• Career planning

• Employability plan

• Case management

• Workforce preparation

• Employer linkages

• Work-based job training

• Job match and job search services

• Basic academic skills

• Classroom training

• Support services (child care, transportation subsidy, job readiness, counseling, needs-based payments, and follow-up

assistance)

 ̈ Programs: The following programs are available through the WorkNet Consortium:

• JTPA Titles IIA, IIB, IIC, Older Workers and EDWAA Title III

• JTPA 8 percent Education Coordination Grant

• JOBS

• Community and technical college financial aid programs, including state training assistance and Pell Grants, and

occupational training program prerequisites assessment information

• Dislocated Workers

• Trade Adjustment Assistance

• Claimant Placement Program

• Commissioner Approved Training and Timber Retraining Benefits

• Workforce Training Trust Fund Services

• Wagner-Peyser functions

• Adult Basic Education

• ESL and GED training through community and technical colleges

 ̈ Data Systems and Fiscal Planning: WorkNet Consortium partner agencies have access to a first generation

version of the Data Systems International computer system for client intake, referral, and case management. However,

none of these agencies have been granted (state) legal authority to share this data across agency lines, making it

necessary for agencies to maintain parallel data sets. Additional data resources include Internet access to America’s

Jobs, standard occupational and industrial labor market and labor exchange data (from the Employment Security

Department), and community resource information. The Center for Workforce Training is co-funded and co-managed

by the four partner agencies.
151

Workforce Development 

(Reprinted from the December 1999 Monthly Labor Review)

David Balducchi
152
153

Workforce Development

The Public Employment Service in the United States. By the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD

Washington Center, Washington, D.C., 1999, pp. 228. $36.00, paperback.

In 1832, Alexis de Tocqueville published his seminal work, Democracy in America, which described American customs and

the role of government in the United States. There is a distant kinship between Tocqueville’s study and the Organization for

Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD) recent study entitled, The Public Employment Service in the United

States. Their similarity lies in that both studies competently tangle with the complexity of American federalism. As

Tocqueville’s discourse remains a discerning portrait of America during the Age of Jackson, the OECD’s report may likely

be an enduring portrait of employment policy during the Age of Clinton.

The OECD, a Paris-based agency chartered to promote policies of economic and employment expansion in the United

States and the 28 other member countries, is abundantly qualified to analyze the public employment service system -- a

delivery system which in the United States is dubbed “workforce development,” referring to employment and training

programs. The report is the 18th study in a series of OECD country reviews. The U.S. study was presented to the

OECD’s Employment, Labor and Social Affairs Committee in October 1998, and is published under the aegis of the

OECD’s Secretary-General. 

The study is learned and comprehensive. The report’s principal authors, Robert Fay and Douglas Lippoldt, analyze federal

policies and evaluation results, examine street-level execution of programs, and provide trenchant commentaries. The study

is anchored by findings drawn from implementation reviews conducted in Connecticut and Wisconsin. Throughout the

narrative, the authors compare and contrast program services, delivery structures and performance outcomes nationally and

in the two study states. 

The study is divided into eight chapters, each zeroing in on pivotal workforce development initiatives supported by a hearty

supply of instructive tables and explanatory inserts. The chapters carefully dissect aspects of the American system

including labor exchange services, labeled “job brokering,” One-Stop system and self-service strategies, administration of

unemployment benefits, job search assistance approaches, referred to as “active labor market policies,” training services and

welfare reform. 

The narrative contains a perceptive description of the decentralized approach to workforce development administration that

sometimes forms the crosscurrents of federal, state and local policy, implementation and oversight. Given the complexity of

American federalism, this was a formidable task, and the authors produced an exceptionally thorough depiction of the

American workforce development scene. Among other attributes, it is the only study I have reviewed that arrays estimates

of staffing at government levels according to fund sources, agency structures and workloads. Moreover, the study contains

deft observations, some being: 

• A massive restructuring of the U.S. workforce delivery system is underway. Under the One-Stop moniker, a national

network of local centers linked by computer system is being knit together to unify services and providers at common

access points. According to the study, while the creation of One-Stop centers appears to make intuitive sense, the use

of special grant funds to nurture their growth may raise a long-term survival issue.

• Public labor exchange services have been modestly funded and garner a smaller market share in comparison to many

OECD countries, conditions that have contributed to an increase in self-accessed services. If labor exchange services

are to be the only universal public policy instrument supporting job seekers, the study suggests that the United States

may need to consider more active job matching approaches.
154

• The use of centralized telephone units to administer unemployment insurance claims has, in some instances, led to

insufficient job search enforcement and, among other things, may result in a failure to identify job seekers who need

extra job finding services.

• The United States is one of the few OECD countries that has implemented a profiling model to identify job seekers at

risk of long-term unemployment. The study observes that early evaluations indicate that the profiling initiative has

produced modest results in reducing unemployment duration, and that additional evaluations should consider whether

there is a set of job search services that work better than others. 

• Evidence on the outcomes of government-sponsored training programs is mixed. Citing U.S. studies, the authors

suggest that classroom training does not appear to help target groups while on-the-job training does appear to be

effective.

• A tenet of welfare reform is the work-first approach rather than the use of training programs. The study points out that

many who leave welfare will continue to need support services and, in the event of an economic downturn, the safety

net for families could be eroded.

The authors perhaps wisely chose not to insert a section on implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of

1998 which was enacted subsequent to the drafting of the initial findings. The section may have been too speculative. 

Even so, the OECD study is often prophetic in analyzing the very workforce development initiatives placed in the WIA. 

Public support for the One-Stop system led to the WIA’s reliance on it for the delivery of services. In due course, the OneStop moniker may become as American as corn on the cob. As well, under WIA, a further shift in the federal-state balance

is likely as local officials are delegated responsibility to administer One-Stop centers and most workforce development

funds.

The OECD study offers the reader a bountiful journey. It mines the rich holdings of U.S. workforce development

evaluations and provides a balanced set of timely analyses and commentaries that may guide policy makers and program

practitioners.
155

Legislative Developments and Financial Status
156
157

Changes in Unemployment Insurance Legislation in 1999

(Reprinted from the January 2000 Monthly Labor Review)

Robert Kenyon, Jr.
158
159

Changes in Unemployment 

Insurance Legislation in 1999

At the Federal level, enactments dealt with trade adjustment

assistance and with the tax treatment of employer-provided 

educational assistance; some States addressed issues such as 

job loss associated with avoiding domestic abuse 

and the conditions under which wage information 

gathered for the program could be released to third parties.

Several Federal enactments during 1999 affected the Federal-State unemployment compensation program. Public Law

106-113, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000, reauthorizes programs under the Trade Adjustment Assistance Act

and the North American Transitional Assistance Act through September 30, 2001. In order to receive allowances

under these Acts, individuals must have been entitled to unemployment compensation during a specified period and

must have exhausted all rights to such benefits, along with other conditions. 

The Ticket to Work and Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999 (P.L.106-170) extends the exclusion from the

definition of wages for Federal unemployment tax purposes for employer-provided educational assistance for

undergraduates. The provision is effective with respect to courses beginning after May 31, 2000, and before January

1, 2002. 

This Act also allows States the option of permitting domestic service employers to file annual, rather than quarterly,

wage reports required under section 1137 of the Social Security Act, thereby aligning the reporting of wages with the

payment of income taxes for certain employers. Section 1137 provides for an income and eligibility verification system

for certain federally-funded public benefits. The provision is effective upon enactment.

The States made few significant changes to their unemployment insurance laws during 1999. Three

States—Delaware, Georgia, and Florida—increased their maximum weekly benefit amounts through 1999 legislation;

in some other States, the weekly benefit amounts increase automatically. Maine will increase its taxable wage base on

January 1, 2000. Three States—New York, Colorado, and Wyoming—have made an exception to the voluntary quit

provision for a separation from work caused by domestic abuse. Several States enacted provisions addressing Reed

Act distributions for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001.1 Four States—Illinois, Indiana, Oregon, and Florida— now

allow administrators of the unemployment insurance program to disclose an individual’s wage information to his or her

creditors, upon the individual’s consent.

Following is a summary of some significant changes in State unemployment insurance laws during 1999.
160

ARIZONA

Benefits. The definition of "unemployed" is changed to require that the reason for less than full-time work be without fault of the

individual.

ARKANSAS

Administration. Reed Act funds credited with respect to Federal fiscal year 1999 may be used for the purpose of construction and

improvement of buildings, rent or lease costs, acquisition of land, or for the payment of salaries and related benefits of local office

staff. Monies credited with respect to Federal fiscal years 2000 and 2001 shall be used solely for administration of the unemployment

compensation program, or as otherwise prescribed in the Social Security Act, as amended. The amount that a counsel or agent can

charge or receive for services rendered at an administrative appeal was raised from $250 to $500. The director of Employment Security

is now required to establish safeguards protecting confidential information that is disclosed for purposes appropriate to the

Department of Employment Security’s operation. 

Benefits. An in-person hearing must granted, upon the request of an interested party, in an intrastate claim for which the Board of

Review directs that additional evidence be taken. Individuals owing overpayment of benefits are made subject to intercept of State

income tax refunds. The 50-percent restriction on the amount of benefits that may be used to repay overpayments is eliminated,

effective July 1, 1999. Unemployment benefits are now subject to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax levies, so long as the State has an

agreement with the IRS, that provides for the payment of all administrative costs associated with processing the levies. The provision

that excluded services performed for a community program licensed by the Division of Developmental Disabilities from the between

terms denial was repealed. The length of time that an individual on layoff is exempt from registering for work is increased from 8 weeks

to 10 weeks. The standard for misconduct is amended so that willful violation of employer safety rules or customs must be a violation

of “bona fide” rules or customs in order for it to an individual from receiving benefits. Persons is added to the list of individuals that

may be affected by the behavior in order for it to be disqualifying.

Coverage. Excluded from the definition of employment are: services performed in the employ of a governmental entity as an election

official or election worker, if the amount of remuneration received during the calendar year is less than $1,000 (beginning January 1,

1999); and services performed by a person committed to a penal institution (beginning July 1, 1999).

Financing. An additional 2-percent contribution assessment is assigned to employers with a 6- percent contribution rate for the 2

preceding calendar years and a negative balance in both of 2 preceding computation years. The assessment is increased from 2

percent to 4 percent for employers that have been assigned the additional contribution assessment for 2 consecutive years if they

have a negative balance in 2 or more of the 3 preceding computation periods.

CALIFORNIA

Benefits. The period during which individuals out of work due to freezing conditions in December 1998 can file claims for benefits is

extended from August 8, 1999, to July 31, 2000. An individual shall receive weekly benefits under the special programs equal to the

weekly benefit amount less the amount of wages in excess of $200, after serving a 1-week waiting period. The weekly benefit amount

shall be rounded up to the next dollar amount. 

COLORADO

Benefits. An individual may now be required to provide a written medical statement, issued by a licensed physician, addressing his or

her health matters if the individual left employment for health reasons. An eligibility condition is added that provides that an

individual is eligible to receive benefits if he or she is not absent from work due to an authorized and approved voluntary leave of

absence. Provided certain conditions are met, an individual may be awarded benefits if he or she left employment because of domestic

abuse. The strike provisions are modified to provide that individuals unemployed due to an offensive lockout are eligible for benefits

and that individuals unemployed due to a defensive lockout are ineligible for benefits. Offensive lockout” is now defined 
161

as any lockout other than a defensive lockout. Definitions also are implemented for “coordinated bargaining,” “lockout,” “multi

employer bargaining unit,” and “strike or labor dispute.” The qualifying requirement for benefits is changed from earnings equal to 40

times the weekly benefit amount to earnings of $2,500 or 40 times the weekly benefit amount, whichever is greater. 

Financing. The employer is now not charged for benefits paid to the claimant if the claimant’s separation is due to domestic abuse. 

The distribution of the surcharge tax is changed from 80 percent to the unemployment compensation fund and 20 percent to the

unemployment support fund to 50 percent to each fund. Beginning in calendar year 2000, determination of the surcharge tax changes

from a computation based on benefits ineffectively charged to a fixed rate of 0.22 percent;. the distribution remains 50 percent to each

fund. The law now makes clear that monies collected through the surcharge tax allocated to the employment support fund will be used

to offset funding deficits for program administration, including information technology initiatives. The provision that reduced funds

available to the employment support fund if Reed Act monies are appropriated is deleted. 

CONNECTICUT

Benefits. The per-week dependency allowance per dependent is increased from $10 to $15. The dependency allowance cap is

increased from 50 percent to 100 percent of the claimant’s weekly benefit rate, but the provision retains the five-dependent limit.

Individuals who leaves work in order to protect themselves, or children residing with them, from domestic violence, and who have

made a reasonable effort to keep their employment, will be eligible to receive unemployment insurance benefits. No charge shall apply

to the employer’s account for benefits paid to an employee who quit to escape domestic violence.

DELAWARE

Benefits. The order in which payments on account are applied to a fraud overpayment debt is changed; payments will be applied first

to principal, then to accrued interest. If the balance in the trust fund account is greater than or equal to $250 million, the maximum

weekly benefit amount increases from $300 to $315 for all new claimants establishing a benefit year on or after July 1, 1999.

Financing. Established is a new supplemental assistance rate table that provides for a rate of 0.3 percent when the State’s trust fund

account balance is equal to or greater than $250 million. Previously, the minimum supplemental assistance rate was 0.5 percent when

the balance was equal to or greater than $215 million. 

FLORIDA

Administration. The State is now required to provide creditors secured electronic access to employer- provided information relating to

quarterly wage reports. Creditors and consumer reporting agencies must safeguard the confidentiality of the information, and may

only use it to support a single consumer transaction. If the confidentiality agreement between the consumer reporting agencies and

creditors and the Department of Labor and Employment Security is violated, the contract will be terminated. Any revenues generated

by such a contract will be used to fund the entire cost of providing access to the information. All start up and development costs will

be paid to the department before any such wage and employment history information is released.

Benefits. The termination date for the Florida Training Investment Program is extended through June 30, 2002. Under this program,

dislocated workers will no longer receive benefits after that date. The "voluntary quit without good cause" provision is amended to

clarify that work means full-time, part-time, or temporary work. The weekly benefit amount increases from $250 to $275. For the period

January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, the additional 5 percent of the weekly benefit amount that is added for the first 8 weeks

increases the weekly benefit amount from $262 to $288. 

The maximum benefit entitlement rises from $6,550 to $7,150. Beginning January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2000, the additional 5

percent added to the weekly benefit amount for the first 8 payable weeks increases the maximum benefit entitlement from $6,596 to

$7,254.

Financing. The 0.5-percent rate reduction applicable to certain employers' assigned tax rates is extended through calendar year 2000.
162

GEORGIA

Benefits. The maximum weekly benefit amount increases from $244 to $264,; effective July 1, 1999; to $274, effective July 1, 2000; and

to $284, effective on and after July 1, 2001. On or after January 1, 2000, weekly benefit amount increases shall not be in effect when the

statewide reserve ratio is 1.25 percent or less.

Financing. The reduced contribution rate for employers implementing a drug-free workplace is eliminated, thereby resolving a

conformity issue. The effective dates of new-employer contribution rates are changed, and a new rate (2.62 percent) is established. 

Rates are as follows: 

a 2.64-percent rate in effect from April 1, 1987, to December 31, 1999 (instead of until June 30, 2001);

a 2.62-percent rate (new rate) in effect from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2005; and a 

2.7-percent rate after December 31, 2005 (instead of after June 30, 2001). Effective dates on existing rate tables are changed as follows: 

April 1, 1987, to December 31, 1999, instead of until June 30, 2001; and after December 31, 2005, instead of after June 30, 2001. A new

rate table is established for the period January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2005, effectively reducing rates: those for positive-balance

employers now range from 0.025 percent to -2.110 percent (was 0.04 percent to 2.125 percent); those for negative- balance employers

now range from 2.15 percent to 5.4 percent (was 2.16 percent to 5.4 percent).

Contribution rates for experience-rated employers are now limited to 1.0 percent of statutory contribution rates for January 1,

2000, to December 31, 2004. However, if the statewide reserve ratio reaches 1.25 or less for the period, that limitation shall become null

and void and the rate table become effective. The Governor is authorized to suspend any portion of this rate reduction if “in the best

interests of the State of Georgia.” When, for the period on or after January 1, 2000, the statewide reserve ratio is 2.4 percent or more for

any calendar year, contribution rates shall be reduced by 25 or 50 percent; when the reserve ratio is less than 1.7 percent, contribution

rates shall increase by 25, 50, 75, or 100 percent, depending on the actual reserve ratio.

The rate of administrative assessment is increased from 0.06 percent to 0.08 percent, effective January 1, 2000, through

December 31, 2005; The expiration date of the administrative assessment is extended from June 30, 2001, to December 31, 2005. 

Nonprofit and governmental entities and those assigned the minimum positive reserve rate or the maximum deficit reserve rate are

exempted from the administrative assessment.

IDAHO

Administration. Reed Act distributions with respect to excesses in Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for

purposes of unemployment compensation administration, and are not subject to appropriation by the legislature. 

Benefits. The law now specifies the eligibility conditions for an individual who works for a staffing service and who has signed a

written statement concerning the notification requirements following completion or termination of an assignment. "Staffing services"

are defined as any person who assigns individuals to work for its customers and includes, but is not limited, to, professional

employers and the employers of temporary employees.

ILLINOIS

Administration. Effective January 1, 2000, the law permits the disclosure of information to an individual or an agent of the individual

showing the amount of benefits the individual received during the 18 months prior to the date of request. Reed Act provisions are

amended to conform with Federal Law in terms of State requisition and expenditure.

Benefits. Consistent with the changes in the taxable wage base, the standard average weekly wage (used for determining the weekly

benefit amount) is set at $600 for benefit year 2004 (was previously $524 for 2000). Effective January 1, 2000, an individual may not be

denied benefits for giving false statements or for failure to disclose information if the previous benefits are being recouped or

recovered.
163

Financing. The current taxable wage base of $9,000 is extended through calendar year 2003 (was previously 1999). In the year 2004,

(previously 2000 only), the wage base is $10,000 and returns to $9,000 in 2005 and thereafter. 

INDIANA

Administration. The law now permits the disclosure of employee wage record information to creditors on the basis of written informed

consent of the individual to which the information pertains. The creditor must retain the consent for at least 3 years or, if less, for the

length of the loan. The period that reimbursing employers have to pay monthly bills is reduced by 1 day. 

The commissioner of the unemployment insurance program may now release information obtained from any person in the

administration of the Indiana Employment and Training Services Act, and the records of the department relating to the unemployment

tax or the payment of benefits, to the department of State revenue or to State or local law enforcement agencies, only if there is an

agreement that the information will be kept confidential and used for legitimate governmental purposes. Employees of the

aforementioned agencies who recklessly violate the provision are subject to criminal penalties.

IOWA

Administration. The number of days during which a successor employer may make an application of approval with the department in

regards to the partial transfer of a business with respect to the predecessor's payrolls, contributions, accounts, and contribution rates

is changed from 60 to 90 days. 

Reed Act distributions with respect to excesses in Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for purposes of

unemployment compensation administration. 

LOUISIANA

Administration. Reed Act distributions with respect to excesses in Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for

purposes of unemployment compensation administration, and are not subject to appropriation by the legislature. 

 The type of property that a notice of assessment covers is changed from real or personal to movable or immovable. A notice of

assessment will not affect liens, privileges, chattel mortgages, and security interests under the Louisiana Commercial Laws. The filing

of an assessment notice, however, must be sufficient to cover all unpaid contributions, interest, and penalties that may accrue after the

filing. The employer’s property will be subject to seizure and sale for payment of such contributions, interest, and penalties according

to the rank of the lien, privilege, security interest, and mortgage.

MAINE

Administration. The process for claims filing is amended to require an employer to issue, with a few exceptions, a completed partial

unemployment claim form to each of its employees (those who are customarily employed full-time) whose hours have been reduced

below full-time hours during a week due to lack of work, or who are given no work for a week due to a lack of work, and who are still

employed with the employer. The partial unemployment claim forms for a week must be provided no later than the day on which the

payroll is available to employees. An employer that fails to provide forms to its employees shall be fined $25 per day per form for each

day the form is late. If no work is given to employees for 2 or more consecutive weeks, the Director of Unemployment Compensation

may authorize the use of the partial unemployment claim form. 

Coverage. The definition of employment now excludes services performed as an author of a publisher under certain circumstances and

if the employment is not subject to the Federal Unemployment Tax Act.

Financing. Any business that is purchased free and clear of liens through bankruptcy will be assigned the State average contribution

rate, if the contribution rate for the predecessor business is greater than the State average contribution rate. Otherwise, the successor

business assumes the predecessor’s experience rating. 
164

The taxable wage base rises from $7,000 to $12,000, effective January 1, 2000. Also effective on that date, the definition of 

“reserve multiple” is changed from the current fund reserve ratio as a multiple of the composite cost rate to the current fund reserve

ratio as a multiple of the average benefit cost rate. An array system is established for determining tax rates, based on employers’

reserve ratios and taxable payrolls, with a phasing in of experience factors. The State commissioner of the unemployment insurance

program will now determine the contribution rates effective for a rate year by multiplying the predetermined yield (the ratio of total

wages to taxable wages for the preceding calendar year, multiplied by the planned yield) by the experience factors for each employer

contribution category. The new employer rate is changed from the average contribution rate to 1 percent or a predetermined yield,

whichever is greater.

MARYLAND

Administration.. The Self Employment Assistance (SEA) program is extended through June 1, 2000.

MASSACHUSETTS

Administration. Reed Act distributions with respect to Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for purposes of

unemployment compensation administration. 

MISSISSIPPI

Benefits. A waiver for the 1week waiting period is provided in the event that the President of the United States declares a major

disaster. The benefits paid for the waiver of the 1week waiting period are nonchargeable to the employer. 

MONTANA

Administration. The Internal Revenue Service is permitted to tax unemployment benefits under certain conditions. The offset

provision is amended to permit 100-percent offset (rather than only 50 percent) of the weekly benefit amount in cases of theft or fraud.

Financing. The administrative assessment for experienced rated employers is increased from 0.1 percent to 0.13 percent. The

unemployment insurance tax rate on taxable wages for experience-rated employers is increased by 0.03 percent in all schedules. The

rounding calculation of the tax rate for an employer who has failed to file payroll reports is changed from the nearest one-tenth of 1

percent to the nearest one-hundredth of 1 percent.

NEBRASKA

Administration. Lien filing procedures are revised to provide that liens be filed in accordance with the Uniform State Tax Lien

Registration and Enforcement Act. The lien must set forth the amount of combined tax and interest in default and be continued and

enforced as provided in that Act. This provision applies to nonprofit employers that elect to make payments in lieu of contributions,

as well as to for-profit employers. The new procedures are effective for defaults on or after May 1, 1999. Liens filed prior to May 1,

1999, are governed by prior procedures. The State Commissioner of Labor is now allowed to levy upon, seize, and sell real and

personal property belonging to the taxpayer if the taxpayer fails to pay taxes or deficiencies.

Reed Act distributions with respect to excesses in Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for purposes of

unemployment compensation administration, and are not subject to appropriation by the legislature. 

Benefits. A definition of paid vacation leave is added to the law, to mean a period, while employed or following separation from

employment, during which an individual renders no services to the employer but is entitled to receive vacation pay equal to or

exceeding his or her base weekly wage. An individual is now to be considered employed when wages are received for a specified 
165

time during which the vacation is actually taken within a period of temporary layoff or plant shutdown. Vacation pay will be prorated

in an amount reasonably attributable to each week claimed, and will be considered payable with respect to that week.

Coverage. Wages for employment are redefined to include payment for personal services paid under a contract of hire. The exclusion

from employment with respect to the sale, delivery, and distribution of newspapers or magazines is modified to require a written

contract which specifies that the services and the individual performing the services are not covered.

 

NEVADA

Financing. Effective July 1, 2000, a check that is offered on or before the due date for payment of contributions, but is later refused by

the financial institution on which it is drawn, does not constitute timely payment unless it is determined that the refusal occurred due

to an error by the financial institution. An additional fee of not more than $25 for handling may be charged to a person who presents a

check that is not valid. Effective May 29, 1999, a debtor of an employing unit who is notified of nonpayment of a debt when due may

not transfer, pay over, or make any other disposition of money or property belonging to the delinquent employing unit until the

Administrator agrees in writing or until 30 days have elapsed after the receipt of the notice. Effective July 1, 2000, the rate of interest

payable on overdue unemployment insurance contributions changes from 0.5 percent to 1.0 percent per month. 

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Administration. The fact- finding approach for an employer is changed to provide that notice of claim filing be sent to the last

employing unit or to any employer who may be charged with benefits in cases for which the claimant’s reason for leaving their employ

was material to the claim. The notice will no longer require the employer to show up in person at a specific date and time to present

information, but rather provides that the employer only contact the department to provide the material information. 

Benefits. The definition of most recent employer is amended to include an alternative of employment in excess of 9 weeks immediately

preceding 13 weeks of receiving no benefits. A definition of a “high unemployment period” was added, to mean an extended benefit

period during which the insured unemployment rate is 8 percent or greater. The law now provides that 20 weeks of extended benefits

will be payable during a high unemployment period, up to a maximum 46 weeks of total benefits.

NEW MEXICO

Benefits. A temporary services employer is now required to provide the employee with a written notice that the employee he/she must

notify the temporary service upon the completion of an assignment and that failure to do so may result in benefit denial. If the

employee receives the notice and fails to be available for future assignments with the employer upon the completion of an assignment,

it shall be deemed that the employee voluntarily left employment without good cause connected with the work.

NEW YORK

Benefits. An individual who leaves his or her last job due to domestic violence may now be deemed to have voluntarily quit for good

cause.

NORTH CAROLINA

Benefits. Benefits may not be denied to an individual based on separation from work or refusal of a job resulting from undue family

hardship. A case of undue family hardship is defined as being unable to accept a particular job because the individual is unable to

obtain adequate child care or elder care. Benefits paid in such cases are not charged to employer accounts.
166

NORTH DAKOTA

Administration. Reed Act distributions with respect to excesses in Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for

purposes of unemployment compensation administration, and are not subject to appropriation by the legislature. 

Benefits. The provisions governing the determination of the State maximum weekly benefit amount have been changed to: provide

that the maximum weekly benefit is 62 percent (formerly 60 percent) of the State average weekly wage; delete the provision raising the

maximum weekly benefit if the trust fund account is greater than or equal to a specified amount; and retain the provision raising the

maximum weekly benefit to 65 percent if the State’s average contribution rate is below the U.S. average for the previous year.

A temporary services employer is now to provide the employee with notice that he or must notify the temporary service upon

the completion of an assignment, and that failure to do so may result in benefit denial. If the employee receives the notice and fails to

be available for future assignments with the employer upon the completion of an assignment, it shall be deemed that the employee

voluntarily left employment without good cause connected with the work.

Coverage. Excluded from the definition of employment are services performed by election officials or 

workers if the remuneration for such services is less than $1,000 in a calendar year.

OKLAHOMA

Financing. The period during which there is a 50-percent contribution rate reduction is extended until December 31, 2001 (formerly

December 31, 1999). The provision preventing the rate reduction from going into effect if any conditional factor exists in any calendar

year is deleted.

OREGON 

Administration. An individual’s employer is now given 30 days following issuance of the initial determination notice to affected

parties, to notify the Director of the unemployment insurance program of a discharge for misconduct due to the individual’s

commission of a felony or theft in connection with the individual’s work in order for all benefit rights based on wages earned prior to

the date of the discharge to be canceled. Employing units are required to annually (rather than quarterly) file the report of taxes due

exclusively for domestic service in a private home, local college club, or local chapter of a college fraternity or sorority if cash

remuneration for total domestic service is $1,000 or more in any calendar quarter. This requirement is operative only if the Social

Security Act is amended to allow annual filing of wage record reports.

For the period January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2003, a pilot project is established to provide for a Hearing Officer Panel

within the Employment Department that will assign hearing officers to conduct unemployment insurance hearings and hearings for

certain other State agencies. The hearing officers are allowed to address issues raised by evidence in the record, including but not

limited to the nature of the separation, notwithstanding the scope of the issues raised by the parties or the arguments in a party’s

request for hearing. The Employment Appeals Board is not required to use hearing officers from the panel. For the hearing officer

panel, the Employment Department’s chief administrative officer or board of the agencies are required to transfer to the chief hearing

officer the permanent employees in the regular service of the agency whose job duties relate to providing administrative services

required for the conducting of contested case proceedings. Hearings officers will be assigned, as requested by agencies, to continue

the conduct of, and to conclude, proceedings pending. The Chief Hearing Officer is allowed to contract for the services of persons to

act as hearing officers. However, no agency is required to use a hearing officer assigned from the panel if Federal law requires that a

different hearing officer be used, or if use of a hearing officer from the panel could result in a loss of Federal funds. Immediately before

the January 1, 2004, repeal of the pilot project, the chief hearing officer for the Hearing Officer Panel is required to return all records or

personnel still employed by the panel to the chief administrative officer or board of each agency that was required to transfer records

or personnel to the panel. The chief administrative officer or board shall take possession of the records and personnel and employ

them in the conduct of contested case proceedings on behalf of the agency. 
167

In accordance with the pilot project, the following measures become effective January 1, 2000, and are to be rescinded as of

January 1, 2004: 

· A hearing officer from the hearing officer panel will be assigned to conduct the hearing when a request for hearing upon a claim

has been filed. (The requirement that the Employment Director designate a referee to conduct the hearing is eliminated); 

· The provision requiring that the conduct of hearings be in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the Employment

Department Director is eliminated;

· A provision is deleted that required the regulations prescribed by the Employment Department Director to be used for determining

the rights of the parties, whether or not such regulations conformed to common law or statutory rules of evidence and other technical

rules of procedure;

· When a hearing request is filed in a timely manner by an employer after notification of tax rates, a new provision requires that a

hearing be conducted by a hearing officer assigned from the Hearing Officer Panel, and deletes the requirement that a referee

designated by the Employment Department Director grant a hearing; 

· The requirement that hearings be conducted in accordance with the rules of the Employment Department Director is deleted; 

· The provision that the Director of the Employment Department may adopt rules to govern proceedings and hearings before referees

appointed by the Director is deleted; 

· The provision is deleted that permitted the Director of the Employment Department or the authorized agent of the Director to issue

subpoenas to any party upon request, upon a showing of general relevance, reasonable scope of the evidence sought, and

determination that the testimony would not be unduly repetitious. (No showing of general relevance or reasonable scope of the

evidence sought shall be required upon the request for a subpoena of a claimant’s personnel records either during or after the pilot

project);

· The provision is deleted that required hearings to be conducted in accordance with the rules adopted by the Director when

employers request hearings from decisions assessing a penalty because good cause was not shown for failure to file quarterly reports

or employees’ wages and hour of work on time;

· If a valid application for hearing on whether an employing unit is an employer or for determining contributions and interest is filed

within the required time, a hearing officer (instead of a referee designated by the director) will review the determination or assessment

and grant a hearing and give notice to time and place of hearing to the director and employing unit;

· The provision that hearings will be conducted in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Director is deleted.

In enactments unrelated to the pilot project, the law now provides additional conditions under which base-period employers

may request relief of charges for benefits when a notification for an initial valid determination of a claim has been received and extends

the request period from 10 to 30 days. Requirements are established for the Director in handling such requests. The provision that

required the Director to relieve an employer’s account of benefits if the benefit claimant was not employed by the employer prior to

claiming a week of benefits during the benefit year is eliminated. The Employment Department is permitted to accept the State’s Reed

Act funds to pay for UI administrative expenses. 

The confidentiality provision is amended to provide that wage information shall be released and employer information may be released

to consumer reporting agencies for verification of information connected with a credit transaction if the individual to whom the

information pertains provides written consent. The consumer reporting agency must pay all fees related to the release.

Benefits. The maximum number of weeks during which an individual may attend an apprenticeship program and still be eligible to

receive unemployment insurance benefits is changed from 3 to 5. 

An authorized representative making a disqualification determination on a claim is now permitted to address separation and

other issues raised by information before the representative, notwithstanding the way the parties characterize those issues.
168

An individual may not be disqualified from receiving benefits for voluntarily leaving working without good cause, and shall

be deemed laid off, if he or she works under a collective bargaining agreement; elects to be laid off when the employer has decided to

lay off employees; and is placed on the referral list under the collective bargaining agreement.

Coverage. The definition of employee now excludes an individual who volunteers or donates his or her services (to a religious or

charitable institution, or to a governmental entity) without receiving remuneration or without expectation or contemplation of

remuneration. Excluded from the definition of employment are services performed by an individual on a fishing boat other than his or

her own when the owner of that boat has an arrangement in which he or she does not pay the individual remuneration unless it is from

the proceeds of the catch from the boat, the remuneration is less than or equal to $100, and the boat is made up of a crew of less than

10.

Financing. The employer will now be noncharged for benefits paid to an individual without any disqualification with respect to a

discharge for being unable to satisfy a job prerequisite required by law or administrative rule.

The law now requires the Director of the Employment Department to adopt rules for partial transfer of experience and payroll

when an employer has transferred an identifiable and segregable portion of an employing unit to a successor employing unit, and

specifies the conditions of the partial transfer of experience and payroll. The law also denies the application for partial transfer of

experience and payroll if the transfer is made solely to qualify for a reduced tax rate or if contributions or tax reports are delinquent, and

provides that a hearing may be requested if an application is denied. The new regulations are effective for tax years beginning after

December 31, 1997, and apply only to transfers that occur on or after January 1, 1998. Application for partial transfer of experience and

payroll commences on or after July 1, 2000. 

With respect to any such transfer, refunds are not permitted on monies paid into the Unemployment Compensation Trust fund for

wages paid between January 1, 1998, and July 7, 1999; however, employing units may apply for and the Director may allow an equal

amount of credit against future contributions.

Reed Act funds provided under the Social Security Act, as amended, are available for administrative expenses relating to the

computation of unemployment insurance tax rates until July 1, 2001.

RHODE ISLAND

Administration. The State is now allowed to use Unemployment Insurance wage record data to measure progress in meeting

performance measures developed for the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The State may share this information with agencies of

other States (with reimbursement for the costs incurred) in the performance of their public duties if such sharing is required by the U.S.

Secretary of Labor.

The offset of lottery winnings and personal income taxes for benefit overpayments and interest is now required: the

Department of Labor and Training must periodically furnish the lottery director with the names of individuals who owe $500 or more for

benefit overpayments and interest. An individual who has a benefit overpayment and interest in the amount of $500 or more shall

have that deficit offset by any payment of lottery monies in which the individual has won more than $600. 

If a claim is filed for both child support payments and benefit overpayments and interest, the first priority goes to the

Department of Human Services for repayment of child support. 

Benefits. Individuals who leave work without good cause connected with the work will be ineligible for benefits for the week in which

the quit occurred. Those who are discharged for misconduct connected with the work will be ineligible for the waiting period 

credit. The practice of making lag- day payments at the beginning of an individual’s claim is eliminated. The waiting period provisions

are amended to provide that the periodit begin on Sunday of the week in which the claimant files a claim for benefits. 

Coverage. The definition of wages now excludes any amount paid by the employee or employer under a benefit plan organized under

a cafeteria plan.
169

TENNESSEE

Administration. The Department of Employment Security (the Unemployment Compensation agency), which formerly was from an

independent agency, is now a division within the newly created Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

The collections provision is changed to provide that recording of notice of a lien shall constitute notice of both original and

subsequent liabilities of a delinquent employer. Any lien created against an employer for unpaid unemployment taxes shall now have

the same priority, in relation to other liens and security interests created under Tennessee law, as any other lien for taxes or fees

administered by the commissioner of revenue.

Effective for reports due for the quarter beginning July 1, 2000, the penalty for employers that are required to report on

magnetic media, but that fail to do so, increases from a range of $10 to $50 per month to $50 per month, but the total penalty for each

report shall not exceed $500.

Benefits. The law now provides additional causes under which an individual may be discharged for misconduct connected with the

work, and disqualified from benefits: failing a drug test in which the test was administered properly according to Tennessee law;

failing an alcohol test (being administered properly according to Tennessee law) when the blood alcohol concentration level is 0.10

percent% by weight for non-safety-sensitive positions, and 0.04 percent% for safety-sensitive positions; and refusing to submit to a

drug or alcohol test that is authorized under Tennessee law, when the discharge is based on substantial and material evidence of the

refusal.

Coverage. Exempted from the definition of employment, are services performed as an election official or election worker, if the amount

of remuneration received during the calendar year is less than $1,000. Also exempt are services performed by a person committed to a

custodial or penal institution.

TEXAS

Administration.. The time during which an employer may protest a potential chargeback is changed from 14 days to 30 days after the

notice was mailed or right to protest is waived.

Benefits. The law now makes clear that individuals who, during any benefit period, are working their customary full-time hours,

regardless of their earnings for that benefit period, are ineligible to receive unemployment compensation

Coverage. The definition of employment is amended to exclude services performed by an inmate for all entities, rather than just for

those owned and operated by the State or a political subdivision of the State. 

UTAH

Administration. Reed Act funds must now be allocated to the Public Employment Service System and be obligated within a 2-year

period from the date of appropriation by the legislature.

Benefits. An individual is exempted from the 1-week waiting period when he or she is in approved mandatory apprenticeship-related

training. 

Financing. Benefits payable to an individual for the first week of mandatory apprenticeship training are noncharged to the employer.

VIRGINIA
170

Administration. The length of time that an employer has to respond to a tax assessment or determination notice is increased from 20 to

30 days. The length of time that an individual has to file a request for review is increased from 10 to 30 days from the date of mailing of

the decision. The length of time that an individual has to file an appeal after: delivery of notice of determination or decision; mailing of

notice of determination or decision to last known address; or mailing of notice of determination or decision to last known address of an

interstate claimant is increased from 21 to 30 calendar days. The appeal extension period for determinations and/ decisions increases

from 21 to 30 days if good cause is shown. The length of time that an individual has to file an appeal after the date of notification or

mailing of a tribunal decision is increased from 21 to 30 days. The appeal extension period for tribunal decisions increases from 21 to

30 days if good cause is shown.

WASHINGTON

Administration. Reed Act distributions with respect to excesses in Federal fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 shall be used only for

unemployment compensation administration.

WYOMING

Administration. The department of employment is now permitted to maintain any or all of its records on a computer imaging system. 

The law provides for the admissibility of documents generated by such a system in court or in administrative hearings under the same

conditions that the original would be admissible.

An individuals who knowingly and with intent to defraud allows or authorizes another person to sign his or her name or to

use his or her personal identification number to make or file a claim for benefits on the individual’s behalf, is subject to the penalties for

fraud or making a false statement or misrepresentation of material fact.

A new enactment makes it clear that monetary determinations may be reconsidered if a deputy finds an error in computation

or identity, or discovers wages of the claimant relevant to but not considered in the determination. Nonmonetary or chargeability

determinations may be reconsidered if the department or a party entitled to notice files a protest in writing within 15 days of the date

on which the determination was mailed (except in the case of determinations relating to certain statutory denials and disqualifications

for misconduct or voluntary quits). Certain other procedures governing notices and determinations also are revised. The statute of

limitations on proceedings for foreclosure on employer property due to non-payment of contributions or interest is increased from 5 to

10 years.

Benefits. An exception is added to the requirements of registering for and actively seeking work for individuals who are recalled to fulltime work by an employer who paid 50 percent or more of the individual’s base-period wages or who are recalled within 12 weeks by an

employer. The law now provides that training no longer needs to be in a program consisting of a maximum of 24 consecutive months,

and that training can be either accredited or licensed (formerly only licensed) by the appropriate agency in order to be approved. The

number of weeks within which an individual who is a member of a labor organization must apply for or accept suitable nonunion work

in his or her customary occupation in order to remain eligible for benefits is changed from 4 to 12. An exception is added to the

disqualification for voluntarily quitting without good cause for individuals forced to leave their most recent work as a result of being

victims of documented domestic abuse.

Financing. With respect to a voluntary quit without good cause or a discharge for misconduct, the law now provides that chargeability

of an employer’s account be based solely on the last separation that occurred before the filing of the claim (for which the claimant is

monetarily eligible,) rather than on a separation that occurs after the filing of the initial claim and during the benefit year. An employer

acquiring another employer’s business may be given a delinquency rate only on a delinquency on its own account or when the

acquiring employer is owned or operated, in whole or in part, by any person or entity who owns an interest in the selling employer or

by a member of the immediate family of the selling employer.

NOTES
171

1The Employment Security Administrative Funding Act of 1954 provided that the annual excess, if any, of Federal Unemployment Tax

Act revenues over Federal and State administrative expenses, and Federal Extended Benefits and loan fund requirement be allocated to

States in proportion to covered payrolls. Reed Act moneys represent a flexible funding source which States can use for a variety of

special outlays. A State can use Reed Act funds: (1) to pay compensation (§903(c)(1), Social Security Act) or, (2) subject to State

legislative appropriation, for administrative expenses (§903(c)(2), Social Security Act)
172
173

Financial Status and Economic Conditions

March 2000

The economic expansion has now reached its ninth consecutive year. The FY 2001 Presidents Budget projects continued

growth in both State and Federal trust fund accounts.

The State accounts are projected to increase from $50.7 billion at the end of FY 1999 to $58.5 billion at the end of FY

2003. The Federal Accounts- the ESAA, EUCA, and FUA are also expected to grow through FY 2003. According to the

FY 2001 Presidents Budget assumptions, the total federal account balances are expected to grow from $27.5 billion at the

end of FY 1999 to $43.4 billion at the end of FY 2003.

.

 Midsession Review FY 2000 Projections

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

TUR 4.3 4.2 4.4 4.9 5.2

IUR 1.8 1.8 1.9 2.1 2.2

Real GDP Growth(%) 4.1 3.5 2.8 2.5 2.5

CPI Increase(%) 1.9 2.7 2.4 2.5 2.6

State UI Outlays($B) 20.74 21.27 24.01 28.08 30.87

State Revenues($B) 19.89 21.45 23.33 24.53 25.59

State Balances($B) 50.65 53.93 56.46 56.14 58.48

Federal Balances 27.54 31.47 36.69 42.31 43.37

(ESAA+EUCA+FUA)

Current data on State trust fund balances, benefit payments, claims activities, payment rates, etc., is available in the UI

Data Summary, published quarterly. National projections based on the administration’s are published twice a year in UI

Outlook. Both publications are available on the Internet at: http//:www.itsc.state.md.us. To receive either of these

publications in hard copy or to get additional information, please contact:

Megan Leach (UI Data Summary) mleach@doleta.gov

Tom Stengle (UI Outlook) tstengle@doleta.gov

Unemployment Insurance Service

U.S. Department of Labor 

Room S4231

200 Constitution Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20210

(202) 219-9297
174
175

Seminars, Meetings, Conferences and Training
176
177

 Unemployment Insurance (UI) Profiling Methods

This seminar was held January 11 - 15, 2000 in Scottsdale, Arizona. This seminar provided participants

with the skills necessary to successfully maintain and enhance the UI Profiling systems developed over the last

several years. Information about profiling practices that have proven successful was provided. The seminar also

discussed topics such as the statistical techniques used to identify UI claimants likely to exhaust benefits, and

particular emphasis was placed on updating profiling models and approaches that can minimize expected statistical

biases in groups successfully completing profiling services.

Unemployment Insurance Benefit Financing Seminar

 This seminar is scheduled for October 2000, in Washington D.C. This seminar is open to representatives

of all State Employment Security Agencies. The four day seminar will cover Benefit cost estimation, experience

rating analysis, revenue estimation, understanding tax structures and laws, trust fund solvency and forecasting.

Unemployment Insurance Quantitative Methods

This seminar is tentatively scheduled for January 2001 in Arizona. This seminar concentrates on statistical

concepts as they are applied to the Unemployment Insurance program. There will be a review of concepts such

as means, variance, correlation, and regression analysis.

Questions about these seminars should be addressed to:

Robert Pavosevich, Office of Workforce Security, (202) 219-5312 x376.
178
179

Research Project Summaries and Status

July 2000
180
181

OFFICE OF WORKFORCE SECURITY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

Study Title: Benefit - Cost Analysis of The Self-Employment Assistance (SEA)

Program

Purpose: The study is assessing the long term impacts of providing this type of

reemployment service on administrative concerns and programmatic

outcomes. Using comparison groups of participants and non-participants

selected from three (3) States, the research team will perform a benefit-cost

analysis of SEA, as well as a comparative analysis of service provision and

program management among all States that have enacted and administered

SEA programs. State Ul claims data, site visits, and a participant survey will

comprise the analysis database. The results of the study will be disseminated to

state reemployment service providers currently exploring possible

implementation of an SEA program or seeking to refine current service

delivery and improve outcomes.

Beginning Date: July 1999

Ending Date: January 2001

Contractor: DTI Associates, Inc.

Project Monitor: Wayne Gordon

Status:

< Research study design has been approved by DOL.

< Initial site visits have been completed.

< Administrative data collection has begun.

< Federal Register Notice describing the participant survey was published 

March 10, 2000. Survey planned for September 2000.

Funding source: EDWAA Demonstration, Research and Evaluation
182

Study Title: Employer Response to the Unemployment Insurance Payroll Tax

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to further research into the response of firms to

the Unemployment Insurance (UI) system. The project has two main

objectives: 1) to build a large longitudinal database containing information

on individual firms and workers in those firms, and 2) to use the database to

answer a number of key programmatic and economic questions concerning

the effects of UI taxes on firm behavior. It is expected that building a

longitudinal database will allow for a more detailed and accurate analysis

than has previously been attempted in this area. Furthermore, construction

of this unique database will not only assist in addressing current questions on

firm behavior but will also be available as an important tool for further

research.

Beginning Date: September 29, 1995

Ending Date: July 2000

Contractor: Westat, Inc.

UI Project Monitor: Mike Miller, OWS

Status: A second draft of the final report has been submitted and has been reviewed.

The final report is expected to be completed July 2000.

Funding Source: UI National Activities
183

Study Title: Employers' Use and Assessment of the Work Opportunity Tax Credit

and

Welfare to Work Tax Credit

Purpose: This study will examine employers' use and assessment of the Work Opportunity

Tax Credit (WOTC) and the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit programs. The study

will also ask the employers in depth about the case histories of recent

WOTC/Welfare -to-Work hires to gain perspective on experiences within their

firms. WOTC, which began in October 1996, provides firms hiring individuals

who are certified as member of designated target groups a one-time tax credit of

up to $2,400 for each individual hired who remains employed at least 400 hours.

A lesser tax credit applies if the individual leaves after fewer than 400 hours.

The Welfare-to-Work credit provides employers hiring long-term welfare

recipients a tax credit of as much as $8,500 per new hire.

Beginning Date: June 26, 1998

Ending Date: June 30, 2001

Contractor: Westat

Project Monitor: William Goodwin, OWS

Status: The data collection instrument was cleared by OMB. The instrument

was pretested with two Maryland employers, one that employs a

consultant to process their tax credit and one that does not. Site visits to four

states (Georgia, Maryland, Missouri and Wisconsin) will begin in July.

Funding: ES National Activities
184

Study Title: Evaluation of the Impact of Telephone Initial Claims (TIC) Filing

Purpose: The study examined a broad range of impacts about the effects of the conversion

to remote claims filing. First, it provided information on a range of impacts on

the volume of claims and payments in seven states that have completed

implementation of Telephone Initial Claims (TIC) filing, as well as on how these 

 impacts might change overtime. It also discusses potential impacts on the 

 Unemployment Insurance trust fund. Second, it examined the effects

of the switch on the composition and satisfaction levels of claimants and

whether some groups of claimants face considerable barriers to filing by 

 telephone. Third, it investigated the impact of TIC filing on program operations,

including staffing patterns, linkages with Job Services (JS), and administrative

costs. The study also discussed the States' plans to use the Internet as another

method by which claimants may file for benefits.

Beginning Date: August 1998

Ending Date: March 2000

Contractor: National UI Information Technology Support Center with Mathematica Policy

Research Inc.

Project Monitor: Anissa Holm, OWS

Status: The final report was received May 2000. This report will be published as a OWS

Occasional Paper.

Funding Source: UI National Activities

Findings: 

< Telephone initial claims (TIC) filing has little or no impact on claims processing.

< TIC has little or no impact on overpayments.

< Claimants prefer TIC filing to in-person filing.

< With TIC, first payments are slightly less timely.

< Some States did realize costs savings using TIC.

< TIC and Internet claims filing are compatible.

Recommendations:

< UI presence at One-Stop Career Centers should reflect customer choice.

< As ways to file UI claims change, States will have to consider how these

alterations affect UI functions specifically and reemployment services more

generally.
185
186

Study Title: Evaluation of the Implementation of the Workforce Investment Act

(WIA)

of 1998

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the implementation of the WIA. Study

components include site visits to sample State and local workforce areas and

analysis of data bases containing ongoing implementation information from all

the States.

Beginning Date: June 29, 1999

Ending Date: December 31, 2001

Contractor: Social Policy Research, Inc.

Project Manager: Tom NaSell, OPR

Status: Produced a evaluation design report. Conducted a pilot site visit to Pennsylvania

and will visit 5 other early implementation states in spring/summer 2000.

Participated in the development of the "Workforce System Information and

Evaluation (WSIE)" protocol which ETA Regions are using to collect WIA

implementation data on all States. Producing the WSIE report monthly. 

Funding Source: Research and Evaluation, EDWAA Technical Assistance and Training, School to

Work.
187

Study Title: Evaluation of Labor Exchange Services in a One-Stop Environment

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of

Wagner-Peyser Act labor exchange services. The goals are: (1) to understand

the ways Americans search for jobs; (2) to understand the ways employers find

workers; (3) to assess the effectiveness of Wagner-Peyser Act services in

reducing job seekers' duration of unemployment and reducing employers' hiring

time; (4) to assess the effectiveness of various methods of delivering Wagner

Peyser Act services; and (5) to understand who uses America's Job Bank.

The research design includes a literature review of employer and job seeker

search methods, process analyses of America's Job Bank, and benefit-cost

analyses and process analyses in six states. The six sample states for this

evaluation are Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, Oregon, and

Washington. The data sources include UI wage records, work registrations, a

random assignment experiment, quasi-experiments, job-seeker surveys, and

employer surveys.

Beginning Date: July 1, 1998

Ending Date: Spring 2001

Contractor: Westat, Inc. 

Project Monitor: Richard Muller, OPR

Status: The research design has been approved by ETA. Westat has visited five of the

study States to secure the States' participation in the evaluation and to gather

information for the process analyses. Data collection for the benefit-cost

analyses is well underway in Washington and Oregon. Acquisition of

administrative data is progressing in North Carolina and Colorado.

Funding Source: ES National Activities, Research and Evaluation, EDWAA Technical Assistance

and Training, ALMIS .
188

Study Title: Follow-Up Study of Unemployment Insurance Recipiency

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic analysis of factors that

affect

Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefit recipiency in the States. Interest

centers primarily on situations of low recipiency and the explanation of low

recipiency. The analysis will also encompass all state programs so that low

recipiency will be examined within a comparative framework that also includes

states with high benefit recipiency.

Beginning Date: July 1, 1999

Ending Date: December 31, 2000

Contractor: The Urban Institute

Project Monitor: Crystal Woodard, OWS

Status: Have completed initial analysis of variation in recipiency among States and site

visits to four states(VA, LA, NH and MA) The site visits will consist of

procedures for the flow of claimants through the UI system (including procedures

for applying for benefits and the various stages involved in making a final

determination of a claimant’s eligibility for benefits)

Funding Source: EDWAA Technical Assistance and Training
189

Study Title: Impact of the Targeted Harmonized Wage Code on UI Benefits and

Revenues

Purpose: The purpose of this project is to determine the probable impact of excluding

certain elements from the definition of wages, as part of the Targeted

Harmonized Wage Code, on State unemployment insurance (UI) revenues and

claimant benefits. The THWC, which is targeted to small employers, has been

developed by the inter-agency Simplified Tax and Reporting System (STAWRS)

Program

Beginning Date: September 15, 1999

Ending Date: September 15, 2001

Contractor: Planmatics, Inc.

Project Monitor: John Heinberg, OWS

Status: The draft study design has been received and approved. A pilot site visit was

conducted in Minnesota in May 2000.

Funding Source: UI National Activities, interagency transfer from IRS.
190

Study Title: Impact of Welfare Reform on UI

Purpose: As a result of welfare reform legislation, an increasing number of former

welfare recipients are working and therefore covered by Unemployment

Insurance. Over time some may find themselves out of work and

migrating to the UI system. The purpose of this study was exploratory. It

explored methodology and researched designs to analyze a small sub

population of welfare leavers, as well as analytical, in that it will examine

the potential impact on the UI system and will recommend policy

responses.

Beginning Date: February 2, 2000

Ending Date: January 31, 2000

Contractor: Coffey Communications, LLC

Project Monitor: Anissa Holm , OWS

Status: A draft design report is expected July 1, 2000.

Funding Source: Pilots and Demonstrations, EDWAA Technical Assistance and Training, UI

National Activities

 
191

Study Title: Measuring the Effect of Public Labor Exchange Referrals

and Placements on UI Claimants

Purpose: The study involves the development of a research design for measuring the

return on investment of job referrals and placements for unemployment

insurance (UI) claimants, implementing the design in the States of Washington

and Oregon, a survey of job seekers in Washington, a study of displacement

effects, and a review of the research results by an expert panel.

Beginning Date: September 30, 1995

Ending Date: June 30, 2000

Grantee: State of Washington with a major subcontract to Westat, Inc.

Project Monitor: Alison Pasternak, OWS

Status: A draft report has been submitted and reviewed. The final report is due by

June 30, 2000.

Funding Source: ES National Activities
192

Study Title: Independent Contractors: Prevalence and Implications for

Unemployment Insurance Programs

Purpose: The primary purpose to this study was to supplement existing knowledge on

Independent Contractors (IC) and their role in the alternative workforce. 

Specifically major objectives of the study were to explore: the impact of the

variance in “common law” and “circumstances tests” between federal and State

law within and among States on IC classification; determine economic and

social environments conducive to use of independent contractors, the types of

firms and industries that are most likely to use independent contractors,

motivations of employers and workers who enter into this type of work

arrangement; determine the extent of mis-classification of workers as

independent contractors and the resulting impact on UI worker coverage and

revenue; and assess the short and long-term impacts of these type of work

arrangements on workers.

Beginning Date: July 1, 1998

Ending Date: February 29, 2000

Contractor: Planmatics, Inc.

Project Monitor: Wayne Gordon, OWS

Status: The final report was delivered in February 2000.

Funding Source: Research and Evaluation

Findings:

< Economic factors that encourage employers to misclassify employees as IC include:

heightened international competition; new management paradigms; deregulation and

downsizing. Using IC allows employers to save on payroll taxes, fringe benefits and

workers compensation. 

< Using SESA audit data, the study found that states that relied on targeted audits had a

range of 30 to 45% of audited employers with misclassified employees. The proportion

was around 10% in States that had a high level of randomness in their audit selection. 

Underreporting of UI tax revenues due to misclassification ranged from 0.05% to 7.5%.

< Assuming a 1% level of misclassification, and unemployment at the 1997 level, the

average yearly loss in revenue to the UI trust fund resulting from employer under-
193

reporting of UI taxes from 1990 to1998 would be $198 million. The average yearly

outflow of benefits to eligible UI claimants if classified correctly would be $208 million.

< An increase in the unemployment rate could cause enormous increases in IC related

issues that would have to be investigated. The additional claims would also would also

drain trust fund balances, and this drain would likely be offset by assigning higher

contribution rates to those employers that correctly classify their workers and pay their

taxes, placing them at a further economic disadvantage. 

Recommendations:

< State and federal employment security agencies need to revisit this issue and revise the

ABC and common-law tests to reflect rapid changes in the workplace, and establish a

system that can be applied consistently and fairly. The current practice of enacting

specific exclusions from the definition of employment will only lead to more confusion.

< Several States have aggressively tried to address misclassification by setting up task

forces to monitor employers’ classification practices and reporting on employees. IRS

data (1099s) are an integral part of these efforts. However, in the majority of cases,

shared information consisted of UI audit results provided by the states to the IRS. This

sharing of information should flow both ways.

< DOL should take the lead in forging cooperation between internal and outside agencies at

the federal and state level that share a common interest in employer- employee

relationships. 

< DOL should undertake a comprehensive campaign to educate employers on voluntary

compliance. DOL should also develop a repository of information on IC issues, best

practices and new initiatives.

< A multi-agency dialogue needs to be started to explore the feasibility of extending some

or all of the social protections now available to employees to IC’s, who are currently

denied protection or cannot afford to take advantage of available measures.
194

Study Title: A Study of Unemployment Insurance Exhaustees

Purpose: To provide up-to-date information on the behavior, experiences and labor market

characteristics of UI exhaustees, compared to those of claimants generally. Will

determine to what extent they are served by the UI program, including the

Worker Profiling and Reemployment Services system.

Beginning Date: October 1, 1998

Ending Date: September 30, 2000

Contractor: Mathematica Policy Research

Project Monitor: John Heinberg, OWS

Status: Design report has been approved. OMB clearance for survey

instrument were received. The contractor is currently contacting

sample States for administrative files, most states have provided files. The

survey will begin in July 2000.

Funding Source: UI National Activities
195

Study Title: Unemployment Insurance One-Stop Connectivity Study

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the linkages between the

Unemployment Insurance program and local One-Stop Centers.

Beginning Date: September 27, 1997

Ending Date: December 31, 1999

Contractor: Social Policy Research, Inc.

Project Manager: Diane Wood, OWS

Status: The final report is complete. Published as OWS Ocassional Paper 2000-01.

Funding Source: UI National Activities. The extension was funded with matching funds from the

One-Stop program.

Findings:

< States taking initial claims by telephone need to design alternative ways

to connect claimants to reemployment services as linkages are weak.

< All states should consider operating an Eligibility Review Program

(ERP).

< Employers could use additional information about available One-Stop

services.

< One-Stop and UI staff should have additional information about each other’s

programs.
196

Study Title: Office of Workforce Security Research Database

Purpose: The Employment and Training Administration's Office of Workforce Security

(OWS) Research Database is designed to be an easy reference tool for

researchers and program and policy staff/officials in the broad areas that

comprise the workforce development system. It contains over 1100 citations,

containing abstracts, in a wide variety of subject areas, such as UI benefit,

unemployment duration, financing, customer satisfaction, and job

search/reemployment services, labor exchange and one-stop system delivery.

New citations will be added periodically. In addition to citations, the database

includes links to web sites of other public and private research organizations that

work in these and closely related areas.

Beginning Date: July 1, 1998

Ending Date: On-going

Contractor: OLMIS, In-house Project

Project Monitor: Anissa Holm, OWS

Status/Milestones:

< Available online at http://owsdatabase.doleta.gov. 

< Can be accessed through the ETA, ICESA, and ITSC homepages

< Adding new citations and editing existing citations.
197

OFFICE OF WORKFORCE SECURITY TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS

Study Title: Denials Accuracy Pilot Project

Purpose: To conduct an operational pilot of the accuracy of denied claims for UI benefits,

and to test whether the Quality Performance Indicator produces sufficient

information on the correctness of nonmonetary denials to be used for nonmons in

place of the Benefits Accuracy Measure field-verification method.

Beginning Date: Sampling began in September 1997 and finished in September 1998. State,

Federal and contractor staff held a close-out meeting in November 1998. Final

report on the pilot was received May 1999.

Ending Date: March 2000

Contractor: PRAMM Consulting Group, Inc.

Project Monitor: Burman Skrable, OWS

Status: Initial Report received from South Carolina on their alternative base period

findings in December 1999. Requested follow-up analyses dealing with the

relationship between the evaluation of findings on nonmonetary denials from

BAM-type investigations and those based on the QPI. These analyses are

expected by June 2000.

Funding Source: UI National Activities

Findings:

< In the pilot States, error rates on denied monetary claims averaged 16%

before correction (range 10-23%) for Monetary Denials, 8.7% (3-20%)

for Separations and 15% (7-22%) for Continuing Eligibility denials.

< Pilot results will inform UIS decisions about the nature and timing of national

denied claim accuracy measurement program.
198

Study Title: Unemployment Insurance Administrative Resource Justification Model

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop a review process for States' Resource

Justification Model data at the Regional and National Office levels.

Beginning Date: October 1999

Ending Date: June 2000

Contractor: PRAMM Consulting Group

Project Monitor: Tim Felegie, OWS

Status: The contractor submitted a final report in June 2000. The contractor delivered

diskettes with software that would enable Federal staff to collect and review

states resource data. Use of this methodology is pending further developments in

UI/ES reform.

Funding Source: Research and Evaluation
199

OFFICE OF WORKFORCE SECURITY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS

Study Title: Job Search Assistance Demonstration Evaluation

Purpose: The Job Search Assistance (JSA) demonstration represented an experimental

research effort (mandated by P. L. 102-164) to

build on the results of the New Jersey UI Demonstration Project.

The New Jersey demonstration showed that one package of intensive

job search assistance services can speed dislocated UI claimants'

return to productive employment. The JSA demonstration expanded on

this knowledge base by testing alternative service approaches to see which ones

have the greatest impacts and are most cost-effective.

The demonstration project was conducted in Florida and the

District of Columbia.

Beginning Date: October 1, 1993

Ending Date: May 2000

Contractor: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Project Monitor: Wayne Gordon, UIS

Status: Final report has been published as OWS Occasional Paper 2000-02.

Funding Source: UI National Activities

Findings:

< Worker profiling enabled selection of those in greatest need. Exhaustion

rates for eligibles were 5 and 14 percentage points higher than non

eligibles in Florida and D.C. respectively.

< Low attendance rates for testing and job search workshops suggest that

participants are reluctant to participate in services that are not

mandatory.

< Encouraged more aggressive job search efforts. For all three treatment

groups in both States, number of employers contacted, hours of job

search per week all increased.

< Each of the three treatments reduced UI receipt by about half a week on

average.

< The services also reduced the percentage of claimants who exhausted

their benefits, from 1.8 to 4.8 percentage points across treatment groups.
200
201

Title: Significant Improvement Demonstration Grants (SIGs) -Reemployment

Services for Unemployment Insurance (UI) Claimants

Purpose: The goal of the SIGs is to assist selected State Workforce Development

Agencies

in the implementation of demonstration projects to increase the effectiveness of

reemployment services for UI claimants, to preview and shape future policy

directions for reemployment services for these claimants, and to support

implementation of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). A National-level

evaluation of the 11 demonstration grants that have been awarded will examine 

 the extent to which both individual project and overall grant program objectives 

 were achieved along with careful documentation of project activities undertaken 

 for possible replication in other States. 

Beginning Date: June 30, 1999

Ending Date: September 30, 2001

Contractor: To be determined.

Project Monitor: Wayne Gordon, OWS

Status:

< Eleven Grantees (Alaska, California, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, North

Carolina, New York, South Carolina, Washington, Wisconsin, West Virginia)

were selected and awarded an average of $500,000 each in June 1999 for

implementation of their proposal over a two-year period.

< A two-day conference was held in Washington, DC in November 1999. It

provided National, Regional, and State staff opportunities for orientation

and implementation status updates. 

< The contractor for the 18-month evaluation was awarded beginning July 2000.

Funding: EDWAA Demonstration, Pilots and Demonstrations, and UI National Activities.
202
203

Appendix A: Federal OWS Contact Information
204
205

Office of Workforce Security U.S. Department of Labor, Region V

Grace A. Kilbane, Administrator Larry Greevers, Acting Director for OWS

Eric Johnson, Director U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA

Office of Career Transition Assistance 230 S. Dearborn St., 6th Floor

U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA Chicago, IL 60604

200 Constitution Ave, NW, Rm S-4231 Phone Number: (312) 353-3425 or 6834

Washington, DC 20210 Fax Number: (312) 353-1509

Phone Number: (202) 219-7831

Fax Number: (202) 219-8506

OWS Division of Research & Reporting U.S. Department of Labor, Region VI

Esther R. Johnson, Chief Robert Kenyon, Regional Director for OWS

U. S. Dept. of Labor/ETA U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA

200 Constitution Ave, NW, Rm S-4231 525 Griffin Sq Bldg, Rm 317

Washington, DC 20210 Dallas, TX 75202

Phone Number: (202) 219-5623 Phone Number. (214) 767-2088

Fax Number: (202) 219-8506 Fax Number: (214) 767-5113

U.S. Department of Labor, Region I U.S. Department of Labor, Region VII

Joseph Stoltz, Regional Director for OWS Raymond Moritz, Acting Regional Director 

U. S. Dept. of Labor/ETA for OWS

JFK Federal Bldg, Rm E-350 U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA

Boston, MA 02203 1100 Main St., Ste 1050

Phone Number: (617) 565-3630 Kansas City, MO 64105

Fax Number: (617) 565-2229 Phone Number: (816) 426-3796

Fax Number: (816) 426-2729 

U.S. Department of Labor, Region II U.S. Department of Labor, Region VIII

Patrick Rowe, Regional Director for OWS John Sweeney, Regional Director for OWS

U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA

201 Varick St., Rm 755 1999 Broadway St., Rm 1780

New York, NY 10014 Denver, CO 80202-5716

Phone Number: (212) 337-2139 Phone Number. (303) 844-1662

Fax Number: (212) 337-2144 Fax Number: (303) 844-1686

U.S. Department of Labor, Region III U.S. Department of Labor, Region IX

Leo Bull, Regional Director for OWS Rodolfo Ramos, Regional Director for OWS

PO Box 8796 U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA

Philadelphia, PA 19101 71 Stevenson St.

Phone Number: (215) 596-0778 San Francisco, CA 94119

Fax Number: (215) 596-0683 Phone Number: (415) 975-4630 or 4618

Fax Number: (415) 975-6650

U.S. Department of Labor, Region IV U.S. Department of Labor, Region X

Pete Fleming, Regional Director for OWS Larry Heasty, Regional Director for OWS

U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA U.S. Dept. of Labor/ETA

100 Alabama St., SW, Rm 6M12 1111 Third Ave., Ste 900

Atlanta, GA 30303 Seattle, WA 98101-3212

Phone Number: (404) 562-2122 Phone Number: (206) 553-7607

Fax Number: (404) 347-3341 Fax Number: (206) 553-0098
206
207

Appendix B: State OWS Contact Information
208
209

Alabama Unemployment Compensation Colorado Department of Labor and Employment

Byron Adams, Director Donald Peitersen, Director

Alabama Department of Industrial Relations Office of Unemployment Insurance

649 Monroe Street, Room 269 1515 Arapahoe Street, Tower 2, Suite 400

Montgomery, AL 36131 Denver, CO 80202-2117

Phone Number: (334) 242-8025 Phone Number: (303) 620-4200

Fax Number: (334) 242-8258 Fax Number: (303) 620-4714

http://www.dir.state.al.us/uc.htm http://unempben.cdle.state.co.us/default.htm

Alaska Department of Labor Connecticut Department of Labor

Chuck Blankenship, UI Program Manager Nancy Calabrese, Director

Alaska Department of Labor & Office of Workforce Security

Workforce Development 200 Folly Brook Boulevard

P.O. Box 25509 Wethersfield, CT 06109-1114

Juneau, AK 99802-5509 Phone Number: (860) 263-6574

Phone Number: (907) 465-6889 Fax Number: (860) 263-6579

Fax Number: (907) 465-4537 http://www.ctdol.state.ct.us/)rogsupt/unemplt/

http://www.labor..state.ak.us/unemploy. htm

Arizona Department of Economic Security Delaware Department of Labor

Chuck Webb, ESA Administrator W. Thomas MacPherson, Director,

Arizona Department of Economic Security Division of Unemployment Insurance

P.O. Box 6123, Site 910A Delaware Department of Labor

Phoenix, AZ 85007 P.O. Box 9950

Phone Number: (602) 542-3667 Wilmington, DE 19809-0950

Fax Number: (602) 542-3690 Phone Number: (302) 761-5650

http://www.de.state.az.us/ Fax Number: (302) 761-6637

http://de.jobsearch.org/

Arkansas Employment Security Department District of Columbia, Department of

Hugh Havens, Administrator Employment Services

Unemployment Insurance Frank Orlando, Associate Director

P.O. Box 2981 Office of Unemployment Compensation

Little Rock, AR 72203-2981 500 C Street, NW, Room 515

Phone Number: (501) 682-3200 Phone Number: (202) 724-7274

Fax Number: (501) 682-3713 Fax Number: (202) 724-7104

http://www.state.ar.us/esd/unemplovment.html http://does.ci.washinpton.dc.us/ui.html

California Employment Development Department Florida Department of Labor and Employment

Deborah L. Bronow, Chief Security

Unemployment Insurance Division Kenneth Holmes, Director

P.O. Box 826880, MIC 40 Division of Unemployment Compensation

Sacramento, CA 94280-0001 107 East Madison Street, Caldwell Building, Suite 201

Phone Number: (916) 654-7323 Tallahassee, FL 32399-0206

Fax Number: (916) 653-3440 Phone Number: (850) 921-3889

http)://wwwedd.cahwnet.gov/uiind.htm Fax Number: (850) 921-3941

http://sun6.dms.state.fl.us/dles/uc/uchome.htm
210

Georgia Department of Labor Iowa Workforce Development

Walt N. Adams, Assistant Commissioner Reynel Dohse, Director

Unemployment Insurance Unemployment Insurance

148 International Boulevard, NE, Suite 718 1000 E. Grand Avenue

Atlanta, GA 30303 Des Moines, IA 50319-0209

Phone Number: (404) 656-3050 Phone Number: (515) 281-4986

Fax Number: (404) 656-9750 Fax Number: (515) 281-7695

http://www.dol.state.ga.us/ui/ http:/www.state.ia.us/,government/des/

Hawaii Department of Labor and Industrial Relations Kansas Department of Human Resources

Linda Uesato, Administrator Reginald O. Davis, Director of Human Resources

Unemployment Insurance Division Kansas Department of Human Resources

830 Punchbowl Street, Room 325 401 SW Topeka Boulevard

Honolulu, HI 96813 Topeka, KS 66603-3182

Phone Number: (808) 586-9069 Phone Number: (785) 296-0821

Fax Number: (808) 586-9077 Fax Number: (785) 296-0179

http://www.aloha.net/~edpso/ http//www.hr.state.ks.us/ui/html/EnUI.htm

Idaho Department of Labor Kentucky Department of Employment Insurance

Dave Wagnon, Administrator Ronald Holland, Director

Unemployment Insurance Division Division of Unemployment Insurance

317 Main Street 275 East Main Street, Suite 2-E

Boise, ID 83735-0001 Fort, KY 40621

Phone Number: (208) 334-6280 Phone Number: (502) 564-2900

Fax Number: (208) 334-6301 Fax Number: (502) 564-5502

http://www.labor.state.id.us/id-ui.htm#menu http://www.des.state.ky.us/agencies/

wforce/des/ui/ui.htm

Illinois Department of Employment Security Louisiana Department of Labor

Elissa C. Coltsidas, Manager Gayle Joseph, Assistant Secretary

Unemployment Insurance Office of Regulatory Service

401 South State Street, Suite 3S P.O. Box 309

Chicago, IL 60605 Baton Rouge, LA 70804-9094

Phone Number: (312) 793-1837 Phone Number: 225-342-3017

Fax Number: (312) 793-1778 Fax Number: 225-342-7959

http://www.ides.state.il.us/ http://www.ldol.state.1a.us/homepage.htm

Indiana Department of Workforce Development Maine Department of Labor

Donald W. Banning, Deputy Commissioner Gail Y. Thayer, Director

Indiana Government Center, South Bureau of Unemployment Compensation

10 North Senate Avenue P.O. Box 309

Indianapolis, IN 46204-2277 Augusta, ME 04332

Phone Number: (317) 233-5724 Phone Number: (207) 287-2316

Fax Number: (317) 233-1670 Fax Number: (207) 395-2305

http://www.dwd.state.in.us/ http://www.state.me.us/labor/ucd/Default.htm

Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing Missouri Division of Employment Security 

and Regulation Commission 

Thomas Wendel, Executive Director Marilyn Hutcherson, Assistant Director

1100 North Eutaw Street Unemployment Insurance Program

Room 501 P.O. Box 59
211

Baltimore, MD 21201 Jefferson City, MO 65104-0059

Phone Number: (410) 767-2464 Phone Number: (573) 751-3670

Fax Number: (410) 767-2439 Fax Number: (573) 751-4554

http://www.dllr.state.md.us/emplovment/ http://www.dolir.state.mo.us/dolirla.htin

unemplovment.html

Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training Montana Department of Labor and Industry

Richard Dill, Associate Director Jim Hill, Administrator

Massachusetts Division of Employment and Training Unemployment Insurance Division

19 Staniford Street, 3rd Floor P.O. Box 1728

Boston, MA 02114 Helena, MT 59624

Phone Number: (617) 626-6600 Phone Number: (406) 444-2749

Fax Number: (617) 727-0315 Fax Number: (406) 444-2699

http://www.detma.org/claimant.htm http://jsd.dli.state.mt.us/ui/ui.htm

Michigan Unemployment Agency Nebraska Department of Labor

Jack F. Wheatley, Director Allan Amsberry, Director

7310 Woodward Avenue, Suite 510 Unemployment Insurance Division

Detroit, MI 48202 550 South 16th Street

Phone Number: (313) 876-5901 Lincoln, NE 68509

Fax Number: (313) 876-5587 Phone Number: (402) 471-3970

http://www.cis.state.mi.us/ua/homepage.htm Fax Number: (402) 471-2318

http://www.dol.state.ne.us/uihome.htm

Minnesota Department of Economic Security Nevada Department of Employment, Training &

Jack Weidenbach, Assistant Commissioner Rehabilitation

Workforce Exchange Branch James Wittenberg, Deputy Administrator

390 North Robert Street Employment Security Department 

St. Paul, MN 55101 500 East Third Street

Phone Number: (612) 296-1692 Carson City, NV 89713

Fax Number: (612) 296-0994 Phone Number: (702) 687.-4510

http//www.des.state.nm.us/jseek.htm Fax Number: (702) 687-3903

http://www.state.nv.us/detr/es/es uiben.htm

Mississippi Employment Security Commission New Hampshire Department of Employment

Security

Johnny F. Conwill, Director Darrell L. Gates, Director

Unemployment Insurance Unemployment Compensation Bureau

P.O. Box 1699 32 South Main Street

Jackson, MS 39215-1699 Concord, NH 03301

Phone Number: (601) 961-7700 Phone Number: (603) 228-4031

Fax Number: (601) 961-7405 Fax Number: (603) 228-4145

http://www.mesc.state.ms.us/ http://www.nhworks.state.nh.us/WEB3.MAP?

115,238

New Jersey Department of Labor Ohio Bureau of Employment Services

Michael P. Malloy, Director Joseph Duda, Director

Division of Unemployment Insurance Unemployment Insurance Benefits

P.O. Box 388 145 South Front Street

Trenton, NJ 08625-0058 Columbus, OH 43215

Phone Number: (609) 292-2460 Phone Number: (614) 466-9756

Fax Number: (609) 292-7667 Fax Number: (614) 752-9463

http://www.wnjpin.state.nj.us/OneStopCareerCenter/ http://www.state.oh.us/obes/
212

New Mexico Department of Labor Oklahoma Employment Security Commission

Tomey Anaya, Acting Chief Sue Havens, Director

Unemployment Insurance Bureau Unemployment Insurance Division

P.O. Box 1928 2401 North Lincoln,

Albuquerque, NM 87103 Will Rogers Memorial Office Building

Phone Number: (505) 841-8431 Oklahoma City, OK 73105

Fax Number: (505) 841-9053 Phone Number: (405) 557-7190

http://www3.state.nm.us/dol/dol esd.html Fax Number: (405) 557-7256

http://www.oesc.state.ok.us/

New York State Department of Labor Oregon Employment Department

Thomas Malone, Director Don Brockhaus

Unemployment Insurance Division Program & Methods

State Office Building Campus, Building 12, Rm.554 875 Union Street, NE

Albany, NY 12240 Salem, OR 97311

Phone Number: (518) 457-2878 Phone Number: (503) 947-1685

Fax Number: (518) 485-8604 Fax Number: (503) 947-1210

http://www.labor.state.ny.us/ http://www.emp.state.or.us/

North Carolina Employment Security Commission Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry

David Canady, Director Alan Williamson, Deputy Secretary

Unemployment Insurance Division Unemployment Compensation Programs

P.O. Box 25903 Seventh and Forster Streets

Raleigh, NC 27611 Labor and Industry Building, Room 1700

Phone Number: (919) 733-3121 Harrisburg, PA 17121

Fax Number: (919) 733-1239 Phone Number: (717) 787-3907

http://www.esc.state.nc.us/ Fax Number: (717) 787-8826

http://www.li.state.pa.us/ben.html

North Dakota Job Service Puerto Rico Bureau of Employment Security

James Hirsch, Customer Service Area Manager Nancy Guzman, Director

Unemployment Insurance Unemployment Insurance Director

P.O. Box 5507 505 Munoz Rivera Avenue

Bismarck, ND 58506-5507 Hato Rey, PR 00918

Phone Number: (701) 328-2843 Phone Number: (787) 754-5254

Fax Number: (701) 328-2728 Fax Number: (787) 751-0962

http://www.state-nd.us/jsnd/lmi.htm http://www.interempleo.org/framel.htm

Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training Utah Department of Workforce Services

Barbara Teto, Associate Director James E. Finch, Director

Income Support, UI & Temporary Disability Insurance Unemployment Insurance Division

101 Friendship Street P.O. Box 45249

Providence, RI 02903-3740 Salt Lake City, UT 84111

Phone Number: (401) 222-3722 Phone Number: (801) 526-9399

Fax Number: (401) 222-3740 Fax Number: (801) 526-9211

http://www.state.ri.us/bus/detx.htm http://www.dws.state.ut.us/

South Carolina Employment Security Commission Vermont Department of Employment and 

Training

Chuck Middlebrooks, Deputy Executive Director Thomas Douse, Director

Unemployment Insurance Division Unemployment Insurance

P.O. Box 995 P.O. Box 488
213

Columbia, SC 29202 Montpelier, VT 05061-0488

Phone Number: (803) 737-3089 Phone Number: (802) 828-4100

Fax Number: (803) 737-2642 Fax Number: (802) 828-4046

http://www.sces.org/ui/Index.htm http://www.det.state.vt.us/

South Dakota Department of Labor Virgin Islands Department of Labor

Don Kattke, Director Barbara L. Wheatley, Director

Unemployment Insurance Unemployment Insurance 

P.O. Box 4730 53 A & 54 B Kronprindsen Gade

Aberdeen, SD 57402-4730 Charlotte Amalie St. Thomas, VI 00802

Phone Number: (605) 626-2452 Phone Number: (809) 776-3700

Fax Number: (605) 626-2322 Fax Number: (809) 774-5908

http://www.state.sd.us/dol/ui/ui-home.htm

Tennessee Department of Labor & Virginia Employment Commission

Workforce Development Delores Esser, Assistant Commissioner for

Christopher Betts, Administrator Field Operations

Unemployment Insurance 703 East Main Street

500 James Robertson Parkway Richmond, VA 23219

Davy Crockett Tower, 10th Floor Phone Number: (804) 786-3004

Nashville, TN 37245-1700 Fax Number: (804) 371-8697

Phone Number: (615) 741-3178 http://www.vec.state.va.us/

Fax Number: (615) 741-3652

http://www.state.tn.us/empsec/info.htm

Texas Workforce Commission Washington Employment Security Department

LaSha Barefield, Director Dale Ziegler, Assistant Commissioner

Unemployment Insurance Division Unemployment Insurance Division

101 East 15th Street, Room 658 P.O. Box 9046

Austin, TX 78778 Olympia, WA 98507-9046

Phone Number: (512) 463-7234 Phone Number: (360) 902-9303

Fax Number: (512) 475-1133 Fax Number: (360) 902-9329

http://www.twc.state.tx.us/ http://www.wa.gov/esd/

West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs

Daniel L. Light, Director

Unemployment Compensation

112 California Avenue

Charleston, WV 25305-0112

Phone Number: (304) 558-2624

Fax Number: (304) 558-5037

http://www.state.wv.us/bep/uc/default.HTM

Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development

Maureen Hlavacek, Administrator

Division of Unemployment Insurance

201 East Washington Avenue, Room 371X

P.O. Box 7905

Madison, WI 53707-7905

Phone Number: (608) 266-7074

Fax Number: (608) 267-0593
214

http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/ui/

Wyoming Department of Employment

Beth Nelson, Director

P.O. Box 2760

Casper, WY 82620

Phone Number: (307) 235-3254

Fax Number: (307) 235-3278

http://wydoe.state.wy.us/erd/ui/
215

Appendix C: OWS Occasional Paper Series
216
217

2000

Woodard, C.R. (Ed.)(2000). OWS Research Exchange (OWS Occasional Paper 2000-04). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security.

Needles, Karen, Corson, Walter, Meler, Tim, Harley, Ira, & Blass, Karen (2000). Evaluation of the Impact of 

Telephone Initial Claims Filing (OWS Occasional Paper 2000-03). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security.

Decker, Paul T., Olsen, Robert B., Freeman, Lance & Klepinger, Daniel H. (2000). Assisting Unemployment

Insurance Claimants: The Long-Term Impacts of the Job Search Assistance Demonstration (OWS Occasional Paper

2000-02). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce

Security.

Salzman, Jeffrey, Dickinson, Katherine P., Fedrau, Ruth & Lazarin, Melissa. (1999). Unemployment

Insurance in the One-Stop System (OWS Occasional Paper 2000-01). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Security.

1999

Chimerine, L., Black, T.S., & Coffey, L. (1999). Unemployment Insurance as an Automatic Stabilizer: Evidence

of Effectiveness over Three Decades (UI Occasional Paper 99-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Wittenburg, D.C., Fishman, M., Stapleton, D., Scrivner, S., & Tucker, A. (1999). Analysis of Unemployment

Insurance Recipiency Rates (UI Occasional Paper 99-7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment

and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Needels, K. & Nicholson, W. (1999). An Analysis of Unemployment Insurance Durations Since the 1990-1992

Recession (UI Occasional Paper 99-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB2000-101648

Johnson, E. R. (Ed.). (1999). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 99-5). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB2000-

101663

Corson, W., Needels, K., & Nicholson, W. (1999, Jan). Emergency Unemployment Compensation: The 1990's

Experience (Revised Edition) (UI Occasional Paper 99-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment

and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Bruun, B. L., Holm, A. M., & Woodard, C. R. (Eds.). (1999). Unemployment Insurance Research: An Annotated

Bibliography (UI Occasional Paper 99-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Marcus, S. S., & Frees, J. W. (1999). Unemployment Insurance Claimant Satisfaction Study

(UI Occasional Paper 99-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB99-164188

Gritz, R. M., Johnson, T. R., Wenzlow, A., & Dong, F. B. (1999). Dynamic Models of Unemployment Insurance

Benefit Receipt: Survival Rate Analysis Report (UI Occasional Paper 99-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB99-166522
218

1998

Bassi, L. J., McMurrer, D., & Vroman, W. (1998). Essays on Interstate Competition in the Unemployment

Insurance System (UI Occasional Paper 98-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB99-128886

de Silva, L., Mittal, S., Raptis, P., Houge, R., Klein, E., & Vroman, W. (1997, Oct). Implementing ABP: Impact

on State Agencies, Employers, and the Trust Fund (UI Occasional Paper 98-4). Washington DC: U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB99-101305

Vroman, W. (1998, Jan). Labor Market Changes and Unemployment Insurance Benefit Availability

(UI Occasional Paper 98-3). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB98-157563

Klepinger, D. H., Johnson, T. R., Joesch, J. M., & Benus, J. M. (1997, Nov). Evaluation of the Maryland

Unemployment Insurance Work Search Demonstration (UI Occasional Paper 98-2). Washington DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB98-

157571

Corson, W., Needels, K., & Nicholson, W. (1998, Jan). Emergency Unemployment Compensation: The 1990's

Experience (UI Occasional Paper 98-1). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. REPLACED BY UI OCCASIONAL PAPER 99-4.

1997

Walsh, S., London, R., McCanne, D., Needels, K., Nicholson, W., & Kerachsky, S. (1997). Evaluation of ShortTime Compensation Programs (UI Occasional Paper 97-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Vroman, W. (1997). Unemployment Insurance, Welfare and Federal - State Fiscal Interrelations: Final Report (UI

Occasional Paper 97-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB97-165047

Cook, R. F., & Brinsko, A. E. (1997). Employee Leasing: Implications for State Unemployment Insurance

Programs: Final Report (UI Occasional Paper 97-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB97-165062

1996

Corson, W., & Haimson, J. (1996). The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration

Project: Six Year Follow-Up and Summary Report (Revised Edition)

(UI Occasional Paper 96-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB97-183289

Hawkins, E. K., Kreutzer, S. D., Dickinson, K. P., Decker, P. T., & Corson, W. (1996). Evaluation of Worker

Profiling and Reemployment Services System: Interim Report (UI Occasional Paper 96-1). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB97-

183248
219

1995

Benus, J. M., Johnson, T. R., Wood, M., Grover, N., & Shen, T. (1995). Self-Employment Programs: A New

Reemployment Strategy (UI Occasional Paper 95-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB95-225777

Vroman, W. (1995). The Alternative Base Period in Unemployment Insurance: Final Report

(UI Occasional Paper 95-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB95-232401

Corson, W., & Haimson, J. (1995). The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment Demonstration

Project: Six Year Follow-Up and Summary Report (UI Occasional Paper 95-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. REPLACED BY REVISED

VERSION OF UI OCCASIONAL PAPER 96-2.

Cook, R. F., Vroman, W., Kirchner, J., Brinsko, A., & Tan, A. (1995). The Effects of Increasing the Federal

Taxable Wage Base for Unemployment Insurance (UI Occasional Paper 95-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB95-216545

1994

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Unemployment Insurance Service.

(1994). The Worker Profiling and Reemployment Service System: Legislation, Implementation Process and

Research Findings (UI Occasional Paper 94-4). Washington, DC: Author. NTIS PB95-172730

Jacob, B., Wood, M. L., & Grover, N. (1994). Self-Employment as a Reemployment Option: Demonstration

Results and National Legislation (UI Occasional Paper 94-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB94-188679

Corson, W., & Rangarajan, A. (1994). Extended Benefit Triggers (UI Occasional Paper 94-2). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB178290

Benus, J. M., Wood, M., & Johnson, T. R. (1994). First Impact Analysis of the Washington State Selfemployment and Enterprise Development (SEED) Demonstration (UI Occasional Paper 94-1). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB94-

162203

1993

Robinson, J. G. (1993). New Forms of Activity for the Unemployed and Measures to Assist the Creation of SelfEmployment: Experiences and Opportunities in Combating Unemployment 

(UI Occasional Paper 93-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB94-145299

Burgess, P. L., & Low, S. A. (1993). Unemployment Insurance and Employer Layoffs

(UI Occasional Paper 93-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB93-205573
220

1992

Decker, P. T., & O'Leary, C. (1992). An Analysis of Pooled Evidence from the Pennsylvania and Washington

Reemployment Bonus Demonstrations (UI Occasional Paper 92-7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB93-160703

Spiegelman, R. G., O'Leary, C. J., & Kline, K. J. (1992). The Washington Reemployment Bonus Experiment

Final Report (UI Occasional Paper 92-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB93-159499

Zajac, W. D., & Balducchi, D. E. (1992). Papers and Materials Presented at the Unemployment Insurance Expert

System Colloquium, June 1991 (UI Occasional Paper 92-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB93-202695

Thomas, R. Y. (Ed.). (1992). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 92-4). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB93-

117968

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (1992). Employer Layoff and Recall Practices (UI Occasional Paper 92-3).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance

Service. NTIS PB92-174903/AS

Wandner, S. A. (Ed.). (1992). Self Employment Programs for Unemployed Workers

(UI Occasional Paper 92-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB92-191626/AS

Corson, W., Decker, P., Dunstan, S., & Kerachsky, S. (1992). Pennsylvania Reemployment Bonus

Demonstration Final Report (UI Occasional Paper 92-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment

and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB93-152684

1991

Johnson, T. R., & Klepinger, D. H. (1991). Evaluation of the Impacts of the Washington Alternative Work Search

Experiment (UI Occasional Paper 91-4). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-198127/AS

Dunson, B. H., Maurice, C. S., & Dwyer, G. Jr. (1991). The Cyclical Effects of the Unemployment Insurance (UI)

Program (UI Occasional Paper 91-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-197897

Vroman, W. (1991). The Decline in Unemployment Insurance Claims Activity in the 1980s

(UI Occasional Paper 91-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-160994

Anderson, P. M., Corson, W., & Decker, P. T. (1991). The New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Re-employment

Demonstration Project Follow-Up Report (UI Occasional Paper 91-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-160838/AS
221

1990

Lopez, A. B. (Ed.). (1990). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 90-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-153171

Corson, W., & Dynarski, M. (1990). A Study of Unemployment Insurance Recipients and Exhaustees: Findings

from a National Survey (UI Occasional Paper 90-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-129247

Johnson, E. R. (Ed.). (1990). Reemployment Services to Unemployed Workers Having Difficulty Becoming

Reemployed (UI Occasional Paper 90-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB91-106849

Hopwood, G. L. (1990). Kansas Nonmonetary Expert Systems Prototype (UI Occasional Paper 90-1). Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS

PB90-232711

1989

Bright, J. (1989). Leadership in Appellate Administration: Successful State Unemployment Insurance Appellate

Operations (UI Occasional Paper 89-7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB90-161183/AS

Vroman, W. (1989). Experience Rating in Unemployment Insurance: Some Current Issues 

(UI Occasional Paper 89-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB90-216656

Czajka, J. L., Long, S. L., & Nicholson, W. (1989). An Evaluation of the Feasibility of a Substate Area Extended

Benefit Program (UI Occasional Paper 89-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB90-127531/AS

Johnson, E. R. (Ed.). (1989). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 89-4). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB90-

114125/AS

Corson, W., Dunstan, S., Decker, P., & Gordon, A. (1989). New Jersey Unemployment Insurance Reemployment

Demonstration Project (UI Occasional Paper 89-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB90-216714

Richardson, P., Irion, A., Rosenthal, A., & Kuptzin, H. (1989). Referral of Long-Term Unemployment Insurance

(UI) Claimants to Reemployment Services, Revised Edition (UI Occasional Paper 89-2). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB89-

153100/AS

Miller, M. (Ed.). (1989). The Secretary's Seminars on Unemployment Insurance

(UI Occasional Paper 89-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB90-216649/AS
222

1988

Richardson, P., Irion, A., Rosenthal, A., & Kuptzin, H. (1988). Referral of Long-Term Unemployment Insurance

(UI) Claimants to Reemployment Services (UI Occasional Paper 88-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. REPLACED BY REVISED VERSION

OF UI OCCASIONAL PAPER 89-2.

Corson, W., & Nicholson, W. (1988). An Examination of Declining UI Claims During the 1980's

(UI Occasional Paper 88-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB89-160048/AS

Johnson, E. R. (Ed.). (1988). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 88-2). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB89-

160030/AS

Corson, W., Kerachsky, S., & Kisker, E. E. (1988). Work Search Among Unemployment Insurance Claimants: An

Investigation of Some Effects of State Rules and Enforcement

(UI Occasional Paper 88-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB89-160022/AS

1987

Johnson, E. R. (1987). Short-time Compensation: A Handbook of Basic Source Material

(UI Occasional Paper 87-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB88-163589

Barnow, B. S., & Vroman, W. (1987). An Analysis of UI Trust Fund Adequacy

(UI Occasional Paper 87-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB87-209342

1986

Wandner, S. A. (Ed.). (1986). Measuring Structural Unemployment (UI Occasional Paper 86-6). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB87-

209433/AS

Rosbrow, J. M. (1986). Fifty Years of Unemployment Insurance--A Legislative History: 1935-1985

(UI Occasional Paper 86-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB87-179834/AS

Kerachsky, S. (1986). An Evaluation of Short-time Compensation Programs (UI Occasional Paper 86-4).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance

Service. NTIS PB86-167616/AS

Corson, W., Grossman, J., & Nicholson, W. (1986). An Evaluation of the Federal Supplemental Compensation

Program (UI Occasional Paper 86-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB86-153144
223

Harvey, N. (1986). Unemployment Insurance Research Bibliography (UI Occasional Paper 86-2). Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB87-

118410/AS

Manheimer, H., Robinson J., Harvey, N., Sheehan, W., & Skrable, B. (1986). Alternative Uses of

Unemployment Insurance (UI Occasional Paper 86-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB87-118402/AS

1985

Manheimer, H., & Cooper, E. (1985). Beginning the Unemployment Insurance Program -- An Oral History (UI

Occasional Paper 85-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB87-117370/AS

Moffitt, R. (1984). The Effect of the Duration of Unemployment Benefits on Work Incentives: An Analysis of Four

Data Sets (UI Occasional Paper 85-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS 85-170546

Corson, W., Hershey, A., Kerachsky, S., Rynder, P., & Wichita, J. (1984). Application of the Unemployment

Insurance System Work Test and Nonmonetary Eligibility Standards

(UI Occasional Paper 85-3). Princeton, NJ: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB85-169910/AS

Corson, W., Long, D., & Nicholson, W. (1985). Evaluation of the Charleston Claimant Placement and Worktest

Demonstration 1984 (UI Occasional Paper 85-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB85-152965

Corson, W., & Nicholson, W. (1984). An Analysis of the 1981-82 Changes in the Extended Benefit Program (UI

Occasional Paper 85-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB85-176287/AS

1984

Wandner, S. A, Robinson, J. G., & Manheimer, H. S. (1984). Unemployment Insurance Schemes in Developing

Countries (UI Occasional Paper 84-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB85-185098/AS

Manheimer, H. (Ed.). (1984). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 84-1). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB85-

180370

1983

Manheimer, H. (Ed.). (1983). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 83-4). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB84-

150325

Oaxaca, R. L., & Taylor, C. A. (1983). The Effects of Aggregate Unemployment Insurance Benefits in the U. S. on

the Operation of a Local Economy (UI Occasional Paper 83-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB84-150317
224

Blanchard, L, & Corson, W. (1983). A Guide to the Analysis of UI Recipients' Unemployment Spells Using a

Supplemented CWBH Data Set (UI Occasional Paper 83-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB84-151471

Corson, W., & Nicholson, W. (1983). An Analysis of UI Recipients' Unemployment Spells

(UI Occasional Paper 83-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB84-151463

1981

Manheimer, H. (Ed.). (1981). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 81-4). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB 83-

148429

Burgess, P. L., Kingston, J. L., St. Louis, R., & Sloane, J. (1981). Changes in Spending Patterns Following

Unemployment (UI Occasional Paper 81-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-14883

Burgess, P. L., Kingston, J., St. Louis, R., & Sloan, J. (1981). Can Benefit Adequacy be Predicted on the Basis

of UI Claims and CWBH Data? (UI Occasional Paper 81-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-140566

Manheimer, H. (Ed.). (1981). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 81-1). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB 83-

1252587

1980

Kingston, J. L., Burgess, P. L., St. Louis, R., & Sloan, J. (1980). Benefit Adequacy and UI Program Costs: 

Simulations with Alternative Weekly Benefit Formulas (UI Occasional Paper 80-4). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB84-

217595

Fishe, R. P. H., & Maddala, G. S. (1980). Effect of Unemployment Insurance on Duration of Unemployment: A

Study Based on CWBH Data for Florida (UI Occasional Paper 80-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB88-164264

Manheimer, H. (Ed.). (1980). UI Research Exchange (UI Occasional Paper 80-2). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-

148411

Ishikawa, M. (1980). Unemployment Insurance and Proliferation of Other Income Protection Programs for

Experienced Workers (UI Occasional Paper 80-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-140657
225

1979

Kiefer, N., & Neumann, G. (1979). The Effect of Alternative Partial Benefit Formulas on Beneficiary Part-Time Work

Behavior (UI Occasional Paper 79-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-146811

Ishikawa, M. (1979). Unemployment Compensation in Varying Phases of Joblessness (UI Occasional Paper 79-5).

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance

Service. NTIS PB83-150581

Sperber, C. A. (1979). An Evaluation of Current and Alternative Methods of Determining Exhaustion Ratios (UI

Occasional Paper 79-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-148866

Burgess, P. L., & Kingston, J. L. (1979). Labor Market Experiences of Unemployment Insurance Exhaustees (UI

Occasional Paper 79-3). U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment

Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-224162

Denzau, A., Oaxaca, R., & Taylor, C. (1979). The Impact of Unemployment Insurance Benefits on Local

Economies--Tucson (UI Occasional Paper 79-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-169912

Felder, H. (1979). A Statistical Evaluation of the Impact of Disqualification Provisions of State Unemployment

Insurance Laws (UI Occasional Paper 79-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-152272

1978

Benenson, L. (1978). Incidence of Federal Retirees Drawing UCFE Benefits, 1974-75

(UI Occasional Paper 78-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-161927

Nicholson, W., & Corson, W. (1978). The Effect of State Laws and Economic Factors on Exhaustion Rates for

Regular Unemployment Benefits: A Statistical Model (UI Occasional Paper 78-7). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-

149468

Kingston, J., Burgess, P., & Walters, C. (1978). The Adequacy of Unemployment Insurance Benefits: An

Analysis of Adjustments Undertaken Through Thirteen and Twenty-Five Weeks of Unemployment

(UI Occasional Paper 78-6). Arizona Department of Economic Security and Arizona State University. NTIS PB83-

149823

Kauffman, P., Kauffman, M., Werner, M., & Jennison, C. (1978). An Analysis of Some of the Effects of

Increasing the Duration of Regular Unemployment Insurance Benefits (UI Occasional Paper 78-5 ). Washington DC:

U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.
226

Felder, H., & Podenza, R. (1978). The Federal Supplemental Benefits Program: Impact of P.L. 95-19 on Individual

Recipients (UI Occasional Paper 78-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-149179

Pleatsikas, C., Bailis, L., & Dernburg, J. (1978). A Study of Measures of Substantial Attachment to the Labor

Force, Volumes I and II (UI Occasional Paper 78-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. Vol I: NTIS PB83-147561, Vol II: NTIS PB83-147579

Burgess, P., Kingston, J., & Walters, C. (1978). The Adequacy of Unemployment Insurance Benefits: An

Analysis of Weekly Benefits Relative to Preunemployment Expenditure Levels

(UI Occasional Paper 78-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-148528

Felder, H., & West, R. (1978). The Federal Supplemental Benefits Program: National Experience and the Impact of

P.L. 95-19 (UI Occasional Paper 78-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-149633

1977

Blaustein, S., & Mackin, P. (1977). Job Loss, Family Living Standards, and the Adequacy of Weekly

Unemployment Benefits (UI Occasional Paper 77-8). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and

Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. 

Blaustein, S., & Mackin, P. (1977). Development of the Weekly Benefit Amount in Unemployment Insurance (UI

Occasional Paper 77-7). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service.

Entes, R. (1977). Family Support and Expenditures Survey of Unemployment Insurance Claimants in New York

State, September 1972 - February 1974 (UI Occasional Paper 77-6). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Solon, G. (1977). Weekly Benefit Amounts and Normal Weekly Wages of Unemployment Insurance Claimants (UI

Occasional Paper 77-5). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,

Unemployment Insurance Service.

Klausner, M. (1977). Unemployment Insurance and the Work Disincentive Effect: An Examination of Recent

Research (UI Occasional Paper 77-4). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training

Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Stevens, D. (1977). Unemployment Insurance Beneficiary Job Search Behavior: What is Known and What Should

be Known for Administrative Planning Purposes (UI Occasional Paper 77-3). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service.

Elterich, G. H., & Graham, L. (1977). Impact of P.L. 94-566 on Agricultural Employers and Unemployment

Insurance Trust Funds in Selected States (UI Occasional Paper 77-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor,

Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-147827
227

Elterich, G. H., & Graham, L. (1977). Impact of Extension of Coverage to Agricultural Workers under P.L. 94-566,

Their Characteristics and Economic Welfare (UI Occasional Paper 77-1). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Unemployment Insurance Service. NTIS PB83-147819

The Office of Workforce Security Occasional Paper Series presents research findings and analyses dealing with

workforce development issues. Papers are prepared by research contractors, staff members of the Office of

Workforce Security, or individual researchers. Manuscripts and comments from interested individuals may be sent

to the address below:

OWS Occasional Papers Series

U.S. Department of Labor

Office of Workforce Security/OCTA

Employment and Training Administration

200 Constitution Avenue, NW Room S-4231

Washington, D.C. 20210

Email: OWSPaper@doleta.gov

Arrangements have been made for the sale of most of the reports in the series through a Federal information and

retrieval system, at the National Technical Information Service (NTIS). Copies of the reports are available from NTIS

in paper or microfiche. The NTIS accession number for the paper copy is listed after the title of each paper. To

obtain the papers from NTIS, forward orders to:

National Technical Information Service

U.S. Department of Commerce

5285 Port Royal Road

Springfield, Virginia 22161

Telephone: (703) 487-4600