United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate

May 1995 WELFARE TO WORK

Participants’

Characteristics and

Services Provided in

JOBS

GAO/HEHS-95-93

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-257792 

May 2, 1995

The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Dear Senator Moynihan:

In 1988, the Congress made sweeping changes in the Aid to Families with

Dependent Children (AFDC) program when it enacted the Family Support

Act (FSA). The centerpiece of the act, the Job Opportunities and Basic

Skills (JOBS) training program, was designed to provide an increasing

percentage of adult AFDC recipients with the education, training, and

supportive services they need to become self-sufficient and avoid

long-term welfare dependency. FSA aimed to use JOBS to transform the

culture of both welfare agencies and recipients so that they viewed AFDC

benefits as temporary assistance on the path to employment and not a

permanent entitlement. Since its creation, federal and state governments

have spent about $8 billion on the JOBS program.

Despite this landmark welfare legislation, a growing consensus exists

among the public, policymakers, and welfare recipients that the AFDC

program, which served an average 4.98 million cases per month in 1993,

needs to be overhauled. This new call for welfare reform has been fueled

by rapidly rising AFDC caseloads; concerns about escalating program costs;

and public perceptions that AFDC has become a permanent entitlement, not

a transitional route to work. Another major concern among policymakers

and program experts is that the JOBS program was not designed to reach a

large number of adult AFDC recipients. As states confront the maximum

participation rate mandated by law for 1995, they will be required to serve

20 percent of the nonexempt caseload,1

 raising questions concerning JOBS’

ability to effectively transform the welfare culture. Some experts believe

that only participation on a large scale, along with an emphasis on work,

can transform the welfare culture.

A number of different federal proposals are being considered to

significantly reform welfare. For example, the Personal Responsibility Act

of 1995 (H.R. 4), recently passed by the House of Representatives, would

1

Program rules exempt certain recipients from participation in JOBS. In 1992, these rules exempted

about 59 percent of adult recipients. See page 6 for a description of exemptions.

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

• eliminate AFDC as an individual entitlement,

• repeal the JOBS program,

• convert AFDC funding into a capped block grant to the states,

• impose time limits on benefits, and

• deny cash assistance to unwed mothers under 18 years old and their

children.2

The states would be required to provide increasing percentages3 of

families on welfare with work-related activities.4

 By contrast, the

administration’s proposal, introduced in the 103rd Congress, would

continue AFDC as an entitlement but would also set time limits on welfare

receipt and require increasing numbers of adult welfare recipients to

participate in education and training activities. The administration’s

proposal would build on the existing JOBS program to help move adult

recipients from welfare to work. In addition to these national proposals,

many states are experimenting with welfare waivers and are testing

provisions to time-limit benefits and promote work.

Regardless of the ultimate structure of welfare reform, a central goal will

likely remain that of moving more people off welfare and into the work

force. While some participants who enter JOBS may be ready for immediate

placement into the work force, others may need some level of education

or training to prepare them for employment, the ultimate objective of

welfare reform. If programs are required to serve more participants faster

in a time-limited environment, the capacity of local programs to deliver

these services to participants will likely remain a critical factor.

To assist the 104th Congress in its deliberations on welfare reform, you

asked us to examine (1) who is and is not being served under the JOBS

program, (2) the range of services JOBS participants are receiving and the

extent to which participants’ needs are being met, and (3) the implications

of serving participants in a system of time-limited benefits.

This report is one of three studies we are completing at your request on

the JOBS program. It draws upon (1) our analysis of data on adult AFDC

recipients and JOBS participants, (2) a national telephone survey that

2

According to AFDC data, in 1992, such cases constituted about 1.4 percent of caseloads.

3

H.R. 4 sets the minimum participation rate at 4 percent of all families receiving assistance in fiscal

year 1996, rising to 50 percent in fiscal year 2003.

4

Defined as including unsubsidized employment; subsidized private-sector employment; subsidized

public-sector employment or work experience, on a limited basis; on-the-job training; job search; job

readiness assistance; and some education activities, on a limited basis.

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

gathered representative data from local JOBS program officials, and

(3) qualitative information developed from a series of four discussion

groups with JOBS officials (for more information on our methodologies, see

app. I). This study looks at the JOBS program’s capacity to provide the

up-front education, training, and supportive services necessary to get

participants ready for employment; a companion report examines how

JOBS programs work with employers to find jobs or create employment

opportunities for participants. Finally, a third report studies the

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the states’ use of

outcome measures in determining whether JOBS participants are finding

employment and examines HHS’ progress in measuring JOBS outcomes.5

Results in Brief In spite of FSA’s aim of making AFDC a transitional program by providing

the education, training, and supportive services that AFDC recipients need

to move from welfare to work, most adult AFDC recipients do not

participate in JOBS due to the act’s allowable exemptions and minimum

participation standards. While JOBS has grown at the gradual rate provided

for by FSA, the program still reached only about 13 percent of single

female-headed households receiving AFDC each month in 1992, with about

60 percent exempt from participation. Most of the 1.95 million exempt

adult AFDC recipients were excused from participation because they were

caring for a child under 3 years old. Even if states are successful in

meeting the minimum participation standard of 20 percent of nonexempt

adult recipients this year, JOBS will still be serving a small percentage of

AFDC households. This low level of participation raises questions as to

whether a program serving relatively few participants can bring about a

widespread transformation of the culture of welfare.

JOBS programs offer participants a range of services that are drawn from

existing community programs to avoid duplication of services. JOBS

programs obtain many services at no cost to their programs, consistent

with FSA’s emphasis on using such services whenever possible. However,

most programs also purchase at least some of the education and training

services JOBS participants need. Furthermore, despite the low percentage

of adult AFDC recipients being served by JOBS, many JOBS programs lack the

capacity to ensure that all participants receive the specific services they

need when they need them. For example, about 70 percent of programs

provided on-the-job training or subsidized work to one-half or fewer of the

participants who needed these services. Administrators selected a variety

of reasons, including transportation problems, to explain why JOBS

5

Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants (GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17, 1995).

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

participants could not participate in the full range of needed education and

training services.

The Congress and the administration are actively discussing reform of the

welfare system. If enacted, the Personal Responsibility Act of 1995 (H.R.

4) could impact the mix of services currently offered to participants. This

legislation would no longer require specific education and training

components; instead, it would require states to place increasing

percentages of participants in a variety of work-related activities over

time. While the bill imposes a 5-year limit on receipt of benefits, the

implications of time limits and other welfare reform measures are likely to

remain unclear until a final bill is passed.

Background Created by the Social Security Act of 1935, the AFDC program provides cash

assistance to families with needy children who have been deprived of

parental support if a parent is continuously absent from the home,

incapacitated, dead, or unemployed.6

 The program is jointly funded by the

federal government and the states, with federal funds providing from 50 to

about 80 percent of the AFDC benefit costs (55 percent on average) and 50

percent of administrative costs. States administer or supervise the

program and set their own benefit levels. In fiscal year 1993, federal and

state spending for AFDC totaled $25.2 billion.

Since 1968, various federal programs have aimed to help adult AFDC

recipients become employed. However, early welfare-to-work programs

were faulted for low participation rates, insufficient attention to less

employable recipients, and inadequate results in reducing welfare

dependency.

In 1988, seeking to rectify these program deficiencies, the Congress passed

FSA, creating the JOBS program. FSA was to be the first step in transforming

the welfare system from one of permanent entitlement to a program of

transitional assistance. Specifically, FSA directed the states to make

available to JOBS participants a broad range of services and activities

including high school or equivalent education, basic and remedial

education, education for those with limited English proficiency, job skills

training, job readiness activities, and job development and placement.

Further, states were required to offer at least two of the following: group

6

The program also allows payments to certain individuals in the child’s household.

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

and individual job search, on-the-job training, work supplementation,7 or

community work experience. States could also offer postsecondary

education. Finally, FSA provided federal reimbursement for child care,

transportation, and other work-related expenses and supportive services

when necessary (as determined by the state) for participation in JOBS.

8

(See the glossary for further details on JOBS education and training

components.)

FSA allowed states much flexibility in the design and implementation of

their JOBS programs. Programs may emphasize quick movement into the

labor force for those who are job-ready, while others may emphasize

education and training to increase participants’ employability. However,

whatever their emphasis, JOBS programs are required to offer a full range

of services.

Under JOBS, once a participant is enrolled, the program must assess

individual educational, child care,9

 and other supportive services needs,

taking into account skills, prior work experience, employability, and

family circumstances. Based on this initial assessment, the program

develops an employability plan, which specifies the services to be

provided and sets an employment goal for each participant, considering

individual preferences, supportive services needs, available program

resources, and local employment opportunities.

To help clients meet their employment goals, FSA encourages programs to

draw on existing community services to meet participants’ needs,

especially to the extent that they can be obtained at no cost to JOBS. By

emphasizing existing services available at no cost, programs can avoid

duplication and ensure judicious use of program funds. When JOBS

programs find that such services are not available and must be purchased,

they may enter into arrangements and contracts with other service

providers to obtain them. Commonly used providers of education and

training services include Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)10 programs,

7

This is a form of subsidized employment also known as grant diversion, in which the AFDC grants are

used to pay for a portion of the training and supervision provided to the participant by the employer.

8

Typical work-related expenses can include items such as uniforms and boots; other supportive

services include mental health counseling and drug or alcohol abuse treatment. For the costs of

supportive services other than child care, federal funding is provided at a 50-percent rate.

9

If necessary for participation, child care is guaranteed for dependent children who are under 13 years

old and for those children who are physically or mentally incapable of caring for themselves or under

court supervision.

10This act provides block grants to states to fund training and related services for economically

disadvantaged youths and adults.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

state and local educational agencies, other public agencies, and private

organizations (including community-based organizations).

FSA mandates participation in JOBS for AFDC recipients between 16 and 59

years old, but provides exemptions for certain individuals. FSA exempts

individuals who: care for children under 3 years old (or 1 year old, at state

option); work 30 or more hours per week; attend elementary, secondary,

or vocational school full-time; are ill or incapacitated; care for a household

member who is ill or incapacitated; are in at least the second trimester of

pregnancy; or live in an area that is remote from a JOBS program or activity.

However, exempt individuals may voluntarily participate in JOBS.

In addition, states must spend at least 55 percent of their JOBS funds on

specific target groups, including custodial parents under 24 years old with

low levels of education or work experience, long-term adult AFDC

recipients,11 and those whose AFDC eligibility is about to expire due to the

age of their youngest dependent child.12

FSA provided $1 billion in federal funds for JOBS in fiscal years 1991, 1992,

and 1993, reaching $1.1 billion in fiscal year 1994, and $1.3 billion for fiscal

year 1995. These funds are allocated among the states and tribal

organizations according to their percentage of the national AFDC

population. To utilize the full amount of the allocation available to them,

states must meet certain matching requirements.13 In recent years, most

states have not provided sufficient matching funds to take full advantage

of the federal resources available to them. In 1992, overall, states used

68 percent of the federal funding available to them.

FSA envisioned gradual expansion of JOBS and mandated steadily increasing

participation rates for the program. States must meet these participation

rates or accept a reduced federal share of JOBS expenditures. This

participation rate threshold was 7 percent of the nonexempt caseload in

fiscal year 1991, 11 percent in 1992 and 1993, 15 percent in 1994, and

11Long-term recipients, for the purposes of JOBS, are defined as those who have received AFDC for

any 36 of the preceding 60 months.

12This JOBS target group is defined as those with families in which the youngest child is within 2 years

of being ineligible for AFDC. Eligibility for AFDC ends in most cases with a child’s 18th birthday.

13States receive these federal matching funds for JOBS at three different rates. First, for each state’s

JOBS spending up to the amount spent on certain fiscal year 1987 welfare-to-work activities, the

federal share is 90 percent. Second, for direct costs of providing services and full-time staff, the federal

share is 60 to 80 percent, depending on a state’s average per capita income. Third, for administrative

and supportive services costs, other than child care, the federal share is 50 percent.

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

20 percent in 1995.14 However, many critics remain dissatisfied with this

gradual expansion and believe that these requirements do not ensure that

JOBS will reach a large share of AFDC households and, thereby, transform

the welfare culture.

JOBS Serves a Small

Percentage of the

AFDC Caseload

The JOBS program serves a small percentage of the total AFDC caseload

because program rules exempt most adult AFDC recipients from

participation and because FSA established minimum participation rate

requirements. In addition, the characteristics of the large population of

adult nonparticipants differ from those of participants in certain key ways.

Few Adult Recipients

Participate in JOBS

JOBS reaches a relatively small percentage of all AFDC households, despite

success in meeting the participation rates called for by FSA.

15 As shown in

figure 1, in 1992, most adult AFDC recipients (about 59 percent) were

exempt from mandatory JOBS participation. Of those 16 years old and older

who were exempt from JOBS, 75 percent were exempt because they were

providing care for a child under 3 years old. Adult AFDC recipients are also

exempt if, for example, the JOBS program is not offered in the recipient’s

local area or if the recipient is in at least the second trimester of

pregnancy, incapacitated, or caring for another household member who is

ill or incapacitated.

14To compute the participation rate, HHS uses a complicated formula based on the number of

individuals whose combined hours of participation in JOBS activities average at least 20 hours per

week. This rate is intended to reflect meaningful participation rather than any level of activity in a

JOBS component.

15However, as we stated in a 1993 report, states did not always accurately compute or comparably

derive participation rate data. See Welfare to Work: JOBS Participation Rate Data Unreliable for

Assessing States’ Performance (GAO/HRD-93-73, May 5, 1993).

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

Figure 1: JOBS Status of AFDC

Caseload (Fiscal Year 1992)

11% • Participating

30% • Not Participating

57%•

Not Participating

•

2%

Participating

Nonexempt

Exempt

Note: Data are average monthly, weighted.

Source: Department of Health and Human Services.

Furthermore, even for those who are not exempt under program rules,

JOBS participation rate requirements do not ensure that large numbers of

adult AFDC recipients participate. In 1992, about 13 percent of all single

female heads of households on AFDC, about one-fourth of the nonexempt

adult recipients, were participating each month.16 By contrast, however,

about three-fourths of nonexempt adult recipients were not participating.

Even if the participation rate requirements were raised dramatically for

nonexempt adults, well over one-half of the AFDC caseload would still be

exempt from program participation. Some experts believe that

welfare-to-work programs will not be effective in transforming the culture

of welfare unless they reach a much larger percentage of AFDC households.

16This percentage reflects any level of involvement in the JOBS program, not just those individuals

countable toward the minimum participation standards. In 1992, the minimum JOBS participation rate

requirement was 11 percent of nonexempt adult recipients.

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

Program Requirements

Result in Differences

Between Participants and

Nonparticipants

Participants in JOBS differ from nonparticipants in certain key ways that

appear related to aspects of program requirements. The most noteworthy

differences include the age of the youngest child and the age of the

recipient. Nonparticipants were about twice as likely to have children

under 3 years old than were JOBS participants. They were also more likely

to be 24 years old or younger. This difference is consistent with JOBS’

exemption of parents or other caretakers of a child under 3 years old.

Additionally, a comparison of JOBS participants with the overall AFDC

caseload17 showed that a larger percentage of JOBS participants have fewer

than 9 years of education and a smaller percentage have attended college.

The difference in education levels may also be explained by the JOBS

requirement that targets young parents who have not completed high

school.

Apart from differences resulting from program requirements, our analysis

of program data did not reveal any other significant differences between

JOBS participants and nonparticipants. In characteristics such as race,

number of children, and prior AFDC history, the two populations appear

similar.

Beyond the differences that are readily observable, however,

nonparticipants may differ from participants in ways that are difficult to

quantify. According to JOBS administrators who participated in our

discussion groups, current nonparticipants may be less motivated and

have impediments that make them harder to serve without extra support

and services. For example, some may need treatment for more severe drug

and alcohol problems before they can fully participate in an education or

training program. Others may have mental health problems or learning

disabilities that also need to be addressed.

A Range of JOBS

Services Offered, but

Some Participants Do

Not Receive Needed

Services

As envisioned under FSA, JOBS programs offer a range of services and tap

into available community resources to serve their participants. Our survey

data results show that JOBS programs offer most of the education and

training components and supportive services described in the act and that

JOBS participants are enrolled in a range of activities. For each specific

education or training component that participants needed, however, the

percentage of programs that had difficulties providing that service ranged

from 30 to 70 percent. In these cases, the programs lacked the capacity to

17JOBS data are based upon participants in a sample month, while AFDC data are based on the Bureau

of the Census’ Current Population Survey, which asks about AFDC receipt during any month of the

sample year.

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

ensure that all the participants received education and training services

when they needed them. JOBS administrators selected multiple reasons for

the programs’ inability to serve all participants.

Most Education and

Training Components,

Supportive Services

Generally Offered

JOBS programs offer a range of components and services drawn for the

most part from existing programs in their communities. About one-half of

JOBS programs offer all the education and training components described

in FSA or all but the work supplementation component. As shown in figure

2, nearly all offer high school/General Educational Development certificate

(GED) education; adult basic education; job skills training; job readiness

training; postsecondary education; job search; community work

experience; and supportive services, including child care. About

30 percent of the programs did not offer English as a Second Language and

about one-fourth did not offer on-the-job training. In addition, about

78 percent did not offer work supplementation.18

18FSA requires states to offer at least two of the following four components: job search, community

work experience, on-the-job training, and work supplementation. Also, FSA requires JOBS programs to

offer education services (including English as a Second Language) as appropriate.

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

Figure 2: Availability of Services: Percent of Local JOBS Programs Offering Each Component and Service, Mid-1994

Percent of Programs

0

25

50

75

100

High School/GED

Postsecondary Education

Community Work Experience

Adult Basic or Remedial Education

Job Search

Job Skills Training

Job Readiness Training

On-the-Job Training

English as a Second Language

Work Supplementation

Child Care

Assistance

Transportation Assistance

Assistance with Other Work-Related Expenses

Assistance with

Other Supportive Services

100 99 97 96 95 95 93

73

70

22

100 99

95

92

Education and Training Components Supportive Services

Note: Data generally reflect conditions in local JOBS programs as of the spring of 1994.

JOBS programs access a range of community providers to obtain education,

training, and supportive services for participants, as FSA envisioned. More

than 8 out of 10 JOBS programs use community colleges, JTPA programs,

and adult basic education programs to provide services to their

participants. About 7 out of 10 use state employment services, local high

schools, and community-based organizations, and about one-half use other

organizations or programs.19

19Community-based organizations include organizations such as the Salvation Army, Goodwill

Industries, Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA), and churches. Other organizations include,

for example, other federal, state, and county agencies.

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

While programs draw on services that are free to JOBS, they also purchase

at least some of the education and training services that their participants

need (see fig. 3). About 78 percent of programs purchased at least some

services from one or more providers. As shown in figure 3, the most

frequently reimbursed providers are community colleges (55 percent) and

adult basic education programs (61 percent). On average, programs

purchased services from about 38 percent of the providers they used.

Figure 3: JOBS Programs’ Use and

Purchase of Services From Specific

Providers, May 1994

Percent of programs

0

25

50

75

100

Community Colleges

JTPA Programs

Adult Basic Education Programs

State Employment Service

Community-Based Organizations

Local High Schools

Other Organizations

Other Education Programs

Community Providers

92

55

86

28

82

61

74

30

69

38

68

20

48

38

44

33

Using Providers’ Services

Of Those Using, Those Paying for Services

JOBS Participants Receive

Diverse Education,

Training, and Supportive

Services

JOBS participants are enrolled in a variety of JOBS components and many

receive supportive services. As shown in figure 4, nationally, we estimate

that 17 percent of JOBS participants are enrolled in postsecondary

education and 16 percent are involved in high school or GED preparation.

Between 7 and 13 percent are involved in other activities, such as job skills

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

training, job search, job readiness training, and community work

experience. The smallest percentages (about 2 percent or less) are

involved in English as a Second Language, work supplementation, and

on-the-job training.

About one-half of JOBS participants receive transportation assistance and

about one-third receive child care assistance through JOBS. Smaller

percentages also receive assistance with other work-related expenses or

supportive services, such as mental health counseling or drug or alcohol

abuse treatment.

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

Figure 4: Percent of JOBS Participants Receiving Education and Training or Supportive Services, Mid-1994

Percent of Participants

0

10

20

30

40

50

Post- secondary

Education

High School/GED

Job Skills Training

Job Search

Job Readiness Training

Community Work Experience

Adult Basic or Remedial Education

English as a Second Language

Work Supplementation

On-the-Job Training a

Transportation Assistance

Child Care

Assistance

Assistance with Other Work-Related Expenses

Assistance with

Other Supportive Services

17 16

13 12 11

8 7

2 1 0

48

35

14

11

Education and Training Components Supportive Services

Notes: Data may reflect involvement in more than one component at a time, and represent

involvement for at least one hour in an average month or point in time—generally, from April

through July 1994. Also, data are weighted, national aggregates; distribution of participants in

components and services may vary in local programs.

Chart does not reflect the following activities: assessment, employability plan development, or job

placement. Also, some participants may be between components at any given time.

aAbout 0.4 percent of participants.

Not All JOBS Participants

Receive Needed

Components and Services

In about one-half of all JOBS programs, all or almost all the participants

who needed education and training services were receiving them.

However, as illustrated in figure 5, from about one-third to over two-thirds

of JOBS programs had some participants needing a specific education or

training service who were not receiving it. Such capacity problems were

most common in the work supplementation and on-the-job training

components (71 percent) and lowest in English as a Second Language

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

(29 percent). Among supportive services, capacity problems were most

common in providing other supportive services20 (43 percent) and least

common in child care (12 percent), which is a guaranteed supportive

service to JOBS participants.

Figure 5: Percent of JOBS Programs Where Many Participants Needing Specific Services Did Not Receive Them, by

Component, May 1994

Percent of JOBS Programs

0

25

50

75

100

On-the-Job Training

Work Supplementation

Community Work Experience

Job Skills Training

Adult Basic or Remedial Education

High School/GED

Job Readiness Training

Job Search

Postsecondary Education

English as a Second Language

Assistance with

Other Supportive Services

Assistance with Other Work-Related Expenses

Transportation Assistance

Child Care

Assistance

71 71

47 46 45 42 40 38

29 29

43

18 15

12

Education and Training Components Supportive Services

Note: “Many participants” is defined as “about half,” “some,” or “few or none” of program

participants receiving the service indicated, despite their need for it. Also, percentages are based

on those programs offering services and having participants enrolled.

Reasons Varied Why

Participants Did Not

Receive Needed Services

About two-thirds or more of program administrators selected

transportation problems as a reason why JOBS programs could not provide

participants with the specific education or training component they

needed, even though transportation was the supportive service most

20Other supportive services include mental health counseling and drug or alcohol abuse treatment.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

participants received (selected reasons appear in table 1). Among other

reasons selected by a substantial portion of administrators was a need for

additional program staff (for example, for counseling, monitoring

participants, developing job contacts with employers for work-related

components, and conducting case management), and a lack of available

services in the community. Additionally, for the work-related

components—on-the-job training, work supplementation, and community

work experience—the lack of employer interest was a commonly selected

reason (see table 2).21 In addition, some program administrators also

volunteered other reasons why participants did not receive the services

they needed, such as client choice (when participants drop out, choose not

to participate, or fail to cooperate with the program).

By contrast, when asked whether lack of child care funding was a reason

why participants were not receiving a specific education or training

component they needed, the percentage of program administrators who

selected this reason ranged from about 10 to 30 percent. That a relatively

low percentage of program administrators chose this reason can be

partially explained by the fact that JOBS participants may have less need for

child care than nonparticipants because they tend to have older children

who may be in school and do not need child care. Also, as shown in figure

5, only about 12 percent of JOBS programs had difficulties in providing

child care to participants who needed it.

Table 1: Percent of Programs

Identifying Selected Reasons Why

Specific Components Were Not

Provided to Participants Who Needed

Them, May 1994

Component

Transportation

problems

Lack of JOBS

staff

Lack of

community

services

High School/GED 76 59 40

Adult Basic or Remedial Education 74 59 45

Job Skills Training 81 57 75

Job Readiness Training 64 65 50

Postsecondary Education 77 50 50

Job Search 72 68 50

Note: Program administrators could choose more than one reason. Percentages reflect those

identifying specific reasons, expressed as a percentage of all those programs where about half,

some, or few or none of the participants were receiving the services they needed.

21We discuss these work-related components more fully in a forthcoming report on how JOBS

programs work with employers to find jobs or create employment opportunities for participants.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

Table 2: Percent of Programs

Identifying Selected Reasons Why

Specific Work-Related Components

Were Not Provided to Participants Who

Needed Them, May 1994

Component Lack of JOBS staff

Lack of employer

interest

On-the-Job Training 54 43

Community Work Experience 67 44

Notes: Program administrators could choose more than one reason. Percentages reflect those

identifying specific reasons, expressed as a percentage of all those programs where about half,

some, or few or none of the participants were receiving the services they needed.

Because most programs did not offer work supplementation (see fig. 2), estimates for that

component are not statistically reliable and are not shown in the table.

Implications of

Welfare Reform

FSA requires states to offer JOBS participants a full range of education and

training services, including at least two of four work-related activities.22 It

also gives the states the flexibility to design their own programs to

emphasize either quick movement into the labor force or work preparation

activities to increase participants’ employability. Results from a survey of

state JOBS administrators, included in a GAO report on JOBS outcomes,

suggest that many states chose to emphasize work preparation over quick

movement into the labor force.23 The Personal Responsibility Act of 1995

(H.R. 4), recently passed by the House, repeals the requirement for states

to offer a range of services and instead requires states to place an

increasing percentage of participants24 in a work-related activity.25 H.R. 4

would also prohibit states from providing benefits for more than 60

months (whether or not consecutive). If adopted, the proposal’s cap on

funding, its elimination of the requirement to offer a range of services, and

its increased focus on work activities are likely to change the mix of

services offered to participants. However, the implications of time limits

and other welfare reform measures are likely to remain unclear until a

final bill is passed.

22These activities include job search, on-the-job training, community work experience, and work

supplementation.

23Welfare to Work (GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17, 1995).

24The bill sets the minimum participation rate at 4 percent of all families receiving assistance in fiscal

year 1996, rising to 50 percent in fiscal year 2003.

25Defined as including unsubsidized employment; subsidized private-sector employment; subsidized

public-sector employment or work experience, on a limited basis; on-the-job training; job search; job

readiness assistance; education directly related to employment for participants under 20 years old

without a high-school level of education; job skills training directly related to employment; and other

secondary education, at state option.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
B-257792 

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to HHS’ Assistant Secretary,

Administration for Children and Families (ACF), and met with responsible

ACF officials to obtain their oral comments. They generally agreed with the

content of the report. They also provided technical comments that we

have addressed in the text of the report as appropriate.

We conducted our work between April 1994 and February 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman, Senate Committee

on Finance; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; and other

interested parties. Copies also will be available to others on request. If you

have any questions concerning this report or need additional information,

please call me on (202) 512-7215. Other contacts and contributors to this

report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Jane L. Ross

Director, Income Security Issues

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

22

Data Analyzed on AFDC Recipients and JOBS Participants 22

Officials Surveyed on Services Offered and Efforts to Meet JOBS

Participants’ Needs

22

Discussion Groups Focused on Program Capacity, Implications

of Time-Limited Benefits

25

Appendix II 

GAO Contacts and

Staff

Acknowledgments

26

Glossary 27

Education and Training Components 27

Supportive Services 28

Related GAO Products 32

Tables Table 1: Percent of Programs Identifying Selected Reasons Why

Specific Components Were Not Provided to Participants Who

Needed Them, May 1994

16

Table 2: Percent of Programs Identifying Selected Reasons Why

Specific Work-Related Components Were Not Provided to

Participants Who Needed Them, May 1994

17

Table I.1: Universe, Sample Size, and Response Rates, by Strata 24

Table I.2: Maximum Sampling Errors for Data in Figures 2-5 and

Tables 1 and 2

25

Figures Figure 1: JOBS Status of AFDC Caseload 8

Figure 2: Availability of Services: Percent of Local JOBS

Programs Offering Each Component and Service, Mid-1994

11

Figure 3: JOBS Programs’ Use and Purchase of Services from

Specific Providers, May 1994

12

Figure 4: Percent of JOBS Participants Receiving Education and

Training or Supportive Services, Mid-1994

14

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Contents

Figure 5: Percent of JOBS Programs Where Many Participants

Needing Specific Services Did Not Receive Them, by Component,

May 1994

15

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children program

FSA Family Support Act of 1988

GED General Educational Development certificate

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills program

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

YWCA Young Women’s Christian Association

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

To assist the 104th Congress in its deliberations on welfare reform, you

asked us to examine (1) who is and is not being served under the JOBS

program, (2) the range of services JOBS participants are receiving and the

extent to which participants’ needs are being met, and (3) the implications

of serving participants in a system of time-limited benefits.

Data Analyzed on

AFDC Recipients and

JOBS Participants

To find out who is and is not being served under JOBS, we analyzed HHS’

1992 national data on JOBS participants, its National Integrated Quality

Control System data for 1992, and the Bureau of the Census’ 1992 Current

Population Survey. We used the AFDC quality control data to compare the

characteristics of JOBS participants with those of nonparticipants for all

characteristics except education. In the quality control file, education data

are missing for a large number of cases. We based our analysis on 1992

data because they were the most current available when we did our

analysis. We limited our analysis to single female heads of households

between 13 and 60 years old who receive AFDC. In 1992, these cases

accounted for about 76 percent of all AFDC cases.

Officials Surveyed on

Services Offered and

Efforts to Meet JOBS

Participants’ Needs

To determine the availability of services offered by JOBS programs and

their capacity to provide participants the services they need, we

conducted a nationally representative computer-assisted telephone survey

of over 400 local JOBS program officials between June and August 1994. We

also solicited information on how local programs serve AFDC single-parent

recipients.

Sample Selection and

Survey Response

Because most JOBS services are delivered and received at the county level,

we selected a random sample of counties for our survey. We derived a

nationwide listing of counties from 1990 Census data and selected an

overall sample of about 450 counties. Before selecting this sample, we

stratified the counties into the following four groups:

1. Large Urban: Counties comprising the 10 cities with the largest

populations of children in welfare households.26

2. Metropolitan With Central City: Counties containing the central city for

a metropolitan statistical area.

26These cities were included in the sample: Baltimore, Chicago (Cook and DuPage Counties),

Cleveland, Detroit, Houston (Fort Bend, Harris, and Montgomery Counties), Los Angeles, Milwaukee

(Milwaukee and Washington Counties), New York (the boroughs of Brooklyn, Kings, New York,

Queens, and Richmond), Philadelphia, and San Diego.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

3. Metropolitan—No Central City: Counties in metropolitan statistical

areas that do not contain a central city.

4. Nonmetropolitan (Rural): Counties that are not part of a metropolitan

statistical area.

We selected all the counties from the large urban category and random

samples of counties from each of the other three groups. Table I.1 shows

the total number of counties and the number sampled in each stratum.

After selecting the sample, we used the Public Welfare Directory27 to

determine the name, address, and telephone number of the JOBS program

administrators responsible for programs in the sampled counties. While

preparing and conducting our interviews, we found that 36 rural counties

and one nonrural county in our sample did not offer JOBS programs.28

Therefore, we adjusted our initial sample to exclude these counties.29 We

obtained responses from nearly all of the program administrators for the

counties in our adjusted sample (411 of 416). We used these responses to

produce national estimates for the JOBS program.

27American Public Welfare Association, Washington, D.C., 1993.

28HHS regulations do not require states to offer JOBS programs in every locality. Instead, states must

offer minimal or complete programs that reach most of a state’s adult recipients. Minimal JOBS

programs include high school or equivalent education, one optional component, and information and

referral to other programs. See 45 C.F.R. §250.11, October 1, 1994.

29These 37 non-JOBS counties offered neither complete nor minimal programs. However, some offered

supportive services (principally, child care) to self-initiated participants.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table I.1: Universe, Sample Size, and

Response Rates, by Strata

Stratum

Type of

county

Number in

universe

Counties

sampled

Adjusted

sample

Number of

counties

responding

Response

rate

(percent)

1 Counties

comprising

10

largest

cities 18 18 18 18 100

2 Counties

in

metropolitan

areas

with

central

cities 422 134 134 131 98

3 Counties

in

metropolitan

areas

without

central

cities 311 120 119 118 99

4 Counties

in nonmetropolitan

areas 2,390 181 145 144 99

Total 3,141 453 416 411 99

Sampling Errors for

Estimates

Because the estimates from this survey are based on a sample, each is

subject to sampling error. Table I.2 shows the sampling errors for

estimates presented in figures 2 through 5 and tables 1 and 2 of this report.

In these figures and tables, each education and training component and

each supportive service has an individual sampling error associated with

it. Table I.2 shows the largest sampling errors for each figure and table. We

computed the sampling errors at the 95-percent confidence level.

Therefore, the chances are 95 out of 100 that the actual percentage being

estimated falls within the range defined by the estimate, plus or minus the

sampling error.

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Table I.2: Maximum Sampling Errors

for Data in Figures 2-5 and Tables 1

and 2

Maximum

sampling

error

(percentage

points)

Figure 2

Education and Training Components 6

Supportive Services 3

Figure 3

Using Provider’s Services 6

Of Those Using, Those Paying for Services 8

Figure 4

Education and Training Components 2

Supportive Services 4

Figure 5

Education and Training Componentsa 9

Supportive Services 7

Table 1

Transportation problems 11

Lack of JOBS staff 12

Lack of community services 12

Table 2

Lack of JOBS staff 11

Lack of employer interest 11

Note: Sampling errors were computed at the 95-percent confidence level.

aSampling error was higher for the work supplementation component (16 percentage points).

Discussion Groups

Focused on Program

Capacity, Implications

of Time-Limited

Benefits

To identify issues related to the efforts of JOBS programs to meet

participants’ needs and to solicit program administrators’ views regarding

the implications of serving participants in a time-limited system, we held a

series of four discussion groups with local program officials.30 The groups

included officials from areas with large populations of children in welfare

households, both urban and rural areas, and different geographical

regions. While the information and views obtained reflect certain aspects

of the participating administrators’ JOBS programs, they cannot be

considered representative of JOBS programs nationwide.

30Each discussion group involved from 8 to 10 participants. They were held in San Francisco, Chicago,

Detroit, and New York.

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Appendix II 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts Kevin Kumanga, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-4962

Cynthia Fagnoni, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7202

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, the following individuals made

important contributions to this report: Sharon Dooley planned and

coordinated the assignment; Robert DeRoy and Steve Machlin conducted

the computer programming and provided statistical advice on the survey

analysis; Chris Morehouse conducted survey interviews and provided

support for survey analysis, discussion group facilitation and analysis, and

the writing of the report.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Glossary

Education and

Training Components

Adult Basic or Remedial

Education

Activities directed toward providing an individual with a basic literacy

level, defined as a level equivalent to at least eighth grade, ninth month.

Community Work

Experience or Other Work

Experience

Exposure to work: 31 Its purpose is to help participants move into regular

public or private employment by allowing them (as individuals not

otherwise able to obtain employment) to gain work experience and

training and improve their employability. Limited to positions that serve a

useful public purpose in fields such as health, social service,

environmental protection, education, urban and rural development,

welfare, recreation, public facilities, public safety, and day care.

English as a Second

Language

Education in English proficiency for an individual who is not sufficiently

competent to understand, speak, read, or write the English language to

allow employment commensurate with his or her employment goal.

High School Education or

Equivalent

Activities designed to prepare an individual to qualify for a high school

equivalency certificate.

Job Readiness Training Activities that help prepare participants for work by assuring that they are

familiar with general workplace expectations and exhibit work behavior

and attitudes necessary to compete successfully in the labor market.

Job Search Activities such as counseling, job-seeking skills training, information

dissemination, and support, possibly including telephone banks for

participants to use to contact potential employers. May be offered as a

participant’s first activity upon enrollment and periodically thereafter,

generally in combination with other education, training, or employment

activities designed to increase an individual’s prospects for employment.

31The Family Support Act provides that “no work assignment under the program shall result in (1) the

displacement of any currently employed worker or position (including partial displacement such as a

reduction in the hours of nonovertime work, wages, or employment benefits), or result in the

impairment of existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.” Furthermore, work

assignments may not involve positions from which individuals have been laid off, nor may employers

fire regular employees and replace them with JOBS participants. Additionally, work assignments may

not infringe upon the promotional opportunities of regular employees.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Glossary

Job Skills Training Vocational training for a participant in technical job skills and equivalent

knowledge and abilities in a specific occupational area, whether offered by

postsecondary institutions, secondary schools, public and private

agencies, or other organizations.

On-the-Job Training Training that provides participants the opportunity to engage in productive

work: upon being hired by a public or private employer, a participant

receives training while working, acquires the knowledge or skills essential

to the full and adequate performance of that job, and receives

compensation comparable to that of other employees performing the same

or similar jobs. The employer is reimbursed for the training and

supervision provided and retains the participant as a regular employee

upon completion of the training period.

Postsecondary Education Instruction in institutions of higher education and other institutions, in

appropriate cases, subject to state approval and limited to education that

is directly related to the attainment of an individual’s employment goal.

Work Supplementation or

Grant Diversion

Subsidized employment whereby the welfare agency may pay or divert all

or part of an individual’s AFDC grant to an employer to cover part of the

costs of the wages paid to that individual. Subject to nondisplacement

requirements, any job may be supplemented in this way.32

Supportive Services

Child Care Guaranteed to participants if necessary to permit them to accept

employment, remain employed, or participate in an approved education or

training activity. May be provided directly by the program, through other

providers, in the form of cash assistance or vouchers to participants or

reimbursement of caretaker relatives, or through other arrangements. In

32The Family Support Act provides that “no work assignment under the program shall result in (1) the

displacement of any currently employed worker or position (including partial displacement such as a

reduction in the hours of nonovertime work, wages, or employment benefits), or result in the

impairment of existing contracts for services or collective bargaining agreements.” Furthermore, work

assignments may not involve positions from which individuals have been laid off, nor may employers

fire regular employees and replace them with JOBS participants. Additionally, work assignments may

not infringe upon the promotional opportunities of regular employees.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Glossary

addition, transitional child care is available to participants for a 1-year

period after they leave AFDC for employment.

Other Supportive Services Other services determined to be necessary by a state to enable

participation in approved JOBS activities, whether provided directly, paid

for, or reimbursed by the program.

Other Work-Related

Expenses

One-time expenses that must be provided directly, paid for, or reimbursed

by the program if necessary to enable participation in approved JOBS

activities or accepting or maintaining employment.

Transportation Must be provided directly, paid for, or reimbursed by the program if

necessary to enable participation in approved JOBS activities.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Glossary

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Glossary

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Related GAO Products

Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participation

(GAO/HEHS-95-86, Apr. 17, 1995).

Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase Likelihood That Low-Income

Mothers Will Work (GAO/HEHS-95-20, Dec. 30, 1994).

Welfare to Work: Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently Focused on

Employment (GAO/HEHS-95-28, Dec. 19, 1994).

Child Care: Promoting Quality in Family Child Care (GAO/HEHS-95-36, Dec. 7,

1994).

Child Care: Current System Could Undermine Goals of Welfare Reform

(GAO/T-HEHS-94-238, Sept. 20, 1994).

JOBS and JTPA: Tracking Spending, Outcomes, and Program Performance

(GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994).

Welfare to Work: JOBS Automated Systems Do Not Focus on Program’s

Employment Objective (GAO/AIMD-94-44, June 8, 1994).

Families on Welfare: Teenage Mothers Least Likely to Become

Self-Sufficient (GAO/HEHS-94-115, May 31, 1994).

Families on Welfare: Focus on Teenage Mothers Could Enhance Welfare

Reform Efforts (GAO/HEHS-94-112, May 31, 1994).

Child Care: Working Poor and Welfare Recipients Face Service Gaps

(GAO/HEHS-94-87, May 13, 1994).

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed

(GAO/T-HEHS-94-109, Mar. 3, 1994).

Welfare to Work: States Move Unevenly to Serve Teen Parents in JOBS

(GAO/HRD-93-74, July 7, 1993).

Welfare to Work: States Serve Least Job-Ready While Meeting JOBS

Participation Rates (GAO/HRD-93-2, Nov. 12, 1992).

Welfare to Work: States Begin JOBS, but Fiscal and Other Problems May

Impede Their Progress (GAO/HRD-91-106, Sept. 27, 1991).

(105908) Page 32 GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a

single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/HEHS-95-93 Welfare to Work