Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JOBS MONITORING AND 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: 

States’ and ACF Regional Offices’ 

Perspectives 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

The mission of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), as mandated by Public Law 95-452, as 

amended, is to protect the integrity of the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) 

programs as well as the health and welfare of beneficiaries served by those programs. This 

statutory mission is carried out through a nationwide network of audits, investigations, and 

inspections conducted by three OIG operating components: the Office of Audit Services, the 

Office of Investigations, and the Office of Evaluation and Inspections. The OIG also informs the 

Secretary of HHS of program and management problems and recommends courses to correct them. 

OFFICE OF AUDIT SERVICES 

The OIG’S Office of Audit Services (OAS) provides all auditing services for HHS, either by 

conducting audits with its own audit resources or by overseeing audit work done by others. Audits 

examine the performance of HHS programs and/or its grantees and contractors in carrying out 

their respective responsibilities and are intended to provide independent assessments of HHS 

programs and operations in order to reduce waste, abuse, and mismanagement and to promote 

economy and efficiency throughout the Department. 

OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS 

The OIG’S Office of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations


of allegations of wrongdoing in HHS programs or to HHS beneficiaries and of unjust enrichment


by providers. The investigative efforts of 01 lead to criminal convictions, administrative


sanctions, or civil money penalties. The 01 also oversees State Medicaid fraud control units which


investigate and prosecute fraud and patient abuse in the Medicaid program.


OFFICE OF EVALUATION AND INSPECTIONS 

The OIG’S Office of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and 

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

Congress, and the public. The findings and recommendations contained in these inspection reports 

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

effectiveness of departmental programs. This report was prepared in the Kansas City Regional 

Office under the direction of James H. Wolf, Regional Inspector General. Project staff 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Hugh Owens, Project Leader Ruth Folchman


Perry A. Seaton W. Mark Krushat, Ph.D


Hope H. Anderson


For additional copies of this report, please contact the Kansas City Regional Office 

at (816) 426-5959. 
Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

JOBS MONITORING AND 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE: 

States’ and ACF Regional Offices’ 

Perspectives 

J# SERVICE$ 

#+ ~nq 

&w JUNE GIBBS BROWN

~ Inspector General
 ‘s


%


% #

+-- APRIL 1994 ‘*dIla > 0EI-07-92-O0381 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

To provide an assessment of the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) 

monitoring and technical assistance activities for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills 

Training (JOBS) program based on the perspectives of States and ACF regional offices. 

BACKGROUND 

The Family Support Act of 1988 established the JOBS program for recipients of Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments. This program is designed to assist 

welfare recipients to become self-sufficient through training, education, work experience, 

and support services. The ACF administers the JOBS program through its Headquarters 

and 10 regional offices. In this role, they monitor and provide technical assistance to 

States. 

We reviewed ACF’S monitoring and technical assistance activities for the JOBS program 

in three phases. First, we examined ACF Headquarters’ activities. Then we contacted 

ACF regional office staff and representatives of 10 States to obtain their perspectives and 

other information about their operations. The report on Headquarters’ activities “JOBS 

Monitoring and Technical Assistance: Headquarters Role, ” (OEI-07-92-00380) was issued 

August 1993. This report contains a synthesis of regional office and State perspectives. 

FINDINGS 

Since completing our Headquarters report we note substantial progress in some areas such 

as timely release of field review guides. States were also complimentary about 

contributions made by ACF regional office specialists. However, additional improvements 

are needed, particularly in the areas of technical assistance and management information. 

We hope this report will be useful to ACF in preparing their response as well as their 

implementation plan for all of the recommendations previously made. Following is a 

summary of our findings. 

Monitoring - Release of field review guides to regions has been more timely, which has 

assisted them in their work planning activities. However, the regions’ diverse methods 

for sharing field review information has had an adverse impact on its usefulness to States. 

States consider on-site visits to be usefid, although they prefer that the visits be better 

structured. They consider the regional office State specialist position beneficial. Both 

States and the regional offices feel these specialists need to visit States more frequently to 

keep abreast of what is going on in their JOBS programs. 

Technical Assistance - Many States believe ACF is not meeting their technical assistance 

needs. Conversely, Headquarters and the regions believe they are attempting to meet 

i 
most of them. The States prefer establishment of “technology transfer” over the use of 

technical assistance contractors. Neither the regions nor the States considered the 

technical assistance provided by the contractors to be very useful. 

Program Guidance - States believe the regions are generally responsive to their policy 

questions, while Headquarters takes too long to respond. States need policy and 

operational instructions much earlier so they can implement their own policy and computer 

system changes in a timely manner. 

Management Inforrnti”on - States question the usefulness of the data being collected since 

they receive little feedback from ACF on the analysis of this information. Neither the 

States nor the regions believe ACF is adequately validating the data. 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


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


FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3


� MONITORING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3


� Field Review Guides . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3


� Field Review Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...3


� On-site Visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..OO. . . . ..0<.03


� Regional Office State Specialist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4


� TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4


� Technical Assistance Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4


� Technical Assistance Contractor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...4


� PROGRAMGUIDANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5


� MANAGEMENT INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...5


CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...-...”” “6


APPENDICES


A: PERSPECTIVES OF STATE OFFICIALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1


B: PERSPECTIVES OF ACF REGIONAL OFFICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

To provide an assessment of the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) 

monitoring and technical assistance activities for the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills 

Training (JOBS) program based on the perspectives of States and ACF regioml offices. 

BACKGROUND 

The Family Support Act of 1988 established the JOBS program for recipients of Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) payments. This program is designed to assist 

welfare recipients to become self-sufficient through training, education, work experience, 

and support services. The ACF administers the JOBS program through its Headquarters 

and 10 regional offices. In this role, they monitor and provide technical assistance to 

States. 

METHODOLOGY 

In recognition of the differing roles and responsibilities of ACF Headquarters and regional 

office components, we reviewed the JOBS program in three phases. We did this to more 

accurately reflect the overall performance of each component in providing monitoring and 

technical assistance for the JOBS program and to obtain the States’ observations and 

perspectives concerning this performance. 

In phase one, we reviewed the statute, written policies, processes, and products developed 

by ACF Headquarters for monitoring and providing technical assistance in the JOBS 

program. We conducted an on-site visit at ACF Headquarters and interviewed members 

of the agency’s staff responsible for the following key areas: field reviews, on-site visits, 

State plans, data collection, and the technical assistance contract. We also interviewed 

members of Washington, D. C. -based advocacy organizations that have an active interest 

in the JOBS program. The results are presented in our report entitled “JOBS Monitoring 

and Technical Assistance: Headquarters Role, ” (OEI-07-92-O0380) issued August 1993. 

In phase two, (Regional Offices’ Perspectives), we examined ACF’s program instructions 

and regional offices’ documentation, including policies, directives, memoranda, telephone 

contacts, on-site visit reports, States’ report summaries, and other instructions used in the 

region or disseminated to States. We interviewed management and operational staff in the 

10 regional offices that administer the JOBS program. 

In phase three, (States’ Perspectives), we examined States’ program documentation, 

including regional policies, directives, memoranda, telephone contacts, on-site visit 

reports, program report summaries, and other materials used by them or created to 

summarize their JOBS program activities. We interviewed program staff in 10 States, 

9 of which were selected because they are the State in which the ACF regional office is 

1 
located. In Region VII, Kansas City, we selected Nebraska, since we had previously 

contacted Missouri as part of our preinspection research. 

Upon completion of the Headquarters’ review, ACF requested that we delay action on our 

report findings and recommendations related to monitoring activities until we had 

completed our review of the regional offices and States. We agreed. We have now 

completed the remaining phases of the study. This report contains the synthesis of what 

we found, as well as the Regional offices’ and States’ perspectives of ACF’s monitoring 

and technical assistance efforts. 

We conducted our review in accordance with the Quality Standards for Inspections issued 

by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

2 
FINDINGS 

We are providing here a synthesis of our findings covering the regional offices’ and 

States’ perspectives conceding ACF'smonitoring, tectical assistance, program guidance 

and management information activities. More in-depth information is contained in the 

Appendices A and B of this report. 

MONITORING 

Field Review Guides 

The ACF regional offices noted great improvement in the release of the 1993 and 

1994 field review guides as compared to earlier years. However, they prefer that 

Headquarters release the guides even earlier. 

Seven offices would like to receive these guides in the first quarter of the fiscal year. The 

remainder would prefer to receive the guides before the start of the fiscal year, preferably 

in July or August. All regions believe that releasing the guides earlier would assist them 

in their work planning and strategic planning process. 

Field Review Repotis 

For many States, ACF regional office diversity in methods for sharing field review 

information has adversely impacted on the timeliness and usefulness of this material. 

States report that regional offices use diverse methods for releasing field review reports, 

for soliciting their comments, and for following up on their corrective actions to report 

findings and recommendations. Our review of ACF Headquarters supports that it has not 

established national guidelines for the dissemination of reports, for soliciting States 

comments, and for conducting follow-up. The review of regional offices also confirmed 

that they have diverse methodologies for carrying out these fimctions. 

On-site Visits 

Most States found the regional office on-site visits to be beneficial. However, they 

prefer that these visits be more systematically planned and be conducted more 

frequently. 

Both States and regional offices consider on-site visits a useful tool for monitoring, for 

offering assistance to States, for follow-up, and for educating their staff. States also see 

these visits as valuable in establishing good working relationships with the regional office 

staff. 

The frequency of these visits varies, due mainly to limited funding and the distance from 

the regional offices to the States’ capitals. States prefer more regular and frequent visits. 

3 
Regional Office State Specialist 

Many regions and States consider the regional office State specialist position as vital 

to ensure good relations. 

All regional offices have assigned State specialists who are the primary contact with the 

States. They consider the specialists to be field-oriented positions. Further, they believe 

that the specialists need to be out in the States to know what is going on in the JOBS 

programs. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

Technical Assistance Needs 

Some States believe that ACF is not consistently meeting their technical assistance 

needs. 

Six States believe that their technical assistance needs are not being met or are only 

somewhat being met by ACF Headquarters and regional offices. The remaining four 

States believed that ACF was meeting their technical assistance needs. ACF Headquarters 

believes they are attempting to meet most of the States’ technical assistance needs, 

primarily through the training and materials provided by the technical assistance 

contractors. Most regional offices also believe they are attempting to satisfy most of the 

States’ needs and consider themselves to be the primary source for providing this 

assistance. 

Technical Assistance Contractor 

Regional offices and States believe that the technical assistance contractors’ training 

was not useful. 

All regional offices and seven States stated that the technical assistance contractors’ 

training was not useful. Nine States favor the use of “technology transfer” to meet their 

training needs. This method provides partial Federal funding to facilitate cross-State 

training with States that are using innovative and successful program approaches. We 

found in the Headquarters’ review that the full potential of the technical assistance 

contractors was not realized. All regional offices commented that the contractors’ training 

was not timely or appropriate for States’ needs. 

4 
PROGRAM GUIDANCE 

Most States believe that the regional offices are responsive to policy questions. 

However, they believe that problems remain with the timeliness of Headquarters’ 

responses and in the release and timing for regional office interim responses. 

All regions believe that Headquarters’ responsiveness to policy issues is problematic, 

particularly as related to providing interim status updates for these issues. While most 

regions provide timely responses to States’ questions, they vary in the method and timing 

for release of interim responses, especially for issues submitted to Headquarters for their 

review. 

Most States believe that ACF has not issued action transmittals timely. As a result, States 

do not have adequate time to implement the needed policy and computer system changes. 

In the Headquarters’ review, we found that ACF did not allow sufficient lead time for 

States’ implementation of action transmittals, particularly those related to computer 

systems and data reporting. In some cases, States were required to retroactively capture 

and report data. 

Regional offices noted that Headquarters’ program instructions are improving. However, 

they believe that instructions related to data collection and some policy areas need to be 

released earlier to allow States time to plan and implement the changes. 

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 

All regional offices and States commented that they receive little feedback from ACF 

Headquarters on the analysis of States’ data. Therefore, they question the usefulness 

of the data being collected. 

Most regions believe they are not adequately validating States’ data and computer systems 

for accuracy and consistency. Although validation of data is required as part of the field 

review process, most regions believe that efforts to do so are not adequate. In addition, 

both regions and States commented that ACF has not routinely disseminated management 

information in a usefid format to those who need it. 

Most regions are adopting varied and innovative approaches for data analysis to enhance 

their monitoring, technical assistance, and consultative functions with States. However, 

they believe that lack of Headquarters’ guidance, access to data, and standardization of 

analysis techniques is impeding their efforts. 

5 
CONCLUSIONS 

As noted earlier, ACFasked iftieycould delay responding totiemotitoring section of 

our Headquarters’ report until we completed our review of regional offices and States. 

We agreed. 

Now that our activities are concluded, we are pleased to note that real progress has been 

made in some areas, particularly in the more timely release of field review guides and 

protocols. Nevertheless, our State and regional respondents confirm the need for 

additional improvements. We therefore look forward to ACF’S response to the earlier 

findings and recommendations on monitoring, which were published in our report on 

Headquarters activities. We hope these reports will be useful to ACF in preparing their 

response as well as their implementation plan for all of the recommendations previously 

made. 

Our respondents have also raised concerns about additional matters, particularly related to 

technical assistance and management information. We hope ACF will address these 

concerns as well in their response. 

6 
APPENDIX A 

PERSPECT~S OF STAZl!lOFFICIALS 

The following is a catalogue of the perspectives and observations of staff from 10 States’ 

staffs who are involved in the operation and administration of the JOBS program. We 

summarized the States’ comments to reflect the general tone of the issues voiced during 

our review. 

MONITORING 

FIELD REVIEWS 

States believe that field report information is of maximum usefulness when it is 

disseminated no later than 90 days following the review. They experience difficulty 

in developing and implementing corrective action plans when report recommendations 

are not issued in a timely manner. 

States described the varied processes ACF uses to share the results of field review 

activity. These methods are shown in Table 1. 

Table 1 

Method of sharing draft report findings 

and recommendations with States 

Method used Number of States 

Informal sharing of findings and


recommendations--no draft report disseminated 2


Draft report disseminated 5


No informal sharing--no draft report


disseminated 3


All States confirmed that regional offices are routinely conducting exit conferences at the 

conclusion of the field review. Nevertheless, they believe that delays in disseminating 

field review reports adversely affects their ability to utilize the information to improve the 

operation of the JOBS program. This is particularly true where expenditures of States’ 

funds are involved and where they disagree with the information provided during the exit 

conference. The elapsed times for States’ receipt of these reports are shown in Table 2 

for Fiscal Years (FY’s) 1990-1992. 

A-1

Table 2


Elapsed time from the field review to


States’ receipt of the report


for FY’s 1990-1992


Elapsed time from the field review Number of States 

3 months or less 5 

6- 12 months 2 

Over 1 year 3 

To be of maximum usefulness, all States favor report findings and recommendations be 

shared as part of an exit conference which is followed by a written report that is 

distributed no later than 90 days following the review. States’ preference for receipt of 

these reports are shown in Table 3. 

Table 3 

States’ preference for receipt 

of the field review report 

Elapsed time from the field review Number of States 

Within 30 days 3 

Within 60 days 3 

Within 90 days 4 

States report that regional offices use varied methods to disseminate field review reports. 

In addition, States note that regional offices differ in the methods used to obtain their 

comments to draft and final reports (see Table 4). 

A-2

Table 4 

Methods for obtaining States’ comments to 

field review reports 

Draft report methods used Number of States 

Informal sharing of findings


and recommendations through a visit


or a telephone call--no formal


comment period. 1 2


Comment period provided 2 5


No informal sharing--no comment period


provided. 3


Final report methods used Number of States 

Comment period provided 12 9


No informal sharing--no comment period


provided. 1


1	 Tworegional offices donotformally solicit S@tes’ comments to the 

draft report, butdoprovide aformal comment period fortiefinal repoti. 

2	 Five regional offices provide comment periods for both draft and 

final reports. 

States report a variance in regional offices’ notification of issues needing corrective action 

and their follow-up activity. While eight States believe that regional offices responses to 

their corrective action plans are good, the remaining two States are not notified of items 

needing corrective action and have not been involved in regional office follow-up 

activities. 

ON-SITE VISITS 

Most States believe that on-site visits by regional office staff are beneficial. While all 

States receive these visits, the frequency varies. 

States reported a variance in the frequency of regional office on-site visits as shown in 

Table 5. All States receive at least one annual visit, while some receive more than 

four visits per year, in addition to scheduled field reviews. 

A-3

Table 5 

Frequency of regional office on-site visits 

Frequency Number of States 

4 or more visits per year 1 6 

2 visits per year 1 

1 visit per year 3 

1	 These States are located in proximity to the regional office. However, 

we found that regions travel to remote portions of these States and to 

other States less frequently due to limited travel funds. 

Eight States consider regional on-site visits to be beneficial. All of these receive either 

formal or informal feedback summarizing on-site visit issues. 

REGIONAL OFFICE STATE SPECIALIST 

Many States consider the regional office State specialist position as vital to ensure 

good relations. 

Six States rated the State specialist as effective, while three States characterized the 

specialist as improving. Only one State considered the specialist to be ineffective. 

States that rated their specialist as effective or improving listed the following traits as 

desirable for a good State specialist: 

� openness


� helpfulness


� accessibility


� responsiveness


� knowledgeable about the State’s program


� serves as an information resource


� sometimes acts as the State’s advocate


Only one State rated the State specialist as ineffective. This State received only one 

on-site visit per year (Table 5). They commented that the specialist’s visits were not well 

planned and he did not provide visit summaries. 

A-4

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS 

Some States perceive that ACF is not consistently meeting their technical assistance 

needs. 

Six States believed that their technical assistance needs are not being met or are only 

somewhat being met by ACF Headquarters and regional offices. The remaining 

four States believed that ACF was meeting their technical assistance needs. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTMCTOR 

Many States believe that the technical assistance contractor training was not useful. 

Seven States asserted that the contractor training was not useful or practical for their 

program. Several commented that the major benefit from the technical assistance 

conferences (workshops) was the ability to informally discuss issues (network) with staff 

from other States. 

Most States favor use of “technology transfer” rather than a technical assistance 

contract to meet their training needs. 

Nine States commented that they would like ACF to establish and fund a “technology 

transfer” among States. This concept, which previously existed under AFDC, enabled 

State staffs to travel to other States having the expertise to meet their specific training 

needs. 

The one State not supporting this concept expressed concern about limited State funds 

available to pay for interstate training. In addition, they were concerned about the loss of 

their employees’ services during the training period. 

Most States believe that regional offices are responsive to their policy questions. 

However, they believe that problems remain with the timeliness of Headquarters’ 

responses and in the release and timing for regional office interim responses. 

Nine States commented that regional offices are responsive to their policy needs. 

However, six of these States believe that Headquarters has not provided timely responses 

to their questions, many of which had far reaching policy or budget implications. 

Nine States commented that the ideal regional office’s response time for a policy question 

is 30 days or less. The remaining State felt that a response within 60 days would meet its 

needs. Seven commented that the ideal Headquarters’ response time for a policy question 

was 60 days or less. Four of these would prefer a response within 30 days or less. 

A-5

Five Swtesprovided the following examples ofdelayed Headquatiers' responsiveness to 

policy issues: 

�	 A question regarding work supplementation. Submitted inthe Fall of 1992, they 

received an answer in June 1993 (no interim response issued by the regional 

office). 

�	 A question concerning the use of Housing and Urban Development funding for 

Community Development Block Grants as Federal matching funds for JOBS--the 

response took seven months. 

�	 A question on whether unemployed parents and 16-17 year old AFDC youth can 

be included in the definition and calculation of target groups. The State submitted 

the question in March 1992, no response received (as of July 1993). 

�	 A request to change the definition of a target group from being on assistance 

36 out of the last 60 months to being on assistance 24 out of the last 60 months. 

The request was submitted in September 1990. They received the response in 

July 1992. The State expressed some displeasure with the lateness of an answer, 

since the issue had an impact on State budget and policy. 

�	 A question concerning_whether the JOBS program can pay for child care in 

facilities that provide -&ligious instruction-was submitted in 1988. The State has 

not received a formal written response from Headquarters. While they did get an 

informal (verbal) response from the regional office, the State does not consider this 

to be an official answer to their question. 

PROGRAM GUIDANCE 

Most States believe that ACF has not issued action transmittals in a timely manner to 

allow them adequate time to implement the needed policy and computer system 

changes. 

Nine States commented that action transmittals, particularly in the area of data reporting, 

have not been released with enough lead time to allow States to implement the needed 

changes to policy and computer systems. They believe that problems remain, particularly 

as related to the issuance of policy on the changes to the unemployed parent program 

which was effective on October 1, 1993. As of November 1993, States had not received 

final policies and reporting instructions for these changes. 

States vary widely in the amount of advance notice needed to implement policy changes. 

They commented that they need adequate advance notification to plan and implement these 

changes, to train staff, and to issue their policy and regulations. States’ preferences for 

this notification are shown in Table 6. 

A-6

Table 6 

States’ preference for advance notification 

of policy changes 

Time frame 

2 months 

3 months 

6 months 

9 months 

Over 1 year 

Number of States 

1 

1 

4 

1 

2 

Depends on the nature and extent of the change 1 

States also vary widely in the amount of advance notice needed to implement computer 

system changes. They commented that they need adequate advance notification to plan, 

implement these changes, and to train staff. Their preferences for this notification are 

shown in Table 7. 

Table 7 

States’ preferences for advance notification 

of computer changes 

Time frame 

2 months 1


3 months


6 months 2


9 months


12 months 12


Over 1 year


Depends on the nature and extent of the change


Number of States 

1 

3 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

1	 This State believed that two months was adequate for minor changes 

but that 12 months would be needed for major changes. The State is 

listed for both time frames. 

2	 This State believed that six months was adequate for minor changes 

but that 12 months would be needed for major changes. The State is 

listed for both time frames. 

A-7

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 

All States commented that they receive little feedback from ACF on the analysis of 

States’ data. They question the usefulness of the data being collected. 

None of the States are receiving analysis of data beyond the recipient participation and 

target group rates. They have not received an ACF analysis of the JOBS Program 

Participant Data Collection Form FSA-108 data, 

A-8

APPENDIX B 

PERSPECT~S OF ACF REGIONAL Ol?FICES 

The following is a catalogue of the perspectives and observations of staff from 10 ACF 

regional offices who are involved in the administration and oversight of the JOBS 

program. We summarized the regional office comments to reflect the general tone of the 

issues voiced during our review. 

MONITORING 

FIELD REVIEW GUIDES 

The regional offices noted great improvement in the release of the 1993 and 1994 field 

review guides as compared to earlier years. However, they prefer that Headquarters 

release the guides even earlier. Most offices would like to receive these guides in the 

first quarter of the fiscal year. 

The regions received the final review guides for FYs 1992, 1993, and 1994 in June 1992, 

February 1993, and October 1993, respectively. The regions noted that the 1994 guides 

were essentially a reissuance of the 1993 documents. Most believe that the timing for the 

guide release has improved considerably over this three year period. Table 1 summarizes 

regional offices’ responses concerning the impact of the 1992 and 1993 guides on their 

office operations. 

Table 1 

Impact of the release of the 1992 and 1993 guides 

on regional office operations 

Response 

Adverse impact


No adverse impact


New staff not involved in FY 1992 review


Regions reporting an adverse impact commented that 

Number of regions 

FY 1992 FY 1993 

7 2 

2 8 

1 

the late release of these guides 

resulted in delaying field reviews until the last three months of the fiscal year. This 

created a burden for them in terms of workload and a time “crunch” for completing the 

reviews during the year. Several regions noted that guides should be released before the 

fiscal year or in the first quarter of the fiscal year as shown in Table 2. 

B-1

Table 2 

Regional offices’ ideal time frames for 

receipt of field review guides 

Time frame Number of regions 

Before start of the fiscal year 1 3 

In the first quarter of the fiscal year 2 7 

1	 Three regions prefer to receive the guides before the start of the fiscal 

year, preferably in July or August. 

2	 Three of these regions would like to have a working draft of the guide 

by August or September 

All regions believe that releasing the guides earlier would assist them in their work 

planning as well as their strategic planning process. 

FIELD REVIEW REPORTS 

The regions use different methods to share report information with States and to 

obtain comments on draft and final reports. 

Table 3 summarizes the various methods used to disseminate this information. 

Table 3 

Methods of sharing report findings 

and recommendations with States 

Methods used 

Informal sharing of findings 

and recommendations--no draft report disseminated 

Draft reports disseminated 

No informal sharing--no draft report 

disseminated 

Number of regions 

2 

5 

3 

Regions also report using diverse methods to obtain States’ comments on draft and final 

reports. This is shown in Table 4. 

B-2

Table 4 

Methods for obtaining States’ commentson 

field review reports 

Draft report methods used 

Informal sharing of findings and 

recommendations through a visit 

or a telephone call--no formal 

comment period 1 

Comment period provided 2 

No comment period provided 

Final report methods used 

Comment period provided 12 

No comment period provided 

Number of regions 

2 

5 

3 

Number of regions 

9 

1 

1	 Two regional offices do not formally solicit States’ comments to the 

draft report, but do provide a formal comment period for the final 

report. 

2	 Five regional offices provide comment periods for both the draft and 

the final reports. 

ON-SITE VISITS 

All regions consider on-site visits to be a useful tool for monitoring, offering 

assistance to States, for follow-up, and for educating their staff. 

The frequency of regional office on-site visits varies, due mainly to limited funding and 

distances from the regional offices to the States’ capitals. Table 5 provides a summary of 

the frequency of these visits. 

B-3

Number of 

regional offices 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

1 

2 

Table 5 

Frequency of annual on-site visits 

Frequency of visits Frequency of visits 

to “close States” 1 to “distant States” 2 

Weekly to Monthly Less than annual


Bimonthly NIA


Bimonthly Less than annual


Quarterly Quarterly


Quarterly Semiannually


Quarterly None performed


Three to five Three to five


Annually Less than annual


1	 “Close States” are defined as being within one days travel, 

no overnight stay required to conduct a visit. 

2	 “Distant States” are defined as requiring an overnight stay 

by regional office staff to conduct a visit. An N/A designates 

that the region(s) have no States where an overnight stay would 

be required. 

REGIONAL OFFICE STATE SPECIALIST 

All regional offices have assigned State specialists who are the primary contact with 

the States for the JOBS program. They consider the specialists to be field-oriented 

positions. 

The regional offices believe that the specialists have to be out in their States to know what 

is going on in the JOBS programs. Regions commented that limited travel fi.mds are 

impeding specialists from making periodic visits during the year. 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE NEEDS 

Regional offices commented that they are the primary source for addressing States’ 

technical assistance needs. Eight out of ten believe they are addressing these needs. 

The remaining regions are not providing technical assistance. 

Regional offices believe that technical assistance is an important activity. The primary 

sources of information for six of the regions are field reviews and staff contacts. The 

other four regions found that surveys of States and staff contacts are the most usefd for 

them in identifying technical assistance needs. 

B-4

Despite regional offices’ efforts, they believe that States continue to have significant 

technical assistance needs (see Table 6). 

Table 6 

Regional office views regarding 

States’ technical assistance needs 

Technical assistance needs Number of regions 1 

Understanding legislation, regulations and policy 6 

Data collectionheporting 4 

Goal setting and component effectiveness 3 

Unemployed parents program 3 

Computer systems development 2 

Facilitating the exchange of information with other States 2 

Participation rates, target groups, and teen parents 2 

Simplifying funding streams/budget issues 2 

Better coordination among Federal agencies 1 

Child care issues 1 

Market rate survey 1 

Orientation of new States’ JOBS program managers 1 

Writing a good contract 1 

1 All regional offices listed multiple technical assistance needs 

Examples of how regions are providing or sponsoring technical assistance to States 

One region assisted a State whose legislature wanted information on the 

effectiveness of jobs search as a component of the JOBS program. The region 

obtained a study that showed job search was cost effective over the short term. 

However, it was not as effective as education and training programs over the long 

term. 

Through its monitoring effort, one region brought State JOBS directors and ACF 

Headquarters’ staff together. The ACF staff provided definitions for terms used in 

data collection. 

One region’s planning process will identify five items the individual States need in 

the coming year. Some of these are common to other States in the region. Others 

will be specific to individual States. 

B-5

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CONTRACTOR 

All regions reported that the contractors’ assistance to States during program 

implementation was not timely or appropriate. Only three judged the technical 

assistance contractors’ training materials and workshops as being useful to States. 

All regions are concerned with Headquarters’ response times to States’ policy questions. 

Regions report a wide variance in the timeliness of Headquarters’ responses to States’ 

policy questions as shown in Table 7. 

Table 7 

Regions reporting of Headquarters’ response times 

for States’ policy questions 

Response time ranges 

30 days to several months


30 to 45 days


60 days or less


90 days


90 to 120 days


4 to 6 weeks


4 to 6 months


4 to 8 months


A majority of the regions generally prefer 

Number of regions 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

a 30 day time frame as the outside limit for a 

response from Headquarters (see Table 8). 

Table 8 

Regions’ preference for Headquarters’ response times 

to States’ policy questions 

Response times Number of regions 

Not to exceed 30 days 1 7 

30 to 60 days 2 

45 to 60 days (closer to 45 days) 1 

1	 One region commented that a continuing dialogue (no time expressed) 

is needed between the region and Headquarters if the response will 

take a relatively long time. 

B-6

Regions report use of diverse methods and time frames for releasing interim 

responses to questions from States. 

The regions vary in the methods and timing for providing interim responses to States (see 

Table 9). 

Table 9 

Methods and time frames for issuing interim responses 

Method Number of regions 

Interim response if final reply will take a


long time (period not defined) 4


Interim response by telephone when referred


to Headquarters, no subsequent reply will be issued 1


Interim responses every 30 days 1


Respond verbally or in writing (period not defined) 1


Periodic telephone follow-up with Headquarters


and furnish update to State (period not defined) 2


30 day telephone follow-up with Headquarters and


Ii,umish update to State 1


PROGRAM GUIDANCE 

All regions believe that Headquarters’ program instructions are improving. 

However, material related to data collection and some policy areas could be more 

timely. 

Five regions commented that the lack of timeliness of instructions pertaining to data 

reporting and systems resulted in States having to collect and report the information 

retroactively. States agreed that these instructional delays made it difficult, if not 

impossible, to collect and report the needed information since their information systems 

were not set up to capture this data. 

B-7

MANAGEMENT INFORMATION 

Most regions believe they are not adequately validating States’ data and computer 

systems for accuracy and consistency, despite the required validation performed as 

part of the field review process. 

All regions are validating tie data on the JOBS Program Participant Data Collection Form 

FSA-108, which is a requirement under the field review process. However, seven regions 

believed that this validation is not adequate to assure accurate State data. 

Most regions report use of varied and innovative approaches for data analysis to 

enhance their monitoring, technical assistance and consultative functions with States. 

However, they believe that lack of Headquarters’ guidance, access to data, and 

standardization of analysis techniques is impeding their efforts. 

While eight regions are performing limited analysis of States’ data, they believe this role 

is not adequately supported by ACF Headquarters. Nine regions believe that 

Headquarters should provide greater access to States’ data, and assist them in its analysis. 

B-8