II. Getting Started:

Advice on Program Policy and Planning

Part II of this guide (sections 5-13) identifies some of the questions you need to ask and decisions you need to make as you prepare to implement a work first program. What are the key challenges of transforming your current program? What mix of policies, activities, and services will form your work first model? How will participants move through the program? Who will participate, and what will the program's mandates and sanction policies look like? This part of the guide also suggests questions to ask about the environment in which the program will operate-including characteristics of the welfare caseload and conditions of the local labor market. It offers ways to build support for the program both within the agency and in the broader community, to create a larger environment that will promote the program's goals and enhance its success. Finally, it provides advice on establishing performance measures and evaluating program impacts.

5. Planning for Change

Before you begin to design or implement a work first program, take the time to assess your current program and map out where you need to go.

General Guidance for Program Planners

• Remember that change does not happen overnight. It takes time to develop rules and procedures, train staff, ensure that the program's message is in place, and create linkages with other agencies and service providers.

• Be prepared to make adjustments as you go along. Change is a complicated process. If possible, pilot changes before implementing them systemwide, or phase in changes over time.

• Plan ahead. You can begin to put in place structures for facilitating change-such as working groups or interagency task forces-even before the exact nature of the change is determined.

• Make change an inclusive process. Involve internal staff, partner agencies, political players, employers, and advocates in planning for change. (See section 12 for suggestions on building support for the program.)

Transforming Your Current Program

The list below describes some common features of work first programs and outlines the key challenges for transforming existing programs to include those features. Specific strategies for meeting these challenges are offered throughout this guide.

• Moving to a mandatory program. Shifting from a largely voluntary program to one in which participation is mandatory involves first establishing who will be required to participate and what will be required, and then putting into place mechanisms to identify, refer, and track the mandatory caseload-both internally and in agreements with outside service providers. Staff will need to adapt to working with participants who may be less motivated and less attuned to the program's goals, or who may have more, or more serious, barriers to participation. In addition, staff will need to take on a new role-that of enforcing the mandate and sanctioning participants for noncompliance. Training staff in working with mandatory participants and communicating the program's philosophy to staff and service providers are important steps in implementing a mandatory program. Finally, voluntary participants often enter a program already knowing what they want to do or already self-enrolled in education or training. A critical policy decision is whether to accept these self-initiated activities. Staff may also need to spend more time helping mandatory participants identify their goals and develop their employment plans.

• Expanding participation. Many programs that currently serve only a small segment of the caseload will want to work with a broader portion of the caseload as they shift to a work first model. The task of expanding participation is made somewhat easier in work first programs by the relatively rapid flow of participants into and through the program. However, moving to a full-scale program will require increasing capacity in terms of staff, resources, facilities, activities, and service providers. Systems for tracking, monitoring, and referral of participants will also need to be enhanced to make sure that participants do not get "lost" in the enlarged program.

• Shifting to a quick-employment focus. Many welfare-to-work programs implemented under JOBS focused on connecting participants to educational opportunities as a longer-term employment strategy. While education can be an important part of a work first program, the emphasis on quick employment requires a fundamental shift in the activities provided, in the order of those activities, and in the philosophy under which the program operates. Some time needs to be spent reorienting staff and service providers to the new philosophy, developing stronger job search and employment-related services, designing new assessment tools and performance measures, and reworking agreements with outside service providers to promote the new focus.

• Changing notions of "employability." Many programs begin with assessments that separate out participants on the basis of education levels and determinations of "job readiness." Others reflect the philosophy that participants face multiple barriers to work and that employment is not a realistic goal in the short term. In contrast, a work first model generally begins with the expectation that everyone is capable of finding work and lets the job market itself-through job search activities-determine who is employable. Program planners making this shift need to rethink both when assessment is conducted and what is included in the assessment. They also face the substantial challenge of communicating the program's new message and moving staff to a philosophy of high expectations, in which a belief that all participants can succeed is put into practice.

• Focusing on outcomes. Many programs, whether they embody work first or another approach, focus primarily on the processes involved in bringing participants into the program and then maintaining them in the program. A key challenge in implementing a strong work first program is shifting the focus of staff and management toward getting participants employed. Administrators should define program goals in terms of desired outcomes and measure progress toward those outcomes, while taking care not to promote such undesired results as "creaming"-that is, working only with those participants who are most likely to succeed. This shift in focus can also be addressed through staff training, clear communication of the program's message, establishment of performance measures, and other tools. Finally, simplifying and streamlining paperwork and administrative tasks, as well as providing clerical and systems support for those tasks, can free staff members to focus on getting participants jobs.

• Implementing a high-performance program. Many programs may appear to be work first, but include only job search, have only individual job search, or operate weak job club activities, which act more as job readiness or career exploration workshops. Research suggests that stronger group job search activities and more mixed program models can be more effective (see section 2 for a summary of the research). Moving to a high-performance work first model involves putting into place quality job clubs and additional employment-focused activities for those who do not find jobs right away. Training for staff and agreements with service providers will also need to be revamped to put the improved work first model into practice.

6. Program Activities and Flow

While there is no single work first program model, most share the same core components and the same basic sequence of activities. This section describes the basic work first model and some variations that program planners may wish to consider. Sections 7-9 discuss options for child care, transportation, and other support services; participation requirements; and mandates and sanctions. Section 10 provides a blueprint for how program planners can tailor a work first approach to reflect different priorities and goals.

Figure 1 presents an example of the flow of work first participants through common program components. Below is a brief description of each of the components, which are discussed in detail in sections 23-31. Not all programs include all these components, and some vary the order of activities.

• Applicant job search. Some programs precede work first with an applicant job search, to divert some applicants from coming on welfare and to send a message to all applicants about the goal of employment.

• Orientation. The actual work first program begins with an orientation, which can vary in length and content across programs and may be integrated with the initial assessment or the first day of job club.

• Initial assessment. The initial assessment is generally limited to identifying and addressing immediate barriers to participation and employment, such as lack of child care or scheduled court appearances. Some participants may also be identified for exemption or deferral at this point.

• Job club. In keeping with the work first philosophy of quick entry into the labor market, the first program activity for participants is usually group job search (in the form of job clubs), sometimes supported by job development.

• In-depth assessment. An in-depth assessment is generally reserved for those who do not find jobs through job search. The goal of the in-depth assessment is to identify additional activities that will help the participant get a job as quickly as possible.

• Next steps. The variation among work first programs mostly occurs at this point. Program planners need to devote some thought to what services and activities will be available to those participants who have not found employment through the initial job search. Common post-job-search activities include: education or training; work experience or subsidized work; or additional job search. Job developers and case managers may also work more closely with participants at this point.

• Renewed job search. In the context of work first, the "next step" activities are generally short term and are followed immediately by additional job search, as the labor market is constantly tested and retested. This is a critical point for work first programs. Close monitoring and follow-up are necessary to ensure that participants remain on track as they move through multiple activities.

• Retention and reemployment services. Some programs provide services aimed at helping participants succeed in jobs once they have found them. These services include preparing participants ahead of time for what they may experience on the job and providing assistance after they leave welfare for work. Some programs also offer reemployment assistance, to help those who lose their first job find another one quickly.

Not all programs will choose to incorporate all these activities, and some programs may choose to add others or to alter the order of activities. Participants can also conduct concurrent activities-for example, by combining education with part-time employment, or work experience with continued job search. Concurrent activities can be a useful way of allowing participants to improve their skills and enhance their opportunities, while still promoting the employment goal. The design of other policies and services-including child care, transportation, and other supports, as well as financial incentives and other strategies to make work pay-completes the program mix.

7. Support Services

In addition to the activities outlined above, work first programs generally offer support services to participants. The most common of these are child care and transportation assistance. The supports enable parents to participate in the program and help them succeed in the transition to employment. This section discusses some policy options regarding support services. (For suggestions on how program staff can help participants make the most of available supports, see section 35.)

Child Care

Without child care, many parents will not be able to participate in a work first program. Child care needs may be more urgent in work first than in other welfare-to-work approaches because of high hours requirements and because of the push to get parents participating quickly. Programs aiming for broad participation should therefore ensure that child care is available and affordable for all those who need it. Conversely, programs that cannot or do not provide adequate child care assistance will need to limit participation requirements accordingly. Policy decisions must also be made regarding the types of care that will be funded, the method of payment, and the level of assistance the program will give parents in locating care. In some programs, child care subsidies remain available after participants leave welfare for work, to ease the transition and help make work pay (see section 37 for more on transitional benefits). Program planners might also wish to consider providing child care assistance to those at risk of coming on welfare, if that assistance can help them remain self-sufficient.

Many child care arrangements are unstable, and breakdowns in child care can force parents to make new arrangements. Also, as parents move through the program-for example, from job search to training to employment-their child care needs may change. Child care assistance needs to be flexible enough to accommodate such changes without disrupting participation. Some programs provide on-site drop-in child care for parents to use when meeting with program staff or participating in program activities. Program administrators can similarly encourage outside service providers to co-locate child care with activities. Such co-location can facilitate program participation and give parents an opportunity to see for themselves how a child care center operates. However, parents will still need to identify longer-term child care arrangements when they begin work. The move into work will be smoothest if parents already have stable child care arrangements in place.

The cost and availability of child care vary by the type of arrangement and the age of the child. Child care provided by licensed child care centers tends to be the most expensive type of care, followed by regulated family day care (care provided for a small group of children in the caregiver's home) and then by informal day care (care typically provided by friends or relatives). Infant and toddler care tends to be more expensive than care for older children. In addition, there are commonly shortages of infant care, care for children with special needs, and after-hours child care. A program's participation requirements will affect child care needs and costs. For example, exempting parents with very young children from program participation minimizes the need for infant care. Demand for child care can also be reduced by coordinating participation or employment with school hours, to the extent possible. (See sections 21 and 22 for more on child care costs.)

Transportation

Most programs provide transportation assistance to participants so that they can attend program activities and look for a job. This may be in the form of passes for public transportation or mileage reimbursement for a participant's own vehicle. Passes or reimbursement can be distributed either by work first staff or by service providers, and on a monthly or more frequent basis. The more frequent the distribution, the more closely participation can be monitored. Many programs have also increased the permitted value of participants' vehicles so that they can have more reliable transportation. Helping participants to get a driver's license or to clear driving violations, or providing assistance for car repair, can also keep clients mobile.

Some programs offer private van or bus service to program activities, particularly if public transportation is limited. Because of the need for participants not only to attend program activities but also to go out and look for jobs where those jobs are located-which may not be near public transportation routes-work first programs may need to deal creatively with transportation problems. For example, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, uses both program vans and volunteer drivers with their own vehicles to transport participants to interviews, training programs, job search classes, and employment (for the first few weeks, until permanent transportation has been arranged). While such a strategy can facilitate job search and increase participation rates in program activities, participants will still need to arrange their own transportation once they get a job.

Other Support Services

Many programs provide assistance to participants in other areas, such as work clothes, tools or other equipment, and books. Clothing assistance may take the form of a clothes closet with clothing that participants can use for interviews or a job, or of vouchers to a local thrift shop or clothing store. Some programs give participants a flat "participation allowance" to cover any job search or work-related costs.

8. Participation Requirements

In establishing the participation requirements of a work first program, planners need to address three basic questions:

• Who should participate?
• How many hours should they participate?
• What activities will count as participation?

This section addresses these questions and discusses some strategies for working with hard-to-serve participants.

Who Should Participate?

In general, work first programs extend participation to as broad a segment of the welfare caseload as possible. Most limit the criteria for exemptions or deferrals, and some have eliminated exemptions entirely, establishing "universal" participation. Broad participation helps to convey the overall message that employment is expected of all welfare recipients. Another reason for broad participation is that it is difficult to predict who will succeed at getting a job; even criteria like education or work history do not work well as predictors of "employability." A high-expectations program begins with the belief that all participants can succeed and allows the job search itself to determine who is employable. In addition, states may need to bring a large portion of their caseload into program activities in order to meet the participation rates required under federal law (see Appendix A). While there is no clear evidence that certain strategies are most effective for certain groups (such as teen parents or long-term recipients), research has shown that a work first approach can benefit many different types of participants.

Universal participation takes on added importance in the context of time limits. Programs need to work with all those who are subject to a time limit, to help them become self-sufficient before they reach their cut off date for financial support. If programs cannot serve everyone, then criteria for exemption or deferral from work first need to be coordinated with exemption from, or temporary suspension of, the time limit (see section 40, on time limits).

Exemptions and Deferrals

Despite the push for broad participation, program planners may decide to exempt certain categories of recipients from participating in work first, either because they feel participation is not appropriate for those groups or because they cannot provide the services that would allow those groups to participate. Planners need to decide not only what the criteria for program exemption will be but also what documentation will be required for individuals to meet those criteria. Note, however, that individuals exempted-or deferred-from work first are still included in the calculation of federally required participation rates (except for parents of children under one year of age, who can be exempt under TANF; see Appendix A).

Welfare-to-work programs have commonly exempted some or all of the following individuals:

• Pregnant women
• Teen parents enrolled in school
• Child-only cases
• Individuals of advanced age
• Parents with very young children
• Parents who are ill or incapacitated, or caretakers of ill or incapacitated family members
• Parents residing in remote areas
• Parents who are already employed for a substantial number of hours per week

Most programs also grant temporary deferrals for individuals who have a short-term reason for nonparticipation, such as a family crisis, a short-term illness, legal problems, or completion of self-initiated activities. Deferrals can be productive program components if individuals are able to use the time to address the reasons for the deferral so that they can participate. However, having standardized deferral periods may unnecessarily increase the length of time that individuals do not participate. Establishing deferral periods on a case-by-case basis and closely monitoring progress during such periods can eliminate delays. (See section 33, on maximizing participation.)

Targeting Resources

In a program environment with limited resources, program administrators may wish to consider whether to target certain groups of welfare recipients for participation. Spreading resources too thin can result in a program that is less effective for any group of participants. Perhaps the biggest mistake that program planners make is failing to prioritize those who will get served if resources run out or are cut back. Leaving that decision by default to overloaded line staff can result in a program that serves only those who are most motivated and most likely to be able to find jobs without the program's assistance.

The trade-offs associated with targeting various groups may be summarized as follows:

• New welfare applicants. Strategies targeting new applicants aim to get people off welfare while many of them have recent work histories and before they become "trapped" in a life on welfare. However, targeting new applicants means that funds are being spent on individuals who may soon leave welfare on their own or who may never begin receiving welfare benefits.

• Long-term welfare recipients. Because many recipients will leave welfare quickly on their own, some welfare-to-work programs concentrate their resources on long-term recipients. For example, in the Minnesota Family Investment Program (MFIP), single parents are required to participate in employment-focused case management after they have received benefits for two of the last three years. However, waiting to require participation may not change the overall culture of welfare, and many would not describe such programs as work first. In addition, while mixed programs have shown impacts for most major subgroups of participants-including long-term recipients-there is less research evidence showing what specific strategies work well for this group.

• Teen parents. There is a strong incentive to target teen parents, who are at especially high risk of becoming long-term welfare recipients. However, it may be more appropriate to consider other strategies for this group, such as encouraging high school completion. (This is an allowable work-related activity under TANF.) The work first philosophy and employment message can still be integrated into those other strategies. (See section 28, on the role of education.)

• Volunteers. Running a voluntary program is one way of deciding who gets served if resources are limited. (Note, however, that state plans submitted under TANF must outline how the state intends to require recipients to work once the state determines the parent is ready to engage in work or after two years on assistance, whichever is earlier. See Appendix A.) To avoid serving only the most motivated and job ready-who would be more likely to volunteer but may least need the program's services-voluntary programs need to work especially hard at marketing the program to bring in a broad cross-section of participants. Work first programs can also adopt a mixed approach, in which participation by some groups is mandatory while other groups can volunteer. In addition, if there is a long wait before even mandatory participants enter the program, you may want to give volunteers the chance to move ahead in the queue. The inclusion of some volunteers, who are likely to be highly motivated, can improve the atmosphere of the program and inspire other participants.

How Many Hours Should They Participate, and What Activities Will Count as Participation?

The number of hours of participation required varies across work first programs. Many require from 20 to 30 hours per week, in order to intensify participation and make the experience of being in the program equivalent to that of working in an unsubsidized job. However, planners of programs with broad or universal participation may want to consider lower or more flexible hours requirements. Increased hours will mean increased costs for child care and program activities, as well as reduced flexibility in tailoring plans to participants' situations and needs (see "Working with the Hard to Serve," below). The programs that MDRC has studied averaged less than 20 hours per week of required participation; research has not yet addressed the question of whether increased hours will improve program impacts.

A similar trade-off occurs in defining what activities will count as participation. In most work first programs, participation is defined in terms of involvement in the program components (job search, education, work experience, and so on) described in section 6. However, planners aiming for universal participation may wish to provide some flexibility in allowing participants to meet the requirements through a combination of program components and other activities, such as counseling or volunteer work.

In order to count toward participation rates under TANF (see Appendix A), individuals must participate in specified activities for at least 20 hours per week (or more, depending on which year it is, family composition, and age of youngest child). Some program planners may decide to require participation for more or fewer hours than the participation standards specified under federal law, or they may designate different allowable activities. Participants who are active for fewer hours than the federal standards, or are in activities other than those specified in the federal law, will not be counted as participating for the purpose of federal requirements. However, policymakers may decide that different standards can be more effective given their situation and resources. Furthermore, states can reduce the federally required participation rates by reducing their caseloads through an effective work first program.

Working with the Hard to Serve

As participants move through the program, more and more will find jobs, leave welfare, become exempt, or be sanctioned. Those who remain in the program are likely to have greater barriers to employment and to need more intensive assistance. It is important to recognize that some welfare recipients have serious health, mental health, substance abuse, or other problems, and to be prepared with strategies and policies for working with those individuals. Section 36 offers advice for case managers on dealing with these issues, but the hard to serve should be considered in the larger policy context as well. The extent to which their problems can be addressed so that participation is possible depends partly on the nature of the problem, partly on the flexibility built into participation requirements, and partly on the availability of services in the community to assist individuals with these problems. It may make sense to reassess the situations and needs of participants who remain in the program for more than a certain length of time, and to formulate policies that focus attention on these hard-to-serve participants.

Program planners may also wish to consider using a broad definition of participation that encompasses a variety of activities and levels of involvement. For example, Utah's program requires universal participation, but allows parents who are not immediately able to look for work to meet the mandate by participating in mental health counseling or other activities that lead toward the goal of employment. Administrators in Utah found that universal participation requirements without such options can lead to excessive sanctioning, as staff had few options for assisting hard-to-serve participants. While counseling or similar activities will not count toward reaching participation rates required under TANF, planners may decide to allow such activities anyway, if they make sense for the work first program.

Another option is to limit up-front exemptions but allow back-end outlets for those who are unable to participate or find jobs. Under this approach, the program's message and mandate apply to a broad segment of the welfare caseload, and staff members begin with the expectation that everyone can participate and go to work. At the same time, program policy recognizes that not all will be able to work or participate at all times. If a barrier or problem is identified, staff first looks for ways to help the participant resolve it. Then, if the problem cannot be addressed within the context of the program, options are available for deferral or exemption from participation. Remember, however, that it is important to coordinate such exemptions or deferrals with time limit policies. If recipients are subject to the time limit, excusing them from participation in a work first program may harm them in the long run.

9. Mandates and Sanctions

If certain groups of welfare recipients are required to participate in a work first program, planners need to define precisely what is required and what the penalties are for noncompliance. Sanctions are a tool to bring participants into the program and to motivate them in their job search. Therefore, the success of sanctions is judged not by the number of sanctions ultimately imposed, but by the extent to which those under the mandate do participate. Intent-to-sanction (or warning) notices are sufficient to bring many participants into compliance. Others do not comply even after sanctions are imposed. Sanctioning rates in work first programs that MDRC has studied range from 3 percent (in Florida's Project Independence) to 37 percent (in Grand Rapids, Michigan's, JOBS program) over a one-year follow-up period.

Questions to Address in Designing Mandates and Sanction Policies

• How flexible will the mandate be? Within the structure of a broad mandate, it may be useful to build in some flexibility-in either allowable activities or hours of participation-for case managers to design employment plans based on individual situations. Inflexible mandates may lead staff to defer or exempt participants who might be able to participate or work part time. (See section 8 for more on participation requirements.) However, more flexible mandates may make it harder for a state to achieve the federally required participation rates (see Appendix A).

• How will the mandate be presented to participants? Some programs discuss sanctions prominently in order to encourage participation. Others try to be upbeat, promoting the opportunities presented by the program rather than threatening sanctions. Those programs that do not emphasize the mandate up front need to make sure safeguards are in place so that participants are not sanctioned without adequate notice.

• How much effort will be made to bring people into compliance before a sanction is imposed? Some programs send out intent-to-sanction notices as soon as participants fail to respond to program mandates. Others make repeated efforts to contact participants and learn the reasons for noncompliance. The conciliation process can also vary in length. For example, Utah's welfare-to-work program has a comprehensive conciliation policy, involving both a home visit and case review. Administrators there say that noncompliance is usually the result of participation barriers of which case managers were not aware and that once those barriers are addressed, participants come into compliance.

• What form will sanctions take? Sanctions may be a reduction in the family's grant, removal of the noncompliant parent from the grant, or loss of the entire grant. The more severe the sanction, the stronger the message and the incentive to participate. However, severe sanctions also carry greater potential risks for individuals-and their children-who do not participate, for whatever reason. In general, the harsher the sanction, the more important it is to make clear to participants what is expected of them and the consequences of not meeting those requirements, as well as to provide clear guidelines for conciliation.

• How can a sanction be cured? Sanctions can be cured either as soon as the participant comes into compliance or only after a certain period of time, often increasing with consecutive incidents of noncompliance. Mandatory minimum sanctions can send a strong message and save staff from the paperwork that can be involved in repeatedly recalculating grants. However, sanctions that are hard to cure give people little incentive to comply before the end of the sanction period. To avoid the extra paperwork that might ensue if participants dropped in and out, some programs require participants to show good faith (for example, by complying for two weeks) before reinstating their grant retroactive to the date of compliance.

10. Tailoring Work First to the Program's Goals

The program mix you choose will depend partly on the program's goals. Work first programs are generally geared toward the goals of increasing the number of case heads of household who work, reducing welfare rolls, and saving welfare dollars. A work first approach may not be appropriate for programs with very different goals. At the same time, however, programs may have additional or secondary goals that can be accommodated within a work first model. Planners of such programs should think about including activities, options, and related policies that can further those goals. For example, a program with the goal of increasing family income might consider adding to its policy mix increased earnings disregards and more generous child care and other benefits to make work pay, and allowing more opportunity for participants to combine work with education and training that can increase their earnings.

Table 1 outlines some of the ways in which the program model and emphasis might vary among programs, depending on their goals. While the basic work first model remains the same, the mix of policies and practices can differ.

Table 1

Program Goals and Related Program Features

                                                                                
Program Goal                      Possible Program Features               


Reduce the number of      Job search geared to full-time employment             
families on welfare       Continued participation in program activities until   
                          off welfare                                           

Increase employment       Job search geared to either part-time or full-time    
among families on         employment                                            
welfare                   Support for combining work and welfare                

Increase the income of    Increased earnings disregards, child care             
families                  assistance, and other benefits to make work pay       
                          Job search and job development geared to              
                          higher-paying jobs                                    
                          More opportunity allowed for education or training    
                          that can increase earnings                            

Impose a reciprocal       Mandatory participation for a broad portion of the    
obligation on welfare     caseload                                              
recipients                Swift and strict sanctions for nonparticipation       
                          More use of unpaid work experience and/or subsidized  
                          jobs to engage those who are unable to find           
                          unsubsidized employment                               

Keep applicants from      Applicant job search and one-time payments to help    
becoming long-term        applicants avoid coming on welfare                    
recipients                Emphasis on getting people quickly into the program   

Move long-term            More marketing of work and teaching basic work        
recipients into jobs      habits                                                
                          Supervised work experience and job development for    
                          those unable to find jobs on their own                

Reduce recidivism         Transitional benefits and support services for those  
                          who leave welfare                                     
                          Help with obtaining work-related benefits, such as    
                          the Earned Income Credit                              
                          Reemployment assistance for those who lose a job      

Improve the well-being    Help with obtaining high-quality child care           
of children               Focus on increasing total family income               
                          Monitoring of child outcomes                          

Achieve short-term        Mostly job search, with few other activities for      
savings                   participants                                          
                          Close monitoring of participation                     
                          Swift and strict sanctions for noncompliance          

Aim for longer-term       Job search supplemented by other employment-focused   
cost-effectiveness        activities                                            
                          More attention to serving long-term recipients        
                          Focus on reducing recidivism                          

11. Understanding the Caseload and Labor Market

Obtaining some basic information about the caseload and the local labor market can help planners get a feel for the environment in which the work first program will operate. In general, it makes sense to try to gather only existing, readily available information rather than to conduct an in-depth study. Some information can be obtained from management information systems, labor agency data, and other sources. In addition, planners might consider conducting a baseline survey for a few weeks in order to obtain background information about the characteristics, interests, and perceived barriers of participants. The Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce conducted an in-depth labor market analysis when designing IndEx, an employer-driven welfare-to-work program. The analysis included employer and employee surveys, meetings with economic development agencies, federal and state data sources, and regional and local planning data. The Chamber used the analysis to determine what gaps needed to be filled in the labor market and to develop criteria for assessing participants on the basis of the skills needed in the local marketplace.

Below is a list of the kinds of information planners might want to know, followed by some of the reasons the information might be useful in the context of a work first program. Be aware that there is a limit to what this information can tell you. It is difficult to predict how participants will fare in a program on the basis of either demographic characteristics or labor market conditions, and work first programs have been successfully implemented in a variety of environments.

Information About the Caseload

• Basic caseload demographics, including number of single-parent and two-parent families and number and ages of children. To understand who will be participating and what their child care needs might be.

• Extent of work experience. To get an idea of how easy or difficult it will be for participants to find work and what wages they might earn. Also, to balance the program's focus between, on the one hand, marketing the idea of work and teaching basic work habits (for those with little or no work history) and, on the other hand, emphasizing job retention and advancement strategies (for those with a proven ability to find work).

• Percentage of caseload with reported earnings. To know how many people are already working at least part time, and as an indication of how likely it is that participants will mix work and welfare. It is also important to understand how grant levels, financial incentives, and other policies affect the trade-off between welfare and work and the ease or difficulty of combining welfare and work.

• Percentage who leave welfare due to employment and rates of recidivism for this group. To provide some insight into how much the program should focus on job search, on helping participants succeed in jobs, and on helping those who lose a job find a new one.

• Perceived barriers to employment. To focus the program's message and services on addressing or overcoming those barriers.

• Race and ethnicity. To identify issues of race in the labor market that may arise as participants look for jobs or as program staff develop jobs; to identify cultural differences that might change how the program is marketed or how activities are approached; and to identify the need for services in languages other than English.

Information About the Labor Market

• Trends in state and local income and wage levels, particularly for families at the bottom of the income spectrum. To help you calculate the trade-off between welfare and work, which will affect participants' motivation and the way staff members market the program. If the jobs available are low wage, you may also want to consider financial incentives (see section 38) and other supports to make work pay.

• Unemployment statistics and other indicators of the economic climate. To help anticipate how long it will take for participants to find jobs and how many might need additional services after completing job search. In a good economy, more jobs may be available, but welfare recipients are likely to have greater barriers to employment. In contrast, jobs may be scarcer at times of high unemployment, but a greater proportion of those on welfare will have job skills and experience.

• Needs of local employers. To help in assessing participants, advising them, and designing useful activities for those who are initially unsuccessful at finding a job.

• Location of jobs. If available jobs are not located close to where participants live, you may want to consider strategies for addressing transportation problems so that participants have access to those jobs (see section 7).

• Gender, racial, and ethnic differences in job opportunities. Historically, certain occupations have not been open to women or members of particular racial or ethnic groups. You may decide to help participants break into such nontraditional areas of employment. You may also want to teach participants strategies for dealing with discrimination in job search and on the job.

• Prospects for employment growth by sector. To help staff members target job search to geographical areas or industries where there are openings and room for growth, and to help job developers determine where they should concentrate their efforts.

• Longer-term economic prospects. It is useful to consider the question: How will your strategy fare in a recession? When jobs are scarce, it may be more difficult for a large portion of the caseload to find work. In addition, more people typically enter the welfare rolls during recessions-including many who may be considered job ready-thereby expanding caseloads and increasing spending on cash assistance (though other factors, such as changes in family structure and program rules, also affect caseload size). This may reduce resources available for work first programs at the same time as the number of potential participants increases.

12. Building Support for the Program

Building support among internal staff, partner agencies, political players, advocates, employers, and the broader community is important to the successful implementation of a work first program. Staff, whether administrative or line, are likely to do a better job if they share the program's vision and goals (see also section 18, on promoting an employment focus). When partner agencies support the program, they are likely to make a greater effort to coordinate services and promote the program's goals (see also section 20, on interagency linkages). Giving local employers a sense of ownership of the program can go a long way toward enhancing job development and placement, especially in small towns and rural areas. Community opposition can affect the program if advocacy groups mount legal and other challenges. In addition, community and political opposition can lead staff to question the future of the program and make them less likely to work to implement it.

Work first programs may cause concern among certain groups. The education and training communities may be concerned if they believe that the only program activity is job search. Advocates and welfare rights groups may fear that the program is going to force participants to take low-wage jobs without benefits or advancement opportunities, or may believe that the program's primary focus is on sanctioning those who do not or cannot comply with the new requirements. Child care providers and child-welfare advocates may be concerned about the availability and quality of child care, especially if the program adopts a broad participation mandate.

In general, it is best to try to involve all parties from the earliest planning stages and to be responsive to their concerns. However, you may not have control over the timing or process of decision making; for example, program specifics may have been handed down by the governor or legislature. In addition, a long planning process may not be desirable if you want to get the program in place quickly. Within the confines of your situation, however, it pays to do what you can to involve in the process those whom you want to be your partners in the work first effort. It is likely that there will be at least some level of policy or implementation over which you have control and in which your partners can play a role. Even if you have no control in shaping the new policies, it is helpful to explain them to all concerned parties and to answer any questions they may have.

Strategies for Building Support

• Give players a stake in the program. Communicate to staff, partner organizations, and others that they are important to the process and explain how what they do fits in with the work first mission. Giving local offices, partner agencies, and staff flexibility in operating the program can increase support for change and help meet local needs.

• Identify partners. Identify those individuals and organizations who support the work first proposal, and organize them to help you market the program to others.

• Use a bottom-up approach. When asking for input, try to create an atmosphere in which ideas are generated from the bottom up. Staff members are more likely to support and become involved in something they helped to create.

• Make use of others' expertise. The groups you need to work with are knowledgeable in their fields. Take the concerns of service providers and advocates seriously and look for ways to address them. At the same time, be honest about what you have control over and what you do not.

• Hold focus groups. Focus groups can be a great way both to gather information and to build support. Aim to include people in a variety of roles (program staff, other human services providers, business owners, community leaders, and program participants) so that members learn from one another as well as informing you.

• Examine what has worked in the past and what has not. Look at the current system and past programs to see which elements worked well and which ones did not. Find ways to incorporate the most successful practices into the new program and focus on how it can improve upon past ones.

• Let people know the result of your work. Through a written document or by some other means, let people know what input you received from various sources and how it has shaped your program. It is important that people involved in the process feel that their contributions mattered.

• Follow up. Maintain the relationships you have built during the planning stage, and continue team building internally and with key partners. Keep all players up to date on program activities, and invite suggestions for improving the program in the future. Some ways to do this are to have regular meetings, create a newsletter, form advisory groups, and hold an open house so that key players and members of the community can see the program in practice.

13. Evaluating Program Performance

How will you monitor the implementation of your work first program and measure its success? A variety of mechanisms are available to measure program performance. Outcome and process measures are useful management tools that can focus staff effort and identify weak areas. Formal evaluations can measure program impacts.

The performance measures you choose should reflect and support the program's goals and objectives. (See section 10, on tailoring work first to the program's goals.) Be careful that the measures promote the outcomes you want and do not neglect important areas or inadvertently encourage undesired outcomes. In addition, be aware that different measures-or the same information measured in different ways or at different points-will yield different information. Finally, the data required for some measures may be costly or difficult to collect. In choosing performance measures, bear in mind what information you already have and what your management information system can be modified to do. Make sure that the data can be collected relatively easily and accurately, and that data collection will not be burdensome in terms of cost or staff time. Also, bear in mind any data-gathering requirements mandated at the federal and state levels for other purposes, and try to coordinate them with your own needs.

It is a challenge to develop a performance measurement system that provides meaningful and practical information and that guards against creaming and inflated outcomes. Such a system requires a long-term investment to design, implement, adjust, and maintain. The challenge becomes even greater if the work first program is being operated in coordination with other agencies.

Outcome and Process Measures

• Job placements. The traditional outcome measure in a work first program is the number of participants who get jobs. It is also useful to know the length of time individuals participated in the program before finding employment, the point in the program flow at which they gained employment, and their wage levels and number of work hours. Follow up to learn how many are still working after 30 days, 90 days, or longer.

Be aware, however, that measuring only job placements can result in creaming (if staff focus on the most employable participants) or in inflation of program outcomes (if staff report placements that are unconfirmed or do not last). An overemphasis on placement can also inadvertently encourage staff to neglect, defer, or sanction the hardest-to-serve participants. Measuring participation or coverage (see below), in addition to placements, can help guard against this. You might also want to look at the characteristics of those who do not get jobs, to see if additional focus on some groups of participants may be needed.

• Welfare leaving and returning. By changing the message and culture of welfare, a work first program can have an effect beyond that captured by measuring job placement. It can therefore be useful to look more broadly at the number of people who leave welfare for work, even though you may not be able to distinguish between those who leave as a result of the program and those who would have found work anyway. It is also important to monitor and measure recidivism, so that you know how many of those who leave return later. If your program includes applicant job search or other up-front diversion policies, you will want to measure the number of applicants diverted from entering the welfare rolls. Again, monitor to see if they are reapplying later.

• Participation. Bringing participants into a work first program is an important operational challenge. Participation measures highlight the importance of this challenge and focus the attention of administrators and staff on meeting it. They can also be useful in identifying bottlenecks and other operational problems or weak program areas. However, too strong an emphasis on participation measures can divert the focus from the real goal-employment. Moreover, if the definition of participation is a narrow one, you may understate the number of people who are appropriately involved in the program mandate.

Because participation measures are ratios, it makes a great deal of difference what is included in the numerator and in the denominator. In establishing the numerator, program planners need to decide what activities and statuses to count as participation. The denominator can be the entire welfare caseload, those who are mandatory for the program, or those who actually enroll. Each of these denominators will show successively higher rates of coverage but will omit certain groups. (Note that federal law specifies the definition of participation for the purpose of meeting federal requirements; see Appendix A.)

• Coverage. Coverage is a broad definition of participation that includes all those who are considered to be in an acceptable status. For example, coverage might include those in program activities as well as those who combine work and welfare, even if they are considered exempt from work first. Coverage might also include activities such as counseling or drug treatment where appropriate. Some programs might include sanctioned cases, recognizing that those cases are being appropriately dealt with under program guidelines. Others may choose not to include sanctioned cases in the coverage rate, as a way of encouraging program staff to work harder to bring people into compliance.

By measuring coverage rather than participation, you focus attention on those individuals who are left unserved by the program and aim to minimize their number. This protects against creaming by encouraging staff to work with-and giving them credit for working with-everyone.

• Other measures. In general, you will want to highlight one or two performance measures that reflect the program's primary goals. However, it is useful to track a variety of other measures that can provide additional clues to program performance. These can furnish information on intermediate outcomes and implementation success. For example, completion rates and length of time in education and training activities can give you an idea of whether those activities have successfully adopted the quick-employment philosophy of work first. Other measures can also reflect how the program is doing at achieving additional or secondary goals. For example, you may want to measure average family income if reducing poverty is a goal. You may also want to consider ways to measure the stability and appropriateness of child care placements. Finally, other measures can provide a more complete picture of your program, to ensure that no unintended consequences have resulted from program policies or other performance measures.

Program Evaluation

Welfare recipients regularly find jobs and leave the rolls even without welfare-to-work programs. Because the caseload is so dynamic-and so sensitive to economic and other factors-it is difficult to judge the success of your program without knowing what would have happened in its absence. Random-assignment evaluations answer that question, by separating the effects of the program from changes that would have occurred anyway. Potential participants are randomly assigned either to the program or to a control group that is not eligible for program services. The characteristics of the two groups are therefore comparable, and both groups face the same labor market and other conditions. Subsequent differences in employment, earnings, or welfare receipt between the two groups can then be confidently attributed to the program.

Table 2 illustrates the difference between outcomes and impacts. As the table shows, program A clearly has the best outcome of the three, with a 70 percent employment rate, but-perhaps because of a strong economy or because participants were highly skilled-most participants would have found jobs even without the program's help. Program C has the smallest outcome but the largest impact; it was the most successful of the three at increasing the number of people who found jobs. The table illustrates the point that strong outcomes do not necessarily mean that a program is working well. Random-assignment evaluations can uncover a program's true impact.

Program planners may also wish to conduct internal random assignment for pilot projects to test different approaches before implementing them programwide. For example, if you are unsure whether it is worth allocating resources for applicant job search, you might randomly assign new welfare applicants either to applicant job search or to a regular route into the program. You could then compare welfare approval and employment rates for the two groups to determine whether you want to go ahead with that program component. The same technique could work for post-placement services, job development, and other activities.

Table 2

Outcomes Versus Impacts

               Outcome:                Control:                   Impact:         
       Employment Rate    What the Employment Rate     The Difference the    
       with the Program   Would Have Been Without       Program Made       
Program                    the Program



    A             70%                    65%               5 percentage points    

    B             50%                    40%               10 percentage points   

    C             40%                    20%               20 percentage points