I. Introduction

1. Work First Defined

There is no single model of a work first program. What defines such programs is their overall philosophy: that any job is a good job and that the best way to succeed in the labor market is to join it, developing work habits and skills on the job rather than in a classroom. Work first programs also share a strong message that, for participants, employment is both the goal and the expectation. Beyond this common philosophy, however, work first programs vary significantly in the services they offer, the sequencing of their activities, the extent to which participation is required and enforced, and even their goals and approach.

Work first programs seek to move people from welfare into unsubsidized jobs as quickly as possible, and job search itself is a central activity in these programs. However, work first is more than just job search. Work first programs generally begin with job search for most participants, using the labor market itself as the test of employability. Then, for those who are not able to find jobs right away, work first provides additional activities geared toward addressing those factors which have impeded employment. These activities might include education, training, work experience, or other options. In the context of work first, they are generally short term, closely monitored, and either combined with or immediately followed by additional job search.

The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) has evaluated a number of work first programs. Some of those programs are described below.

• "Labor force attachment" approach sites in the JOBS Evaluation (in Atlanta, Georgia; Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Riverside, California). Group job search (job club) is the first activity required for virtually all participants, followed by short-term education and training (and, occasionally, work experience) and subsequent job search for those who remain unemployed.

• Riverside County, California's, Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program. Participants without a high school diploma (or a GED-a high school equivalency certificate) or who lacked proficiency in reading and math had a choice of job search, basic education, or instruction in English as a Second Language as their first activity, though job search was encouraged. Most other participants were required to begin with job search. Riverside's GAIN program conveyed a strong message, even to those who began with education and training, about the importance of quick employment.

• Florida's Project Independence. Individuals who were identified as "job ready" (on the basis of education and work experience) conducted an independent job search followed by job club and another search, which was generally followed by education or training for those who did not find a job. Those who were not classified as job ready were assigned to education or training as a first activity. The majority of the caseload met the definition of job ready.

• San Diego's Saturation Work Initiative Model (SWIM). Most participants were assigned first to a two-week job search workshop and then, if they had not found employment, to a three-month unpaid work experience position concurrent with biweekly job club sessions, and finally, if they were still not employed, to education and training activities.

• Arkansas's WORK program. All participants were assigned first to two weeks of job club followed by up to three months of individual job search. If still unsuccessful in finding a job, participants were then assigned to unpaid work experience positions.

Not all of these programs have been equally effective, and all have tailored their activities differently; yet all have embraced an approach that emphasizes quick entry into the labor market through a combination of job search and short-term education, training, or work experience activities.

2. A Brief Summary of the Research

The impact of any welfare-to-work program depends on diverse factors, such as the amount and use of resources, the mix of services provided, the message that is communicated to participants, and the quality of implementation. Given the interaction of all these factors, it is difficult to conclude that any particular strategy is most effective at helping people on welfare find jobs. However, some general themes appear to be emerging from research on various welfare-to-work programs. This section discusses some of those themes.

People often associate a work first strategy with job search. But while job search is a central activity, research suggests that it is not the only important component of work first programs. Evaluations in the 1980s of programs that relied primarily on job search activities, and subsequent evaluations of approaches that combined job search with education, training, and other features, indicate that mixed programs that maintain a focus on employment can generate larger or more lasting increases in employment rates, earnings, and income than do pure job search programs. Evaluations of mixed-strategy programs in several states have also shown that such programs can save welfare dollars and return more to government budgets than they cost.

An evaluation by MDRC of six counties in California's GAIN program (the nation's largest JOBS program) found positive results in each of these areas. While GAIN as a whole was not a work first model, the most successful county GAIN program, in Riverside County, incorporated a work first approach for a large proportion of the caseload. For single-parent recipients, the program increased earnings by an average of 44 percent (compared to a control group) and reduced welfare payments by an average of 15 percent (again compared to a control group) over 4.5 years, and the impacts have held up over time. In addition, the program saved almost $3 for every dollar invested over a five-year period. Single-parent participants came out of the program somewhat better off: their average gains from increased earnings and fringe benefits, minus increased taxes, were greater than their losses from reduced public assistance benefits. At the same time, however, the Riverside program did not lift many people out of poverty and did not eliminate the need for welfare, since many participants remained on the rolls.

The ongoing JOBS Evaluation in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside is also finding positive results. The work first programs in those sites increased earnings over two years by as much as $1,212 compared to a control group. Savings from reduced welfare payments over two years ranged from $368 in Atlanta to $1,338 in Grand Rapids (though some of these savings were due to sanctioning as opposed to increased employment). The JOBS Evaluation also compares the work first programs in those sites with programs in the same sites which emphasize a human capital development (HCD) approach. In contrast to work first, HCD programs generally encourage investment in education and training as a route to employment, primarily through the provision of basic education. After two years, welfare and employment impacts for the HCD approach were not as strong as those for work first. However, HCD impacts may take longer to surface and may grow over time as participants complete their education and training and enter the workforce.

The most successful work first programs have shared some characteristics: a mixed strategy including job search, education and training, and other activities and services; an emphasis on employment in all activities; a strong, consistent message; a commitment of adequate resources to serve the full mandatory population; enforcement of participation requirements; and a cost-conscious management style.

3. Work First in a Block Grant Environment

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 give states increased responsibility for welfare programs, along with vast new flexibility and some new constraints. Appendix A provides a detailed summary of work-related provisions in the law. In general, the legislation presents both opportunities and challenges for work first programs:

• States no longer need to obtain federal waiver approval to implement many of the ideas discussed in this guide, as they did under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. However, there are some restrictions on the use of TANF funds, and states risk losing some funding if they do not comply with certain requirements.

• In the first years of TANF, many states will have additional funds (due to recent caseload declines) that they can use to make investments in a work first program. While work first approaches have been shown to return more to governments and taxpayers than they cost, there are up-front costs for hiring staff, developing or modifying management information systems, and implementing activities and services.

• The high participation rates required under TANF put pressure on work first programs to work with a broad segment of the welfare caseload. States are required to have 25 percent of all families participating in certain work activities in fiscal year 1997; this rate will increase to 50 percent in 2002 (these rates are reduced if caseloads decline). Participants must be active for at least 20 hours per week (or more, depending on which year it is, family composition, and age of youngest child) in order to count toward the required participation rates. States risk reductions in block grant funding if they do not meet these rates.

• Not all activities count toward the federal participation requirements. For example, job search counts for only up to six weeks per individual (or 12 weeks if the state's unemployment rate is 50 percent greater than the national average) and not for more than four consecutive weeks. Secondary school or a course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence (except for teen parents) counts only for those hours required in excess of 20 per week. (The first 20 hours of required participation must be in specified work activities; see Appendix A for a complete list.) Program planners should understand these requirements and take them into account when designing their work first program. Some may choose, however, to incorporate activities that do not count toward federal participation requirements if those activities make sense in terms of the state's goals.

• The legislation imposes a five-year time limit on a family's receipt of federally funded assistance (though states can exempt 20 percent of their caseload from the federal time limit due to hardship or risk of domestic violence). Time limits increase the pressure on work first programs to serve all recipients who are subject to the time limit and to help them find employment before they reach the end of their time limit. Time limits also increase the importance of helping recipients keep the jobs they find so that they do not cycle back onto welfare. (See section 40 for more on time limits.)

4. How to Use This Guide

This guide is organized into parts that offer advice on different levels of work first program management: planning, administration, activities, and case management. There is also a part that discusses policies related to work first, such as financial incentives and time limits. The parts are divided into numbered sections, each of which discusses a specific aspect of operating a work first program. The parts and sections are designed to be read independently, so that you can simply turn to those which are of interest to you. Many of the elements interact, however, and the text provides numerous cross-references to related sections.

Throughout the guide, you will find bulleted material and checklists. The bullets are intended to highlight topic areas and thus make the guide easier to use. The checklists denote specific suggestions for readers.

The guide cites numerous examples from state and county programs across the country that have implemented various aspects of work first or have addressed implementation issues in creative ways. Appendix B provides contact information for these programs as well as for other organizations that can provide information and assistance to readers.

There is no exact recipe for implementing work first. The three work first programs in the JOBS Evaluation-in Atlanta, Grand Rapids, and Riverside-all have strong results but look quite different. In any case, a guide presenting a single model would be of little use, because no single model would work everywhere. Presented in this guide are key ingredients and some ideas on how to mix them together. Given your own situation, you may want to add more or less of some ingredients, or alter the recipe in other ways.

As you read this guide, bear the following points in mind:

• The role of helping individuals move from welfare to work is usually performed by state, county, or city welfare agencies. However, many aspects of a program, or even whole programs, may be contracted out or provided through informal arrangements with workforce development agencies, Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) providers, community-based organizations, or other groups. In addition, other organizations may provide similar services on their own. This guide can be used by all these groups.

• It is important for program planners and staff to recognize the flexibility in a work first approach. If some elements do not work in your particular situation, or if you do not have control over some areas, that does not mean you cannot implement work first. Similarly, even if you would not define your own program as work first, the suggestions in this guide can help you make whatever model you choose more employment-focused.

• This guide does not describe how to build a welfare-to-work program from the ground up. You probably already have programs and policies in place, but you want to expand these programs and shift their focus to quick employment. Therefore, this guide skips over many elements of good management and planning in order to concentrate on the question at hand: How can you move your program from its current orientation to a work first approach?

• This guide is being published at a time when welfare policy is in a state of flux. With the passage of federal welfare legislation, states and localities have new flexibility in designing responses to poverty, and many are rethinking their existing policies and programs. This guide presents ideas that can be implemented within a variety of frameworks. Readers should be aware, however, of any local regulations, requirements, or other restrictions-from state policy mandates to agency hiring rules-that might affect how you make use of this guide.

The discussion that follows is only a beginning. Each of the sections could easily be expanded into a lengthy paper of its own, and would still not address all the ideas, options, and trade-offs. But the guidelines presented here will point you in the right direction. Use them to make sure that you have considered all important aspects of program design; to identify your options; and to make educated choices among those options. This guide provides concrete advice for states and localities as they strive to help families make the move from welfare to work.