Fixing to Change:

A Best Practices Assessment of
One-Stop Job Centers Working with Welfare Recipients

Chapter 2:
Successful Models and Program Elements

Contents of Chapter:

• Successful Models
• Promising Program Elements
• Remaining Challenges
• Local Initiatives and State Systems
• Other Institutional Factors
• President for the Day

Success in the context of this assessment of One-Stop models is intended to imply achievement of two objectives. First, it implies a service delivery system that meets the needs of families who seek help with employment barriers, and does not turn them away or let them slip through the cracks. Second, it implies a service delivery system that improves the prospects for a family to become self-sufficient, rather than simply lower caseloads by moving TANF recipients into low-wage work with little prospect for upward mobility.

While this assessment is not designed to definitively measure success, it is intended to identify some of the model design and programmatic elements that might lead to success, based on early observations and measurable patterns in client flows and outcomes. This section summarizes the authors' conclusions regarding the potential for success in the models reviewed, based on their observations and interviews with staff, clients, and employers.

Successful Models

It is important to note that in our national scan for successful models, we found very few One-Stop systems that had been operating for a period of time in large urban areas. Most of those that we did find were either overshadowed in their purported success by other sites within the same state, were simply too new to be usefully assessed, or did not sufficiently focus their services on welfare recipients.⁽¹¹⁾ Our sample of One-Stop models thus contains only one system in a major metropolitan area, Tarrant County (Fort Worth).

We infer from this experience that the One-Stop concept may be easier to implement, and in some cases, more appropriate to smaller metropolitan areas and rural business centers.  In many of these areas, One-Stop models may have emerged in part because it is easier to identify the appropriate institutions and resources for inclusion and exercise local leadership, without the complex systems and often overlapping constituencies and politics associated with human services in larger urban areas. However, the difficulty in establishing a One-Stop system may not reflect on the system's success, once established. As a result, it simply may be necessary to wait longer to evaluate the success of the One-Stop model in major urban labor markets.

In all of the sites visited, it was clear that established One-Stop systems have all had to address a similar set of challenges. Inclusion of partners, co-location or coordinated system approach, technology and data systems, facility management, contracting out -- all of these issues must be addressed and agreed to by multiple agencies for the One-Stop to be successful. To some degree, the "success" of a local One-Stop may depend on how long it has been working at resolving these issues, allowing the system to evolve as institutions and partners learn from their interaction and adapt to changes in federal and state policies and programs.

• Service Integration and the Retention of Clients: Generally, it appeared that the greater the level of service integration, the better the One-Stop was able to retain clients after orientation. Of the five One-Stop models examined, the Kenosha County Job Center has been in operation the longest and has achieved the greatest service integration. With on-site registration for TANF and combined orientation to TANF and JOBS, the Job Center has minimized the potential for clients to slip through the cracks and fail to receive the service they need. Of course, some families are served via one-time diversion assistance, while others are able to secure other economic support services such as Food Stamps, health care, and/or child care assistance at the same facility. Still, nearly half of potential clients choose not to show up for the orientation, although the fall-off rate drops considerably after the orientation.

  This pattern is not uncommon in the other models, and may be even more pronounced when clients register for TANF at one location and are then referred to the One-Stop for employment related services. In Marshalltown and Bellingham, the decision to separate the location of these services was intentional. Site managers emphasized the need to be clear that the purpose of the One-Stop was to emphasize the employment objective, and to avoid confusing the message about why clients were there. In Bellingham, staff noted that the lack of co-location creates a "teachable moment," i.e., an opportunity to help clients develop the skills for getting from place to place. Marshalltown site managers estimated that roughly 40 percent of TANF referrals to PROMISE JOBS have been through the process before but dropped out.

  Both Tarrant County and Traverse City have plans to co-locate with their respective TANF administrative agencies, thus increasing the level of integration between welfare and employment services available through the One-Stop. While these moves are not seen as a panacea, managers at both sites felt that the difficulties in coordinating employment services for their TANF clients could be eased through co-location, and they were looking forward to including economic services case workers in their data networks.

• Welfare vs. Employment Services: Co-location of welfare and employment services seems to offer significant net benefits for TANF clients and may improve relationships with welfare caseworkers. Some of the most negative comments by current and previous One-Stop welfare clients were reserved for TANF/economic services case workers in sites where these services were not co-located. TANF clients frequently contrasted the services they received at the One-Stop as supportive, encouraging, and customer friendly as compared with the more hostile environment of the welfare office. This contrast is not entirely surprising given that TANF caseworkers are tasked with the responsibility of determining the availability and amount of cash benefits. However, in most cases, One-Stop case workers have an equally unpopular task, that of sanctioning or reporting for sanction those welfare clients who have failed to meet their work requirements. This suggests that the need to play the role of benefit gatekeeper does not completely explain why One-Stop caseworkers seem to have a better relationship with their clients compared to TANF caseworkers.

  The contrast between client perceptions of welfare and employment case workers was not entirely absent in Kenosha, but was dramatically lower. Case workers and clients talked openly of their efforts to work through other staff members of a given service delivery team to ease tensions and work out solutions to the benefit of clients. These discussions reinforce what appear to be significant benefits from co-location with the TANF agency, namely an improvement in relations between welfare case workers and their clients, fewer opportunities for clients to fall between the cracks, and an improvement, or at least a perceived improvement in the quality of client service.

  In some respects, co-location can be thought of as the sharing of political or institutional capital of employment agencies with welfare agencies. The symbolism of applying for TANF benefits at the Job Center may have a net positive value for welfare recipients and the general public. By contrast, we saw no evidence of any negative stigma associated with co-location for traditional, non-welfare clients of employment service agencies. This issue is often raised as a potential concern, especially with organized labor constituencies of employment service agencies, but it is clearly the belief of the Kenosha managers that there is no negative stigma associated with seeking employment services in the same location where welfare clients receive services. Of course, the potential for this negative association is also diminished by the use of call centers to administer Unemployment Insurance benefits - which Wisconsin had fully implemented and other states were moving toward. In Bellingham, the staff noted that co-location would probably be to the benefit of TANF clients, especially younger clients.

• Achieving Self-Sufficiency: It is not clear that any of the One-Stop models reviewed has had the resources to reliably expect that clients will achieve self-sufficiency. The experiences of the five One-Stop models is mixed in terms of improving the prospects of welfare families for achieving self-sufficiency. Most of the tracking information kept by these systems rarely goes beyond required 90-day follow-ups for JTPA and JOBS participants, hardly long enough to capture the long term self-sufficiency prospects for participants. None of the models has developed a follow-up prevention strategy to help families avoid returning to welfare, or to actively connect them to ongoing education and training activities once they leave JOBS and stop collecting welfare benefits. Several managers lamented the lack of resources for such efforts, while others noted the difficulties facing many single parents trying to pursue ongoing skill development when current wages and support programs are barely sufficient to make ends meet now.

  Nonetheless, informal ongoing support does take place as the personal bonds between clients and employment services staff are retained. In many cases, these are relationships developed over the course of several months, often when a client is completing an education or training program, working part time, and continuing to receive cash assistance. In rural communities and relatively small metropolitan areas, it is not difficult to maintain these relationships over time, but may be much more difficult in larger urban areas.

  While each of the One-Stop programs emphasizes the need for clients to develop a career plan, the philosophy and approach to implementing that plan varies considerably. For example, in Traverse City and Bellingham, clients are typically urged to "take a job, any job" and work their way up from there. In Marshalltown, case workers are emphatic in insisting that clients set their own goals, and then worked with them to help make their goals realistic and to chart a path toward them -- a path which frequently includes community college training. In Kenosha, labor market data systems (using touch screen technology) are used to help clients develop a realistic understanding of the opportunities in the local market, but they are urged to apply only for the jobs they want. Employment specialists there argue that this approach helps boost job retention, and in a tight labor market it is a viable option for many clients. Each of these strategies can create a path to long term self-sufficiency, though it is not at all clear which is the most effective, or appropriate to the individual circumstance.

Promising Program Elements

There are several promising program elements among the five One-Stop models. While the excellence of each of these elements may not imply overall program effectiveness, they do tend to help illustrate some of the activities being done well in the context of the One-Stop concept. Some highlights include:

• In-Depth Assessment and Adult Education: Despite the current disfavor of assessment within the national policy community, Kenosha has developed an individualized, in-depth approach to skills and labor market assessment and education that seems particularly effective. Assessment typically lasts about 9 to 15 hours over the course of a two to three week motivational program; assessments are conducted in a classroom/lab facility, typically involving a variety of physical and written test instruments.⁽¹²⁾ For clients who need a high school degree or GED, a customized curriculum is then developed, allowing clients to focus on their specific weaknesses. As a result, some clients are able to earn a high school diploma in as little as three weeks, where three months ago they would have been reluctant to try. The success of this program appears to depend on the customized curriculum for each individual client. Both the assessment and education enterprises are run by private, for-profit entities co-located within the One-Stop. Although Wisconsin's new W-2 program calls for eliminating assessment as a specific step in the process, Job Center officials indicated their hope to continue using assessment tools - possibly under a different name. They even hope to use increased flexibility with other funds to open these services up to a wider group of clients coming into their resource room.
• Employer Outreach and One-Stop Design: In Traverse City, One-Stop managers actively solicited the suggestions and advice of the local business community in the original design of the One-Stop. This input focused on setting up the reception area and resource room for job seekers and employers. Ongoing meetings with this group of employers (which includes the human resource managers from some of the larger local companies) give One-Stop managers a chance to get informal feedback on their assessment, training and referral programs and help them keep abreast of developments within the employer community. These contacts also help keep the door open for contacts and requests from One-Stop case managers.
• The Data System Linkage: Tarrant County's new data system is more than just a centralized mechanism for storing files, it is expected to form a communications system that allows case workers to communicate with each other, reducing paperwork and the number of phone calls and unproductive appointments necessary to line up multiple services for clients. Traverse City's experience with shared systems of this kind suggests the potential for freeing up some of the time that case workers must spend dealing with administrative issues, allowing them to provide more one-on-one services.
• American Indian Council: Marshalltown includes the American Indian Council as one of it's partners, providing employment services for the Misquake Tribe in eastern Iowa. This DoL funded employment and training program has thrived in the context of the One-Stop environment, expanding referral and work experience opportunities for tribe members while providing an additional resource to serve a key population in this largely rural region.
• Work Experience Access to Jobs: Clients and former clients in Bellingham emphasized the value of work experience positions in developing the confidence, skills, and job references necessary to land paying positions in similar fields. In focus groups at each of the sites, clients and former clients reported consistently positive experiences in work experience positions. Some of these positions were within partner agencies, while others were designed to help clients pursue their career interests.
• Project Self-Sufficiency Program: One small, pilot program in Bellingham worked with single mothers to provide child care, case management support, and skill training in a limited selection of fields (office/clerical, certified nurse assistant, or industrial sewing) at the Bellingham Technical College. Our focus group with former TANF clients included a couple of program graduates who reported excellent employment outcomes, although at the time of our site visit, it did not look likely that recent TANF reforms would allow the pilot to continue. Client comments emphasized the benefits of lower caseloads and peer group support. Similar, targeted programs have been used at some of the other One-Stop sites. For example, Marshalltown works with the community college and a large nursing facility to provide certified nurse assistant (CNA) training, work experience, and employment.
• Personal Relationships and Self-Confidence: As noted in the previous section, clients frequently noted how employment services workers would show a personal interest in the client's circumstance. Straight talk about personal habits, assistance with an interview wardrobe, one-on-one counseling or help in dealing with a household crisis -- acts of friendship which helped build self-confidence and self-esteem were some of the most powerful motivators for clients. Kenosha's Excel program, a three week motivational workshop that is scheduled around assessment and other early "work-related activities," was the only formal motivational program that received repeated praise from clients.

The degree to which these individual elements contribute to job retention and long term self-sufficiency remains unclear. Nonetheless, it was clear in discussions with clients and former clients that many of these elements played a critical role in their positive experiences within the One-Stop environment.

Remaining Challenges

This section is intended to identify some of the pitfalls raised in the focus groups, rather than serve as a laundry list of criticisms. Some of these pitfalls are common to all or most of the sites visited:

• Location and Transportation: Young families who have been living under welfare rules that limit the amount of assets that can be held, such as the value of the family car, are poorly equipped to search for or retain work in rural or suburban locations. For many of these families, the location of the One-Stop, the location of work opportunities, the location of child care, the location of the doctor's office -- all of these can affect the success of a transition from welfare to work. In Tarrant County, the current One-Stop site was the result of a countywide effort to respond to the closure of a state school and make the best use of the facility. As a result, employment services were relocated from a more urban site to the current site which is located near an industrial park at the urban periphery, with only one bus line for public transit access. In Marshalltown, some clients drive as much as 50 or 60 miles one way to attend job club meetings, although the One-Stop staff also "ride the circuit" visiting the Center's outpost facilities once a week in each of the four counties in order to maintain contact with clients. Many of these rural clients must choose between lower-paying and less-skilled jobs closer to home and better opportunities that require a much longer commute. A similar pattern exists in Traverse City, where resort real estate prices in the city itself tend to drive welfare recipients into rural areas in search of affordable housing.⁽¹³⁾ While JTPA funds are frequently used to fund gas and public transportation costs, several clients and managers suggested that small grants for auto repair would be one of the most useful tools in boosting job retention.
• Child Care Funding, Availability, and Scheduling: Many of the clients expressed frustrations in dealing with child care, although in most instances, they had found a way to work with the subsidies provided. The most complaints were about availability and scheduling of part time child care and child care during the evenings and odd hours. This is of particular concern to job seekers looking for entry level work with employers that have second, third, or swing shifts where entry level workers typically start. Transportation issues can compound this difficulty as well.
• Job Retention: As noted previously, none of the One-Stop models have well-developed strategy for helping clients retain their employment. As several case workers pointed out, virtually all clients are employable, but not all are capable of remaining employed. Some of the issues around job retention may be more tractable than others. For example, making arrangements for doctors visits and medical care for a chronically ill child may be problematic, but easier for a One-Stop staff to contend with than ongoing mental health or substance abuse problems.
• Substance Abuse: One of the most frequently noted reasons for poor job retention by employers were issues of alcohol and substance abuse. Questions about how these difficulties were dealt with were raised with staff in each One-Stop site, yet very few case managers seemed to be particularly experienced in contending with these issues. In some cases, case workers felt the clients frequently did a good job in masking these issues when present at the One-Stop, but generally case workers seemed unprepared for confronting and contending with clients with substance abuse problems.
• Ongoing Education and Training: Also noted previously was the lack of ongoing efforts to help former clients further their education and training. While it is understandable that young, working families have little time or money to pursue this option, its critical role in helping these families move to full self-sufficiency should not be overlooked. One alternative strategy might be to assist former clients look for opportunities to find better paying work, or an employer that offers more training opportunities, once the client has developed a track record and some skills in their first job. However, an active strategy in this regard may prove to be unwelcome in the employer community, and the availability of resources to assist clients who are successfully employed were quite limited in all sites.

Local Initiatives and State Systems

All of the sites visited are to some degree pioneers of the One-Stop concept within their state employment systems. In most cases, the design and emergence of the local One-Stop has more to do with local initiatives than with any redesign efforts initiated at the state level. In some instances, these model sites have been useful to state officials in structuring elements of their approach to One-Stop systems. In others, systems developed locally don't always match the designs subsequently developed by the state.

• Response to Local Crises: Most of the local One-Stop initiatives were developed in response to significant, local economic crises when a major employer or industry either shut down operations or permanently laid off large numbers of workers. In some cases, such as Kenosha and Tarrant County, the local response was initiated by the chief executive in county government. In others, such as Bellingham and Marshalltown, the response came from the local PIC or workforce development board. In Traverse City, the response was more at the regional level, spearheaded by the Northwest Michigan Council of Governments. In most cases, representatives of the partner agencies spoke highly of the vision of the founding site manager as a driving force. In some instances, difficult political decisions and third party facilitation were necessary to overcome institutional resistance to the One-Stop concept. For example, in Kenosha, the county executive replaced the PIC leadership in order to gain its cooperation in establishing the Kenosha County Job Center.
• Local Pioneers and State Initiatives: In some cases the local One-Stops were actually established before the state created its state system for integrating employment services. For example, the client information system developed by Traverse City was used as the prototype for the development of Michigan's statewide system. In Kenosha, a well developed local data system has led local officials to continue to press state officials to adopt better performance measures. At the same time, the PIC in the Kenosha area has been reluctant to reorganize itself under the state's expectations of a regional workforce development board. In at least one other site, state expectations about One-Stop partnerships have not always meshed well with established local sites. For example, the vocational rehabilitation community has in some areas been reluctant to participate despite mandates. This reluctance is typically based on concerns about the loss of agency identity and infrastructure designated to serve this specific population. In addition, some partnerships are not considered as politically or institutionally viable at the local level as they are at the state level -- this was considered to be the case for organized labor in at least one instance.
• Local Flexibility: Most One-Stop managers expressed some concern about their freedom to experiment and attempt innovative approaches to delivering employment services, particularly as states develop their own systems. In most cases, local managers expressed support for federal block grant proposals for employment systems, and noted that states would also do well to avoid imposing categorical or absolute system requirements on the design of local One-Stops as well. In many respects, the tensions between state and local institutions are quite similar to those between federal and state agencies, and local agencies are often asking for the same kind of flexibility from states as the states are asking of the federal government.
• State vs. Local Service Delivery Systems: Tensions between state and local agencies seem to persist regardless of whether the primary responsibility for administering human and employment services resides with state agencies or is shared with local governments. For example, in Washington and Michigan, both human services and employment services are administered by state agencies, with JTPA programs administered at the local level via the PIC (as in most areas). For the model One-Stops examined in these states, constructive interaction between state agency personnel at the local level has been critical to integrating employment services, yet achieving that level of communication and coordination at the state level has proven difficult. Some of the rigidity in fostering collaboration between these stovepipe state agencies may be due to the range of other services they offer, such as Unemployment Insurance (UI), that may not be considered essential to the One-Stop. However, even in Wisconsin, where UI claims are handled by phone via separate call centers and the county government has responsibility for administering TANF and other food, child care, and medical assistance, local flexibility in the design of One-Stop systems is still constrained by the state.
• Contracting Out: In Texas and Iowa, state workforce development agencies have continued to actively entertain notions of contracting out for the provision of employment services at the regional or local area, typically under the assumption that these contracts would exert competitive pressures that would improve efficiencies and lower costs. While sufficient community capacity may exist in some urban areas to make "competition" a viable option, most smaller metropolitan and rural areas do not have duplicative capacities. As a result, contracting for services typically means that many of the same people end up delivering the services under a different organizational arrangement, such as for JTPA services in Marshalltown. In Tarrant County, most of the workforce services are contracted out to public and nonprofit entities. In nearby Dallas, most of these services are contracted out to private corporations. In both of these models, contracting out does not seem to result in parallel systems that compete head-to-head, but in new organizational arrangements of the existing labor supply and other local resources. It is unclear whether these alternative organizational configurations actually result in improved service quality and/or reduced costs.

  In Kenosha, where many services are contracted out to for-profit and non-profit organizations, it is useful to note that these arrangements generally grew out of the need to find a way of delivering the desired services, rather than from any theoretical assumptions about market forces and competition. For example, assessment work is done by a separate firm, and adult education services are provided by a for-profit organization formed by former staff of a larger non-profit community organization that had been running the program when it ran into financial difficulty, necessitating termination of the contract. The community college did bid on this service, but did not offer comparable service at a competitive price. In the case of this particular service, the delivery of service appears to be highly efficient and effective.

Other Institutional Factors

Several other institutional factors may contribute to the success or failure of a One-Stop, including shared systems administration, common technologies, budgeting, and differing pay scales and collective bargaining agreements.

• Shared Systems Administration: Those One-Stop models that are highly integrated have typically developed a method of overhead charges to support shared systems, including everything from space and janitorial services to computer and data system capital costs and maintenance. Policies on these charges are generally worked out by the executive management team representing the major partner agencies, and administered by the managing agency. In Kenosha, for example, the facility lease is financed by the County through a contract with Goodwill Industries, and the physical space and administrative systems are managed under contract by a for-profit management firm headed by the One-Stop manager. In Tarrant County, the County owns the property and has responsibility for managing the administrative systems, with the Resource Connection Executive Director employed by the County. It should be noted that these shared data systems do require considerable design and training prior to effective operation in order to ensure system-wide understanding of the codes, measures and terminology used.
• Technology: The importance of technology in the success of a One-Stop should not be underestimated. Easy to use, customer-friendly touch screen systems for labor market information and labor exchange registration and use are vital to encouraging the kind of self-service anticipated in the inverted pyramid model of service delivery.⁽¹⁴⁾ These technologies improve the capacity of multiple agencies to staff the resource room, facilitating cross-training and staff appreciation of the broad array of resources available through partner agencies. Where a common data system is introduced, careful attention to the level of computer literacy in different partner agencies is necessary for training staff on the new system and getting them to use it effectively.
• Consolidated Budgets: Of the five One-Stop models examined, only Kenosha had anything that remotely resembled a consolidated budget statement for the activities of the One-Stop. Most sites seemed unable, or unwilling, to prepare such a budget, which we would attribute to the lack of full integration of programs and services. The Kenosha budget (illustrated below), suggests quite clearly that the bulk of the funding for the activities at the Kenosha County Job Center goes to support human services, rather than employment services. This pattern may vary from site to site, with higher numbers for employment services in those systems where unemployment insurance claims are also processed at the One-Stop site, such as in Marshalltown or Traverse City. Nonetheless, these funding proportions reflect the general tightness of the labor market and the resulting emphasis on welfare-to-work rather than economic dislocation -- a very different focus for One-Stop job centers than when they were first conceived. However, the lack of consolidated budgets illustrates the fact that in all but the most integrated systems, the partner agencies continue to operate on a collaborative basis rather than as an integrated system.

Kenosha County Job Center -- Consolidated Budget

Program	Annual Budget
JOBS Program	$3,728,820
Economic Support Administration	$3,163,391
Child Support	$1,369,936
Prevention Services	$1,078,064
Food Stamp Employment and Training	$1,050,000
Senior Aides	$410,000
Wisconsin Job Service	$367,000
PIC-JTPA	$360,000
Fraud Prevention	$332,762
United Migrant Opportunity Service	$60,000
Total	$11,919,973

• Multiple Collective Bargaining Units: In some of the One-Stop sites assessed, it was not uncommon for employees to be represented under several different collective bargaining agreements, while others were employed without representation and/or under contract. Given the overlapping design of some responsibilities in a One-Stop system, such as the staffing of a resource room, multiple agreements and different levels of coverage have the potential for raising several issues about roles and responsibilities in the workplace. However, none of the managers indicated that this was an unmanageable challenge, but simply that it was another issue that required careful negotiation and management attention. In one of the more integrated sites, one public manager noted that he had a higher rate of grievances filed at the One-Stop than in other operations, but this may be more a reflection of the diversity of the agency's other operations than a reflection on the One-Stop work environment.
• Wage Disparities: In the focus groups held with One-Stop staff, it became clear that for most sites there were considerable wage disparities between different agency personnel. In some of these sites, these differences did not appear to the staff to match differences in caseloads or the difficulty of cases. Staff acknowledged that in some sites, these disparities caused some tensions, while in other sites, staff from different agencies had little awareness of the disparities that did exist. In most cases where wage or workload disparities were an issue, staff reported that they had been reasonably successful in working through the tensions at the staff level, although in most cases there remained some level of discomfort with the realities of these compensation differentials. This did not appear to be an issue that had been raised or addressed to any degree at the management level.

President for the Day

In each of the focus groups, participants were encouraged to offer their suggestions for improving the welfare and employment systems as part of the closing dialogue. Participants would ask what changes they would make if they were appointed "President-for-the-Day" with special powers over Congress and the states. What additional help could be provided, rules changed, or emphasis shift would make these two systems work better individually and together? This question provided focus group participants an opportunity to talk about both what worked for them (and hence, more is needed) and what didn't work for them. This question provoked a number of heated discussions, thoughtful comments, laughter, and affirmations of the One-Stop concept.

Responses reported here are grouped by the type of focus group. Surprisingly, few participants in any of the groups called for dramatic spending increases in costly programs, major shifts in policy, or significant changes in work requirements. Instead, participants generally offered specific, relatively modest suggestions for improvements:

• Management: Several concerns were raised by managers that focused on two primary areas: expanding resources and interagency coordination, primarily at the state level. Perhaps the most common concern was to provide more support for training activities, both up-front and on-going. As one manager put it, "I'd like to have more funding to add several specific skill training modules, and the programmatic authority to carry it out without pushing people into the labor market with so few skills." The lack of funding or programmatic basis to continue education and training for those who are successful in finding work and getting off of welfare troubled several managers. Increasing program flexibility with current funding -- especially the development of a federal block grant for employment and training programs -- appealed to most of the participating managers. A few felt that state agencies needed to hear the same message. Several expressed frustration with the clash of cultures between state agencies.
• Staff: Focus groups with caseworkers, employment specialists, and other line staff within the One-Stop systems tended to focus on the increasing difficulties of helping those who remain on TANF rolls as caseloads decline. While caseloads vary from agency to agency within a given One-Stop, in most locations it was clear that improving economies with declining caseloads, an increasing proportion of those TANF recipients still receiving assistance are having serious difficulties securing and retaining employment. In many cases, these families have multiple problems that case managers are unable to address in the context of the program due to lack of resources for ongoing assistance. Some felt that more on-the-job training and work experience opportunities were needed. Staff did note the lack of funds for intensive workshops, transportation assistance, and follow-up (other than the JTPA 90-day tracking follow-up). At most sites, line staff felt that too many program rules and procedures are set at the state level, sometimes requiring enforcement when it is not in the best interests of the client and overall program objectives: "Allow local communities to establish the outcomes to promote customer satisfaction."
• Current Participants: The number one change that current TANF participants wanted to see in "the system" was an effective reform of child support - they really want to see the welfare system make absent fathers pay. In many cases, current TANF participants saw their dependence on TANF as the direct result of the failure of the child support system. The second most pressing concern was about child care - how much, where and when - with many participants expressing particular frustration about the lack of part time and swing shift child care or care for children with special medical needs. Transportation problems also ranked high on the list. Several noted the importance of "full service" assistance from case managers and employment counselors who took extra one-on-one time to help with wardrobe, hygiene, transportation, child care, and the other logistical challenges associated with finding and keeping a job. Assistance with what would seem like incidental problems, especially car repair, often was seen as a personal investment that provided additional motivation to the recipient. A few urged greater attention to transitional benefits to ensure that clients about to make it don't get dropped through the cracks. Although none of the participants expressed a specific desire to see changes in the work requirements, some noted concerns about exhausting benefits, while others were concerned with work requirements for pregnant women, given employer's reluctance to hire them. Several stated that they wanted to see a benefit cut-off for "system abusers," but had few specific suggestions for making such a cut-off operational. These opinions seemed to reflect a concern about stigmatizing public assistance and to some degree, a certain intolerance or lack of appreciation of others' circumstances. In a few cases, participants voiced frustration at being expected to "take a job, any job" rather than being allowed more time to develop skills and look for a more desirable job in terms of skill, potential, and wages.
• Former Participants: Views of former participants echoed those of the current participants in many respects. Many current participants and most former participants found the work requirements distasteful at first, but after getting into it, they were frequently quite grateful for "the push." More than one noted that the work requirement was "...the best thing that ever happened to me, I am so much happier now..." A few suggested that non-custodial parents be given the same work requirements and employment services. Some felt that lower caseload rates would help provide the one-on-one assistance they found most important. Others noted that it would be helpful to have a little more flexibility on work hours and give counselors more discretion (rather than have them exercise it without the authority.) Most former participants said that in order for them to continue pursuing education and training now that they are working, it would require One-Stops and training programs to be available at night, with child care, in order for them to surmount the logistics. Many of these workers are single parents, who need to spend time with their children, and have to worry about the logistics of dinner and homework, not to mention having the energy level to try and upgrade their skills at the same time. As a result, very few former participants had continued their skill development after leaving the program (outside of work,) and most sites had very few resources to assist them. Some comments focused on employers and the need for more jobs at higher wages, including increasing the minimum wage. These comments generally support the need to connect these workers with jobs and/or employers that can offer them a career ladder of wage progression that is attached to training they receive on the job, rather than separate, stand-along programs.
• Employers: Employers who actively hire from the One-Stop labor pool were pretty clear about what they thought would work. First, most wanted a single point of contact with employment related agencies where they could post an opening. Employers in some sites were quite satisfied that they were receiving this service, while others reported posting job listings with as many as six different public agencies or schools. Second, most were quite willing to train new hires if they were job ready and reasonably motivated - most said they were not looking for subsidies, just reliable workers, although a few argued for incentives. Many expressed concerns about basic job readiness, i.e., familiarity with the work environment and work ethic, and a few wanted improved screening of participants for substance abuse problems prior to referral. Many expressed satisfaction with the programs and the hires they had made, and a few (typically nursing facilities and sheltered workshops) were actively collaborating with One-Stop partners to link training and employment opportunities for TANF recipients. In one location, employers suggested a performance driven federal block grant available at the local level. In general, employers were well aware of the shortcomings of the child care system -- a few large employers are trying to address this on an in-house, contractual basis, but most felt that the demand for their products and services did not support higher wages or benefits.

Footnotes

11.  Milwaukee is a good example of the first of these circumstances, Boston the second, and Renton (Seattle metropolitan area) the third.

12.  Testing of abilities includes vocabulary, reading, spelling, language, math, and problem solving. The COPSystem is used to test interests, abilities and work values. Wonderlic tests are also used. Career exploration assessment covers assets and barriers, testing results, program opportunities, labor market opportunities, occupational videos, career counseling and setting employment goals.

13.  On a more positive note, the Kenosha County Job Center is located reasonably near to the center of town on a busy arterial, and as we were told by clients, the bus drivers frequently direct job seekers to the Center. However, even in this location, clients complained that the community college was not easily accessible.

14.  The "inverted pyramid model" of service delivery refers to the use of technology to provide self-service assistance to the broadest possible set of clients when they first contact or enter the agency, reserving more individualized (and labor intensive) services for those who demonstrate a higher need for more intensive services. This model is often contrasted with the traditional "gatekeeper" model of service delivery, where all clients must first be assessed and then assigned to the right combination of services. The inverted pyramid assumes that many clients are capable of getting what they want or need on their own, while the gatekeeper model tends to waste valuable time and resources screening the access of these clients to the resources they seek.

Where to now?

• Executive Summary
• Introduction
• Five One-Stop Models
• Successful Models and Program Elements
• Challenges in Reaching the Welfare Population
• Occupations and Employers
• Links to Other Policy Initiatives
• Empirical Evidence of Success
• Appendix:  One-Stop Model Summaries

Home Pages:

• Human Services Policy (HSP)
• Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
• Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)