Not all One-Stop clients have the same abilities or employment needs, and by design, not all clients will receive the same services. The intent of the inverted pyramid model of One-Stop service delivery is to provide multiple points of access to a variety of services, beginning with easily accessed self-service opportunities and culminating with intensive, one-on-one services for clients with the greatest needs.
Many of the early One-Stop models were initially designed to assist dislocated workers re-tool their skills and careers, helping them help themselves and opening opportunities for lifelong learning as they adjust their skills to changes in the economy. However, a robust economic recovery has eagerly absorbed much of this experienced labor pool, often transforming One-Stop centers into employer recruitment centers rather than career make-over centers. In this context, the self-service job matching and education, training, and career planning systems in most of the model One-Stops have proven to be more than adequate to service the experienced labor force.
With the advent of welfare reforms at the federal and state level, One-Stop systems have been thrust into the somewhat different role of helping individuals with relatively few skills and little work experience enter the labor force. This has brought a whole new set of partners, funding sources, and clients to the One-Stop concept. Under this new mandate, it is important to ask which of the One-Stop's customer groups are being well served - and whether any of these customer groups are being underserved by the different models examined. While this is not an attempt to evaluate individual One-Stop systems, it is intended to recognize that One-Stop clients in general, and TANF recipients in particular, are not homogeneous groups, but rather have diverse abilities and needs that may or may not be well-served by different service delivery models.
This chapter examines the issues of access, services, and follow-up in the One-Stop models - what happens at the front end, the middle, and the end. This assessment is then placed in the evolutionary context of One-Stop systems by asking what might happen to these designs in the event of the next economic recession.
There are several points at which TANF recipients may have difficulty in gaining access to the employment and training services provided by One-Stop systems. First is the challenge of getting TANF recipients through the door, given that some are reluctant to participate on their own. Second, there may be issues of location and logistics affected by system design. And finally, there are issues of retention and follow-through with this population.
In Tarrant County, the lack of tight work requirements (64.5 percent of TANF recipients are exempt from state work requirements) is compounded by the fact that benefit levels are very low, suggesting that those who continue to remain on the welfare rolls have very little in the way of skills or work experience. Not surprisingly, our focus group discussions indicate that those TANF recipients with the least skills or experience are also the most reluctant to participate in work search, making it doubly difficult to get this segment of the TANF population to actively engage One-Stop services. This was evident in discussions with management and staff about client flow through the Resource Center and local participation rates. This is not to say that as a group, TANF recipients are reluctant to work. Probably at least a third of the current and former TANF participants in our focus groups indicated that they had sought or would have sought One-Stop services without requirement or prodding. Additional TANF participants told stories of seeking out employment assistance once they had stabilized their personal and family circumstances, without being forced to do so. Several spoke of earlier, unsuccessful work or work search experiences. Nonetheless, a significant portion were clear about appreciating a "kick in the butt," as one participant put it.
What happens to those who fall between the cracks? In Kenosha, anecdotal information suggests that many find employment on their own, with a small increase in homelessness and doubling-up of families. Many of those that drop out but are unsuccessful end up re-registering - only 10 percent to 20 percent of the registrants are new to the system, about one-quarter are persons who have been through the program before, and most of the rest are repeaters who didn't make it through orientation the first time. In Iowa, just over half of those placed on LBP decide to participate in the program and have their benefits restored (before losing them entirely), and nearly two-thirds of those who don't decide to participate drop out of the LBP early as well - this latter group tends to be slightly older and better educated, suggesting better employment prospects.(17)
The dramatic fall-off of TANF applicants between registration and orientation to One-Stop services is not encouraging. However, given that this fall-off occurs almost regardless of whether the welfare office is co-located with the One-Stop suggests that many TANF applicants are either intimidated or turned-off by the work requirements: this fall-off does not appear to be related to confusion over where to turn for help or how to find the One-Stop office. For those TANF applicants with such low self-esteem that work search is intimidating, this pattern suggests that more outreach may be necessary to engage them in One-Stop services. However, none of the One-Stop sites seemed to have sufficient resources to permit this kind of outreach, and referrals to other agencies for mental health services seemed to be problematic at best.
One possible approach to this problem, at least for access to One-Stop services, would be to provide computer-based communication networks for One-Stop clients. These connections could be provided either through personal computers or via the facilities of partners with multiple locations, such as schools, libraries, and other public agencies. While some of the job-matching services are currently available in this manner at some of the sites (including the use of kiosks), we did not encounter much discussion of this approach to providing services to TANF clientele (beyond Michigan's experience with "smart cards").(18) Given the current evolutionary status of shared data systems, it is understandable that this kind of approach may be contemplated, but simply has not yet been developed. Alternatively, both clients and service providers may be concerned about the lack of confidentiality of some electronic communications such as e-mail.
The efficiencies created as employment services are integrated are creating concerns among front line staff about potential staff reductions, particularly as TANF caseloads decline. Long term funding plans in at least one state visited suggest that this concern is not unfounded, raising several important questions about the purpose and design of service integration.
One of the key factors helping to propel federally funded employment agencies toward One-Stop models is the long term decline in funding for these services. During the last two decades, federal funding for many of the basic job matching services has remained roughly constant in nominal terms, creating a significant decline in terms of the purchasing power of these resources. As a result, it has become increasingly difficult for states to continue to provide employment services in a staff intensive manner where employment counselors meet and work individually with job seekers. By moving to a One-Stop model, the intent is to use new, electronic or computer technologies to provide wider access to a broad spectrum of employment services on a self-serve basis, and target more intensive, one-on-one assistance for those relatively few clients with more complex needs.
In essence, this approach, often referred to as the "inverted pyramid" model, is intended to reallocate scarce resources to improve service to job seekers and employers. In many cases, both of these customer groups are capable of gaining more access to more information and services under a self-serve model than under the traditional gate-keeper model of employment agencies. Job-seekers can access computerized data bases at the One-Stop or from off-site and post their own resume and conduct their own job search, while employers can post their job listings and do key-word searches to recruit employees through posted resumes. Jointly staffed, self-service resources at the One-Stop should also free up staff time to provide more in-depth assistance to high need clients, such as long term TANF beneficiaries with few labor market skills or start-up businesses. While these benefits were affirmed by the One-Stop models examined, several focus groups also raised questions about whether the One-Stop model under current welfare reforms and work requirements tends to "invert the pyramid and cut off the bottom."
In particular, some of the One-Stop staff and current participant groups were concerned that the resources derived from efficiencies on the self-service end of the pyramid may not be reallocated to helping families with multiple problems. Instead, they fear that these efficiencies may be used to justify a slowdown in budget increases (less than inflation) or staff reductions for the primary partners, while poorly prepared parents are being pushed into the labor market with insufficient preparation. This is of particular concern for clients without a high school education, little or no work experience, and substance abuse or physical or mental health problems.
It was our sense in talking with managers, staff, and clients, that those TANF clients best served by the One-Stop model tend to be persons who are capable of meeting their needs through self-service, or would benefit from adult education, life skills training, job search workshops, and general motivational counseling. The groups that may not fare as well are those with substance abuse or physical or mental health problems, in part because One-Stop services do not appear to be well equipped for identifying these problems and working with them. Several case managers argued that while these clients may certainly be employable, they may not be able to stay employed for long periods of time or find employment that will lead to self-sufficiency.(19) Further, it is unclear whether their referral networks are strong enough to ensure that clients with these difficulties are served well by the entire system - that they are not simply "handed off" and thus disconnected from whatever benefits they might derive from employment related services.
The challenge of serving clients with multiple problems is becoming greater for One-Stops in areas where TANF caseloads have declined the most. In most of the locations visited, between 20 percent and 30 percent of TANF clients are "high needs" cases that require one-on-one assistance. Typically these are clients who are much less likely to make a successful transition to self-sufficiency ("who will never get off," according to one caseworker), and who also require significantly more staff resources than the typical TANF client who is searching for employment. As TANF caseloads decline dramatically, these more difficult, resource-intensive cases will account for a higher percentage of the total caseload. This was noted in Marshalltown, where the statewide number of PROMISE JOBS cases has declined from 40,000 to 28,000 in recent years. A similar pattern was emphasized in Kenosha, where the number of welfare cases has fallen by two-thirds, but staff estimate that only 20 percent of the current welfare referrals to employment services are new to the welfare system.(20)
Despite the dramatic declines in the number of TANF cases in places like Iowa and Wisconsin, caseloads do not seem to have declined for other services such as Food Stamps, child care, or medical assistance. Nowhere is this pattern more apparent than in Wisconsin, where food, child care, and health care assistance have been "de-linked" to welfare eligibility. State spending on these assistance programs has actually risen, and at the same time, the administration of these cases has become more complex as economic support specialists must now assess family needs for these services based on independent sets of qualifying criteria. Nonetheless, state policy makers in Wisconsin have indicated their expectation that staff resources can be reduced in the future due to declines in welfare caseloads.
This pattern is clearly unsettling to many caseworkers, and certainly raises questions about how much depth of service One-Stops are expected to provide for clients with high needs. It also calls into question whether the objective of work requirements is to simply lower TANF caseloads by moving clients into low-wage jobs or to provide sufficient and in some cases long term economic support for working parents to gain the experience and skills to become self-sufficient.
The difficulties with repeat referrals and job retention raise several important questions about the efficacy of follow-up contacts to One-Stop drop outs and program completers. Most of the One-Stop systems visited were well accustomed to conducting follow-up surveys for JOBS clients, typically at 90-days or in some cases, four months following exit from the program. However, few indicated that they conducted any systematic follow-ups to offer services for continuing training/education or counseling on job conflicts and job retention.
In many respects, it is probably appropriate that One-Stop staff not be too aggressive in pursuing welfare applicants or recipients who have been referred for employment services but fail to show up or drop out. Some of these people will undoubtedly find employment on their own, while others may simply prefer to not receive welfare payments, or prefer a short term, reduced payment, rather than engage in welfare-to-work programs. In all of these instances, the referred client is exercising choice in a manner that may effectively screen out those welfare referrals who lack the motivation to engage and complete the programs offered at the One-Stop. However, there may be some referred clients who face logistical hurdles, or who have significant, compounding problems that either emerged recently or were not picked up in the initial assessment by the welfare agency. While none of the sites identified any useful mechanisms for being alert to these possibilities, the development of some sort of strategy for improving early engagement could prove to be valuable, both for the clients but also for the efficient allocation of One-Stop staff resources. Our sense is that for most TANF clients that make it through the initial orientation period, One-Stop staff typically have the opportunity to try and address these issues before the clients drop out.
Some sort of triage strategy in following up with program completers may also valuable. Some of the staff in Tarrant County indicated that they do some follow-up work with completers, but didn't relate any particular organized approach. At most sites, much of the follow-up contact with program completers seemed to occur either through recidivism or through personal friendships developed between clients and staff during the One-Stop experience. This latter contact seemed to be somewhat more prevalent in the rural areas, but was frequently mentioned in focus groups with program completers.(21) Clearly, some follow-up contacts targeted to clients most likely to have difficulty retaining employment might be aimed at dealing with job conflicts and other home/work logistical issues that would improve employment retention. For the most part, this kind of follow-up is not practiced due to the limitations of time and resources, and it does not appear that any of the sites have done any systematic analysis that would allow them to target those clients most likely to have difficulty retaining employment.
As noted earlier, former participants were very clear about the changes necessary for most One-Stop systems in order to be useful in expanding education and training opportunities to help former welfare recipients move beyond entry-level work and wages. Evening and weekend hours and child care during these times were perhaps the most important ingredients in promoting lifelong learning for these clients. In most respects, these needs are likely to be quite similar to the needs of other mainstream, working families that seek to boost their careers and standards of living. If One-Stop systems are to truly become "career centers," they will need to redesign their services to more closely match the needs of their customers, including those who are currently working. Only through this kind of redesign will One-Stops be able to fully address the lifelong education and training aspects of the One-Stop concept.
The shift in focus from economic dislocation to welfare-to-work has been a major transformation in the One-Stop concept, resulting in part from the general improvement in the national economy. No longer are the One-Stops that we examined inundated with experienced workers looking to retool their skills to find high wage employment. True, many of these systems continue to assist experienced workers in this process, but most have turned the focus of their organizations and resources onto the task of moving welfare clients into long term employment. But what happens when the business cycle inevitably turns down, employers stop hiring, and the surge of unemployment, even among experienced workers, floods the One-Stop system? Will the focus of One-Stop systems shift back to experienced workers, or will increasing TANF rolls provoke an even greater frenzy of welfare-to-work services, even if the prospects for employment have declined?
In terms of the sheer volume of client flows, it is entirely possible that many One-Stops will be able to serve much greater numbers of experienced job seekers than before via easier access to self-service job search tools. In many cases, the services provided to the cyclically unemployed clientele may have actually improved since the last recession, due to better access to labor market information and computerized job search systems. However, one area of potential conflict is in the use of on-site facilities, such as the One-Stop's resource room and computers and other office equipment made available to all job seekers. A significant influx of cyclically unemployed but more experienced workers could tend to displace those seeking to move from welfare to work, or vice versa. For example, many job clubs for welfare recipients use the resource room for resume preparation and job search activities. Under high demand, it may become necessary to schedule these limited facilities for such designated uses, limiting the access of other job seekers.
Unfortunately, as the ranks of the unemployed grow in a recession, the TANF rolls are also likely to increase as TANF recipients find fewer employment opportunities. If the recession lasts too long, more and more families may exhaust their unemployment benefits without finding employment, forcing them to rely on TANF assistance. These circumstances will place much greater stresses on the staff intensive activities of One-Stop systems, especially those intended to provide one-on-one or small group job counseling for TANF recipients.
In the past, increases in TANF caseloads have been matched with increases in federal funds, however, now that TANF is no longer a federal entitlement these federal dollars are not likely to be forthcoming in the event of a recession. In fact, state revenues typically fall during a recession, creating fierce competition between education, transportation, corrections and other established state services for these limited funds - and any tax increases a state legislature is bold enough to propose. In this context, it is highly unlikely that many states or local governments will raise funding to address the needs of higher TANF caseloads. The lack of funding and increasing TANF caseloads will cause severe financial and caseload strains for most One-Stop systems during the next recession - very possibly creating the circumstances for yet another set of "welfare reforms" by states. To the extent that these "reforms" are driven by an inhospitable labor market and fiscal necessity, the quality of One-Stop services for TANF clients is likely to suffer.
Thus, when the next (inevitable) recession occurs, the factor that may have the greatest impact on the design, funding, and function of One-Stop systems may have more to do with the rate of growth in TANF caseloads than with the unemployment rate and the numbers of cyclically unemployed job seekers.
15. PROMISE JOBS participants who do not meet the work requirements of the Family Investment Agreement are placed on the Limited Benefit Plan. The LBP provides three months of reduced benefits, followed by 12 months of no cash benefits for the entire family, although non-cash assistance such as Food Stamps and Medicaid continue. At the end of the six-month period, recipients can reapply for benefits, but must comply with their Family Investment Agreement. No reconsideration is given for subsequent failure to comply.
16. Thomas Fraker, Lucia Nixon, Jan Losby, Carol Prindle, and John Else, Iowa's Limited Benefit Plan, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., May 1997, p. 26. Note that these data are for Iowa as a whole, and not the Marshalltown service area.
17. Ibid., pp. 32-39.
18. Smart cards provide clients with a single identification card that carries with it most of their basic information (coded on the magnetic strip) to use with several different agencies. Michigan experienced some start-up difficulties in connection with their attempt to implement this concept.
19. One group of clients that have particular difficulty in achieving self-sufficiency are those with several children, given the income needs of the family. A few clients in our focus groups had four or five children, which tends to raise their target wage.
20. Note that Kenosha also reports only 23 percent recidivism rate for JOBS program completers. These two measures are not necessarily inconsistent - many of the welfare referrals may be for welfare applicants who never fully engaged in the JOBS program, but dropped out prior to completion of the orientation and motivation component.
21. This is undoubtedly due in part to the methodology for drawing the completer focus groups. Although One-Stop managers were asked to invite a cross-section of former clients representing a variety of experiences and views, in reality, several of the former participants that actually showed up were likely those who had tended to remain in contact with One-Stop staff.
Home Pages: