United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority Member,

Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate

May 1995 WELFARE TO WORK

Most AFDC Training

Programs Not

Emphasizing Job

Placement

GAO/HEHS-95-113

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-254614 

May 19, 1995

The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

Dear Senator Moynihan:

This report, prepared at your request, provides information on examples of

employment-focused welfare-to-work programs, the extent to which Job Opportunities and

Basic Skills Training programs nationwide focus on employment, and factors that hinder

programs’ efforts to move recipients of Aid to Families With Dependent Children into jobs.

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

Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the House Committee on Ways and Means and its

Subcommittee on Human Resources; the Secretary of Health and Human Services; the Assistant

Secretary for Children and Families; and other interested parties. We will also make copies

available to others upon request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7215

or David P. Bixler, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-7201. Other major contributors to this report

are listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Jane L. Ross

Director, Income Security Issues
Executive Summary

Purpose To combat welfare dependence and improve the lives of poor children, the

104th Congress proposes to fundamentally change the nation’s largest

cash assistance program for poor families with children, the Aid to

Families With Dependent Children program (AFDC). The Congress is

considering limiting the length of time families may receive cash

assistance, ending benefits for unwed mothers under 18 years old, and

converting AFDC from an entitlement to a block grant. While there is

general agreement that reforms should promote work, the Congress is also

debating the type and extent of work requirements to be established for

those receiving cash assistance.

In 1988, the Congress strengthened existing work requirements for AFDC

recipients by creating the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training

(JOBS) program, designed to encourage and require AFDC parents to move

from welfare to work. Under JOBS, programs are to provide participants

with education and training if deemed necessary to prepare them for

work. Program officials must also work with employers to help place

participants in jobs. In addition, programs can provide temporary

subsidies to employers to encourage them to hire and train AFDC

recipients. And when AFDC recipients are not otherwise able to find work,

JOBS may place them with public, nonprofit, or other organizations to gain

work experience while they continue to receive their AFDC benefits.

To help the Congress as it considers welfare reform, the Ranking Minority

Member of the Senate Committee on Finance asked GAO to provide

information on (1) examples of county or local JOBS or JOBS-like programs

that emphasize job placement, subsidized employment, or

work-experience positions for welfare recipients; (2) the extent to which

county JOBS programs nationwide use these employment-focused

activities; and (3) factors that hinder program administrators’ efforts to

move welfare recipients into jobs.

Background Under JOBS, states are to provide AFDC recipients with the education,

training, and employment-related and support services they need to

become employed and assume responsibility for the support of their

children. The federal and state governments share the costs of JOBS, which

is overseen at the federal level by the Department of Health and Human

Services (HHS) and at the state level by state AFDC agencies. While states

supervise the program, services are delivered at the county or local level.

In fiscal year 1993, the federal and state governments spent about

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Executive Summary

$2 billion for JOBS, which served more than 500,000 AFDC recipients each

month.

To encourage states to work towards the federal goal of reducing welfare

dependence, the Congress reduces the amount of federal funds available

to states unless they serve increasing portions of their AFDC populations in

JOBS programs and target resources to those most at risk of long welfare

stays. While states have generally met these participation and targeting

requirements, little is known about the extent to which JOBS has moved

welfare recipients into employment or reduced welfare dependency.1 HHS

has contracted for an evaluation of JOBS’ effectiveness in seven sites

throughout the nation.

To accomplish its objectives, GAO visited five welfare-to-work programs in

California, New York, Ohio, and West Virginia that emphasized

job-placement activities, subsidized employment, or work-experience

programs. GAO identified these programs through discussions with JOBS

officials at the federal level, welfare-to-work experts and practitioners, and

a review of selected evaluation literature. GAO also surveyed a nationally

representative random sample of 453 county JOBS program administrators

in mid-1994. A more detailed discussion of GAO’s methodology appears in

chapter 1.

Results in Brief Programs that stress the goal of employment for their participants and

forge close links with employers show promise in promoting work among

welfare recipients. The five programs that GAO visited all share that

emphasis, although they differ in their approaches. For example, a

Riverside County, California, program emphasizes moving participants

quickly into employment, while a San Jose, California, program provides

longer-term skills training. In both cases and in the other programs that

GAO visited, program administrators keep participants focused on the

importance of work and forge links with employers or other organizations

to help participants find jobs or work-experience positions.

A majority of county JOBS programs across the nation, however, do not

have a strong employment focus. About one-half of the county JOBS

administrators nationwide stated that they do not work enough with

employers to find jobs for participants. In addition, although most of the

program officials reported that less than one-half of their job-ready

participants had become employed, the officials reported little use of

1

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

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Executive Summary

subsidized employment or work-experience programs, options available

under JOBS.

Although program administrators expressed interest in working more with

employers and expanding their use of subsidies and work-experience

programs, they reported that many obstacles stood in their way. Most local

administrators cited insufficient staffing and resources as hindering their

work with employers. Many also stated that more flexibility in federal

rules governing employment subsidies and work-experience programs,

such as the option to place participants with private-sector employers to

gain work experience, could facilitate their use. In addition, most

administrators noted that the low-wage work available to many AFDC

recipients discourages their movement into the work force.

GAO also notes that while the current federal participation rate and

targeting requirements hold states accountable for the number and type of

AFDC recipients participating in JOBS activities, states currently need not

track the number who get jobs or earn their way off AFDC. As a result,

programs may emphasize preparing participants for employment without

also making strong efforts to help them get jobs.

GAO’s Analysis

Examples of

Employment-Focused

Programs

Some welfare-to-work programs promote a strong employment message

and forge links with employers or other organizations that help to promote

work for welfare recipients. GAO visited five such programs. They varied in

their costs per participant and types of training provided, but they all

focused participants and staff on the importance of obtaining employment

or work experience. In addition, each program worked with local

employers, creating workplace connections that played an important role

in making programs more responsive to local employers.

For example, in Riverside County’s JOBS program in California, program

staff strongly encourage participants to take any job they can find to get

into the work force. Researchers found that this JOBS program saved

federal and state governments $3 for every $1 invested, outperforming the

five other California counties studied. Another program, the Center for

Employment Training in San Jose, works closely with employers to offer

training for occupations that are in high demand in the local economy,

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Executive Summary

ranging from home health aide to metal worker. Research showed that this

program increased participants’ earnings 47 percent over those not

participating in the program.

In New York City, the state welfare agency pays America Works, a

for-profit firm, to find private-sector jobs for some AFDC recipients. These

jobs are partly subsidized with AFDC grant dollars for 4 months. After this

period of supported work, about 65 percent of the AFDC recipients are

ultimately hired by the employers. Although this program has not been

evaluated, its approach shows promise in helping AFDC recipients get jobs

and remain employed. Other programs promote work for AFDC recipients

even when regular jobs are not available. In Athens County, Ohio, and in

several West Virginia counties, some welfare recipients gain work

experience while contributing to their communities by working in

government and nonprofit agencies while receiving their welfare grants.

Research on work-experience programs shows little evidence that such

programs can increase paid employment, but they can produce benefits

for taxpayers through the work performed and offer meaningful work for

welfare recipients.

Most Programs Do Not

Have a Strong Employment

Focus

While some programs, such as the five that GAO visited, have created

employment-focused environments, most JOBS programs nationwide

seemingly have not, according to the responses of local program

administrators. About one-half of the administrators reported that they do

not do enough to identify job openings or market participants to

employers. In addition, although about 70 percent of the program officials

reported that one-half or less of their job-ready participants had become

employed, they indicated that their programs made limited use of

subsidized work and work- experience programs. Nationwide in mid-1994,

about 10 percent of JOBS participants were placed in work-experience

positions and about 1 percent were in subsidized employment.

Administrators Cite

Hindrances to Placing

Participants in Work

Most JOBS administrators cited insufficient staff as hindering their work

with employers to help participants find work. Working with employers to

identify job openings or create subsidized or work-experience positions

takes considerable staff time and effort. However, administrators GAO

spoke with and several studies have noted that JOBS staff are busy

enrolling participants, assigning them to JOBS activities, and tracking and

monitoring them, which leaves staff little time to work with employers.

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Executive Summary

GAO also notes that the current participation goals are process-oriented—

focusing on the numbers of persons enrolled in JOBS activities—and do not

hold states accountable for such outcomes as the number of JOBS

graduates who leave welfare for work. At one site that GAO visited, a JOBS

participant had successfully completed several different training

programs. Under the current performance system, this individual helps the

program meet the federal requirement to receive its full share of federal

funding. Yet the participant remained unemployed and on AFDC. While

education and training may be needed by some participants to help them

find employment, such activities should be an intermediate step on the

way to the ultimate goal of employment.

Administrators cited other hindrances as well. They reported that

subsidizing employers can be more costly than other JOBS activities. In

addition, a majority expressed interest in more flexible use of

work-experience programs through revision of certain federal restrictions.

For example, one official noted that she could expand participants’ work

experience if federal restrictions were revised to permit placing

participants in all types of private-sector employment.

The low-wage work that many welfare recipients are likely to find also

serves to weaken programs’ focus on employment. About 70 percent of

administrators believe that their job-ready participants do not become

employed because they cannot find jobs that pay sufficient wages and

benefits to support their families.

Recommendations GAO is not making recommendations in this report.

Agency Comments In commenting on a draft of this report (see app. IV), HHS’ Administration

for Children and Families (ACF) disagreed with GAO’s conclusion that JOBS

programs do not have a strong employment focus. ACF stated that GAO did

not sufficiently recognize programs’ use of job search or the extent of their

job-development activities in evaluating their employment focus. In

addition, it stated that GAO did not acknowledge the many ways that

programs could focus on employment and, instead, relied too much on

programs’ low use of subsidized employment and work experience to

indicate a weak employment focus.

GAO continues to believe that the evidence gathered shows that JOBS

programs do not have a strong employment focus. Many JOBS programs

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Executive Summary

nationwide appear to emphasize preparing participants for employment

without also making strong efforts to help place them in jobs. In addition,

when unsubsidized work is not available, the programs have made little

use of subsidized employment or unpaid work-experience positions.

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Contents

Executive Summary 2

Chapter 1 

Introduction

10

Background 10

Scope and Methodology 21

Chapter 2 

Examples of

Employment-Focused

Programs

23

Riverside County Program 24

San Jose’s Center for Employment Training 28

New York City’s America Works 29

Athens, Ohio, and West Virginia 31

Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs

Have a Weak

Employment Focus

33

Employment Emphasis Limited Among Programs 33

Internal and External Factors Hinder Strong Employment Focus 40

Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency

Comments, and Our

Evaluation

49

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 50

Appendixes Appendix I: Federal Rules Governing Work Activities for AFDC

Recipients

54

Appendix II: Methodology for Survey of JOBS Administrators 55

Appendix III: Questionnaire With Responses 57

Appendix IV: Comments From the Administration for Children

and Families

88

Appendix V: Major Contributors 92

Related GAO Products 96

Tables Table 2.1: Selected Features of Employment-Focused

Welfare-to-Work Programs

24

Table I.1: Comparison of Federal Rules for JOBS Work Activities 54

Table II.1: Response Rates, Overall and by Strata 56

Table II.2: Sampling Errors for Estimates Presented in Figure 3.3 56

Page 8 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Contents

Figures Figure 1.1: Growth in Number of Families, by Type 11

Figure 1.2: Estimates of the Total Time Those Receiving AFDC at

a Point in Time Will Spend on AFDC

13

Figure 1.3: Average Monthly Number of AFDC Recipients,

Nonexempt Recipients, and Those Participating in JOBS

16

Figure 1.4: Three Basic Steps in Moving JOBS Participants into

Employment

18

Figure 2.1: Benefit-Costs Results of Welfare-to-Work Program in

Selected California Counties

25

Figure 3.1: Administrators’ Opinions on Extent of

Job-Development Activities

35

Figure 3.2: Distribution of Counties According to Placement

Rates for Job-Ready Participants

37

Figure 3.3: JOBS Participants by Activity 38

Figure 3.4: Administrators’ Opinions on Reasons Job-Ready

Participants Do Not Become Employed

47

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children program

CET Center for Employment Training

EITC Earned Income Tax Credit

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training program

JTPA Job Training Partnership Act

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

The 104th Congress is moving to make major changes in AFDC, the nation’s

largest cash assistance program for needy families with children. Under

consideration are limiting the number of years that cash assistance may be

received, capping benefit increases for mothers on welfare who have

additional children, denying cash assistance to unwed mothers under 18

years old, and transforming AFDC from entitlement status to a block grant

administered by states.2

 Also under consideration are the type and extent

of work requirements to be established.

In 1988, the Congress created the JOBS program to transform AFDC into a

transitional program geared toward helping parents become employed and

avoid long-term welfare dependence. Under JOBS, states are to assess the

needs and skills of AFDC recipients, prepare them for employment through

education and training as needed, and place them in jobs. We reported

earlier that while states have made progress in implementing JOBS, only a

small percentage of the almost 4.6 million adults on AFDC participated in

work-preparation activities in fiscal year 1993. Moreover, little is known

about the JOBS program’s progress in moving parents into employment and

reducing their dependence on welfare.3

To help the Congress as it considers welfare reform, the Ranking Minority

Member of the Senate Committee on Finance requested us to provide

information on (1) examples of county or local programs that stressed job

placement, subsidized employment, or work-experience positions for

welfare recipients; (2) the extent to which county JOBS programs

nationwide emphasized these employment-focused activities; and

(3) factors that hinder program administrators’ efforts to move welfare

recipients into jobs.

Background Through AFDC, the federal government and the states provide cash

assistance to needy families with children who lack support from one or

both parents because of death, absence, incapacity, or unemployment. As

shown in figure 1.1, since 1970, the number of female-headed families,

including those headed by women who have never married, has more than

doubled, as has the number of families receiving AFDC. According to a

Congressional Budget Office study, the growth in female-headed families,

especially those headed by females who had never been married,

2

On March 24, 1995, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, which included these and other

reforms of AFDC.

3

Welfare to Work: Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently Focused on Employment

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

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

accounted for about one-half of the sharp increase of 1.2 million in the

number of AFDC families between 1989 and 1993.4

Figure 1.1: Growth in Number of

Families, by Type (1970-93) Number of Families (in Millions)

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1993

Female-Headed Families with Children

AFDC Families

Families Headed by Females Who Never Married

Source: AFDC data from Department of Health and Human Services; other family data from the

Bureau of the Census.

In 1993, the federal and state governments spent over $25 billion to

provide AFDC benefits to 14 million adults and children, most of them in

single-parent families. About 56 percent of AFDC mothers live in central

cities, another 25 percent of them live in the suburbs, and the remaining

19 percent reside in rural areas.5

 Since the 1970s, the percentage of single

4

Forecasting AFDC Caseloads, With an Emphasis on Economic Factors, Congressional Budget Office

Staff Memorandum (Washington, D.C.: 1993), pp. 1, 3.

5

Based on AFDC mothers 15 to 44 years old. See Mothers Who Receive AFDC Payments—Fertility and

Socioeconomic Characteristics, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census, U.S.

Department of Commerce (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

mothers receiving AFDC who had never been married has doubled, from

21 percent in 1976 to 52 percent in 1992. About 70 percent of families

receiving benefits have 1 or 2 children.

While most AFDC recipients are single mothers, these women are a diverse

group, making use of the program in different ways. For example, one

study has estimated the total time that those receiving AFDC at a point in

time can be expected to receive benefits, as shown in figure 1.2.6

 This

analysis indicates that 9 percent of these recipients are using AFDC for only

a short time—2 years or less. About 76 percent, however, are receiving

AFDC benefits for a total of 5 years or more, when all moves on and off

welfare are considered.7

 According to these data, under a 5-year limit on

receipt of cash assistance—a measure included in the House welfare

reform bill—about three-fourths of those on AFDC may be expected to hit

the time limit and need to support themselves through employment or

other means.8

6

The Number and Characteristics of AFDC Recipients Who Will Be Affected by Policies to Time-Limit

AFDC Benefits, Harold Beebout and Jon Jacobson, Mathematic Policy Research, and LaDonna Pavetti,

The Urban Institute (Washington, D.C.: 1994), p. 12.

7

While this estimate indicates that about three-fourths of those on AFDC at a point in time would

receive benefits for a total of 5 years or more, a much smaller percentage of those who ever receive

AFDC—about 35 percent—are estimated to receive benefits for that duration. Of those who ever

receive AFDC, 42 percent are estimated to receive benefits for a total of 2 years or less, and 23 percent

for more than 2 but less than 5 years.

8

This estimate assumes that there would be no exemptions from the time limit set for welfare receipt.

The House bill (H.R. 4) allows states to grant up to 10 percent of their welfare recipients a hardship

exemption from this lifetime limit.

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.2: Estimates of the Total Time

Those Receiving AFDC at a Point in

Time Will Spend on AFDC

• 9.3%

2 years or less

14.4%•

2 to 5 years

76.3%•

More than 5 years

Note: Based on estimates of the total number of months that the AFDC caseload at a point in time

would receive benefits during the subsequent 25 years, including both continuous and

noncontinuous periods of receipt.

Source: Beebout, Jacobson, and Pavetti, The Number and Characteristics of AFDC Recipients

Who Will Be Affected by Policies to Time-Limit AFDC Benefits (1994), p. 12.

This prospect poses a formidable challenge for many AFDC recipients who

have limited education, job skills, and work experience. About 45 percent

of all AFDC recipients, for example, have less than a high school diploma.9

Surveys of several thousand AFDC recipients expected to participate in JOBS

in selected sites showed that at least one-third had extremely low literacy

skills and between one-fourth and more than one-half lacked prior work

experience. Over one-fourth thought they could not prepare for work

9

Families on Welfare: Sharp Rise in Never-Married Women Reflects Societal Trend (GAO/HEHS-94-93,

May 31, 1994).

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

because they or their family members had health or emotional problems.10

Such recipients are at risk of long-term welfare dependence. We reported

previously that states have made some progress in working with some of

these recipients but that many remain unserved.11

The JOBS program, begun in 1989, was designed to improve upon the

performance of previous welfare-to-work programs and help combat

long-term welfare dependence. Research studies conducted up to then

showed that employment training programs for welfare recipients could

have a positive but generally modest effect on increased earnings and

reduced welfare costs.12 They also showed that programs that emphasized

low-cost services, such as job search, generally did not help welfare

recipients get higher paying jobs than they would have without the

programs or help the more disadvantaged. It was hoped that JOBS could

improve upon previous programs’ performance by reaching further into

the AFDC caseload and providing more comprehensive services, including

education and training, to help parents find jobs that would end their

dependence on welfare.13

To this end, under JOBS, states are to (1) provide a broad range of

education, training, and employment-related activities; (2) increase the

number of AFDC recipients participating in these activities; (3) target

resources to the hard-to-serve; and (4) provide support services, including

child care, transportation, work-related, and other support services, such

as mental health counseling, if deemed necessary.

Current JOBS Participation To encourage states to work towards the federal goal of reducing welfare

dependency, the Congress created minimum participation and targeting

requirements that states must meet to receive their full share of federal

funding. The minimum participation requirements rose from 7 percent of

10The data on work experience came from a survey of 48,000 recipients in seven states; the other data

were from about 20,000 recipients in four of these seven states. See Gayle Hamilton and Thomas

Brock, The JOBS Evaluation: Early Lessons from Seven Sites, U.S. Departments of Health and Human

Services and Education (New York: 1994).

11Welfare to Work: Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently Focused on Employment.

12See Judith M. Gueron and Edward Pauly, From Welfare to Work, Russell Sage Foundation (New

York: 1991).

13HHS currently is sponsoring an experimental design seven-site evaluation of JOBS to determine its

effectiveness in increasing employment and earnings for welfare recipients and reducing welfare costs.

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

nonexempt AFDC recipients14 in fiscal year 1991 to 20 percent in fiscal year

1995.15 Under the targeting requirements, states must spend 55 percent of

their JOBS funds on designated target groups.16

The Congress also expected that performance standards based on

outcomes, such as increased employment and earnings and reduced

welfare dependency, would be established after the initial implementation

of the program. Outcome-related performance standards have not yet been

established. (For more information on the current status of these

performance standards, see p. 42.)

While most states have met the minimum participation requirements, the

number of AFDC recipients participating in JOBS remains limited. About

one-half of the adults receiving AFDC have been exempted from JOBS, most

often because they are caring for a young child.17 Of those considered

nonexempt, states decide how many to serve in JOBS based on the

availability of state resources. As shown in figure 1.3, the number

participating in JOBS each month, while increasing, has remained limited

for fiscal years 1991 through 1993.18 In 1993, about 11 percent of the

4.6 million adults receiving AFDC were active in JOBS activities each month.

Although some individual programs have succeeded in serving most of

their nonexempt AFDC recipients, JOBS programs overall served only about

one-fourth of the nonexempt population.

14AFDC recipients 16 through 59 years old are considered nonexempt unless they are ill or

incapacitated; working 30 hours or more per week; attending high school; or caring for children under

3 years old (1 year old at state option). However, teenage parents who have not completed high school

and have children under 3 years old are also nonexempt.

15The Congress also established separate minimum requirements for participation for principal earners

in two-parent families receiving AFDC-Unemployed Parent benefits, beginning at 40 percent in fiscal

year 1994 and increasing to 75 percent in fiscal year 1997.

16JOBS target group members include AFDC recipients or applicants who have received AFDC for 36

months out of the past 5 years; are under 24 years old and (a) have neither completed nor are enrolled

in high school or (b) had little or no work experience in the preceding year; or are soon to become

ineligible for AFDC because their youngest child is almost 18 years old.

17Those exempted may enroll in JOBS as volunteers.

18During a year’s time, a larger percentage of recipients may participate in the program, but because

HHS maintains its data on an average monthly basis, it is not possible to calculate the percentage that

participated at any time during a year.

Page 15 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.3: Average Monthly Number

of AFDC Recipients, Nonexempt

Recipients, and Those Participating in

JOBS (Fiscal Years 1991-93)

Recipients (in Millions)

0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1991 1992 1993

Fiscal Year

AFDC recipients (excluding children)

Nonexempt recipients

Recipients participating in JOBSa

aRecipients with any level of involvement or participation in JOBS-approved activity, including

assessment.

Page 16 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

JOBS Programs Are

Expected to Assess,

Prepare, and Place

Participants

Three basic steps—assessment, employment preparation, and job

placement—are involved in attempting to move AFDC recipients into

employment through JOBS, and programs are provided with tools to help

them accomplish this, as shown in figure 1.4. First, JOBS programs must

perform an assessment of each participant’s needs and skills and, with the

participant, develop an employability development plan setting forth an

employment goal and a schedule of services and activities necessary to

accomplish that goal.19, 20

19Federal law requires JOBS programs to make an assessment of employability based on a participant’s

educational, child care, and other support services needs; skills and work experiences; and family

circumstances. The types of assessments used can range from 5-page surveys filled out by participants

to comprehensive career-oriented assessments.

20If participants are considered job-ready when they enter the program, they may be required to look

for work immediately without further employment preparation. Programs have varying criteria on

when a participant is considered job-ready. While some local programs encourage all of their

participants to look for work before being placed in education, training, or work-related activities,

most require some minimum level of education, skills, or work experience before participants are

expected to look for work.

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Figure 1.4: Three Basic Steps in

Moving JOBS Participants Into

Employment JOBS

AFDC

Assess

Job

Readiness

Employment

Prepare for Employment

Place in Employment

– Job Search

– On-the-Job Training

– Work Supplementation

– Work Experience

– High School

– Remedial Education

– Job Readiness Classes

– Job Skills Training

– Postsecondary Education

Then, as part of the preparation phase, all JOBS programs must provide

high school and equivalency programs, basic and remedial education,

job-readiness activities, job skills training, and support services. In

addition, they may provide postsecondary education.

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

Finally, JOBS programs must provide services designed to place

participants in jobs. To accomplish this, programs are required to conduct

job-development activities, including identifying job openings, marketing

participants to employers, and arranging interviews for participants.

Programs must also consult with local private industry councils,21 which

include employers, or may choose to work directly with employers to

ensure that participants receive education and training that prepares them

for jobs that are available in the local area.

To help participants find work, JOBS programs must include at least two of

the following activities as part of their programs: job search, on-the-job

training, work supplementation, or work experience. Participants enrolled

in job search look for work on their own or under program supervision.

The other options are called work activities because they involve placing

JOBS participants with employers or at worksites with community

sponsors.

Two of these work activities, on-the-job training and work

supplementation, involve the use of short-term wage subsidies to

encourage employers to hire and train JOBS participants. When JOBS funds

are used to reimburse employers, the JOBS activity is called on-the-job

training; when the participant’s AFDC grant is diverted to subsidize the

employer, the activity is called work supplementation or grant diversion.

In both cases, the participant receives a paycheck instead of a welfare

check.22 These programs are designed to encourage employers to hire

welfare recipients whose productivity may be lower than that of other

potential employees.

A third work activity, community work experience, and a similar activity

called alternative work experience—both referred to as work-experience

programs in this report—are designed to provide welfare recipients with

actual work-place experience to increase their employability. Under these

programs, JOBS places participants with public and nonprofit agencies to

perform services for their community. These programs do not include

payments to the employers, and JOBS participants continue to receive their

21Under the federal Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), local entities are charged with forming a

private industry council, with employer representation, that oversees training programs for

economically disadvantaged individuals.

22In on-the-job training programs, JOBS programs may use JOBS funds to reimburse the training and

supervision costs of an employer who hires a JOBS client. Under a work-supplementation program, all

or part of the AFDC grant is diverted to an employer to cover part of the cost of wages for a JOBS

participant for up to 9 months.

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

welfare checks. For a comparison of the federal rules governing the

various work activities for AFDC recipients, see appendix I.

State and Federal

Governments Share JOBS

Responsibilities

Within the federal JOBS guidelines, states and localities assess the needs of

their JOBS participants, determine the type and intensity of services

provided, and set the criteria by which participants are deemed job-ready.

They also have discretion to establish the wage level and benefits

associated with the employment goal established in the employability

development plan. Some programs set wage goals as high as $8 per hour,

while others believe that a job at any wage level is an appropriate goal.

To help AFDC recipients move towards self-sufficiency, states rely on two

federal funding sources. First, about $1 billion of federal JOBS funds has

been made available annually in recent years for allocation to the states.

States must then commit their own funds to JOBS to match these federal

funds.23 In fiscal year 1993, states used about 70 percent of the federal JOBS

funds available to them. Second, the federal government has provided an

uncapped source of funds to share with states the costs of providing child

care assistance to AFDC recipients in education or training programs or

who are employed. In fiscal year 1993, the federal government provided

about $1.2 billion of the almost $2 billion spent by states on JOBS and AFDC

child care.

HHS oversees the JOBS program at the federal level and state AFDC agencies

supervise it. At the local level, JOBS is administered either by the state AFDC

office or by county officials.24 Before using JOBS funds to purchase services

for participants, programs must make full use of the services and

resources available in their communities without charge to AFDC

recipients. Programs may also contract with other organizations for

services. As a result, programs rely heavily on a variety of community

resources, such as Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) agencies, adult

23The federal government shares in the costs of a state’s JOBS program 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 the nonadministrative 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 support services costs, other than child care, the federal share is

50 percent.

24While the AFDC agency must maintain supervisory control over the JOBS program, it may contract

out certain activities and services. In some states or areas, JOBS is operated by the JTPA agency, the

state employment service, community-based organizations, or a combination of agencies and

providers.

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

basic education programs, high schools, the state employment service,

Head Start, and community colleges.25

Scope and

Methodology

To identify welfare-to-work programs that strongly emphasize

employment or work for their welfare recipients, through job-placement

activities, subsidized employment, or work-experience positions, we

reviewed welfare-to-work evaluations and HHS program data and contacted

HHS officials and welfare experts. We then visited selected programs in

Riverside County and San Jose, California; Athens, Ohio; and New York,

New York. Also, in Charleston, West Virginia, we spoke with six JOBS

officials representing 11 West Virginia counties. Where results from impact

evaluations were available, they are included in the text; however, only

two of the five programs have been rigorously evaluated to measure

program effects. We also note that the program cost data cited may not be

comparable among the different programs described.

To determine the extent to which county JOBS programs nationwide used

these employment-focused elements and to identify factors that hinder

administrators’ efforts to move AFDC recipients into employment, we

collected and analyzed data from a range of sources. To obtain nationally

representative data, we randomly sampled 453 of the nation’s 3,141

counties and mailed questionnaires to their JOBS administrators in

May 1994. The sample was stratified to ensure representation of the

nation’s central-city, suburban, and rural counties. It included the nation’s

10 largest central-city counties, based on the number of female-headed

families with children receiving public assistance in 1990.

Our analysis of the questionnaire data generally showed few material

differences among the responses of the counties comprising the 10 largest

central cities, other central-city counties, suburban counties, or rural

counties. Consequently, we present the results using combined data from

all the strata. See appendix II for more information about our sample. The

questionnaire and summaries of the responses are in appendix III.

For more information on JOBS program implementation, we spoke with

program administrators at HHS and the Department of Labor;

representatives of the National Alliance of Business and the American

Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees; and welfare

25For more information on the extent to which JOBS programs rely on other providers for services, see

JOBS: Participants’ Characteristics and Services Provided (GAO/HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995) and Irene

Lurie and Jan Hagen, Implementing JOBS: Initial Design and Structure, The Nelson A. Rockefeller

Institute of Government, State University of New York (Albany, New York: 1993).

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 1 

Introduction

experts. We also reviewed HHS and congressional welfare reform proposals

and analyzed economic data provided by the Bureau of the Census and the

Department of Commerce. In addition, we visited JOBS programs in

Alameda, Napa, Santa Clara, and Sonoma Counties in California; Franklin

County in Ohio; and gathered additional information at a meeting with JOBS

administrators from 12 counties in the San Francisco area.

We conducted our work between September 1993 and April 1995 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

Some local welfare-to-work programs are well-focused on employment,

working closely with employers to help participants find jobs or using

subsidized employment or work experience to promote work for welfare

recipients. We saw this in programs at five locations we visited: Riverside

County and San Jose, California; New York, New York; Athens, Ohio; and

West Virginia. The programs in these places vary in their costs per

participant and other features. Yet they all focus on work as the ultimate

goal, with three of the programs—in Riverside County, San Jose, and New

York—working closely with employers to move participants into paid

employment, and the Athens and West Virginia programs supporting workexperience positions when regular employment was not available.

Table 2.1 summarizes selected program features and highlights important

differences among the programs. For example, the Riverside County

program is administered by a welfare agency and involves all of the

county’s JOBS participants. While welfare agencies also operate the Athens

and West Virginia programs, their work-experience programs involve only

a portion of their JOBS participants. The other programs are not JOBS

programs and are not operated by welfare agencies. A nonprofit

organization operates the San Jose program, which serves welfare

recipients among other individuals in the community. And a for-profit firm

runs the New York City program under contract to the state welfare

agency; it serves but a small fraction of the JOBS participants in the city. We

also note that the Riverside County and San Jose programs have

research-documented success in getting more AFDC recipients employed

than would have occurred without the programs. A more detailed

discussion of these programs follows.

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

Table 2.1: Selected Features of Employment-Focused Welfare-to-Work Programs

Riverside County,

California

San Jose,

California

New York,

New York

Athens, Ohio, and

West Virginia

Name Riverside County GAINa Center for Employment

Training

America Works Athens County, Ohio,

JOBS and state of West

Virginia JOBS

Type and administrator JOBS program operated

by county AFDC agency

Vocational school

operated by nonprofit

organization

Job placement and

support services

provided by for-profit

company

JOBS programs

operated by county and

state AFDC agencies

Participants Enrolls about 2,000

nonexempt AFDC

recipients in a county

with 30,000 AFDC cases

Enrolls about 470 AFDC

and non-AFDC

individuals, generally

volunteers, in county with

30,000 AFDC cases

Enrolls about 120 AFDC

volunteers in city with

309,000 AFDC cases

Athens: Enrolls 94 of 550

JOBS participants in a

county with 1,600 AFDC

cases.

West Virginia: Enrolls

2,500 of 24,000 JOBS

participants in state with

40,000 AFDC cases

Highlighted features Finding employment

quickly; job development

Training closely linked to

employers’ needs

Work supplementation Community work

experience

Comparison or control

group evaluation available

Yes Yes No Available on similar

programs only

aThe JOBS program in California is called Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN).

Riverside County

Program

The Riverside County JOBS program stresses that its purpose is to place

participants in jobs quickly. Researchers believe that this strong

employment message may have been one of the key factors in producing

results. Using an experimental design to evaluate JOBS programs in six

California counties, researchers26 found that the Riverside County

program increased the earnings of single AFDC parents by 49 percent and

decreased welfare costs by 15 percent over 3 years. Results in the other

five counties were about one-half that level. As shown in figure 2.1, the

Riverside County program produced greater net gains than the other

counties for both welfare recipients and government budgets, saving

almost $3 for every $1 spent by the federal, state, and local governments.

Moreover, long-term AFDC recipients, those with little education, and those

more job-ready have benefited under Riverside’s approach.

26See James Riccio, and others, GAIN: Benefits, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of a Welfare-to-Work

Program, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (New York: 1994).

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

Figure 2.1: Benefit-Costs Results of

Welfare-to-Work Program in Selected

California Counties (1988-93)

1993 Dollars

-4000

-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Alameda County

Butte County

Los Angeles County

Riverside County

San Diego County

Tulare County

All Counties

Net Gain or Loss to Recipientsa

Net Gain or Loss to Governmentb

aFor AFDC single-parent participants enrolled in the experimental group, this includes per person

effects on their earnings and fringe benefits, offset by any reductions in AFDC and other transfer

program payments.

bThe potential gains to government budgets per participant in the experimental group include

reduced AFDC and other transfer payments, reductions in transfer program administrative costs,

and increased taxes paid by those in the experimental group. The potential costs include net

expenditures for GAIN services and services provided by other agencies.

Source: James Riccio, and others, GAIN: Benefits, Costs, and Three-Year Impacts of a

Welfare-to-Work Program, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (New York: 1994), p.

ES-9.

Researchers who studied the six California counties believe that Riverside

County’s greater positive impacts may be due to a combination of program

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

features.27 For example, the program had sufficient resources to make

efforts to enroll all the AFDC recipients deemed mandatory for JOBS. In

addition, it used the threat of reduced AFDC benefits for uncooperative

participants to secure their participation in JOBS.

28

In contrast with the other counties evaluated, Riverside also articulated a

simple goal: participants are there to get a job and leave welfare as soon as

possible. They are, therefore, encouraged to take any job offered,

including low-wage jobs, part-time jobs, or jobs without benefits. To help

participants get jobs, five full-time job developers provide direct access to

employers and support the five JOBS offices that served about 2,000 active

JOBS participants each month in 1993. The Riverside program also uses

placement standards for its JOBS workers; case managers are expected to

place at least 12 participants in employment each month.29

Stressing the importance of job search along with education in the basic

skills of reading, writing, and math also appears to benefit Riverside. In

Riverside and the other counties, new participants whose test results

indicate that they need basic education have the option of entering the

classroom immediately or attending 3 weeks of job search.30,31 However,

Riverside’s orientation results in proportionately more of its participants

being in job search than is the case in most other California counties

studied. Also, Riverside encourages those participants in education and

training to find jobs quickly. Staff closely monitor these participants and

expect those not making progress to look for work.

27The evaluation of the six California programs used experimental and control groups to identify

impacts on earnings and welfare receipt. In addition, detailed and standardized implementation data

were collected among the counties to shed light on the best approach to moving participants off

welfare.

28Riverside initiated sanctions against 11 percent of its single-parent participants because they failed to

show up for scheduled JOBS activities without good cause, and reduced the welfare grants of

6 percent of participants for specified periods of time.

29Researchers noted that these placement standards do not lead to creaming—working only with the

more employable—because the program covers most of those required to participate and no up-front

screening is performed to screen out those considered harder to place. They also noted that these

placement standards apply to the caseworkers that work with a mixed group, those in need of and not

in need of basic education. The caseworkers who work solely with those in need of basic education

have lower placement standards.

30The California JOBS program, called GAIN, uses a program model that requires basic education for

recipients that test below certain levels. This is not required by federal JOBS rules.

31Riverside administrators estimate that participants attend basic education classes an average of 8

months to reach eighth grade reading and math levels or take 3 months to pass the high school

equivalency examination.

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

Riverside’s emphasis on short-term job search along with longer-term

education may also account for its relatively low average cost of $3,000

per participant in 1993 dollars,32 compared with other California counties

studied. Consistent with its emphasis on moving participants quickly into

the work force, Riverside makes less use of basic, vocational, and

postsecondary education than some other counties. For example, in

Alameda County, which used education extensively, the 1993 average

participant cost was $6,600.

While the Riverside County results indicate that an emphasis on job

placement, among other factors, is important, questions remain about

what works best to help welfare recipients get jobs and earn enough to

support their families. HHS has contracted with researchers to conduct

experimental design studies to provide additional information on the cost

effectiveness of higher-cost education and training programs compared

with lower-cost programs that emphasize quick entry into jobs.33

While the Riverside program produced greater earnings increases and

welfare savings than in the other counties, about 40 percent of its

participants were still on AFDC 3 years after the study began, and many of

those who did leave AFDC remained in poverty and possibly at risk of

returning to welfare. Some of those that left AFDC may also have continued

to receive other forms of public assistance, including Food Stamps and

housing subsidies.

The researchers also noted that it was not clear that Riverside’s program

could be replicated or, if replicated, could produce similar results in other

localities nationwide—for example, in inner cities where AFDC recipients

may face greater barriers. In addition, while they concluded that the

Riverside County results appear not to be fully explained by its local labor

market conditions, they cautioned that similar results may not be possible

in areas with very poor economic conditions, such as rural areas with high

unemployment rates.34

32Researchers determined this amount was spent on those in its experimental group over a 5-year

period from JOBS and other funding sources. The impact analysis was based on 3 years of follow-up

data.

33For more information on the ongoing evaluation, see Gayle Hamilton and Thomas Brock, The JOBS

Evaluation.

34For a discussion of the limited evidence available on the influence of the local economy on a

welfare-to-work program’s impact, see Judith Gueron and Edward Pauly, From Welfare to Work, p.

186.

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

San Jose’s Center for

Employment Training

The Center for Employment Training (CET), a nonprofit organization

founded in 1967 and based in San Jose, California,35 represents another

approach to promoting employment that has demonstrated positive

results. CET contracts with job training and local welfare programs to

provide job skills training, combined with remedial basic education, when

needed. Using an experimental design, researchers found that this

program increased employment and earnings for minority female single

parents on or at risk of becoming dependent on AFDC who volunteered for

training.36 The research study noted that at the end of 12 months,

46 percent of CET participants were working compared with 36 percent of

a control group and participants earned 47 percent more on average than

the control group. These results were also greater than those for other

sites in the study.

To help its participants get higher-wage jobs with a potential for upward

mobility, CET offers job skills training in a range of occupations for which

employers have demonstrated consistent demand. About 28 courses are

offered, including child care provider, automated office skills, home health

aide, commercial food service, and electronic assembly. Remedial

education is integrated into the job skills training curriculum for

participants who have basic skill deficiencies, rather than being offered

separately. Researchers who have studied the CET program believe that its

strong focus on employment and integrated training design are important

features.

The employment focus is evident in several CET activities. CET’s full-time

job developers make contact with employers in the community and meet

with participants who are nearing completion of training to help them find

appropriate work. The job developers are assisted in their placement

efforts by CET’s vocational instructors, who maintain close contacts with

local employers. CET also has an industrial advisory board, composed of

employers, that meets monthly to provide advice on the types of training

equipment to be used and other issues to ensure that the training offered

meets the needs of employers. Board members also conduct mock job

interviews with participants.

35Thirty-six additional programs modeled on CET are operated or planned in a total of 12 states.

36See J. Burghardt and A. Gordon, The Minority Female Single Parent Demonstration: More Jobs and

Higher Pay, Rockefeller Foundation (New York: 1990). Researchers found significant and persistent

gains in employment and earnings of the CET women studied, although few were able to reduce their

dependence on AFDC.

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

One employer we spoke with, manager of a local sheet metal fabrication

company, emphasized that his company relies heavily on CET graduates.

He believes that this saves him advertising and other hiring costs and

guarantees him well-prepared workers. At the time of our visit, he was

planning to open a company cafeteria to be staffed with CET graduates.

Another key feature, integrated training, provides basic education in a

practical context. Participants lacking basic educational skills are entered

into job skills training immediately to help maintain their motivation and

focus on work. Because basic education is provided within the skills

training class itself, participants appear more likely to accept the remedial

help and to succeed.

Participants attend classes during the normal work week in a setting

designed to simulate the workplace, using the tools of their trade under

the guidance of instructors with recent industry experience. Individualized

instruction allows new participants to enter class on the first day of any

week of the year, to proceed at their own pace, and to leave as soon as

they have demonstrated the necessary competencies. Training courses

average 6 months in length and cost about $6,000 to $7,000 per

participant.37

New York City’s

America Works

Another example of a work-focused program is seen in New York City.

There, the welfare agency, as part of its work-supplementation program,

contracts with a private for-profit firm called America Works.38 America

Works quickly prepares JOBS participants for employment, places them in

jobs, and provides counseling and support to ease their transition to work.

Staff and resources are devoted to working with employers and supporting

clients after job placement to help alleviate any personal problems that

may arise and threaten their ability to continue to work.

America Works emphasizes the development of good work habits and

skills required for entry-level jobs during the short training period it

provides participants. Specifically, participants are urged to demonstrate

punctuality, reliability, appropriate professional dress and demeanor, a

constructive and cooperative attitude, and an ability to get along with

37Welfare recipients may have their tuition paid by a variety of sources, including JOBS, JTPA, or the

federal Pell grant program, which provides economically disadvantaged individuals with grants to

further their education.

38Programs based on the America Works model operate at another site in New York state, one site in

Indiana, and another site in Connecticut.

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

others in a work environment. Participants attend a week-long

pre-employment class and 6 weeks of business laboratory where they use

self-paced computer-assisted office skills programs. Tardiness and

absences may result in suspension from the program.

Participants who complete the business laboratory are placed by the firm’s

job developers with private employers for 4 months of supported work,

during which time they are on the payroll of America Works. The America

Works payroll in New York City is supported by AFDC grant funds and

funds from employers. Upon placement, participants are provided a

support system, whereby America Works staff help participants with

personal problems, such as creditor or landlord disputes, that interfere

with their ability to work. America Works staff believe that their support

system for participants who have been newly placed in jobs is key to

keeping many of their participants employed.

According to data compiled by the New York State welfare agency, about

65 percent of participants in supported work are ultimately hired by the

private employers with whom they have been placed. America Works

receives about $5,300 from the state’s welfare agency when an AFDC

recipient enrolled in America Works remains employed and off AFDC for at

least 7 months. Unlike the Riverside and CET programs, the outcomes of

the America Works program have not been compared with a comparison

or control group to determine whether the effects were due to the

program. Some of the America Works participants might have found jobs

on their own, especially because many of them were motivated volunteers.

While the program’s design screens out those not motivated, the program

does work with many long-term welfare recipients with low levels of

education. The typical participant is an adult female head of household on

AFDC an average of 5 years. Also, the typical participant in America Works

has volunteered for the program, has a sporadic history of minimum-wage

jobs, and can read and write well enough to complete a brief application.

Applicants who need remedial basic education or English language

training are referred to other community providers. About one-half of the

participants have not completed high school.

America Works officials believe that reaching out to employers and

responding to their needs is a prime program goal. They noted that

employers who take on America Works participants save on placement

agency fees as well as costs of advertising for and screening job

applicants. In addition, they obtain workers at reduced wage and benefit

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

costs initially, and with lower turnover and related costs. America Works

guarantees that employers will be satisfied with participants placed with

them or replacements will be found. About 60 percent of the jobs that

America Works staff develop are the result of repeat business with

satisfied employers.

Athens, Ohio, and

West Virginia

JOBS programs in Athens, Ohio, and West Virginia reveal a different kind of

work focus, typified by placing participants in community workexperience positions with public and nonprofit agencies. Welfare officials

at the sites we visited indicated that having AFDC recipients perform

community service can benefit their communities, in addition to

developing participants’ work habits and providing work experience that

may lead to paid employment.

The JOBS program in Athens County, Ohio, uses work-experience positions

to increase the confidence and competency of participants, and in some

cases these positions lead to permanent employment. The county’s welfare

agency is the largest utilizer of work-experience participants, many of

whom are subsequently transferred to the county’s payroll and leave

welfare.39 One office unit within the welfare agency is staffed primarily by

work-experience participants, and an estimated three-fourths of the

welfare agency’s personnel consist of former welfare recipients.

West Virginia, where unemployment rates are among the highest in the

nation, uses community work experience extensively to develop and

maintain work habits among its JOBS participants. This involves work for

various public or nonprofit organizations. Since the 1980s, West Virginia’s

welfare-to-work program has promoted the idea that AFDC recipients

should contribute to their communities in exchange for their benefits, and

work for such organizations has been used to promote work among AFDC

recipients, especially men.

The state has made greater use of community work experience than most

other states, with about 2,500 AFDC recipients enrolled in June 1994, mostly

at government agencies but also at nonprofit agencies. Participants often

work for an average of 62 hours a month, putting in full 40-hour weeks for

some part of the month or part-time hours throughout the month. Single

parents with young school-age children, for example, may work during the

39Under a federal waiver from AFDC and JOBS rules, participants may extend the hours that they work

and receive payment from the employer for the added hours without a reduction in their grants in

cases where the employer demonstrates a commitment to hire.

Page 31 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 2 

Examples of Employment-Focused

Programs

6 hours of a normal school day and care for their children at home the

remainder of the day, thus saving on child care expenses.

West Virginia administrators we spoke with noted that much time, effort,

and resources must be devoted to operate a work-experience program.

Major work-experience program expenses involve intensive use of JOBS

staff to arrange for jobs with employers, screen and match participants to

available jobs, and provide follow-up support. JOBS case managers check

monthly timesheets and ask to be called if problems arise at the

workplace. They rarely visit worksites, however, because they average

caseloads of 300 to 400 participants.

Based on experimental design studies of the use of work experience in

several sites in the 1980s, including some in West Virginia, researchers

have concluded that unpaid work experience alone does not increase paid

employment, earnings, or welfare savings. However, they also found that

these programs could produce benefits for taxpayers through the work

performed by welfare recipients. In addition, program administrators and

welfare recipients involved generally thought that they had performed

meaningful work, although the participants said that they would have

preferred to work in paid positions. Based on their review, the researchers

estimate that the annual cost of a work-experience position in 1993 dollars

would range from $2,000 to $4,000, excluding the AFDC benefit and child

care costs.40

40See Thomas Brock, David Butler, and David Long, Unpaid Work Experience for Welfare Recipients:

Findings and Lessons from MDRC Research, Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (New

York: 1993).

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

While some county and local organizations have forged links with

employers to promote work for welfare recipients, these programs are

more the exception than the rule across the nation. A majority of county

JOBS programs do not work closely with employers to help their

participants find work. Administrators and researchers cited many factors

that hinder efforts to find or create employment for welfare recipients,

including insufficient staff and resources and poor labor market

conditions. In addition, we found that the federal JOBS participation

requirements emphasizing the enrollment of eligible persons into JOBS

programs without an emphasis on the graduation of enrollees into

employment provide programs little incentive to redirect their resources

to job-placement efforts.

Employment

Emphasis Limited

Among Programs

Most programs do not fully use the tools available to help move

participants quickly into work. This is demonstrated by the limited

emphasis on job development, work incentives, and work activities,

including subsidized employment or work experience.

Job Development Is

Underutilized

Although job development is a potentially important tool for moving JOBS

participants into employment, about one-half of the nation’s county JOBS

administrators believe that they are not doing enough job development to

help JOBS participants find work. In addition to preparing AFDC recipients

for employment through education and training, JOBS programs are

required to engage in job development to help participants secure jobs.

Program officials may also work with employers to identify the types of

education and training needed for participants to meet employers’ needs.

These job-development activities can play an important role in making

JOBS programs more responsive to their local labor markets.

While almost all county JOBS programs perform some job-development

activities, in most, their job-development resources are limited. We found

that JOBS programs rely on a variety of local agencies and organizations,

such as JTPA, the Employment Service, and education providers, to

perform job-development activities for JOBS participants. While other

organizations are involved in helping JOBS participants find work, in most

counties, the welfare agency itself takes the lead in job development.

However, about one-third of the nation’s programs have no full- or

part-time staff dedicated to job-development activities. And while

caseworkers may also perform job-development activities, we found that

they devote little time to working with employers. More than three-fourths

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

of all JOBS administrators report that caseworkers devote 20 percent or

less of their time to job development.

In many programs, the extent of job development performed on behalf of

JOBS participants is limited and may not meet the needs of the job-ready

looking for work. For example, about 60 percent of the nation’s JOBS

programs or their contractors arranged job interviews for or marketed to

employers only some or few of their job-ready participants. Moreover,

about 46 percent or more cited that the program or its contractors worked

with each of the following only sometimes or rarely: public employers,

private-sector employers, the Chamber of Commerce, or other employer

associations.

Local administrators themselves also believe that job development is

underutilized in JOBS programs. A majority of administrators believe that

they did not conduct enough job-development and job-placement activities

to meet the needs of their JOBS participants, as illustrated in figure 3.1.

Furthermore, a 1994 study of JOBS implementation in 30 localities in 10

states also noted that job- development and job-placement activities are

underutilized in JOBS programs.41

41Irene Lurie and Jan L. Hagen, Implementing JOBS: Progress and Promise, The Nelson A. Rockefeller

Institute of Government, State University of New York (Albany, New York: 1994), p. 246.

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Figure 3.1: Administrators’ Opinions

on Extent of Job-Development

Activities (Mid-1994)

Percent of County Administrators

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Contact

Employers for

Job Openings

Market JOBS

Participants to

Employers

Market the JOBS

Program to

Employers

Screen JOBS

Participants to

Match With

Employers’

Needs

Perform Much More or More Than Enough

Perform Enough

Perform Less Than or Much Less Than Enough

Work Incentives Not

Emphasized

Many JOBS programs nationwide do not make all participants aware of

some important incentives to seek employment. To encourage work, the

AFDC program provides some assistance to recipients who become

employed by temporarily disregarding part of their earnings, including

some of those expended for child care, in calculating their AFDC benefits.

These income and child care disregards allow AFDC recipients who go to

work to avoid the cutback in benefits that would ordinarily result from an

increase in earnings. In addition, to further ease the transition to

employment, AFDC recipients who earn enough to leave the welfare rolls

are eligible for 1 year of child care subsidies if needed and continued

Medicaid coverage.

Other assistance may be available after AFDC recipients leave the welfare

rolls. When the 1 year of transitional Medicaid coverage is exhausted, the

children of AFDC recipients may still be covered due to recent changes in

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Medicaid coverage for all children in families below the poverty line.42 And

the recently expanded Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) will increase some

low-wage workers incomes by up to 40 percent. These federal supports

can increase the attractiveness of low-wage work.

However, many JOBS programs do not inform all their participants of the

work incentives that may be available to them. Based on our survey, from

67 to 84 percent of county JOBS programs inform all or almost all of their

participants about each of the following: the availability of transitional

child care, transitional Medicaid, AFDC income disregards, and child care

disregards. However, only about one-half of the nation’s JOBS programs

inform all or almost all their participants of the EITC. While we identified

about 18 percent of the programs that worked with all or almost all their

participants to develop a sample budget demonstrating the benefits

available to them when working, about 60 percent of the nation’s JOBS

programs reported that they do so for one-half or fewer of their

participants.

These findings are consistent with other studies showing that those on

welfare, as well as welfare and JOBS caseworkers, may not be aware of or

understand work incentives. One study of a sample of 30 women in

Chicago concluded that the EITC may not provide an incentive to work

because few recipients have a clear understanding of how it operates.43

Another study of welfare administrators found that many did not know

that Medicaid coverage was available for certain children in families with

incomes up to or, in some cases, beyond the federal poverty line.44

Limited Use of Work

Activities

Almost all JOBS programs encourage participants to engage in job search

activities at some point in their enrollment in JOBS,

45 but many job-ready

participants do not become employed for a variety of reasons. For JOBS

42States are required to provide Medicaid coverage to all children under 19 years old who were born

after September 30, 1993, and whose family income is below 100 percent of the federal poverty line. In

addition, states must cover pregnant women and children under 6 years old with family incomes below

133 percent of the poverty line.

43Lynn M. Olson, “The Earned Income Tax Credit: Policy Implications of Street Level Experience,”

paper presented at Annual Research Conference of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and

Management (Chicago: 1994).

44See Vicki C. Grant, Genny G. McKenzie, and Sarah C. Shuptrine, A Study of the Relationship of Health

Coverage to Welfare Dependency, Southern Institute on Children and Families (Columbia, South

Carolina: 1994).

45About 37 percent of the nation’s JOBS programs encourage JOBS participants to look for work

before placement in education, training, or work-related activities, with the remainder reserving job

search activities until after education and training.

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

participants who cannot find regular employment, local JOBS programs

have the option of using cash wage subsidies to encourage employers to

hire them into on-the-job training or work-supplementation programs.

Another option is to place participants in work-experience programs. For

example, as discussed in chapter 2, West Virginia has used its community

work-experience program to promote work among its welfare recipients

when jobs were not available. Yet the use of work activities is limited,

even though about 70 percent of the administrators reported that one-half

or fewer of their job-ready participants became employed during their

most recent program year. The distribution of counties according to their

placement rates is shown in figure 3.2.

Figure 3.2: Distribution of Counties

According to Placement Rates for

Job-Ready Participants (Program Year

1993 or 1994)

Percent of Counties

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0-25 26-50 51-75 76-100

Percent of Job-Ready Participants Who Became Employed

36 36

16

12

The limited extent of work activities is seen in the following numbers:

nationwide in mid-1994, of about 586,600 JOBS participants each month,

about 59,000 were in work-experience programs, 3,000 were in on-the-job

training, and 1,000 were in work-supplementation programs. As shown in

figure 3.3, these work activities were little used compared with other JOBS

activities. Moreover, more than 80 percent of the nation’s counties have no

experience operating work-supplementation programs and almost

50 percent have no experience in on-the-job training.

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Figure 3.3: JOBS Participants by Activity (Mid-1994)

JOBS Participants (in Thousands)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

Post- secondary

Education

High School or GED

Job Skills Training

Job Search

Job Readiness

Other Approved Activity

Work Experience

Adult Basic or Remedial Education

English as a Second Language

On-the-Job Training

Work Supplementation

Activities

121

85

80

75

70

65

59 56

19

3 1

Note: Estimates are slightly understated due to missing data for 9 percent of the sampled

counties. For sampling errors, see appendix II.

Participants may be enrolled in more than one activity at a time.

This demonstrates that counties will face a major challenge in supporting

the work programs called for in some welfare reform proposals. For

example, H.R. 4 requires states to provide work activities for an increasing

percentage of those receiving cash assistance or face penalties of up to

5 percent of the state’s block grant. In 1996, states would have to involve

10 percent of all families in work activities, with the requirement rising to

50 percent by 2003.46 And the administration’s proposal before the 103rd

Congress called for those young mothers who do not find unsubsidized

46Cash assistance recipients must participate in one of the following to count towards the participation

rate: unsubsidized employment, subsidized private or public-sector employment (including on-the-job

training), work experience, job search, job-readiness, education directly related to employment for

those under 20 years old and without a high school education or its equivalent, job skills training

directly related to employment, or high school for those under 20 years old.

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

employment after 24 months of receiving AFDC to be placed in subsidized

minimum-wage jobs. The House bill and the administration’s proposal

place a much greater emphasis on work activities than current law.

Under both of these proposals, welfare agencies will need to work with

many welfare recipients who cannot find jobs on their own. Attention will

have to be paid to preparing these recipients for the workplace, because

administrators we spoke with emphasized the importance of screening

and selecting able and motivated participants to place with employers to

maintain employer interest in participating in the programs. This is

consistent with our survey results showing that in most counties the

typical JOBS participant enrolled in on-the-job training or work

supplementation has at least 1 year of previous work experience and high

levels of motivation. Also, in most counties, participants in these work

activities tended to be more educated than JOBS participants in general.

While work activities are little used in JOBS, most administrators believe

that they are effective tools that warrant expansion. Of the relatively small

number of JOBS administrators currently using work supplementation,

70 percent rated it moderately or highly effective in moving AFDC recipients

off welfare and 83 percent wanted to expand their use of it.47 Of those

using on-the-job training, 72 percent48 thought it at least moderately

effective in moving individuals off welfare and 88 percent expressed

interest in expanding its use. Almost all counties used work experience,

with 76 percent rating it as effective and 84 percent wishing to expand its

use.

In sites we visited, JOBS participants had been placed with a range of

employers and other community organizations. They performed

community service work with a county planning office, the Indian Health

Service, and a community food bank. In addition, through the

work-supplementation program, participants had found jobs at a car

dealership, a large health care provider, and a small doctor’s office. In one

site, the work-supplementation program helped refugees receiving AFDC

gain employment at worksites where they could improve their

English-language skills. According to the program supervisor, some of the

refugees had been in English as a Second Language classes for several

years but had not progressed to employment.

47As a result of the limited percentage of JOBS programs using work supplementation (8 percent), the

sampling errors for these percentages are large—plus or minus 21 and 18 percentage points,

respectively.

48The sampling error for this percentage is plus or minus 10 percentage points.

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Of those program administrators not currently using on-the-job training,

about 32 percent believed it to be moderately or highly effective in moving

recipients off AFDC49 and about three-fourths supported expansion. At least

one-half of the administrators without work-supplementation programs

also wanted to develop or expand these programs, although they were less

sure about the effectiveness of such programs.

Evaluations of on-the-job training and work-supplementation programs

have shown positive results in terms of increased employment and

earnings for welfare recipients, but did not conclude that the programs

produced welfare savings.50 As discussed in chapter 2, evaluations of

work-experience programs have shown that they offer productive work

for participants and benefits to taxpayers, but do not generally produce

increased earnings, employment rates, or welfare savings.51

Internal and External

Factors Hinder Strong

Employment Focus

While JOBS administrators acknowledged that they did not work enough

with employers to help participants find jobs, they identified several

administrative and programmatic factors that hindered their efforts.

Further, administrators and researchers identified certain labor market

conditions that hinder efforts to place AFDC recipients in jobs.

Insufficient Staff Hinder

Links With Employers

Most administrators reported that insufficient staff hindered their efforts

to work with employers to place JOBS participants in unsubsidized jobs or

work activities. Local program administrators, researchers, and HHS

officials have noted that working with employers to find job openings or to

create and maintain work-activity positions requires a lot of time and

effort on the part of JOBS workers. For example, to operate

work-supplementation programs, AFDC grant dollars must be diverted to

employers to subsidize wages. Many administrators believe that it is

difficult to develop and administer a tracking system to operate such a

program. In addition, staff must market their programs to employers and

sometimes visit worksites to maintain contact or monitor operations.

49Of those not currently using on-the-job training, 47 percent believed they had no basis to judge its

effectiveness. However, of those who did rate its effectiveness, about 61 percent believed it to be

moderately or highly effective.

50See Howard S. Bloom, and others, The National JTPA Study—Overview: Impacts, Benefits, and Costs

of Title II-A, Abt Associates Inc. (Bethesda, Maryland: 1994); Judith Gueron and Edward Pauly, From

Welfare to Work; and What’s Working (and What’s Not): A Summary of Research on the Economic

Impacts of Employment and Training Programs, Office of the Chief Economist, U.S. Department of

Labor (Washington, D.C.: 1995).

51See Thomas Brock, David Butler, and David Long, Unpaid Work Experience.

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Economies may be achieved if many participants are placed at a single

worksite, but we found that generally only one or two participants are

placed with each employer.

Administrators believe that they need more staff to work with employers

because current JOBS staff and resources are mainly devoted to participant

intake and management of often heavy caseloads.52 According to HHS, JOBS

caseloads range from 30 to 400 participants per worker. Administrators we

met explained that expansion of job-development and work activities

would necessitate shifting current staff from intake and case management

functions. They also noted that hiring additional staff is not an option

where budgets are constrained.

Resource Constraints

Affect Program Choices

While in some cases resource constraints may limit the number of JOBS

staff, they may also affect administrators’ and caseworkers’ decisions

about the activities in which they enroll participants. The study of JOBS

programs in 10 states referred to earlier noted that the availability of

education, training, and employment-related activities tends to drive the

placement of participants.53 For example, as a result of resource

constraints, programs would often place participants in activities that

were readily available or free of charge rather than create or purchase

services that were deemed needed by participants.

We also found that funding constraints limited the use of on-the-job

training. About one-half of the JOBS administrators cited insufficient funds

and one-third cited the high costs of on-the-job training compared with

other JOBS activities as a major or moderate hindrance to its expansion.54

On-the-job training is sometimes more costly to a JOBS program than other

activities because many of the educational or other activities in which

participants are placed are funded by other providers or programs and do

not require expenditures of JOBS funds. For example, a JOBS program may

not pay for adult basic education or college courses funded by federal,

state, or county providers.

52Participant intake involves orientation, appraisal, and assessment; case management involves

assigning participants to activities, arranging supportive services, and monitoring their participation

and progress.

53Irene Lurie and Jan Hagen, Implementing JOBS: Progress and Promise, p. 179.

54When programs did place participants in on-the-job training, it was often done through the

community JTPA provider, thereby requiring no use of JOBS funds to subsidize the employers.

However, like JOBS, JTPA on-the-job training slots and funding are limited.

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Funding constraints also hinder the use of work supplementation, even

though this form of employer subsidy is funded by AFDC grants instead of

JOBS funds. An official in Texas told us that in states with low AFDC grants,

the amount of money that can be diverted to the employer is not sufficient

for a wage subsidy. For example, the average AFDC grant in Texas equals

$159 a month, providing few dollars to subsidize wages.55 In 1994, 31 state

welfare agencies decided not to include work supplementation in the state

JOBS plans they must submit to HHS for approval.56 As a result, the local

programs in these states were barred from operating

work-supplementation programs.

Federal Performance

Measurement System Does

Not Promote Employment

The current federal JOBS participation and targeting requirements provide

little incentive for states to redirect scarce resources to increase their

focus on moving AFDC recipients into employment. The JOBS performance

measurement system is process-oriented, based on the numbers and types

of participants enrolled in activities, and does not include outcome

measures, such as the portion of participants who become employed and

leave welfare. While the participation requirements have played an

important role in encouraging states to serve more participants, including

the hard-to-serve, the ultimate goal of JOBS is to increase employment and

reduce welfare dependence. Yet states are not required by HHS to report

the total number of JOBS participants who find jobs each year and are not

held accountable for the number of JOBS participants who become

employed.57

Some program administrators and researchers have noted that programs

can meet federal participation requirements by placing participants in

readily available JOBS activities more easily and with less cost to their

programs than finding them unsubsidized jobs or creating subsidized

employment. Because program administrators can meet federal

requirements without redirecting scarce resources to focus more on

employment, they have little incentive to do so. JOBS programs may,

55Some states have obtained or applied for waivers from AFDC and JOBS policy to allow them to

include the cash value of an AFDC recipient’s Food Stamp benefit with the AFDC benefit to be

diverted to an employer as a wage subsidy. This increases the dollar amount available to subsidize an

individual’s wages.

56States are required biennially to submit a JOBS plan to HHS.

57JOBS legislation directed HHS to recommend to the Congress by October 1993 JOBS performance

standards that included outcome measures, such as increased earnings and reduced welfare

dependence. While HHS has not made recommendations, it has reported to the Congress on related

issues and is pursuing changes to the JOBS performance measurement system that will include

outcomes. For more information, see Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants

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

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

therefore, emphasize getting clients into program activities without also

focusing on establishing links with employers to realize the ultimate goal

of employment.

For example, at one site we visited, a woman had successfully completed

several different training programs. Under the current performance

system, this individual helps the program meet the federal requirements to

receive its full share of federal funding. Yet she remained unemployed and

on AFDC.

Labor Market Conditions

Limit Efforts

Labor market realities also pose a range of problems for JOBS

administrators as they attempt to move AFDC recipients into the workplace.

Several factors are important in this regard.

Lack of Jobs Administrators and research studies cite high unemployment and low job

growth as hindering programs’ efforts to get jobs for participants. Nearly

three-fourths of local JOBS administrators identify current labor market

conditions, which are outside their control, as a hindrance to their

job-development efforts. Many counties operate JOBS in areas of high

unemployment or negligible job growth. For example, in 1993,

unemployment rates reached 8 percent or more in 30 percent of the

nation’s counties; job growth was 1.5 percent or less in one-half the

nation’s counties and negative in about one-third of the counties.

While some research has shown that the outlook for job growth

nationwide over the next few years is encouraging,58 in specific locations

the number of job openings may not meet local needs. For example, a

May 1993 survey of Milwaukee area employers identified about 12,000

full-time job openings, which represented only 20 percent of the jobs

needed for the estimated 63,000 welfare recipients and unemployed

persons seeking or expected to work. When part-time jobs were included,

the number of available jobs represented 35 percent of the total jobs

needed.59

Likewise, JOBS officials in Silicon Valley in California, where many

once-booming high-tech computer companies are located, and other areas

58Rebecca Blank, “Outlook For the U.S. Labor Market and Prospects For Low-Wage Entry Jobs,”

Northwestern University, paper prepared for Urban Institute Conference (Washington, D.C.: 1994), p.

15.

59See John Pawasarat, “Survey of Job Openings in the Milwaukee Metropolitan Area: Week of May 24,

1993,” Employment and Training Institute and Social Science Research Facility, University of

Wisconsin-Milwaukee (Milwaukee: 1993).

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

in California believe that their JOBS participants and staff acting on their

behalf operate at a distinct disadvantage because of the increase in

competition for positions in general. They noted that they must operate

their programs in areas where employers are often faced with a surplus of

job applicants, especially for relatively unskilled, entry-level positions.

Lack of Employer Interest Administrators we surveyed and spoke with emphasized that lack of

employer interest also hindered the expansion of work activities.

Administrators cited as one contributing factor a federal displacement

restriction. Under work-supplementation and work-experience programs,

participants may only be placed in positions newly created by

employers—not positions that become vacant due to turnover. This

prohibition is intended to protect workers from being displaced through

layoffs and replaced by federally subsidized JOBS participants. About

three-fourths of the administrators operating work-supplementation

programs reported that this restriction hindered expansion of their

programs60 and about 46 percent of all administrators said that they

probably or definitely would like to use work supplementation for existing

positions also.

In addition, work-experience positions are restricted to sponsors who

serve a public purpose, another restriction that about 72 percent of

administrators would like to see changed, allowing them both more as

well as a greater variety of employers with which to place participants to

help them gain work experience. Like work-supplementation,

work-experience positions are also subject to displacement restrictions.

While most administrators did not believe that the displacement

restriction was currently a factor hindering expansion, about one-half

supported placing work-experience participants in existing positions.

Administrators we spoke with thought that other workers and individuals

could be protected without restricting work programs to new positions

only.

Local administrators also cited other reasons. For example, for on-the-job

training, the JOBS program and employers must generally enter into

contracts covering the employment of participants, maintain timekeeping

and payroll records subject to audit, develop individual training plans,

establish qualitative measures of success, and assess the progress of

participants in acquiring jobs skills. Some employers may feel that the

wage subsidy they receive—up to one-half of participants’ wages when

training is completed—does not adequately compensate them for any

60The sampling error for this percentage is plus or minus 21 percentage points.

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

extra work they must do. In a work-experience program, while a

participating employer gets an unpaid worker, the employer is not

compensated for any supervision costs involved. Administrators we met

cautioned that the number of available supervisors among employers

places an upper limit on the expansion of work experience.

Administrators also cited employer concerns about welfare recipients

being unprepared for work. Employers’ perceptions may be skewed by

unfavorable stereotypes or unsuccessful prior experiences. One study of a

welfare-to-work program in an inner-city neighborhood noted that many of

the participants who found jobs had problems keeping them for various

reasons, including chronic lateness and misunderstandings with

supervisors.61 To overcome these perceptions and problems, program

administrators told us that they often select their most capable

participants for work activities.

Lack of Jobs That Support

Families

While the lack of jobs is a problem in many areas, the low-wage work that

is available to many AFDC recipients discourages their movement off AFDC.

Our work in 1991 demonstrated that many single mothers will remain near

or below the poverty line even if they work at full-time jobs.62 More

recently, we found that in 1993 the typical single mother with a low-wage

job had more income than a comparable mother and family on AFDC, but

was nevertheless still in poverty.63

Moreover, a low-wage worker may incur significant job-related costs, such

as child care, which could make her family worse off financially than some

AFDC families.64 In addition, employment or increased earnings may affect

her receipt of other forms of assistance. For example, the previously cited

survey of several thousand AFDC recipients found that 60 percent of the

respondents in Atlanta lived in public housing projects or other subsidized

housing. As a result, their incentive to find jobs may be affected because

61See Toby Herr and Robert Halpern with Aimee Conrad, Changing What Counts: Re-Thinking the

Journey Out of Welfare, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, Northwestern University

(Chicago: 1991).

62Mother-Only Families: Low Earning Will Keep Many Children in Poverty (GAO/HRD-94-177, Apr. 2,

1991).

63Under the expanded EITC provisions scheduled to take effect in 1996, a family with more than one

child will be eligible for as much as a 40-percent credit on earnings up to $8,425 (in 1994 dollars).

64Low-Income Families: Comparisons of Incomes of AFDC and Working Poor Families

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-63, Jan. 25, 1995).

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

increased earnings may cause them to incur significantly increased

housing costs.65

The belief and often the reality that a poor single mother can better

provide for her family by being on welfare than by working at a low-wage

job plays a critical role in discouraging AFDC recipients from looking for

and accepting employment. As figure 3.4 shows, about three-fourths of the

JOBS administrators cited the lack of jobs with sufficient wages and

benefits as a moderate or major reason that their job-ready clients did not

become employed. About 70 percent of administrators also noted that

their participants did not become employed because of concerns about

losing their AFDC benefits, Medicaid, or housing subsidies. By comparison,

about one-half of administrators cited the lack of jobs as a major or

moderate reason.

65See Gayle Hamilton and Thomas Brock, The JOBS Evaluation: Early Lessons from Seven Sites.

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

Figure 3.4: Administrators’ Opinions

on Reasons Job-Ready Participants

Do Not Become Employed (Mid-1994)

Percent of Counties

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

No Jobs With Sufficient Wages or Benefits

Participant Anxiety—Losing AFDC

No Available Transportation to Jobs

Participant Anxiety—Losing Medicaid

Participant Anxiety—Losing

Housing Subsidy

No Jobs Available

Child Care Not Affordable

Participant Anxiety—Leaving Children

Insufficient Supply of Child Care

Participant Anxiety—Losing Caseworker

Moderate Reason for Not Becoming Employed

Major Reason for Not Becoming Employed

One study found that 55 of 69 randomly selected current and former AFDC

recipients interviewed in Tennessee and North Carolina said that they

were not likely to accept a minimum-wage job that did not provide health

insurance for them and their children. Most of the 55 thought that health

insurance was a necessity and others said that they could not support their

families with a minimum-wage job.66

Concerns about participants’ abilities to support their families may affect

the attitudes of administrators and staff in promoting employment as the

ultimate program goal. For example, we found that while about 60 percent

of local administrators said that they would definitely encourage a

66Vicki Grant, and others, A Study of the Relationship of Health Coverage to Welfare Dependency, p.

13.

Page 47 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 3 

Most JOBS Programs Have a Weak

Employment Focus

30-year-old JOBS participant with one child to accept a minimum-wage job

with health insurance benefits, only 26 percent would definitely encourage

her to accept such a job without health benefits.

Recent studies of labor market conditions and the characteristics of

welfare recipients indicate that employment training strategies to improve

the earnings capacities of welfare recipients through education and

training may not lead to earnings increases great enough to allow single

parents to support themselves with their own earnings.67 These studies

demonstrate that the supports available to low-wage workers, for

example, the EITC, expanded Medicaid coverage, child support payments,

and child care subsidies, play an important role in helping families get jobs

and remain employed. Our recent work on child care subsidies indicates

that assistance with child care has a large effect on the likelihood that

poor women will work. Thus, subsidies may help welfare recipients

become employed and remain off the welfare rolls.68

67See by Gary Burtless “The Employment Prospects of Welfare Recipients,” and by Rebecca Blank

“Outlook for the U.S. Labor Market and Prospects for Low-Wage Entry Jobs” in The Work Alternative:

Welfare Reform and the Realities of the Job Market, Demetra Nightingale and Robert Haveman, eds.,

The Urban Institute (Washington, D.C.: 1994). Also see Linda Levine, Jobs for Welfare Recipients,

Congressional Research Service (Washington, D.C.: May 1994) and Thomas Gabe and Gene Falk,

Welfare: Work (Dis)Incentives in the Welfare System, Congressional Research Service (Washington,

D.C.: 1995).

68Our analysis, based on an empirical model, predicts that providing a full subsidy to mothers who pay

for child care could increase the percentage of poor mothers who work from 29 to 44 percent, and that

of near-poor mothers who work from 43 to 57 percent. Child Care: Child Care Subsidies Increase

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

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

The 104th Congress proposes to fundamentally change AFDC—the nation’s

largest cash assistance program for poor families with children. While

there is general agreement that reforms should promote work, the

Congress is considering the type and extent of work requirements to be

linked to the receipt of cash assistance.

Whether AFDC continues as an entitlement program or is converted into a

block grant, program administrators at the county and local levels will be

concerned with moving large numbers of welfare recipients into

employment. Our work highlights examples of programs that are

well-focused on the ultimate goal of employment—stressing the

importance of work for their participants and forging links with employers

to identify jobs or create work opportunities where none is available.

However, these programs appear more the exception than the rule. Most

programs appear to emphasize preparing participants for employment

without also making strong efforts to help place their participants in jobs.

While we acknowledge that some administrators face factors beyond their

control that may limit program choices, including budget constraints and a

lack of jobs, other programs facing similar constraints have taken steps

that promote work more strongly for their participants. These steps

include focusing staff and participants on the importance of employment,

working more closely with employers to identify job openings,

determining employers’ needs, and helping match recipients’ education

and training activities to labor market demands.

Even programs that are well-focused on moving AFDC recipients into

employment have faced challenges, however. For example, the Riverside

County program strongly emphasized moving recipients quickly into jobs;

yet after 3 years, about 40 percent of its participants remained on AFDC.

Many who became employed remained on AFDC or, if off AFDC, continued to

receive other forms of public aid, including Food Stamps or federal

housing assistance. And some of those who left AFDC remained in poverty

and at risk of returning to AFDC.

In those cases where unsubsidized employment is not available or the

characteristics of participants do not make them readily employable,

strategies like work supplementation or on-the-job training may help

welfare recipients become employed. And where regular jobs or

subsidized employment are not feasible, work-experience programs may

serve as an alternative that promotes work for welfare recipients.

Administrators generally supported the use of these work activities.

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

However, they believe that they need more flexibility to design work

activities to meet the needs of their participants and local labor markets.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report (see app. IV), HHS’ Administration

for Children and Families (ACF) disagreed with our conclusion that JOBS

programs do not have a strong employment focus. ACF stated that we did

not sufficiently recognize programs’ use of job search or the extent of their

job-development activities in evaluating their employment focus. It also

stated that we did not acknowledge the many ways that programs could

focus on employment and, instead, relied too much on programs’ low use

of subsidized employment and work experience to indicate a weak

employment focus. We continue to believe, based on all the evidence we

gathered, that many JOBS programs nationwide do not have a strong

employment focus.

More specifically, ACF commented that the report does not recognize job

search as an employment-focused activity and its extensive use in JOBS,

thus, underrepresenting the employment efforts of JOBS programs. We

acknowledge that programs can emphasize employment through their use

of job-search activities for participants. As we had shown in figure 3.3, the

participants enrolled in job search nationwide numbered 75,000 out of

586,600. In addition, we note that all programs use job search as an

integral part of their programs and have added this information to the

report.

We also found, however, that while job search plays a role in all programs,

its use varies considerably. Only about one-third of programs employ an

early job search strategy that encourages participants to look for work

upon enrollment in JOBS, in effect letting the local labor market decide who

is job-ready and employable. Those who fail to find work initially are then

placed in job search again after participating in education and training. On

the other hand, most programs do not expect all participants to look for

work upon enrollment, instead limiting job-search activities until

participants have received the education and training that the program

determines they need to become employed.

We also note that the programs we highlighted for their strong

job-placement efforts took steps beyond enrolling participants in

job-search activities. These programs facilitate job-search activities by

working closely with employers, through job-development efforts, to help

participants find work. In addition, it is important that programs

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

encourage their participants to accept employment by, for example,

helping all participants understand the work incentives available to them.

We found, however, that most programs did not strongly emphasize

job-development efforts or inform all participants of important work

incentives.

In addition, ACF believes that we did not adequately recognize the extent of

programs’ connections with employers through their job development

efforts. Our data show and the report acknowledges that almost all JOBS

programs include some job-development activities, performed either by a

program’s own staff or through other organizations. We also found,

though, that the extent of job development performed on behalf of JOBS

participants, whether by the welfare agency itself or other organizations, is

limited. For example, about 60 percent of program administrators reported

that their program or its contractors arranged interviews for or marketed

to employers only some or few of their job-ready participants. In addition,

over one-half of the nation’s program administrators believe that their

program or its contractors did not do enough job development to meet

their participants’ needs.

ACF also noted that JOBS programs can take many approaches to help their

participants become employed. In addition, ACF stated that the relatively

low use of subsidized employment and work experience does not

necessarily indicate a lack of employment focus. We agree that there are

many ways that programs can focus on employment, as we demonstrated

with the examples of different approaches in chapter 2. We also agree that

programs do not have to use subsidized employment or work experience

to be considered employment-focused. The Riverside County program, for

example, does not emphasize these options. However, we found that most

programs reported placement rates for their job-ready participants of

50 percent or less. Yet programs were not widely using existing subsidized

employment or work-experience options to foster work among the many

participants unable or unwilling to find work.

In addition to these issues, ACF expressed concern that our draft report

promoted holding states accountable for the employment outcomes of

their JOBS programs without noting the problems involved in such an

approach. We acknowledge the challenges inherent in holding JOBS

programs accountable for results. We maintain, however, that strong

congressional interest in AFDC becoming more focused on helping

recipients become employed, as well as requirements in the Government

Performance Results Act that performance monitoring become more

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Chapter 4 

Conclusions, Agency Comments, and Our

Evaluation

outcome-oriented governmentwide, indicate that more attention to

outcome measures and goals is appropriate.

ACF also suggested certain technical revisions to the draft, which we

incorporated as appropriate.

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Page 53 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix I 

Federal Rules Governing Work Activities for

AFDC Recipients

Federal law and regulations govern the administration and funding of JOBS

work activities: on-the-job training, work supplementation, community

work experience, and alternative work experience. The table below

identifies and compares selected features of these activities.

Table I.1: Comparison of Federal Rules for JOBS Work Activities

Feature On-the-job training Work supplementation

Community work

experience

Alternative work

experience

Payment to participant and

employment status

Employee paycheck;

hired on day 1

Employee paycheck;

hired by 14th week

AFDC benefit check; not

hired

AFDC benefit check; not

hired

Payment to employer JOBS funds for up to an

average of 50 percent of

wages

AFDC benefits for up to

100 percent of wages

None None

Hours and months worked Up to full-time for length

of time appropriate for

training

Up to full-time for 9

months

Limited hours, such that

AFDC grant divided by

hours is not less than

minimum wage;

generally limited to 9

months

Up to full-time

Position and employer Any position with any

employer

New position with any

employer

New position with

employer serving a

public purpose

New position with

employer serving a

public purpose

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix II 

Methodology for Survey of JOBS

Administrators

To collect information on the extent to which JOBS programs were working

with employers to help their participants find work and what factors

hindered such efforts, we mailed a questionnaire to a random sample of

county JOBS program administrators in May 1994. We did not verify the

data collected through the questionnaire.

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—Counties comprising the 10 cities with the

largest populations of female-headed families on public assistance.69

2. Metropolitan counties with a central city—Counties containing the

central city for a metropolitan statistical area.

3. Metropolitan counties without a central city—Counties in metropolitan

statistical areas that do not contain a central city.

4. Nonmetropolitan (rural) counties—Counties that are not part of a

metropolitan statistical area.

We selected all the large urban counties and random samples of counties

from each of the other three groups. Table II.1 shows the total number of

counties and the number sampled in each stratum. After selecting the

sample, we contacted states to determine the name, address, and

telephone number of the JOBS program administrators responsible for

programs in the sampled counties. We also identified 22 rural counties and

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

Therefore, we adjusted our initial sample to exclude these counties.70 We

obtained responses from 93 percent of the program administrators for the

counties in our adjusted sample (401 out of 430). We used these responses

to produce national estimates for the JOBS program.

69These 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.

70According to JOBS regulations, states do not have to operate JOBS programs in sparsely populated

areas as long as they meet other requirements of statewideness, including providing full programs in

all metropolitan areas and at least minimal programs covering 95 percent of their AFDC population.

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix II 

Methodology for Survey of JOBS

Administrators

Table II.1: Response Rates, Overall and by Strata

Stratum Type of county

Total number in

universe, 1990

Total counties

sampled

Adjusted

sample

Number of

counties

responding

Response

rate

(percent)

1 Counties comprising 10 cities with

most female-headed public

assistance families 18 18 18 17 94

2 Counties in metropolitan areas

with central cities 422 134 134 121 90

3 Counties in metropolitan areas

without central cities 311 120 119 106 89

4 Counties in nonmetropolitan areas 2,390 181 159 157 99

Total All 3,141 453 430 401 93

Sampling Errors for

Estimates

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

subject to sampling error. Except where noted, the maximum sampling

errors for estimates in this report are plus or minus 7 percentage points. In

addition, table II.2 shows the sampling errors for our estimates of the

numbers of participants in various JOBS activities presented in figure 3.3.

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

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

number being estimated falls within the range defined by the estimate,

plus or minus the sampling error.

Table II.2: Sampling Errors for

Estimates Presented in Figure 3.3 Figures in thousands

Activity

Estimated number

of participants

Sampling

errora

Postsecondary education 121 24

High school or general equivalency diploma 85 15

Job skills training 80 13

Job search 75 13

Job readiness 70 36

Other approved activity 65 21

Work experience 59 15

Adult basic or remedial education 56 9

English as a second language 19 6

On-the-job training 3 1

Work supplementation 1 <1

aThese sampling errors were computed at the 95-percent confidence level. For example, the

chances are 95 out of 100 that the actual number in postsecondary education falls within the

range of 121,000, plus or minus 24,000.

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

In this appendix, our questionnaire and summaries of the responses are

presented. For each question, we show the unweighted actual number of

respondents that answered that question and the weighted statistic for the

nation. The percentages may not add to 100 due to rounding.

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Survey of JOBS Program Administrators

Welfare-to-Work Activities

At the request of the Congress, the U.S. General Accounting

Office (GAO) is conducting a review of the ways that the

JOBS program moves job-ready participants into

employment. As part of this review, GAO will survey a

randomly selected sample of county and local JOBS

programs. The results from this survey will provide the

Congress with information for the discussion of welfare

reform. The general areas of review include program design

and the activities of agencies in finding employment for

participants.

We ask that the director, supervisor, or administrator of your

JOBS program in the county or local area named on the

label above be the individual primarily responsible for

completing this questionnaire. If data for this specific area

are not available, please respond for the larger area for

which data are available. In that case, please indicate on

this page which counties or local areas are included.

A pre-addressed business reply envelope is included for your

convenience. Please return the completed questionnaire

within two weeks of receipt to the:

U.S. General Accounting Office

Attn: Gale Harris

NGB/Income Security

441 G Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20548

Before mailing your completed questionnaire, please make a

copy that you can refer to should we call to ask for

additional information.

If you have any questions, please call Gale Harris at (202)

512-7235 or Nora Perry at (202) 512-7261.

Thank you for your cooperation. Your participation in this

survey will be greatly appreciated.

Please enter the name, title, and telephone number of the

person who was primarily responsible for completing this

questionnaire.

NAME:

TITLE:

TELEPHONE NUMBER: ( )

Are you responding solely for the county or local area

listed on the label above? n = 392

81% YES

19% NO

(Please list the counties or local areas for which you are

responding.)

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

I. DEFINITIONS

JOBS The Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS) is the federal/state program that welfare

agencies must operate for their Aid to Families with Dependent Children recipients. While your program

may be known by another name, please respond for the program you operate in accord with federal JOBS

requirements.

Job development These are agency activities that include identifying public or private employers’ job openings, marketing

and placement JOBS participants to employers, securing job interviews for participants, and marketing the JOBS program

and the employment services it may provide to employers and employer associations.

Job search Job search is a JOBS activity performed on an individual or group basis. It includes counseling, training

in job-seeking skills, and information dissemination. It may include the use of telephone banks to contact

potential employers. Such activities may be referred to as Job Club.

Participants AFDC recipients who participate in at least one hour of approved JOBS component activities.

Placement standard This refers to a benchmark or target established for the number of JOBS participants entering employment.

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

II. PROGRAM GOALS AND DESIGN

1. In general, when you prepare JOBS participants for

employment, which of the following is most similar

to your program’s overriding goal? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 389

a. 23% To get participants employed in any job,

part- or full-time, even if the job might

not allow them to move off AFDC

b. 77% To prepare and place participants in

employment that allows them to move

off and stay off AFDC

2. On average, about what is the starting wage for

JOBS participants when they become employed?

(ENTER DOLLAR AMOUNT AND TIME PERIOD.)

n = 352

$ 5.00 per hr (median)

(hr/wk/mo/yr)

Range of responses: $ 4.25 - 16.00 per hour

3. Is there a minimum starting wage level that your

JOBS program targets for participants to earn at job

entry? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 386

a. 50% YES

b. 50% NO (SKIP TO QUESTION 5.)

4. What minimum starting wage level does your JOBS

program usually target for participants? (ENTER

DOLLAR AMOUNT AND TIME PERIOD.) n = 190

$ 5.00 per hr (mean and median)

(hr/wk/mo/yr)

Range of responses: $ 4.25 - 8.00 per hour

5. Does your program usually encourage participants to conduct a job search at the points listed below? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 389

YES NO

a. Before beginning any education, training,

or work-related activity 37% 63%

b. After the completion of an education activity 91% 9%

c. After the completion of a training activity 97% 3%

d. After the completion of a work-related activity 91% 9%

e. After the completion of all activities in the

participant’s employability plan 94% 6%

f. When the participant is not making satisfactory

progress in education or training 65% 36%

g. Whenever the participant chooses to 69% 32%

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

6. Does your JOBS program currently have any

placement standards against which the (a) program

itself or (b) individual caseworkers are judged?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 379

YES NO

a. JOBS program itself 67% 34%

b. Individual JOBS caseworkers 30% 70%

7. About what proportion of participants are informed

by your JOBS program about the benefits of the

Earned Income Tax Credit? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 387

a. 52% All or almost all

b. 16% Most

c. 5% About half

d. 17% Some

e. 10% Few or none

8. About what proportion of participants, if any, are

informed by your JOBS program about the benefits

of AFDC earned income disregards? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 388

a. 67% All or almost all

b. 14% Most

c. 1% About half

d. 12% Some

e. 5% Few or none

9. About what proportion of participants, if any, are

informed by your JOBS program about the benefits

of AFDC child care disregards? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 385

a. 67% All or almost all

b. 15% Most

c. 2% About half

d. 6% Some

e. 9% Few or none

10. About what proportion of JOBS participants, if any,

are informed by your program that transitional child

care is available? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n

= 388

a. 83% All or almost all

b. 13% Most

c. 1% About half

d. 2% Some

e. <1% Few or none

11. About what proportion of JOBS participants, if any,

are informed by your program that transitional

medical assistance is available? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 388

a. 84% All or almost all

b. 14% Most

c. 1% About half

d. 1% Some

e. 1% Few or none

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

12. For about what proportion of your JOBS participants

does your program prepare a budget to demonstrate

the package of benefits and assistance available to

them when working? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 388

a. 18% All or almost all

b. 21% Most

c. 9% About half

d. 23% Some

e. 29% Few or none

III. CONNECTIONS WITH EMPLOYERS

13. While the welfare agency maintains overall responsibility for the JOBS program, who takes the lead in administering

the day-to-day operation of JOBS locally? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 382

a. 60% The Welfare (IV-A) Agency

b. 7% JTPA/Private Industry Council

c. 6% State Employment Service

d. 3% Community-based organizations

e. 17% A combination of the Welfare Agency, Employment Service and/or JTPA, education agencies etc.

f. 8% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

14. Does the agency that takes the lead in administering the day-to-day operations of your local JOBS program also

provide services to each of the following non-AFDC groups? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 387

YES NO

a. Food stamp recipients not receiving AFDC benefits 71% 29%

b. JTPA enrollees not receiving AFDC benefits 37% 63%

c. State General Assistance or Relief recipients 41% 59%

d. Other non-AFDC groups (PLEASE SPECIFY.) n = 95

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

15. Currently, of all job development and placement services for JOBS participants, about what percentage are

PERFORMED by each of the following? (ENTER PERCENTAGES; IF NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 358

Estimated Percentage

(means)

a. Welfare (IV-A) Agency 32 %

b. JTPA on non-reimbursable basis 9 %

c. JTPA under financial contract 10 %

d. The State Employment Service on non-reimbursable basis 9 %

e. The State Employment Service under financial contract 16 %

f. Community-based organizations on non-reimbursable basis 2 %

g. Community-based organizations under financial contract 4 %

h. Education or training providers on non-reimbursable basis 5 %

i. Education or training providers under financial contract 3 %

j. Other providers (PLEASE SPECIFY.) 5 %

Total = 100 %

16. For about how many, if any, of the participants your program considers prepared for work is your JOBS program or

its contractors able to conduct the following activities? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 387

All or

almost all

(1)

Most

(2)

About half

(3)

Some

(4)

Few, if any

(5)

a. Market an individual JOBS

participant to employers

18% 13% 10% 37% 22%

b. Screen a JOBS participant to

match him or her with particular

employers’ needs

25% 23% 9% 31% 12%

c. Provide a JOBS participant with

current listings of job openings

45% 23% 6% 18% 8%

d. Arrange on-site interviews for a

JOBS participant with potential

employers

16% 14% 12% 38% 21%

e. Other activities (PLEASE

SPECIFY.)

n = 38

63% 37%

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

17. How much emphasis, if any, does your program place upon each of the following when encouraging potential

employers to consider JOBS participants? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 383

Very great

emphasis

(1)

Great

emphasis

(2)

Moderate

emphasis

(3)

Some

emphasis

(4)

Little or no

emphasis

(5)

a. JOBS as a ready source of

employees

16% 34% 22% 18% 11%

b. JOBS’ capacity to screen and

refer job-seekers

18% 34% 19% 17% 12%

c. JOBS’ capacity to provide

training that meets employers’

needs

16% 24% 20% 22% 17%

d. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 42

46% 43% 11%

18. Do you use each of the following ways to make

employers aware of the services JOBS can provide?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 384

YES NO

a. Distributing notices/pamphlets

to employers 57% 43%

b. Placing telephone calls to

employers 83% 17%

c. Visiting employers 78% 22%

d. Visiting employer

associations 60% 41%

19. In which way do you most often make employers

aware of the services JOBS can provide? (CHECK

ONE RESPONSE.) n = 376

a. 12% Distributing notices/pamphlets to

employers

b. 32% Placing telephone calls to employers

c. 26% Visiting employers

d. 7% Visiting employer associations

e. 9% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

20. Currently, about how often, if ever, does your JOBS program or its contractors work with each of the following to

either IDENTIFY or CREATE employment opportunities? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 385

Very often

(1)

Often

(2)

Sometimes

(3)

Rarely, if ever

(4)

a. Public-sector employers 25% 30% 34% 12%

b. Private non-profit employers 20% 34% 32% 14%

c. Private for profit employers 19% 28% 34% 19%

d. The Chamber of Commerce or

other similar employer

associations

9% 16% 38% 37%

e. JTPA Private Industry Council 29% 26% 24% 22%

f. Economic development

agencies

10% 18% 30% 42%

g. Labor unions (public- or

private-sector)

2% 6% 17% 76%

h. Others (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 13

40% 60%

21. How many JOBS staff, if any, are dedicated fulltime and how many are dedicated part-time to job

development activities? (ENTER NUMBER OF

STAFF; IF NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 281

1 (mean); 0 (median) Staff dedicated full-time

Range of responses: 0 - 70

1(mean and median) Staff dedicated part-time

Range of responses: 0 - 35

22. About what percentage of a typical JOBS

caseworker’s time is spent on job development

activities? (ENTER PERCENTAGE; IF NONE,

ENTER "0.") n = 181

13% (mean); 10% (median)

23. During your most recently completed program year,

what were the total Federal and State expenditures

for your JOBS program, excluding child care costs?

(ENTER AMOUNT.) n = 162

$ about 170,000 (median)

24. About what percentage of these Federal and State

expenditures were spent for job development and

placement services for your JOBS participants,

including administrative costs? (ENTER

PERCENTAGE; IF NONE, ENTER "0.".) n = 186

13% (mean); 5% (median)

Page 65 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

25. When did your county or local area begin operating its JOBS program? (Enter month and year.)

/ 19

(month) (year)

26. During the past three years, about how many times did your program or its contractors perform each of the activities

listed below? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 383

More than

three times

(1)

Three

times

(2)

Two times

(3)

One time

(4)

Never

(5)

a. Consult with the JTPA Private Industry

Council to identify training that meets labor

market needs

55% 9% 11% 7% 18%

b. Conduct or make use of labor market surveys

to identify the types of jobs available now or

in the future

48% 15% 7% 10% 20%

c. Design JOBS program activities around the

education, skills, or experience necessary to

meet labor market needs

60% 12% 10% 8% 11%

d. Evaluate the results of education/training 59% 12% 7% 9% 13%

e. Involve employers in the development or

review of education/training offerings

29% 11% 10% 11% 40%

f. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n=8

100%

Page 66 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

27. During the past twelve months, has your program performed each of the activities listed below? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 391

YES NO

a. Contact employers or others to identify job openings 88% 12%

b. Market JOBS participants to employers or others 84% 16%

c. Market the JOBS program to employers or others 89% 11%

d. Screen participants to match them with individual employer’s

needs 82% 18%

e. Evaluate participant-initiated education/training programs

to ensure that they prepare participants for available jobs 86% 14%

f. Evaluate all other education/training programs to ensure that they

prepare participants for available jobs 82% 18%

28. In your opinion, does your program or its contractors do more or less than enough of each of the following activities

to meet the needs of JOBS participants? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 389

Much more

than enough

(1)

More than

enough

(2)

Enough

(3)

Less than

enough

(4)

Much less

than enough

(5)

a. Contact employers or others

to identify job openings

4% 11% 33% 36% 16%

b. Market JOBS participants

to employers or others

2% 13% 31% 42% 13%

c. Market the JOBS program

to employers or others

2% 13% 33% 40% 13%

d. Screen participants to match

them with individual

employer’s needs

3% 15% 41% 33% 8%

e. Evaluate participantinitiated education/training

programs to ensure that

they prepare participants for

available jobs

5% 17% 55% 17% 6%

f. Evaluate all other

education/training programs

to ensure that they prepare

participants for available

jobs

3% 17% 50% 25% 6%

g. Other (PLEASE

SPECIFY.)

n = 15

11% 46% 40% 0% 3%

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

29. How effective, if at all, is each of the means listed below in identifying employment opportunities for JOBS

participants? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 390

Highly effective

(1)

Moderately

effective

(2)

Somewhat

effective

(3)

Of little or no

effectiveness

(4)

a. Caseworkers’ personal knowledge 36% 38% 22% 3%

b. State Employment Service 16% 36% 29% 19%

c. Staff dedicated to identifying

employment opportunities for

participants

37% 33% 21% 9%

d. Participants’ own job search 23% 43% 31% 4%

e. Up-to-date job listings at the JOBS

program site

23% 32% 33% 12%

f. Marketing JOBS participants to

employers

24% 35% 28% 14%

g. Marketing the JOBS program to

employers

19% 36% 29% 16%

h. Other means (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 12

77% 23%

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

30. How much, if at all, does each of the following help or hinder your program in performing job development and

placement activities? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 390

Greatly

helps

(1)

Somewhat

helps

(2)

Neither

helps nor

hinders

(3)

Somewhat

hinders

(4)

Greatly

hinders

(5)

a. Current level of financial resources 9% 14% 15% 29% 34%

b. Number of JOBS program staff 11% 9% 7% 30% 43%

c. Level and variety of staff skills 29% 24% 21% 18% 9%

d. Staff workload level 6% 9% 13% 36% 37%

e. Level of employer interest 12% 15% 28% 35% 10%

f. Activities of labor unions <1% 2% 83% 8% 6%

g. Competition from other

employment programs attempting to

place their clients

<1% 4% 69% 23% 4%

h. Current labor market conditions 7% 11% 10% 36% 36%

i. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 29

23% 8% 0% 24% 45%

Page 69 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

IV. CREATION OF WORK OPPORTUNITIES

A. WORK SUPPLEMENTATION: Work supplementation/grant diversion is a JOBS component that allows the welfare agency

to pay, or "divert," all or part of the AFDC grant to an employer to cover part of the costs of the wages paid to a JOBS

participant. Federal law prohibits the use of work supplementation for established, unfilled positions. Any type of

employers, public or private, may be involved. The JOBS participant is expected to be retained by the employer.

31. Has your program had experience operating work

supplementation/grant diversion as a welfare-towork activity? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 375

a. 6% YES, prior to JOBS only

b. 8% YES, under JOBS only

c. 5% YES, both prior to and under JOBS

d. 82% NO

32. Does your program currently have any JOBS

participants in work supplementation components?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 376

a. 8% YES

b. 12% NO, but our program does provide

work supplementation as a JOBS

activity. (SKIP TO QUESTION 41.)

c. 80% NO, we do not provide work

supplementation as a JOBS activity.

(SKIP TO QUESTION 42.)

33. Are any of your work supplementation slots with

employers of each of the following sizes? (CHECK

ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 32

YES NO

a. Small (fewer than 50 employees) 100% 0%

b. Medium (50 - 500 employees) 70% 30%

c. Large (more than 500

employees) 24% 76%

34. Which size of employer provides the largest number

of your program’s work supplementation slots?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 32

a. 78% Small (fewer than 50 employees)

b. 22% Medium (50 - 500 employees)

c. 0% Large (more than 500 employees)

35. Does each of the following types of employers

provide work supplementation slots? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 33

YES NO

a. Local government 54% 46%

b. State government 35% 65%

c. Federal government 16% 84%

d. Private nonprofit 75% 25%

e. Private for profit 86% 14%

36. Which type of employer provides the largest

number of your program’s work supplementation

slots? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 32

a. 19% Local government

b. 7% State government

c. 0% Federal government

d. 2% Private nonprofit

e. 73% Private for profit

37. Typically, about how many JOBS participants are

placed with a single employer in work

supplementation slots at one time? (ENTER

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS.) n = 29

2 (mean); 1 (median) participants per employer

Range of responses: 1 - 20

38. About what percentage of your JOBS participants

placed in work supplementation activities have at

least a high school diploma or GED? (ENTER

PERCENTAGE; IF NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 28

86 % (mean); 90% (median)

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

39. How much prior work experience do participants

typically have when placed in work

supplementation? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 30

a. 19% Less than 1 year

b. 58% 1 - 2 years

c. 23% More than 2 years

40. In your opinion, how much motivation to work do

participants typically have when placed in work

supplementation? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 29

a. 21% A very great amount

b. 38% A substantial amount

c. 23% A moderate amount

d. 17% Some amount

e. 0% Little or no amount

41. For those employers who choose not to participate in the work supplementation/grant diversion program, how much,

if at all, is each of the following a reason they do not participate? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 76

A major reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. The administrative requirements of

work supplementation

32% 28% 12% 28%

b. The subsidy amount 11% 31% 14% 44%

c. The perception that JOBS

participants may not be job-ready

38% 18% 24% 20%

d. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 18

94% 6%

42. In your opinion, should work supplementation slots be developed for your program, or, if they already exist, should

additional slots be developed for your program? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 353

a. 25% Definitely yes

b. 30% Probably yes

c. 26% Undecided

d. 14% Probably no

e. 5% Definitely no

Page 71 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

43. How much, if at all, is each of the following a reason why your JOBS program does not have any work

supplementation/grant diversion slots or more slots than it currently has? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)

n = 338

A major reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. Work supplementation is not an

approved activity included in our

state JOBS plan

54% 4% 4% 38%

b. Already have sufficient slots 2% 3% 2% 94%

c. Insufficient financial resources 24% 13% 10% 53%

d. Insufficient number of staff to

develop or administer slots

37% 22% 8% 34%

e. Staff lack skills to develop or

administer slots

10% 13% 18% 59%

f. Difficulty of starting and

administering a wage pool

28% 13% 12% 47%

g. More costly per participant to

develop or administer than other

activities

24% 19% 15% 43%

h. Federal law which restricts use to

new, unfilled positions

25% 15% 14% 46%

i. Lack of employer interest 21% 15% 18% 46%

j. Current labor market conditions 25% 19% 15% 42%

k. Insufficient number of appropriate

JOBS participants to fill slots

14% 12% 16% 58%

l. Opposition to the use of subsidies to

help welfare recipients become

employed

6% 11% 15% 68%

m. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 30

91% 9%

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

44. Based on your program’s experience with work

supplementation/grant diversion, how effective, if at

all, do you think work supplementation is in moving

recipients off welfare? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 328

a. 78% No basis to judge

b. 7% Highly effective

c. 4% Moderately effective

d. 6% Somewhat effective

e. 5% Of little or no effectiveness

45. In your opinion, how much, if at all, does the work

supplementation/grant diversion subsidy increase or

decrease the likelihood that employers will hire

JOBS participants? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 332

a. 9% Greatly increases

b. 13% Somewhat increases

c. 8% Neither increases nor decreases

d. 1% Somewhat decreases

e. 1% Greatly decreases

f. 68% Don’t know

46. In general, do you think Federal law should be

changed to allow the use of work supplementation

for established, unfilled positions? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 345

a. 21% Definitely yes

b. 26% Probably yes

c. 37% Undecided

d. 12% Probably no

e. 5% Definitely no

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

B. ON-THE-JOB TRAINING: On-the-job training (OJT) is a JOBS component that allows JOBS funds to be used to reimburse

the training and supervision costs of an employer who hires a JOBS client. Federal law allows OJT participants to be placed

in existing or new positions with any type of employer, public or private. The JOBS participant is to be retained as an

employee.

47. Has your program had experience operating OJT as

a welfare-to-work activity? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 386

a. 7% YES, prior to JOBS only

b. 14% YES, under JOBS only

c. 30% YES, both prior to and under JOBS

d. 50% NO

48. Does your program currently have any JOBS

participants in OJT? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 384

a. 23% YES

b. 43% NO, but our program does provide OJT as

a JOBS activity. (SKIP TO

QUESTION 58.)

c. 34% NO, we do not provide OJT as a JOBS

activity. (SKIP TO QUESTION 59.)

49. Typically, how are your OJT slots funded? (CHECK

ONE RESPONSE.) n = 112

a. 16% JOBS funds only

b. 45% JTPA funds only

c. 37% Both JOBS and JTPA funds

d. 3% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

50. Are any of your OJT slots with employers of each of

the following sizes? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR

EACH.) n = 106

YES NO

a. Small (fewer than 50

employees) 95% 5%

b. Medium (50 - 500 employees) 66% 35%

c. Large (more than 500

employees) 19% 81%

51. Which size of employer provides the largest number

of your program’s OJT slots? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 112

a. 79% Small (fewer than 50 employees)

b. 21% Medium (50 - 500 employees)

c. 1% Large (more than 500 employees)

52. Does each of the following types of employers

provide OJT slots? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR

EACH.) n = 107

YES NO

a. Local government 45% 55%

b. State government 30% 70%

c. Federal government 16% 84%

d. Private nonprofit 68% 32%

e. Private for profit 92% 8%

53. Which type of employer provides the largest number

of your program’s OJT slots? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 108

a. 7% Local government

b. 7% State government

c. 0% Federal government

d. 18% Private nonprofit

e. 68% Private for profit

54. Typically, about how many JOBS participants are

placed with a single employer in OJT slots at one

time? (ENTER NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS.)

n = 97

1 participants per employer (mean and median)

Range of responses: 1 - 5

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

55. About what percentage of your JOBS participants

placed in OJT activities have at least a high school

diploma or GED? (ENTER PERCENTAGE; IF

NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 104

79 % (mean); 90% (median)

56. How much prior work experience do participants

typically have when placed in OJT? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 106

a. 44% Less than 1 year

b. 41% 1 - 2 years

c. 15% More than 2 years

57. In your opinion, how much motivation to work do

participants typically have when placed in OJT?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 111

a. 21% A very great amount

b. 42% A substantial amount

c. 34% A moderate amount

d. 3% Some amount

e. 0% Little or no amount

58. For those employers who choose not to participate in the OJT program, how much, if at all, is each of the following a

reason they do not participate? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 218

A major reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. The administrative requirements of

OJT

29% 36% 15% 20%

b. The reimbursement/subsidy amount 6% 26% 32% 36%

c. The perception that JOBS

participants may not be job-ready

25% 36% 19% 20%

d. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 32

71% 29%

59. In your opinion, should OJT slots be developed for your program, or, if they already exist, should additional slots be

developed for your program? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 377

a. 46% Definitely yes

b. 33% Probably yes

c. 12% Undecided

d. 6% Probably no

e. 2% Definitely no

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

60. How much, if at all, is each of the following a reason why your JOBS program does not have any OJT slots or more

slots than it currently has? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 370

A major reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. OJT is not an approved activity

included in our state JOBS plan

18% 4% 3% 76%

b. Already have sufficient slots 6% 5% 7% 82%

c. Insufficient financial resources 33% 21% 14% 33%

d. Insufficient number of staff to

develop or administer slots

35% 26% 16% 24%

e. Staff lack skills to develop or

administer slots

11% 15% 21% 52%

f. More costly per participant to

develop or administer than other

activities

19% 16% 16% 48%

g. Lack of employer interest 14% 28% 24% 34%

h. Current labor market conditions 21% 25% 21% 34%

i. Insufficient number of appropriate

JOBS participants to fill slots

13% 17% 21% 50%

j. Opposition to the use of subsidies to

help welfare recipients become

employed

5% 7% 20% 69%

k. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 50

90% 10%

Page 76 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

61. Based on your program’s experience with OJT, how

effective, if at all, do you think OJT is in moving

recipients off welfare? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 375

a. 38% No basis to judge

b. 20% Highly effective

c. 22% Moderately effective

d. 14% Somewhat effective

e. 7% Of little or no effectiveness

62. In your opinion, how much, if at all, does the OJT

subsidy increase or decrease the likelihood that

employers will hire JOBS participants? (CHECK

ONE RESPONSE.) n = 374

a. 19% Greatly increases

b. 41% Somewhat increases

c. 8% Neither increases nor decreases

d. <1% Somewhat decreases

e. <1% Greatly decreases

f. 32% Don’t know

C. WORK EXPERIENCE: Work Experience is a JOBS component that allows JOBS participants to gain work experience while

receiving their AFDC grants. Federal law prohibits the use of work experience for established, unfilled positions. In addition,

only employers serving a public purpose may be involved. Under one form, Community Work Experience (CWEP), the

maximum number of hours that a participant may be required to work is equal to the family’s monthly AFDC grant divided

by the greater of the Federal or State minimum wage. This restriction does not apply to Alternative Work Experience

Programs (AWEP) that may be designed and operated at state option.

63. Has your program had experience in providing

CWEP or other work experience activities as a

welfare-to-work activity? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 386

a. 4% YES, prior to JOBS only

b. 40% YES, under JOBS only

c. 43% YES, both prior to and under JOBS

d. 12% NO

64. Does your program provide for CWEP or other

work experience as a JOBS activity, whether or not

any participants are currently in that activity?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 380

a. 26% YES, CWEP only

b. 33% YES, other work experience only

c. 36% YES, both CWEP and other work

experience

d. 6% NO (SKIP TO QUESTION 77.)

65. Does your program currently have any JOBS

participants in work experience? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 364

a. 29% YES, CWEP only

b. 36% YES, other work experience only

c. 26% YES, both CWEP and other work

experience

d. 9% NO (SKIP TO QUESTION 76.)

66. Are any of your CWEP or other type of work

experience slots with employers of each of the

following sizes? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR

EACH.) n = 325

YES NO

a. Small (fewer than 50

employees) 99% 1%

b. Medium (50 - 500 employees) 70% 30%

c. Large (more than 500

employees) 26% 74%

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

67. Which size of employer provides the largest number

of your program’s CWEP or other work experience

slots? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 331

a. 69% Small (fewer than 50 employees)

b. 26% Medium (50 - 500 employees)

c. 5% Large (more than 500 employees)

68. Does each of the following types of employers

provide either CWEP or other work experience

slots? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.)

n = 332

YES NO

a. Local government 94% 6%

b. State government 85% 15%

c. Federal government 42% 58%

d. Private nonprofit 89% 11%

e. Private for profit 28% 72%

69. Which type of employer provides the largest

number of your program’s CWEP or other work

experience slots? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 330

a. 39% Local government

b. 31% State government

c. 1% Federal government

d. 22% Private nonprofit

e. 7% Private for profit

70. Typically, about how many JOBS participants are

placed with a single employer in either CWEP or

other work experience slots at one time? (ENTER

NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS.) n = 285

3 (mean); 2 (median) participants per employer

Range of responses: 1 - 130

71. About what percentage of your JOBS participants

placed in either CWEP or other work experiences

have at least a high school diploma or GED?

(ENTER PERCENTAGE; IF NONE, ENTER "0.")

n = 305

71% (mean); 75% (median)

72. How much prior work experience do participants

typically have when placed in either CWEP or other

work experience slots? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 328

a. 52% Less than 1 year

b. 31% 1 - 2 years

c. 17% More than 2 years

73. In your opinion, how much motivation to work do

participants typically have when placed in either

CWEP or other work experiences? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 334

a. 9% A very great amount

b. 23% A substantial amount

c. 36% A moderate amount

d. 28% Some amount

e. 3% Little or no amount

74. How many weeks does either a CWEP or other work

experience activity in your JOBS program typically

last? (ENTER NUMBER OF WEEKS.) n = 288

19 (mean); 16 (median) weeks

Range of responses: 1 - 52

75. How many hours per week does either a CWEP or

other work experience activity in your JOBS

program typically last? (ENTER NUMBER OF

HOURS.) n = 297

22 (mean); 20 (median) hours per week

Range of responses: 8 - 40

Page 78 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

76. For those employers who choose not to participate in the CWEP/other work experience program, how much, if at all,

is each of the following a reason they do not participate? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 357

A major reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. The administrative requirements of

CWEP or work experience

7% 22% 29% 42%

b. The lack of reimbursement for

supervising participants

8% 18% 27% 48%

c. Concerns about the time and staff

needed to supervise participants

24% 36% 24% 15%

d. Concerns about workers’

compensation liability

35% 18% 20% 27%

e. Concerns about union opposition to

the program

8% 10% 19% 63%

f. The perception that JOBS

participants lack the skills and work

habits needed to perform

19% 34% 31% 16%

g. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n =35

67% 33%

77. In your opinion, should CWEP/other work experience slots be developed for your program, or, if they already exist,

should additional slots be developed for your program? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 381

a. 54% Definitely yes

b. 28% Probably yes

c. 7% Undecided

d. 10% Probably no

e. 2% Definitely no

Page 79 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

78. How much, if at all, is each of the following a reason why your JOBS program does not have any CWEP/other work

experience slots or more slots than it currently has? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 367

A major

reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. CWEP is not an approved activity included in our

state JOBS plan

15% 1% 2% 82%

b. Other work experience is not an approved activity

included in our state JOBS plan

10% 3% 1% 87%

c. Already have sufficient slots 8% 13% 14% 65%

d. Insufficient financial resources 14% 13% 11% 62%

e. Insufficient number of staff to develop or administer

slots

32% 24% 18% 26%

f. Staff lack skills to develop or administer slots 4% 8% 16% 72%

g. More costly per participant to develop or administer

than other activities

5% 4% 18% 72%

h. Federal law restricting use to new, unfilled positions 9% 11% 13% 67%

i. Lack of employer interest 9% 28% 24% 40%

j. Insufficient number of appropriate JOBS participants

to fill slots

14% 22% 21% 44%

k. Inability to identify meaningful work opportunities 6% 16% 27% 51%

l. Opposition of unions to the use of work experience 3% 5% 12% 80%

m. Opposition of welfare advocates to the use of work

experience

3% 3% 10% 83%

n. Opposition of the JOBS program to the use of work

experience

<1% 2% 4% 93%

o. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 38

76% 24%

Page 80 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

79. Based on your program experience with CWEP or

other work experience, how effective, if at all, do

you think CWEP or other work experience is in

moving recipients off welfare? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 386

a. 6% No basis to judge

b. 33% Highly effective

c. 39% Moderately effective

d. 17% Somewhat effective

e. 6% Of little or no effectiveness

80. In general, do you think Federal law should be

changed to allow the use of CWEP or other work

experience for established, unfilled positions?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 387

a. 22% Definitely yes

b. 29% Probably yes

c. 17% Undecided

d. 18% Probably no

e. 14% Definitely no

81. In general, do you think Federal law should be

changed to allow CWEP or other work experience

slots with private employers who serve OTHER

THAN a public purpose? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 385

a. 34% Definitely yes

b. 38% Probably yes

c. 11% Undecided

d. 9% Probably no

e. 8% Definitely no

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

D. Targeted Jobs Tax Credit

82. To what extent do you promote the Targeted Jobs

Tax Credit as a benefit to employers? (CHECK

ONE RESPONSE.) n = 386

a. 14% To a very great extent

b. 22% To a great extent

c. 21% To a moderate extent

d. 22% To some extent

e. 22% To little or no extent

83. In your opinion, how much, if at all, does the

Targeted Jobs Tax Credit increase or decrease the

likelihood that employers will hire JOBS

participants? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 385

a. 9% Greatly increases

b. 47% Somewhat increases

c. 21% Neither increases nor decreases

d. 1% Somewhat decreases

e. 1% Greatly decreases

f. 22% Don’t know

V. AFDC UNEMPLOYED PARENTS IN JOBS

84. During Federal fiscal year 1994, how easy or difficult will it be for your JOBS program to meet the goal of placing

at least 40 percent of its AFDC Unemployed Parents in work-related components? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 389

a. 3% Very easy

b. 8% Moderately easy

c. 7% Somewhat easy

d. 5% Neither easy nor difficult

e. 23% Somewhat difficult

f. 17% Moderately difficult

g. 37% Very difficult

Page 82 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

85. How much, if at all, does each of the following items help or hinder your program in placing at least 40 percent of

its AFDC Unemployed Parents in either work supplementation, OJT, work experience, or work programs? (CHECK

ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 387

Greatly

helps

(1)

Somewhat

helps

(2)

Neither

helps nor

hinders

(3)

Somewhat

hinders

(4)

Greatly

hinders

(5)

a. Current level of financial

resources

2% 5% 39% 29% 24%

b. Number of JOBS program staff 2% 5% 21% 32% 39%

c. Level and variety of staff skills 18% 17% 43% 17% 5%

d. Staff workload level 2% 5% 18% 35% 40%

e. Level of employer interest 8% 11% 32% 39% 10%

f. Activities of labor unions <1% 1% 86% 8% 5%

g. Job readiness of UP participants 4% 10% 15% 38% 34%

h. Current labor market conditions 4% 7% 22% 36% 31%

i. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 78

12% 0% 0% 10% 79%

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

VI. MOVING PARTICIPANTS INTO EMPLOYMENT

86. On what date did your most recently completed

program year end? (ENTER MONTH, DAY, AND

YEAR.)

/ / 199

(month) (day) (year)

87. During your most recently completed program year,

of all the participants your program considered

prepared for work, about what percentage became

employed either through their own or the JOBS

program’s efforts (ENTER PERCENTAGE; IF

NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 310

41% (mean); 31% (median)

88. In your opinion, how much, if at all, is each of the following items a reason why participants do not become employed

when they are prepared for work? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE FOR EACH.) n = 389

A major reason

(1)

A moderate

reason

(2)

A minor reason

(3)

Not a reason

(4)

a. No jobs are available at a sufficient

wage or benefit level

44% 32% 16% 7%

b. No jobs are available 26% 27% 26% 21%

c. Transportation is not available to

where jobs are

44% 31% 21% 4%

d. Supply of child care is insufficient 10% 27% 34% 29%

e. Child care is not affordable 22% 28% 23% 27%

f. JOBS participants are anxious about

leaving their children

10% 30% 43% 17%

g. JOBS participants are anxious about

losing Medicaid

49% 25% 19% 7%

h. JOBS participants are anxious about

losing AFDC benefits

38% 39% 19% 4%

i. JOBS participants are anxious about

losing subsidized housing assistance

37% 33% 23% 7%

j. JOBS participants are anxious about

losing caseworker support

3% 16% 43% 39%

k. Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

n = 44

83% 17%

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

89. Of your current participants, about what

percentage had at least a high school diploma or

GED when they began the JOBS program?

(ENTER PERCENTAGE; IF NONE, ENTER "0.")

n = 355

53% (mean); 50% (median)

90. Of your current participants, about what

percentage began JOBS with limited English

proficiency? (ENTER PERCENTAGE; IF NONE,

ENTER "0.") n = 359

9% (mean); 1% (median)

91. Of your current participants, about what

percentage are either (a) exempt or mandatory

participants who enrolled voluntarily or (b)

mandatories who did not volunteer? (ENTER

PERCENTAGES; IF NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 361

(means)

a. Exempt or mandatory participants

who enrolled voluntarily 33 %

b. Mandatories who did not

volunteer 63 %

Total = 100 %

92. In a typical month during your current program

year, how many adults receive AFDC Basic and

AFDC Unemployed Parent benefits in your county

or local area? (ENTER NUMBERS; IF NONE,

ENTER "0.") n = 231

(means)

1,698 AFDC Basic adults Don’t know

195 AFDC Unemployed

Parent adults Don’t know

93. In a typical month during your current program

year, about how many JOBS participants do you

have in each of the following activities? (ENTER

NUMBERS; IF NONE, ENTER "0.") n = 352

(means)

a. High school or GED 35

Range of responses: 0 - 2,400

b. Adult basic or remedial

education 24

Range of responses: 0 - 6,495

c. English as a second language 8

Range of responses: 0 - 5,800

d. Post-secondary education 49

Range of responses: 0 - 8,900

e. Job skills classroom training 34

Range of responses: 0 - 7,100

f. Job readiness 30

Range of responses: 0 - 1,215

g. Job search (group or individual) 31

Range of responses: 0 - 3,782

h. On-the-job training (OJT) 2

Range of responses: 0 - 100

i. Work supplementation/grant

diversion 1

Range of responses: 0 - 100

j. Community work

experience (CWEP) 18

Range of responses: 0 - 1,300

k. Other unpaid work experience 8

Range of responses: 0 - 600

l. Other approved activity 29

Range of responses: 0 - 1,632

m. Total AFDC recipients in at least

one activity 250

Range of responses: 0 - 25,600

Page 85 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

94. Consider an AFDC mother who begins JOBS with

the following characteristics:

- no high school diploma or GED

- low literacy,

- 30 years of age, and

- no recent work experience.

Would your program be more likely to first

(a) encourage her to conduct a job search or

(b) schedule her for an educational activity?

(CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 385

a. 3% Encourage her to conduct a job

search

b. 80% Schedule her for an educational

activity

c. 17% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

95. If this woman had recent work experience, would

your program be more likely to (a) encourage her to

conduct a job search or (b) schedule her for an

educational activity? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 384

a. 34% Encourage her to conduct a job

search

b. 44% Schedule her for an educational

activity

c. 22% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

96. Now, consider an AFDC mother who begins JOBS

with the following characteristics:

- with high school diploma or GED,

- 30 years of age, and

- no recent work experience.

Would your program be more likely to first

(a) encourage her to conduct a job search or

(b) schedule her for an educational or training

activity? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 379

a. 26% Encourage her to conduct a job

search

b. 45% Schedule her for an educational or

training activity

c. 29% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

97. If this woman had recent work experience, would

your program be more likely to (a) encourage her to

conduct a job search or (b) schedule her for an

educational or training activity? (CHECK ONE

RESPONSE.) n = 382

a. 75% Encourage her to conduct a job

search

b. 9% Schedule her for an educational or

training activity

c. 16% Other (PLEASE SPECIFY.)

Page 86 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix III 

Questionnaire With Responses

98. In general, if a 30-year-old JOBS participant with

one child is offered a minimum wage job

WITHOUT health insurance, would you encourage

her to accept it? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.)

n = 391

a. 26% Definitely yes

b. 37% Probably yes

c. 17% Uncertain

d. 15% Probably no

e. 6% Definitely no

99. In general, if a 30-year-old JOBS participant with

one child is offered a minimum wage job WITH

health insurance, would you encourage her to

accept it? (CHECK ONE RESPONSE.) n = 390

a. 58% Definitely yes

b. 30% Probably yes

c. 8% Uncertain

d. 3% Probably no

e. 1% Definitely no

100. Do you have any additional comments about the JOBS program or efforts to place participants in work-related

activities? Please tell us if you have innovative efforts underway to create jobs for welfare recipients or other lowincome families.

n = 185

THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING!

Page 87 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Administration for

Children and Families

Page 88 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Administration for

Children and Families

Page 89 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Administration for

Children and Families

Page 90 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Administration for

Children and Families

Page 91 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix V 

Major Contributors

David P. Bixler, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7201

Gale C. Harris, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-7235

Bob DeRoy, Assistant Director, Computer Science

Patricia L. Elston, Senior Evaluator

Steven R. Machlin, Senior Statistician

Nora L. Perry, Evaluator

Page 92 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix V 

Major Contributors

Page 93 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix V 

Major Contributors

Page 94 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Appendix V 

Major Contributors

Page 95 GAO/HEHS-95-113 Welfare to Work
Related GAO Products

Welfare to Work: Participants’ Characteristics and Services Provided in

JOBS (GAO-HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995).

Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants (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: Current System Could Undermine Goals of Welfare Reform

(GAO/T-HEHS-94-238, Sept. 20, 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: Sharp Rise in Never-Married Women Reflects Societal

Trend (GAO/HEHS-94-92, May 31, 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, Jul. 7, 1993).

Welfare to Work: JOBS Participation Rate Data Unreliable for Assessing

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

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

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

(105499) Page 96 GAO/HEHS-95-113 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-95-113 Welfare to Work