This report was prepared for
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant
Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, by the Urban Institute under
contract number HHS-100-95-0021, Delivery Order 10.
Chapter 1: Toward an Employment Focused Welfare System: Work First and Other Strategies
Chapter 2: Work First: The Core of Current Efforts to Reform Welfare to Work Programs
Chapter 3: Program Coverage and Exemptions: Who Must Participate?
Chapter 4: Raising the Stakes: The Role of Sanctions and Time Limits
Chapter 5: Financial Policies to Encourage and Support Work: The Role of Earned Income Disregards
Chapter 6: Up-Front Diversion Strategies
Chapter 7: Organizational Strategies to Support Employment Focused Welfare Reform
Chapter 8: Recipient Experiences In Work First Programs
Appendix A: AFDC Caseload Trends, Economic Indicators and Socio-Economic Characteristics in the Five Study States
Appendix B: Description of State Administrative Data
Tables
Return to ASPE Home Page or HHS Home Page
Toward an Employment Focused Welfare System:
Work First and Other Strategies
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 made unprecedented changes to the nation’s welfare system. Based on the goal of creating a work-oriented, transitional assistance program for families in need, PRWORA eliminated the former Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, an entitlement program which provided monthly cash assistance to families with little or no income. The new law also eliminated the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, a federally mandated welfare-to-work program for AFDC recipients designed to help families move off welfare and attain self-sufficiency.
PRWORA replaced these programs with a single block grant—the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The TANF block grant gives states far greater flexibility to design their own cash assistance and welfare-to-work programs than was permitted in the past. States are presently involved in translating PRWORA’s goal of a work-oriented, transitional assistance program into an operational reality, a process that promises to be ongoing given the inherent complexity and enormous challenge it entails. Many states had already begun this process through welfare reform waiver demonstration projects.1
Despite the overall flexibility afforded by the TANF block grant (as well as, at least initially, increased resources), the law does include some important restrictions on how block grant funds are to be spent and contains several mandates concerning the work-related aspects of TANF. In particular, PRWORA:
In addition, PRWORA eliminated the open-ended entitlement to cash assistance, which was the crux of the former AFDC program, and replaced it with a five year maximum lifetime limit on a family’s receipt of federally-funded TANF benefits. States have the option of imposing a shorter lifetime limit and may also, at their own discretion, continue to provide cash assistance to recipients beyond five years through state general revenues.4
The PRWORA work-related requirements and lifetime limit on benefits, coupled with increased flexibility and freedom from federal regulations, present states with a wide range of program design issues, policy choices and trade-offs that touch upon all dimensions of the current welfare system. Whether states are in the early stages of implementing changes designed to make their welfare systems more employment focused in response to PRWORA or simply on the lookout for new ideas and practices, the experiences of other states provide valuable information and lessons that can inform policy makers and administrators as they confront and reassess these issues in their own states.
Employment Focused Welfare Reform Strategies in Five States
In order to encourage and stimulate the cross-fertilization of ideas across states, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services asked the Urban Institute to document key practices and strategies states have used thus far to make their welfare systems more employment focused, particularly with respect to strategies emphasizing quick entry into the labor market. Six local sites in five states were selected for intensive examination:
These states were chosen for in-depth analysis because they exemplify a mix of different strategies to achieve the common goal of increasing employment among welfare recipients. The states vary in terms of the average cash payment they provide recipients—Indiana and Virginia are fairly low grant states while Massachusetts, Oregon and Wisconsin provide relatively high grants.6
In recent years, all of the study states have experienced significant declines in their cash assistance caseloads that are well above the national average, low unemployment and strong economies (see Table 1.1; more detailed characteristics on the study states and local sites can be found in Appendix A).
| U.S. | Indiana | Massachusetts | Oregon | Virginia | Wisconsin | |
| AFDC Caseload % Decline 1993-1996 |
11.40% | 31.10% | 25.00% | 27.20% | 15.30% | 30.30% |
| Unemployment Rate 1996 |
5.4 | 4.1 | 4.3 | 5.9 | 4.4 | 3.5 |
| Job Growth Rate 1992-1996 |
9.1 | 9.2 | 7.9 | 14.0 | 9.0 | 9.0 |
Work-oriented reforms in place at the time of this study were implemented at different points between 1993 and 1996 (see Table 1.2). Since the passage of PRWORA, Indiana and Wisconsin both implemented new work-oriented reforms while Virginia, Massachusetts, and Oregon have made few changes.
Thus, while this study captures state experiences at one point in time, it also reflects states at different stages in their own evolution toward a more employment focused welfare system. It is also important to note that this study took place too soon after TANF went into effect to fully capture the implications and impact of the new federal welfare reform law (e.g., progressively steeper participation rate requirements, lifetime limit on benefit receipt).
In recent years states have implemented a broad range of programmatic, policy and organizational changes to create assistance systems that emphasize work rather than cash assistance. The primary welfare-to-work strategy used by states to create a more work-oriented, transitional assistance system is “Work First,” a philosophy and program strategy that emphasizes helping recipients find unsubsidized employment as quickly as possible. In addition to Work First programs, states have implemented a variety of other policies that supplement and reinforce the emphasis on work.
Work First programs share a common philosophy regarding work: any job is viewed as a good job and program efforts should be geared toward helping recipients enter the paid labor force as quickly as possible. Thus, Work First programs generally emphasize participation in structured or semi-structured job search programs, rather than education and training.
|
|
|
|
|
| Indiana |
Impacting Families Welfare Reform (IMPACT) IMPACT |
Statewide Statewide |
5/95 6/97 |
| Massachusetts |
Welfare Reform '95 Welfare Reform '95 |
Statewide Statewide |
11/95 2/96 |
| Oregon |
JOBS Waiver Project
JOBS Plus Oregon Option |
Statewide 6 counties Statewide |
1/93 1/95 7/96 |
| Virginia |
Virginia Initiative for Employment Not Welfare (VIEW) |
Statewide, two year phase-in |
4/95 |
| Wisconsin |
Work Not Welfare
Self-Sufficiency First/ Wisconsin Works (W-2) |
2 counties Statewide Statewide |
1/95 3/96 9/97 |
A Fundamental Distinction: Two Approaches to Work First
All of the five states included in this report implemented Work First programs. Broadly speaking, these states implemented two distinct approaches to Work First. The primary difference between the two approaches pertains to what happens to recipients who are unsuccessful in obtaining employment after a specified period of time.
As of January 1997, Virginia and Massachusetts operated Work First, Work Mandate programs and Indiana, Wisconsin and Oregon administered Work First, Participation Mandate programs. Since then, Wisconsin has embarked on a radical restructuring of its entire welfare system, including changes which make it more closely resemble a Work First, Work Mandate model.
It is important to note that while the Work First, Work Mandate model is common among the five states in this study, it is atypical of current state work-oriented programs nationwide. At the time our study took place, Massachusetts and Virginia were the only two states in the country which imposed such a strict work mandate on recipients so soon (just 2-3 months) after going on welfare. Another five states required recipients to participate in employment or community service after a set period of time ranging from 18 to 30 months.7
Since the TANF work requirement on recipients after two years of benefit receipt has yet to be reached, it is still too early to know the degree to which these two program models will be maintained in the future. States may in the future move to a strict definition of work as found in the Work First, Work Mandate study states or they may continue to take advantage of the law’s relatively loose definition of “work,” which may include activities other than unsubsidized employment, subsidized employment and community work experience. States may also choose to apply different program approaches to different populations.
Recognizing at the outset that the distinctions between the two models are likely to evolve and change over time, we reference them throughout the report merely as a way to provide a framework for categorizing and understanding key differences between approaches adopted to make state welfare systems more employment focused. Furthermore, as discussed in greater detail in subsequent chapters, there are important differences between states in the specifics of their design and implementation of either model.
Beyond Work First: Diverse Strategies to Promote Employment
In addition to the two approaches to Work First noted above, there are several other key dimensions of state work-oriented policies which cut across these program models and play an important role in shaping the overall design of their programs. Table 1.3 summarizes key strategies used by the study states to shift to a more work-oriented system. These include:
The two Work First, Work Mandate states—Virginia and Massachusetts—are the most similar of the study states. In addition to a strict work mandate, both states have implemented stringent sanctions for noncompliance, relatively short time limits with no or limited extensions, and generous earned income disregards. Virginia’s Work First, Work Mandate program is targeted to all able-bodied household heads without a child under the age of 18 months. Massachusetts’ program is targeted only to able-bodied household heads without a child under the age of six. Although Massachusetts has begun to combine the eligibility and welfare-to-work responsibilities previously held by two workers into one position, organizational strategies have not been central to reform in either state.
There is far more diversity among the three Work First, Work Participation states. Oregon’s approach to reform is characterized by a nearly universal participation requirement, stringent penalties for noncompliance with procedures to protect the well-being of children, substantial emphasis on efforts to divert applicants from the welfare system, and development of alternative program activities to help harder-to-serve recipients successfully make the transition to employment. Organizational strategies, including an increased emphasis on work-oriented performance standards, have been central to the state’s reform efforts.
An increased reliance on performance based contracts and job placement goals for local offices has also played an especially important role in Indiana’s approach to reform. Other key features of Indiana’s reform strategy include greater reliance on penalties for noncompliance, time limits, and a two-track program approach that make job ready recipients subject to different requirements than recipients determined not yet job ready.8
| Work First, Work Mandate States | Work First, Participation Mandate States | ||||
| Massachusetts | Virginia | Indiana | Oregon | Wisconsin (pre W-2)a | |
| Target Groups |
Non-disabled recipients without a child under age 6 |
Non-disabled recipients without a child under age 18 months |
Non-disabled recipients without a child under age 3 |
Recipients without a child under age 12 weeks |
Recipients without a child under age 12 weeks |
| Penalty for
noncompliance |
Progressively steeper penalty ---> loss of all cash assistance |
Loss of all cash assistance |
Grant reduction (adult portion) |
Progressively steeper penalty ---> loss of all cash assistance |
Determined by amount of participation; maximum penalty is loss of all cash and Food Stamp benefits , except for $10 |
| Diversion Strategies |
None |
Lump sum cash payment |
Pursuance of alternative support |
Pursuance of alternative support, applicant job search |
Pursuance of alternative support, applicant job search |
| Treatment of
Earnings for Eligibility/Benefit Determination |
$30 and 50% of earned income disregarded |
All income disregarded up to the Federal Poverty Line |
Standard AFDC earned income disregards ($30 and 1/3) |
50% of earned income disregarded |
Standard AFDC earned income disregardsb ($30 and 1/3) |
| Time Limit | Benefit elimination |
Benefit elimination |
Benefit reduction |
Benefit elimination |
Noneb |
| Organizational
Strategies |
Integrated case management |
No major changes |
Performance- based contracting |
Integrated case management, performance- based outcomes |
Transfer of administrative authority to Work Force Development, one-stop service delivery |
At the time of our site visit, Wisconsin’s approach to reform was characterized by intensive efforts to divert recipients from the welfare system, stringent penalties for noncompliance, a nearly universal participation requirement, and large-scale organizational restructuring. Although not the focus of this study, Wisconsin has since adopted even more significant reforms through the statewide implementation of W-2 in September, 1997.
Finally, it needs to be underscored that the move to make welfare an employment focused, transitional assistance system in these five states is taking place when the economy is strong and the low-wage labor market is generally expanding. Consequently, these states provide examples of the types of strategies being implemented and employment outcomes being achieved in a strong economic environment that facilitates and supports efforts to move recipients into the labor market as quickly as possible.
A downturn in the economy could cast a very different light on the strategies currently being considered and implemented and call for a different or modified set of policy responses. However, this report illustrates how states have taken advantage of a strong economy to make dramatic changes to the face of welfare, both in making fundamentally different assumptions about what should and can be expected of recipients, and then restructuring the system to support and reinforce these assumptions.
The purpose of this study is (1) to broaden understanding of employment focused welfare reform policies by describing Work First program approaches and other policy strategies used by the five study states; and (2) to discuss some of the interactions and trade-offs involved related to their implementation.
The information included in this study report is primarily drawn from site visits conducted to state and local welfare offices between January and March of 1997. Discussions were held with: (1) state welfare administrators and/or senior program staff; (2) local welfare administrators and front-line eligibility and welfare-to-work staff; (3) staff from other relevant local agencies and organizations such as employment and training service providers; and (4) employers participating in subsidized employment programs and/or unpaid work experience programs. Information obtained through these discussions is supplemented with administrative data on mandatory recipients’ participation in welfare-to-work program activities over a 12 month period (see Appendix B).
The remainder of the report is structured as follows:
1. Prior to the enactment of PRWORA, 43 states were granted permission by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to implement changes in their AFDC and welfare-to-work (i.e., JOBS) programs under the authority provided through Section 1115(a) of the Social Security Act. Most of these waivers were granted between 1993 and 1996. Some were fairly limited in scope while others were quite comprehensive; some took place on a statewide basis while others were limited to selected areas.
2. Throughout this report we use the term “work activities” to refer to unsubsidized or subsidized employment, unpaid community work experience and on-the-job training programs. The term “work-related activities” is used to refer to activities designed to prepare recipients to find employment, such as job search or vocational education and training.
3. Although PRWORA explicitly defines the activities in which recipients must be involved to count towards a state’s participation rate, it does not preclude states from requiring or allowing recipients to participate in activities other than those that count towards the participation rate (e.g., substance abuse treatment). States that expect to exceed the required work participation rates could also place a greater percentage of their total caseload in education and training activities.
4.States are also permitted to exempt up to 20 percent of their TANF caseloads from the lifetime limit on benefits.
5. Population figures are for the county in which the local site are located.
6. As of 1995, the national monthly average AFDC benefit for a family of three was $389. The maximum benefit was $265 in Virginia, $288 in Indiana, $460 in Oregon, $517 in Wisconsin, and $565 in Massachusetts.
7. A strictly defined work mandate goes into effect after 60 days in MA, 90 days in VA, 18 months in CA, 24 months in DE, MT, and RI, and 30 months in VT.
8.This two-track approach was eliminated as of June, 1997.
Work First: The Core of Current Efforts
to
Reform Welfare to Work ProgramsEmployment focused welfare reform
initiatives that emphasize the need for recipients to gain quick exposure
to and entry into the labor force are often referred to as “Work
First” programs. The underlying philosophy of these programs begins
with the expectation that most recipients are capable of finding work and
assumes that the best way to succeed in the labor market is to join it. It
is believed that job advancement and higher wages will come from the
experience of working, rather than from first building skills through
education and/or training. Hence, employment is both the goal and the
expectation, even if the only jobs that can be obtained pay low wages and
lack benefits.
The term Work First neatly captures a shift in both philosophy and practice from the focus on education and training that was commonly found in traditional JOBS programs. Over time, the JOBS program focus on basic education and further skill building through other types of education and training came under criticism. It appeared that engaging in these activities had too often, in practice, become ends unto themselves and that only limited emphasis was placed on connecting participants with jobs. Additional work-oriented activities, most notably job search and unpaid work experience, were permitted but neither (particularly work experience) was used to any significant degree and they typically followed, rather than preceded, participation in education activities.1
From a programmatic perspective, a Work First philosophy suggests that the first welfare-to-work activity should be a job search that occurs either shortly before or after an individual begins receiving assistance. The increased emphasis on moving recipients off welfare and into jobs as quickly as possible also suggests the need for limiting the amount of time clients spend in activities and closely monitoring their progress. Beyond making job search the first and central activity, a Work First philosophy offers little guidance on what additional strategies should be used to serve clients who are unable to find or retain employment.
In general, states which have adopted a Work First philosophy continue to utilize the same core components that were offered under the former JOBS program—job search, unpaid work experience/ subsidized employment, education and training—but have made adjustments to how they are used. Common examples of how this is done include: sequencing activities so that job search precedes other types of activities; making greater use of unpaid work experience (or subsidized employment); and limiting education and training activities and/or requiring they are combined with more work-oriented activities (e.g. job search).
As discussed at the outset of this report, the study states have combined these practices using two basic program approaches: (1) a Work First, Work Mandate approach which encourages recipients to find unsubsidized employment and requires unpaid work experience for those who do not find jobs soon after initial receipt of benefits and (2) a Work First, Participation Mandate approach which uses job search to move those who are job ready into employment and requires those who do not find jobs to engage in other types of program activities designed to make them job ready. Not surprisingly, the degree of program variation increases upon a closer look at Work First programs.
This chapter provides examples of how Work First actually works from a programmatic perspective at the local level.2 The distinction between Work First, Participation Mandate and Work First, Work Mandate approaches is used to help sort the variation in programs across the five study states. A basic overview of participation requirements in the five study states is presented first, followed by descriptions of the structure, content, and mix of work and work-related activities, efforts to strengthen linkages with employers and views about harder-to-serve recipients. Subsequent chapters address policies that are often administered in conjunction with Work First programs—sanctions, time limits, earned income disregards and up-front diversion.
All five study states require mandatory recipients to begin participating in program activities far sooner than the two-year maximum allowed under PRWORA. They have also defined what activities are required of recipients in a variety of different ways.
How Work First, Work Mandate States Define Participation
In general, the Work First, Work Mandate states focus on moving recipients who do not find jobs within a short time period into unpaid work experience. In order to continue to receive benefits beyond 60 days, Massachusetts requires mandatory recipients who have not found at least a part-time unsubsidized job (i.e., a minimum of 20 hours per week) to engage in 20 hours per week of unpaid work experience or subsidized employment. Before the 60-day work requirement takes effect, recipients are provided the opportunity, but not required, to participate in job search, education or training. Recipients may also participate in these activities after the work requirement takes effect but only in addition to meeting the 20-hour work obligation.
Virginia requires mandatory recipients to engage in job search immediately after benefits are authorized. If the recipient has not found at least a part-time unsubsidized job (i.e., a minimum of 20 hours per week) within 90 days after benefits are authorized, she must work in an unpaid work experience or subsidized employment position for 30 hours per week in order to continue to receive benefits. If an unpaid work experience position cannot provide 30 hours of work, the balance must be made up by simultaneously engaging in job search, education or training.
How Work First, Participation Mandate States Define Participation
The Work First, Participation Mandate states provide somewhat greater flexibility than Work First, Work Mandate states in terms of what activities are required of recipients to meet the participation mandate. Additionally, their program designs do not call for the swift imposition of a strictly defined work mandate.
Indiana requires a minimum of 20 hours of participation per week. Prior to June 1997, participation requirements varied according to whether an assessment determined a recipient was “job ready.” This distinction was phased out after the time of our site visits. All recipients are currently required to meet the participation requirements formerly reserved only for job ready recipients.
Job ready recipients must first participate in job search. If the initial job search is not successful, the 20-hour participation requirement can be met by participating in unpaid work experience, additional job search, or a combination of these two types of activities. Job ready recipients can also engage in education or training activities but only if these activities are performed in addition to engaging in 20 hours of more work-oriented (i.e., job search/unpaid work experience) activities.
Prior to June 1997, recipients whose assessment determined they were not yet job ready had to meet the 20-hour participation requirement by: (1) engaging in job search and/or unpaid work experience or (2) combining education or training activities with at least eight hours per week of job search and/or unpaid work experience. These recipients were reassessed every six months to determine if they had become job ready.
Oregon requires recipients to engage in an up-front job search for 40 hours per week; part of this job search must occur before benefits will be authorized. Those who do not find a job within 30 days must engage in work or work related activities for at least 20 hours per week (full-time participation is encouraged and preferred). Oregon also permits recipients with substance abuse or mental health problems to fulfill the 20-hour minimum participation requirement by participating in treatment activities, a practice that is unique among the five study states and uncommon among states in general.
Wisconsin (pre W-2) required all mandatory recipients to engage in an up-front job search prior to the authorization of benefits. This up-front requirement consisted of 60 hours of job search over a 30 day period. For those who did not find a job after this initial job search, the number of hours and type of activity varied by the age of the youngest child. Custodial parents with a child between 12 weeks and nine months of age were required to participate a minimum of 20 hours per week in some combination of parenting classes, job readiness activities, and basic education (job search was not required but also not discouraged). Those with a child between nine and 12 months of age were required to participate in at least 20 hours of job search/job readiness. Those with children over age one were required to participate a minimum of 20 hours but generally closer to 30-35 hours a week in program activities. For the vast majority, this activity was job search/job readiness but recipients were also permitted to participate in short-term training, education and unpaid work experience.
The program approaches and participation requirements used by the five study states originated in the context of pre-PRWORA waivers. Like most state waiver demonstrations, high priority was placed on increasing participation in employment and work-related activities. At the same time, efforts to increase participation were not shaped by or measured against the higher and more narrowly defined participation requirements required under PRWORA. Thus, while the study states provide examples of program practices and approaches that may generally result in higher rates of participation than were typical of traditional JOBS programs, they do not necessarily reflect what may be needed to meet PRWORA’s participation rates.
The remainder of this chapter describes various components of the study states’ Work First programs. Job search is examined first because of the central role it plays in Work First programs. State experiences with unpaid work experience and subsidized employment programs are described next, followed by a section that highlights efforts to strengthen linkages with employers. We then turn to a discussion of the role of education and training in a Work First environment. The last section presents views on harder-to-serve recipients in the context of a Work First program approach and some steps taken by a few study states to address the needs of this population.
Job search programs can be structured in a variety of ways. There are no fixed rules regarding when a job search should be initiated, what activities should be included in it, how much recipients should be responsible for directing their own job search versus having it structured and directed for them, or how closely recipients’ job search activities should be monitored. Each of these dimensions of job search is examined separately below.
When Are Individuals Expected or Required to Conduct a Job Search?
In keeping with the general premise that the first activity should be job search, most states which have embraced a Work First philosophy have resequenced program activities so that individuals are generally either required or encouraged to engage in a job search before being assigned to any other activity. However, as reflected in the five study states, the exact point at which individuals are required or encouraged to engage in a job search still varies. Of special note is the practice that requires otherwise eligible applicants to conduct a job search before benefits will be authorized, thereby taking the notion of an up-front job search to its ultimate conclusion (see Chapter 6 for additional discussion of applicant job search in the context of diversion policies).
Two of the three Work First, Participation Mandate states in our study—Wisconsin (pre W-2) and Oregon—have implemented an applicant job search requirement as a condition of eligibility, although the requirement is structured differently. Compared to Oregon, Wisconsin’s up-front job search period lasts longer (30 days compared to 5-10 days) and requires recipients to engage in a more self-directed job search that places greater emphasis on making contacts with employers (see box for additional description of these two states’ applicant job search requirement).
At the time of our site visit, the other Work First, Work Participation state—Indiana—did not have an applicant job search. In fact, Indiana differed from the rest of the study states in that it deferred assignment to any activity until after a recipient completed a formal, structured client assessment to determine job readiness.3
The Work First, Work Mandate study states—Virginia and Massachusetts—do not impose an applicant job search requirement. Although there is no reason why this model could not include such a requirement, these states rely on the swift imposition of the work mandate to provide applicants and new recipients with a powerful incentive to engage in a job search immediately.
In fact, Massachusetts does not formally require individuals to engage in a job search even after benefits are authorized. Workers do, however, contact recipients several times to impress upon them the importance of finding a job and encourage them to make use of available job search assistance services. The work mandate is stressed in these discussions to help convince recipients’ that undertaking a job search resulting in a paid job is the preferred course of action.
Virginia does reinforce the work mandate’s implicit job search incentive with a formal job search requirement (including penalties for noncompliance) that begins immediately after benefits are authorized.
|
Key Characteristic: Both states require applicants to engage in a job search before their applications for cash assistance will be approved. Although many states have or are in the process of implementing a job search requirement for applicants, not as many go so far as to delay or deny the initial approval of benefits contingent upon the applicant’s participation in a job search. Up-Front Applicant Job Search in Wisconsin ( pre-W-2)
|
What Types of Job Search Assistance are Provided?
Job search components range on a continuum from little more than telling applicants to look for work and monitoring their progress to providing recipients highly intensive and structured assistance in preparing for and finding a job. A review of past research indicates that a job search component that combines a recipient’s actual job search with group classroom instruction on job search and job readiness is more effective than one that solely relies on self-directed and unsupervised job search.4 Some, but not all, of the study states have adopted this mixed approach. Key characteristics and differences between job search components in the five study states are described next.
Regardless of whether recipients are required to engage in a structured job search class or are expected to direct their own job search, bringing an assortment of job search resources together is a basic and important way to facilitate a job search. All of the sites we visited provided “resource rooms” to assist recipients in their job search which contained, at the very least, phones, typewriters and/or computers, fax machines, and listings of job opportunities.
Beyond making resource rooms available to recipients, common types of job search assistance include providing instruction on: (1) practical skills directly tied to finding a job and (2) job readiness skills designed to facilitate recipients’ job search and better prepare them for the world of work. Practical job search skills include hands-on instruction on resume and cover letter preparation, completing employment applications, identifying job leads, and interviewing skills. Typical job readiness activities include instruction on proper work habits and attire, family life skills (e.g. parenting, time management, financial management and budgeting), goal-setting and problem solving.
The local sites in the Work First, Work Mandate states offered recipients very little by way of structured assistance in practical job search skills or job readiness skills.
The Work First, Participation Mandate sites place greater emphasis on providing job search and job readiness assistance to recipients, although the degree to which these services are delivered in a structured setting varies. Portland (OR) and Indianapolis /Scottsburg (IN) provide extensive and well-developed job clubs that include instruction on job search and job readiness skills, combined with a guided and monitored job search. By contrast, Racine (WI) does not hold a job club specifically for welfare recipients, but does make a rich array of job search assistance resources and job readiness workshops available to recipients.
As part of this reorganization, the traditional practice of holding separate structured job clubs for welfare recipients was eliminated. Instead, recipients have access to the same centralized resources and attend the same job search/job readiness workshops as all other job seekers. (Job readiness workshops covering different topics are offered daily.) Recipients are required to engage in a specified number of hours of actual job search and job readiness activities, but it is left up to the client to choose which workshops they attend and how intensively they want to take advantage of other job search assistance resources available through the Workforce Development Center. Local staff reported that most recipients responded positively to the idea of “being treated just like everyone else” and adapted easily to the less structured job search format. There was some concern that the least motivated or confident recipients found this new approach more intimidating and difficult to navigate than the previous targeted and structured job search component.
|
Monitoring recipients’ job search activities can take a variety of forms and serve both as a mechanism for tracking their progress as well as ensuring that recipients are in fact engaging in required activities. Monitoring practices in the five study states, as of January 1997, are summarized below. Wisconsin (pre W-2): In Racine, workers monitored compliance with the job search requirement on a monthly basis. Recipients submitted business cards and/or copies of completed applications as verification of employer contacts. Certificates of completion were used to verify participation in job readiness workshops. Recipients recorded the time spent in job search assistance resource rooms through a punch-in/punch-out time clock. Oregon: In Portland, workers monitored compliance with the job search requirement on at least a weekly basis. Recipients submitted employer business cards and/or copies of completed applications as verification of employer contacts. Participation in formal job readiness workshops was monitored through attendance records kept by the job readiness provider. Other job search/job readiness activities were tracked through activity logs maintained and submitted by recipients. Virginia: In Culpeper, workers monitored compliance with the job search requirement on a weekly basis. Recipients submitted a self-reported list of five employer contacts on a weekly basis. There was no attempt to verify recipients’ reported activities. Indiana: Contract service providers were responsible for monitoring recipients’ attendance in job readiness/job search classes and general job search activities. This information was forwarded to caseworkers on a weekly basis. Attendance reports were kept on recipients’ participation in formal job readiness/job search classes. Methods used to monitor and verify employer contacts ranged from requiring recipients to bring in documentation signed by the employer to relying on recipients’ descriptions of their contacts with employers. Some providers required daily reports from recipients while others met weekly or biweekly with recipients. Massachusetts: As there is no formal job search requirement in this state, no effort was made to monitor nor verify recipients’ job search activities. Recipients choosing to receive job search assistance from employment staff were asked to report on their job search activities so that staff could provide ongoing input and guidance. |
Our discussions with staff did not produce information that would suggest that any one of these approaches to job search is particularly more promising or effective than another. The prevailing view was that local economies were so strong and low-wage jobs so plentiful that only those with serious problems (which could not be addressed through job search components) had difficulty finding a job. In conjunction with a strong economy, resequencing job search so that it was typically the first activity, emphasizing the importance of finding any job as quickly as possible, and imposing stricter participation requirements and stiffer penalties for noncompliance were typically viewed as the key ingredients to a successful job search.
PRWORA has generated much interest in unpaid work experience and subsidized employment because these activities provide an acceptable means to meet the new federal work participation requirements.7 Both unpaid work experience and subsidized employment are considered alternative forms of work. Ideally, participation in these programs will teach participants who lack prior work experience about basic work habits, familiarize them with the “world of work,” and provide them with skills and experience that can place them in a better position to transition off welfare and into unsubsidized employment.8 Unpaid work experience is also considered a way to make welfare less attractive compared to paid employment.
Unpaid work experience is typically structured to provide participants the opportunity to work for public and nonprofit employers in exchange for welfare benefits. Subsidized employment, on the other hand, is typically structured to provide participants the opportunity to work for private employers. Whereas unpaid work experience is based on a non-financial exchange of work for benefits, employers pay subsidized employment recipients regular wages which are financed out of diverted welfare funds.
These types of programs present significant administrative and operational challenges—finding interested businesses and organizations with positions that can be filled by welfare recipients, monitoring recipients’ participation, etc. Additionally, there is always the danger that when actually implemented, these activities fall far short of the ideal. With respect to unpaid work experience, there is particular concern that these positions end up being little more than a place for recipients to mark time in a “make work” job. In the case of subsidized employment, there is concern that these programs simply give employers a financial bonus for hiring someone they would have hired anyway.
As stated previously, most states did not focus much attention or resources on these types of activities under the former JOBS program. Hence, most states have little experience with developing and operating these programs and no experience with operating them on a large-scale basis. This study’s site selection process was shaped in part by the desire to include at least a few states that had program approaches specifically designed to include well-developed unpaid work experience or subsidized employment components. Massachusetts and Virginia were selected for inclusion in part because of their Work First, Work Mandate program approach. Oregon was selected in part because it has a relatively well-developed, statewide subsidized employment program for welfare recipients.
Overall, it appeared that Massachusetts and Virginia experienced much success in expanding their unpaid work experience component to meet the increased need for these activities resulting from the adoption of a Work First, Work Mandate approach. In contrast, both states experienced little success in implementing their newly created subsidized employment programs. Oregon has experienced much greater success with its subsidized employment initiative and has chosen to use unpaid work experience on a very minimal basis.
Unpaid Work Experience
Based on discussions with local staff and a limited number of unpaid work experience site providers, the most noteworthy findings regarding states’ experiences with unpaid work experience can be summarized as follows:
The experiences of the two Work First, Work Mandate states suggest that even in states which opt to define work activities solely or primarily in terms of unpaid work experience (or subsidized employment), there may not be as much need for recipients to be placed in these component activities as might be anticipated—at least when the economy is strong and entry level jobs are plentiful. Whether the same holds true in a period of economic decline is another matter.
Subsidized Employment
To date, subsidized employment programs for welfare recipients remain an even more infrequently used work alternative than unpaid work experience. To the extent that subsidized employment is used, it is often limited to a few select areas where an arrangement has been worked out with a few employers.
Of the states featured in this study, only Oregon had made serious inroads in building a subsidized employment program for welfare recipients. Wisconsin had not placed much emphasis on subsidized employment for welfare recipients in the past but planned to greatly expand the use of subsidized employment under W-2. Although there was no statewide effort to rely more on subsidized employment in Indiana, a variation of a subsidized employment program was operated in Indianapolis (IN) by America Works, a private for profit organization which had obtained state and local funding to serve low-income individuals, including TANF and Food Stamp recipients. Virginia and Massachusetts originally envisioned implementing a large subsidized employment program but their attempts to do so have been stymied due to common implementation barriers.
According to interviews with local staff, the major operational challenges and barriers to successful implementation of these kinds of programs include:
In contrast to Virginia’s and Massachusetts’ experience, Oregon has enjoyed considerable employer, legislative, and staff support for and commitment to its “JOBS Plus” subsidized employment program. The remainder of this section focuses on the aspects of JOBS Plus that have facilitated Oregon’s ability to overcome many implementation problems common to subsidized employment programs.
Consistent and Aggressive Marketing. When first implemented, thousands of employers received recruitment letters from the private business whose president was responsible for the creation of JOBS Plus. This initial recruitment method was successful, in part because it was spearheaded by the private sector rather than a public agency. To maintain a large and current pool of employers, welfare-to-work job development staff constantly market the program by sending information to employers, making presentations to large groups of business people, and seeking out referrals from other employers. The local JOBS Implementation Council, which includes local business representatives, also markets the program to the employer community.
Administratively Easy for Employers to Participate. The program is designed so that it does not present an administrative burden or hassle for employers. To participate, employers simply sign an agreement acknowledging they understand and agree to the program’s rules. The subsidized position may last up to six months. Employers are not required to hire recipients at the end of this period, although most are prepared to do so. Employers must also agree to provide participants a mentor. Participants are treated the same as any other temporary employee in the company—they receive a paycheck, unemployment compensation, worker’s compensation, sick leave, and vacation time.11 Employers submit monthly timesheets on participants to the state and are reimbursed out of a funding pool of diverted TANF and Food Stamps benefits.
Additional Work and Education Supports for Participants. The JOBS Plus program is designed to ensure that participants are never any worse off financially for taking a JOBS Plus position. If participants are paid less than what they would have received from TANF and Food Stamps, the welfare office issues them a supplemental check. Moreover, recipients receive an array of additional supports for participating in JOBS Plus.
Prior to starting a placement, the welfare office pays for any special work clothing that may be needed. While participating in a JOBS Plus position, participants receive day care, transportation assistance and maintain their eligibility for Medicaid. The gross income limit used to determine eligibility is increased to 130 percent of the Federal Poverty Line. They also receive the full amount of any child support collected and are encouraged to apply to receive the Earned Income Tax Credit on a monthly (as opposed to annual) basis through their employer. In Portland (OR), rent does not increase for participants living in Section 8 housing.
After 30 days of participation with the same employer, the employer must contribute $1 to an “individual education account” for every hour the participant works. This money can be accessed by participants for education and training purposes after they leave welfare.
Changing the welfare system to be more employment focused has accentuated the need to expand working relationships with employers in order to support efforts to place recipients in unsubsidized employment and work activities. Despite the key role employers play in the welfare-to-work equation, welfare-to-work programs traditionally have not focused as much attention or energy on building ties with the employer community as might be expected.
In part, this is because the focus of these programs was on longer-term education and training rather than employment and/or unpaid work experience. To the extent that obtaining employment was emphasized, welfare-to-work programs tended to focus on helping recipients attain good job search skills and identifying promising job leads rather than actively recruiting employers to hire welfare recipients or forging ongoing partnerships with the employer community.
On the flip side, employers traditionally have not sought out welfare-to-work programs as a source of labor to fill job openings, relying instead on more standard venues for recruitment and hiring (e.g., word of mouth, newspaper ads). Moreover, staff frequently report that employers, as a rule, are reluctant to hire welfare recipients. From an employer perspective, welfare recipients represent a group that lacks requisite skills, work experience, and familiarity with workplace expectations, and thus, are not generally perceived to be particularly promising employees.
In shifting to a more work-focused welfare system, states and localities have begun to confront more explicitly the challenge of bridging the gap between employers and welfare-to-work programs. This section highlights three types of efforts observed in the five study states to strengthen linkages with employers: reaching out to involve employers and obtain their input, targeted job development and job retention, and using employers as guest speakers at job search sessions.
Involving the Employer Community
Soliciting the involvement of the employer community can take a variety of forms and may occur at both the state and local level. It was common for welfare staff to report that it was often difficult to elicit employers’ involvement and to overcome their reservations about hiring welfare recipients. There is also a strong sentiment that the private sector has a vital role to play in the success of welfare reform initiatives, a responsibility to be involved, and much to gain by being more involved. Bringing employers “to the table” was viewed by staff as key to making employers feel vested in the process and outcome of welfare reform.
Indiana established local welfare reform taskforces that sought to bring together various agencies, community leaders and employers to solicit their views about what was needed to reform welfare at the local level. In most areas, these taskforces were disbanded after welfare reform officially went into effect. However, in Scottsburg (IN), the Mayor used the taskforce as a springboard for forging an ongoing and active partnership between local government, the welfare office and local, private sector employers. In Indianapolis, an employer board, with active support from local government, has met for several years on issues pertaining to welfare reform and low-wage workers.
In assessing how best to forge a partnership that benefits employers and welfare recipients alike, members of the Scottsburg taskforce stressed that communication and coordination must be a two-way street—employers need to become better informed about the barriers recipients face in making a successful transition to employment, and welfare offices need to become better educated about what employers need and look for when hiring and retaining employees. It was further noted that employers needed to be willing to assume some flexibility and risk when hiring and employing former welfare recipients. For example, some local employers waived their requirement that new hires must have a high school diploma or equivalent, contingent upon the welfare recipient continuing to pursue obtaining a high school equivalency degree while employed.
Prior to welfare reform, the welfare office in Culpeper (VA) used the Chamber of Commerce to serve as a liaison between themselves and employers in the community. In the wake of welfare reform, the relationship was further developed so that the local welfare office could better tailor its Work First, Work Mandate model to be more responsive to employer needs. Local businesses were surveyed by the Chamber of Commerce on the types of characteristics and skills they sought in employees as part of this endeavor.
Wisconsin’s W-2 program design calls for the establishment of Community Steering Committees in each county, a mechanism for community involvement and collaboration that was first tried in two counties under the Work Not Welfare pilot demonstration. These committees are made up of representatives from different sectors of the community and are responsible for supplementing W-2 agency efforts to form linkages with employers by: (1) creating and identifying job opportunities, (2) developing employment strategies and promoting entrepreneurship, (3) providing mentorship opportunities, and (4) helping the W-2 agency create subsidized and community service jobs.
Targeted Job Development and Job Retention
One way to increase recipients’ chances of finding a job is for staff to make contact and develop relationships with employers so that they can keep abreast of job openings and direct recipients to them. This practice, known as “job development,” gives recipients who may not be able to break into the job market on their own the additional boost they need to obtain employment. “Job retention” services refer to efforts to help recipients keep jobs once they find them. Both job development and job retention are not without costs as each require additional staff resources or diverting staff from helping recipients acquire jobs on their own. However, both can also increase employers’ willingness to hire welfare recipients and encourage employers to view welfare-to-work programs as a hiring resource.
Overall, job development and job retention services were not widely provided among the five study states. To the extent that efforts were made to secure employment for recipients through job development, these efforts tended to focus on recruiting employers to take on unpaid work experience or subsidized employment participants or working with recipients while they were in these positions. Given the strong economy, there was generally less perceived need to focus job development efforts on moving recipients into unsubsidized jobs.
Exceptions to these general observations were found in Portland (OR) and Scottsburg (IN). In Portland, full-time job developers were assigned to market the welfare-to-work program and its subsidized employment component to employers. In Scottsburg, staff had built good working relationships with the personnel staff of major companies in the area. Staff were routinely notified when job openings became available and regularly referred recipients who best fit the employers’ hiring needs.
It was very common for staff to express concern over the high propensity of recipients to lose jobs and return to welfare. They typically saw a much stronger need for job retention and reemployment services than job development services. However, for the most part, this type of supportive service was also generally absent from the mix of program services.
Using Employers as Guest Speakers at Group Job Search Sessions
Some job search programs, such as those observed in Portland (OR) and Indianapolis (IN) regularly enlist employers to make presentations to recipients at their job search sessions. Several positive outcomes were associated with this practice. It gave recipients the opportunity to hear from and interact with an employer in an informal setting. In this setting, they could learn first hand about what an employer looked for and the types of behavior and skills they valued in an employee. Although the same material might be covered by staff in other sessions, the “real life” dimension of having it communicated directly by employers seemed to make it more meaningful to recipients. It also provided the added benefit of developing additional linkages with employers and increasing their awareness of the fact that “welfare recipients” were really job seekers who wanted to work.
With its emphasis on quick entry into the workforce, there is no predefined role for education and training in Work First models. In general, the study states have continued to include education and training in the overall mix of program services but have sharply curtailed the use of these activities in favor of job search and, in some cases, work activities.
Some of the more common ways states have tailored education and training to fit within the framework of a Work First approach are: (1) permitting recipients to engage in education and training only after completing a job search that has proven unsuccessful, (2) permitting participation in education and/or training only when it is coupled with more work-oriented activities (i.e., job search or unpaid work experience) and (3) providing more education and training activities on a more flexible, open-entry basis so that participants do not have to wait for long periods of time before starting a work-related activity. In addition, greater effort is made to keep recipients from drifting in and out of an education component. Recipients who are not attending classes regularly or not making progress are reassigned to to more work-oriented activities.
Even when education and/or training is permitted, the focus has shifted from longer-term basic education or “career-oriented” education programs toward more short-term education and training. At the same time, many respondents noted that there was a lack of such programs currently in existence. At the time of our site visits, the study states were still in the early stages of exploring how education and training could best be restructured to complement a Work First approach, as opposed to simply de-emphasized.
For example, in Racine (WI), a staff person from the local technical college is under a full-time contract to work on developing new short-term training courses (usually 16 weeks or less) that respond to the needs of the labor market. This endeavor has required developing stronger linkages with local industry as well as working closely with a co-located labor market specialist. Staff in Portland (OR) developed their own short-term clerical and electronics training courses because there were no short-term training courses available that met the needs of their recipients.
Developing and implementing short-term education and training programs brings its own set of challenges. Not only must current linkages with educational agencies and training providers be restructured, these agencies and providers may be resistant, if not outright opposed, to the underlying goals and philosophy of a Work First approach. In addition, although coupling education and/or training with more work-oriented activities is one way to ensure that the focus on employment and work is not diluted, it may also mean that fewer recipients in practice will opt to engage in these activities.
Many recipients in a Work First environment reportedly choose not to engage in education and training simply because they have no desire to do so. However, according to staff, others do not because they feel it is beyond their ability to balance the demands of participating in more than one activity and meeting their family obligations (e.g., responsibilities associated with raising children, etc.). On the other hand, supporters of this approach emphasized that this is no different from what non-welfare working individuals must do if they are interested in pursuing additional education and training for their own job advancement purposes.
As states have moved to program approaches that incorporate a Work First philosophy, most of the focus and emphasis to date has been placed on the front-end of Work First—that is, on job search. While the economy plays a pivotal role in the ease or difficulty recipients face in finding employment, those who do not obtain or retain employment often possess multiple barriers that make it especially difficult for them to participate in required program activities and successfully transition off welfare. Key characteristics of those considered harder-to-serve include some combination of the following: little to no previous work experience, low basic skills, mental health problems, substance abuse, domestic violence, child behavior problems, and legal problems.
In general, the staff with whom we spoke favored the strong focus on employment under Work First. At the same time, they also expressed the need for more education and short-term training when it seemed appropriate, flexibility to work more intensively with some recipients who need more personal attention, and additional tools and resources to address the needs of hard-to-serve recipients.
Subsidized employment or unpaid work experience provides one strategy for recipients with little work experience or low basic skills. However, participation in these activities may prove too difficult for some recipients with particularly severe personal or family problems. Others may be able to handle an unpaid work position but the experience will not lead to unsubsidized employment unless other supports are made available.
Officials and staff also noted that the need to develop more intensive and effective strategies to address the needs of the harder-to-serve has steadily increased since moving to a Work First approach. They believe this is due to the success experienced in moving more job ready recipients into employment. Many also feel that the population left behind is increasingly composed of recipients for whom a simple Work First strategy does not work. Time limits and strict participation requirements have also contributed to a greater sense of urgency for turning more attention to this population.
Among the study states, Oregon placed the most emphasis and program resources on dealing with harder-to-serve recipients. For example, in Portland (OR):
The average cost of serving welfare-to-work recipients in Oregon has increased, a fact that program staff attribute to working more intensively with recipients facing far more barriers to self-sufficiency than in the past. Staff also generally perceived that their investments in harder-to-serve recipients have paid off.12 Moreover, these costs are not as high as might be expected, primarily because a substantial share of the costs of the more expensive specialized services such as mental health, substance abuse or vocational rehabilitation services are covered by other agencies and/or funding streams.
Oregon recently asked local offices to develop strategies that will help recipients who do not find jobs make the transition from welfare to work. Since our site visits, Indiana made a similar request to local offices and set aside additional money to fund special “barrier busting” initiatives. Indiana has also increasingly placed greater priority on having job search service providers work more intensively on job search/job readiness skills with recipients who have still not found a job toward the end of their job search assignment. Although not yet implemented at the time of our site visits, Wisconsin’s W-2 program features different levels of employment options, including community service jobs for those who need to build work experience and a “Transition” component that is reserved for those unable to perform independent, self-sustaining work.13
Moving the harder-to-serve off welfare and into jobs presents a difficult challenge for many reasons. States that are interested in identifying effective or promising strategies to deal with the harder-to-serve have relatively little experience or research on which to draw. For the most part, designing and implementing additional strategies and supports for the harder-to-serve is still in the very early stages of planning and development.
Because the harder-to-serve is not a homogeneous population, the type and intensity of additional resources, supports and strategies need to vary depending on the particular combination of barriers that recipients face. How best to incorporate new strategies to deal with this population without diluting a Work First message and environment also creates a balancing act for states. According to administrators and staff, a key implementation challenge when first shifting to a Work First philosophy was changing the mindset and expectations of staff about recipients’ potential employability. Staff were encouraged to stop focusing so heavily on recipients’ barriers and adopt the philosophy that recipients can in fact find jobs. While states do not want to lose the overall Work First focus of moving recipients quickly into employment, there is a growing recognition that Work First is the first step and not the final answer to helping recipients make the transition from welfare to work.
1. In FY 1994, based on average monthly data, 42.7 percent of JOBS participants engaged in educational activities, 15.8 percent engaged in training, 10.7 percent engaged in job search/job readiness and 4.3 percent engaged in community work experience or similar activities.
2. Although not addressed in this study, child care assistance and other supportive services also play a key role in states’ efforts to move recipients into work.
3. Indiana is currently preparing to implement an up-front applicant job search component. In contrast to Oregon and Wisconsin but like many other states which have an applicant job search, Indiana will not make application processing or benefit authorization contingent upon the fulfillment of this up-front requirement.11Recipients typically quit their subsidized employment job before the end of the six month period and thus few JOBS Plus placements turn into permanent jobs. Between 30-40 percent of placements last for only two months. Recipients who quit one JOBS Plus assignment are permitted one additional placement.
4. Amy Brown, Work First: How to Implement an Employment - Focused Approach to Welfare Reform, New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (1997).
5. In other areas across the state, there is a move to consolidate all employment related program staff and resources into one-stop career centers that are available to the general public. In these areas, welfare recipients must go to the career centers to receive employment services. DES staff are still co-located in the welfare office but only for the purpose of providing welfare recipients information about services available through the career centers and helping them navigate the new system.
6. Recipients are encouraged to treat their job search like a job and providers use the structured job club as a way to familiarize recipients with common workplace expectations. For example, America Works, a contracted service provider in Indianapolis (IN), reinforces the importance of punctuality and attendance by requiring those who arrive late, miss a class or are not dressed in proper attire to start their job club assignment over again the following week.
7. Unpaid work experience is also often referred to as community work experience, community service employment or workfare. Subsidized employment for welfare recipients is also commonly called grant diversion or work supplementation.
8. Evaluation research on small-scale workfare programs in the 1980s found that welfare recipients’ participation in unpaid work experience program did not lead to an increase in participants’ employment or earnings. Thomas Brock, David Butler, and David Long, Unpaid Work Experience for Welfare Recipients: Findings and Lessons from MDRC Research, New York: MDRC (1993).
9. Our analysis of participation patterns among recipients subject to the work requirement in Worcester (MA) and Culpeper (VA) revealed that only one-fifth to one-quarter of recipients were in either subsidized employment or community work experience at any time over a 12 month period (see Chapter 8).
10. In Massachusetts, eligibility staff responsible for monitoring recipients during the initial 60 day time frame encourage recipients who are approaching the end of this period to look for a community service experience position that best suits their schedule and interests. Recipients who have not found an unsubsidized job or community service position by the end of the 60 days must take whatever community service assignment is available. Although there is an attempt to take the recipients’ interests and scheduling constraints into consideration when making an assignment, there is no guarantee this will happen.
11. Recipients typically quit their subsidized employment job before the end of the six month period and thus few JOBS Plus placements turn into permanent jobs. Between 30-40 percent of placements last for only two months. Recipients who quit one JOBS Plus assignment are permitted one additional placement.
12. The costs of serving welfare-to-work participants increased from an average of $92.82 per case per month in FY 95-96 to $162.46 per case in FY 96-97. See State of Oregon, Adult and Family Services Division, Public Assistance Data Charts, Statewide Data, June 1997.
13. W-2 Transition participants are required to participate up to 28 hours per week in work or other developmental activities up to their ability, and up to 12 hours per week in education or training.
Program Coverage and Exemptions:
Who
Must Participate?Program coverage and exemptions are critical dimensions
of welfare-to-work programs. In the past, a significant proportion of the
adult AFDC caseload did not participate in welfare-to-work programs
because they were granted an exemption. The criteria used to define what
circumstances made an individual exempt from mandatory participation were
set at the federal level through statutory language. In contrast, PRWORA
leaves policy decisions regarding program coverage and exemptions largely
up to the states, or at state discretion, to local offices.
Under the former JOBS program, approximately one-half of adults receiving AFDC were exempt from mandatory participation.1 The JOBS exemption that affected the largest proportion of recipients was the exclusion of adult primary caretakers with children under 3 years of age (or under age one, at state option). In addition, recipients caring for an ill or disabled household member, working 30 or more hours per week, living in a remote area, or experiencing a permanent or temporary medical or psychological problem that affected their ability to work were not required to participate in JOBS.2
Many states began to narrow exemption criteria prior to PRWORA’s enactment through waivers or the state option under JOBS. The most common change was to require parents of young children (as young as 12 weeks) to participate in JOBS. This trend has continued under PRWORA.
Expanding participation by narrowing exemptions is potentially one of the most significant changes a state can make in the course of reshaping its welfare-to-work program to emphasize employment. As shown in Table 3.1, the study states have made very different choices regarding who should be exempt from participating in work or work-related activities. With the exception of Massachusetts, all moved toward narrower exemption policies, although the specifics of these policy changes varied. Those with the narrowest exemption policies —Wisconsin and Oregon—tightened exemptions in progressive stages over a longer period of time. Due to the different exemption policies adopted by the study states, the program strategies, approaches and requirements discussed in this report roughly apply to anywhere between 20 and 90 percent of a given state’s TANF caseload.