Department of Health and Human Servces 

OFFICE OF


INSPECTOR GENERAL


THE FAMILY SUPPORT ACT OF 1988:


WHAT DO FRONT-LINE WORKERS KNOW?


WHAT DO THEY THINK?


.. sH.Vlq' 

Richard P. Kusserow 

INSPECfOR GENERAL '0 

.tltd30 OEI-05-89-01220 
EXECUTIVE SUMMAR 


PUROSE 

To determine the knowledge, attitude and degree of acceptance by front-line workers 

and their immediate supervsors of the Family Support Act of 1988. 

BACKGROUN 

The Family Support Act (the Act) was a comprehensive restructuring of the welfare 

system to reduce long-term dependency on welfare programs. The centerpiece of the 

Act is the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, which 

provides Aid to Familes with Dependent Children (AFDC) familes with the 

opportunity to take part in educational activities, training programs or job activities. 

The Act strengthens the child support program and provides supportive servces and 

transitional benefits for current and former AFDC clients. Front-line workers, who 

are usually the first who deal with the potential JOBS participants, play an important 

role in the new environment. More than half currently refer clients to other servces. 

Therefore, the better they understand the new benefits and requirements of the Act 

the more effectively they can make referrals. Furthermore, whether they refer clients 

or not, the knowledge and attitude of front-line workers about the Act can influence 

the way they present this new program to AFDC clients. 

METHODOLOY 

We surveyed front-line workers and their immediate supervsors by drawing a random 

sample of 30 counties weighted on the amount of Federal AFDC funding each 

received in 1988. We sent out 3 861 questionnaires and received 2 118 responses. 

FIINGS 

Only one-thid of front-line workers and supervsors report they are "familiar 

or "very familar" with the specific provisions of the Act. 

Overwhelmingly, front-line workers and supervsors believe the Act will increase 

client self-sufficiency.


Front-line workers and supervsors who know about the Act s specific provisions 

are even more likely to believe it will increase client self-sufficiency. 

An inverse correlation exists between the knowledge and burnout of front-line 

workers and supervsors. 
AGENCY COMM 

We wish to thank both the Administration for Children and Families and the Assistant 

Secretary for Planning and Evaluation for commenting on the draft report. Both were 

concerned with the reported low level of program familiarity among staff. Their 

comments identify some potential reasons why this may have been so during the time 

our survey was conducted. We will be conducting a follow-up survey on front-line 

workers' familiarity with the Act that will be compared to our baseline data. The 

complete text of agency comments can be found in Appendix F. Our response to 

these comments is contained on page 10. 
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . ., . . . . .. 

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE 

EXCU SUMY


INODUCfON . 

FININGS 

On one-thid of front-lie workers and supervors report 

they are "famar" or "very famar" with the specic 

proviions of the Act. ........................................... 5


Overwhelmgl, front-lie workers and supervors 

believe the Act wi increase client self-sufciency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

Front-lie workers and supervors who know about 

the Act's specic provions are even more liely 

to believe it wi increas client self-sufciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

An inverse correlation exits between the 

knowledge and burout of front-lie workers and supervors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

Agency Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

OIG Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

APPENDICI 

Fam Support Act Questionnaie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ACollectg the Data
 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. BCreatig Binar Varables . .. C-


Analis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . DBurnout Inventory Analis .. E-


. . . . . . . . ., F- Agency Comments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 
INTRODUCTION


PUROSE 

To determine the knowledge, attitude and degree of acceptance by front-line workers 

and their immediate supervsors of the Family Support Act of 1988. 

BACKGROUN 

The Family Support Act (the Act) was a comprehensive restructuring of the welfare 

system to reduce long-term dependency on welfare programs. The centerpiece of the 

Act is the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, which 

provides Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) familes with the 

opportunity to take part in educational activities, training programs or job activities. 

The Act strengthens the child support enforcement program and reimburses 

participants for child care and transportation servces during JOBS. The Act also 

requires transitional child care and Medicaid benefits to ease client s transition from 

welfare to the work force. Many AFDC recipients will have to participate in the 

JOBS program to receive their full AFDC cash grant. 

The AFDC program (Title IV-A of the Social Security Act) is a cash assistance 

program begun in August 1935. It provides aid to familes with children who are 

deprived of parental support or care because of the death, disability, unemployment or 

continued absence of a parent from the home. The State IV-A agencies, through local 

welfare offices, administer the AFDC program. Many States have a staff separate 

from the AFDC program that admister the JOBS program. 

Whether the AFDC and JOBS program are administered by the same or separate 

staff, it is usually the front-line worker of the AFDC program that first deals with the 

potential JOBS client. The structure of welfare offces varies by State and county, so 

that front-line workers' responsibilties vary. However , since front-line workers 

administer the AFDC program, they have routine contact with welfare clients during 

initial AFDC eligibilty determinations and/or periodic redeterminations for AFDC 

benefits. 

In addition to administering the AFDC program, front-line workers also disseminate 

information about other Federal programs such as Food Stamps, Medicaid and Child 

Support Enforcement. They may take applications and determine eligibility for Food 

Stamps and Medicaid as well. 

Front-line workers provide one link between welfare clients and both the JOBS 

program and the child support agency. The degree of involvement front-line workers 

and supervsors have with the child support agency varies since generally a separate 
agency admsters that program. However, the AFDC and child support programs 

often have the same clients. In some offces, front-line workers must advise AFDC 

clients of child support benefits, take preliminary child support information, and refer 

clients to the chid support agency. Also, front-line workers can make critical decisions 

about which clients are referred to the JOBS program and sanction those not meeting 

JOBS participation requirements. 

Because of their contact with welfare clients, front-line workers can provide 

information and referral for clients who need additional servces beyond their cash 

grant. Front-line workers might use their knowledge of the Act to assist clients with 

information about the Act's provisions. For example, durig an intervew to 

redetermine AFDC eligibilty, a welfare client may indicate they have, on their own 

applied for a job but are worred about accepting the job because of the expense and 

lack of child care. The front-line worker could make a referral either to the JOBS 

program or another appropriate program to assist this client. 

Furthermore, the knowledge and attitude of the front-line workers about the Act can 

infuence the way they present the new program to AFDC clients. Their confidence 

enthusiasm, and optimism might subtly affect the clients' receptivity to the JOBS 

program. Their knowledge of the Act and its intent might give them a better 

understanding of the clients' situations and affect the way they treat their clients. 

The role of front-line workers is an evolvig one. In the 1960' , these workers 

functioned more as social workers who worked closely with clients to meet their needs. 

More recently, the role of the front-line worker was separated from the social servce 

components of welfare, leavig front-line workers more as administrative offcers. 

This resulted in minimal worker and client interaction.! As a result of the Act, with 

its emphasis on developing client self-suffciency, the role of the front-line worker is 

being re-examined.


METHODOLOY 

Collctig th Data


We drew a random sample of 30 counties weighted on the amount of Federal AFDC 

funding received in 1988. Within these counties, we sent surveys to 3 861 front-line 

workers and their immediate supervsors. The respondents work in 72 different 

Deite th shift evide gathed in tWo stdies sugg thlhe workes contied to provid some lTadonal social 

serices to c/iem such as information , referal and advocacy. (1) U)er, Norm L 1980. Whtever happend to the income 

mainenance lin worke? Social Work 25 (Jul): 259- 263; an (2) uy, Norm L 1983. Income maintene worke an social 

work: A broke tie. Social Work 28 (JullAugut): 261-268. 

2 The 30 counes included in the samle were from th fol/owing States: California, Conncticur, Georgia, flinis, Iowa, 

KentUcky, Louisan Main Marlan Minora, Misour NIM Jerey, Ohio, Oklma Penlvania Uta Viria, Washigton 

an WISCOnsin 
welfare offces located in 19 States. We mailed the surveys on December 3, 1990. 

Data was collected in the fist quarter of calendar year 1991. Out of the 3 861 

possible respondents, 55 percent, or 2 118, responded. Appendix A contains the 

Family Support Act questionnaire. Appendix B contains details on our sampling 

procedure, criteria to be a respondent and sampled counties. 

Anlysi 

We analyzed respondents' familarity with provisions of the Act , their attitudes about 

the Act, their attitudes about the affect of the Act on the welfare system, and their 

level of burnout according to the Gilespie-Numerof Burnout Inventory (GNBI). 

Using the statistical softare package PC SAS, we analyzed the data with frequencies 

crosstabulations, and multivariate logistic regression. The report presents results of an 

unweighted analysis. Appendices C, D and E contain a detailed description of our 

statistical methods. 

REPONDEN CHCfRISTCS 

Front-line workers and supervsors report that they: 

work in 72 diferent welfare offces. These offces are located in 30 

counties in 19 States;


have attended college. Fifeen percent have post-graduate experience


30 percent have a 4 year college degree, 14 percent have a 2 year 

college degree, 28 percent have some college experience, and only 13 

percent have not attended college; 

are experienced. Twenty-seven percent have 11 or more years 

experience on the job, 23 percent have 6 to 10 years of experience, 31 

percent have 2 to 5 years experience, and 19 percent have 1 year or less 

job experience;


are generalists, not specialists. Only 29 percent spend over half of their 

work time in the AFDC program, and 71 percent spend half or less of 

their time working in the AFDC program; 

refer clients to other programs. Six-four percent of respondents report 

they regularly refer clients to at least one of the following: the child 

Capygl 1983. Dr. David F. Gillesie an Dr. Rita E. Numeraf Refer to appen E for deails on the GNBL 
support agency, an education program, a training program, a job search 

a child care program, or community organizations; 

are line workers. Only 13 percent are supervsors; 

work in both State and county-administered offices. Fifty-six percent 

work in State administered offces, and 44 percent in county 

administered offices; and 

work in and around cities. Ninety-four percent work in urban offices 

and 6 percent work in rural offces. 
FINDINGS


ONLY ONE-TH OF FRONT-LIN WORKRS AN SUPERVISORS 

REPORT THY AR "FAM" OR liVERY FAM" wr TH 

SPECIFIC PROVISIONS OF TH ACT. 

When rating respondents' knowledge of 21 specific Act provisions , only 33 percent 

average a response of "familiar " or "very familiar." 4 This percentage varies 

depending on the specific provision. For example, by excluding the child support 

provisions, 43 percent of the respondents average a response of "familar" or "very 

familiar" for all other Act provisions. 

Respondents' knowledge of the child support provisions is low compared to knowledge 

of other Act provisions. For example, 66.2 percent of the respondents know about the 

transitional Medicaid benefit but only 20.7 percent of the respondents know about 

immediate wage withholding for new and updated child support orders. Although half 

of the respondents make regular child support referrals, only 21.8 percent of these 

know about this specific provision. 

If front-line workers and supervsors who regularly make client referrals know little 

about specific Act provisions, their effectiveness in informing clients about available 

services may be lessened. It may even be that welfare clients targeted for help may 

not receive timely notification of Act servces and lose valuable tools such as child care 

and job training to achieve self-sufficiency. 

Chart 1 shows respondents' knowledge of specific Act provisions. The first column 

lists the provisions included in our questionnaire. The second column shows the 

percentage of all respondents who report they are "familiar" or "very familar" with 

each provision. 

Columns A-H compare the knowledge of the following four pairs of respondents: 

workers versus supervsors, respondents from State-run offices versus county-run 

offices, urban respondents versus rural respondents, and respondents who spend over 

half of their work time in AFDC versus those who spend half or less of their work 

.Is indicate that respondents in that group are at least 1.5 times time in AFDC. The 


(rounded to the nearest half) more likely to know about a specific provision than their 

paired group. The comparisons are made within a pair, not between pairs. For 

example, looking at columns A and B, for 16 of the 21 Act provisions, supervsors are 

more likely to know about the Act's provisions than workers. Where there is no check 

mark in either column, both groups are equally likely to know about the provisions. 

For the remairn of the report we refer 10 th respondmLS ' reported familarty as knwledge. We did not inpetly 

verfy thir knwledge levels. See appen for details 
. ... . . ... .. . . . .. . . .. ... ...... . . 

.... . ... . 

. . 

 .... ... ... .....  .... .. ...

, .. .. .... ... .. ...... .... .... .

, ..... .. . ........... ... , ., . ...... . .. . ........ .  ,.. . ... . .. .. .... .. ..... ............ ...... . .... 

. .. ... 

. ..... .. .. 

... .... . ...... .. .. .. 

... ... .. 

. .. ,.. . ..... . . .... ... . . .. . .... . .. . ...... . ...... . 

.. .. . ..,.... ... , ,. .... .. . .. . 

...,... ....... .. .... , , / ,/ ,/ / / . .. ..... ..... . ...... ,.. . .. ..... , 

 .....  

/ / , . ....

 .. . ..... . . . .. 

.,.. ... . ....... 

 ...... ... ,/ ,/ 

,.. 

REPONDEN' KNOWLE OF TH FAMY SUPPORT ACf 

Ch 

FAM Y SUPORT ACf PROVION KNOW 

Periodic adequacy review of child support orders 

1994 JOBS participation rates 18.2% 

Mandatory guidelines for support orders 19. 

Immediate wage withholding on new & updted orders 20. 

199 JOBS 21.9% participation rates 

Paternity establishment standards 245% 

No los of income because of accepting a job 37. 

Development of employabilty plan 40.9% 

Up to 12 months of child care for JOBS participants 41.0% 

Required asment of client needs 45.2% 

JOBS targeting of long-time AFC recipients 453%

Transitional chid care for up to 12 months 51. % 

JOBS targeting of recipients without high school diploma 51.5% 

or with little work exprience 

Referral of new ca to child support agency 54.8% 

within 10 days


JOBS targeting of categories of welfare clients 56.9% 

JOBS targeting of young parents 57.9% 

AFC 59.6% grant reduction for failure to meet 

JOBS participation requirements 

Exemption from JOBS participation in certin 64.5%

Transitional Medicaid for up to 12 months 66.2% 

Required participation in education, training 66.2% 

and job activties 

Reimbursement for child care, transporttion, and work 69.2% 

related expns for JOBS participants 

KEFOR.qoLONS.. J=IJ: 

A-FRON.;INEWORKER c.ATE ONOFFiCI; . NOFFI G;? bf'n E'INAFDC 

B-UPER!SOR O:CQONT"AUNOFFI . FAOLQFFI OfllMEI AFbC . 

;,.rndfcat&s that resp6ndents . 'n. .1I. destgr1 .gfo re.at. Ut1: tJm $(t6Jric1 ator1eEUe$half..trrelikely 

know about a &pecifprovisiohthantheir (jl'erpart:s. 
OVEWHGLY, FRONT-LI WORK AN SUPERVIRS 

BELVE TH ACf Wl INCRE CL SEL-SUFCICY. 

Despite varyng levels of knowledge about specific provisions, when calculating an 

average score for the provisions in Chart 2, 85 percent of front-line workers and 

supervsors feel that many of the Act provisions encourage client self-suffciency. 

The 85 percent score represents those respondents who on average, answered "greatly 

increase" or "somewhat increasell in response to the questions about how the Act will 

affect client self-suffciency.


This percentage varies depending on the specific Act provision. Chart 2 includes the 

percentage of respondents who think specific provisions will increase client 

self-suffciency. 

HOW WI TI FAMY SUPPORT ACT 

AFCT CL SEL-SUFCICY? 

Chrt 2


Proion wh th it wi increa 

client self-suffciency 

12 months transitional Medicaid 

12 months transitional child care 

Reimbursement of child care, transportation and work 

related expenses when in JOBS 

Required participation in education, training or job 

activities 

Employabilty plan based on client assessment 

Assessment of client needs 

Immediate wage withholding for all new support 

orders 

Mandatory State guidelines to determine amount of 

support orders


Cae management 6


Periodic adequacy review of -all AFC support orders 

Requirement for genetic blood testing 

5 We di not ask resondts this question about all of th provisions of the Act dicused in Finding 1, only the 11 lirted in the 

char 

6 Case maget was recommended, but not required by th Act Sine 17y SUItes an counties practice some form of case 

manafPent in implemtig th Act, we inlud this quesOTL 
In Chart 3, we show how respondents, over time, rate how the Act affects the welfare 

system in the following areas: providing adequate servces to clients, providing timely 

servces to clients, improving client self-suffciency, permitting you (front-line workers 

and supervsors) to help your clients, not wasting the taxayers' money, and improving 

your job satisfaction. 

Chart 3 shows that respondents think the Act will positively impact the welfare system 

in the areas listed above. Using an average score for the 6 areas, 43 percent of 

respondents thin the welfare system wil be "good" or ''very good" 2 years from now. 

Only 14 percent thought this was true when asked how the welfare system performed 

2 years ago.


Chart 3


FS ACT AFFECT ON THE WELFARE SYSTEM 

100 WILL THE SYSTEM IMPROVE OVER TIME? 

u. Area Raed 

fa Aduate Servce 

- TI 

CD 11111111 Se-Sufenc 

S! Perit yo to hep 

........ Job saUsfactn


Not wasng ta $ 

a: 

YES NOW YES 

AGO FROM 

7 For this avera 'poor '' or "ver score, a response of "good" or "ver good' incat a favorable resonse an a resnse of ''fail 

poor" incates a negatve resonse. 
FRONT-LI WORKRS AN SUPERVISORS WHO KNOW ABOUT 

ACf SPECIC PROVISIONS AR EVEN MORE LILY TO BELIVE IT 

WI INCRE CLNT SELF-SUFCINCY. 

Respondents are twce as likely to believe the Act will increase client self-sufficiency if 

they know about the provisions. As respondents' level of knowledge increases , their 

support for the Act increases. The vast majority of respondents think the Act will 

increase client self-sufficiency. The relationship between knowledge and attitude 

suggests that the number of respondents who support the Act could grow even larger 

if more respondents knew about the provisions of the Act. This is important whether 

or not a front-line worker or supervsor makes client referrals since it may affect the 

presentation of the Act's provisions to clients. 

The relationship between knowledge and attitude is strongest for transitional benefits. 

Respondents who know about transitional Medicaid are four times more likely to 

believe it will increase self-sufficiency. Respondents who know about transitional child 

care are three times more likely to believe it will increase client self-sufficiency. 

Respondents who know about the child support provisions, the required education 

training or job activities, an employability plan and the supportive servces are twce 

likely to think those provisions will increase client self-sufficiency. 

AN INRSE CORRLATION EXIST BETWEN TH KNOWLDGE 

BUROUT OF FRONT-LIN WORKRS AN SUPERVISORS. 

A respondent s level of knowledge has a statistically significant inverse correlation with 

burnout of an individual. As respondents' knowledge increases , their chances of being 

burned out decrease. 

Only knowledge has a significant relationship with an individual's burnout level. No 

other variable we tested relates to the burnout of a respondent. The following factors 

as related to burnout, are insignificant: whether respondents are supervsors or 

workers, whether respondents work in urban or rural offices, whether respondents 

work in State-administered or county-administered offices, and whether respondents 

spend greater than 50 percent of their time working in the AFDC program or less 

time working in the AFC program. 

AGENCY COMMNT 

Both the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) and the 

Administration for Children and Families (ACF) commented on the report. Both 

were concerned about the reported low level of program familiarity with the Act. 

They suggested that the timing of the survey, along with the tye of respondents we 

included in the sample, may have influenced the reported degree of familarity with 

the Act.

OIG REPONSE 

We do recognize that not all States in the sample had the same or comparable 

experience with implementing and administering the Act. But, our objective was to 

collect baseline data that could then be compared to data collected at a later point 

time. 

Both ASPE and ACF suspect that the low level of familiarity with the Act could, in 

part, be explained by the varied job responsibilties of the sampled respondents. The 

ASPE states that some front-line workers might be expected to provide clients with 

information about the JOBS program, while others may be solely responsible for 

income maintenance functions with the expectation that they will refer clients to JOBS 

and child support enforcement to learn about these programs.


Undoubtedly, the respondents in the survey had varied duties and responsibilties as 

far as implementing and administering the Act's provisions. However, as stated in the 

report, we believe that front-line workers, who are usually the first to deal with 

potential JOBS participants, can playa critical role in shaping recipients' attitudes 

about JOBS and child support programs. The better they understand the new benefits 

and requirements of the Act, the more effectively they can present the program to 

clients. 

We will conduct a follow-up study that will resurvey respondents in order to measure 

any change in their familarity with the Act. As they have requested, we will work 

with ACF and ASPE in designing this study. 
APPENDIX A


FAMY SUPPORT ACf QUETIONNAI 
.. 

Family support Act Questlonn."'.


First we want to know to what extent you have been acquainted with the law. Please respond to th..e .tatement. by circling the number that repr..ent. your familarity with 

the following. U.. the following scale.


Very Somewhat Not Not at all 

Familar Familiar Familar Sure Familiar 

Circle a number 

Immediate wage with. 

holding for all new 

child support order. 

Mandatory State 

guidelines to 

determine the amount 

of child support orders 

Three year adequacy 

review of all AFDC 

support orders 

Federal standards to 

establish paternity 

Requirement for AFDC 

staff to refer potential 

child support cases within 

10 days of receipt to the 

child support agency 

AFDC famile. 

are assured 

education, 

training, or 

employment 

AFDC benefits wil be 

reduced if Job 

Opportunity and Basic

Skils (JOBS) program

partcipants fail to 

fulfil their JOBS 

program obligation.'" 

Partcipants in JOBS will 

be reimbursld for child 

care, transportation, and 

work related Ixpenses 

JOBS partcipants are 

required to partcipate 

in educational, training, 

or job actlviti.. 

QlO 7% of eligible AFDC 

clients must be 

partcipating In JOBS 

in 1990 

Qll 20% of eligible AFDC 

clients mUlt bl 

partcipating in 

JOBS in 1995 

Circle a number 

Q12 Exemption from participation in certin cases 

Q13 Targeting categories of 

welfare recipients for 

the JOBS program 

Q14 Targeting of young 

parents for the 

JOBS program 

Q15 Targeting of non-diploma custodial parents under 

age 24 who have 

no work experience 

for the JOBS program 

Q16 Targeting of famme. who 

received AFDC three 

of the la.t fie year. 

Q17 Mandatory partcipation

in .aving. plan 

Q18 The required assessment of client needs 

Q19 The requirement to 

devllop an Imploya­


Q20 

Q21 

Q22 

Q23 

Q24 

bilty plan for JOBS

partcipants 

A wllfarl family must 

not lOll incoml because 

of Job acceptance 

The requirement for the 

development of a family 

budgeting plan


Up to 12 months of 

child care is guaranteed 

for participation in 

JOBS 

Up to 12 months of 

child care is guaranteed 

after loss of AFDC 

lligibllity due to 

acceptance of a job 

Up to 12 month. of 

Medicaid benefits are 

guaranteed for families 

of clients after loss of 

AFDC eligibility due to .. Your State or county may call thl. welfare.to-work acceptance of a job program by another name. In thl. que.tlonnalre,

however, we wil reter to It JOBS, the Federal de.lgnatlon. 

A ­
g.,g., 

Family SUPPQrt Act Questionnaire


How much Information. have you received What effect do you think the child support from each of the following sources provisions wil have on the self-sufficiency regarding the Family Support Act? of your clients? Use the following scale. Use the following scale. 

Gre81 Not Gre.tly Somewhat Somewhat Greatly 

Deal Some Much None Incre..e Incre..e Effect Decreale Decrease 

Circle a number Circle anum ber 

Q38 Adequacy review of all Q26 Conversations at work AFOC support orders 

Q27 Media (e.g., ne Q39 Immediate wage with- papers, magazlnel, holding for all new TV or radio) child lupport orders 

Q28 Official sources (e. 040 Mandatory State guide. training, memoranda, lines to determine 

newsletters) amount of child 

support orders


Q29 Organizations (e. 

American Public Welfare 041 Requirement for genetic 

Association, National blood testing 

Eligibility Workers Association, etc. 

How wil the following parts of the JOBS Q30 Other (pleue specif): program effect client self- sufficiency?

Use the following scale. 

Ore.tly Somewhat No Somewhat Greatly 

Incre..e Incre..e Effect Decr.... Decrease 

Which of the following do you think helps

define self-sufficiency? Circle a number 

(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) 042 Required participation in 

education, training, or 

employment activities

Q31 getting and keeping a job above 

the minimum wage level 043 Assessment of client 

needs 

Q32 life skils 

Q4 Employabilit plan based Q33 responsibilty for children assumed on client assnsment 

by both parents 

045 C..e management 

Q34 literacy 

046 Reimbursement of child 

Q35 education up to high-school care, transportation and 

level work related expenses 

when participating in 

Q36 advanced education the JOBS program 

(above high school level) 

Q37 other (please specif) 047 Reimbursement of up 

to 12 months of child care 

aftr 1088 of AFDC as a 

relult of accepting a job 

Q4 12 month Medicaid 

exten.ion aftr 1088


of AFDC u a result 

of accepting a job 

A ­
Family Support Act Questionnaire 

How wen do you think the following items measure the help provided to welfare clients by the Family Support Act? 

Very Pretty Not Too Very 

Good Good Not Good A Poor 

Me..ure Me..ure Sur. M...ur. Mea.ur. 

Circle a number 

Child suppo 

Number of AFDC Q50 terminations 

due to receipt of 

child support 

Q51 Number of child 

support orders


Q52 Number of paternites 

established 

Q53 Dollar amount of child 

support collections on 

AFDC cases 

Increase in child Q54 support enforcement 

collections 

JOBS 

Q55 Client participation rates 1 

Q56 Completion of education 

or training program 

Q57 Completion of a full 

assessment 

Q58 Regular attendance 

in a program 

Q59 Number of job 

placements 

060 Average wage at 

placement upon 

entrance into a job 

061 Number of clients 

removed from the 

welfare rolls 

062 Receipt of educational 

degree 

063 Increase in literacy level 

064 

065 

066 

067 

!Q8 

069 

Q70 

Q71 

Circle I number 

Chld cae 

Number of children 

covered by child 

care benefits 

Number of parents 

who can partcipate 

in a training or educa. 

tion program because 

of the child care benefit 

Number of parents who 

can accept a job 

because of the 

child care benefit 

Transpotion and wor relaed expeses 

Number of users of 

transportation benefit


Number of parents who 

can participate in an 

educational or training 

program because of 

the new transportation 

benefit 

Dollar amount paid 

for transporttion 

Dollar amount paid for 

work related expenses 

Meicid 

Dollar amount paid 

by Medicaid for 12 

month extended


benefits 

Number of parents 

who can accept a 

job because of the 

Medicaid extension


A ­
_

Family Support Act Questionnaire 

Estimate the effect the Family Support Act Using the scale below, estimate how often

wil have on your duties. your office currently provides the

following services to clients. 

Gre.tly Somewh.t Somewh.t Gre.tly A Gre.t Not Incre... Incre..e Effect Decre..e Decre..e 

Circle. number 

Child suppo provisions 

Q74 Case related 

paperwork 

Q75 Contact with clients 

Q76 Contact with other 

agencies 

JOBS provi 

Q77 Case related 

paperwork 

Q78 Contact wit clients 

Q79 Contact with other 

agencl.. 

Family Suppo Act as a whole 

080 Case rel.ted 

paperwork 

081 Contact wit clients 

082 Contact wit other 

agencies 

Q83 Other (plu.e specif): 

D..I Some Much None 

Circle a number 

084 Education referrals 

085 Training referrals 

sQ86 Employment referral. 

087 Alleaament of client 

needa 

088 Development of an 

employabilty pl.n 

089 Reimbursement for 

child care expenses 

5Q90 Reimbursement for 

tranaportation expenses 

Q91 Reimbursement for 

work related expenses 

A ­
 ___

___

FamilY suppon Act Questionnaire 

Congrell Intended &0 overhaul the welfare 

system with the pa..a of the Family 105' like to know how we I you think It wil accomplish this. GPort Act. We woul

P lease compare the following welfare systems; QI06 

1) before the Family Support Act
 (at least two years ago); QI07 

2) while the Famn 

being Implemente I J Support Act Is and;

two years from now QI08 

Very Good Good Fair Poor Very Poo :109 

QllO 

Not wa.tlng the taxpayer. ' money 

Prior to the Family 

Support Act

(2 yurs ago) 

Today 

Two years from now 

improving your Job .atl.factlon 

Prior to the Family 

Support Act

(2 yurs ago) 

Today 

Two years from now 

Approximately what percentage of your

work time Is spent on the following 

programs? (TOTAL MUST EQUAL 100%) 

Circle a number 

Providing adequa. .ervlc.. to client. 

Q93 Prior to the Family 

Support Act

(2 yurs ago) 

Q94 Today 

095 Two years from now 

Providing timely .erlc.. to cliets 

Q96 Prior to the Family 

Support Act

(2 yurs ago) 

Q97 Today 

Q98 Two yura from now 

1m proving c let .e/f..u1tlency


Q99 Prior to the Family

Support Act

(2 yurs ago) 

Q100 Today

QIOl Two years from now

Permitng you to help your cliets 

QI02 Prior to the Family 

Support

(2 yurs ago) 

Q103 Today

Q104 Two years from now 

sQlll Food stamps '" 

sQ1l2 AFOC 


Q1l3 Medicaid '" 

Ql14 General assistance % 

Q1l5 Other % 

1l6 (pluse specify): 

TOTAL 100'" Q1l7 

Approximately what percentage of your

work time Is spent in the following Job duties? (TOTAL MUST EQUAL 100%) 

sOl18 Initial client intake '" 

Ql19 Ongoing cas.. % 

Q120 Supervision '" 

Q121 Other'" 


122 (please specify): 

TOTAL 100'" Q123 

A ­
Family Support Act Questionnaire 

Approximately what percentage of your About how often do you refer clients for

work time Iss nt In each of tne activities the following services? listed below? (TOTAL MUST eaUAL 100%) 

Q125 Time with clients % 

Q126 Case related paperwork % 

Q127 Administrative duties % 

Q128 Client Assessment % 

Q129 Training % 

Q130 Contact with other agencies % 

Q131 Contact with employers and others related to cases % 

Q132 Supervision % Q133 Other % 

Q134 (please specify): 

Q135 TOTAL 100% 

Every Le.. Than 

Day W..kly Monthly V..rly Once a Year 

Clrcl. anum ber 

Q147 Child support 

Ql48 Education programs 

Q149 Training programs 

Q150 Job surch 

Q151 Child care 

Q152 Community
 organizations 

At your present skil level, how much 

confidence do you feel in assessing the

capabilties of clients for referral to any of the following? 

A Great Not O.a' Some Much None 

To do a better lob, what percentage of your. 

time at work should you spend in the Q153 An education program 

following areas? 100%) (TOTAL MUST EaUAL

Q136 Time with clients % 

Q137 Case related paperwork % 

Ql38 Administrativ. duties % 

Ql39 Client Assessment % 

Ql40 Training % 

Q141 Contact wit other agencies 

Q142 Contact with employers and 

others related to cases % 

Q143 Supervision % 

Ql44 Other % 

Q145 (please specify): 

Q146 TOTAL 100% 

Q154 A training program 

Q155 A job 

Q156 Child care 

About how often do you evaluate clients

for the following services? 

A Gr.at Not 

O.a' Some Much None 

Q157 An education program 

Q158 A training program 

Q159 A job 

Q160 Child care 

A ­
Family Support Act Questionnaire 

How much Flmlly s.uPgort Act training do SUPERVISORS ONLY: How much Family 

you need In tlch Irea elow? SUPlort Act training do your eligibilty

wor er. need In each area below? 

Adequate Don Adequate Don 

Not Training Need Thla Not Training Need Thla 

Extenalve Some Much Received For My Job Extenalve Some Much Received For Their Job 

Circle a number 

Q162 Immediate wage 

withholding 

Q163 Mandatory State 

guidelines 

Q164 Review of all support 

orders 

Q165 Paternity establishment 

and genetic blood 

testing 

Q166 Education, training, 

employment actiities 

Q167 Client need. 

a..eument 

Q168 Development of 

employabilty plan 

Q169 Case management 

Q170 Child care benefits 

Ql71 Transporttion benefits 

Ql72 Medicaid benefi 

Circle a number 

Q173 Immediate wage 

withholding 

Q174 Mandatory State 

guideline. 

Q175 Review of all .upport

order. 

Q176 Paternity establishment 

and genetic blood 

testing 

Q177 Education, training, 

employment activities 

Q178 Client need. 

aueument 

Q179 Development of 

employabilty plan


Q180 C..e management 

Q181 Child care benefits 

Q182 Transporttion benefits 

Q183 Medicaid benefits 

Ql84 Do you think your job Is important to the 

.ucc... of the Family Support Act? 

yes ---- no ---­


A ­
, 

Family Support Act Questionnaire 

How much education have you received on the following topics? (CIRCLE ALL THAT APPLY) 

Non. Forl Inforl 

College College Wor In-House In-House 

Course Course Shop Training Training None 

186 187 188 189 190 191 

Juvenile delinquency 

192 193 194 195 196 197 

Teen pregnancy 

Adolescent developnt 198 199 200 201 202 203 

204 205 206 207 208 209 

Adolescent psycholog 

210 211 212 213 214 215 

Substance abuse 

216 217 218 219 220 221 

Employment services 

222 223 224 225 226 227 

Training services 

228 229 230 231 232 233 

Parentng 

234 235 236 237 238 239 

Early- childhoo developnt 

240 241 242 243 244 245 

Case management 

246 247 248 249 250 251 

Evaluation of dlents 

252 253 254 255 256 257 

Literacy testing 

Q258 What Is your current job title? (pLEASE DO NOT ABBREVIATE OR USE ACRONYMS) 

Q259 How many years have you held your current job or have been perorming the same work? 

Totl years


(If you have ever been a supervisor give the number of years) 

Q260 Supervisor 

A ­
Family Support Act Questionnaire 

Check the bo by yor highest level of forl education and wre In your major; 

Q262 Docorl degree major 

Q263 Masters degree major 

Q264 Som graduate scoo major 

Q265 4-year colege degree major 

Q266 2-year colege degree major 

Q267 Som colege 

Q268 High schoo diplom (or equivalent) 

Q269 Less than high schoo 

Please circle the number which comes closest to the way you act or feel about your current job. 

Never Sometimes Always 

Q270 I'm fed up with the job. 

Q271 I feel crbby at wor. 

Q272 I feel that everyhing Is caving In at wor. 

Q273 I feel enthusiastic abo my wor. 

Q274 I feel unable to get ou fro under my work. 

Q275 I' m discorage abo my wor. 

Q276 Lite things don t bug me. 

Q277 I feel burled In my Job. 

Q278 I feel like givng up on the job. 

Q279 I' m disillusion wit my wor. 

Q280 My job makes me angry. 

Q281 I loo fOlrd to cong back to 

wor when I leave. 


Q282 My job has me at th end of my rop. 

A ­
Family Support Act Questionnaire 

We lollclt yourcommentl. The Family Support Act illntended to improve client lelf-sufficiency. Q284 What elll il neeed? 

END OF SURVEY

THNK YOU FOR YOUR PARTIPATIN 

Pteae retrn this questionnaire in the endos envelop. 

-a us. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 199-5-M3 
APPENDIX 


Collecg the Data 

Drawig th Sample


To collect the data, we used a single stage cluster sample. Our universe included the 

084 counties in the United States who received Federal AFDC funds in 1988. Each 

county constituted a cluster. After determing the size of each cluster based on the 

total amount of Federal AFDC funds received in 1988, we randomly selected 38 

clusters, including 8 designated alternates, with probabilty proportional to size. 

Once a county was selected for inclusion in the study, we contacted the State and the 

county to determine the number of welfare offces in the county and the number of 

possible respondents in those offices. 

Using this information, we determined the counties where 100 percent of the workers 

would be surveyed versus those counties which would be subsampled. We used the 

following criteria to determine which counties should be subsampled. 

Counties with under 300 total workers or with only one offce were sampled 

the 100 percent level. 

All other counties were subsampled. These counties have more than one 

welfare offce within county/entity boundaries and have over 300 workers. 

To determine the number of workers we would survey from each of the six counties in 

our subs ample, we first determined the number of respondents we wanted from our 

subsampled counties. Based on estimates of response rates, we needed to survey 

approximately 2400 respondents in our subsampled counties. We obtained the 

number of front-line workers, or possible respondents, in each county of our 

subsample. We determined that we had a total of 7 312 possible respondents for the 

entire subsample. For each county, we calculated the approxiate number of 

respondents we would need based on the following formula: 

Yi = x/7 312 * 2 400 

= a particular county in the subsample 

Y = the number of front-line workers surveyed from a particular county 

X = the total possible respondents from a particular county 

Based on the above calculations, we subsampled the following counties: Cook County, 

Ilinois; Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; and, Los Angeles, Kern, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, and Santa Clara Counties of California. In all other counties, we sampled 

at the 100 percent level. 
Crer to be a rend 

The sampled population includes front-line workers and their immediate supervsors. 

To qualify as a respondent, people had to meet the following profie. Each 

respondent must be: 

a worker involved with AFDC, including workers who split their time between 

AFDC and any other programs; or 

a Medicaid worker who also does AFDC work, or located in the same office as 

AFDC workers. No Medicaid workers are included if they are located in a 

different physical location; or


an immediate supervsor of the above workers. 

Excluded from the sample were the following: 

Food Stamp workers who did only Food Stamp work; or 

any clerical staff or technicians; or 

any upper management except if they function as an immediate supervsor of 

the respondents as described above.


Metho for diutg qutinnires to resnd 

On December 3, 1990, we sent each welfare offce the appropriate number of 

questionnaire packets, a cover letter and a script for the contact person to administer 

the questionnaires. A script was prepared to ensure that each respondent receive 

identical instructions for completing the questionnaire. Respondents self-administered 

their questionnaires. To ensure confdentiality, each respondent received a 

pre-addressed, postage-paid envelope to send the completed questionnaire to Russo 

and Associates, the contractor responsible for compilng the data for analysis. 

We received questionnaires throughout the first quarter of 1991. Out of the 3 861 

questionnaires we sent out, we received 2 118 for a 55 percent response rate. 
Selecte coun wi replacemts 

STATE County County- Urban 

State-ru Rural 

Californa Kern County Urban 

California Los Angeles County Urban 

California Riverside County Urban 

California San Bernardino County Urban 

California Santa Clara County Urban 

Connecticut Litchfield Sta te Urban 

Georgia Chatham County Urban 

Georgia Clark County Urban 

Georgia Columbia County Urban 

llinois Cook State Urban 

llinois Iroquois State Rural 

Iowa Clay State Rural 

Kentucky Knox State Rural

Louisiana St. James State Rural 

Maine Lincoln State Rural 

Maryland Kent County Rural 

Minnesota Beltrami County Rural 

Minnesota St. Louis County Urban 

Missouri Scott State Rural 

New Jersey Hudson County Urban 

Ohio Franklin County Urban 

Ohio Medina County Urban 

Oklahoma Cotton State Rural 

Pennsylvania Philadelphia State Urban 

Utah Cache State Rural 

Virginia Bristol City County Urban 

Virginia Virginia Beach City County Urban 

Washington King State Urban 

Washington Pierce State Urban 

Wisconsin Wood County Rural 

At the time of thi sUlVey, thes counties had not implemented the JOBS program. However, they represnt . 

percent of the total sample. 

Non-parttig State 

Three States, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts refused to participate in our 

survey. We used eight replacement counties to complete our sample and to 

compensate for the States who chose not to participate. In spite of these 

non-participating States e believe the survey results sufficiently represent the 

universe of front-line workers, based on the number of respondents and the broad 

geographic representation of the sample. 
APPENDIX 


Creatig Binar Varables


To analyze the data in the survey, we created binary variables. 

In questions 1-24 regarding a respondent's familarity with provisions of the Act 

we asked respondents: 

Plee resnd to the stte by cilig th nuer tht represen your

famiri wi th follwig. Use th follwig scale. " 

Very Somewhat Not Not at al 

Famar Famar Famar Sure Famar 

Respondents used this scale to rate their knowledge of 21 specific provisions of 

the Act. We omitted question six from our analysis because the question was 

confusing. We also omitted questions 17 and 21 because they were not 

provisions of the Act and were included only as a check of respondents 

answers. 

When we analyzed this data, we created a binary variable for each question 

according to the following code:


Know (1) response of 1 or 2 on the five point scale 

above 

Don t Know (0) response of 3, 4 or 5 on the five point scale 

above 

Average Score: Using the scale above, when we report overall knowledge of 

respondents, we use an average score of the 21 Family Support Act provisions 

from page 1 of the survey. The average scores were coded in this manner: 

Know (1) an average response .c 2.5 on the five point 

scale above 

Don t Know (0) an average response
 = 2.5 on the five 

point scale above 

C - 1 
For both of the questions below, respondents used the followig scale: 

Greatl Somewhat Somewhat Greatl 

Increas Increa Efec Decea Decrease 

In questions 38-41 on Client Self-Suffciency, we asked respondents: 

Wht efect do you thi th chi suport prvins wi hae on th self- su of your cli? 

In questions 42-48 on Client Self-Suffciency, we asked respondents: 

How wi th foUowig part of the JOBS prgrm afect cli self-su?' 

Respondents used the scale above to rate whether 11 specific provisions of the 

Act wil increase client self-sufficiency. 

When we analyzed this data, we created a binary variable for each question 

according to the following code: 

Increas Clent (1) = response of 1 or 2 on the five point 

Self-Sufciency scale above 

Not Increae (0) = response of 3, 4 or 5 on the five point 

Clent Self-Sufciency scale above 

Average Score: When we report a respondent s opinion on how the Family 

Support Act will irpprove client self-suffciency overall, we use an average score 

of the 11 questions, 38- , on client self-suffciency. We coded the average 

scores in this manner: 

Increa Clent


Self-Sufciency (1) = an average response c: 2.5 on the five point scale 

above 

Not Increase Clent 

Self-Sufciency (0) = an average response = 2.5 on the five point scale 

above 

C - 2 
In questions 93- 110, we asked respondents: 

Plee compare th foUowig welfare system; 

before th Fami Support Act (at leas two years ago);

whi th Fami Support Act is beig impleed; an 

two yea frm now. 

Very Goo Go Fai Poor Very Poor 

Respondents used the scale above to rate the welfare system in the following 

areas: 

Providing adequate servces to clients 

Providing timely servces to clients 

Improving client self-suffciency 

Permtting you to help clients 

Not wasting the taxpayers' money 

Improving your job satisfaction. 

When we analyzed this data, we created a binary variable for each question 

according to the followig code: 

Favorable (1) = response of 1 or 2 on the five point scale above 

Not Favorable (0) = response of 3, 4 or 5 on the five point scale above 

Average Scores: When we report respondents' opinion on how the welfare 

system performed 2 years ago, we use an average score of the questions asking 

respondents to rate areas of the welfare system ' 1Jefore the FS Act (at least two 

years ago)." This includes questions 93, 96, 99, 102, 105 and 108. 

C - 3 
We coded the average scores in this manner: 

Favorable (1) = an average response oe 2.5 on the five point scale 

above 

Not Favorable (0) = an average response :: = 2.5 on the five point scale 

above 

When we report respondents' opinion on how the welfare system will perform 2 years from now, we use an average score of the questions asking respondents to 

rate areas of the welfare system "2 years from now." This includes questions 

, 98, 101, 104, 107 and 110. 

Favorable (1) = an average response oe 2.5 on the five point scale 

above 

Not Favorable . (0) = an average response :: = 2.5 on the five point scale 

above 

Indpe Varible 

When examining factors which may affect the responses to the above questions, our independent variables were: 

Super: This variable indicates whether a respondent is a supervsor or a worker. 

If a respondent answers question 260 "If you have ever been a supervsor give the number of years , in addition to questions for 

supervsors only, 173- 183, we refer to that respondent as a "supervsor Otherwse we refer to a respondent as a "worker We cross-checked 

this method for determning who was a supervsor against questions 120 

132, and 258. 

Supervsor responded to questions 173- 183 and 260 

Worker all other respondents 

Using this method, 13. 1 percent of the respondents are supervsors and 

75.9 percent of the respondents are workers. 

C - 4

Urban: Ths variable indicates whether a respondent works in an urban office or 

a rural office. We entered the urban or rural designation based on 

Metropolitan Statistical Area data (MSAs).. 

According to the MSAs, we surveyed 59 urban offces and 13 rural 

offces. These offces provided us with 94 percent urban respondents and 

6 percent rural respondents. 

Urban respondent works in urban office based on MSAs 

Rural respondent works in rural offce based on MSAs 

State: This variable indicates whether a respondent works in a State where the 

IV-A program is administered by the State versus a State where the 

IV-A progr m is administered by each county. 

State respondent works in State-administered welfare 

office 

County respondent works in county-administered welfare 

offce 

Ten of the States we surveyed have State-administered IV-A programs while nine States have county-administered IV A programs. The


respondents are fairly evenly distributed between the two tyes of programs with 56 percent working in State-administered programs and 

44 percent working in county-administered programs. 

AFC: We used this variable to distinguish between those respondents who 

spend over 50 percent of their time in the AFDC program and those 

who spend 50 percent or less time in AFDC. We created the variable 

based on responses to question 112 which asks what percentage of time 

a respondent spends on AFDC. 

50 AFDC respondents who spend over 50 percent of 

their time in AFDC 

c: =50 AFDC respondents who spend 50 percent or less 

time in AFDC 

Few respondents specialize in the AFDC program with 29 percent 

spending over 50 percent of their time in AFDC and 71 percent 

spending 50 percent or less of their time in AFDC. 

C - 5

APPENDIX D


Analis of Respondent Knowledge and Atttude 

Knwlege Anlysi


We hypothesize that a respondent s knowledge of the Family Support Act is partially 

dependent upon factors including: 1) whether the respondent is a worker or 

supervsor, 2) whether the respondent works in an urban office versus a rural office, 3) 

whether a respondent works in a State run welfare office versus a county run welfare 

office, and 4) whether a respondent spends greater than 50 percent of their time in 

AFDC versus spending less time in the AFDC program. To test the hypothesis, we 

constructed a multivariate model to determine which of the above factors, if any, have 

a significant relationship with each respondent s knowledge of the Act. 

Constrtin of th Modl 

For this analysis, we created a series of binary variables that characterize each 

respondent. Table I lists the variables and the method for coding each of these 

characteristics. The variable "knowledge" serves as our dependent variable in the 

model. 

Table I 

Variables Used in Logistic Model 

Knowledge 1 = Knows about specific 

provision of Family Support Act 

o = Does not know about specific 

provision of Family Support Act 

Supervr 1 = Supervsor 

o = Worker


Urban 1 = Urban office 

o = Rural office 

State 1 = State-administered office 

o = county-administered office 

AFC 1 = Spends 50% of time in AFDC 

o = Spends 
 = 50% of time in AFDC

D - 1

.. p, 

We used a linear logistic model to fit this data. Using this model, the probabilty of a 

respondent knowing about specific provisions of the Act equals a linear 

combination of the independent variables in the logistic scale. This gives 

In(p (l-p))=Bo +B +BkXk' 

where is the coefficient to be estimated by the equation, X is the value of the 

independent variable and 
 is the number of independent variables in the equation.

With this construction, the negative exponential of each coefficient or e 

represents the estimated odds ratio of the effect due to the accompanying variable. 

From the multivariate model, we can determne the adjusted effect of each variable on 

a respondent s knowledge of a provision. The adjusted effect measures the strength of 

the relationship between an independent variable and the dependent variable while 

taking into account the effect of other independent variables in the equation. 

Res of Anlysi 

Table II gives the results of the analysis using the multivariate logistic model for an 

average score of knowledge of the Act (appendix C describes the composite score of 

knowledge. We conducted this analysis using the same independent variables for 21 

questions on the Act provisions included in the questionnaire. The results are similar 

to those reported here. We do not include the details of these models here, but 

specific results of this analysis are available upon request. 

Table n 

Pareter Estiates & Adjusted Odds Ratios for Overal Knowledge of Act 

Varable Pareter Stadad Odds 95% C. 

Estiate Eror Ratio (lower upper) 

Intercept 6089 2018 .54 

Supervor 0.5755 1316 1.78 (1.37 2.30) 

Urban 0427 1970 (0. 1.41) 

State 1606 0968 (0. 1.03) 

1956 1056 1.22 (0. 1.50) 

Odds ratios greater than one indicate that the presence of the factor increases the 

likelihood that a respondent is familar with the specific provisions of the Act, while 

odds ratios less than one indicate that the presence of the factor reduces the 

D - 2 
, 

likelihood that a respondent is famiiar with the specific provisions of the Act. These 

relationships are signifcant only when the confidence interval does not include one. 

For example, the results show that supervsors are 1.78 times more likely to report 

that they are familar with the different provisions of the Act than workers. 

In the example above, only the "supervsor" variable has a significant impact on a 

respondent' s overall familarity with the Act after adjusting for the impact of the other 

variables. Respondents who are supervsors are nearly twce as likely to be familar 

with the different provisions of the Act as workers. 

Att Anlysi 

Using the multivariate logistic model described above, we analyzed respondents 

attitude toward the Act. We designated "attitude" as the dependent variable. In this 

model represents the probabilty that a respondent believes the Act will increase 

client self-sufficiency. In addition, for this model knowledge" becomes an 

:pendent variable. The complete list of variables for the model are coded below. 

Atttude 1 = Increase client self-suffciency 

Does not Increase client self. 

sufficiency 

Knowledge 1 = Knows about specific provision of 

Family Support Act 

Does not know about specific 

provision of Family Support Act 

Supervor 1 = Supervsor 

Worker 

Urban 1 = Urban offce 

Rural offce


State 1 = State-run office 

county-run offce


1 = Spends:; 50% of time in AFDC 

Spends c: = 50% of time in AFDC 

D - 3

. ( .

When including a "knowledge" variable, we used the knowledge question 

corresponding to the specific provision of the Act named in each self-suffciency 

question. For example, we wanted to examine factors which may affect a response to 

question 48. This question asks respondents whether they think 12 months of 

Medicaid extension after obtaining a job will increase client self-suffciency. The 

independent variable called "knowledge" in the model would be the response to 

question 24, which asks how familar a person is with the provision of Medicaid after 

obtaining a job. 

Table III gives the results of the analysis for question 48. We repeated this model for 

each of the eleven questions which ask about client self-suffciency, questions 38-48. 

The results are similar to those presented. We omit the detailed results here, but they 

are available upon request. 

Table il


Parameter Estiates and Adjusted Odds Ratios for Respondent Atttude 

Varable Parameter Stadad Odds 95% C. 

Estiate Eror Ratio (lower upper) 

Intercept - .4732 2758 1.61 

Knowledge 1.3247 1332 (2. , 4. 88) 

Supervor 0848 2039 1.09 , 1.62) 

Urban 3979 2631 1.49 , 2.49) 

State 1962 1382 1.22 , 1.60) 

1210 1485 1.13 , 1.51) 

The table shows that, of the variables we tested, only knowledge has a significant 

correlation with a respondent's opinion on whether the Medicaid extension will 

increase self-sufciency. 

D - 4

, pp. pp. , 

, 

APPENDIX E


Burout Inentory Analis 

Initially, the Gilespie-Numerof Burnout Inventory (GNBI) was included in this survey 

to determine whether burnout might bias respondents' attitudes toward the Act. 

When our analysis revealed that support for the Act was high (and burnout relatively 

low), it was not necessary to pursue a relationship between respondent burnout and 

attitude. During further analysis, we found an inverse correlation between respondent 

knowledge and burnout. This correlation supports our conclusions about respondents 

knowledge. 

To estimate a level of burnout for respondents, we used a modified version of the 

GNBI. In questions 270-275 and 277-282, respondents rated how they feel about 

their job for 12 items. They used a scale from 0 to 7, where 0 represents "never" and 

7 represents "always" on a continuum. Question 276 was deleted from our analysis 

because we determined the question was ambiguous. 

In our sample, Cronbach's coefficient of test reliabilty, alpha, was very high at .93 on 

a scale of 0 to 1. The alpha coefficient measures the internal consistency of the scale 

or measures the likelihood that respondents repeating the test under similar conditions 

would give similar answers. 

Using the 12 items, we formed a composite burnout score by totaling the individual 

scores. Respondents each received a score between 0 and 84. Eighty-four represents 

the highest score and the highest possible level of burnout. 

Using the composite burnout score, we created a binary variable burnout" 

coded the variable as follows: 

Bured Out (1) = burnout score;: 42, or, on the upper half of the 

burnout scale 

Not Bured Out (0) = burnout score oe = 42, or, on the lower half of the 

burnout scale. 

8 see David Gilesie and Ria Numerof, "Bunut Among Health Serice Provid, Adminisation an Policy in Menl Health

VoL 18, No. 161- 171 and Rita Numerof an Joseph Sell Superisory leadehip an jUbordiate bumout, Acade of 

Mana t Joura VoL No. 2, 439- 446. for exples of its use. 

E -
, 

, , 

( . , .

To identif factors which may affect whether a respondent is burned out, we 

conducted a multivariate analysis similar to those described in appendix D. In this 

case burnout" is the dependent variable and represents the probabilty that a 

respondent is burned out. Independent variables for the equation include "supervsor 

urban state AFDC", and an average score of "knowledge . Table I shows the 

results of this analysis.


Table I 

Parameter Estiates and Adjusted Odds Ratios for Respondent Burnout 

Varable Pareter Stadad Odds 95% C. I. 

Estiate Eror Ratio (lower, upper) 

Intercept 6540 2140 

Knowledge 2377 1146 99) 

Supervor 2826 1606 ( .55 , 1.03)


Urban 2248 2045 ( .53, 1.19) 

State 0969 109 1.11 , 1.36) 

0944 1189 1.10 , 1.39) 

In this table, an odds ratio less than one indicates that the presence of a factor 

decreases the likelihood of burnout. These relationships are significant only when the 

confidence interval does not include one. Only a respondent s level of knowledge has 

a significant correlation with burnout of an individual. Those who do not know about 

the Act are much more likely to be burned out than those who know about provisions 

of the Act. 

E - 2

APPENDIX 


AGENCY COMM 

F - 1

anrARTMENT OF HEALTH a. HUMAN SERVICES Of of the Secretay 

Wasinvton. DC. 20201 

MAR 3 0 !S92 

TO: Richard P. Kusserow 

Inspector General


FROM: Assistant Secretary for 

Planning and Evaluation


SUBJECT : Draft Inspection Report on Front-Line Workers 

l-().5- 8q - 0 I 
 Z-2.D

Thank you for sharing with us your draft report. Your study finds that there is widepread support among front line-workers


for the provisions of the Family Support Act, even though their


knowledge of specific Act provisions is generally low. It would 

have been helpful to get a better idea what the actual functions
 of the respondents were. For example, some front-line workers 

might be expected to provide clients with an orientation to the


JOBS program. Other front-line workers may be solely responsible


for income maintenance functions with the expectation that they


will refer their clients to JOBS and child support enforcement to
 learn about these programs. The data do not tell us to what 

extent respondents had any direct responsibility for JOBS and


child support enforcement. It is unclear whether respondents had


a sufficient level of knowledge about the Act for them to carry


out their jobs effectively. Nonetheless, we hope that since the


survey was conducted a year ago, as States have made further


progress in implementing the Family Support Act' s provisions, the


knowledge level of front-line workers about the Act' s provisions


will have increased. 

Please keep us informed about all your studies related to the


Family Support Act and JOBS. I understand that your staff have 

just completed a draft report on JOBS Skills Assessment practices


and we would appreciate receiving a copy for review. My staff 

would also like to be invited to any future briefings that your


staff provides about such \ studies . Notices of such briefings


should be directed to Jane Baird, Deputy Assistant Secretary for


Human Services POlicy, (245-2409). Thank you. 

Martin H. Gerry 
.. .,..,

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH &. HUMAN SERVICES 

1'''10 ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIE, 

Office of the Assistant Secretary;'suite =600


370 L' Enfant Promenade, S. 

Washington, D.C. 20447


DATE : April 13, 1992 

TO: Richard P. Kusserow 

Inspector General 

FROM: Jo Anne B. Barnhart M I-/' 

Assistant Secretary 

for Children and amilies 

SUBJECT: OIG Draft Report: e Family support 

What Do Front-Line Workers Know? What 

OEI-05-89-01220 -- COMMENTS 

Act of 1988: 

Do They Think?" 

report. The 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this draft 


comments and suggestions we made during the exit conference have


all been incorporated into this draft report. We believe the


report clearly and effectively presents the findings of your


survey. 

We must admit to having mixed views about the findings. We are 

optimistic about the high expectations of front-line staff
 time. 

concerning the effects of the Family support Act over 


the same time, we are disappointed about the reported low level
 staff. Over the past few of program familiarity among front-line 


years we have worked hard to promote the Family support Act as an
 system. important catalyst in changing the culture of the welfare
 efforts; Your study demonstrates that we need to continue these 


obviously more work needs to be done in educating workers about


the Act' s provisions and the potential of the welfare system to 

assist families in becoming self-sufficient.


s early and
 We agree with your argument that front-line staff'
 ecipients can shape recipients'
 ongoing contact with AFDC
 atti tudes about JOBS and child support programs. As an agency, 

we believe that successful implementation of the Family support


Act means changing welfare agencies institutionally. staff and 

clients alike need to understand that cash assistance is a


temporary measure which supports families while they take steps


to become economically self-sufficient.


For certain methodological reasons, your study may overstate the
 Also, the
 problems with the knowledge level of welfare workers.
 The research 

timing of the study could be a mitigating factor. 1991. Among was conducted in the first quarter of calendar year 


the 19 states in the sample, 25 percent w re relatively new to

Page 2 - Richard P. Kusserow


the program: four states implemented JOBS in October 1990, and a 

fifth began JOBS in July 1990. Also, not all programs were

statewide. Perhaps, there is a relationship between the start 

date and level of knowledge and the extent of referral for JOBS
 ervices. Thus, we would be interested in and child support 


knowing whether there is a plan to re-survey these or other staff


at some later time.


If you decide to conduct a re-survey, we would like the
 staff. For opportunity to discuss design changes with your 


example, we wonder if there is a direct relationship between the


level of staff knowledge and the amount of time spent working on


AFDC. Chart 1 shows, consistently, that less time spent in AFDC 

is associated with less JOBS program familiarity. However, we


can I t tell much more from the data collected; for example, we 

cannot tell to what extent those with little familiarity of the


Family support Act were Medicaid workers rather than AFDC


workers. 

Finally, we wonder if there is a possibility of your providing us


wi th further information or doing further analysis of the
 existing data. First, there seems to be a lot of data on the 

survey which are not discussed in the report. For example: a) 

what specific training needs were identified (p. A-8); b) how


common is training for workers in areas like case management and


evaluation of clients; and c) how much do agencies rely on in­


house training versus other forms? Also, what are the specific 

knowledge rates of the sub-categories of respondents in Chart 


Secondly, there seems to be more analysis possible on the


relationships between worker education, attitudes, knowledge, and


responsibilities. For example: a) is the knowledge level higher
 clients; b) are or lower for workers who spend the most time with education, workers who spend a lot of time evaluating clients for 


training and jobs particularly positive about the potential


effectiveness of JOBS; and (c) are there differences between 

college-educated workers. and others? 

It would be helpful to know if you looked at some of these


questions, but the data showed nothing, or if you did not have


the opportunity to analyze the data in this much depth. 

Addi tional analysis might be helpful; my staff is available to 

meet with your staff if you think additional work would be


frui tful. 

F-4 
Page 3 - Richard P. Kusserow


Following are some editorial comments. 

Page i, third line under BACKGROUND, after Basic Skills and


before (JOBS), insert "Training. " A similar point on page 1 

under BACKGROUND.


Page 1, last paragraph says that the JOBS and child support


agency are separate. In some States, they are in the same


agency. 

If you or your staff have questions or need additional


information, please do not hesitate to call.