V. Service-Focused Employment Preparation

Targeted toward the “hard-to-employ,” this approach focuses on strategies to improve the employability of welfare recipients experiencing a range of conditions that pose special barriers or challenges to successful participation in employment preparation or training activities, and ultimately employment.4 While there are many kinds of barriers that can reduce welfare recipients’ ability to engage in employment preparation and succeed in the job market, an intensive service-focused approach is often used when addressing conditions not attributable to external forces (e.g., lack of child care or transportation) and that may in fact be treatable, controllable, or reversible with adequate and appropriate resources. These barriers include physical disabilities, mental health issues, substance abuse, learning disabilities, domestic violence, and homelessness. Research also suggests that welfare recipients often experience multiple barriers to employment and suffer from one of more of these conditions (Danziger et al 2000; Zedlewski 1999).

Research shows that even the most successful welfare-to-work initiatives for the “most disadvantaged” welfare recipients increase earnings about the same as they do for less disadvantaged groups. However, because the earnings of this hard-to-employ group are so low they are far from achieving economic well-being (Bloom and Butler forthcoming; Michalopoulos and Schwartz 2000). While studies have shown a supported work approach (discussed in the next section) can have success with a hard-to-employ population, there are few studies that have examined whether specialized services that focus on specific barriers can improve employment and economic outcomes. One exception is the Substance Abuse Research Demonstration, an experimental evaluation of a case management intervention for women on TANF who were substance abusers. The intervention used a combination of services, sanctions, and incentives to get these women to first participate in treatment and then transition to employment and leave welfare. The program increased participation in treatment and led to some reductions in substance use, but these gains did not translate into impacts on employment and earnings (Morgenstern et al. 2002).5

Because of the continued lack of success of the hard-to-employ in many TANF employment programs, states and localities increased their attention on implementing strategies to identify barriers and provide interventions to alleviate barriers, particularly in the late 1990s when welfare caseloads were declining and ample resources were available (Martinson and Holcomb 2002). In general, we found from discussions with experts and scanning programs and initiatives for hard-to-employ welfare recipients, that while some interesting efforts have occurred in the area of supported employment (see section VI), most initiatives focused on hard-to-employ welfare recipients appear more oriented toward a service and treatment approach.6 Particularly because of the continued level of interest in approaches than include services designed to address specific employment barriers and their potential to address a cause of low earnings, we include this approach as one that is important to consider in future program development and evaluation.

Models in this area range from those that take a “treat first” approach, emphasizing preparing individuals for employment by reducing the barrier to the point that an individual can take advantage of more employment-oriented activities, to those that integrate employment and treatment interventions in some fashion (Farrell and Elkin 2006). Because of the welfare system’s strong emphasis on employment, we focus on service-oriented programs that provide some integration of treatment and employment. However, while this employment focus is an important aspect of this approach, its primary emphasis is on identifying barriers through assessment, determining interventions, and providing or arranging for services or treatment.

Although the design of a service-focused approach varies by the type of limitation, elements that are commonly identified as important include the following (Bliss, London, and Tanguay 2005; Brown 2001; Danziger and Seefeldt 2002; Farrell and Elkin 2006; Holcomb and Thompson 2000; Pavetti and Kauff 2006):

• Screening and comprehensive assessments for barrier identification. While it is important for assessments to be thorough, given the difficulties faced in maintaining consistent attendance among those with severe barriers, emphasis should also be on developing and using assessment tools that can be completed relatively quickly.

• A plan to assess progress and determine next steps that is regularly monitored and updated. The plan should encompass short-term, intermediate, and long-term goals. Regular and frequent communication between case managers and clients is important.

• Partnering with other public and community-based organizations that provide expertise with the barrier being addressed (e.g., substance abuse, mental health). This includes cross-program or -agency efforts to coordinate services and build on existing expertise and case conferences that facilitate joint decision-making.

• Maintaining a focus on employment and financial goals. While some individuals may require intensive interventions, strategies should be developed that maintain a focus on employment as the ultimate goal and establish clear (although perhaps small) steps appropriate toward this goal, such as participation in job readiness or financial management classes or in subsidized or sheltered employment options.

Appendix table A.1 outlines several programs we identified that are strong examples of this service approach in terms of the activities offered, the ways in which employment services are incorporated, and their structure (e.g., partnerships for treatment and services). Two programs are in Minnesota and are part of the state’s Integrated Services Project, which seeks to coordinate services across a range of delivery systems for TANF recipients approaching their time limits. The Partnerships for Family Success (PFS) program in Anoka County provides a team-based approach for working with TANF families with multiple barriers. The program is staffed by an interagency team with expertise in child protection, criminal justice, public health, vocational rehabilitation, and mental health. Participants continue to work with TANF staff on employment issues while enrolled in PFS. An initiative in Ramsey County seeks to address the needs of TANF recipients with mental health problems by integrating staff with mental health rehabilitation expertise into the county TANF program. Certified mental health workers focus on a treatment plan with functional goals, while individuals continue to participate in the TANF program.

Two other examples of this approach operate in New York City, where intensive efforts have been made to address the needs of hard-to-employ welfare recipients. These include WeCARE (Wellness, Comprehensive Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Employment), a recently implemented initiative by the Human Resources Agency in New York City (see box 2) and the Substance Abuse Case Management (SACM) program in the Bronx. SACM provides substance abuse and case management services to those diagnosed with an abuse problem, and makes immediate referrals to intensive employment services once participants are stabilized and making progress in treatment services.7