MPR Reference No.: 8465-520
Helping TANF Recipients
Stay Employed: Early
Evidence from the GAPS
Initiative
April 7, 1999
Robert G. Wood
Diane Paulsell
Submitted to:
The Pittsburgh Foundation
One PPG Place, 30th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222-5401
Administration for Children and Families
Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation
370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.
Washington, DC 20447
Project Officers:
Gerri Kay, The Pittsburgh Foundation
Nancye Campbell, Administration for Children and
Families
Submitted by:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543-2393
(609) 799-3535
Project Director:
Robert G. Wood
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
W
e would like to express our appreciation to the many people who contributed to
this study and to the preparation of this report. Foremost among these are the
GAPS case managers and other staff who have provided GAPS services,
including: Phyllis Copeland-Lakins and Derrick Reed from Hill House Association;
Christopher Conway, Kalyani Krishnaswamy, Ethel Tate, Nanzetta Waddy, and Alberta
Watson from Neighborhood Centers Association; Robin Jenkins, Dayna McCray, Barbara
Willard, and Felicia Woodbury at Rankin Christian Centers; and Regina Ragin and Gerri
Reynolds at the Urban League of Pittsburgh. These individuals have provided invaluable
detail on program operations. They have carefully documented their contacts with GAPS
participants in service use logs. They also have taken time from their busy schedules to meet
with us during site visits, answer our questions, and share what they have learned about
providing employment retention services. In addition to the GAPS staff, we would like to
thank the other agency officials and service providers who met with us during site visits and
shared their perspectives and insights.
We also wish to acknowledge the important role of staff at The Pittsburgh Foundation,
who provided funding for the research, as well as valuable support, guidance, and feedback.
Our project officer at the Foundation, Gerri Kay, coordinated the efforts of the many
individuals and agencies involved in the GAPS program and in our research, with assistance
from Terry Miller. Beverly Lovelace and Annette Green contributed their insights about the
program and provided useful feedback on this report, as well as earlier project documents.
Several others have contributed in significant ways to the study. Nancye Campbell, of
the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, served as project officer for ACF’s grant to The Pittsburgh Foundation,
which provided most of the funding for this study. She has provided valuable support and
guidance throughout the project. Her careful review at each step in the process has been
extremely important in shaping the research questions addressed by the study and this report.
Claire Morrison, who directed the Allegheny County Assistance Office (ACAO) during the
period covered by this report, drew on her considerable experience and knowledge of the
welfare system to provide us with insightful guidance and feedback. Mary Jo Sistek, also
at ACAO, kept us informed about the GAPS recruitment process and helped us understand
Pennsylvania’s TANF rules and procedures. Dan Mensch, the current director of ACAO,
provided useful comments on the report. At the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare,
Sherri Heller, Deputy Secretary of the Office of Income Maintenance, Bob Reynolds,
Director of the Bureau of Program Evaluation, and others provided valuable information,
comments, and feedback on the research from the state perspective.
At Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., several other staff members made important
contributions. Alan Hershey, senior adviser to the project, provided invaluable review and
guidance at various points in the study. Julita Millner-Waddell served as survey director for
the project and conducted focus group meetings with GAPS participants. Anu Rangarajan
provided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. Julia Brys provided excellent
computer programming support and assistance with processing the service use data. Tim
Novak and Mary Qu provided additional computer programming assistance. Walt Brower
and Patricia Ciaccio carefully edited the report, and Jill Miller provided exemplary
production support.
CONTENTS
I
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The GAPS Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. The Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. GAPS and the PESD Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Key Study Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
1
2
3
3
II
The GAPS Program Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
A. Program Sponsorship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
B. Selecting the Service Providers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
C. The Four GAPS Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
D. Eligibility Criteria for Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
E. Recruitment of Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
F. Participant Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
G. Services Provided . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
III
Challenges Facing GAPS Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Difficulties Paying for Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Child Care Arrangements That Are Prone to Breakdown . . . . .
3. Hard-to-Meet Child Care Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Participants’ Concerns About Quality of Child Care . . . . . . . . .
B. Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Other Challenges Facing Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Low Wages and Lack of Job Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Lack of Support Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Challenges Budgeting Money and Organizing a Household . . . .
4. Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5. Substance Abuse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6. Domestic Violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7. Physical and Mental Health Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
17
17
22
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
30
30
31
31
IV
Participants’ Experiences with GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The GAPS Case Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. The Intake Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. GAPS Service Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Frequency of Participants’ Contact with GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Methods Used for Contacts with Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Types of Services Provided to Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Changes in the Level of Contact over Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Participants’ Opinions of GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Level of Participants’ Satisfaction with GAPS . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Perceived Usefulness of GAPS Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Satisfaction Among Participants Served by a
Neighborhood-Based Provider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
33
34
35
36
38
40
44
45
46
47
47
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
V
VI
Page
Economic Progress of GAPS Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Employment Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. What Kinds of Jobs Do GAPS Participants Hold? . . . . . . . . . . .
2. How Satisfied Are GAPS Participants with Their Jobs? . . . . . .
3. How Successful Are GAPS Participants at Staying
Employed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. Why Do GAPS Participants Lose or Change Jobs? . . . . . . . . . .
5. Which GAPS Participants Are Most Likely to Become
Unemployed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Income Sources and Benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Health Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Progress Toward Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
49
50
50
52
Lessons Learned from the GAPS Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Delivering Case Management Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. Supplementing Case Management with Other Services . . . . . . . . . .
C. Targeting Employment Retention Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
63
63
65
68
53
55
56
58
60
61
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
I
INTRODUCTION
T
he passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(PRWORA) of 1996, which ended Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
and created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), greatly increased
interest among policymakers and program operators in services designed to promote
employment retention among welfare recipients. The legislation imposed a five-year lifetime
limit on cash assistance for most families and placed stricter work requirements on most
able-bodied recipients. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW)
implemented TANF in March 1997. In keeping with PRWORA, the agency imposed a fiveyear limit on TANF receipt in Pennsylvania and required most recipients, after two years of
TANF, to work or participate in a work-related activity for at least 20 hours a week. In light
of these new requirements, it is particularly important that welfare recipients in Pennsylvania
and throughout the country find jobs and sustain their employment.
A. THE GAPS PROGRAM
In response to these policy changes, The Pittsburgh Foundation, in collaboration with
the Allegheny County Assistance Office (ACAO) of DPW, developed the GAPS initiative,
an employment retention program for Allegheny County welfare recipients. The initiative
is called “GAPS” because its goal is to help welfare recipients bridge the gap between
dependence on welfare and self-sufficiency. When GAPS was implemented in September
1997, it was the first program in Allegheny County that offered employment retention
services to welfare recipients. Common questions about GAPS are:
# Who is eligible for GAPS? Employed current and former TANF recipients who
reside in Allegheny County are eligible for GAPS. Over the two-year grant
period, the Foundation plans to fund services for approximately 700 participants.
# How are GAPS participants recruited? GAPS is a voluntary program.
Participants are recruited through mass mailings from the county welfare
department, as well as through direct recruitment by GAPS service providers.
# Who provides GAPS services? The Foundation has contracted with four
community-based organizations in the Pittsburgh area to provide employment
retention services.
# What key services does GAPS offer? Case management is the central element
of the GAPS program model. Through one-on-one contacts with participants,
case managers provide supportive counseling; advice about child care,
transportation, workplace behavior, and other issues; and referrals to other
services in the community.
1
B. THE STUDY DESIGN
The Foundation has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) to
conduct an implementation and outcomes study of GAPS. The research is funded by the
Foundation and by a grant from the Administration for Children and Families at the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). MPR is conducting the GAPS study
in two phases, with each phase covering one year of program operations. In Phase I of the
study, covered in this report, MPR used four data collection methods to gather information
about program implementation and participant outcomes:
1. Site Visits. In May 1998, MPR researchers conducted site visits to the four
community-based organizations that provide GAPS services. During these
visits, researchers conducted in-depth interviews with GAPS case managers, as
well as ACAO staff, Foundation staff, and other service providers to which
GAPS participants are referred.
2. Focus Groups. In May 1998, MPR staff also conducted a series of four focus
groups (one for each agency) with GAPS participants. Attendance at these focus
groups ranged from 4 to 11 participants. During these focus groups, GAPS
participants discussed their experiences with employment, work-related and
personal problems affecting their ability to stay employed, and their experiences
in GAPS.
3. Service Use Logs. As part of the study, GAPS program staff documented the
services they provided by recording information about their contacts with or on
behalf of GAPS participants on standard contact logs that MPR developed.
Program staff collected these data on the 467 participants who entered the
program through June 1998. Analyses presented in this report include all service
use data collected on contacts that occurred through August 1998.
4. Follow-Up Surveys. From July through September 1998, MPR conducted a
follow-up telephone survey of GAPS participants. To ensure a minimum of six
months of followup, MPR restricted the survey sample to participants who
entered the program through March 1998. The survey asked questions about
participants’ backgrounds, work histories, barriers to employment, experiences
with GAPS, and employment outcomes. Of the 355 GAPS participants who
entered the program through March 1998, 298 completed the survey, for a
response rate of 84 percent. The follow-up period covered by the survey varied
from 6 to 10 months after program enrollment; the average follow-up period was
8 months.
This report examines the GAPS program model and focuses on participants’ experiences
during the first year of program operations, the challenges they face in maintaining
employment, and their progress toward self-sufficiency. A final report, scheduled for release
in early 2000, will include findings based on a longer follow-up period and will cover the
second year of program operations. As part of Phase II, MPR will conduct a second round
of site visits, a second follow-up survey of participants, and additional data collection
2
through service use logs. No data on a control or comparison group are being collected as
part of the study. Therefore, neither of these reports will include estimates of the program’s
impact on participant outcomes.
C. GAPS AND THE PESD EVALUATION
The study of the GAPS initiative builds on and extends the research begun as part of the
evaluation of the Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD), one of the first major
efforts to provide employment retention services for welfare recipients (Rangarajan and
Novak 1998; Rangarajan 1998; Haimson and Hershey 1997; and Rangarajan 1996). DHHS
provided approximately $2.7 million to support the implementation and evaluation of PESD
in four sites: (1) Chicago, Illinois; (2) Portland, Oregon; (3) Riverside, California; and
(4) San Antonio, Texas. The demonstration operated from mid-1994 to mid-1996.
PESD, like GAPS, relied primarily on providing case management services to promote
employment retention. However, GAPS differs from PESD in three important ways:
1. GAPS was implemented after TANF began. The PESD study examined a
period prior to TANF implementation. In contrast, the GAPS study is one of the
first examinations of employment retention services in the TANF environment.
2. GAPS services are provided by community-based organizations. The PESD
programs were operated within the welfare department, whereas the GAPS
programs are operated by community-based organizations.
3. GAPS is voluntary. Unlike PESD, GAPS participants are not referred
automatically to the program when they become employed. Instead, employed
current and former TANF recipients are recruited for the program through mass
mailings from the welfare department, as well as through direct recruitment from
the service providers.
Because of these differences between the two programs, the GAPS study is likely to yield
operational lessons that are distinct from those based on the study of PESD. In this report,
we highlight some of the similarities and differences between the findings from the two
studies. The final GAPS report will include a more detailed comparison of the results from
the two studies.
D. KEY STUDY FINDINGS
Through our analysis of site visit and focus group data, service use logs, and follow-up
surveys, several key findings emerged about program operations and participants’
experiences. Here, we summarize the key findings from Phase I of the study:
# Most GAPS participants maintained their employment during their early
months in the program. During their first six months in GAPS, participants
spent almost 90 percent of their time employed, on average. Moreover, about
3
80 percent of participants were employed continuously during this period. In
addition, most participants reported being satisfied with their jobs, and most
agreed that working had greatly improved their opinions of themselves and their
abilities. Since the GAPS study was not designed to measure program impacts,
however, we cannot determine whether these positive employment outcomes can
be attributed to the effect of program services.
In spite of their high levels of employment, however, about one in five GAPS
participants experienced an unemployment spell of at least two weeks during
this period. Moreover, many of these unemployment spells did not end quickly;
only about 20 percent of participants who became unemployed were reemployed
within three months. Participants who were at the highest risk of unemployment
included those who had a child during their first six months in GAPS and those
with health problems that limited their activities. Younger participants and those
who began the program with below-average wages and no fringe benefits were
also more likely than other participants to become unemployed.
# Child care and transportation issues are common concerns. Although most
participants succeeded in maintaining their employment, substantial fractions
indicated that child care and transportation issues sometimes make working
difficult for them. Case managers and participants described several types of
child care problems facing this population. For example, even with the
availability of child care subsidies, some participants have difficulty affording
child care. In addition, most participants rely on informal providers, such as
relatives, friends, and neighbors, rather than on day care centers or other group
care arrangements. Parents may have many reasons for choosing friends and
relatives as child care providers, including lower costs, greater convenience or
availability, and a higher level of trust and comfort with this type of
arrangement. However, child care arrangements with informal providers are
more prone to breakdown, and dependence on them can lead to lost work time
for participants. This pattern suggests that, to improve the reliability of these
more informal types of arrangements, employment retention programs may want
to provide access to emergency child care for use on days when the regular
provider cannot work.
GAPS participants may also face transportation problems as they begin working.
Only one in four owns a car, so most must rely on public transportation to get
to work, which limits the jobs available to them. In addition, the cars that
participants do own are sometimes unreliable and can cause them to arrive late
at work or to miss work entirely. Data from follow-up surveys suggest that child
care and transportation problems do not cause GAPS participants to miss work
frequently; however, they do cause lost work time for some participants. Twelve
percent reported missing time from work because of a child care problem during
the previous month, while 13 percent reported missing work because of a
transportation problem.
# Program participants value the supportive counseling, personal attention, and
advice their GAPS case managers provide. Case management is the central
4
element of the GAPS program model. GAPS case managers attempt to maintain
regular, one-on-one contacts with participants to help them address problems
that may jeopardize their employment. Case managers contacted GAPS
participants a little more than once a month, on average, during their first six
months in the program. Supportive counseling is the most commonly provided
service of case managers. Counseling sessions can cover such topics as morale
and self-esteem, housing problems, money management, methods for resolving
conflicts at work, and appropriate workplace behavior. Case managers also help
participants obtain support services through referrals to other agencies and
programs. Participants clearly appreciate the personalized support and attention
they receive from case managers. During follow-up surveys, participants
reported high levels of satisfaction with their case managers. Similarly, focus
group attendees gave many examples of how the support and concern of case
managers was important to them.
# Many GAPS participants expressed a desire for the program to provide more
tangible services to supplement case management. Although GAPS
participants clearly liked the supportive counseling and advice they received
from their case managers, many expressed skepticism about the ability of these
services alone to help them maintain employment. In follow-up surveys, most
participants indicated that they were not convinced that the program’s services
were useful in helping them stay employed. Survey respondents indicated that
they would like more specific help finding jobs and finding and paying for child
care and transportation. Case managers also described the need among many
participants for emergency financial assistance, including help with paying for
car repairs or overdue rent or utility bills. Additional tangible assistance of this
sort may help engage participants in the program and ultimately improve the
effectiveness of a purely case management approach.
# A greater emphasis on job advancement for newly employed welfare recipients
may be needed. Most GAPS participants maintained their employment during
their early months in the program. However, most continued to work for
relatively low wages, about $7.00 an hour, on average. In addition, among
employed GAPS participants, half indicated on follow-up surveys that they were
currently looking for another job. Since most participants have maintained
employment, but at low wages, and since many employed participants continue
to look for new jobs, it may be appropriate for employment retention programs
to place greater emphasis on job advancement. The fact that GAPS participants
who began the program with below-average wages were at greater risk of
unemployment also suggests that additional job advancement assistance may be
needed.
5
II
THE GAPS PROGRAM MODEL
I
n the wake of welfare reform, many welfare agencies, private foundations, and nonprofit
service providers have sought to develop and test new strategies for supporting welfare
recipients in their efforts to move to employment and self-sufficiency. In Pittsburgh, The
Pittsburgh Foundation and ACAO came together to develop GAPS, a program designed to
address previously unmet needs of low-income families seeking to move from welfare to
work. To implement the initiative, The Pittsburgh Foundation contracted with four
community-based agencies to deliver services. In this chapter, we provide a brief history of
the program and of the roles The Pittsburgh Foundation and ACAO played. We also
describe the agencies that deliver services, the participant population, and the services
provided.
A. PROGRAM SPONSORSHIP
The GAPS initiative is funded by The Pittsburgh Foundation. Several years ago, the
Foundation, in conjunction with the University of Pittsburgh’s School of Social Work,
conducted a study to redefine its goals for grant making in the area of children, families, and
youth. As a result of that study, the Foundation decided to focus on the needs of low-income
families in Allegheny County who wanted to seek employment and self-sufficiency.
Shortly after the Foundation completed its study, Pennsylvania implemented its TANF
program, which imposes work requirements on recipients after two years on cash assistance
and places a five-year lifetime limit on receipt of cash assistance. This policy change
motivated the Foundation to develop a program that would help low-income families in
Pittsburgh achieve their employment goals. Through collaboration with ACAO and from its
own research, the Foundation learned that, while services to help welfare recipients obtain
jobs were widely available in Pittsburgh, no programs offered services to help welfare
recipients maintain employment.1 Furthermore, ACAO staff, supported by available research
about the employment patterns of welfare recipients, indicated a strong need for employment
retention services for people making the transition from welfare to work. Consequently, the
Foundation decided to fund an employment retention program and worked closely with
ACAO to design the initiative.
1
When GAPS began in September 1997, it was the only program in Allegheny County that provided
employment retention services to TANF recipients. In October 1998, Community Solutions, a DPW-funded
program that includes employment retention services, began serving participants in Allegheny County and
throughout Pennsylvania. Unlike GAPS, Community Solutions targets unemployed TANF recipients. Services
include job training, an intensive period of job placement, and up to 12 months of employment retention
services once participants obtain full-time employment.
7
B. SELECTING THE SERVICE PROVIDERS
In summer 1997, the Foundation initiated a competitive application process to select and
fund grantees to provide GAPS services. The Foundation assembled a GAPS initiative
advisory committee made up of ACAO staff, Foundation board members, and community
representatives and received more than 40 proposals from a range of community agencies
and service providers throughout Allegheny County. The advisory committee evaluated each
proposal based on criteria developed by the Foundation, including (1) the agency’s
knowledge of the challenges TANF recipients face in maintaining employment, (2) the
agency’s understanding of the world of work and employer needs, (3) the agency’s record
in providing services to similar populations, (4) the extent to which agency staff respect and
reflect the racial and cultural groups to be served, (5) the agency’s proposed strategy for
providing employment retention services, (6) the financial viability of the proposed strategy,
and (7) the likelihood that the DPW could continue the program beyond the Foundation’s
two-year funding period.
Using recommendations from the GAPS initiative advisory committee, the Foundation
awarded two-year grants to provide GAPS services to four Pittsburgh-area community
organizations: Hill House Association, Neighborhood Centers Association, Rankin Christian
Center, and the Urban League of Pittsburgh. The grantees received more than $455,000 to
provide GAPS services to an estimated total of 725 participants over the two-year grant
period. Based on knowledge of the target population and its service area, each agency
proposed the number of GAPS participants to be served through its program and submitted
a budget for providing the services. Proposed per-client costs varied considerably, depending
on the extent to which grantees could rely on other agency and community resources to
supplement services provided through Foundation grant funds.
C. THE FOUR GAPS PROGRAMS
The four GAPS programs deliver a common set of services; however, because these
community-based organizations have varied strengths and experiences, they follow slightly
different service delivery strategies. The common elements across the four programs are case
management, supportive counseling, and referrals to other social service agencies to help
participants address barriers to stable employment and deal with unforeseen emergencies.
Each of the grantee organizations operates a broad range of services and programs for
community members, and GAPS participants generally have access to most services
provided in-house by each agency. Consequently, grantees have to varying degrees
incorporated these other services--such as employment and housing assistance, child care,
mental health counseling, help with household budgeting and taxes, family support, and
referrals to other specialized services--into their GAPS programs. Table II.1 describes the
four grantee organizations and highlights their service delivery strategies, the staff who
deliver services, and the number of participants to be served.2
2
Appendix A contains detailed profiles of each organization’s GAPS program. These profiles are based
on information gathered during site visits conducted in May 1998.
8
TABLE II.1
KEY FEATURES OF THE FOUR GAPS PROGRAMS
Grantees
Services Provided Through GAPS
Staffing
Hill House Association
(Funding for 150 Participants)
Community-based agency providing
child care, senior services, youth
programs, education and support
services, and community
development. The agency’s
community center also houses 17
community and health service
providers. Although the center is
located in Pittsburgh’s Hill District,
services are available to residents
throughout Allegheny County.
-
Supportive counseling
Guidance in household budgeting and
money management
Emergency financial assistance
Help obtaining transitional benefits
Help finding child care
Access to Hill House’s computer lab
Resume writing and job search
assistance
Job fairs
Referrals to other service providers
-
Two case managers
Americorps
volunteer
-
Three case
managers (75
percent)
Life skills specialist
(40 percent)
Neighborhood Centers Association
(Funding for 125 Participants)
Community-based, multiservice
agency providing parenting education,
family support services, youth
programs, senior services, and other
services to low-income residents of
Pittsburgh’s Northside
neighborhoods.
-
Supportive counseling
Life skills coaching
Help with budgeting and time
management
Emergency financial assistance
Job search advice
Referrals to other service providers
-
Rankin Christian Center
(Funding for 300 Participants)
Partnership between Rankin Christian
Center and Children’s Hospital of
Pittsburgh to operate a family support
center called the Family Care
Connection. Provides a wide range of
family support, health, and education
programs to families who reside in
Rankin, Braddock, and Turtle Creek.
-
Supportive counseling
Help accessing transitional benefits
Family support
Housing assistance from Rankin’s
housing advocate
Help arranging child care
In-kind material assistance (furniture
and diapers)
Home safety inspections and
equipment
-
Two case managers
Americorps
volunteer
-
Two case managers
Urban League of Pittsburgh
(Funding for 150 Participants)
Located in downtown Pittsburgh, the
agency offers services in the areas of
employment, education, housing, and
youth development to residents
throughout Allegheny County.
-
Supportive counseling
Help obtaining transitional benefits
Help arranging child care
Housing counseling from Urban
League’s housing program
Job search assistance
Referrals to other service providers
9
Prior Experience. Each of the GAPS grantees has experience providing services to
TANF recipients; two of the four have provided employment services. Through the Young
Mothers program, Hill House provides GED preparation and job readiness training to
teenage mothers who receive TANF. Neighborhood Centers does not have experience
providing employment services but does operate a Family Self-Sufficiency program and
several programs for the Department of Children, Families, and Youth. All these programs
serve low-income families, many of whom receive TANF. Rankin has no experience
providing employment services but provides a broad range of family support services to lowincome community residents. The Urban League operates its own employment program and
until recently operated Project Connect, a DPW-funded employment program for welfare
recipients.
Service Areas. The service areas of GAPS programs vary according to the traditional
service areas of each sponsoring agency. Neighborhood Centers and Rankin, which are both
neighborhood-based, provide services primarily to residents of the communities near their
offices. Initially, Neighborhood Centers served participants only from the Northside section
of Pittsburgh, its customary service area. However, because of difficulties generating enough
GAPS participants during the first few months of program implementation, Neighborhood
Centers expanded to other parts of the county. Rankin continues to serve only its traditional
service area, which encompasses three small communities just outside Pittsburgh. Hill
House and the Urban League, however, have from the outset served participants who live
throughout Allegheny County.
Staff Training. Grantees receive regular technical assistance and support from the
Foundation, primarily through monthly “learning community” meetings attended by GAPS
case managers, Foundation staff, and, for many sessions, staff from ACAO. Although initial
meetings focused on program recruitment, enrollment issues, and TANF rules, later meetings
have centered on providing technical assistance information to grantees and sharing
promising ideas and strategies among grantee staff. In a typical meeting, outside experts
present information on topics of interest to grantee staff, such as transitional benefits
available through ACAO, child care assistance, or housing assistance. Each meeting also
includes time for grantees, Foundation staff, and ACAO staff to discuss problems, issues,
and promising strategies encountered in the previous month. During summer 1998, the
Foundation also provided a series of training sessions on case practice issues such as
strength-based service provision and accessing community resources. Foundation staff
believe that the learning community meetings provide an essential forum for “crossfertilization” of ideas and approaches among grantees and for reflecting as a group on what
grantees are learning about providing employment retention services to former TANF
recipients.
D. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPANTS
Allegheny County residents who are employed and who have received cash assistance
at some point since March 1997 are eligible for GAPS services. Although current and
former TANF recipients are eligible for GAPS, the aim of the Foundation and of ACAO is
to serve primarily former TANF recipients who have left assistance for employment, since
fewer support services are available to low-income families once they leave cash assistance.
Consequently, the Foundation and ACAO set as a target that at least 80 percent of GAPS
participants would be former, rather than current, TANF recipients. However, participants
10
would remain eligible for GAPS if they returned to cash assistance after they entered the
program. Evidence from follow-up surveys suggests that the Foundation and ACAO have
achieved their goal of serving mainly former recipients. At the time of the follow-up survey
(conducted with participants 6 to 10 months after they enrolled in GAPS), 72 percent of
GAPS participants reported that they had not received TANF in the past 6 months.
E. RECRUITMENT OF PARTICIPANTS
To recruit GAPS participants, ACAO sent letters to people who had received TANF at
some point since March 1997 and had left TANF for employment. These recruitment letters
described the GAPS initiative and included an application form to be completed and
returned. An initial mailing in September 1997 targeted former TANF recipients whose
cases were closed between March and July 1997, and a second mailing in November 1997
targeted August and September closures. Through these two mailings, ACAO sent out
approximately 2,400 letters. In December 1997 and February 1998, ACAO sent additional
letters to prospective participants, bringing the total number to about 3,100. By early March
1998, ACAO had received 437 completed applications, a response rate of 14 percent. ACAO
did not limit the time for returning applications and continued to receive responses in
subsequent months. By early February 1999, 556 applications had been returned and
forwarded to the GAPS agencies, bringing the response rate to 18 percent.
The Referral Process. ACAO referred each of these applicants to one of the four
GAPS grantees based on several factors. Applicants who lived within the service area of
Neighborhood Centers or Rankin were referred to those agencies. Applicants who lived in
the Pittsburgh’s Hill District, the neighborhood in which Hill House is located, were referred
to Hill House. Those who lived in other areas of Allegheny County were referred to either
Hill House or the Urban League, depending on each agency’s capacity to accept new referrals
at that time. In addition, about 30 applicants who lived outside Neighborhood Centers’
service area were referred to that agency in an effort to increase its enrollment. Finally, a few
applicants who stated a preference for one of the agencies on their application were
accommodated by ACAO.
During the initial recruitment period, ACAO had difficulty generating enough referrals
to the two grantees that served specific geographic regions (and not the whole county). In
response, the Foundation and ACAO decided to permit grantees to recruit participants
directly. While Hill House recruited a small number of participants directly, Rankin, which
serves several communities just outside Pittsburgh, recruited most of its participants (82
percent) in that manner, because ACAO recruitment letters generated so few applicants who
lived within the geographic boundaries of its service area.
When GAPS programs recruited participants directly, staff had to request eligibility
verification from ACAO. To confirm eligibility, ACAO staff verified that applicants had
received TANF in Allegheny County after March 1997. If the applicants were receiving
TANF at the time they applied for GAPS, ACAO verified that they had reported their
earnings to the welfare agency.
Program Enrollment. As of February 1999, the four GAPS agencies had received 556
referrals from ACAO. Of those, 437, or 78 percent, had enrolled in the program (see
11
TABLE II.2
GAPS REFERRALS AND ENROLLMENT
AS OF FEBRUARY 1999
Hill House
Association
Neighborhood
Centers
Association
Rankin
Christian
Center
Urban
League of
Pittsburgh
All
GAPS
Agencies
Referrals from ACAO
175
157
27
197
556
Enrollments from ACAO Referrals
155
99
26
157
437
6
0
118
0
124
161
99
144
157
561
Enrollments from Agency Recruitment
Total Enrollment
ACAO = Allegheny County Assistance Office.
Table II.2).3 Some applicants did not enroll, either because GAPS staff could not locate them
or because they simply refused the offer of services. In addition to referrals from ACAO,
Rankin recruited 118 participants directly and Hill House recruited 6, bringing the total
number enrolled to 561. As of February 1999, the two agencies with countywide service
areas, Hill House and the Urban League, had enrolled slightly more participants than their
planned enrollment of 150. Neighborhood Centers had enrolled about 80 percent of the 125
participants it expects to serve. Rankin, which planned to serve 300, had enrolled only about
half that number by February 1999. The GAPS agencies report that not everyone enrolled
is actively participating in the program at this point; however, the agencies have not closed
any cases and report that inactive participants are welcome to request services as needed.
F. PARTICIPANT POPULATION
The four GAPS programs serve a similar population of participants. Across all agencies,
participants share the following characteristics:
# Participants have limited work histories and high levels of past welfare
receipt. GAPS participants averaged only 9 months of employment and 29
months of AFDC or TANF receipt in the three years prior to GAPS enrollment
(see Table II.3). Hill House participants had particularly limited employment
histories. They averaged less than 7 months of employment during this period,
compared with 10 to 11 months for participants at the other three programs.
3
Applicants are considered enrolled in the program when they complete the intake procedures of the
GAPS service provider.
12
TABLE II.3
SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS, BY PROGRAM
(Percentages)
Hill House
Association
Age (in Years)
Less than 20
20 to 29
30 to 39
40 or more
(Average age)
Neighborhood
Centers
Association
2
47
42
9
(29.8)
2
49
29
19
(30.1)
Rankin
Christian
Center
Urban
League of
Pittsburgh
4
56
30
10
2
50
31
17
(28.9)
All GAPS
Participants
(30.9)
(29.9)
Highest Education Completed
Less than high school (No GED)
GED
High school diploma
Associate’s or bachelor’s degree
9
19
55
17
5
15
73
7
8
17
58
17
10
20
53
17
8
18
58
15
Ethnicitya
African American
White
Other
80
19
1
69
25
5
80
17
3
62
36
2
72
25
3
Number of Children Under 18
None
1
2
3
4 or more
2
42
32
18
6
2
36
33
21
7
5
36
24
19
15
0
46
27
17
9
2
41
29
19
10
(1.9)
(2.0)
(2.1)
(1.9)
(2.0)
29
42
30
33
33
33
39
36
25
41
29
30
36
35
29
(5.5)
(5.8)
(4.7)
(5.0)
(5.2)
8
2
8
83
5
1
8
86
4
8
8
81
6
5
11
78
6
4
9
81
(Average number of children)
Age of Youngest Child (in Years)
Less than 3
3 to 5
6 or more
(Average age)
AFDC/TANF Receipt in the Three Years
Prior to GAPS Enrollment (in Months)
Less than 6
6 to 11
12 to 23
24 or more
(Average months of receipt)
(29.7)
(30.7)
(29.4)
(28.6)
(29.5)
Employment in the Three Years Prior to
GAPS Enrollment (in Months)a
Less than 6
6 to 11
12 to 23
24 or more
62
23
9
6
39
29
21
11
(Average months of employment)
(6.6)
(9.9)
(11.2)
(10.1)
(9.5)
117
87
127
136
467
Sample Size
SOURCE:
34
31
18
18
40
28
20
13
Education and ethnicity from GAPS follow-up surveys. All other information from GAPS application forms.
AFDC = Aid to Families with Dependent Children; GED = General Equivalency Degree; TANF = Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families.
a
3
51
33
13
Differences across programs for this participant characteristic statistically significant at .10 level.
13
44
28
17
12
# Most participants are fairly young, African American women. Most
participants are in their twenties or thirties, and the vast majority (99 percent) are
women. About three-fourths of GAPS participants are African American, and
one-fourth are white.
# Participants typically have one or two children, and many of these children
are quite young. Most GAPS participants entered the program with one or two
minor children living in their household; about 30 percent of participants had
three or more minor children when they enrolled. About 70 percent had at least
one child under six when they enrolled in the program, and about one in four had
two or more children under six.
# Many GAPS participants come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Over half
(54 percent) of participants had their first child before they were 20, and more
than a quarter (28 percent) had their first child before they were 18. More than
half (54 percent) reported that their families received welfare when they were
children; one in five reported that their families received welfare “most or all of
the time” during this period. Only 50 percent of participants lived in two-parent
households when they were 14 years old; 10 percent lived with neither parent
at that time.
Based on simple demographic characteristics, GAPS participants are roughly similar to
the general TANF caseload in Allegheny County. For example, as of January 1999, 71
percent of adults on TANF in the county had a high school diploma or a higher degree,
compared with 73 percent among GAPS participants. 4 In addition, among all TANF
recipients in the county at that time, 68 percent were African American and 31 percent were
white, compared with 72 and 25 percent respectively among GAPS participants.
G. SERVICES PROVIDED5
All GAPS grantees use a case management approach to service delivery. GAPS
participants are assigned to case managers who maintain contact with them through in-person
meetings, home visits, telephone calls, and letters. Almost all contact between case
managers and participants is one-on-one, rather than in group activities or workshops. In
general, case managers attempt to help participants address issues that pose barriers to
maintaining employment or that could become barriers in the future. To varying degrees
across programs, case managers also provide emergency financial and material assistance
and, for participants who lose jobs, limited job search assistance.6
Most of the contacts that case managers have with participants involve checking on
participants’ employment status, providing supportive counseling, and helping participants
obtain needed services. During the program’s first year, case managers invested substantial
4
However, Allegheny County TANF recipients appear to be somewhat different from TANF recipients
from the rest of the state. Statewide, only 57 percent of adults on TANF had high school diplomas as of
January 1999. Figures describing the general TANF caseload were provided by DPW.
5
Chapter IV provides a more detailed description of the services provided through GAPS.
6
GAPS participants who lose jobs and return to TANF can receive job search assistance from ACAO.
14
time in checking on participants’ employment status and general well-being. During
counseling sessions, case managers discussed self-esteem, housing, workplace behavior and
conflicts, job searches, transportation arrangements, goal setting and planning, and other
topics. Case managers also helped participants obtain services (such as TANF, transitional
child care funds, and child care) and provided referrals for a variety of other services.
Finally, GAPS programs also provided some in-kind goods (food, clothing, furniture),
emergency financial assistance, and transportation assistance.
15
III
CHALLENGES FACING GAPS PARTICIPANTS
N
ewly employed welfare recipients can face many challenges to their efforts to
maintain stable employment. They may be unable to find affordable, reliable child
care and transportation. They may have difficulty adjusting to the new expenses
associated with work or to the norms, expectations, and demands of the workplace. Some
may have unstable or unsafe housing arrangements or may face a lack of support or even
encounter active resistance to their working by family members and friends.
As will be discussed in Chapter V, the great majority of GAPS participants maintained
their employment during their early months in the program. Even so, GAPS case managers
(during site visits) and GAPS participants (during focus groups and follow-up telephone
surveys) described a variety of challenges, particularly child care and transportation issues,
facing some participants. Therefore, this chapter focuses on child care and transportation
issues and how they affect participants’ ability to remain employed. Data from follow-up
surveys suggest that child care and transportation problems do not cause GAPS participants
to miss work frequently; however, they do cause lost work time for some participants. In
addition, the chapter examines the frequency and nature of other potential barriers facing
some participants, such as lack of job skills and of knowledge of workplace norms, lack of
support systems, housing problems, domestic violence, and physical and mental health
problems.
A. CHILD CARE
Since most GAPS participants are single parents of young children, a reliable child care
arrangement is essential for their successful transition from welfare to work. When they
entered the program, more than 90 percent of participants had children under 13, and more
than 60 percent had children under 5. Since the majority (78 percent) of GAPS participants
work 30 hours per week or more, most require child care arrangements for their young
children. According to program participants, finding and maintaining acceptable child care
arrangements can be difficult. In follow-up surveys, one in three GAPS participants
indicated that problems with child care sometimes made working difficult.
During site visits and follow-up telephone interviews, GAPS case managers and
participants identified four main types of child care problems that can make it difficult for
some participants to maintain employment: (1) difficulties paying for child care and using
child care subsidies, (2) child care arrangements that are prone to breakdown, (3) special
types of hard-to-meet child care needs, and (4) participants’ concerns about the quality of
child care. The rest of this section examines each of these issues.
1.
Difficulties Paying for Child Care
Child care can be a major expense for low-income workers. In Allegheny County,
however, subsidies are available to low-income parents who leave welfare for employment.
17
Prior to February 1999 (during the period covered by this report), these families could first
receive Transitional Child Care benefits and then receive assistance through the Subsidized
Child Care Program. Beginning in February 1999, both these programs were replaced by a
new child care subsidy program, Child Care Works. This section describes GAPS
participants’ experiences with Transitional Child Care and the Subsidized Child Care
Program. It then describes changes to child care subsidies under Child Care Works for
families in Allegheny County who have left TANF for employment.
a.
Transitional Child Care and the Subsidized Child Care Program
During the period covered by this report, two types of subsidies were available to lowincome parents in Allegheny County who left welfare for employment. Those who left
TANF for work were eligible for Transitional Child Care benefits for up to one year after
their welfare benefits ended. Those low-income families then became eligible for child care
assistance through the Subsidized Child Care Program, a state program administered locally
by Child Care Partnership of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA).
Despite the availability of these subsidies, however, some GAPS participants still found
it difficult to pay for child care. For example, GAPS case managers reported that some
eligible participants had not obtained child care subsidies (particularly those available
through the Subsidized Child Care Program) because they were unaware of the subsidies or
confused about eligibility requirements. In addition, the Subsidized Child Care Program,
unlike Transitional Child Care, paid informal providers, such as relatives and neighbors,
directly and required these providers to go through a background check for previous criminal
activity or reports of child abuse. To receive payment from the program, providers also had
to sign a contract and provide their social security numbers so that the program could report
the payments to the Internal Revenue Service. GAPS case managers reported that some
informal providers were reluctant to fulfill the requirements necessary for receiving
Subsidized Child Care Program funds. Consequently, once their transitional benefits
expired, some GAPS participants either had to change providers or had to pay for child care
on their own.
Use of These Subsidies Among GAPS Participants. Evidence from follow-up surveys
suggests that about half of GAPS participants had used one of these child care subsidies
recently. At the time of the follow-up survey, which was conducted from July through
September 1998, 43 percent of participants reported having received Transitional Child Care
in the past six months, and 10 percent reported having received subsidies through the
Subsidized Child Care Program. These participation rates may seem low; however, not all
GAPS participants were eligible. For example, some participants were ineligible because
they were not currently working, were still receiving cash assistance, or had no children
under 13. Among employed participants who were not receiving TANF and who had
children under 13, participation rates were higher: 58 percent had received Transitional
Child Care in the past six months, and 15 percent had received subsidies through the
Subsidized Child Care Program.
Even when GAPS participants received child care subsidies, they sometimes
experienced problems paying for care. For example, although participants needed to arrange
for child care providers and payments immediately upon obtaining a job, some experienced
delays in eligibility determination and subsidy payments. Others had difficulties with the
18
CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES
FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY
PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1999
Prior to February 1999, two sources of child care subsidies were available to
families in Allegheny County who left TANF for employment: (1) Transitional Child
Care; and (2) the Subsidized Child Care Program, operated by Child Care Partnership
of the YWCA.
# Transitional Child Care. DPW provided Transitional Child Care to
employed former TANF recipients. Eligible parents could receive the
subsidy for care provided to children under 13 for up to a year after their
TANF benefits ended. The family had to pay a portion of the fee based on
family size and income. DPW provided transitional benefits for regulated
child care providers, as well as informal providers such as relatives, friends,
and neighbors. DPW paid regulated providers directly. For those using
informal providers, however, the subsidy was paid to the family.
# Subsidized Child Care Program. DPW also provided child care assistance
for low-income families through the Subsidized Child Care Program.
Unlike the case with transitional benefits, however, families need not have
received TANF to be eligible for the subsidy. To receive these funds,
parents had to meet income requirements and work or attend vocational
training for at least 20 hours per week. When parents applied, they were
placed on a waiting list according to a priority system. Families who were
working and eligible for TANF and those who had used their full year of
transitional benefits received top priority. Parents who were eligible for
transitional benefits could not access Subsidized Child Care Program funds
until their year of transitional benefit eligibility expired. The Subsidized
Child Care Program paid subsidies directly to both regulated and informal
providers. As with transitional benefits, the Subsidized Child Care Program
required families to pay a weekly sliding-scale fee based on household
income and size, and funds were available for children under 13. The
minimum fee was $5.00 per week. In Allegheny County, the program was
administered by Child Care Partnership of the YWCA.
one-month reimbursement period associated with Transitional Child Care benefits.
Participants had to either cover child care expenses themselves until reimbursed or ask their
provider to wait a month for payment. In addition, the Subsidized Child Care Program
required that participants work at least 20 hours per week to maintain their eligibility.
Participants who worked temporary jobs, part-time jobs, or jobs with fluctuating hours
experienced difficulties obtaining subsidies for all the child care hours they used because
they sometimes worked less than 20 hours a week. Finally, some participants, particularly
those receiving Transitional Child Care and who had only one child, expressed concerns
about receiving little or no child care subsidies as their wages increased. Both Transitional
19
Child Care and Subsidized Child Care Program subsidies were paid on a sliding scale, with
higher-income people having higher out-of-pocket child care expenses. Under Transitional
Child Care, a single parent with one child became ineligible for any subsidy under the
program at an income of just over $20,000, or about $10.00 an hour for a full-time worker.
Under the Subsidized Child Care Program, a similar family became ineligible for subsidies
at an income of about $25,000.
Out-of-Pocket Child Care Costs Among GAPS Participants. Child care costs can
be a substantial expense for GAPS participants. Among those who paid at least a portion of
their child care expenses, average hourly out-of-pocket costs were $1.34 per child, which is
more than $50 a week for full-time care (Table III.1). Since average hourly wages for
participants are below $7.00, and since many participants must pay for care for more than
one child, child care expenses can demand a substantial fraction of participants’ income.
Even so, about one in four participants, including more than a third of those who received
no child care subsidies, paid nothing out of pocket for child care. Child care arrangements
that had no out-of-pocket expenses for participants usually involved child care provided by
relatives.
b. Child Care Works
On February 1, 1999, DPW implemented a new child care subsidy program, Child Care
Works, that combines the two former subsidy programs (Transitional Child Care and the
Subsidized Child Care Program) into a single system. In Allegheny County, for families not
TABLE III.1
CHILD CARE COSTS FOR GAPS PARTICIPANTS*
Percentage with
No Out-of-Pocket
Child Care Expenses
Average Hourly Costs
for Those with Out-ofPocket Child Care
Expenses
(Dollars)
Those Not Receiving a Child Care Subsidy
37
1.69
Those Receiving a Child Care Subsidy
17
1.11
All GAPS Participants
26
1.34
SOURCE:
GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*Costs for care of youngest child.
20
CHILD CARE SUBSIDIES
FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY
AFTER FEBRUARY 1999
On February 1, 1999, Pennsylvania implemented a new child care subsidy program,
Child Care Works, which integrated Transitional Child Care and the Subsidized Child
Care Program into a single program with uniform rules and procedures. Although Child
Care Works also covers TANF families, the following description focuses on the
subsidy as it pertains to those not receiving TANF.
# Child Care Works. The new program integrates the former subsidies into
a single program for families with incomes up to 185 percent of poverty.
For families in Allegheny County who are not receiving TANF, the program
is administered by Child Care Partnership. As in the earlier subsidy
programs, eligible parents can receive Child Care Works for their children
under 13. However, the new program introduces several important changes
to Pennsylvania’s child care subsidy system. For example, subsidies are no
longer provided according to a priority system. Funds are guaranteed for
families leaving TANF for employment, and other eligible families receive
funds on a first-come, first-served basis. In addition, families leaving
TANF for employment no longer have to apply to a second subsidy program
after a year. Instead, they continue receiving the subsidy from Child Care
Works as long as they remain income eligible. Participants must work 25
hours a week to receive the subsidy; however, families leaving TANF have
six months to comply with this requirement. Child Care Works pays child
care providers directly and requires parents to make co-payments based on
family size and income. These co-payments are somewhat higher than
those under the old child care subsidy programs.
receiving TANF, the program is administered by Child Care Partnership.1 Under Child Care
Works, low-income parents who leave TANF for employment are eligible for assistance
from a single subsidy program. These parents can begin receiving the subsidy as soon as
they start working and continue receiving it as long as their income remains within eligibility
limits. Families who receive Child Care Works and are not receiving TANF must meet a
minimum work hours requirement. This requirement was set at 20 hours a week in February
1999 and will be raised to 25 hours a week in August 1999. However, families leaving
TANF have a six-month transition period before they must comply with this minimum hours
requirement.
Implementation of Child Care Works may eliminate some of the difficulties GAPS
participants experienced with the earlier subsidy programs. For example, because all subsidy
programs have been integrated into a single system with a uniform set of rules and
1
For families in Allegheny County receiving TANF, Child Care Works is administered by
ACAO.
21
procedures, eligibility requirements should be less confusing. In addition, under Child Care
Works, Allegheny County families who leave TANF for employment receive an allowance
from ACAO to cover child care costs during the period between their first day of work and
the transfer of their case to Child Care Partnership. Thus, delays in subsidy payments
associated with starting a job should be eliminated. Moreover, Child Care Works does not
require informal providers to undergo a background check for previous criminal activity or
reports of child abuse, although parents still can request the check. This change may make
the subsidies more accessible to families who wish to use informal providers such as
relatives and neighbors. Child Care Works, like the Subsidized Child Care Program, pays
all providers directly, so informal providers will still need to give their social security
numbers to Child Care Partnership. However, families leaving TANF can continue to
receive subsidies for 90 days before complying with this requirement.
Like the former subsidy programs, Child Care Works provides subsidies based on a
sliding scale. However, co-payment levels are somewhat higher than those of the previous
subsidy programs. In addition, the income limit for participation in the subsidy program has
been reduced from 235 percent of poverty under the Subsidized Child Care Program to 185
percent of poverty under Child Care Works. For those who were receiving child care
subsidies when Child Care Works began in February 1999, however, the lower income limit
will not take effect until February 2000.
2.
Child Care Arrangements That Are Prone to Breakdown
Stable and reliable child care arrangements are essential for working parents, especially
single mothers, who must juggle work and child-rearing responsibilities. According to
GAPS participants, breakdowns in child care arrangements are not frequent, but occur with
some regularity. At the time of the follow-up survey, 12 percent reported having missed time
from work in the past month because of a child care problem; 8 percent had missed an entire
day for this reason. Among those who had missed work because of a child care problem, the
average amount of time missed in the past month was 17 hours, or more than two full
workdays. The most common child care problems that GAPS participants reported were
situations where the provider was unable to provide care on a given day. Half of those who
reported missing work because of child care problems indicated that the most recent episode
stemmed from their provider’s inability to supply care as the result of illness or some other
reason.
The child care arrangements that GAPS participants use have several characteristics that
may lead to frequent breakdowns in care. First, at the time of the first follow-up survey,
most of the young children of GAPS participants were cared for by relatives or other
informal providers (such as friends and neighbors) while their parents were working (Figure
III.1). In contrast, only about one in four were cared for in day care centers, preschools, afterschool programs, or other formal group care arrangements. Parents may have many reasons
for choosing informal providers for child care. For example, these arrangements may be
available to them for free or at substantially lower costs than are group care arrangements.
Moreover, slots in nearby group care programs may not be readily available to some
participants. In addition, informal providers may be more convenient, more likely to be
available during nonstandard work hours, or viewed by participants as more trustworthy. In
spite of these positive aspects, however, the child care literature suggests that arrangements
with relatives and other informal providers tend to be more prone to breakdown (Ross and
22
FIGURE III.1
CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CHILDREN OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS*
50
Percent
45
40
30
28
24
20
10
4
0
Care by
Relatives
Day Care Centers,
Preschools, and Other
Group Care
Care by Friends,
Neighbors, and Other
Nonrelatives
Other
Arrangements
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*
Children under 13 only.
Paulsell 1998). The experiences of GAPS participants reinforce this finding. Participants
who relied on informal providers (both those using relatives and those using nonrelatives,
such as neighbors or friends) were more than twice as likely to have missed a full day’s work
in the past month because of a child care problem as were those using day care centers,
preschools, and other group care arrangements (Figure III.2).2
Second, a substantial fraction of participants (about one in five) used more than one
regular child care provider to care for their youngest child. Such use of multiple providers
by participants to “patch” together care that fits their schedules may increase the instability
of child care arrangements. Third, one in four GAPS participants had changed child care
arrangements for their youngest child in the past six months. Frequent child care transitions
can cause parents to miss time from work while they search for new arrangements and their
children adjust to a new provider.
3.
Hard-to-Meet Child Care Needs
GAPS case managers described several types of child care needs that were particularly
difficult for participants to meet. For example, participants who had children with
disabilities had trouble finding appropriate child care. Although a few child care centers in
the Pittsburgh area provide specialized care for children with disabilities, openings are
2
This difference is not statistically significant at standard levels because of small sample sizes.
It is, however, statistically significant at the .15 level.
23
FIGURE III.2
25
FREQUENCY OF CHILD CARE PROBLEMS,
BY TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT*
Percent
20
15
15
13
12
12
10
10
11
8
5
5
0
All Child Care
Arrangements
Care by Relatives
Lost Work Time in
Past Month Because
of Child Care Problem
Care by Friends,
Neighbors, and
Other Nonrelatives
Day Care Centers,
Preschools, and
Other Group Care
Missed Entire Workday
in Past Month Because
of Child Care Problem
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*Arrangement for youngest child.
scarce. Participants have also experienced difficulties finding child care for children with
behavior problems. In fact, 1 in 10 participants who missed time from work because of a
child care problem cited their child’s behavior problems in child care as the reason. Lack of
child care options when children are sick also causes participants to miss work, because
many child care providers will not accept children who are ill. Among GAPS participants
who missed time from work because of a child care problem, one in five did so because their
child was sick.
In addition, some participants have had difficulty finding after-school care and summer
care for their school-age children. Participants report relying heavily on relatives to care for
their older children during nonschool hours. However, some participants described having
to leave fairly young children at home unattended on occasion. A focus group participant
expressed her anxiety about leaving her school-age children at home unsupervised: “My kids
shouldn’t have had to come home and be by themselves until six, when I come home from
work. They should not have had to wait for me to come home and fix dinner or have me fix
it and then they heat it up in the microwave.”
Finally, GAPS case managers reported that some participants who work nonstandard
hours have had difficulty arranging child care. About one-third of GAPS participants
reported that their jobs required them to work weekends, evenings, or nights, but few day
care facilities provide child care during these nonstandard work hours. Even so, participants
who worked nonstandard hours did not report higher rates of child care-related employment
problems than did those who worked standard business hours.
Those working nonstandard hours relied more heavily on their relatives to provide child
care than did other participants, 53 percent of those working nonstandard hours versus 41
24
percent of other participants. In addition, participants who relied regularly on child care by
relatives reported that these relatives (who are typically the grandparents or fathers of the
children) are often willing to watch children during evening and weekend hours, even
overnight, times when more formal child care arrangements would typically be unavailable.
The willingness of relatives to watch children during these hours may help explain why those
participants working nonstandard hours did not have more frequent child care problems. In
fact, since relatives are more likely to be available for child care in the evening and on
weekends, some GAPS participants may choose to work nonstandard hours to make it easier
for relatives to provide child care.
4.
Participants’ Concerns About Quality of Child Care
Concerns about the quality of their child care arrangements may also make working
difficult for some GAPS participants. When parents are anxious about the care their children
receive, worry and stress may affect their job performance. GAPS participants reported
relatively high levels of satisfaction with their child care arrangements, however. More than
two-thirds of participants reported that they were “very satisfied” with the current child care
arrangements for their youngest child (Figure III.3).
Even though informal providers are often less reliable, participants were most satisfied
with these types of child care arrangements. Three out of four participants who relied on
relatives, friends, neighbors, and other informal providers reported being very satisfied with
their child care arrangements. In contrast, fewer than 6 in 10 participants who relied on day
FIGURE III.3
SATISFACTION WITH CHILD CARE,
BY TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT*
80
Percent
75
74
68
58
60
43
44
42
43
40
20
0
All Child Care
Arrangements
Care by Relatives
Care by Friends,
Neighbors, and
Other Nonrelatives
Fraction Who Are
"Very Satisfied"
with Current
Arrangement
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*Arrangement for youngest child.
25
Fraction Who Would
Change Arrangements
if All Providers Were
Available Free of Charge
Day Care Centers,
Preschools, and
Other Group Care
care centers, preschools, and other group care arrangements indicated that they were “very
satisfied” with this arrangement.3
Although they reported high levels of satisfaction with their arrangements, many GAPS
participants would make other child care choices if they could. For example, regardless of
their current type of arrangement, more than 4 in 10 participants indicated that they would
change child care providers if all types of arrangements were available free of charge (Figure
III.3). About 8 in 10 participants who reported that they would like to change arrangements
indicated that they would prefer a day care center, a preschool, or other formal group care.
The fraction preferring group care was similar, regardless of the participant’s current child
care arrangement. However, the reasons for wanting to change providers differed by the type
of provider the participant was using. Those who were using relatives to provide child care
most frequently cited a desire for their children to be around other children and for more
reliable child care as their reasons for wanting to change providers. In contrast, those relying
on other types of child care arrangements most often cited a desire for a better learning
environment for their children.
B. TRANSPORTATION
Some GAPS participants are faced with transportation problems as they begin working.
Three in 10 reported that transportation problems sometimes made working difficult for
them. At the time of the follow-up survey, only about a quarter (27 percent) of GAPS
participants owned a car. Therefore, most (61 percent) relied on public transportation to get
to work (Figure III.4). According to GAPS staff, relying on public transportation has led to
employment problems for some participants. For example, many jobs, particularly those in
suburban and outlying areas of the county, are not located on bus routes, which significantly
limits the set of jobs available to participants. Moreover, even when jobs are located on
routes served by public transportation, work schedules and transportation schedules often do
not coincide, particularly for those working evening, night, or weekend shifts. In addition,
the need to drop off children at day care before work can make reliance on public
transportation for commuting particularly problematic.
No matter what method of commuting participants use, lost work time associated with
transportation problems occurs fairly infrequently. Among all GAPS participants, 13 percent
reported having lost time from work in the past month because of a transportation problem,
and 6 percent reported having missed an entire day for this reason (Figure III.5). Among
those who had missed work because of a transportation problem, the average amount of time
missed in the past month was 13 hours, or about one and a half work days. The three most
common reasons cited by participants who reported recent transportation problems were that
3
The difference in satisfaction levels between those using informal providers and those using
group care arrangements is statistically significant at the .01 level.
26
FIGURE III.4
COMMUTING METHODS USED BY GAPS PARTICIPANTS
70
Percent
61
60
50
40
30
22
20
8
10
6
2
0
Takes Public
Transportation
Drives Own
Car
Gets Rides from
Friends or Relatives
Walks or
Uses Bicycle
Uses Other
Method
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
(1) their cars broke down, (2) their buses or trains were delayed, or (3) they missed their
buses or trains.
The cars GAPS participants use are sometimes unreliable. For this reason, those who
drove their own cars to work were as likely as those who used public transportation to report
that they lost work time in the past month because of transportation problems, 14 percent
versus 13 percent (Figure III.5). In addition, those driving were somewhat more likely than
those using public transportation to report missing a whole day of work because of
transportation problems, nine percent versus four percent. 4 However, the least reliable
transportation method used by GAPS participants appears to be getting rides with others to
work. Among those relying on this commuting method, 20 percent reported missing an
entire day of work because of a transportation problem in the past month.5
Getting to and from work takes up considerable time in the busy schedules of GAPS
participants, the large majority of whom are single parents with young children. On average,
commuting took 40 minutes each way, including time spent dropping children off at day
care. Those who relied on public transportation had the longest commutes, averaging 51
minutes, compared with 26 minutes for those who drove their own cars to work and 27
minutes for those who rode with others.
4
Because of small sample sizes, this difference is not statistically significant at standard levels.
It is, however, statistically significant at the .15 level.
5
The difference in days missed between those who relied on rides from others and those who
relied on other commuting methods is statistically significant at the .01 level.
27
FIGURE III.5
25
FREQUENCY OF TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS,
BY COMMUTING METHOD
Percent
20
20
20
15
14
13
13
10
9
6
5
4
0
All Commuting
Methods
Takes Public
Transportation
Lost Work Time in
Past Month Because of
Transportation Problem
Drives Own
Car
Gets Rides from
Friends or Relatives
Missed Entire Workday
in Past Month Because of
Transportation Problem
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
C. OTHER CHALLENGES FACING PARTICIPANTS
Although problems with child care and transportation are two of the most common and
important challenges to stable employment, some participants face other potential obstacles
to a successful welfare-to-work transition. Some participants lack job skills or an
understanding of workplace norms and expectations. Some lack adequate support from
friends and family members or safe and affordable housing. Others face personal problems,
such as drug addiction, domestic violence, and physical or mental health problems. This
section examines the frequency and nature of these challenges facing GAPS participants as
they work to maintain stable employment.
1.
Low Wages and Lack of Job Skills
GAPS participants have considerably higher education levels and higher wages than
most newly employed welfare recipients. For example, only eight percent of GAPS
participants lack a high school diploma or GED certificate, compared with a third of PESD
participants (Rangarajan and Novak 1998).6 Similarly, GAPS participants began the program
with somewhat higher average wages than did PESD participants, $6.72 per hour among
those in GAPS compared with only about $6.00 per hour among those in PESD (Rangarajan
6
Rangarajan and her colleagues also found that about a third of newly employed welfare
recipients lacked a high diploma or GED certificate using a nationally representative sample
(Rangarajan et al. 1998).
28
1998). One possible explanation for these differences is that GAPS is a voluntary program
in which fewer than 20 percent of those offered services chose to participate. In contrast,
PESD participants were automatically enrolled in the program when they obtained a job.
Perhaps those welfare recipients who have sought help from GAPS are primarily those with
above-average wages and more education.7
In spite of their above-average wages and education, however, low wages and a lack of
job skills create employment difficulties for some GAPS participants. For example, although
most have high school diplomas, only a small percentage of participants have completed
education beyond the high school level. In addition, most had worked less than six months
in the three years before entering GAPS (Table II.2). In addition, more than a third reported
earning less than $6.00 an hour at enrollment, and only one in four reported that they had
health insurance through their employer. According to GAPS case managers, some
participants require additional education or training to move on to better jobs. However, case
managers indicated that many of these participants will find it extremely difficult to add
attending school or training to their busy schedules of work and child-rearing responsibilities.
Case managers also reported that some GAPS participants, especially younger ones, lack
an understanding of appropriate workplace behavior. Because most participants have been
working for only a short time, they lack experience with such issues as how to dress on the
job, how to resolve conflicts with supervisors and coworkers, and how to accept direction
and criticism. On follow-up surveys, 21 percent of participants indicated that conflicts with
their boss or coworkers had caused them to dislike their job. Case managers reported that
managing conflicts at work is a recurring theme for many participants during supportive
counseling sessions. In addition, some participants have had repeated problems with
tardiness, absenteeism, and failure to notify employers in advance about absences.
2.
Lack of Support Systems
Some GAPS participants lack the family support and encouragement they need to make
a successful transition to employment. Three out of four participants have no other adult
living in their household, which may limit the child care and other support that is
immediately available. In addition, some GAPS participants face negative pressure and even
hostility from family members and peers regarding their employment. For example, one
focus group participant said, “My sister is jealous, and I have a brother that’s jealous [of my
working]. They always ask me could they have money all the time.” In follow-up surveys,
about 1 in 10 participants reported that lack of support from friends or relatives made
working difficult. In addition, although most participants (70 percent) characterized their
friends and family members as “very supportive” of their working during the past six
7
Another possible explanation for the higher education levels and higher wages among GAPS
participants may be that Allegheny County TANF recipients are less disadvantaged than are TANF
recipients state- or nationwide. For example, as of January 1999, 57 percent of adults receiving
TANF in Pennsylvania had a high school diploma or a higher degree, compared with 71 percent of
adults receiving TANF in Allegheny County.
29
months, 22 percent characterized their friends and family members as only “somewhat
supportive,” while 8 percent characterized them as “not supportive.”
3.
Challenges Budgeting Money and Organizing a Household
Most GAPS participants are single mothers who have young children and must juggle
their responsibilities for running a household, raising children, and earning money to support
their family. For some participants, managing these competing responsibilities can be
difficult. According to GAPS case managers, many participants lack experience with
preparing and using a household budget. Moreover, the small incomes of participants make
budgeting both more difficult and more important. When participants fail to budget
adequately for child care, commuting costs, rent, food, and other necessities, they may have
difficulty remaining employed. In fact, in follow-up surveys, about a third of participants
reported that problems budgeting money made working at their current job difficult.
In addition to challenges involving money, participants experience difficulty managing
their time. Case managers have found that some participants, especially those who are
working for the first time, have difficulty establishing a regular household schedule and
getting to work on time. Some GAPS participants have also found it difficult to put their
children on regular schedules and get them dressed, fed, and dropped off at school or child
care before work.
4.
Housing
Finding safe, affordable housing is a major challenge for some GAPS participants.
Worries about unsafe or unstable living arrangements may make it difficult for some
participants to perform well on their jobs. During follow-up surveys, one in six participants
reported that housing problems sometimes made working difficult for them. According to
GAPS case managers, some participants are behind in paying their rent and face eviction.
Others live in substandard housing or in dangerous neighborhoods. Some participants live
in apartments that are too small for their families or double up temporarily with friends or
relatives. Some participants have experienced periods of homelessness. About one in five
participants live in public housing. GAPS case managers indicated that many participants
living in public housing wished to move, because they viewed it as dangerous and judged
their apartments to be of poor quality.
GAPS participants move frequently. At the time of the follow-up survey, more than one
in five participants had moved within the past six months. Of those who moved, almost half
said they moved because they wanted better-quality housing, and one in five moved to find
a safer or better neighborhood.
5.
Substance Abuse
People who are dependent on drugs or alcohol may find it difficult to maintain stable
employment. GAPS case managers report that drug and alcohol abuse is a significant
problem in many of the neighborhoods where participants live. However, measuring the
prevalence of substance abuse among GAPS participants is difficult, because people are
often reluctant to report drug and alcohol addiction. On follow-up surveys, about five
percent of GAPS participants reported using illegal drugs at least occasionally during the past
30
six months. Similarly, staff from one GAPS program estimated that substance abuse affected
about 5 to 10 percent of their GAPS caseload. Nevertheless, case managers have found that
substance abuse is a difficult issue to address, because participants often deny that they have
a substance abuse problem and are reluctant to seek help.
6.
Domestic Violence
GAPS case managers reported that some participants have suffered physical abuse by
relatives and partners. Case managers have found that domestic violence, like substance
abuse, is a difficult issue to address, because participants are reluctant to talk about the
problem and seek help. One in 10 participants lived with a spouse or partner at the time of
the follow-up survey. Among all participants, about three percent reported that physical
abuse by partners or relatives made working difficult, and seven percent identified
themselves as victims of domestic violence in the previous six months.
7.
Physical and Mental Health Problems
Some GAPS participants have physical and mental health problems that make working
difficult. Others have children with health problems that may complicate their efforts to
maintain employment. On follow-up surveys, about one in seven participants reported that
pregnancy or a health problem made working difficult. A similar fraction reported that a
health problem prevented them from doing certain kinds of housework, schoolwork, or work
outside the home. Seven percent of participants had been seriously ill or injured in the past
six months, and eight percent had children who had been seriously ill or injured during that
period. In addition, GAPS case managers reported that they thought depression and other
mental health problems were significant problems for some participants. However, mental
health problems are hard for case managers to identify, because participants are reluctant to
discuss them.
31
IV
PARTICIPANTS’ EXPERIENCES WITH GAPS
T
he GAPS agencies have implemented a case management approach to service
delivery, in which case managers attempt to maintain regular contact with program
participants and help them cope with problems that could jeopardize their
employment. Case managers provide almost all services through one-on-one interactions
with participants or through referrals to other service providers. Relying primarily on
information that GAPS case managers provided during site visits and on detailed service use
logs, this chapter describes the services the program provides to participants. 1 In addition,
we examine information gathered during focus groups and follow-up surveys to gauge
participants’ opinions of their experiences with GAPS.
Because case managers are central to the program’s service delivery system, we begin
by describing their backgrounds and the jobs they perform. Next, we describe the initial
intake and assessment process that takes place when participants enter the program. We then
examine the frequency and content of the contacts between case managers and participants.
We end the chapter with a discussion of what participants think of the GAPS program and
of its usefulness in helping them maintain employment.
A. THE GAPS CASE MANAGERS
The GAPS case manager is the central element of the program model. After the first
several months, each of the four GAPS agencies had at least two full-time case managers
dedicated to the program.2 Two agencies, Hill House Association and the Urban League of
Pittsburgh, began their GAPS programs with only one case manager. However, because of
a rapid influx of referrals to these two agencies, the Foundation in February 1998 provided
additional funds to hire a second case manager. From the outset, Neighborhood Centers
planned for their case managers to have small caseload sizes (40 to 50), while the other three
agencies planned for caseload sizes of 80 to 100. Participant-staff ratios have varied over
time according to the caseload of each agency and the pace of enrollment. As of June 1998,
average caseloads were about 40 at Neighborhood Centers and 60 to 70 at the other three
GAPS agencies.
Staff Experience and Training. All GAPS case managers have some experience
providing social services, either as volunteers or as paid staff in fields such as mental health,
drug and alcohol rehabilitation, HIV/AIDS counseling, and family support. Most also have
experience working with low-income people or welfare recipients. In fact, several are
themselves former welfare recipients who have firsthand knowledge about making the
1
The forms GAPS staff use for tracking service use are included as Appendix B.
2
Several agencies employed additional staff or Americorps volunteers who provided backup and support
for the GAPS case managers. For more detailed information about program staffing at each agency and other
descriptive information about the programs, see Appendix A.
33
transition from welfare to work. The education levels of case managers range from high
school diplomas to bachelor’s degrees; however, almost all case managers have or are
working towards an associate’s or higher degree. As described in Chapter II, as part of the
program, all case managers have received training provided by the Foundation during
“learning community” meetings. In addition, several GAPS agencies have provided
specialized training for case managers on such topics as the Earned Income Credit (EIC),
reemployment services, and housing.
The GAPS agencies hired a mixture of preexisting staff and new employees to serve as
case managers. Two agencies, Hill House and Neighborhood Centers, transferred staff from
previous programs to GAPS, because they felt that the case managers’ knowledge of the
agency, the community, and the participant population would facilitate smooth
implementation of the program. Rankin Christian Center hired former Americorps
volunteers to serve as case managers, and the Urban League hired new staff without agency
experience.
Staff Hours. In general, all GAPS agencies have attempted to structure their service
delivery around the schedules of participants. Consequently, case managers at all four
agencies work nonstandard hours. For example, staff at all four agencies reported scheduling
office or home visits during evenings and on weekends to accommodate participants’
schedules. Likewise, case managers from all agencies said they regularly called participants
from home in the evening. Hill House case managers said they often stopped by participants’
homes after work. In addition, case managers at each agency have made some provision for
participants to reach them by telephone outside regular office hours. Staff at three of the
GAPS programs carry beepers. One case manager gives participants her home telephone
number. At Neighborhood Centers and Rankin, participants can call an emergency number
24 hours a day and be directed to staff who can provide assistance. Finally, case managers
frequently perform work outside their offices. They conduct home visits and occasional
workplace visits, accompany participants on job interviews, take participants to
appointments, and deliver information and material goods to participants’ homes.
B. THE INTAKE PROCESS
As discussed in Chapter II, most participants entered GAPS by completing referral forms
and mailing them to ACAO, which referred the prospective participants to one of the four
GAPS agencies. Case managers then began attempting to contact the participants. In
addition to referrals from ACAO, GAPS staff recruited some participants directly, helped
them complete referral forms, and sent the forms to ACAO for verification of eligibility.
Across all four GAPS programs, case managers attempted to contact prospective participants
an average of 1.6 times prior to the initial intake meeting. This meeting occurred about 35
days, on average, after the agency received participants’ referral forms, ranging from about
11 days at Rankin to slightly more than two months at the Urban League. Most initial
contacts (70 percent) were made by telephone; about one in five occurred during home visits.
While case managers at some agencies did not follow formal intake and assessment
procedures, others completed more formal intake and needs assessment forms during their
initial meeting with each participant. These forms are used with all GAPS participants and,
in some cases, have been adapted from forms used by other programs the agencies operate.
Because of the rapid influx of referrals, the Hill House case manager collected only basic
34
information during her initial meetings with participants. She asked them about their jobs,
hours worked, and child care arrangements and determined whether they had up-to-date
resumes. Based on this information and other needs participants expressed, she began
providing services. Likewise, Rankin staff did not conduct formal assessments during their
initial meetings with participants. Instead, case managers tried to get to know participants
and help them identify their own goals. Neighborhood Centers and the Urban League, in
contrast, both took a more formal approach to the intake process. Case managers at these
agencies developed standard intake assessment forms for GAPS and completed them
systematically during their initial meetings with participants.
C. GAPS SERVICE PROVISION
Case managers provide most GAPS services during one-on-one sessions with
participants, which take place both in person and by telephone. This section describes the
services GAPS participants received during these sessions, including the frequency and
methods of contact, types of service provided, and changes in the level of contact over time.
The key findings on GAPS service provision during the first year of program operations are:
# Frequency of contact with participants. Case managers contacted GAPS
participants a little more than once a month, on average, during their first six
months in the program.
# Method of contact with participants. Case managers made two out of three
participant contacts by telephone; these contacts averaged 10 minutes in length.
One in four contacts occurred during face-to-face meetings with participants,
which averaged more than 30 minutes in length. The remaining contacts were
completed by mail.
# Services provided during participant contacts. The most common service case
managers provided during participant contacts was supportive counseling on
such topics as housing problems, morale and self-esteem, and workplace
behavior. In addition, during a substantial fraction of contacts, case managers
made referrals to other service providers and helped participants straighten out
problems with benefits, such as Transitional Child Care and TANF. Programs
also provide a small amount of in-kind material assistance and emergency
financial assistance.
# Changes in the level of contact over time. The level of participants’ contact
with GAPS declined somewhat as their time in the program progressed, from
two contacts, on average, during their first month in the program to less than one
contact per month by the ninth month. Of course, this pattern varied by
individual. Many participants experienced periods of weeks or months with
relatively few contacts with the program, followed by a period of frequent
contact when a particular need or problem arose.
35
In the rest of this section, we describe these and other findings on GAPS service provision
in more detail.
1.
Frequency of Participants’ Contact with GAPS
GAPS case managers had contact with participants slightly more than once a month, on
average, during their first six months in the program (Figure IV.1). Neighborhood Centers
contacted participants most frequently, completing on average just over two contacts per
participant each month. In contrast, Hill House and the Urban League completed only about
one contact per participant each month. These differences in frequency of contact can be
attributed, in part, to differences in caseload sizes across the four agencies, especially during
the first few months of program operation. Because of variation across the agencies in the
pace of enrollment (as well as differences in planned caseload sizes), Neighborhood Centers
had the fewest participants to contact but had the largest staff. Caseload sizes remained
under 30 participants per case manager at the agency for the first six months of program
operations. Hill House and the Urban League, however, had much larger caseloads early in
the program, but each had only one full-time case manager to maintain contact with
participants. Case managers at these two agencies had caseloads of 80 to 90 participants
before an additional case manager was hired at both agencies in February 1998.
Differences in frequency of contact across agencies may also be the result of differences
in each agency’s approach to service delivery. Neighborhood Centers and Rankin
maintained regular contact with all participants, attempting a telephone contact about once
FIGURE IV.1
AVERAGE NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH PARTICIPANTS
DURING THEIR FIRST SIX MONTHS IN GAPS
16
Number of Contacts
14
13.0
12
10
8
8.8
7.7
4
6.1
5.4
6
3.4
2.3
2
3.4
1.8
1.3
0
All GAPS
Agencies
Hill House
Association
Neighborhood Centers
Association
All Contacts with
GAPS Case Manager
Rankin Christian
Center
Face-to-Face Contacts with
GAPS Case Manager
Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.
36
Urban League
of Pittsburgh
a week. Although not every attempted contact was completed, both agencies were for the
most part successful in their efforts. At Neighborhood Centers, more than 9 in 10
participants received one or more contacts a month, and 2 in 3 participants received at least
two contacts a month (Figure IV.2). Likewise, at Rankin, case managers completed a contact
with three-quarters of participants at least monthly.
In contrast, case managers from Hill House and the Urban League reported that their
goal was to contact each participant about once a month, although case managers from Hill
House reported that they attempted to contact less-stable and younger participants more
frequently. Not surprisingly, Hill House and the Urban League maintained regular contact
with a much smaller proportion of their caseloads than the other two agencies did. At Hill
House, slightly more than 4 in 10 participants received one to three contacts a month, and
no participants received more than three contacts a month. Similarly, at the Urban League,
only a little more than a third of participants received one or more contacts a month.
The level of contact achieved by the GAPS programs is somewhat higher than that
achieved in PESD. The average number of contacts with PESD participants during their first
six months in the program was 6.4 (compared with 7.7 in GAPS) and ranged from 4.5 to 7.7
contacts across the four PESD programs (Haimson and Hershey 1997). One possible reason
for the higher level of contact achieved by the GAPS programs may be the fact that the
program is voluntary. All GAPS participants either responded to a letter from the county
welfare agency, which offered employment retention services, or were recruited directly by
the GAPS providers. In contrast, PESD participants were automatically referred to the
program by the county welfare agency when they became employed. It is not surprising that
FIGURE IV.2
MONTHLY RATE OF CONTACT WITH PARTICIPANTS
DURING THEIR FIRST SIX MONTHS IN GAPS
100
Percent of Participants
80
57
60
42
40
20
62
57
52
39
37
27
16
5
4
6
0
0
All GAPS
Agencies
16
10
6
29
26
Hill House
Association
Neighborhood Centers
Association
Rankin Christian
Center
Less than One Contact per Month
One to Two Contacts per Month
Two to Three Contacts per Month
Three or More Contacts per Month
Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.
37
4 5
Urban League
of Pittsburgh
participants who have actively sought help would have more frequent contact with a program
than participants who have not. In addition, GAPS case managers had somewhat smaller
caseload sizes than did PESD case managers. Caseloads ranged from 40 to 70 in GAPS 6
to 12 months after program implementation, compared with caseloads of 65 to 120 during
a similar period in PESD (Haimson et al. 1995).
2.
Methods Used for Contacts with Participants
While GAPS case managers used a variety of methods to contact participants, as well
as other service providers on the participants’ behalf, they made about two-thirds of these
contacts by telephone (Figure IV.3). These telephone calls were brief, lasting about 10
minutes on average (Figure IV.4). Case managers routinely called participants to check on
their employment status, provide information, follow up on referrals, and give
encouragement and support. In addition, case managers made just under one in four contacts
with participants during face-to-face meetings in the GAPS offices, in participants’ homes
and workplaces, and in other locations (Figure IV.3). Not surprisingly, face-to-face contacts
lasted longer than telephone calls, averaging 30 to 40 minutes per meeting (Figure IV.4).
Almost half of all face-to-face meetings took place in participants’ homes.
Across all four GAPS programs, Rankin conducted the largest proportion of its contacts
during face-to face meetings (33 percent) and the largest proportion during home visits (19
percent). This agency is neighborhood-based, with a service area restricted to the immediate
communities surrounding its offices. Because Rankin case managers are close by and
familiar with the neighborhoods, they can more easily visit participants in their homes. In
FIGURE IV.3
METHODS USED FOR CONTACTS WITH GAPS PARTICIPANTS*
Percent of Contacts
66
60
40
20
11
10
6
2
4
0
Telephone Calls
Office Visits
Home Visits
Workplace Visits
Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.
*During first year of program operations.
38
Meetings in
Other Locations
Letters
FIGURE IV.4
AVERAGE LENGTH OF CONTACT, BY CONTACT METHOD*
60
Minutes
50
41
37
40
33
28
30
20
10
10
0
Telephone Calls
Office Visits
Home Visits
Workplace Visits
Meetings in
Other Locations
Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.
*During first year of program operations.
contrast, the Urban League, which serves participants who live throughout Allegheny
County, including a substantial number who live far from their downtown office, conducted
only three percent of its contacts through home visits. Case managers from the Urban
League reported that both the distance between their office and participants’ homes and their
lack of familiarity with some sectors of the county made home visiting difficult.
Case managers made very few contacts through workplace visits. Only two percent of
contacts occurred at participants’ worksites (Figure IV.3). Case managers reported that most
participants do not feel comfortable meeting with them at work, because they do not want
employers and coworkers to know that they had received TANF or had enrolled in a program
like GAPS. PESD case managers reported similar concerns among their program’s
participants (Haimson and Hershey 1997).
Group meetings were also rare, constituting less than one percent of all contacts.
Although GAPS agencies had planned to hold peer group sessions as part of their service
delivery strategy, at the time of the May 1998 site visits the agencies had not yet
implemented this service component. Because of the rapid influx of initial referrals at some
agencies and the immediate needs of newly enrolled participants, implementing peer group
sessions was not a high priority in the program’s first year. Thus, during the first year of
program operation, contact between case managers and participants occurred almost
exclusively on a one-on-one basis, rather than in support groups or workshops the program
organized.
39
About 1 in 10 contacts took the form of letters, which GAPS case managers used to
communicate with participants about a variety of issues. For example, Hill House case
managers sent a welcome letter to each participant referred to their program. GAPS agencies
also used letters to invite participants to events such as job fairs or tax preparation
workshops, provide information about benefits and services, or locate participants who could
not be reached by telephone.
GAPS case managers initiated three out of four contacts with or on behalf of
participants. Participants initiated only 20 percent of contacts, and the rest were initiated by
staff from other programs or agencies. The frequency with which participants initiated
contacts varied across the four programs. At Hill House, participants initiated 4 in 10
contacts. Because this agency had a large volume of initial referrals and only one case
manager for much of the first year, staff may not have been able to initiate contacts to check
on participants’ status as frequently as other programs were. In contrast, at Rankin, which
had a larger staff and enrolled participants at a slower pace, participants initiated only about
1 in 10 contacts.
3.
Types of Services Provided to Participants
GAPS case managers provided a broad range of services to participants during the
program’s first year, including (1) brief contacts to check on participants’ employment status,
(2) supportive counseling, (3) help in obtaining services and benefits, (4) employment
assistance, and (5) material and financial assistance. The rest of this section describes each
of the five types of services GAPS provided.
a.
Check-In Contacts
GAPS case managers devoted considerable effort to checking in with participants about
their employment status. During the first year of program operations, one in three contacts
were check-in contacts, usually brief telephone calls, in which no other services were
provided (Figure IV.5). Case managers reported that these conversations enabled them to
establish positive relationships with participants and helped participants to become
comfortable requesting assistance from the program. In addition, during these calls, case
managers were able to identify issues which, if not addressed, could potentially affect
participants’ ability to maintain employment in the future.
Across the four GAPS programs, Neighborhood Centers had the highest proportion of
contacts that were check-in only (53 percent), and Rankin had the lowest (19 percent). While
case managers at both of these agencies attempted to complete weekly contacts with
participants, case managers at Rankin usually provided other services during these contacts,
which lowered the proportion of contacts consisting only of check-in activities.
b. Supportive Counseling
According to GAPS case managers, supportive counseling is the most important service
they provide. Moreover, case managers provided supportive counseling more often than any
other service during the program’s first year; 38 percent of all contacts included supportive
counseling sessions (Figure IV.5). Similarly, in PESD, counseling was the most commonly
provided service and the service considered most important by program staff (Haimson and
40
FIGURE IV.5
FRACTION OF CONTACTS IN WHICH SPECIFIC SERVICES WERE PROVIDED*
60
Percent of Contacts
50
38
40
33
30
23
20
10
10
6
0
Check-In
Only
Supportive
Counseling
Help Obtaining
Services and
Benefits
Employment
Assistance
Services
Material and
Financial
Assistance
GAPS Service Use Logs.
With the exception of "check-in only" contacts, more than one service could be
provided during a contact.
*During first year of program operations.
Source:
Note:
Hershey 1997). During site visits, GAPS case managers indicated that all participants need
support and encouragement, sympathetic listening, and help to develop strategies for coping
with their employment and personal problems. According to service use logs, almost threequarters of participants (73 percent) received supportive counseling during the first year of
program operations.
Across all four GAPS agencies, case managers and participants discussed housing more
than any other topic during supportive counseling sessions. One woman’s experience,
described during a focus group session with GAPS participants, illustrates the way in which
counseling about housing issues can prevent job loss. This participant needed to find
suitable housing for herself and her disabled parents. Unable to find something adequate,
she thought she would have to quit her job and return to TANF so that she could devote more
time to searching for housing. After discussing the situation with a GAPS case manager, she
received additional counseling and assistance from the agency’s housing advocate, found
suitable housing, and continued working.
Other frequently discussed topics of counseling sessions included self-esteem and
morale, workplace behavior and conflicts, family problems, goal setting and planning, and
transportation. One focus group participant described how her GAPS case manager helped
her develop a strategy for discussing a workplace conflict with her supervisor: “She told me
how to go about talking to someone higher and telling them what the problem was without
saying it like a child . . . how to professionally handle it. It really helped me out because I
was ready to quit.”
41
c.
Help Obtaining Services and Benefits
GAPS case managers helped participants obtain a variety of services and benefits by
making referrals to other service providers and helping participants straighten out problems
with benefits. In the program’s first year, about 23 percent of all contacts included such help
(Figure IV.5). GAPS case managers made referrals to a wide variety of community service
providers, such as housing assistance programs, food banks, agencies that provide clothing
or furniture, child care providers, education and training programs, tax preparers for help
with the EIC, and legal services. On follow-up surveys, 22 percent of participants reported
receiving a referral from GAPS to another service provider during their early months in the
program. In addition, case managers often referred participants to other programs housed
within their own agencies. For example, Hill House case managers said that they referred
GAPS participants to mental health counseling, alcohol and drug treatment programs, and
health care providers located at the Hill House community center. The Urban League’s case
managers reported referring about one-third of their GAPS participants to the agency’s
housing assistance program, which provides housing counseling, emergency shelter grants,
and a home ownership program.
In addition to referrals, case managers helped participants straighten out problems with
benefits such as Transitional Child Care, TANF, and food stamps. On follow-up surveys,
13 percent of participants reported receiving this type of help from GAPS. One focus group
participant described how her case manager intervened on her behalf to straighten out
problems with her Transitional Child Care benefits: “My caseworker didn’t want to pay me
so [my GAPS case manager] called my caseworker’s supervisor, who didn’t want to do
nothing. So she called my caseworker’s supervisor’s supervisor, and we got results.”
GAPS participants received substantially less assistance with straightening out welfare
benefit problems than did PESD participants. The fraction of PESD participants who
received help straightening out problems with benefits during their first six months in the
program ranged from 24 to 65 percent across the four PESD programs, compared with 13
percent among GAPS participants (Haimson and Hershey 1997). There are two possible
explanations for the more frequent help with welfare benefit problems among PESD
participants. First, unlike in GAPS, PESD case managers worked within the welfare agency.
Therefore, PESD case managers may have been both more knowledgeable of welfare
program rules and in a better position to resolve any benefit problems that arose.
Second, PESD participants were referred to the program immediately upon obtaining
employment. In contrast, many GAPS participants had worked several months before being
referred to the program. Many problems with welfare benefits occur during the early weeks
of employment, as cash assistance grants get adjusted for new earnings and as transitional
benefits begin. Since most GAPS participants had been working for some time when they
entered the program, the most pressing need for this type of assistance may have passed.
d. Employment Assistance
GAPS case managers provided a relatively low level of employment assistance to
participants during the program’s first year. On follow-up surveys, about half of participants
reported that they discussed “getting a new job” with their case manager during their early
months in the program. However, only 15 percent reported receiving help finding or looking
for work, and only 5 percent reported receiving help writing a resume.
42
Several possible explanations exist for the relatively low level of employment assistance
provided by GAPS. First, program participants who lost jobs and returned to cash assistance
could (and most likely did) receive job search assistance through the county welfare agency,
rather than through GAPS.3 Second, because the vast majority of GAPS participants entered
the program with jobs and most did not lose their jobs in the program’s early months, finding
a new job may not have been a pressing need for many participants. Third, case managers
appear to have devoted more effort to providing employment assistance to participants who
lost jobs than to helping participants who maintained their employment advance to better
jobs. During site visits, case managers said that many participants were still struggling to
make the transition from welfare to work. With full-time jobs and child-rearing
responsibilities, they simply could not take on additional activities such as training,
education, or looking for a better job.
According to service use logs, 1 in 10 contacts with participants in the program’s first
year included employment assistance activities (Figure IV.5). About half the employmentrelated contacts included advice about how to look for work. The rest involved job
placement assistance and advice on job advancement. To help participants find jobs, GAPS
case managers provide them with employment newsletters and newspapers, job listings,
advice with resume writing, referrals to job fairs, and referrals to actual job leads. At Hill
House, GAPS participants can access a computer lab to use a self-directed resume-writing
program, print copies of resumes, and search the Internet. In addition, Hill House and the
Urban League refer unemployed GAPS participants to other in-house programs that provide
job search and job placement assistance.
e.
Material and Financial Assistance
The GAPS agencies also provided participants with help obtaining material goods.
During the first year of program operations, about six percent of contacts involved providing
participants with material and financial assistance (Figure IV.5). According to service use
logs, just over one in four participants received help obtaining in-kind goods from GAPS
during the program’s first year. Case managers referred participants to Goodwill, the
Salvation Army, and other organizations for in-kind goods such as clothing, furniture,
household goods, and children’s toys. In addition, GAPS agencies supplied some in-kind
goods directly. For example, Neighborhood Centers provided eyeglasses and children’s toys,
and Rankin provided furniture, diapers, and home safety equipment. To help participants
obtain food, GAPS agencies typically referred participants to area food banks, and in some
instances, provided food or food vouchers directly.
In some cases, GAPS agencies also provided emergency financial assistance to address
crises that could jeopardize participants’ employment. In follow-up surveys, one in five
participants reported receiving financial assistance from GAPS during their early months in
the program. Much of this assistance came in the form of bus tickets, which were typically
provided in limited quantities when participants faced temporary transportation crises in
getting to work. In addition to bus tickets, GAPS programs provided some participants with
3
In fact, the substantially higher level of job search assistance reported as part of the PESD evaluation
is most likely due in large part to the fact that the PESD figures include all job search assistance received
through the welfare department (Haimson and Hershey 1997).
43
help paying for housing, utilities or household furnishings, car-related expenses, household
appliances, and child care.
Hill House provided substantially more financial assistance to its GAPS participants
than did the other GAPS agencies. On follow-up surveys, about 27 percent of Hill House
participants reported receiving financial assistance during their early months in the program,
compared to 17 percent of participants from the other agencies. Hill House used a portion
of its GAPS grant to establish a Critical Need Fund for GAPS participants who face financial
crises that could prevent them from working. Typical grants from the fund are between $100
and $200. For example, the agency provided funds to a single father of twins who needed
his car for traveling to work and child care but could not afford to make needed repairs. The
program paid $167 for repairs and an inspection, which enabled him to continue working.
Participants who receive grants must work with a case manager to develop a plan and
household budget designed to prevent another financial crisis from occurring. Other GAPS
agencies have similar funds that operate on a somewhat smaller scale.
4.
Changes in the Level of Contact over Time
To understand how participants’ engagement with GAPS evolves as their time in the
program progresses, it is useful to examine changes in the level of contact with the program
over time. In a program like GAPS, case managers and participants might be expected to
engage in more frequent contact during the initial months after enrollment, when case
managers are conducting intake and assessment meetings and addressing participants’
immediate needs. However, once the program addresses these urgent needs and participants
gain more experience in the workplace, contact between case managers and participants may
gradually decline. In fact, the lives of some participants may stabilize to the point that they
no longer wish to participate in the program. However, participants who lose their jobs or
experience other crises may need to increase their contact with case managers, at least
temporarily.
The level of participants’ contact with GAPS did decline as their time in the program
progressed. Contact levels were highest during their first month after program enrollment
(two contacts per month on average), when case managers were conducting initial meetings
with participants and addressing immediate needs (Figure IV.6). In their second month in
GAPS, participants’ level of contact dropped to about 1.3 contacts per month on average and
continued to drop gradually over time. During the ninth month they were enrolled in GAPS,
participants received slightly less than one contact per month. The level of face-to-face
contact between case managers and participants also declined over time. Researchers found
similar declines in the level of contact over time in the PESD evaluation (Haimson and
Hershey 1997).
The contact levels presented in Figure IV.6 are averages across many participants. Of
course, service use patterns vary by individual. Many GAPS participants experienced
periods of weeks or months with relatively few contacts with their case manager, followed
by a period in which they were in frequent contact with the program. For example, although
very few participants (only about one percent) averaged four or more contacts each month
during their first nine months in GAPS, 44 percent had at least one month with four or more
contacts during this period. Excluding the first month of program participation, when many
44
FIGURE IV.6
MONTHLY LEVEL OF PROGRAM CONTACT DURING
PARTICIPANTS' FIRST NINE MONTHS IN GAPS*
3
Number of Contacts
2
All Contacts
1
Face-to-Face Contacts
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Months in the Program
Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.
*Participants enrolled through November 1998.
participants have more frequent contact with the program, 35 percent had a month with four
or more program contacts.
In some cases, these periods of more frequent program contact may be triggered by
crises in participants’ lives. For example, according to service use logs, one GAPS
participant had a period of frequent contact with the program after her house burned down.
Within a short time period, she received counseling from her GAPS case manager,
emergency financial aid from the program, and a referral for relocation assistance. Another
participant had a period of frequent program contact when her boyfriend became abusive.
She received counseling, as well as help with accessing housing assistance, making it
possible for her to move out of her boyfriend’s apartment.
D. PARTICIPANTS’ OPINIONS OF GAPS
One key measure of the success of a program is the extent to which participants are
satisfied with it and find its services useful. Because GAPS is a voluntary program
(participation is not mandated by the welfare office or any other public agency), participants’
level of satisfaction is especially important. Participants who are satisfied with the program
are more likely to use the services GAPS offers and to seek help from the program when they
have a problem that could jeopardize their employment. This section describes GAPS
participants’ level of satisfaction with various aspects of the program and the extent to which
participants found the services useful for helping them stay employed.
45
1.
Level of Participants’ Satisfaction with GAPS
In general, participants reported a high level of satisfaction with the GAPS program.
About three-quarters of participants said they were satisfied with GAPS services overall
(Figure IV.7). An even higher proportion (83 percent) were satisfied with how easily they
could reach their GAPS case manager. The comments of focus group participants illustrate
participants’ appreciation for their case managers’ responsiveness. For example, one focus
group participant said, “It’s not like having a caseworker, it’s like having a friend. You can
call them any time. . . . You call them and they’re right there. If they don’t call you that
night, they’ll call you the next day. They’re on it.” A similar proportion of participants (82
percent) said that they were satisfied with how well their case managers understood their
problems. One focus group participant reported how she decided to enroll in GAPS because
of her case manager’s ability to understand her problems: “I joined the program because of
[my GAPS case manager]. . . . She called me and started talking to me over the phone, and
that’s why I joined, because of her. . . . She’s like your psychiatrist, your mom, your preacher.
She’s all of them in one.”
Furthermore, GAPS participants clearly appreciate and enjoy the attention, support, and
encouragement they receive from their case managers. Many focus group participants
stressed the importance of knowing that GAPS case managers were concerned about them
and available to help them if needed. For example, one participant said, “Every time they
call, I know everybody is going to say the same thing. They ask how you’re doing. Even if
nothing else, they just call to make sure you’re okay.” Another said, “They care about us.
They care about what we need. They care about how you feel. There were days I felt like
I didn’t want to get up. They helped me get up and go do what I got to do.”
FIGURE IV.7
SATISFACTION WITH AND PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF GAPS SERVICES
100
Percent of Participants
90
80
83
82
73
70
60
50
39
40
34
30
20
10
0
Overall Set
of Services
How Easily
Can Reach
Case Manager
How Well
Case Manager
Understands
Problems
Satisfied with Particular Aspects of GAPS
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
46
In Helping
to Handle
Difficult Work
Situations
In Helping
Them Keep
a Job
Think GAPS Useful
2.
Perceived Usefulness of GAPS Services
While participants received a great deal of moral support from GAPS and expressed
satisfaction with that aspect of the program, many did not consider the program’s services
useful in helping them maintain employment or handle problems on the job. Only one in
three participants found GAPS useful for helping them keep a job, and just under two in five
said the program was useful for helping them handle difficult situations at work (Figure
IV.7). Despite their satisfaction with the supportive counseling services the program
provided and the caring approach the case managers employed, many GAPS participants
apparently did not see a link between this case management-based counseling approach and
their ability to continue working.
Furthermore, in follow-up surveys, when participants who had indicated that GAPS
services had not helped them stay employed were asked to identify additional services that
would have been helpful, 51 percent said that no service GAPS could have provided would
have helped them find or keep a job. Perhaps many participants viewed GAPS as primarily
a counseling program and did not expect the program to offer other types of services they
considered to be more useful for maintaining employment. Alternatively, because a
relatively small proportion of participants lost their jobs in the program’s early months,
perhaps some participants simply thought that they did not need support services to maintain
stable employment.
Responses to follow-up survey questions suggest that participants may want more
tangible services and financial help from the program to supplement the case management
and counseling services the program provides. For example, among those who were able to
point to a service they did not receive from GAPS but that they thought would have been
helpful, participants most often mentioned getting help in finding jobs and in paying for child
care and transportation. Although each of the four GAPS programs provided these services
to some extent, all emphasized supportive counseling over financial assistance and job
placement and advancement.
3.
Satisfaction Among Participants Served by a Neighborhood-Based Provider
In addition to lessons that can be learned from the satisfaction levels of all GAPS
participants, we can also learn from differences across the four GAPS programs in the level
of participant satisfaction. Across all four GAPS programs, Rankin participants had
substantially higher levels of satisfaction across every measure of satisfaction included in the
survey. For example, 9 in 10 Rankin participants reported satisfaction with the program
overall, compared to only about 7 in 10 for all programs combined. Likewise, while only
one-third of all GAPS participants found program services useful for helping them keep a
job, half of Rankin’s participants found the program useful in this area.
There are two possible explanations for the higher level of satisfaction among Rankin
participants. First, Rankin was able to deliver more services (and, particularly, more inperson services) to its participants than were the other agencies. Rankin case managers
contacted their participants more frequently than average and provided a service (beyond a
routine check-in) in a higher proportion of contacts than did case managers at other agencies.
Rankin also had a higher proportion of face-to-face contacts and conducted more home visits
than did the other GAPS programs, which may have enabled them to provide a more
personalized set of services.
47
Differences in characteristics of the GAPS agencies and the caseloads they serve may
partly explain why Rankin could provide this higher level of personalized service. Unlike
the other agencies, Rankin is located just outside Pittsburgh, in a relatively small community,
and serves only residents who live in the neighborhoods surrounding its offices. GAPS
participants typically live within a mile or two of the GAPS office, and many live within
walking distance. Consequently, staff know the community and its residents well and can
more easily maintain contact with participants, even dropping by their homes if needed.
Moreover, because case managers serve only participants from a limited geographic area,
they can become well acquainted with the support services available to participants. They
may, therefore, be in a better position than case managers from countywide programs to
make appropriate referrals.
Differences in recruitment methods across the four agencies may provide a second
explanation for the higher satisfaction levels among GAPS participants. Because ACAO was
not able to generate enough referrals to Rankin, the agency (unlike the other GAPS
programs) recruited most of its participants directly. Many of these recruits had participated
in other Rankin programs and thus were likely to have had a positive opinion of the agency
already.
48
V
ECONOMIC PROGRESS OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS
T
he success of GAPS participants in their efforts to become self-sufficient depends on
their ability to remain employed and reduce dependence on welfare. At the same
time, they must make enough money to support their families and maintain health
insurance coverage. Moreover, to achieve a higher standard of living for themselves and
their families, participants must progress toward better job skills and higher wages. In this
chapter, relying mainly on data from the GAPS first follow-up survey (conducted 6 to 10
months after participants entered the program), we examine participants’ early progress in
taking each of these steps toward self-sufficiency.
The key findings concerning the short-term economic progress of GAPS participants
include:
# Continuous Employment For Most Participants During the Early Months.
The great majority of GAPS participants succeeded in maintaining their
employment during their early months in the program. During their first six
months in GAPS, participants spent 88 percent of their time employed, on
average. Moreover, 79 percent of participants were employed continuously
during their first six months in the program.
# Unemployment Spells Among Some Participants. About one in five
participants had an unemployment spell during their first six months in GAPS.
Participants who had a child during their early months in the program and those
with health problems were most at risk of unemployment. Younger participants
and those who began the program with below-average wages and no fringe
benefits were also more likely than other participants to become unemployed.
# Relatively Low Wages and Few Fringe Benefits. GAPS participants work for
relatively low wages ($6.97 per hour, on average) and few fringe benefits.
Although 50 percent of participants had health insurance available to them at
their current job, only 27 percent were actually covered by an employer-provided
insurance policy at the time of the follow-up survey. Most participants hold jobs
in services and retail trade, employment sectors that typically offer lower wages.
# Low Rates of TANF Participation; More Frequent Use of Other Financial
Supports. Although all GAPS participants are former TANF recipients, only
one in four were receiving TANF at the time of the follow-up survey.
Participants were more likely to be receiving other types of government
assistance, however. For example, two out of three were receiving food stamps,
half were receiving the EIC, and a third were receiving Transitional Child Care
benefits.
49
# Health Insurance Coverage for Most Participants, Mainly Through Medicaid.
The large majority (88 percent) of GAPS participants had health insurance,
typically through Medicaid or another public insurance program. The children
of GAPS participants were even more likely to be insured, with 93 percent
having either public or private health insurance coverage.
The rest of this chapter describes in more detail these and other findings concerning the
short-term economic progress of GAPS participants.
A. EMPLOYMENT STABILITY
Maintaining stable employment is crucial for welfare recipients in their efforts toward
self-sufficiency. For this reason, the primary goal of GAPS is to help recently employed
welfare recipients remain employed. In this section, we examine how successful GAPS
participants are at maintaining employment during their early months in the program. We
also analyze which participants are most at risk of becoming unemployed during this period.
We begin this discussion by presenting the typical kinds of jobs GAPS participants hold, as
well as their level of satisfaction with these jobs.
1.
What Kinds of Jobs Do GAPS Participants Hold?
At the time of the first follow-up survey, most GAPS participants worked for relatively
low wages and few fringe benefits. Three-fourths of participants reported earning less than
$8.00 an hour at their current or most recent job, and only five percent reported earning
$10.00 an hour or more (Table V.1). Their average hourly wage was $6.97. In addition,
many jobs that GAPS participants held did not offer fringe benefits. Just over half offered
health insurance and paid vacation, while fewer than half offered other benefits, such as sick
leave, a retirement plan, or flexible employment hours. In addition, because employerprovided health insurance often comes at considerable cost to the employee, only about half
of GAPS participants who had health insurance available to them through their employer
actually participated in the plan. At the time of the follow-up survey, 50 percent of
participants had health insurance available to them at their current job; however, only 27
percent were covered by an insurance policy through their employer.1
The majority (84 percent) of GAPS participants worked in services and retail, which
typically offer low wages. Two-thirds held jobs in the service sector, particularly in health
care and social services (which includes child care), or worked for temporary employment
agencies. In fact, 14 percent of GAPS participants reported that their current or most recent
job was through a temporary employment agency. Most of those not working in the service
sector worked in the retail trade, employed by restaurants, bars, supermarkets, or convenience
stores. In contrast, few participants reported working in construction, manufacturing,
transportation, or public utilities, employment sectors that typically offer higher wages.
1
These percentages are slightly lower than those presented in Table V.1 because some GAPS participants
were no longer employed at the time of the follow-up survey.
50
TABLE V.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOBS
OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS
(Percentages)
All GAPS Participants
Hourly Wage
Less than $5.00
$5.00 to $5.99
$6.00 to $6.99
$7.00 to $7.99
$8.00 to $8.99
$9.00 to $9.99
$10.00 or more
4
26
24
21
13
7
5
(Average Wage)
($6.97)
Hours Worked per Week
1 to 19
20 to 29
30 to 39
40
More than 40
6
16
25
47
6
(Average Hours)
(35)
Employer-Provided Health Insurance
Available to Participant
Participant Covered by Policy
54
29
Other Fringe Benefits
Paid Vacation
Sick Leave
Retirement/Pension
Flextime
55
39
41
43
Industrial Sector
Construction/Manufacturing
Transportation/Public Utilities
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate
Services
Public Administration
1
3
19
10
65
2
Sample Size
SOURCE:
298
GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
51
2.
How Satisfied Are GAPS Participants with Their Jobs?
GAPS participants reported a fairly high level of job satisfaction. For example, in spite
of working for low wages, most (61 percent) reported being satisfied with their salary (Figure
V.1). Large majorities reported that they were satisfied with the actual work they do (90
percent), the number of hours they work (84 percent), and the time of day they work
(89 percent). About a third of GAPS participants worked a shift other than standard daytime
business hours. Among those working standard daytime hours, 95 percent reported being
satisfied with the time of day they work, compared with only 77 percent among those
working nonstandard hours.
The high job satisfaction levels among GAPS participants do not necessarily indicate
strong attachment to their current employers, however. For example, a third of participants
who were employed at the time of the follow-up survey reported that they did not expect to
be working in the same job in a year. Moreover, half of those who were currently employed
reported that they were actively looking for another job.
GAPS participants were least satisfied with their fringe benefits. Fewer than half (47
percent) reported being satisfied with the benefits offered by their employers. GAPS
participants reported dramatically different levels of satisfaction with their benefits,
depending on whether health insurance was available through their employer. Among
participants whose employers offered health insurance, 74 percent were satisfied with their
fringe benefits, compared with only 16 percent of those whose employers did not offer health
insurance.
FIGURE V.1
JOB SATISFACTION AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS
100
Percent
89
90
Shift Worked
Actual Work
Done
84
80
61
60
47
40
20
0
Benefits
Salary
Number of Hours
Worked
Satisfaction with Particular Aspects of Current or Most Recent Job
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
52
3.
How Successful Are GAPS Participants at Staying Employed?
The great majority of GAPS participants succeeded in maintaining their employment
during their early months in the program. For example, during their first six months in
GAPS, participants spent 88 percent of their time employed, on average (Figure V.2).
Moreover, 79 percent of participants were employed continuously during their first six
months in the program.
In spite of these high employment rates, some GAPS participants had periods when they
were not employed during their initial months in the program. For example, about five
percent of participants entered GAPS without a job (Figure V.3). 2 An additional 16 percent
lost or quit their jobs during their first six months in the program and did not obtain another
job within two weeks.3 Therefore, about one in five participants (21 percent) had a period
of unemployment during their first six months in GAPS. Evidence from an early cohort
(those who entered GAPS during the first few months of program operations) suggests that
this number may rise to about one in four after nine months of program participation (Figure
FIGURE V.2
PERCENTAGE OF TIME EMPLOYED AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS
GAPS Entry
Percent
100
89
87
82
86
a
80
61
60
41
40
20
0
6 to 9 Months
Before Entering
GAPS
3 to 6 Months
Before Entering
GAPS
0 to 3 Months
Before Entering
GAPS
0 to 3 Months
After Entering
GAPS
3 to 6 Months
After Entering
GAPS
6 to 9 Months
After Entering
GAPS
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
a
This number is based on an early cohort of GAPS participants.
2
Almost all GAPS participants were employed when they applied for the program. However, some
applicants lost their jobs before the welfare department processed their applications and sent them on to one
of the GAPS service providers. These unemployed applicants were allowed to enroll in the program.
3
For the analysis presented in this chapter, someone who did not work for more than two consecutive
weeks is considered to have experienced an unemployment spell.
53
V.3). It appears that most of these unemployment spells did not end quickly. Among
participants who became unemployed during their first few months in GAPS, only about 20
percent were reemployed within three months.
A substantial fraction of GAPS participants lose or change jobs without experiencing
an unemployment spell, however. For example, 33 percent of participants who entered
GAPS with a job had a job end during their first six months in the program. This proportion
includes 17 percent of participants who were reemployed within two weeks (and, therefore,
not considered to have had an unemployment spell) and 16 percent who were not reemployed
within this period (and, therefore, considered to have been unemployed).
Employment retention rates among GAPS participants were high relative to those of all
newly employed welfare recipients. For example, Rangarajan et al. (1998), using nationally
representative data from the 1980s and early 1990s, find that over half of welfare recipients
who found jobs became unemployed within six months. In contrast, among participants who
entered GAPS with a job, only 16 percent had an unemployment spell within six months of
entering the program.
Several possible explanations exist for the much lower rate of job loss among GAPS
participants. First, GAPS participants are less disadvantaged than welfare recipients overall.
For example, only eight percent of GAPS participants do not have a high school diploma or
GED certificate, compared with a third of the national sample studied by Rangarajan and her
colleagues. Second, the economy in the Pittsburgh area, as in the rest of the nation, was very
FIGURE V.3
PERCENTAGE OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS WITH AN UNEMPLOYMENT SPELL*
30
Percent
Early Cohort of
Participants
25
All GAPS
Participants
20
15
10
5
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Months After Entering GAPS
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*Participants are considered to have had an unemployment spell if they did not work for two
consecutive weeks.
54
9
strong during 1997 and 1998, which most likely helped some participants maintain
employment. Third, the national results are from the pre-TANF era. In the new environment
of work requirements and time limits, welfare recipients may be more likely to maintain
employment. Finally, the GAPS program itself may have helped some participants avoid job
loss through its counseling and referral services.
4.
Why Do GAPS Participants Lose or Change Jobs?
What reasons do participants report for their jobs ending? According to participants,
most jobs ended because the participant left the position voluntarily. Only about one in three
reported that their jobs ended because they were laid off or fired or that the job was
temporary. Reported reasons for job loss varied somewhat depending on whether the
participant experienced an unemployment spell after the job ended (Figure V.4). For
example, those who experienced a period of unemployment after their job ended frequently
reported that their jobs ended because of pregnancy or a health problem, transportation
problems, or simply dislike of the job. In contrast, those who did not become unemployed
after their job ended mentioned these reasons relatively infrequently. Instead, they were
more likely than others to report that their jobs ended because they took another job or
because they were dissatisfied with particular aspects of their jobs, such as schedule, salary,
or benefits.
FIGURE V.4
REASONS REPORTED BY GAPS PARTICIPANTS FOR JOBS ENDING*
30
Percent
24
25
22
20
20
20
16
15
15
12
12
12
10
10
10
8
8
7
6
7
5
2
0
Laid Off
Fired
Pregnancy or
Health Problem
Child Care
Problem
Transportation
Problem
2
Took Another
Job
Didn't Like
Job
Those with No Subsequent Unemployment Spell
Those with a Subsequent Unemployment Spell
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*Participants can report more than one reason for a job ending.
55
Dissatisfied with
Schedule
Dissatisfied with
Benefits or Salary
5.
Which GAPS Participants Are Most Likely to Become Unemployed?
For a better understanding of the reasons for job loss and for improvement in the
program’s ability to target services to those most at risk of unemployment, it is useful to
analyze which GAPS participants were most likely to become unemployed during their early
months in the program. Table V.2 presents this analysis.4 Consistent with the reasons
participants cited for job loss, those who had a baby during the first six months in the
program and those with health problems that limit their activities were among those most at
risk of becoming unemployed. For example, a typical participant who had a baby during her
early months in GAPS had a 36 percent chance of an unemployment spell, compared with
a 16 percent chance for a similar participant who did not have a baby. Similarly, participants
who reported a health problem that limited their daily activities had a 30 percent chance of
becoming unemployed, compared with only a 14 percent chance for similar participants who
did not have a health problem.
Younger GAPS participants were also more likely than other participants to become
unemployed. A typical participant who was less than 30 years old had a 22 percent chance
of becoming unemployed during her first six months in GAPS, compared with an 11 percent
chance for participants who were 30 or older. During site visits, case managers from two of
the GAPS agencies stressed that they thought that their younger participants were more
unstable and faced more barriers to employment. According to these case managers, younger
participants had more problems organizing their finances and households and greater
difficulty handling conflicts at work. For this reason, case managers at one GAPS agency
actively targeted younger participants for followup.
GAPS participants who began the program with below-average wages and no fringe
benefits were more likely than other participants to become unemployed. For example, a
typical participant who began GAPS with a job that paid less than $7.00 an hour had almost
a one-in-four chance of becoming unemployed during her first six months. In contrast,
similar participants who began GAPS with a job that paid $7.00 an hour or more had only
a seven percent chance of becoming unemployed during that period. Similarly, GAPS
participants whose employers did not provide health insurance coverage had about a 1-in-5
chance of becoming unemployed during the first six months, compared with a 1-in-10 chance
for similar participants whose employers provided insurance coverage. The finding that
welfare recipients who find better jobs are more likely to maintain employment is consistent
with earlier research using a nationally representative sample (Rangarajan et al. 1998). It is
unclear from this evidence, however, whether getting better jobs causes welfare recipients
to maintain their employment longer. It is also possible that certain welfare recipients have
characteristics that make them both more likely to obtain better jobs and more likely to keep
them.
4
The percentages in Table V.2 are calculated using the results of a logistic regression model in which a
binary variable representing whether the participant became unemployed during her first six months in GAPS
is the dependent variable and the descriptive characteristics listed in the table are used as explanatory variables.
For this analysis, a participant is considered to have been unemployed if she had a period of at least two
consecutive weeks when she was not working during her first six months in GAPS. The percentages in the
table represent the likelihood that a participant who has the particular characteristic, but who otherwise has the
average characteristics of all participants, becomes unemployed.
56
TABLE V.2
PROBABILITY OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS BECOMING UNEMPLOYED,
BY INDIVIDUAL AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS
(Percentages)
Probability of Unemployment
Spell During First Six Months in
GAPS
Overall
16
Age (Years)
Younger than 30
30 or older
22*
11
Race/Ethnicity
African American
White or other
13*
25
Education
Has high school diploma or GED
Has neither high school diploma nor GED
17
7
Had a Child Under Five at Enrollment
Yes
No
18
13
Gave Birth During First Six Months in GAPS
Yes
No
36*
16
Months Worked in Past Three Years
Less than six
Six or more
18
15
Owns a Car
Yes
No
12
18
Has Health Problem That Limits Activities
Yes
No
30*
14
Hourly Wage at Enrollment
Less than $7.00
$7.00 or more
23*
7
Employer at Enrollment Provided Health Insurance
Yes
No
Don’t know
9*
19
10
GAPS Program
Hill House Association
Neighborhood Centers Association
Rankin Christian Center
Urban League of Pittsburgh
9*
17
17
21
Sample Size
273
SOURCE:
Data from GAPS application forms and GAPS first follow-up survey.
NOTE:
Percentages based on a multivariate analysis using a logistic regression model. GAPS participants who were
unemployed at program entry were excluded from this analysis.
*Differences across the categories are statistically significant at the .10 level.
GED = General Equivalency Degree.
57
Finally, participants at the Hill House Association GAPS program were less likely than
other participants to become unemployed. A typical participant at Hill House had only a nine
percent chance of becoming unemployed during her first six months in GAPS. However,
similar participants at the other three programs had a 17 to 21 percent chance of becoming
unemployed during this period.
There are two possible explanations for this difference. First, participants were not
assigned to the four GAPS programs randomly. Instead, participants were assigned to
programs based on several factors, including where they lived, which program they preferred,
and which had spaces available. Therefore, participants at the four programs could have had
initial differences in their employment barriers, work readiness, motivation, or other factors
that may have affected their likelihood of maintaining employment. Although the
multivariate analysis presented in Table V.2 adjusts for some of these initial differences,
other unmeasured differences in participants’ initial characteristics could exist across the four
programs and could explain the difference in outcomes.
Second, the particular GAPS program model implemented at Hill House may have been
more effective at promoting employment than those implemented by the other three agencies.
Examination of the service use data and discussions with program staff suggest that Hill
House, more than the other agencies, followed a strategy of focusing its efforts less on
routine check-ins with all participants and more on providing services to participants who
actively sought help from the program and those who appeared most at risk of job loss.
Although the average number of contacts per participant at Hill House was below that of
other agencies, these contacts were longer than average and more likely to be initiated by
participants. In addition, Hill House, more than the other GAPS agencies, provided
emergency financial assistance to participants, helping them pay for such things as bus
tickets, car repair, furniture, and other household items.
The fact that Hill House participants had better employment outcomes than other
participants may suggest, therefore, that a strategy that focuses more resources on providing
emergency financial assistance and other services to certain participants and less on routine
check-ins with all participants may be more effective at promoting employment. However,
the GAPS study was not designed to measure program impacts. Therefore, this result does
not provide definitive evidence that adopting this service delivery approach would improve
participant outcomes.
B. INCOME SOURCES AND BENEFITS
As one might expect among recent welfare recipients, GAPS participants have low
income levels. The average monthly income participants reported was $1,370 (Table V.3),
which translates into an annual income of $16,440, slightly above the official 1997 poverty
level for a family of three ($12,802). About a third of GAPS participants reported incomes
below the poverty level for a family of three, whereas 12 percent reported incomes more than
twice the poverty level.
At the time of the first follow-up survey, most GAPS participants were working and not
receiving welfare. Therefore, earnings were by far their most important income source. The
majority (84 percent) reported having earnings in the month prior to the follow-up survey
(conducted 6 to 10 months after they entered the program). Their earnings in the previous
58
TABLE V.3
INCOME SOURCES OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS
Percentage with
Income from
Source
Average Monthly
Income from Source
(in Dollars)
Percentage of
Total Income from
Source
Earnings
84
911
66
TANF
24
74
5
Food Stamps
65
130
10
Transitional Child Care
32
146
11
7
39
3
Child Support
18
34
3
Other Sources
15
36
3
All Sources
97
1,370
100
Income Source
SSI
SOURCE:
GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
NOTE:
Reported figures refer to income during month prior to survey.
SSI = Supplemental Security Income; TANF = Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.
month averaged $911 ($1,085 among those with earnings). Earnings made up two-thirds of
total income of GAPS participants, on average.
In contrast, cash assistance (such as TANF, SSI, and General Assistance) made up a
small fraction of the total income of GAPS participants. Only about one in four participants
was receiving TANF at the time of the follow-up survey, and, on average, TANF benefits
made up only five percent of the total income of participants. However, other types of
benefits, such as food stamps and Transitional Child Care, were a more substantial fraction
of total income. Two out of three participants reported receiving food stamps in the previous
month, and one in three reported receiving Transitional Child Care. On average, both of
these income sources made up about 10 percent of the total income of GAPS participants.
Relatively few GAPS participants (18 percent) received child support payments in the
previous month. Those who did most commonly received them by having the father’s wages
garnished (43 percent). Another sizable fraction (37 percent) received payments from a child
support enforcement agency. Only 20 percent of those receiving child support (and less than
4 percent of all participants) received child support payments directly from the father of their
children.
GAPS participants have other sources of income and support not presented in Table V.3.
For example, in the previous six months, more than a third (36 percent) of participants
received food vouchers through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
59
Infants, and Children (WIC), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In
addition, about half (52 percent) of GAPS participants received the EIC in the past year.
Since the large majority of GAPS participants are employed low-income parents (and should,
therefore, be eligible for the benefit), this EIC participation rate seems low. One reason for
the low participation rate appears to be a lack of knowledge of the benefit. More than 40
percent of those not participating in the EIC had never heard of the tax credit. GAPS case
managers did discuss the EIC with some participants. During follow-up surveys, 20 percent
of participants reported that their case manager had discussed the tax credit with them.
C. HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE
The large majority of GAPS participants and their children had health insurance
coverage at the time of the follow-up survey, typically through Medicaid or another public
insurance program. Two-thirds of participants, and 8 in 10 of their children, were covered
by public health insurance (Figure V.5). In contrast, only one in five GAPS participants and
fewer than one in seven of their children had private health insurance coverage only.
There are several reasons that GAPS participants and their families rely so much more
heavily on public insurance than private insurance. First, many employers of GAPS
participants either do not offer health insurance benefits or offer them at considerable
expense to the employee. Second, many GAPS participants remain eligible for Medicaid.
About a fourth of participants were receiving TANF at the time of the survey and were
FIGURE V.5
HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS*
100
Percent
80
80
68
60
40
20
20
13
12
7
0
Had Public
Insurance
Had Private
Insurance Only
Had No
Insurance
Had Public
Insurance
GAPS Participants
Had Private
Insurance Only
Had No
Insurance
Minor Children of GAPS Participants
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
*At time of follow-up survey.
60
therefore automatically covered by Medicaid.5 In addition, many other participants had
recently received TANF and were therefore eligible for transitional Medicaid benefits.
Third, once transitional Medicaid benefits are exhausted, the children of many GAPS
participants become eligible for Pennsylvania’s Children’s Health Insurance Program
(CHIP). The availability of CHIP benefits for low-income children most likely explains, at
least in part, why the children of GAPS participants have higher levels of insurance coverage,
particularly public insurance coverage, than do their parents.
Some GAPS participants and their children had no health insurance at the time of the
follow-up survey. Twelve percent of participants and seven percent of their children were
not covered by either a public or a private insurance program. At the time of the site visits
to the four GAPS programs in May 1998, program staff indicated that lack of insurance
coverage was not an issue they heard about frequently from participants. However, the
number of uninsured participants may grow over time, as more of them exhaust their 12
months of transitional Medicaid benefits. Lack of insurance coverage may therefore become
a more pressing issue for participants and one that GAPS case managers must address more
frequently.
GAPS staff did report that some participants had experienced difficulties in making the
transition from Medicaid to private insurance coverage. For example, some have had to
switch health care providers because of managed care restrictions. Others have had to stop
visiting the emergency room for routine health care visits, which private insurers will not
cover. Program staff reported that some participants prefer to use the emergency room for
nonemergency health care, because it does not require an appointment and is always open.
D. PROGRESS TOWARD INDEPENDENCE
The great majority of GAPS participants began the program working for low wages.
However, through experience in the labor market and support from the program, participants
may move to higher-paying jobs over time. The average wage of GAPS participants did
increase modestly during their first 6 to 10 months in the program. On average, participants
began GAPS with an hourly wage of $6.72. Over the 6- to 10-month follow-up period
covered by the survey, their hourly wages increased to an average of $6.97, or about four
percent. Wage changes varied substantially among participants: about a third reported
hourly wage increases of 50 cents or more during the follow-up period, while 15 percent
reported hourly wage decreases of 50 cents or more.
Although their wages have remained relatively low and wage increases thus far have
been modest, participants report that working has had important nonmonetary benefits for
them. For example, more than two-thirds of participants reported that, during the past six
months, working had improved their opinions of themselves and their abilities “a great deal”
(Figure V.6). In contrast, only a small fraction of participants indicated that working had
improved their opinions of themselves “only a small amount” or “not at all.” In addition,
participants are confident that they will remain employed and off welfare in the near future.
5
Among the 24 percent of GAPS participants who reported receiving TANF during the month prior to
the survey, 97 percent had public insurance coverage, 3 percent had private insurance coverage only, and none
were uninsured. Among participants not receiving TANF in the previous month, 59 percent had public
insurance coverage, 25 percent had private insurance coverage only, and 16 percent were uninsured.
61
FIGURE V.6
WORKING AND SELF-ESTEEM AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS
80
Percent
70
60
40
18
20
6
6
"A Small Amount"
"Not at All"
0
"A Great Deal"
"A Fair Amount"
How much has working improved your opinion of yourself and your abilities?
Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.
More than 90 percent thought that it was “very likely” that they would be employed a year
from now, while more than 70 percent indicated that it was “not likely at all” that they would
be receiving TANF at that point.
Comments made during focus groups highlight how employment has improved the
confidence and self-esteem of many participants. For example, one participant said, “It feels
good to see your paycheck and not have to go into food stamps. I miss my food stamps,
don’t get me wrong, but it just feels good that I’m paying my way now. Nobody has to take
care of me, you know what I’m saying? I’m not using anybody else’s tax dollars but mine.
It just feels good.” Another participant, describing how working had affected her, said, “[It]
made me more responsible. I mean, get up and go to work, come home, pay my own bills,
I don’t need nobody. I’m very independent. I’m the woman.” A third participant reported,
“I do have to budget, but I get more than I was getting on that grant. It feels so much better.
This paycheck is mine. I work these hours.”
62
VI
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE GAPS STUDY
T
he experiences of the four GAPS service providers and their participants can provide
guidance for other policymakers and program operators as they design and implement
employment retention programs for newly employed welfare recipients. The GAPS
study is not yet complete; another round of data collection will be conducted during 1999.
Nonetheless, several lessons have already emerged from our examination of the site visit,
focus group, survey, and service use data collected as part of Phase I of the GAPS study.
Additional lessons are likely to emerge during Phase II of the study. In this chapter, we
present preliminary lessons concerning (1) delivering case management services,
(2) supplementing case management with other supportive services, and (3) targeting
employment retention services.
A. DELIVERING CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Case management is the central element of the GAPS program model. In fact, much of
what the program has to offer participants is a personal relationship with a case manager.
GAPS case managers strive for regular, one-on-one contact with their participants. During
these contacts, case managers offer counseling, advice, and moral support and provide
referrals to other agencies for additional support services. In this section, we present lessons
gathered from the GAPS study on delivering case management services to promote
employment retention among welfare recipients.
# Newly employed welfare recipients value the counseling, moral support, and
personal attention that a dedicated case manager can provide.
GAPS participants clearly appreciate the personalized support and attention they receive
from case managers and reported high levels of satisfaction with them in follow-up surveys.
More than 8 in 10 reported being satisfied with how easily they could reach their case
managers, and a similar fraction indicated satisfaction with how well their case managers
understood their problems. Similarly, focus group participants described many specific
examples of how their case manager’s support and concern were important and helpful to
them. However, because the GAPS study was not designed to measure program impacts, it
provides no definitive evidence of the effectiveness of these services in promoting
employment retention among welfare recipients.
63
# Neighborhood-based programs may be useful resources for welfare agencies
that want to deliver case management services to newly employed welfare
recipients.
Welfare agencies that plan to deliver case management services to newly employed
welfare recipients may want to consider relying on neighborhood-based programs to serve
some participants. An employment retention program that serves only nearby communities
has two main advantages over a program that serves participants from many communities
and neighborhoods. First, staff at a program serving nearby neighborhoods may be more able
to have regular in-person contact with participants. For example, Rankin Christian Center,
which, unlike the other three GAPS programs, served only participants from the
neighborhoods surrounding its offices, had more in-person contacts with its participants and
delivered more supportive counseling and other services than did the other GAPS service
providers, which served participants from throughout Allegheny County.1 This frequent inperson contact by Rankin case managers, as well as the high service content of these
contacts, may help explain the higher levels of program satisfaction among Rankin
participants.
Second, staff at agencies serving a small set of neighborhoods will be more familiar with
all the relevant support services available to their participants. An important function of
GAPS case managers is to refer participants to support services available to them through
other social service agencies. GAPS case managers who served participants from throughout
the county expressed frustration at how difficult it was to know all the child care providers,
food banks, housing agencies, and agencies that provide clothing, furniture, and other
material assistance in all the different towns and neighborhoods where their participants live.
# Working with neighborhood-based programs to provide employment retention
services may require careful planning to assure adequate enrollment.
Working with neighborhood-based programs to provide employment retention services
may require careful planning on the part of county welfare agencies. For example, Rankin
Christian Center proposed serving 300 GAPS participants during its two-year grant period.
However, a year and a half after the program began operating, the program had enrolled only
about half that number. This shortfall suggests that Rankin’s service area may not contain
enough eligible TANF recipients who are interested in employment retention services to
allow Rankin to meet its enrollment goal. Welfare agencies that rely on programs serving
small areas to deliver employment retention services will need to work closely with these
organizations to establish realistic enrollment goals. In addition, welfare agencies will need
to monitor carefully the pace of enrollment into these programs. When shortfalls arise,
welfare agencies may need to make special targeted efforts to recruit participants living
within the service areas of these neighborhood-based programs.
1
Neighborhood Centers initially served only participants from the Northside section of Pittsburgh, its
customary service area. However, after having difficulty generating enough referrals from within its service
area, the agency agreed to accept ACAO referrals from other parts of Allegheny County. As of February 1999,
30 percent of its caseload lived outside the agency’s traditional service area.
64
B. SUPPLEMENTING CASE MANAGEMENT WITH OTHER SERVICES
Evidence from the first year of the GAPS study suggests that newly employed welfare
recipients may be skeptical that case management alone will help them stay employed.
Although GAPS participants liked the supportive counseling and advice they received from
their case managers, in follow-up surveys, many expressed skepticism about the ability of
these services to help them maintain employment. Similarly, recent evidence from the PESD
evaluation suggests that the case management approach to promoting employment retention
may be limited in its ability to improve the economic outcomes of welfare recipients
(Rangarajan and Novak 1998).
The responses of GAPS participants to follow-up surveys suggest that they may want
more tangible services from the program to supplement the counseling, advice, and moral
support that case managers provide. When asked which services that they did not receive
from the program would have been helpful, participants most often mentioned help finding
jobs and help finding and paying for child care and transportation. In this section, we
describe services that employment retention programs might use to supplement and enhance
the case management approach.
# Some participants may need additional assistance to help them cope with
emergencies and cover ongoing work-related expenses.
Although welfare recipients who have left cash assistance for employment often
continue to receive certain benefits and supports, such as food stamps and Transitional Child
Care benefits, some former recipients may require additional assistance to address specific
needs. For example, although child care subsidies are available to welfare recipients in
Allegheny County, evidence from GAPS follow-up surveys suggests that child care costs
remain a substantial issue. Many participants (including those receiving subsidies) reported
monthly out-of-pocket child care expenses of $200 or more, a substantial expense for people
whose average monthly earnings were less than $1,100.2 Employment retention programs
may, therefore, want to consider offering additional child care assistance to some
participants.
Similarly, some participants moving from welfare to work may need additional
assistance with transportation expenses, which differ from child care costs in that few
subsidies are available. Although all GAPS service providers offer participants short-term
help with bus tickets, case managers described participants’ desire for help with monthly bus
passes, car insurance, and other transportation expenses. Employment retention programs
may want to consider offering some participants additional transportation assistance to help
them make initial car payments, cover insurance costs, or purchase monthly bus passes
during their early months of employment.
The economic circumstances of newly employed welfare recipients are often precarious.
Therefore, temporary financial setbacks may jeopardize their employment stability. GAPS
case managers described many financial difficulties that can threaten participants’ ability to
2
As discussed in Chapter 3, the introduction in February 1999 of a new child care assistance program in
Pennsylvania, Child Care Works, may address many of the potential difficulties surrounding use of child care
subsidies. However, out-of-pocket child care expenses will not be reduced under the new program.
65
maintain employment, such as expensive car repairs, overdue rent or utility bills, or large
security deposits required to obtain a new apartment. Employment retention programs may
want to offer participants small loans or grants to help them through a financial crisis, as
some GAPS service providers did. Along with this emergency financial assistance, an
employment retention program can provide budget advice and supportive counseling on
underlying housing, transportation, or other problems.
# Programs that supplement case management with additional tangible services
may have more success at engaging participants and, ultimately, at improving
their economic outcomes.
Providing supplemental services that are of clear tangible benefit to participants may
help employment retention programs, particularly voluntary ones, attract and engage
participants. For example, Rankin provides its participants with smoke detectors, bicycle
helmets for children, and other home safety devices. Although these items are not directly
related to participants’ employment success, Rankin case managers and focus group
attendees indicated that this type of assistance was appreciated and helped convince
participants that program staff cared about them and their families. The fact that the program
offered this specific and tangible help may partly explain the higher levels of program
satisfaction, as well as program contact, among Rankin’s participants.
Similarly, emergency financial assistance may help engage some participants and
ultimately improve their economic outcomes. For example, among the four GAPS service
providers, Hill House provided emergency assistance to the largest fraction of its participants
and provided larger grants than did the other agencies. Hill House’s more frequent use of
this type of assistance may partly explain the better employment outcomes among its
participants.3
# Services that help newly employed welfare recipients improve the reliability of
their child care arrangements may be particularly useful.
According to GAPS participants, breakdowns in child care arrangements occur with
some regularity. Most GAPS participants use relatives or other informal providers to care
for their children, and these arrangements are more prone to breakdown than those with
formal providers, such as day care centers and preschools. For example, at the time of the
follow-up survey, more than 1 in 10 participants who used an informal child care provider
had missed an entire day of work in the previous month. In contrast, among those using day
care centers or other group care arrangements, only 1 in 20 had missed an entire day because
of a child care problem.
Employment retention programs like GAPS may be able to provide services that increase
the reliability of participants’ child care arrangements and thus reduce their risk of missing
time from work. For example, case managers could research the center-based programs in
3
However, as discussed in Chapter V, the GAPS study was not designed to estimate program impacts.
Therefore, the better outcomes among Hill House participants could be attributable to other factors, including
initial differences between them and the participants of the other three GAPS agencies.
66
the neighborhoods where participants live, form working relationships with certain centers,
and even accompany participants on visits to these centers. In follow-up surveys, many
participants said they would change their child care arrangements if cost were not a factor,
and most participants who want different child care arrangements want formal group care.
By helping participants switch from informal providers to day care centers and preschools,
an employment retention program may be able to increase the reliability of the child care
arrangements.
Other participants, however, may prefer to continue using informal child care
arrangements with relatives and friends, because they trust these people with their children,
because some relatives are willing to provide free child care, and because some informal
providers are more readily available during nonstandard work hours. An employment
retention program may be able to improve the reliability of these informal arrangements, and
thus prevent participants from missing work because of child care problems, by providing
them access to emergency child care for use on days when the regular provider cannot work.
For example, the program could reserve a limited number of slots in a day care center or
licensed family day care home for occasional use by participants whose regular arrangements
break down. Participants who need to begin new jobs on short notice could also use these
slots until they make permanent arrangements.
# A greater emphasis on job advancement for newly employed welfare recipients
may be a useful strategy.
Most GAPS participants maintained employment during their first six months in GAPS.
During this period, participants spent, on average, almost 90 percent of their time employed.
Therefore, it does not appear that, during this initial period, the program needed to focus
substantial additional effort to place unemployed participants in new jobs. However, most
participants continued to work for low wages throughout their early months in the program.
At the time of the follow-up survey (conducted 6 to 10 months after participants entered the
program), their wages continued to average about $7.00 an hour. In addition, among
employed GAPS participants, 49 percent indicated on follow-up surveys that they were
currently looking for another job. Since most participants have maintained employment, but
at low wages, and since many employed participants continue to look for new jobs, a greater
program emphasis on job advancement may be appropriate for promoting the economic
success of participants. The fact that participants who began the program with belowaverage wages were at greater risk of unemployment during their early months in the
program also suggests that additional job advancement assistance may be needed.
Employment retention programs can pursue two different strategies to promote job
advancement. First, case managers can encourage participants working at low-wage jobs to
find higher-paying employment. Help with writing and producing resumes, sharpening
interview skills, assessing strengths, and identifying appropriate career goals may also be
useful. In fact, although most participants remained employed throughout their early months
in the program, many indicated on follow-up surveys that they would like the program to
help them more with job search.
Second, programs can help participants obtain the appropriate training to advance to
higher-paid employment. GAPS case managers indicated that most participants would have
67
difficulty adding a long-term training program to their busy schedules of full-time work and
child rearing. However, programs could help participants find, and even pay for, short-term
training activities, such as brief computer software courses.
C. TARGETING EMPLOYMENT RETENTION SERVICES
One useful strategy for programs serving newly employed welfare recipients may be to
focus their limited resources on participants who seem most at risk of job loss.4 Since most
GAPS participants remained employed during their early months in the program, focusing
a higher proportion of program resources on participants who appear at high risk of job loss
may be appropriate. In this section, we discuss lessons learned from the GAPS study on
targeting employment retention services.
# In employment retention programs with limited resources, it may be best to
focus efforts on those who appear at risk of job loss and those who actively
seek help.
More than any other GAPS service provider, Hill House used targeting as a service
delivery strategy. Because their larger caseloads (about 70 participants per case manager
during the period covered by this report) made frequent contact with all their participants
impractical, case managers adopted a strategy of attempting to communicate with most
participants about once a month and targeting less stable and younger participants for more
frequent contact. In addition, the fact that the agency had the highest proportion of
participant-initiated contacts suggests that Hill House, more than any other GAPS service
provider, focused its efforts on participants who actively sought help. In contrast, case
managers at Neighborhood Centers and Rankin attempted contacts with all participants on
a more frequent basis. Case managers at these agencies had smaller caseloads and were able
to set and achieve higher goals for how frequently they contacted their participants. GAPS
participants served by these two agencies were contacted twice as often as were Hill House
participants.5
One might expect, therefore, that participants at Rankin and Neighborhood Centers
would have the best economic outcomes, since these agencies delivered more services to
participants, at least as measured by the frequency of contact. However, during their early
months in the program, Hill House participants had better economic outcomes than similar
participants in Rankin and Neighborhood Centers. For example, a typical Hill House
participant had only a 9 percent chance of becoming unemployed during her first six months
4
See Rangarajan et al. 1998 for a more complete discussion of the merits of targeting certain groups of
welfare recipients for employment retention services.
5
Higher levels of participant contacts at a program could represent one of two things. First, the program
may serve needier participants who require more frequent contact and service provision. Second, the program
may have the necessary resources to make a higher level of participant contacts possible. Given the substantial
differences in caseload sizes across the four GAPS service providers during the early months of program
operations, as well as the relatively small observed differences in the type of participants served across these
programs (see Table II.2), the latter explanation seems more plausible for the more frequent participant contact
by case managers at Rankin and Neighborhood Centers.
68
in GAPS, compared with a 17 percent chance for a similar participant in the other two
programs.
This result suggests that when an agency is faced with the need to serve many
participants, the Hill House strategy of targeting participants who seem most at risk of
unemployment and who actively seek help from the program may be effective. It may also
suggest that moving to caseloads smaller than those at Hill House may not necessarily
improve participants’ outcomes. As discussed earlier, however, since the GAPS study was
not designed to measure program impacts, the better outcomes among Hill House
participants could be the result of other factors, including initial differences in the types of
participants the agency served. Therefore, this finding does not provide definitive evidence
that this service delivery approach would improve participant outcomes.
What types of participants should employment retention programs target for more
frequent contact? Our analysis of the employment outcomes of GAPS participants suggests
that those who had low-wage jobs and no fringe benefits, those who were younger, those who
had health problems, and those who had children during their early months in the program
were at highest risk of unemployment. As they attempt to make the most of their limited
resources, future employment retention programs may want to focus their efforts on these
highest-risk participants.
69
REFERENCES
Haimson, Joshua, and Alan Hershey. “Getting Help to Stay Employed: The Use of
Postemployment Services.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April
1997.
Haimson, Joshua, Alan Hershey, and Anu Rangarajan. “Providing Services to Promote Job
Retention.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 1995.
Rangarajan, Anu, and Tim Novak. “The Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Effectiveness
of the Postemployment Services Demonstration.” Draft report. Princeton, NJ:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., December 1998.
Rangarajan, Anu, Peter Schochet, and Dexter Chu. “Employment Experiences of Welfare
Recipients Who Find Jobs: Is Targeting Possible?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., August 1998.
Rangarajan, Anu. “Keeping Welfare Recipients Employed: A Guide for States Designing
Job Retention Services.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 1998.
Rangarajan, Anu “Taking the First Steps: Helping Welfare Recipients Who Get Jobs Keep
Them.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., November 1996.
Ross, Christine, and Diane Paulsell. “Sustaining Employment Among Low-Income Parents:
The Problems of Inflexible Jobs, Child Care, and Family Support: A Research Review.”
Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., August 1998.
71
APPENDIX A
T
his appendix contains in-depth profiles of each of the four GAPS agencies. Each
profile provides background information about the agency’s history and mission and
a detailed description of its GAPS program. Specifically, the profiles describe
staffing, recruitment, needs assessment and tracking, and services provided through GAPS.
A. HILL HOUSE ASSOCIATION
Hill House Association was formed in 1964 when three community organizations in
Pittsburgh’s Hill District joined together to form a comprehensive social service agency. Hill
House has since evolved into an active community organization that offers senior services,
community development initiatives, a family self-sufficiency program, programs for young
mothers and fathers, and child care and child development services. At its Kauffmann
Program Center, Hill House operates an after-school program for children in grades 1
through 6 and a computer center called the Community Access Network (Hill House CAN).
Hill House also makes space at the Kauffmann Program Center available to the community
for meetings, forums, and other events. The Hill House Center, located in the heart of the
Hill District, provides space to many other human services agencies, including a dental clinic
operated by the health department; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,
Infants, and Children (WIC); Duquesne University’s law and psychology clinics, Mercy
Hospital, and the Housing Authority’s Central Relocation Agency.
GAPS is housed within the Hill House Education and Support Services Department,
which also operates programs for young mothers and fathers and for family self-sufficiency.
The agency’s experience serving recipients of public assistance comes primarily from the
Young Mothers program, which provides General Equivalency Degree (GED) preparation,
an eight-week job readiness course, case management, and referrals for teenage mothers who
receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Initial interest in the GAPS
program grew out of agency staff’s desire to provide employment retention and support
services to women who entered employment after completing the Young Mothers program.
Although most GAPS participants were not in the Young Mothers program, staff have found
that the needs of GAPS and Young Mothers participants are quite similar.
1.
Program Staffing
Initially, the Hill House GAPS program was staffed by a full-time case manager with
more than ten years of experience in criminal justice and drug and alcohol rehabilitation and
three years of experience working in the Young Mothers program. In February 1998, The
Pittsburgh Foundation provided additional funding for a second full-time worker. He is also
a veteran case manager with previous experience in the Hill House senior services program
and in the mental health field. Both case managers maintain weekend and evening office
hours, regularly stop by participants’ homes after work, and call participants from their
homes in the evening. In addition, both case managers carry beepers so that participants can
reach them when they are not in the office.
73
2.
Recruitment
Hill House accepts participants from throughout Allegheny County. Although most Hill
House participants have been referred by the Allegheny County Assistance Office (ACAO),
Hill House also has recruited four former Young Mothers participants. A few participants
have also been referred by other agencies. Within about a day of receiving a referral, Hill
House sends each participant a welcome letter that asks her to contact the GAPS office. If
the participant does not call within three days, case managers follow up by telephone to
briefly explain the program and set up an initial meeting. Participants’ response to the offer
of services has been strong. Of the 150 referrals received during the program’s first nine
months, only 15 did not want to enroll.
3.
Needs Assessment and Tracking
Because of the rapid influx of referrals from the welfare office, initial intake and needs
assessment during the program’s early months was minimal. Case managers asked about the
participants’ jobs, hours worked, and child care arrangements and determined whether they
had up-to-date resumes. Based on the answers and other information participants supplied,
case managers began addressing the most pressing needs, which were usually related to child
care.
After the second case manager was hired and trained, program staff developed an intake
and tracking form for case managers to use for initial intake and ongoing tracking of
participants’ needs. The form collects information in areas that case managers believe to be
indicators of potential employment problems, such as back-up child care arrangements,
transportation methods, transitional benefits, and household budgeting.
Intensity and duration of contact vary according to participants’ needs, but case
managers reported that they try to telephone participants once a month to monitor their
employment status. In addition, case managers said that they try to maintain more frequent
contact with participants who are very young or who are living in more precarious
circumstances.
4.
Types of Services Provided
According to case managers, most contacts with participants involve counseling about
work-related or personal issues. In addition, case managers refer some participants to the
Duquesne Mental Health Clinic for individual therapy and to the Hill Collaborative for
referrals to drug and alcohol treatment programs. Both agencies have offices at the Hill
House Center.
Hill House staff reported that they frequently help participants straighten out problems
or confusion about transitional benefits, especially Transitional Child Care. Case managers,
who often find that participants are not aware of the benefits available to them, regularly
provide this information, intervene with ACAO when problems arise, and help participants
complete application forms.
Hill House established a Critical Need Fund to provide financial assistance to purchase
material goods and services for participants in crisis. Participants must request funds in
writing and work with a case manager to develop a plan (usually a household budget) for
74
preventing the crisis from reoccurring. The director of Education and Support Services
makes all final decisions about grants from the fund, which typically range from $100 to
$200.
Hill House also uses the fund to pay the $25 computer lab fee for Hill House CAN,
which entitles GAPS participants to use lab equipment (computers, printers, E-mail, Internet)
and attend computer classes. The agency also uses money from the fund to purchase bus
tickets for participants.
When participants lose their jobs, case managers refer them to the Family SelfSufficiency program at the Hill House Center, which provides help with resume writing,
clothing for job interviews, mock interviewing, and job listings that are updated daily. Case
managers also help participants with resumes and sometimes refer them directly to job
openings. In addition, GAPS participants have access to the Hill House CAN, where they
can write resumes with a self-directed program, print copies of resumes and letters, and
search the Internet. GAPS participants are also invited to attend job fairs held at the
Kauffman Program Center about every three months. Although some unemployed
participants reapply for TANF on their own, case managers encourage them to seek new jobs
instead.
Most other services are provided through referral. Although Hill House supplies some
material assistance directly, case managers usually refer participants to other organizations
for food, clothing, furniture, and household goods. When participants want to seek education
and training, Hill House case managers provide information about area training centers and
community colleges. For help with housing, case managers make referrals to the housing
authority’s Central Relocation Agency, the Urban League of Pittsburgh, and a housing
agency located at the Hill House Center. Referrals are also made for help with the Earned
Income Credit (EIC) and to child care providers, counseling programs, alcohol and drug
treatment programs, and health care providers, many of which are located at the Hill House
Center.
B. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSOCIATION
Neighborhood Centers Association, a community-based, multiservice agency, has served
Pittsburgh’s Northside for more than a century. The agency operates a variety of programs
for primarily low-income residents at two Northside locations--Manchester House and the
Limbach Community Center. The GAPS program is headquartered at Manchester house,
near the homes of many GAPS participants. Neighborhood Centers has five programs
involving services to help children, including abuse and neglect prevention, parenting
education, and intervention for families in crisis. Social activities, recreation, nutrition
services, counseling, and outreach are provided to senior citizens in two Northside locations.
Services for youth include an after-school program, a summer free-lunch program, a summer
youth employment program, a gang violence prevention initiative, and a recreation program.
Other services include Dollar Energy (a program that helps low-income residents pay gas and
electric bills) and a program that provides free eyeglasses to low-income people.
Neighborhood Centers also operates the Family Service Program, which provides
support services to low-income families, most of whom receive public assistance. Although
it does not focus specifically on employment, the Family Service Program provides similar
services to those provided through the GAPS program. For example, the Family Service
75
Program and GAPS both provide supportive counseling, life skills education (budgeting,
comparison shopping, healthy meal preparation), and referrals. The Family Service Program
is funded by the Allegheny County Department of Federal Programs.
Staff interest in the GAPS program grew out of experience operating the Family Service
Program at Neighborhood Centers. GAPS meets a previously unmet need for former Family
Service Program participants, because the Neighborhood Centers did not have resources to
continue providing followup and support to participants who left public assistance for
employment. Although services provided through GAPS are more focused on maintaining
employment, the agency used the Family Support Program model to design its GAPS
program.
1.
Program Staffing
Three case managers spend 75 percent of their time on GAPS and 25 percent on the
Family Support Program. In addition, a life skills specialist spends 40 percent of her time
on GAPS and 60 percent on the Family Support Program. Case managers refer participants
to the life skills specialist for instruction on specific topics, like shopping for work clothes.
She also provides transportation for medical appointments and picks up food bank allotments
for participants if they are at work. All case managers have from nine months to 10 years of
experience working for Neighborhood Centers in the Family Support Program. The life
skills specialist is experienced in home health care.
Case managers work flexible hours so that they can conduct home visits during evenings
and on weekends. Staff work from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. when no evening home visits are
scheduled, and they can work until 9 P.M. and on Saturdays as needed to visit participants.
When staff work evenings and weekends, Neighborhood Centers permits them either to work
a later shift (for example, 11 A.M. to 7 P.M.) or to use “flextime” to leave work early on
another day.
Neighborhood Centers requires staff to complete 40 hours of training each year. In
addition to Learning Community meetings sponsored by The Pittsburgh Foundation, the
GAPS supervisor has brought in staff from area employment services programs to train staff
on providing reemployment services, and a representative from the Urban League of
Pittsburgh provided training on housing issues.
2.
Recruitment
Initially, Neighborhood Centers restricted its GAPS program to residents of the
Northside, its traditional service area. However, because the agency did not receive enough
referrals from the welfare office, it began accepting participants from anywhere in Allegheny
County and now serves Southside neighborhoods, McKeesport, and other communities.
Case managers reported that they try to telephone potential participants within a day or so
of receiving a referral and are usually able to arrange initial meetings within two weeks.
During the initial meeting, which usually lasts between 30 and 60 minutes and often takes
place during home visits, the case manager describes the program, completes an intake form,
and asks the participant to sign a consent form.
76
3.
Needs Assessment and Tracking
Case managers conduct an initial needs assessment by completing an intake sheet that
collects basic information about children, household composition, income, and employment
and gathers participants’ needs in detail. Case managers use monthly assessment forms and
narrative contact logs to track participants’ progress and ongoing needs over time.
Case managers reported that they try to complete at least one home visit per month with
each participant, because they think that such visits produce more successful service
outcomes. When a home visit is not possible, case managers talk with participants by
telephone. With participants’ permission, case managers also meet with participants at or
near their worksites during lunch or other breaks. According to agency staff, virtually all
services are provided in participants’ homes or other community locations or by telephone,
rather than in the GAPS offices.
4.
Types of Services Provided
Supportive counseling, the most used service of Neighborhood Centers, is generally
provided by case managers during home visits. Topics of sessions include time and money
management, self-esteem, work issues (proper dress, interviewing skills, how to address a
previous job loss during an interview), appropriate communication with employers, and
personal relationship problems. Most participants also receive life skills instruction on such
topics as comparison shopping and budgeting.
Case managers reported that they spend some time helping participants obtain
transitional benefits available through the welfare department. While a few participants have
needed help with Transitional Child Care, most already have this benefit when they enter the
program. However, case managers have found that participants are not aware of all the
transitional benefits for which they are eligible.
Neighborhood Centers has a small loan fund and a tangible-aid fund to help GAPS
participants with financial crises. The loan fund provides up to $200 for emergency needs,
such as car or appliance repairs. To receive a loan, participants must sign a contract and pay
back a small amount each month (with no interest). The tangible-aid fund is a last resort to
help with crises, and participants do not have to repay the fund. Tangible-aid funds have
been used for car repairs, car inspection, bus passes, and food vouchers. When participants
request the funds, they must show that the funds are for a one-time purchase and develop a
plan for preventing the situation from reoccurring. Typical tangible-aid grants are less than
$100.
To help unemployed participants find jobs, case managers review basic job search
strategies, provide job lists from Goodwill and other employment newspapers, and provide
lists of employment agencies. Case managers also provide pamphlets that contain
instructions for resume writing, as well as sample resumes. Managers direct participants who
need to prepare resumes to computers and typewriters available at the public library;
sometimes Neighborhood Centers secretaries prepare resumes for participants. While
Neighborhood Centers does not hold job fairs, case managers encourage participants to
attend job fairs held by Goodwill and Hill House Association.
Neighborhood Centers provide other services through referral. Case managers refer
participants to food banks, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and other similar agencies for
77
material assistance and provide some items, such as food vouchers, eyeglasses, and
children’s clothing, directly. Other referrals are made to agencies such as the Urban League
of Pittsburgh for help with housing and to tax preparation volunteers for help with the EIC.
C. RANKIN CHRISTIAN CENTER
Rankin Christian Center is a 94-year-old community organization that began as a
settlement house for Eastern European immigrants. It serves Rankin, Braddock, and Turtle
Creek, now mostly small African American communities of 2,000 to 7,000 people. For the
past nine years, Rankin has worked in partnership with Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh to
operate a family support center called the Family Care Connection (FCC). This collaboration
began when Children’s Hospital wanted to focus child abuse prevention services on high-risk
communities within Allegheny County and selected Rankin and neighboring communities
as target service areas.
FCC provides a wide range of family support, health, and educational programs. For
example, it operates the First Steps program, an intensive program of prenatal outreach and
care and ongoing family support. While First Steps focuses on health services, it also
identifies families at risk of child abuse and intervenes with support and respite services. In
addition, FCC provides emergency food assistance, literacy programs, a summer breakfast
and lunch program, after-school tutoring, recreation programs, a summer day camp, and a
Head Start program. Rankin also provides CPR training for the community, aerobics classes,
workshops on asthma and healthy eating, and children’s play groups. Many GAPS
participants live near Rankin’s offices, some even within walking distance. Thus, they are
easily able to enjoy virtually all the services and programs of Rankin and FCC.
Most GAPS participants already have experience with Rankin and FCC, primarily
through First Steps. Rankin’s decision to apply for GAPS funding arose from the recognition
that, while more and more local residents were getting jobs, they still faced problems that
jeopardized their employment and needed support to continue working.
1.
Program Staffing
FCC has a staff of 18, made up of both Rankin and Children’s Hospital employees,
including nurses, child development specialists, a housing advocate, a drug/alcohol
counselor, a mental health counselor, family support workers, GAPS case managers, and
Americorps volunteers.
The GAPS program is staffed by two case managers and one Americorps volunteer, all
former welfare recipients. One case manager and the Americorps volunteer are working
toward associate’s degrees. Both case managers began at Rankin as Americorps volunteers
and were hired as new employees to work with the GAPS program. In addition to
supervision and training for all employees, Rankin has provided some specialized training
for GAPS staff, including training on the EIC provided by a tax expert.
GAPS staff work flexible hours, including evenings when necessary, to accommodate
participants’ work schedules. An FCC staff person is on call 24 hours a day so participants
can always get in touch with someone. All staff, including GAPS case managers, rotate this
78
responsibility. GAPS staff also carry beepers so participants can reach them easily. Staff
regularly call participants from their homes in the evening.
2.
Recruitment
Because the welfare office was not able to generate enough referrals to the program,
Rankin began its own recruitment effort. FCC staff identified people in the service area who
had been on TANF and had recently begun working. GAPS staff made presentations to
many groups that meet at Rankin (for example, children’s play groups) and to all the area
service providers who operate job readiness programs under contract with the Pennsylvania
Department of Public Welfare (DPW). Because most community residents are familiar with
Rankin and many have participated in First Steps or other Rankin programs, their response
to the offer of services was positive.
GAPS case managers try to keep their first contact with potential participants very lowkey. They enroll the participant but do not attempt to collect detailed intake information.
Instead, the case manager provides a brief description of the program and follows up by
mailing the participant a calendar for writing down appointments.
3.
Needs Assessment and Tracking
GAPS case managers reported that, rather than conduct a formal assessment with
participants, they work with participants to help them identify and clarify their own goals.
After the initial meeting, staff attempt to contact participants twice each month, usually by
phone calls and home visits.
In addition to regular contact, staff have used several strategies to build trust, so that
participants will feel comfortable asking for help when they need it. For example, Rankin
has received several small grants to operate a home safety inspection program and a bicycle
safety program. FCC staff have gone to 60 homes to do safety inspections and deliver free
safety kits containing smoke detectors, safety latches, and other supplies. In addition, they
have given participants free bicycle helmets for their children.
4.
Types of Services Provided
GAPS staff think that counseling sessions are the most important service they provide.
Virtually all of Rankin’s participants need support, encouragement, and help to develop plans
for approaching both their employment-related and their personal problems.
According to the GAPS case managers, other commonly provided services include
material assistance, as well as help with transitional benefits, child care, and housing. While
Rankin does not have funds for emergency financial assistance, the agency does provide
some in-kind material assistance, such as furniture, diapers, and bus tickets. GAPS case
managers intervene with the welfare office on a regular basis when participants either do not
know they are eligible for transitional benefits or have problems obtaining them, usually for
child care and medical assistance. Rankin helps participants find child care by providing lists
of licensed or registered providers who have space available.
Assistance resolving housing problems has been a major benefit for several GAPS
participants. Rankin has a full-time housing advocate on staff who is available to help GAPS
79
participants resolve housing problems. On behalf of Rankin participants, he regularly
interacts with three housing authorities, the local U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) office, landlords, property managers, and public utility companies.
During the program’s first nine months of operation, only a handful of Rankin’s 105
GAPS participants had lost their jobs, and most were able to find new ones quickly.
Consequently, the agency had focused most of its efforts on providing family support, rather
than on employment services.
D. URBAN LEAGUE OF PITTSBURGH
The Urban League of Pittsburgh is an 80-year-old community organization with the
mission of improving the quality of life for African Americans in the Greater Pittsburgh area.
The Urban League, which is located in an office building in downtown Pittsburgh, offers
services in employment, education, housing, youth development, early childhood
development, and other areas and has recently opened a charter school. The Urban League’s
services are open to all Allegheny County residents, regardless of race or ethnicity.
According to agency officials, the Urban League applied for GAPS funding because
Urban League leadership felt that GAPS was aligned with the agency’s core mission.
Because many other programs the Urban League operates serve welfare recipients, the agency
already had extensive experience with the target population. Furthermore, GAPS provides
the agency with an opportunity to work with participants on a long-term basis, something that
the Urban League is seldom able to do in many of its other programs. Finally, the Urban
League views GAPS as part of the larger welfare reform movement and sees it as a good
opportunity to get involved as new programs and policies take shape.
1.
Program Staffing
The Urban League’s GAPS program is staffed by two full-time case managers. Although
the program began with only one GAPS case manager, The Pittsburgh Foundation provided
additional funding for a second case manager in February 1998. One case manager has a B.S.
in business management and experience providing social services in the areas of drug and
alcohol addiction and AIDS/HIV. The second case manager has experience in drug and
alcohol rehabilitation services. Both case managers were new hires without experience at
the Urban League.
Urban League case managers work regular business hours, as well as two evenings a
week and occasional weekends. One case manager carries a beeper so that participants can
contact her at any time. The other case manager gives participants her home telephone
number. Both case managers are on call to participants 24 hours a day. Because about half
the Urban League’s participants live in outlying areas of Allegheny County, such as East
Pittsburgh and McKeesport (15 to 20 miles from the Urban League office), both case
managers spend a great deal of time traveling to meet with participants in or near their homes
or worksites.
80
2.
Recruitment
The Urban League has recruited all its GAPS participants through the county welfare
office, which made so many referrals that the agency had to maintain a large waiting list for
several months. Hiring a second case manager in February 1998 eased this situation.
After case managers make initial contact with potential participants, they set up a faceto-face meeting, usually in the participant’s home, to complete both a detailed intake form
and a shorter needs assessment form. The intake form asks a detailed set of questions that
cover many areas, including employment history, education level, family background, arrest
history, health status (including mental health and substance abuse problems), child care
arrangements, personal interests, and social services used. The needs assessment form is a
checklist of potential barriers to employment; it covers such topics as child care,
transportation, clothing for work, health insurance, and lack of workplace skills.
3.
Needs Assessment and Tracking
Once the intake process is completed, case managers try to contact participants once a
month to track their progress. During the first nine months of program operations, case
managers reported that they were successful a little less often. While most of these follow-up
contacts are made by telephone, some are made in person, usually in participants’ homes or
in public meeting places near their homes or workplaces. Regular followup, especially faceto-face contact, is challenging for the Urban League, because such a large portion of their
caseload lives far from the Urban League office.
4.
Types of Services Provided
Urban League case managers devote much of their time to providing supportive
counseling, as they find that many participants just need someone to listen to them and
provide reassurance. Counseling sessions often cover work-related issues, including
guidance about proper dress and behavior at work, and for those with temporary or part-time
jobs, guidance about upgrading to full-time positions. Other common counseling topics
include money management, parenting issues, family problems, and domestic violence.
The Urban League also provides help with child care, primarily by helping participants
obtain Transitional Child Care and Child Care Partnership funds. Case managers help
participants fill out paperwork, provide orientation about the steps required to obtain the
benefits, and coach them through contacts with the welfare office. In April 1998, the agency
sponsored a workshop about obtaining Child Care Partnership funds that was attended by 13
GAPS participants. In addition, the Urban League helps some participants identify
appropriate child care providers in their communities.
Many of the Urban League’s GAPS participants experienced a job loss during the first
few months of enrollment, often when placements obtained through temporary agencies
ended. The Urban League’s GAPS case managers offer assistance with resume writing and
interview skills on an individual basis. However, the program does not have the resources
to provide direct help with job readiness instruction or job training. For this reason, case
managers refer participants to other providers for these services. Staff have invested
considerable time in learning about employment services available through other providers.
81
Participants can also access the Urban League’s employment department, which
maintains a job bank of available positions and offers employment counseling services.
Although the employment department does not offer assistance in resume writing or
reproduction, it will fax participants’ resumes to potential employers and provide participants
with job leads.
Other common services the Urban League’s GAPS program provides include limited
transportation assistance and referrals for material assistance and help with housing. To help
with transportation, the Urban League provides participants with up to a week’s worth of bus
tickets. Although the program has few resources to provide financial or material assistance
directly, case managers refer participants to other agencies for in-kind help with food,
furniture, clothing, and children’s toys during the holiday season. Case managers also have
referred about one-third of their participants to the Urban League’s housing assistance office
for help with impending evictions or inadequate housing. Housing assistance, historically
one of the major services of the Urban League, includes counseling, emergency shelter
grants, and a home ownership program.
GAPS case managers also help participants reapply for TANF after a job loss. Case
managers encourage them to return to TANF while they look for a new job, because this
enables them to obtain employment and job training services and transitional benefits when
they return to work. Urban League case managers have also helped a few participants with
sufficient work history to obtain unemployment compensation benefits.
82
APPENDIX B
GAPS SERVICE USE LOG FORMS
EXHIBIT B.1
SERVICE USE LOG FOR THE GAPS PROGRAM
Participant Name:
(1)
Date
(MM/DD/YR)
MPRID #:
(2)
Mode
(3)
Initiated
By
(4)
Contact
With
GAPS Worker Name:
(5)
Service Type(s)
(Up to 4 Entries)
(6)
Time Spent in
Minutes
Program:
(7)
Notes
85
EXHIBIT B.2
THE GAPS INITIATIVE: EMPLOYMENT RETENTION PROGRAM
SERVICE USE LOG CODE SHEET
Mode of Contact
Telephone
Letter or memo
Face to face in GAPS office
Face to face at client’s workplace
Face to face at client’s home
Face to face at other community location
Group meeting or training
TEL
LET
OFF
JOB
HOM
PUB
GRP
Contact Initiated by
86
GAPS staff
Client
Employer
Other agency staff
GAP
CLI
EMP
OTH
Party Contacted
GAPS staff
Client
Employer
Other agency staff
Family
GAP
CLI
EMP
OTH
FAM
Services Rendered (indicate up to four)
Monitoring and Contact Attempts
General contact to check on client status/progress
Effort to locate client’s whereabouts
Initial contact
Initial assessment
Call to client with no answer or left message
CHK
LOC
INC
INA
NOA
Participation in Peer Support Group (Case Manager Led)
PRG
Discussion Concerning
Workplace behavior or ethics
Resolving workplace conflicts/negotiating workplace conditions
Parenting skills
Money management
WPB
WPC
PRS
MMG
Discussion Concerning (continued)
Consumer skills
Time management
Housing issues
Problems in family and relationships
Alcohol/drug issues
Nutrition issues
Transportation
Violence, abuse, discord
General goals and contingency planning
Health issues
Morale/self-esteem
Help Gaining Access to Services and Benefits
Help applying for or resolving problems concerning TANF or food stamps
Help applying for Earned Income Tax Credit
Help obtaining child care benefits, including transitional child care
Help finding child care or dealing with child care problems
Help applying for or resolving questions or problems concerning Medicaid
Help with other health insurance
Help finding medical care provider
Referral to education or training
Help with clothing/furnishings
General referral (to other agencies for housing, legal aid, food, clothing, mental health,
etc.)
Followup on referral (to determine if services were pursued or provided)
Provision of
Emergency financial help
In-kind material help (clothing, furniture, household goods, etc.)
Food assistance
Emergency shelter
Transportation services
Help Finding Employment
General job search advice
Job placement help (calls to employers, help setting appointments, rides to interviews,
etc.)
Job club (led by case manager)
Advancement assistance (advice to currently employed client on finding a better job)
Job Fair
CSK
TIM
HOU
FAM
ALC
NUT
TRP
VAA
CTG
HLT
MOR
WEL
EIT
CCB
CCP
MED
HEA
AMC
JTR
CLF
GRF
FUR
FIN
MAT
FDA
ESH
TRS
JSA
JPL
JCL
ADV
JFR