Amy Brown
March 1997
Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation
This guide was written as part of the JOBS Evaluation. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation is conducting the JOBS Evaluation under a contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), funded by HHS under a competitive award, Contract No. HHS-100-89-0030. HHS is also receiving funding for the evaluation from the U.S. Department of Education. Funding to support the Child Outcomes portion of the JOBS Evaluation is provided by the following foundations: the Foundation for Child Development, the William T. Grant Foundation, and an anonymous funder.
This guide is being published and disseminated as part of MDRC's ReWORKing Welfare technical assistance project, which is funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the George Gund Foundation.
Dissemination of MDRC publications is also supported by MDRC's Public Policy Outreach funders: the Ford Foundation, the Ambrose Monell Foundation, the Alcoa Foundation, and the James Irvine Foundation.
This guide is distributed in association with the Welfare Information Network (WIN). The findings and conclusions presented herein do not necessarily represent the official positions or policies of the funders or the Welfare Information Network.
Contents
Preface v
Acknowledgments vii
1. Work First Defined 2
2. A Brief Summary of the Research 3
3. Work First in a Block Grant Environment 5
4. How to Use This Guide 6
II. Getting Started: Advice on Program Policy and Planning 9
5. Planning for Change 10
6. Program Activities and Flow 12
7. Support Services 15
8. Participation Requirements 16
9. Mandates and Sanctions 21
10. Tailoring Work First to the Program's Goals 22
11. Understanding the Caseload and Labor Market 24
12. Building Support for the Program 26
13. Evaluating Program Performance 28
III. Implementing Work First: Advice on Program Administration 33
14. Hiring and Training Staff 34
15. Caseload Size and Specialization 36
16. The Role of the Eligibility Office 38
17. Co-location and Integrated Case Management 41
18. Promoting an Employment Focus 43
19. Management Information Systems 46
20. Interagency Linkages 48
21. Program Costs 51
22. Strategies to Reduce Costs 55
IV. Structuring Activities: Advice on Program Components 59
23. Applicant Job Search 60
24. Orientation 61
25. Assessment 63
26. Job Club 65
27. Job Development 68
28. The Role of Education 70
29. The Role of Training 73
30. Work Experience and Subsidized Employment 75
31. Retention and Reemployment 79
V. Working with Participants: Advice on Case Management 83
32. Developing Employment Plans 84
33. Maximizing Participation 85
34. Motivating Participants 88
35. Facilitating Child Care and Transportation 90
36. Dealing with Personal and Other Issues 92
VI. Work First in Context: Advice on Related Policies 97
37. Transitional Benefits 98
38. Financial Incentives 100
39. The Earned Income Credit 102
40. Time Limits 104
Appendix A: Work-Related Provisions of the 1996 Federal Welfare Legislation 107
Appendix B: Programs, Organizations, and Contact Information 111
References and Further Reading 115
This guide is being published at a major turning point in welfare policy. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 has replaced the entitlement to Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with a block grant that covers both cash assistance and welfare employment and training activities. The legislation gives states new flexibility to design innovative welfare-to-work programs. Many of its elements-including capped funding, time limits on program eligibility, and demanding work requirements-place pressure on states and localities to operate large-scale programs that effectively help welfare recipients find and keep jobs.
Many states have already taken steps to redesign their welfare-to-work programs. One of the most popular strategies is commonly called "work first." Work first programs aim to move participants into unsubsidized employment as quickly as possible through job search and short-term education, training, or work experience activities. Programs incorporating a work first approach have been shown to produce positive impacts under varying conditions. Recent studies have also shown some of the trade-offs in this approach compared to other strategies. Knowledge about work first programs comes from comprehensive evaluations and discussions with program managers, practitioners, and participants. This guide seeks to summarize that knowledge so that program planners, administrators, and staff can put in place effective, well-designed programs. However, this guide is not meant to suggest that a work first model is the most effective welfare-to-work strategy. The best model for any given place depends on its specific goals, resources, and local conditions.
This guide was developed with two main sources of support and encouragement. First, it was conceived as part of the JOBS Evaluation, which MDRC is conducting for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with additional support from the U.S. Department of Education. The goal was to summarize, in an applied form, some of the information and insights being gained from that large-scale study and from the broader knowledge base of which it is an important part.
Second, the guide is part of a new initiative at MDRC. As a research organization, we have spent 20 years evaluating state welfare reform projects and have built a unique body of reliable knowledge about the effectiveness of different strategies for moving people from welfare to work. Our Board and staff have decided to try to do more to distill, synthesize, and share the lessons from our studies as well as our extensive field and operational experience, so that states and localities can make more informed choices as they move to reform welfare. To do this, we recently launched a new technical assistance project, called ReWORKing Welfare, funded by the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the James Irvine Foundation, and the George Gund Foundation. The project includes briefings, conferences, tailored technical assistance to states and localities, and a series of monographs on best practices. This guide is the first in that series.
We are grateful to the funders who made this guide possible. We hope readers will find it informative, and we welcome comments and inquiries about both the guide and the technical assistance project as a whole.
Judith M. Gueron
President
Acknowledgments
This guide incorporates the knowledge and experience of many people, and I am grateful to all those who took the time to provide input and advice and to read preliminary drafts.
Many outside reviewers brought their real-world experience to the guide and made sure that the information was complete and presented in a useful format. From Los Angeles County: John Martinelli, Chief of the GAIN Division; Pat Knauss, GAIN Program Manager; and staff in the Region V office. From Riverside County, California: Marilyn Kuhlman, GAIN Program Manager; John Rogers, Administrative Manager; Terry Welborn and all the staff in the Riverside GAIN office. From the Minnesota Family Investment Program: Chuck Johnson, MFIP Director; Joan Truhler, MFIP Program Advisor; Nancy Vivian, MFIP Program Advisor; and all the local staff who contributed to this guide. From the Oregon Department of Human Resources: Debbi White, JOBS Manager. From the Utah Family Employment Program: Bill Biggs, the former Program Coordinator; John Davenport, Program Specialist; and Connie Cowley, Program Specialist. From the West Virginia Department of Human Resources: Sue Sergi, former Commissioner of the Bureau for Children and Families. From the Fond du Lac County Department of Social Services, in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin: Diane Hausinger, Deputy Director.
Administrators and staff of other programs and organizations provided additional insight from their own experience: Linda Wolf, Deputy Director of the American Public Welfare Association; Donna Cohen-Ross, Director of Outreach at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, for her ideas on the Earned Income Credit; Mark Greenberg, Senior Staff Attorney of the Center for Law and Social Policy; Liz Krueger, Associate Director of the Community Food Resource Center; Julie Kerksick, Deputy Director of the New Hope Project; Cathy Zall, former Deputy Commissioner, Office of Employment Services in the New York City Human Resources Administration; Anne Collins, Senior Staff Associate for the Early Childhood Program at the National Center for Children in Poverty, for her child care suggestions; Toby Herr, Director of Project Match; and Barry Van Lare, Executive Director of the Welfare Information Network.
Staff at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services also provided useful guidance. I wish to thank especially Howard Rolston, Director of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families; Audrey Mirsky-Ashby, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; Nancye Campbell, Program Analyst, Administration for Children and Families; Karin Martinson, Senior Policy Analyst, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation; and Susan Greenblatt, Chief, Technical Assistance Branch, Office of Family Assistance, Administration for Children and Families.
Many colleagues at MDRC shared with me their knowledge of research on welfare-to-work programs. Mary Farrell drafted the sections on program costs, and Irene Robling drafted the section on management information systems. David Butler and Barbara Goldman provided invaluable guidance and insight. Judith M. Gueron, Maxine Bailey, Gordon Berlin, Dan Bloom, Thomas Brock, Fred Doolittle, Daniel Friedlander, Gayle Hamilton, Robert Ivry, Ginger Knox, David Long, Janet Quint, James Riccio, John Wallace, and Evan Weissman all read drafts and contributed their own expertise. Emily Bremner fact-checked the final draft. Barbara Gewirtz identified many useful resources. Cele Gardner edited the document, and Judith Greissman supervised the editorial and publication process. Patt Pontevolpe and Stephanie Cowell did the word processing. Finally, I am indebted to Jackie Finkel and Joanna Weissman, who contributed greatly to this document both substantively and through their research and fact-checking.
The Author