Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

PARTICIPANTS RATE 

THE JOBS PROGRAM 

SEPTE~ER 1993 
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 Secretaty 

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’SOffice of Investigations (01) conducts criminal, civil, and administrative investigations of 

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

providers. The 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’SOffice of Evaluation and Inspections (OEI) conducts short-term management and program 

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

the 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 Dallas regional office under the direction of Ralph 

Tunnel], Regional Inspector General and Chester B. Slaughter, Deputy Regional Inspector General. 

Project Staft? 

REGION HEADQUARTERS 

Elsie A. Chaisson, Project Leader Ruth Folchman, Program Analyst


Michelle J. Adams, Program Analyst


Leah K Bostick, Program Analyst


Nancy J. Watts, Program Assistant


For additional copies of this report, please contact the Dallas Regional Office at (214) 767-3310.

Department of Health and Human Services 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

PARTICIPANTS RATE 

THE JOBS PROGRAM 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

PURPOSE 

This report provides information about the experiences, opinions andattitudes of Job 

@pofiunities and Basic Stills Tmining (JOBS) progmmpafiicipants. Specifically, the 

report contains information about participants’ (1) understanding of the program’s services 

and requirements; (2) positive and negative experiences in the program; and (3) 

suggestions for program improvement. This report reflects early experiences with the 

JOBS program as seen from the unique perspective of the participants themselves. 

BACKGROUND 

The Family Support Act (P.L. 100-485) required all States to establish the Job 

Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program to assure that needy families with 

children obtain the education, training and employment that will help them avoid 

long-term welfare dependency. To accomplish this, the JOBS program is intended to: 

(1) encourage, assist and require applicants for and recipients of AFDC to fulfill their 

responsibilities to support their children by preparing for, accepting, and retaining 

employment; (2) provide individuals with the opportunity to acquire the education and the 

skills necessary to qualify for employment; (3) provide necessary support services, 

including transitional child care and medical assistance, so that individuals can participate 

in JOBS and accept employment; (4) promote coordination of services at all levels of 

government in order to make a wide range of services available, especially for individuals 

at risk of long-term welfare dependency; and (5) emphasize accountability for both 

participants and service providers. Where State resources permit, all AFDC recipients 

living in a subdivision covered by a JOBS program and for whom the State IV-A agency 

(i.e., welfare agency) has guaranteed child care (in accordance with the provisions of the 

child care laws and regulations) shall be required to participate in JOBS unless the 

recipient is exempt from participation. 

Between October 1991 and February 1992, we completed a total of 232 telephone 

interviews with participants who were located at five sites: Denver, Colorado; 

Albuquerque, New Mexico; Florence, South Carolina; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and, 

Janesville, Wisconsin. We interviewed 67 JOBS program completers, 98 currently active 

participants and 67 dropouts. 

FINDINGS 

A MAJORITY OF PARTICIP~TS SURVEYED GAVE HIGH RATINGS TO THE 

OVERALL JOBS PROGRAM, ITS ACTWITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES. 

�	 Almost three out of four respondents rated the overall JOBS program as good or 

very good. 

i 
� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

� 

Significantly, 84percent of respondents said they would recommend the program. 

Eighty -three percent ofrespondents believed the JOBS program would help them 

get off welfare. 

Eighty -two percent of respondents whohadcompleted the program reported they 

were working at the time we interviewed them. 

About two-thirds of respondents rated the public assistance agency and its staff 

high for providing the support and services they needed to complete the program. 

Respondents graded high those JOBS program activities in which they participated, 

A majority of respondents who received support services gave them high marks. 

NEVERTHELESS, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCED 

PROBLEMS AND/OR VOICED COMPLAINTS THAT MERIT THE ATTENTION OF 

PROGRAM MANAGERS. 

Imuficient Information. Some respondents said they were not told about or 

received insufficient explanations or information on the availability of specific 

program activities or services. For example, 46 percent of respondents said they 

were not told about transitional child care. 

Lack of Sumort Services. Ninety-eight respondents said there were certain services 

they needed but did not receive. For example, 47 of the 98 respondents reported 

they did not receive the child care they needed. 

Deficient Case Manager Services and Attitudes. Thirty-one percent of respondents 

noted problems with support and services provided by case managers. Some said 

case managers’ condescending/negative attitudes also discouraged them. 

Understanding Penalties. While most respondents knew about possible noncompliance penalties and benefit reductions, some did not understand. Twenty-two 

respondents had their AFDC and/or Food Stamps benefits reduced, 12 as a result 

of receiving student educational loans. 

EIGHTY-SIX PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS SlZ4RED SPECIFIC SUGGESTIONS 

FOR IMPROVING THE JOBS PROGRAM. 

� Emphasize education and training in order to achieve self-sufficiency. 

� Improve support services such as child care and transportation. 

�	 Strengthen case managers’ performance of the orientation, service explanation, and 

assessment processes; and provide empathetic support to program participants. 

ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS


PAGE


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . ...********** �..** *””” ”””i 

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0000*oo SO””OOO””l 

FINDINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 0000 osco”” o””* 4 

Participants’ RatingofTheJOBS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ““”d 

Problems Experienced By Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...*.. �000008 

Participants’ Suggestion sFo rImproving TheJOBS Program . . . . . . . . . . 12 

APPENDICES


A: Profile of Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .o*oo A-1


B: Illustrative Profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .OOOSO. B-l

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE 

This report provides information about the experiences, opinions, andattitudes of Job 

@pofiunities and Basic Stills Tmining (JOBS) progmmpatiicipants. Specifically, the 

report contains information on participants’ (1) understanding of the program’s services 

and requirements; (2) positive and negative experiences in the program; and (3) 

suggestions for program improvement. This report reflects early experiences with the 

JOBS program as seen from the unique perspective of the participants themselves. 

BACKGROUND 

The Family Support Act (P.L. 100-485) required all States to establish the Job 

Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program to assure that needy families with 

children obtain the education, training and employment that will help them avoid 

long-term welfare dependency. To accomplish this, the JOBS program is intended to: 

(1) encourage, assist and require applicants for and recipients of AFDC to fulffll their 

responsibilities to support their children by preparing for, accepting, and retaining 

employment; (2) provide individuals with the opportunity to acquire the education and the 

skills necessary to qualify for employment; (3) provide necessary support services, 

including transitional child care and medical assistance, so that individuals can participate 

in JOBS and accept employment; (4) promote coordination of services at all levels of 

government in order to make a wide range of services available, especially for individuals 

at risk of long-term welfare dependency; and (5) emphasize accountability for both 

participants and service providers. 

Where State resources permit, all AFDC recipients living in a subdivision covered by a 

JOBS program and for whom the State IV-A agency (i.e., welfare agency) has guaranteed 

child care (in accordance with the provisions of the child care laws and regulations) shall 

be required to participate in JOBS unless the recipient is exempt from participation. 

Federal regulations provide that a State JOBS program u include the following four 

components: (1) educational activity (which shall include high school or high school 

equivalency training; basic and remedial education that will provide a literacy level 

equivalent to at least grade 8.9, and education in English proficiency; (2) job skills 

training; (3) job readiness activities; and, (4) job development/job placement. States are 

also required to include at least two of the following components: (1) on-the-job training, 

(2) work supplementation, (3) community work experience, (4) group and individual job 

search, or (5) additional education, as allowed by the State. Additionally, States are 

required to guarantee child care, and provide transportation and other support services if 

the State agency determines these services are necessary for an individual in the family to 

accept employment, remain employed or to participate in an education or training 

component. 

1

METHODOLOGY 

The focus of this study was a survey of the experiences and perceptions of JOBS program 

participants at selected sites in five States. Each site selected provided all of the optional 

JOBS program components in addition to the mandatory components. Two sites were 

non-urban and three sites were urban. We did not survey State or local JOBS program 

administrators. We did, however, interview local office managers to obtain a broad 

overview of program operations and to learn the terminology used to assist us to better 

communicate with the respondents about the program. 

In order to learn more about the JOBS program and participants’ attitudes about welfare, 

we performed the following steps. 

First, we reviewed the JOBS program laws, regulations, State plans, and current literature 

pertaining to participant perspectives about JOBS and welfare programs in generai. 

Second, we talked with JOBS program experts and others who had completed participant 

perspectives studies. 

Third, from the literature review and discussions with experts, we formulated issues for 

inclusion in a structured interview guide which focused on qualitative information, and 

was pretested at one site in Texas. The interview questions contained both closed and 

open-ended questions. The open-ended questions allowed the participants to elabomte on 

their experiences and opinions about the JOBS progmm. 

Fourth, to maximize our learning from participants, we categorized participants in three 

groups: (1) JOBS program completers, (2) currently active participants participating in a 

JOBS component, and (3) dropouts (i.e., participants who dropped out before completing 

the program). For this study we used the following definitions. Program Completers 

include - (1) individuals who completed the JOBS program, are employed and are off 

welfare; (2) individuals who completed the JOBS progmm, are employed but continue to 

be on welfare because their wages are insufficient to make them ineligible for AFDC 

benefits; and (3) individuals who completed the JOBS progmm but are not employed ­

e.g., have not been able to find work. Current Actives were individuals actively 

participating in the JOBS program during the survey period. Dropouts were individuals 

who attended at a minimum the orientation session, then dropped out of the progmm at a 

subsequent stage. 

We asked the State public assistance agencies to: (1) identify a site within our pre selected 

area; (2) identify all current and former JOBS participants having actual experience with 

the JOBS progmm in 1990 and 1991; and (3) stratify participants according to our broad 

groups (completers, currently actives and dropouts) and generate a related list. 

Our target sample was 300, 100 each of completers, current actives and dropouts. We 

over-sampled to reach our target of 300. Thus, from each completed list the study team 

randomly selected a sample of 30 to 40 individuals from each group in each site 

2 
participating in the survey. See Appendix A for some general characteristics of survey 

respondents. 

In September and November 1991 we visited each of the five sites. We interviewed 

JOBS program managers and conducted face-to-face interviews with two JOBS program 

completers and two dropouts at each site. See Appendix B for illustrative profiles. 

Between October 1991 and February 1992, we completed a total of 232 telephone 

interviews in five sites: (1) Denver, Colorado; (2) Albuquerque, New Mexico, (3) 

Florence, South Carolina; (4) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and (5) Janesville, Wisconsin. 

We interviewed 67 completers, 98 currently active participants, and 67 dropouts. Eighty 

percent of the respondents were mandatory participants and 20 percent were volunteers. 

We found JOBS participants were articulate and interested in speaking out about their 

experiences in the JOBS program. 

Unless otherwise indicated, weighted averages, based on the number of respondents in 

each site, were used to calculate percentages in report findings. Although we selected our 

sample from the three categories of participants, we do not report responses by type of 

category. However in our analysis, we did consider participant category to help in 

understanding some responses. For example, we looked at categories of participants 

reporting not receiving or knowing about transitional child care or medical services. Not 

knowing about these services could have a greater impact on program completers than 

currently active participants and dropouts. 

We conducted our review in accordance with the Quality Staruiids for Inspections 

issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. 

3

FINDINGS


A MAJORITY OF PARTICIP~TS SURVEYED GAVE HIGH RATINGS TO THE 

OVERALL JOBS PROGRi4M, ITS ACTIVITIES AND SUPPORT SERVICES. 

Almost three out of every four respondents gave the JOBS program good marks.


We asked JOBS program participants to give their overall rating of the JOBS program.


Of the 232 respondents surveyed, 73 percent rated the JOBS program as good or very


good, as shown below. Another 19 percent rated it fair, with only eight percent assessing


the program as poor or very poor.


m 

.-

c 

U 

c

0 

n 

a

c? 

Significantly, 

to others. 

Eighty-three 

off welfare. 

Participants’ Overall Ratings Of JOBS Program 

901 (Participants- 232) 

80-

70“ 

60-

50-

4(-

30 

19% 

20 

8% 

10 

0 I 

Good/Very Good Fair Poor/Vefy Poor 

Participants’ Ratings 

84 percent of the respondents said they would recommend the program 

percent of respondents believed the JOBS program would help them get 

Both mandatory and volunteer respondents frequently said they participated in the JOBS 

program to obtain an education or training. Many viewed education and training as tools 

to help them obtain employment paying above the minimum wage which, in turn, would 

allow them to get off welfare. This was often expressed as a strong motivation to 

4 
participate in the program. When asked what would cause a person to stay on public 

assistance after completing the JOBS program, 41 percent said low wages or no jobs in 

the community. 

Since mandatory participants do not have a choice regarding participating in JOBS, we 

were interested in their attitudes about being required to participate. Many mandatory 

respondents expressed positive attitudes about participating in the program. In fact, one 

out of every two mandatory participants said they participated in the JOBS program, not 

only because this was required, but to obtain an education, training, or to get a job. 

Eighty-two percent of respondents who had completed the JOBS program reported 

they were working. 

Very promising is the fact that, among respondents who had completed the program, 82 

percent reported they were employed and were either entirely off AFDC (64 percent) or 

receiving a reduced grant (18 percent) at the time we interviewed them. 

About t we-thirds of respondents rated the public assistance agency and its staff 

highly for providing the support and services they needed to complete the JOBS 

program. 

Sixty-two percent of the respondents rated the performance of the public assistance agency 

and its staff as good or very good in helping them complete the program. Also, 68 

percent gave good or very good ratings to the staff for arranging support services they 

needed to complete JOBS activities, Sixty-nine percent of the respondents said they were 

encouraged by their case manager who, in many instances, motivated them to enhance 

their education or obtain employment. 

Respondents graded high those JOBS program activities in which they participated. 

The first stage activities of the JOBS program are orientation, assessment and 

employability planning. Generally, almost all participants take part in these activities. 

The orientation is usually a group activity. The assessment can be a group or one-on-one 

activity. Participants are assigned to other JOBS program components as determined by 

the case manager and client after completing an assessment and an employability plan. 

Most respondents were assigned to either an education, job search, life skills training, job 

skills training, or job readiness component. Of the 232 respondents, few were assigned to 

job development/job placement (4); on-the-job training (1 1); work supplementation (4); 

community work experience (10); and/or other state education components (9). The 

critical first stage activities, orientation, assessment and employability planning, were 

rated fairly high by most participants, as shown in table 1. All other JOBS program 

activities, except job search, were also rated high. 

5

..,:.. ...... . . . ..

--

--

--

Table 1: Respondents’ Grading of JOBS Program Activities 

.,.:: ,:.:: , 11 ,. .,.:.:.,...... :... ... .......,.:..,:.... ......,’:..:,,,.. ...,: 

Orientation 

Assessment 

Employability 

Plan 

Education 

Job Search 

LifeSkills 

Job Skills 

JobReadiness 

31% 36% 21% 10% 2% 232 

29% 37% 19% 10% 5% 198 

35% 32% 18% 9% 6% 189 

68% 22% 6% 2% 2% S6 

16% 33% 18% 14% 19% 64 

72% 14% 7% 6% 1% 35 

39% 21% 28% 8% 4% 25 

68% 13% 14% 5% 22 

Orientation During the orientation sessions JOBS participants are informed about a 

variety of program activities (e.g., education, training, job readiness, job search) and 

support services (e.g., child care, transportation). 

Ninety-eight percent of the participants surveyed said they were given general information 

about the JOBS program. A majority (67 percent) of participants were satisfied with the 

explanation of these services, grading it A or B. Further, 69 percent of the respondents 

said the orientation activities encouraged and motivated them to participate in the 

program. 

Assessment Sixty-six percent of the respondents gmded the assessment of their 

educational background, employment history, interests, and service needs as either an A 

or a B. 

Employability Plan Generally, the employability plan includes information about JOBS 

participants employment, training, and education goals and support services an individual 

needs to participate in JOBS employment, education or training activities. Most 

respondents indicated their employability plan contained the following: 1) current 

education level (93 percent); 2) necessary support services (81 percent); 3) future 

education goals (85 percent); 4) employment goals (80 percent); and, 5) training needs 

(70 percent). Thirty-four out of 189 respondents said their employability plan included 

information about their personal interests. Eleven participants did not remember or did 

not know what was included in their employability plan. 

Sixty-seven percent of 189 respondents graded their employability plan A or B. They 

generally agreed with the plan’s contents and felt the plan could be changed if they 

wished. 

6 
--

--

--

Education Participants could receive high school course work, GED course work, 

vocational or technical training, junior college course-work, and college or university 

course- work. 

Among the 86 participants receiving and rating education services, high satisfaction was 

evident, with 90 percent grading the service A or B. Fifteen respondents were especially 

satisfied with their education classes and the degree they received as a result of the JOBS 

program. 

Job Search Participants were more critical of job search. Of the 64 participants that 

took part in this activity, only 49 percent graded it an A or a B. 

A majority of JOBS participants who received support services gave the services high 

marks. 

Participants in the JOBS program often brought with them multiple problems. For 

example, in addition to needing child care and transportation services, some respondents 

said they also needed sick child care and assistance with finding a house because many 

landlords did not want to rent to welfare recipients. One out of every three JOBS 

participants in our sample had two or more problems that impacted on their participation 

in the program. Sixty percent of them obtained services that assisted with solving their 

problems. As shown in table 2, participants receiving support services indicated their 

general satisfaction by giving most of the services fairly high grades. 

Child Care 47% 27%% 11% 3% 11% 98 

Transportation to JOBS Component 40% 31% 20% 2% 7% 116 

Transportation (child care) 39% 19% 36% 6% 19 

Transitional Medical Services 51% 1% 24% 24% 13 

Counseling 75% 25% 12 

E* I 76% I 16% I 8% I I I 7.7 ~ * Otherserwcesreceivedincludedental,substance abuse treatment, supphes for 

school, tools for work, license fees, and clothing. 

Child Care Seventy-four percent of the 98 respondents who reported receiving child 

care graded the service A or B. Respondents’ feelings can be summed up as “I was 

afraid I’d get stuck with something poor, yet I had a great, high quality care center for 

my child, ” and “me agency] provided on-site [child care] for those in class. We COUH 

go in and ou~ and check on the kids... it was very good. ” 

7 
--

--

--

Transportation Transportation service costs were usually covered through vouchers or 

reimbursements to participants. One State, in addition to vouchers and reimbursements, 

provided the transportation directly. Most JOBS participants gave high grades to 

transportation services received. Seventy-one percent of the participants graded the 

transportation for employment service A or B, while 58 percent graded transportation to 

child care A or B. 

Transitional Services Eleven out of 13 respondents receiving transitional medical 

services graded them A or B. Six individuals received transitional child care, three out of 

the six graded the service A. 

NEVERTHELESS, A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS EXPERIENCED 

PROBLEMS AND/OR VOICED COMPLAINTS THAT MERIT THE ATTENTION OF 

PROGRAM MANAGERS. 

Insufficient Information While almost all participants said they were informed about 

the overall JOBS program, some said they were not told about, or received insufficient 

explanations or information on, the availability of specific services. 

When asked what specific services they were told about, a significant number of 

participants said they were not told or do not remember being told about the availability of 

some JOBS program activities and support services, as shown in table 3. Many of these 

services are essential to gain and/or maintain employment or successfully complete a 

JOBS program activity. 

Table 3: Percent of Respondents Who Said They Were Not Told About Required 

Activities And Support Services 

Education: (e.g., education designed to 22% 176 

prepare for high school equivalency certificate 

and Basic Education


Education in English Proficiency


Job Skills Training


Job Readiness


Child Care


Transportation


Transitional Child Care


Transitional Medical Services


I 67% 

1 I 

72 

I 22% I 166 

32% 148 

11% 185 

16% I 178 ~ 

I 46% I 101 

I 42% I 114 

8

The services respondents were not told about most often included: (1) education in English 

proficiency (67 percent); (2) transitional child care (46 percent); (3) transitional medical 

services (42 percent); and (4) job readiness (32 percent). Additionally, 11 percent 

reported they were not told about, or did not remember being told about, the availability 

of child care, and 16 percent said the same regarding transportation services. This might 

explain why some participants reported they did not receive needed services. The 

following statement sums up the attitudes of those participants who did not receive 

sufficient information about the JOBS program: “The agency did not explain the program 

sujiciendy. Some services I asked about, I did not know was [were] available. They 

would not discuss educa~ion or training. “ 

Problems with insufficient information were also evident in the low ratings which some 

respondents gave to their JOBS orientation. Of 232 respondents, 33 said they received 

insufficient information. Thirteen respondents felt the information given was not clear or 

on their level. The following is a composite of these respondents’ comments: “me JOBS 

case managers] did not explain what they would do to help you. The workers did not 

erplain well. /7%e JOBS case managers] said they wouki help, but explained the program 

in a sophisticated way using sophisticated words. “ Also, a few pam”cipants reported the 

stafs explaruxion of the program and i~sservices did not ma~ch their own needs. 

Lack of SUDDOt-t Services - Almost half, 98 of 208, respondents reported there were 

certain services they needed but did not receive. When specifically asked which services 

were needed but not provided they indicated: child-care (47 of 98); transportation for 

employment (42 of 98); and transportation to the child-care facility (11 of 98). Other 

unmet service needs mentioned include: car repair (15 of 98); counseling (13 of 98); 

transitional child care (8 of 98); and transitional medical treatment (7 of 98). 

As table 4 shows, participants gave various reasons for not receiving services they needed. 

Forty-nine and 40 percent, respectively, believed they did not receive child care or 

transportation services because the State did not provide the service. In one State, 

participants reported public transportation was not always available at the time needed to 

attend the JOBS activity. Another 20 and 27 percent reported they did not receive child 

care or transportation services because they were not included in the plan. Also, 

participants believed they did not receive car repair (59 percent), counseling (25 percent) 

or transportation to the child care facility (46 percent) because it was not included in their 

JOBS employability plan. 

9

Table 4: Reasons Respondents Gave For Not Receiving Needed Services 

The need for support services could surface at all stages of program participation . Some 

support services problems were expressed by respondents during comments about their 

employability plans. Seventeen participants said they received inadequate information 

about their plan, or said that services listed in the plan were not delivered as promised due 

to insufficient resources. Fourteen participants felt pressured by the JOBS staff to set 

different goals from what they preferred. For example, they were required to seek 

employment at their present skill level rather than participate in education or training. 

Fifty-two percent of the respondents who said they did not receive services did not know 

they could, or believed they could not, change their employability plan to solve new 

problems or to change their education and employment goals. When we asked 

respondents if they helped to develop their employ abiMy plan, 43 out of 194 respondents 

reported they did @ help. Six participants either did not have an employability plan or 

did not remember devising a plan. 

Eight respondents needed but did not receive transitional child care services. Five of the 

eight needed both transitional child care and medical services. Seven were individuals 

who completed the JOBS program. They reported they did not receive the service 

primarily because it was not included in the plan. However, seven indicated they were 

not told that the services were available. 

Deficient Case Mana~er Services and Attitudes - Thirty-one percent of respondents 

thought the agency should provide better screening/assessments, encouragement, case 

management, and follow-up of JOBS participants. Thirty-four percent of 198 respondents 

10 
--

were not fully satisfkd with the assessment process, grading it C, D or F. Of these, 37 

reported their assessment was inadequate and did not reflect their education, employment 

skills, experiences, and interests. Eight respondents indicated that a personal interview 

was ~t even conducted; another six respondents said the activity was merely a paperwork 

process. Twenty participants felt their assessment interview was incomplete, either 

excluding their full work and personal history or their long-term education and 

employment goals. Five respondents felt stigmatized by the assessment process. 

Twenty-one respondents reported they either felt coerced or humiliated or felt that the case 

managers were not helpful during their orientation. 

In some cases, participants criticized what they believed were condescending attitudes and 

the inability of case managers and staff to provide more support. However, they 

recognized that there were staff shortages, and that staff needed more training. Of the 

232 participants in the sample, 66 individuals reported they felt like dropping out of the 

“program at some point, and 15 out of the 66 attributed this feeling to the case manager’s 

condescending attitude. The following is a composite of the attitudes expressed by 

discouraged participants: “me worker ... was not supportive... made me feel inferior and 

treated me like I was stupid. i%e worker acted as though she did not want me to anend 

school. “ 

Additionally, some participants expected more support than they received from the agency 

and its staff in identifying available jobs and in being prepared for interviews. For 

example, a few participants thought the agency should develop jobs, and the case manager 

should coach them for job interviews, (i. e., tell them what skills are necessary before 

sending them on interviews so they could better prepare and converse on the job skills 

needed). 

Understandin~ of Penalties - While the majority of participants knew about penalties for 

non-participation or non-compliance with program requirements, some did not understand. 

A majority of the participants surveyed knew about the penalties for not participating in 

the JOBS program or not complying with program requirements. Participants knew they 

could lose AFDC benefits for one of the following reasons: (1) refusing to participate in 

the JOBS program without a good reason (87 percent); (2) rtxeiving income or wages 

from JOBS-related employment e.g., on-the-job training (79 percent); and (3) not 

following the terms of their employability plan (83 percent). Twenty-one percent said 

they did not know they could loose benefits by refusing to participate in the program or 

due to earnings obtained from participating in a JOBS activity, e.g., on-the-job training. 

Twenty-two respondents reported losing benefits while participating in the program. 

Twelve reported their AFDC and/or Food Stamps benefits were reduced after receiving 

student loan funds. Participants felt they should not have been penalized when they 

received student loan or grant funds targeted for school or training needs. 

Disenchanted Minoritv - A minority (30 respondents) experienced multiple problems and 

gave consistently low ratings to program activities and support services. This minority 

included mandatory and volunteer participants, JOBS program completers, currently active 

11 
participants and dropouts. Twenty-two of them were mandatory participants who said 

they participated in the JOBS program only because they were required to do so as a 

condition of eligibility for AFDC and Food Stamp benefits. They differed from others in 

the study sample in that they expressed dissatisfaction with four or more activities/services 

of the JOBS program. Nineteen rated the JOBS program poor or very poor and believed 

the program would not help them get off welfare. Twenty-two needed services they did 

not receive. Seventeen felt like dropping out of the program, and 7 did drop out. Some 

characteristics of these dissatisfied individuals were: 

� 33 median Age. 

� 14 were single, never married; 6 were married; 5 were separated; 4 were 

divorced; and 1 was unknown. 

b 12 had a high school diploma; 8 had less than 12 years of schooling; 4 and 5 

respectively had some vocational and college education; and 1 had an 

unknown amount of education. 

b 15 were receiving AFDC assistance for 36 of the previous 60 months. 

F 27 had prior work experience. 

b 7 were working and were off welfare. 

� 6 were working and were still on welfare. 

EIGHTY-SIX PERCENT OF THE RESPONDENTS SH~D SPECIFIC 

SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVING THE JOBS PROGRAM. 

Eighty-six percent of the 232 respondents suggested the program needed improvements to 

ensure its success. Their suggestions fell into three broad categories: (1) achieving selfsufficiency, (2) improving support services, and (3) strengthening case manager 

performance. 

Achievinz Self Sufficiency - In order to become self-sufficient, 25 percent of the 

participants believed more emphasis should be placed on education and training in order to 

prepare them for a career which would increase their earning capacity above the 

minimum-wage level. They felt low (minimum wage) wages would force them to remain 

on welfare or to return to the public assistance rolls because their wages would not be 

sufficient to replace lost medical, AFDC, and/or Food Stamp benefits. 

Some participants suggested two services which, if provided, would motivate and assist 

participants to become independent of welfare: (1) allow participants a trial work period 

and let them receive their first pay check before terminating benefits. The AFDC benefits 

obtained during this period could be used to meet employment start-up costs (e.g., 

transportation and clothes); and, (2) provide transitional services (child care, medical) to 

participants whose AFDC benefits will be terminated due to earned income. Participants 

believed these services would provide a smooth transition off welfare, or back on welfare 

if the employment was unsuccessful. 

12 
Immovin~ SuDDort Services - Thirty-five percent of the participants recommended 

improving key support services such as child care, transportation, education, and 

counseling. This would include assisting participants in finding quality, affordable child 

care and transportation services. 

Strentiheninz Case Mana~er Performance - Eleven percent of the participants suggested 

that the agency and staff improve the process for explaining JOBS program services. 

Thirty-five percent of the participants suggested that case managers should do a better job 

of explaining the JOBS program activities and support services, assessing clients needs, 

and should be more empathetic and supportive and not condescending. 

13 
American Public Welfare Association, “W MEMO” Vol. 1 Nos 8-9, November 1, 1989. 

Center for Law and Social Policy, “Family Matters”, Volume 1 No. 3, Spring 1989. 

Dixon, Wilfred J. and Massey, Frank J., Jr., Introduction to Statistical Analvsis, Third 

Edition, New York, San Francisco, St. Louis, Toranto, London and Sidney: McGraw-Hill 

Book Company, 1969. 

Gueron, Judith M., Reforming Welfare With Work, New York: Manpower Demonstration 

Research Cooperation, 1987. 

National Puerto Rican Coalition, Inc., “Implementing The Family Support Act Perspectives 

of Puerto Rican Clients, ” Handout No. 1, The Urban Institute Welfare Reform Workshop, 

19900 

Sar A Levitan, Progra ms in Aid of the Poor, Sixth Edition, Baltimore and London: The Johns 

Hopkins University Press, 1990. 

Social Research Center Calvin College, Attitudes Toward the MOST Promzim: A Survev of 

MOST Program Sanctionees for the Kent Countv Department of Social Services Grand 

RaDids. Michiz an, March 1987. 

U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, Working 

Toward JOBS, June 1990. 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earninm, Volume 

38 No. 2, February 1991, 

U.S. General Accounting Office, Work And Welfare: Analysis of AFDC Emdoyment 

Pro~rams in Four !jtate$, GAO/HRD-88-33FS, January 1988. 

U. S. General Accounting Office, Work and Welfare: Current AFDC Work Pro~rams and 

Irnrdications for Federal Policy, GAO/HRD-87-34, January 1987. 

Quiroz, Julia Teresa and Tosca, Regina, On My Own: Mexican American Women Selfsufficiencv and the Family Sup-mrt Act, National Council of Id&a, 1990. 
APPENDIX A 

PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS * 

(# Respondents = 232) 

Basic Demographics


. 32 median age of survey participants.


. 33 median age of mandatory participants.


. 30 median age of volunteer participants.


� 91 percent were females.


. 52 percent were African-Americans; 26 percent were Whites; 14 percent were


Hispanics; two percent were Asians and Native Americans; and seven percent 

were unknown. 

. 46 percent were Single, never rnafi~; 29percent were separated or divorced;


14 percent were married; three percent were widowed; and nine percent were 

unknown.


. 70 percent had one or two children.


. 30 percent had from three to six children.


. 22 percent of the children were age 3 and under.


. 1 percent were teenage parents at the time of the survey.


. 81 percent were mandatory participants.


Education


. 35 percent had a high school diploma or general equivalency degree.


� 35 percent had less than a high school degree.


. 11 percent had some vocational training or college.


. 12 percent had completed a college or university degree.


. 7 percent had an unknown amount of education.


Work History


. 84 percent had a work history.


. 8 percent did not have a work history.


. 8 percent had an unknown work history.


Welfare History


. 83 percent were receiving AFDC


� 7 percent were reeeiving Unemployed Parents assistance


. 10 percent were former recipients whose benefits were terminated.


. 8 percent were recipients whose AFDC benefits were reduced (sanction status).


. 60 percent reeeived AFDC for 36 of the preceding 60 months.


. 61 percent were custodial parents above the age of 24.


. 10 percent were custodial parents under the age of 24 who had not completed


high school and at the time of application were not enrolled in high school


and had little or no work experience.


. 1 percent had a youngest child within 2 years of being ineligible for AFDC


because of age.
 — -. . . . . . . .
 * Demographic data was obtained from case files and provided by the local weltare


offices.


A-1 
APPENDIX B 

The following stories illustrate participants’ experiences in the JOBS program. The 

information was obtained during face to face interviews with these individuals. 

Pseudonyms are used to protect the confidentiality of the individuals. 

B-1 
--

The Monday Family 

Mrs. Monday is a 32 years old, single (never married) African-American who has two 

sons, ages 4 and 9. She is a high school graduate. The family received Aid to Families 

with Dependent Children between 1985 and 1990. 

Mrs. Monday was required to participate in the JOBS program. However, before the 

agency approached her about participating in the program, she volunteered, after hearing 

about it from a friend. She believed the program could help her get a job and off of 

welfare. She said “this is a dream. ” I have been “a long time waiting”. 

Overall, Mrs. Monday was satisfied with the assessment of her education and skills and 

employability plan. However, she would like to have received more education to improve 

her reading skills. Her long range goal is to obtain a college/university degree. She 

participated in on-the-job training at the Department of Social Services. There were times 

she felt like dropping out of the program because of the attitudes of some of the agency 

staff. She “felt unwelcome”, and her filing job, was not rewarding. She said all she did 

for three weeks was file papers. 

She felt her JOBS case tnanager was very supportive and encouraged her to complete the 

program. She was pleased with the services she received (child care, transportation, 

counseling, transitional child care and transitional medical services). She completed the 

JOBS program and obtained a job providing housekeeping services for welfare recipients 

in need of such services. She said she got what she wanted out of the program a “job” 

and “to get off welfare”. However, the most important benefit she received from 

participating in the program was “my self esteem my kids love me working and they are 

proud of me.” 

Mrs. Monday believes the program is very good, and it could help AFDC recipients get off 

welfare. She would recommend the progratn to other recipients. She suggested that the 

agency provide more counseling. Recipients need to know that there is better life than 

welfare. She suggested encouraging recipients to get off welfare by helping them to find 

employment, providing medical benefits, and continuing child care when AFDC benefits 

are terminated due to earned income. 

B-2 
The Thursday Fatnily 

Mrs. Thursday is a 26 year old divorced, Mexican-American who receives AFDC


assistance for herself and two children (daughter age 4 and son age 2). She is a high


school graduate.


Mrs. Thursday began receiving AFDC in April 1989. She volunteered to participate in the


JOBS program to obtain assistance with finding employment and child care payments.


During the orientation, she was told about all the services JOBS would provide, except


transitional medical services.


She was very satisfied with all aspects of the program except Job Search. Initially she


thought the JOBS program would provide a job, and was disappointed when it did not. As


a result, she thought Job Search was not helpful. She was without child care for a short


time during her participation in JOBS, (the state’s “child care funds ran out”).


Nevertheless, she was very satisfied with the child care and transportation services she did


receive.


Mrs. Thursday felt her case manager was supportive and encouraged her to complete the


program and get off welfare. She is working (clerical worker for a taxi company). Her


wages are not sufficient to impact her AFDC benefits. She expects an increase in her


wages and believes her AFDC benefits will either be terminated or reduced. She believes


the JOBS program is very good, could help recipients get off welfare, and said she would


recommend it to others. She believes the program could be improved if the agency


informed clients they can volunteer for the program and that services, especially child care


and transportation, are provided to help individuals complete the program). Also, the


agency can do a better job of informing clients that they do not develop jobs nor do they


provide a lists of available jobs.


B-3 
The Stamp Family 

(3

(ii? & 

Mrs. Bell Stamp is a 34-year-old white female, She lives with her two daughters (Laura, 

age 15, and Doris, age 8), two sons (Matthew, age 11, and James, age 9) and her disabled 

brother who has multiple sclerosis. She is separated from her husband. Mrs. Stamp is a 

high-school graduate and has only worked part time. 

Mrs. Stamp participated in the JOBS program only because she was required to as a 

condition of eligibility for AFDC benefits. There were times that she felt like dropping 

out of the progratn, but did not because she feared losing AFDC benefits. Her 

participation in the JOBS program was impacted by multiple problems. In addition to 

caring for her four children alone, she cared for her disabled brother, was abused by her 

husband and was evicted from her home and had much difficulty finding another house. 

Mrs. Stamp wanted child care provider training but was told she had to participate in job 

search. She said she did not want to participate in job search. She was interested in 

becoming a child care provider because she could do this in her home and still be readily 

available to her children and her brother. Currently, Mrs. Stamp provides child care 

services for two children. She does not know if this meets the agency’s work requirement. 

However, her goal is to expand her day care operations and to get off welfare. 

Mrs . Stamp reported that overall the program appears to be good but she gave it low 

marks because the program did not serve her needs and the workers were condescending. 

“I felt like a little kid in a class room. ” 

She said the program could be improved by giving recipients choices and by providing 

services and counseling that could help participants resolve personal problems that impact 

on participation in the program. For example, case managers should be more supportive of 

clients with problems, and help clients find houses. She also said recipients might not 

want to obtain employment that would result in terminating their AFDC benefits because 

they are afraid of losing medical benefits. 

B-4