MPR Reference No.: 8465-520

Helping TANF RecipientsStay Employed: EarlyEvidence from the GAPSInitiative

April 7, 1999

Robert G. WoodDiane Paulsell

Submitted to: Submitted by:

The Pittsburgh FoundationOne PPG Place, 30th FloorPittsburgh, PA 15222-5401

Administration for Children and FamiliesOffice of Planning, Research and Evaluation370 L’Enfant Promenade, S.W.Washington, DC 20447

Project Officers:Gerri Kay, The Pittsburgh FoundationNancye Campbell, Administration for Children and

Families

Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.P.O. Box 2393Princeton, NJ 08543-2393(609) 799-3535

Project Director:Robert G. Wood

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

e would like to express our appreciation to the many people who contributed toWthis study and to the preparation of this report. Foremost among these are theGAPS 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 AlbertaWatson from Neighborhood Centers Association; Robin Jenkins, Dayna McCray, BarbaraWillard, and Felicia Woodbury at Rankin Christian Centers; and Regina Ragin and GerriReynolds at the Urban League of Pittsburgh. These individuals have provided invaluabledetail on program operations. They have carefully documented their contacts with GAPSparticipants in service use logs. They also have taken time from their busy schedules to meetwith us during site visits, answer our questions, and share what they have learned aboutproviding employment retention services. In addition to the GAPS staff, we would like tothank the other agency officials and service providers who met with us during site visits andshared 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 manyindividuals and agencies involved in the GAPS program and in our research, with assistancefrom Terry Miller. Beverly Lovelace and Annette Green contributed their insights about theprogram 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, ofthe Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health andHuman 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 andguidance throughout the project. Her careful review at each step in the process has beenextremely important in shaping the research questions addressed by the study and this report.Claire Morrison, who directed the Allegheny County Assistance Office (ACAO) during theperiod covered by this report, drew on her considerable experience and knowledge of thewelfare system to provide us with insightful guidance and feedback. Mary Jo Sistek, alsoat ACAO, kept us informed about the GAPS recruitment process and helped us understandPennsylvania’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 importantcontributions. Alan Hershey, senior adviser to the project, provided invaluable review andguidance at various points in the study. Julita Millner-Waddell served as survey director forthe project and conducted focus group meetings with GAPS participants. Anu Rangarajanprovided helpful comments on an earlier draft of this report. Julia Brys provided excellentcomputer programming support and assistance with processing the service use data. TimNovak and Mary Qu provided additional computer programming assistance. Walt Browerand Patricia Ciaccio carefully edited the report, and Jill Miller provided exemplaryproduction support.

CONTENTS

I Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A. The GAPS Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1B. The Study Design. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2C. GAPS and the PESD Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3D. Key Study Findings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

II The GAPS Program Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7A. Program Sponsorship. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7B. Selecting the Service Providers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8C. The Four GAPS Programs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8D. Eligibility Criteria for Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10E. Recruitment of Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11F. Participant Population. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12G. Services Provided. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

III Challenges Facing GAPS Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17A. Child Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

1. Difficulties Paying for Child Care. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172. Child Care Arrangements That Are Prone to Breakdown. . . . . 223. Hard-to-Meet Child Care Needs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234. Participants’ Concerns About Quality of Child Care. . . . . . . . . 25

B. Transportation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26C. Other Challenges Facing Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

1. Low Wages and Lack of Job Skills. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282. Lack of Support Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293. Challenges Budgeting Money and Organizing a Household . . . . 304. Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305. Substance Abuse. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306. Domestic Violence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317. Physical and Mental Health Problems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

IV Participants’ Experiences with GAPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33A. The GAPS Case Managers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33B. The Intake Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34C. GAPS Service Provision. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Frequency of Participants’ Contact with GAPS. . . . . . . . . . . . 362. Methods Used for Contacts with Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383. Types of Services Provided to Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404. Changes in the Level of Contact over Time. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

D. Participants’ Opinions of GAPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451. Level of Participants’ Satisfaction with GAPS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 462. Perceived Usefulness of GAPS Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473. Satisfaction Among Participants Served by a

Neighborhood-Based Provider. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

CONTENTS (continued)

Chapter Page

V Economic Progress of GAPS Participants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49A. Employment Stability. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

1. What Kinds of Jobs Do GAPS Participants Hold?. . . . . . . . . . . 502. How Satisfied Are GAPS Participants with Their Jobs?. . . . . . 523. How Successful Are GAPS Participants at Staying

Employed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534. Why Do GAPS Participants Lose or Change Jobs?. . . . . . . . . . 55 5. Which GAPS Participants Are Most Likely to Become

Unemployed?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56B. Income Sources and Benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58C. Health Insurance Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60D. Progress Toward Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

VI Lessons Learned from the GAPS Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63A. Delivering Case Management Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63B. Supplementing Case Management with Other Services. . . . . . . . . . 65C. Targeting Employment Retention Services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Appendix B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

1

I

INTRODUCTION

he passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation ActT(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 promoteemployment retention among welfare recipients. The legislation imposed a five-year lifetimelimit on cash assistance for most families and placed stricter work requirements on mostable-bodied recipients. The Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare (DPW)implemented TANF in March 1997. In keeping with PRWORA, the agency imposed a five-year limit on TANF receipt in Pennsylvania and required most recipients, after two years ofTANF, to work or participate in a work-related activity for at least 20 hours a week. In lightof these new requirements, it is particularly important that welfare recipients in Pennsylvaniaand throughout the country find jobs and sustain their employment.

A. THE GAPS PROGRAM

In response to these policy changes, The Pittsburgh Foundation, in collaboration withthe Allegheny County Assistance Office (ACAO) of DPW, developed the GAPS initiative,an employment retention program for Allegheny County welfare recipients. The initiativeis called “GAPS” because its goal is to help welfare recipients bridge the gap betweendependence on welfare and self-sufficiency. When GAPS was implemented in September1997, it was the first program in Allegheny County that offered employment retentionservices to welfare recipients. Common questions about GAPS are:

# Who is eligible for GAPS? Employed current and former TANF recipients whoreside in Allegheny County are eligible for GAPS. Over the two-year grantperiod, 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 welfaredepartment, as well as through direct recruitment by GAPS service providers.

# Who provides GAPS services? The Foundation has contracted with fourcommunity-based organizations in the Pittsburgh area to provide employmentretention services.

# What key services does GAPS offer? Case management is the central elementof 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 otherservices in the community.

2

B. THE STUDY DESIGN

The Foundation has contracted with Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) toconduct an implementation and outcomes study of GAPS. The research is funded by theFoundation 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 studyin two phases, with each phase covering one year of program operations. In Phase I of thestudy, covered in this report, MPR used four data collection methods to gather informationabout program implementation and participant outcomes:

1. Site Visits. In May 1998, MPR researchers conducted site visits to the fourcommunity-based organizations that provide GAPS services. During thesevisits, researchers conducted in-depth interviews with GAPS case managers, aswell as ACAO staff, Foundation staff, and other service providers to whichGAPS participants are referred.

2. Focus Groups. In May 1998, MPR staff also conducted a series of four focusgroups (one for each agency) with GAPS participants. Attendance at these focusgroups ranged from 4 to 11 participants. During these focus groups, GAPSparticipants discussed their experiences with employment, work-related andpersonal problems affecting their ability to stay employed, and their experiencesin GAPS.

3. Service Use Logs. As part of the study, GAPS program staff documented theservices they provided by recording information about their contacts with or onbehalf of GAPS participants on standard contact logs that MPR developed.Program staff collected these data on the 467 participants who entered theprogram through June 1998. Analyses presented in this report include all serviceuse data collected on contacts that occurred through August 1998.

4. Follow-Up Surveys. From July through September 1998, MPR conducted afollow-up telephone survey of GAPS participants. To ensure a minimum of sixmonths of followup, MPR restricted the survey sample to participants whoentered the program through March 1998. The survey asked questions aboutparticipants’ backgrounds, work histories, barriers to employment, experienceswith GAPS, and employment outcomes. Of the 355 GAPS participants whoentered the program through March 1998, 298 completed the survey, for aresponse rate of 84 percent. The follow-up period covered by the survey variedfrom 6 to 10 months after program enrollment; the average follow-up period was8 months.

This report examines the GAPS program model and focuses on participants’ experiencesduring the first year of program operations, the challenges they face in maintainingemployment, and their progress toward self-sufficiency. A final report, scheduled for releasein early 2000, will include findings based on a longer follow-up period and will cover thesecond year of program operations. As part of Phase II, MPR will conduct a second roundof site visits, a second follow-up survey of participants, and additional data collection

3

through service use logs. No data on a control or comparison group are being collected aspart of the study. Therefore, neither of these reports will include estimates of the program’simpact 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 theevaluation of the Postemployment Services Demonstration (PESD), one of the first majorefforts to provide employment retention services for welfare recipients (Rangarajan andNovak 1998; Rangarajan 1998; Haimson and Hershey 1997; and Rangarajan 1996). DHHSprovided approximately $2.7 million to support the implementation and evaluation of PESDin 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 promoteemployment retention. However, GAPS differs from PESD in three important ways:

1. GAPS was implemented after TANF began. The PESD study examined aperiod prior to TANF implementation. In contrast, the GAPS study is one of thefirst examinations of employment retention services in the TANF environment.

2. GAPS services are provided by community-based organizations. The PESDprograms were operated within the welfare department, whereas the GAPSprograms are operated by community-based organizations.

3. GAPS is voluntary. Unlike PESD, GAPS participants are not referredautomatically to the program when they become employed. Instead, employedcurrent and former TANF recipients are recruited for the program through massmailings from the welfare department, as well as through direct recruitment fromthe service providers.

Because of these differences between the two programs, the GAPS study is likely to yieldoperational 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 twostudies. The final GAPS report will include a more detailed comparison of the results fromthe two studies.

D. KEY STUDY FINDINGS

Through our analysis of site visit and focus group data, service use logs, and follow-upsurveys, 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 earlymonths in the program. During their first six months in GAPS, participantsspent almost 90 percent of their time employed, on average. Moreover, about

4

80 percent of participants were employed continuously during this period. Inaddition, most participants reported being satisfied with their jobs, and mostagreed that working had greatly improved their opinions of themselves and theirabilities. Since the GAPS study was not designed to measure program impacts,however, we cannot determine whether these positive employment outcomes canbe attributed to the effect of program services.

In spite of their high levels of employment, however, about one in five GAPSparticipants experienced an unemployment spell of at least two weeks duringthis period. Moreover, many of these unemployment spells did not end quickly;only about 20 percent of participants who became unemployed were reemployedwithin three months. Participants who were at the highest risk of unemploymentincluded those who had a child during their first six months in GAPS and thosewith health problems that limited their activities. Younger participants and thosewho began the program with below-average wages and no fringe benefits werealso more likely than other participants to become unemployed.

# Child care and transportation issues are common concerns. Although mostparticipants succeeded in maintaining their employment, substantial fractionsindicated that child care and transportation issues sometimes make workingdifficult for them. Case managers and participants described several types ofchild care problems facing this population. For example, even with theavailability of child care subsidies, some participants have difficulty affordingchild care. In addition, most participants rely on informal providers, such asrelatives, friends, and neighbors, rather than on day care centers or other groupcare arrangements. Parents may have many reasons for choosing friends andrelatives as child care providers, including lower costs, greater convenience oravailability, and a higher level of trust and comfort with this type ofarrangement. However, child care arrangements with informal providers aremore prone to breakdown, and dependence on them can lead to lost work timefor participants. This pattern suggests that, to improve the reliability of thesemore informal types of arrangements, employment retention programs may wantto provide access to emergency child care for use on days when the regularprovider 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 getto work, which limits the jobs available to them. In addition, the cars thatparticipants do own are sometimes unreliable and can cause them to arrive lateat work or to miss work entirely. Data from follow-up surveys suggest that childcare and transportation problems do not cause GAPS participants to miss workfrequently; however, they do cause lost work time for some participants. Twelvepercent reported missing time from work because of a child care problem duringthe previous month, while 13 percent reported missing work because of atransportation problem.

# Program participants value the supportive counseling, personal attention, andadvice their GAPS case managers provide. Case management is the central

5

element of the GAPS program model. GAPS case managers attempt to maintainregular, one-on-one contacts with participants to help them address problemsthat may jeopardize their employment. Case managers contacted GAPSparticipants a little more than once a month, on average, during their first sixmonths in the program. Supportive counseling is the most commonly providedservice of case managers. Counseling sessions can cover such topics as moraleand self-esteem, housing problems, money management, methods for resolvingconflicts at work, and appropriate workplace behavior. Case managers also helpparticipants obtain support services through referrals to other agencies andprograms. Participants clearly appreciate the personalized support and attentionthey receive from case managers. During follow-up surveys, participantsreported high levels of satisfaction with their case managers. Similarly, focusgroup attendees gave many examples of how the support and concern of casemanagers was important to them.

# Many GAPS participants expressed a desire for the program to provide moretangible services to supplement case management. Although GAPSparticipants clearly liked the supportive counseling and advice they receivedfrom their case managers, many expressed skepticism about the ability of theseservices alone to help them maintain employment. In follow-up surveys, mostparticipants indicated that they were not convinced that the program’s serviceswere useful in helping them stay employed. Survey respondents indicated thatthey would like more specific help finding jobs and finding and paying for childcare and transportation. Case managers also described the need among manyparticipants for emergency financial assistance, including help with paying forcar repairs or overdue rent or utility bills. Additional tangible assistance of thissort may help engage participants in the program and ultimately improve theeffectiveness of a purely case management approach.

# A greater emphasis on job advancement for newly employed welfare recipientsmay be needed. Most GAPS participants maintained their employment duringtheir early months in the program. However, most continued to work forrelatively low wages, about $7.00 an hour, on average. In addition, amongemployed GAPS participants, half indicated on follow-up surveys that they werecurrently looking for another job. Since most participants have maintainedemployment, but at low wages, and since many employed participants continueto look for new jobs, it may be appropriate for employment retention programsto place greater emphasis on job advancement. The fact that GAPS participantswho began the program with below-average wages were at greater risk ofunemployment also suggests that additional job advancement assistance may beneeded.

When GAPS began in September 1997, it was the only program in Allegheny County that provided1

employment retention services to TANF recipients. In October 1998, Community Solutions, a DPW-fundedprogram that includes employment retention services, began serving participants in Allegheny County andthroughout Pennsylvania. Unlike GAPS, Community Solutions targets unemployed TANF recipients. Servicesinclude job training, an intensive period of job placement, and up to 12 months of employment retentionservices once participants obtain full-time employment.

7

II

THE GAPS PROGRAM M ODEL

n the wake of welfare reform, many welfare agencies, private foundations, and nonprofitI service providers have sought to develop and test new strategies for supporting welfarerecipients 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 toaddress previously unmet needs of low-income families seeking to move from welfare towork. To implement the initiative, The Pittsburgh Foundation contracted with fourcommunity-based agencies to deliver services. In this chapter, we provide a brief history ofthe program and of the roles The Pittsburgh Foundation and ACAO played. We alsodescribe the agencies that deliver services, the participant population, and the servicesprovided.

A. PROGRAM SPONSORSHIP

The GAPS initiative is funded by The Pittsburgh Foundation. Several years ago, theFoundation, 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, andyouth. As a result of that study, the Foundation decided to focus on the needs of low-incomefamilies in Allegheny County who wanted to seek employment and self-sufficiency.

Shortly after the Foundation completed its study, Pennsylvania implemented its TANFprogram, which imposes work requirements on recipients after two years on cash assistanceand places a five-year lifetime limit on receipt of cash assistance. This policy changemotivated the Foundation to develop a program that would help low-income families inPittsburgh achieve their employment goals. Through collaboration with ACAO and from itsown research, the Foundation learned that, while services to help welfare recipients obtainjobs were widely available in Pittsburgh, no programs offered services to help welfarerecipients maintain employment. Furthermore, ACAO staff, supported by available research1

about the employment patterns of welfare recipients, indicated a strong need for employmentretention services for people making the transition from welfare to work. Consequently, theFoundation decided to fund an employment retention program and worked closely withACAO to design the initiative.

Appendix A contains detailed profiles of each organization’s GAPS program. These profiles are based2

on information gathered during site visits conducted in May 1998.

8

B. SELECTING THE SERVICE PROVIDERS

In summer 1997, the Foundation initiated a competitive application process to select andfund grantees to provide GAPS services. The Foundation assembled a GAPS initiativeadvisory committee made up of ACAO staff, Foundation board members, and communityrepresentatives and received more than 40 proposals from a range of community agenciesand service providers throughout Allegheny County. The advisory committee evaluated eachproposal based on criteria developed by the Foundation, including (1) the agency’sknowledge of the challenges TANF recipients face in maintaining employment, (2) theagency’s understanding of the world of work and employer needs, (3) the agency’s recordin providing services to similar populations, (4) the extent to which agency staff respect andreflect the racial and cultural groups to be served, (5) the agency’s proposed strategy forproviding 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’stwo-year funding period.

Using recommendations from the GAPS initiative advisory committee, the Foundationawarded two-year grants to provide GAPS services to four Pittsburgh-area communityorganizations: Hill House Association, Neighborhood Centers Association, Rankin ChristianCenter, and the Urban League of Pittsburgh. The grantees received more than $455,000 toprovide GAPS services to an estimated total of 725 participants over the two-year grantperiod. Based on knowledge of the target population and its service area, each agencyproposed the number of GAPS participants to be served through its program and submitteda budget for providing the services. Proposed per-client costs varied considerably, dependingon the extent to which grantees could rely on other agency and community resources tosupplement services provided through Foundation grant funds.

C. THE FOUR GAPS PROGRAMS

The four GAPS programs deliver a common set of services; however, because thesecommunity-based organizations have varied strengths and experiences, they follow slightlydifferent service delivery strategies. The common elements across the four programs are casemanagement, supportive counseling, and referrals to other social service agencies to helpparticipants address barriers to stable employment and deal with unforeseen emergencies.

Each of the grantee organizations operates a broad range of services and programs forcommunity members, and GAPS participants generally have access to most servicesprovided in-house by each agency. Consequently, grantees have to varying degreesincorporated these other services--such as employment and housing assistance, child care,mental health counseling, help with household budgeting and taxes, family support, andreferrals to other specialized services--into their GAPS programs. Table II.1 describes thefour grantee organizations and highlights their service delivery strategies, the staff whodeliver services, and the number of participants to be served.2

9

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 providingchild care, senior services, youthprograms, education and supportservices, and communitydevelopment. The agency’scommunity center also houses 17community and health serviceproviders. Although the center islocated in Pittsburgh’s Hill District,services are available to residentsthroughout 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

Neighborhood Centers Association(Funding for 125 Participants)

Community-based, multiserviceagency providing parenting education,family support services, youthprograms, senior services, and otherservices to low-income residents ofPittsburgh’s Northsideneighborhoods.

- Supportive counseling - Life skills coaching- Help with budgeting and time

management- Emergency financial assistance - Job search advice- Referrals to other service providers

- Three casemanagers (75percent)

- Life skills specialist(40 percent)

Rankin Christian Center(Funding for 300 Participants)

Partnership between Rankin ChristianCenter and Children’s Hospital ofPittsburgh to operate a family supportcenter called the Family CareConnection. Provides a wide range offamily support, health, and educationprograms to families who reside inRankin, 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

Urban League of Pittsburgh(Funding for 150 Participants)

Located in downtown Pittsburgh, theagency offers services in the areas ofemployment, education, housing, andyouth development to residentsthroughout 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

- Two case managers

10

Prior Experience. Each of the GAPS grantees has experience providing services toTANF recipients; two of the four have provided employment services. Through the YoungMothers program, Hill House provides GED preparation and job readiness training toteenage mothers who receive TANF. Neighborhood Centers does not have experienceproviding employment services but does operate a Family Self-Sufficiency program andseveral programs for the Department of Children, Families, and Youth. All these programsserve low-income families, many of whom receive TANF. Rankin has no experienceproviding employment services but provides a broad range of family support services to low-income community residents. The Urban League operates its own employment program anduntil recently operated Project Connect, a DPW-funded employment program for welfarerecipients.

Service Areas. The service areas of GAPS programs vary according to the traditionalservice areas of each sponsoring agency. Neighborhood Centers and Rankin, which are bothneighborhood-based, provide services primarily to residents of the communities near theiroffices. Initially, Neighborhood Centers served participants only from the Northside sectionof Pittsburgh, its customary service area. However, because of difficulties generating enoughGAPS participants during the first few months of program implementation, NeighborhoodCenters expanded to other parts of the county. Rankin continues to serve only its traditionalservice area, which encompasses three small communities just outside Pittsburgh. HillHouse and the Urban League, however, have from the outset served participants who livethroughout Allegheny County.

Staff Training. Grantees receive regular technical assistance and support from theFoundation, primarily through monthly “learning community” meetings attended by GAPScase managers, Foundation staff, and, for many sessions, staff from ACAO. Although initialmeetings focused on program recruitment, enrollment issues, and TANF rules, later meetingshave centered on providing technical assistance information to grantees and sharingpromising ideas and strategies among grantee staff. In a typical meeting, outside expertspresent information on topics of interest to grantee staff, such as transitional benefitsavailable through ACAO, child care assistance, or housing assistance. Each meeting alsoincludes time for grantees, Foundation staff, and ACAO staff to discuss problems, issues,and promising strategies encountered in the previous month. During summer 1998, theFoundation also provided a series of training sessions on case practice issues such asstrength-based service provision and accessing community resources. Foundation staffbelieve that the learning community meetings provide an essential forum for “cross-fertilization” of ideas and approaches among grantees and for reflecting as a group on whatgrantees are learning about providing employment retention services to former TANFrecipients.

D. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR PARTICIPANTS

Allegheny County residents who are employed and who have received cash assistanceat some point since March 1997 are eligible for GAPS services. Although current andformer TANF recipients are eligible for GAPS, the aim of the Foundation and of ACAO isto serve primarily former TANF recipients who have left assistance for employment, sincefewer 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 GAPSparticipants would be former, rather than current, TANF recipients. However, participants

11

would remain eligible for GAPS if they returned to cash assistance after they entered theprogram. Evidence from follow-up surveys suggests that the Foundation and ACAO haveachieved 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 ofGAPS 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 atsome point since March 1997 and had left TANF for employment. These recruitment lettersdescribed the GAPS initiative and included an application form to be completed andreturned. An initial mailing in September 1997 targeted former TANF recipients whosecases were closed between March and July 1997, and a second mailing in November 1997targeted August and September closures. Through these two mailings, ACAO sent outapproximately 2,400 letters. In December 1997 and February 1998, ACAO sent additionalletters to prospective participants, bringing the total number to about 3,100. By early March1998, ACAO had received 437 completed applications, a response rate of 14 percent. ACAOdid not limit the time for returning applications and continued to receive responses insubsequent months. By early February 1999, 556 applications had been returned andforwarded to the GAPS agencies, bringing the response rate to 18 percent.

The Referral Process. ACAO referred each of these applicants to one of the fourGAPS grantees based on several factors. Applicants who lived within the service area ofNeighborhood Centers or Rankin were referred to those agencies. Applicants who lived inthe Pittsburgh’s Hill District, the neighborhood in which Hill House is located, were referredto Hill House. Those who lived in other areas of Allegheny County were referred to eitherHill House or the Urban League, depending on each agency’s capacity to accept new referralsat 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 fewapplicants who stated a preference for one of the agencies on their application wereaccommodated by ACAO.

During the initial recruitment period, ACAO had difficulty generating enough referralsto the two grantees that served specific geographic regions (and not the whole county). Inresponse, the Foundation and ACAO decided to permit grantees to recruit participantsdirectly. While Hill House recruited a small number of participants directly, Rankin, whichserves several communities just outside Pittsburgh, recruited most of its participants (82percent) in that manner, because ACAO recruitment letters generated so few applicants wholived within the geographic boundaries of its service area.

When GAPS programs recruited participants directly, staff had to request eligibilityverification from ACAO. To confirm eligibility, ACAO staff verified that applicants hadreceived TANF in Allegheny County after March 1997. If the applicants were receivingTANF at the time they applied for GAPS, ACAO verified that they had reported theirearnings to the welfare agency.

Program Enrollment. As of February 1999, the four GAPS agencies had received 556referrals from ACAO. Of those, 437, or 78 percent, had enrolled in the program (see

Applicants are considered enrolled in the program when they complete the intake procedures of the3

GAPS service provider.

12

TABLE II.2

GAPS REFERRALS AND ENROLLMENTAS OF FEBRUARY 1999

Hill HouseAssociation

NeighborhoodCenters

Association

RankinChristianCenter

UrbanLeague ofPittsburgh

AllGAPS

Agencies

Referrals from ACAO 175 157 27 197 556

Enrollments from ACAO Referrals 155 99 26 157 437

Enrollments from Agency Recruitment 6 0 118 0 124

Total Enrollment 161 99 144 157 561

ACAO = Allegheny County Assistance Office.

Table II.2). Some applicants did not enroll, either because GAPS staff could not locate them3

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 totalnumber enrolled to 561. As of February 1999, the two agencies with countywide serviceareas, Hill House and the Urban League, had enrolled slightly more participants than theirplanned enrollment of 150. Neighborhood Centers had enrolled about 80 percent of the 125participants it expects to serve. Rankin, which planned to serve 300, had enrolled only abouthalf that number by February 1999. The GAPS agencies report that not everyone enrolledis actively participating in the program at this point; however, the agencies have not closedany 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 welfarereceipt. GAPS participants averaged only 9 months of employment and 29months of AFDC or TANF receipt in the three years prior to GAPS enrollment(see Table II.3). Hill House participants had particularly limited employmenthistories. They averaged less than 7 months of employment during this period,compared with 10 to 11 months for participants at the other three programs.

13

TABLE II.3

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS, BY PROGRAM(Percentages)

Hill HouseAssociation

NeighborhoodCenters

Association

RankinChristianCenter

UrbanLeague ofPittsburgh

All GAPSParticipants

Age (in Years)Less than 20 2 2 4 2 320 to 29 47 49 56 50 5130 to 39 42 29 30 31 3340 or more 9 19 10 17 13

(Average age) (29.8) (30.1) (28.9) (30.9) (29.9)

Highest Education CompletedLess than high school (No GED) 9 5 8 10 8GED 19 15 17 20 18High school diploma 55 73 58 53 58Associate’s or bachelor’s degree 17 7 17 17 15

Ethnicitya

African American 80 69 80 62 72White 19 25 17 36 25Other 1 5 3 2 3

Number of Children Under 18None 2 2 5 0 21 42 36 36 46 412 32 33 24 27 293 18 21 19 17 194 or more 6 7 15 9 10

(Average number of children) (1.9) (2.0) (2.1) (1.9) (2.0)

Age of Youngest Child (in Years)Less than 3 29 33 39 41 363 to 5 42 33 36 29 356 or more 30 33 25 30 29

(Average age) (5.5) (5.8) (4.7) (5.0) (5.2)

AFDC/TANF Receipt in the Three YearsPrior to GAPS Enrollment (in Months)

Less than 6 8 5 4 6 66 to 11 2 1 8 5 412 to 23 8 8 8 11 924 or more 83 86 81 78 81

(Average months of receipt) (29.7) (30.7) (29.4) (28.6) (29.5)

Employment in the Three Years Prior toGAPS Enrollment (in Months)a

Less than 6 62 39 34 40 446 to 11 23 29 31 28 2812 to 23 9 21 18 20 1724 or more 6 11 18 13 12

(Average months of employment) (6.6) (9.9) (11.2) (10.1) (9.5)

Sample Size 117 87 127 136 467

SOURCE: 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 forNeedy Families.

Differences across programs for this participant characteristic statistically significant at .10 level.a

However, Allegheny County TANF recipients appear to be somewhat different from TANF recipients4

from the rest of the state. Statewide, only 57 percent of adults on TANF had high school diplomas as ofJanuary 1999. Figures describing the general TANF caseload were provided by DPW.

Chapter IV provides a more detailed description of the services provided through GAPS.5

GAPS participants who lose jobs and return to TANF can receive job search assistance from ACAO.6

14

# Most participants are fairly young, African American women. Mostparticipants are in their twenties or thirties, and the vast majority (99 percent) arewomen. About three-fourths of GAPS participants are African American, andone-fourth are white.

# Participants typically have one or two children, and many of these childrenare quite young. Most GAPS participants entered the program with one or twominor children living in their household; about 30 percent of participants hadthree or more minor children when they enrolled. About 70 percent had at leastone child under six when they enrolled in the program, and about one in four hadtwo 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 morethan a quarter (28 percent) had their first child before they were 18. More thanhalf (54 percent) reported that their families received welfare when they werechildren; one in five reported that their families received welfare “most or all ofthe time” during this period. Only 50 percent of participants lived in two-parenthouseholds when they were 14 years old; 10 percent lived with neither parentat that time.

Based on simple demographic characteristics, GAPS participants are roughly similar tothe general TANF caseload in Allegheny County. For example, as of January 1999, 71percent of adults on TANF in the county had a high school diploma or a higher degree,compared with 73 percent among GAPS participants. In addition, among all TANF4

recipients in the county at that time, 68 percent were African American and 31 percent werewhite, compared with 72 and 25 percent respectively among GAPS participants.

G. SERVICES PROVIDED 5

All GAPS grantees use a case management approach to service delivery. GAPSparticipants are assigned to case managers who maintain contact with them through in-personmeetings, home visits, telephone calls, and letters. Almost all contact between casemanagers and participants is one-on-one, rather than in group activities or workshops. Ingeneral, case managers attempt to help participants address issues that pose barriers tomaintaining employment or that could become barriers in the future. To varying degreesacross programs, case managers also provide emergency financial and material assistanceand, for participants who lose jobs, limited job search assistance.6

Most of the contacts that case managers have with participants involve checking onparticipants’ employment status, providing supportive counseling, and helping participantsobtain needed services. During the program’s first year, case managers invested substantial

15

time in checking on participants’ employment status and general well-being. Duringcounseling sessions, case managers discussed self-esteem, housing, workplace behavior andconflicts, job searches, transportation arrangements, goal setting and planning, and othertopics. Case managers also helped participants obtain services (such as TANF, transitionalchild 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.

17

III

CHALLENGES FACING GAPS PARTICIPANTS

ewly employed welfare recipients can face many challenges to their efforts toNmaintain stable employment. They may be unable to find affordable, reliable childcare and transportation. They may have difficulty adjusting to the new expenses

associated with work or to the norms, expectations, and demands of the workplace. Somemay have unstable or unsafe housing arrangements or may face a lack of support or evenencounter active resistance to their working by family members and friends.

As will be discussed in Chapter V, the great majority of GAPS participants maintainedtheir 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 telephonesurveys) described a variety of challenges, particularly child care and transportation issues,facing some participants. Therefore, this chapter focuses on child care and transportationissues and how they affect participants’ ability to remain employed. Data from follow-upsurveys suggest that child care and transportation problems do not cause GAPS participantsto miss work frequently; however, they do cause lost work time for some participants. Inaddition, the chapter examines the frequency and nature of other potential barriers facingsome participants, such as lack of job skills and of knowledge of workplace norms, lack ofsupport systems, housing problems, domestic violence, and physical and mental healthproblems.

A. CHILD CARE

Since most GAPS participants are single parents of young children, a reliable child carearrangement is essential for their successful transition from welfare to work. When theyentered the program, more than 90 percent of participants had children under 13, and morethan 60 percent had children under 5. Since the majority (78 percent) of GAPS participantswork 30 hours per week or more, most require child care arrangements for their youngchildren. According to program participants, finding and maintaining acceptable child carearrangements can be difficult. In follow-up surveys, one in three GAPS participantsindicated that problems with child care sometimes made working difficult.

During site visits and follow-up telephone interviews, GAPS case managers andparticipants identified four main types of child care problems that can make it difficult forsome participants to maintain employment: (1) difficulties paying for child care and usingchild care subsidies, (2) child care arrangements that are prone to breakdown, (3) specialtypes of hard-to-meet child care needs, and (4) participants’ concerns about the quality ofchild 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.

18

Prior to February 1999 (during the period covered by this report), these families could firstreceive Transitional Child Care benefits and then receive assistance through the SubsidizedChild Care Program. Beginning in February 1999, both these programs were replaced by anew child care subsidy program, Child Care Works. This section describes GAPSparticipants’ experiences with Transitional Child Care and the Subsidized Child CareProgram. It then describes changes to child care subsidies under Child Care Works forfamilies 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 low-income parents in Allegheny County who left welfare for employment. Those who leftTANF for work were eligible for Transitional Child Care benefits for up to one year aftertheir welfare benefits ended. Those low-income families then became eligible for child careassistance through the Subsidized Child Care Program, a state program administered locallyby Child Care Partnership of the Young Women’s Christian Association (YWCA).

Despite the availability of these subsidies, however, some GAPS participants still foundit difficult to pay for child care. For example, GAPS case managers reported that someeligible participants had not obtained child care subsidies (particularly those availablethrough the Subsidized Child Care Program) because they were unaware of the subsidies orconfused 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 criminalactivity or reports of child abuse. To receive payment from the program, providers also hadto sign a contract and provide their social security numbers so that the program could reportthe payments to the Internal Revenue Service. GAPS case managers reported that someinformal providers were reluctant to fulfill the requirements necessary for receivingSubsidized Child Care Program funds. Consequently, once their transitional benefitsexpired, some GAPS participants either had to change providers or had to pay for child careon their own.

Use of These Subsidies Among GAPS Participants. Evidence from follow-up surveyssuggests that about half of GAPS participants had used one of these child care subsidiesrecently. At the time of the follow-up survey, which was conducted from July throughSeptember 1998, 43 percent of participants reported having received Transitional Child Carein the past six months, and 10 percent reported having received subsidies through theSubsidized Child Care Program. These participation rates may seem low; however, not allGAPS participants were eligible. For example, some participants were ineligible becausethey were not currently working, were still receiving cash assistance, or had no childrenunder 13. Among employed participants who were not receiving TANF and who hadchildren under 13, participation rates were higher: 58 percent had received TransitionalChild Care in the past six months, and 15 percent had received subsidies through theSubsidized Child Care Program.

Even when GAPS participants received child care subsidies, they sometimesexperienced problems paying for care. For example, although participants needed to arrangefor child care providers and payments immediately upon obtaining a job, some experienceddelays in eligibility determination and subsidy payments. Others had difficulties with the

19

CHILD CARE SUBSIDIESFOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY

PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1999

Prior to February 1999, two sources of child care subsidies were available tofamilies in Allegheny County who left TANF for employment: (1) Transitional ChildCare; and (2) the Subsidized Child Care Program, operated by Child Care Partnershipof the YWCA.

## Transitional Child Care. DPW provided Transitional Child Care toemployed former TANF recipients. Eligible parents could receive thesubsidy for care provided to children under 13 for up to a year after theirTANF benefits ended. The family had to pay a portion of the fee based onfamily size and income. DPW provided transitional benefits for regulatedchild care providers, as well as informal providers such as relatives, friends,and neighbors. DPW paid regulated providers directly. For those usinginformal providers, however, the subsidy was paid to the family.

## Subsidized Child Care Program. DPW also provided child care assistancefor low-income families through the Subsidized Child Care Program.Unlike the case with transitional benefits, however, families need not havereceived TANF to be eligible for the subsidy. To receive these funds,parents had to meet income requirements and work or attend vocationaltraining for at least 20 hours per week. When parents applied, they wereplaced on a waiting list according to a priority system. Families who wereworking and eligible for TANF and those who had used their full year oftransitional benefits received top priority. Parents who were eligible fortransitional benefits could not access Subsidized Child Care Program fundsuntil their year of transitional benefit eligibility expired. The SubsidizedChild Care Program paid subsidies directly to both regulated and informalproviders. As with transitional benefits, the Subsidized Child Care Programrequired families to pay a weekly sliding-scale fee based on householdincome and size, and funds were available for children under 13. Theminimum fee was $5.00 per week. In Allegheny County, the program wasadministered 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 theirprovider to wait a month for payment. In addition, the Subsidized Child Care Programrequired 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 hoursexperienced difficulties obtaining subsidies for all the child care hours they used becausethey sometimes worked less than 20 hours a week. Finally, some participants, particularlythose receiving Transitional Child Care and who had only one child, expressed concernsabout receiving little or no child care subsidies as their wages increased. Both Transitional

20

TABLE III.1

CHILD CARE COSTS FOR GAPS PARTICIPANTS*

Percentage withNo Out-of-Pocket

Child Care Expenses

Average Hourly Costsfor Those with Out-of-

Pocket Child CareExpenses(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.

Child Care and Subsidized Child Care Program subsidies were paid on a sliding scale, withhigher-income people having higher out-of-pocket child care expenses. Under TransitionalChild Care, a single parent with one child became ineligible for any subsidy under theprogram 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 subsidiesat an income of about $25,000.

Out-of-Pocket Child Care Costs Among GAPS Participants. Child care costs canbe a substantial expense for GAPS participants. Among those who paid at least a portion oftheir child care expenses, average hourly out-of-pocket costs were $1.34 per child, which ismore than $50 a week for full-time care (Table III.1). Since average hourly wages forparticipants are below $7.00, and since many participants must pay for care for more thanone 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 receivedno child care subsidies, paid nothing out of pocket for child care. Child care arrangementsthat had no out-of-pocket expenses for participants usually involved child care provided byrelatives.

b. Child Care Works

On February 1, 1999, DPW implemented a new child care subsidy program, Child CareWorks, that combines the two former subsidy programs (Transitional Child Care and theSubsidized Child Care Program) into a single system. In Allegheny County, for families not

For families in Allegheny County receiving TANF, Child Care Works is administered by1

ACAO.

21

CHILD CARE SUBSIDIESFOR 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 ChildCare Program into a single program with uniform rules and procedures. Although ChildCare Works also covers TANF families, the following description focuses on thesubsidy as it pertains to those not receiving TANF.

## Child Care Works. The new program integrates the former subsidies intoa single program for families with incomes up to 185 percent of poverty.For families in Allegheny County who are not receiving TANF, the programis administered by Child Care Partnership. As in the earlier subsidyprograms, eligible parents can receive Child Care Works for their childrenunder 13. However, the new program introduces several important changesto Pennsylvania’s child care subsidy system. For example, subsidies are nolonger provided according to a priority system. Funds are guaranteed forfamilies leaving TANF for employment, and other eligible families receivefunds on a first-come, first-served basis. In addition, families leavingTANF for employment no longer have to apply to a second subsidy programafter a year. Instead, they continue receiving the subsidy from Child CareWorks as long as they remain income eligible. Participants must work 25hours a week to receive the subsidy; however, families leaving TANF havesix months to comply with this requirement. Child Care Works pays childcare providers directly and requires parents to make co-payments based onfamily size and income. These co-payments are somewhat higher thanthose under the old child care subsidy programs.

receiving TANF, the program is administered by Child Care Partnership. Under Child Care1

Works, low-income parents who leave TANF for employment are eligible for assistancefrom a single subsidy program. These parents can begin receiving the subsidy as soon asthey start working and continue receiving it as long as their income remains within eligibilitylimits. Families who receive Child Care Works and are not receiving TANF must meet aminimum work hours requirement. This requirement was set at 20 hours a week in February1999 and will be raised to 25 hours a week in August 1999. However, families leavingTANF have a six-month transition period before they must comply with this minimum hoursrequirement.

Implementation of Child Care Works may eliminate some of the difficulties GAPSparticipants experienced with the earlier subsidy programs. For example, because all subsidyprograms have been integrated into a single system with a uniform set of rules and

22

procedures, eligibility requirements should be less confusing. In addition, under Child CareWorks, Allegheny County families who leave TANF for employment receive an allowancefrom ACAO to cover child care costs during the period between their first day of work andthe transfer of their case to Child Care Partnership. Thus, delays in subsidy paymentsassociated with starting a job should be eliminated. Moreover, Child Care Works does notrequire informal providers to undergo a background check for previous criminal activity orreports of child abuse, although parents still can request the check. This change may makethe subsidies more accessible to families who wish to use informal providers such asrelatives and neighbors. Child Care Works, like the Subsidized Child Care Program, paysall providers directly, so informal providers will still need to give their social securitynumbers to Child Care Partnership. However, families leaving TANF can continue toreceive subsidies for 90 days before complying with this requirement.

Like the former subsidy programs, Child Care Works provides subsidies based on asliding scale. However, co-payment levels are somewhat higher than those of the previoussubsidy programs. In addition, the income limit for participation in the subsidy program hasbeen reduced from 235 percent of poverty under the Subsidized Child Care Program to 185percent of poverty under Child Care Works. For those who were receiving child caresubsidies when Child Care Works began in February 1999, however, the lower income limitwill 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, especiallysingle mothers, who must juggle work and child-rearing responsibilities. According toGAPS participants, breakdowns in child care arrangements are not frequent, but occur withsome regularity. At the time of the follow-up survey, 12 percent reported having missed timefrom work in the past month because of a child care problem; 8 percent had missed an entireday for this reason. Among those who had missed work because of a child care problem, theaverage amount of time missed in the past month was 17 hours, or more than two fullworkdays. The most common child care problems that GAPS participants reported weresituations where the provider was unable to provide care on a given day. Half of those whoreported missing work because of child care problems indicated that the most recent episodestemmed from their provider’s inability to supply care as the result of illness or some otherreason.

The child care arrangements that GAPS participants use have several characteristics thatmay 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 otherinformal providers (such as friends and neighbors) while their parents were working (FigureIII.1). In contrast, only about one in four were cared for in day care centers, preschools, after-school programs, or other formal group care arrangements. Parents may have many reasonsfor choosing informal providers for child care. For example, these arrangements may beavailable 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 someparticipants. In addition, informal providers may be more convenient, more likely to beavailable during nonstandard work hours, or viewed by participants as more trustworthy. Inspite of these positive aspects, however, the child care literature suggests that arrangementswith relatives and other informal providers tend to be more prone to breakdown (Ross and

FIGURE III.1

CHILD CARE ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CHILDREN OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS*

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

45

24

28

4

0

10

20

30

40

50Percent

Care by Relatives

Care by Friends, Neighbors, and Other

Nonrelatives

Day Care Centers, Preschools, and Other

Group Care

Other Arrangements

* Children under 13 only.

This difference is not statistically significant at standard levels because of small sample sizes.2

It is, however, statistically significant at the .15 level.

23

Paulsell 1998). The experiences of GAPS participants reinforce this finding. Participantswho 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 workin 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 oneregular child care provider to care for their youngest child. Such use of multiple providersby participants to “patch” together care that fits their schedules may increase the instabilityof child care arrangements. Third, one in four GAPS participants had changed child carearrangements for their youngest child in the past six months. Frequent child care transitionscan cause parents to miss time from work while they search for new arrangements and theirchildren adjust to a new provider.

3. Hard-to-Meet Child Care Needs

GAPS case managers described several types of child care needs that were particularlydifficult for participants to meet. For example, participants who had children withdisabilities had trouble finding appropriate child care. Although a few child care centers inthe Pittsburgh area provide specialized care for children with disabilities, openings are

FIGURE III.2

FREQUENCY OF CHILD CARE PROBLEMS,BY TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT*

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

1213

15

11

8

10

12

5

0

5

10

15

20

25

Lost Work Time in Past Month Because of Child Care Problem

Missed Entire Workday in Past Month Because of Child Care Problem

Percent

*Arrangement for youngest child.

All Child Care Arrangements

Care by Relatives Day Care Centers, Preschools, and

Other Group Care

Care by Friends, Neighbors, and

Other Nonrelatives

24

scarce. Participants have also experienced difficulties finding child care for children withbehavior problems. In fact, 1 in 10 participants who missed time from work because of achild care problem cited their child’s behavior problems in child care as the reason. Lack ofchild care options when children are sick also causes participants to miss work, becausemany child care providers will not accept children who are ill. Among GAPS participantswho missed time from work because of a child care problem, one in five did so because theirchild was sick.

In addition, some participants have had difficulty finding after-school care and summercare for their school-age children. Participants report relying heavily on relatives to care fortheir older children during nonschool hours. However, some participants described havingto leave fairly young children at home unattended on occasion. A focus group participantexpressed her anxiety about leaving her school-age children at home unsupervised: “My kidsshouldn’t have had to come home and be by themselves until six, when I come home fromwork. They should not have had to wait for me to come home and fix dinner or have me fixit and then they heat it up in the microwave.”

Finally, GAPS case managers reported that some participants who work nonstandardhours have had difficulty arranging child care. About one-third of GAPS participantsreported that their jobs required them to work weekends, evenings, or nights, but few daycare facilities provide child care during these nonstandard work hours. Even so, participantswho worked nonstandard hours did not report higher rates of child care-related employmentproblems than did those who worked standard business hours.

Those working nonstandard hours relied more heavily on their relatives to provide childcare than did other participants, 53 percent of those working nonstandard hours versus 41

FIGURE III.3

SATISFACTION WITH CHILD CARE,BY TYPE OF ARRANGEMENT*

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

68

75 74

58

43 42 44 43

0

20

40

60

80

Fraction Who Are"Very Satisfied"with CurrentArrangement

Fraction Who WouldChange Arrangementsif All Providers Were

Percent

*Arrangement for youngest child.

All Child Care Arrangements

Care by Relatives Day Care Centers, Preschools, and

Other Group Care

Care by Friends, Neighbors, and

Other Nonrelatives

Available Free of Charge

25

percent of other participants. In addition, participants who relied regularly on child care byrelatives reported that these relatives (who are typically the grandparents or fathers of thechildren) are often willing to watch children during evening and weekend hours, evenovernight, 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 thoseparticipants working nonstandard hours did not have more frequent child care problems. Infact, since relatives are more likely to be available for child care in the evening and onweekends, some GAPS participants may choose to work nonstandard hours to make it easierfor 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 workingdifficult for some GAPS participants. When parents are anxious about the care their childrenreceive, worry and stress may affect their job performance. GAPS participants reportedrelatively high levels of satisfaction with their child care arrangements, however. More thantwo-thirds of participants reported that they were “very satisfied” with the current child carearrangements for their youngest child (Figure III.3).

Even though informal providers are often less reliable, participants were most satisfiedwith these types of child care arrangements. Three out of four participants who relied onrelatives, friends, neighbors, and other informal providers reported being very satisfied withtheir child care arrangements. In contrast, fewer than 6 in 10 participants who relied on day

The difference in satisfaction levels between those using informal providers and those using3

group care arrangements is statistically significant at the .01 level.

26

care centers, preschools, and other group care arrangements indicated that they were “verysatisfied” with this arrangement.3

Although they reported high levels of satisfaction with their arrangements, many GAPSparticipants would make other child care choices if they could. For example, regardless oftheir current type of arrangement, more than 4 in 10 participants indicated that they wouldchange child care providers if all types of arrangements were available free of charge (FigureIII.3). About 8 in 10 participants who reported that they would like to change arrangementsindicated 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 childcare arrangement. However, the reasons for wanting to change providers differed by the typeof provider the participant was using. Those who were using relatives to provide child caremost frequently cited a desire for their children to be around other children and for morereliable child care as their reasons for wanting to change providers. In contrast, those relyingon other types of child care arrangements most often cited a desire for a better learningenvironment 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 forthem. At the time of the follow-up survey, only about a quarter (27 percent) of GAPSparticipants owned a car. Therefore, most (61 percent) relied on public transportation to getto work (Figure III.4). According to GAPS staff, relying on public transportation has led toemployment problems for some participants. For example, many jobs, particularly those insuburban and outlying areas of the county, are not located on bus routes, which significantlylimits the set of jobs available to participants. Moreover, even when jobs are located onroutes served by public transportation, work schedules and transportation schedules often donot 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 publictransportation for commuting particularly problematic.

No matter what method of commuting participants use, lost work time associated withtransportation problems occurs fairly infrequently. Among all GAPS participants, 13 percentreported 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). Amongthose who had missed work because of a transportation problem, the average amount of timemissed in the past month was 13 hours, or about one and a half work days. The three mostcommon reasons cited by participants who reported recent transportation problems were that

FIGURE III.4

COMMUTING METHODS USED BY GAPS PARTICIPANTS

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

61

22

86

2

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Takes Public Transportation

Drives OwnCar

Gets Rides fromFriends or Relatives

Walks or Uses Bicycle

Uses OtherMethod

Percent

Because of small sample sizes, this difference is not statistically significant at standard levels.4

It is, however, statistically significant at the .15 level.

The difference in days missed between those who relied on rides from others and those who5

relied on other commuting methods is statistically significant at the .01 level.

27

(1) their cars broke down, (2) their buses or trains were delayed, or (3) they missed theirbuses or trains.

The cars GAPS participants use are sometimes unreliable. For this reason, those whodrove their own cars to work were as likely as those who used public transportation to reportthat they lost work time in the past month because of transportation problems, 14 percentversus 13 percent (Figure III.5). In addition, those driving were somewhat more likely thanthose using public transportation to report missing a whole day of work because oftransportation problems, nine percent versus four percent. However, the least reliable4

transportation method used by GAPS participants appears to be getting rides with others towork. Among those relying on this commuting method, 20 percent reported missing anentire 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 GAPSparticipants, 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 daycare. Those who relied on public transportation had the longest commutes, averaging 51minutes, compared with 26 minutes for those who drove their own cars to work and 27minutes for those who rode with others.

FIGURE III.5

FREQUENCY OF TRANSPORTATION PROBLEMS,BY COMMUTING METHOD

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

13 1314

20

6

4

9

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

Lost Work Time in Past Month Because of Transportation Problem

Missed Entire Workday in Past Month Because of Transportation Problem

All Commuting Methods

Takes Public Transportation

Drives Own Car

Gets Rides fromFriends or Relatives

Percent

Rangarajan and her colleagues also found that about a third of newly employed welfare6

recipients lacked a high diploma or GED certificate using a nationally representative sample(Rangarajan et al. 1998).

28

C. OTHER CHALLENGES FACING PARTICIPANTS

Although problems with child care and transportation are two of the most common andimportant challenges to stable employment, some participants face other potential obstaclesto a successful welfare-to-work transition. Some participants lack job skills or anunderstanding of workplace norms and expectations. Some lack adequate support fromfriends and family members or safe and affordable housing. Others face personal problems,such as drug addiction, domestic violence, and physical or mental health problems. Thissection examines the frequency and nature of these challenges facing GAPS participants asthey work to maintain stable employment.

1. Low Wages and Lack of Job Skills

GAPS participants have considerably higher education levels and higher wages thanmost newly employed welfare recipients. For example, only eight percent of GAPSparticipants lack a high school diploma or GED certificate, compared with a third of PESDparticipants (Rangarajan and Novak 1998). Similarly, GAPS participants began the program6

with somewhat higher average wages than did PESD participants, $6.72 per hour amongthose in GAPS compared with only about $6.00 per hour among those in PESD (Rangarajan

Another possible explanation for the higher education levels and higher wages among GAPS7

participants may be that Allegheny County TANF recipients are less disadvantaged than are TANFrecipients state- or nationwide. For example, as of January 1999, 57 percent of adults receivingTANF in Pennsylvania had a high school diploma or a higher degree, compared with 71 percent ofadults receiving TANF in Allegheny County.

29

1998). One possible explanation for these differences is that GAPS is a voluntary programin 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 withabove-average wages and more education.7

In spite of their above-average wages and education, however, low wages and a lack ofjob skills create employment difficulties for some GAPS participants. For example, althoughmost have high school diplomas, only a small percentage of participants have completededucation beyond the high school level. In addition, most had worked less than six monthsin the three years before entering GAPS (Table II.2). In addition, more than a third reportedearning less than $6.00 an hour at enrollment, and only one in four reported that they hadhealth insurance through their employer. According to GAPS case managers, someparticipants require additional education or training to move on to better jobs. However, casemanagers indicated that many of these participants will find it extremely difficult to addattending school or training to their busy schedules of work and child-rearing responsibilities.

Case managers also reported that some GAPS participants, especially younger ones, lackan understanding of appropriate workplace behavior. Because most participants have beenworking for only a short time, they lack experience with such issues as how to dress on thejob, how to resolve conflicts with supervisors and coworkers, and how to accept directionand criticism. On follow-up surveys, 21 percent of participants indicated that conflicts withtheir boss or coworkers had caused them to dislike their job. Case managers reported thatmanaging conflicts at work is a recurring theme for many participants during supportivecounseling sessions. In addition, some participants have had repeated problems withtardiness, 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 makea successful transition to employment. Three out of four participants have no other adultliving in their household, which may limit the child care and other support that isimmediately available. In addition, some GAPS participants face negative pressure and evenhostility from family members and peers regarding their employment. For example, onefocus group participant said, “My sister is jealous, and I have a brother that’s jealous [of myworking]. 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 madeworking difficult. In addition, although most participants (70 percent) characterized theirfriends and family members as “very supportive” of their working during the past six

30

months, 22 percent characterized their friends and family members as only “somewhatsupportive,” 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 juggletheir responsibilities for running a household, raising children, and earning money to supporttheir family. For some participants, managing these competing responsibilities can bedifficult. According to GAPS case managers, many participants lack experience withpreparing and using a household budget. Moreover, the small incomes of participants makebudgeting both more difficult and more important. When participants fail to budgetadequately for child care, commuting costs, rent, food, and other necessities, they may havedifficulty remaining employed. In fact, in follow-up surveys, about a third of participantsreported that problems budgeting money made working at their current job difficult.

In addition to challenges involving money, participants experience difficulty managingtheir time. Case managers have found that some participants, especially those who areworking for the first time, have difficulty establishing a regular household schedule andgetting to work on time. Some GAPS participants have also found it difficult to put theirchildren on regular schedules and get them dressed, fed, and dropped off at school or childcare 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 someparticipants to perform well on their jobs. During follow-up surveys, one in six participantsreported that housing problems sometimes made working difficult for them. According toGAPS case managers, some participants are behind in paying their rent and face eviction.Others live in substandard housing or in dangerous neighborhoods. Some participants livein apartments that are too small for their families or double up temporarily with friends orrelatives. Some participants have experienced periods of homelessness. About one in fiveparticipants live in public housing. GAPS case managers indicated that many participantsliving in public housing wished to move, because they viewed it as dangerous and judgedtheir apartments to be of poor quality.

GAPS participants move frequently. At the time of the follow-up survey, more than onein five participants had moved within the past six months. Of those who moved, almost halfsaid they moved because they wanted better-quality housing, and one in five moved to finda safer or better neighborhood.

5. Substance Abuse

People who are dependent on drugs or alcohol may find it difficult to maintain stableemployment. GAPS case managers report that drug and alcohol abuse is a significantproblem in many of the neighborhoods where participants live. However, measuring theprevalence of substance abuse among GAPS participants is difficult, because people areoften reluctant to report drug and alcohol addiction. On follow-up surveys, about fivepercent of GAPS participants reported using illegal drugs at least occasionally during the past

31

six months. Similarly, staff from one GAPS program estimated that substance abuse affectedabout 5 to 10 percent of their GAPS caseload. Nevertheless, case managers have found thatsubstance abuse is a difficult issue to address, because participants often deny that they havea substance abuse problem and are reluctant to seek help.

6. Domestic Violence

GAPS case managers reported that some participants have suffered physical abuse byrelatives and partners. Case managers have found that domestic violence, like substanceabuse, is a difficult issue to address, because participants are reluctant to talk about theproblem and seek help. One in 10 participants lived with a spouse or partner at the time ofthe follow-up survey. Among all participants, about three percent reported that physicalabuse by partners or relatives made working difficult, and seven percent identifiedthemselves 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 workingdifficult. Others have children with health problems that may complicate their efforts tomaintain employment. On follow-up surveys, about one in seven participants reported thatpregnancy or a health problem made working difficult. A similar fraction reported that ahealth problem prevented them from doing certain kinds of housework, schoolwork, or workoutside the home. Seven percent of participants had been seriously ill or injured in the pastsix months, and eight percent had children who had been seriously ill or injured during thatperiod. In addition, GAPS case managers reported that they thought depression and othermental health problems were significant problems for some participants. However, mentalhealth problems are hard for case managers to identify, because participants are reluctant todiscuss them.

The forms GAPS staff use for tracking service use are included as Appendix B.1

Several agencies employed additional staff or Americorps volunteers who provided backup and support2

for the GAPS case managers. For more detailed information about program staffing at each agency and otherdescriptive information about the programs, see Appendix A.

33

IV

PARTICIPANTS ’ EXPERIENCES WITH GAPS

he GAPS agencies have implemented a case management approach to serviceTdelivery, in which case managers attempt to maintain regular contact with programparticipants and help them cope with problems that could jeopardize their

employment. Case managers provide almost all services through one-on-one interactionswith participants or through referrals to other service providers. Relying primarily oninformation that GAPS case managers provided during site visits and on detailed service uselogs, this chapter describes the services the program provides to participants. In addition,1

we examine information gathered during focus groups and follow-up surveys to gaugeparticipants’ opinions of their experiences with GAPS.

Because case managers are central to the program’s service delivery system, we beginby describing their backgrounds and the jobs they perform. Next, we describe the initialintake and assessment process that takes place when participants enter the program. We thenexamine 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 andof 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 firstseveral months, each of the four GAPS agencies had at least two full-time case managersdedicated to the program. Two agencies, Hill House Association and the Urban League of2

Pittsburgh, began their GAPS programs with only one case manager. However, because ofa rapid influx of referrals to these two agencies, the Foundation in February 1998 providedadditional funds to hire a second case manager. From the outset, Neighborhood Centersplanned for their case managers to have small caseload sizes (40 to 50), while the other threeagencies planned for caseload sizes of 80 to 100. Participant-staff ratios have varied overtime 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 threeGAPS agencies.

Staff Experience and Training. All GAPS case managers have some experienceproviding 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 haveexperience working with low-income people or welfare recipients. In fact, several arethemselves former welfare recipients who have firsthand knowledge about making the

34

transition from welfare to work. The education levels of case managers range from highschool diplomas to bachelor’s degrees; however, almost all case managers have or areworking towards an associate’s or higher degree. As described in Chapter II, as part of theprogram, all case managers have received training provided by the Foundation during“learning community” meetings. In addition, several GAPS agencies have providedspecialized 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 ascase managers. Two agencies, Hill House and Neighborhood Centers, transferred staff fromprevious programs to GAPS, because they felt that the case managers’ knowledge of theagency, the community, and the participant population would facilitate smoothimplementation of the program. Rankin Christian Center hired former Americorpsvolunteers to serve as case managers, and the Urban League hired new staff without agencyexperience.

Staff Hours. In general, all GAPS agencies have attempted to structure their servicedelivery around the schedules of participants. Consequently, case managers at all fouragencies work nonstandard hours. For example, staff at all four agencies reported schedulingoffice or home visits during evenings and on weekends to accommodate participants’schedules. Likewise, case managers from all agencies said they regularly called participantsfrom 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 forparticipants to reach them by telephone outside regular office hours. Staff at three of theGAPS programs carry beepers. One case manager gives participants her home telephonenumber. At Neighborhood Centers and Rankin, participants can call an emergency number24 hours a day and be directed to staff who can provide assistance. Finally, case managersfrequently perform work outside their offices. They conduct home visits and occasionalworkplace visits, accompany participants on job interviews, take participants toappointments, 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 formsand mailing them to ACAO, which referred the prospective participants to one of the fourGAPS agencies. Case managers then began attempting to contact the participants. Inaddition to referrals from ACAO, GAPS staff recruited some participants directly, helpedthem complete referral forms, and sent the forms to ACAO for verification of eligibility.Across all four GAPS programs, case managers attempted to contact prospective participantsan average of 1.6 times prior to the initial intake meeting. This meeting occurred about 35days, on average, after the agency received participants’ referral forms, ranging from about11 days at Rankin to slightly more than two months at the Urban League. Most initialcontacts (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 assessmentprocedures, others completed more formal intake and needs assessment forms during theirinitial 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

35

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-dateresumes. Based on this information and other needs participants expressed, she beganproviding services. Likewise, Rankin staff did not conduct formal assessments during theirinitial meetings with participants. Instead, case managers tried to get to know participantsand help them identify their own goals. Neighborhood Centers and the Urban League, incontrast, both took a more formal approach to the intake process. Case managers at theseagencies developed standard intake assessment forms for GAPS and completed themsystematically during their initial meetings with participants.

C. GAPS SERVICE PROVISION

Case managers provide most GAPS services during one-on-one sessions withparticipants, which take place both in person and by telephone. This section describes theservices GAPS participants received during these sessions, including the frequency andmethods 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 GAPSparticipants a little more than once a month, on average, during their first sixmonths in the program.

# Method of contact with participants. Case managers made two out of threeparticipant 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 werecompleted by mail.

# Services provided during participant contacts. The most common service casemanagers provided during participant contacts was supportive counseling onsuch topics as housing problems, morale and self-esteem, and workplacebehavior. In addition, during a substantial fraction of contacts, case managersmade referrals to other service providers and helped participants straighten outproblems with benefits, such as Transitional Child Care and TANF. Programsalso provide a small amount of in-kind material assistance and emergencyfinancial assistance.

# Changes in the level of contact over time. The level of participants’ contactwith GAPS declined somewhat as their time in the program progressed, fromtwo contacts, on average, during their first month in the program to less than onecontact per month by the ninth month. Of course, this pattern varied byindividual. Many participants experienced periods of weeks or months withrelatively few contacts with the program, followed by a period of frequentcontact when a particular need or problem arose.

FIGURE IV.1

AVERAGE NUMBER OF CONTACTS WITH PARTICIPANTSDURING THEIR FIRST SIX MONTHS IN GAPS

7.7

5.4

13

8.8

6.1

2.3 1.8

3.4 3.4

1.3

All GAPSAgencies

Hill HouseAssociation

Neighborhood CentersAssociation

Rankin ChristianCenter

Urban Leagueof Pittsburgh

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16Number of Contacts

All Contacts withGAPS Case Manager

Face-to-Face Contacts withGAPS Case Manager

Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.

.0

36

In the rest of this section, we describe these and other findings on GAPS service provisionin more detail.

1. Frequency of Participants’ Contact with GAPS

GAPS case managers had contact with participants slightly more than once a month, onaverage, during their first six months in the program (Figure IV.1). Neighborhood Centerscontacted participants most frequently, completing on average just over two contacts perparticipant each month. In contrast, Hill House and the Urban League completed only aboutone contact per participant each month. These differences in frequency of contact can beattributed, in part, to differences in caseload sizes across the four agencies, especially duringthe first few months of program operation. Because of variation across the agencies in thepace of enrollment (as well as differences in planned caseload sizes), Neighborhood Centershad the fewest participants to contact but had the largest staff. Caseload sizes remainedunder 30 participants per case manager at the agency for the first six months of programoperations. Hill House and the Urban League, however, had much larger caseloads early inthe program, but each had only one full-time case manager to maintain contact withparticipants. Case managers at these two agencies had caseloads of 80 to 90 participantsbefore 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 differencesin each agency’s approach to service delivery. Neighborhood Centers and Rankinmaintained regular contact with all participants, attempting a telephone contact about once

FIGURE IV.2

MONTHLY RATE OF CONTACT WITH PARTICIPANTSDURING THEIR FIRST SIX MONTHS IN GAPS

42

57

6

26

62

37 39

27

52

29

16

4

57

16

4510 6 5

All GAPSAgencies

Hill HouseAssociation

Neighborhood CentersAssociation

Rankin ChristianCenter

Urban Leagueof Pittsburgh

0

20

40

60

80

100Percent of Participants

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.

0

37

a week. Although not every attempted contact was completed, both agencies were for themost part successful in their efforts. At Neighborhood Centers, more than 9 in 10participants received one or more contacts a month, and 2 in 3 participants received at leasttwo contacts a month (Figure IV.2). Likewise, at Rankin, case managers completed a contactwith three-quarters of participants at least monthly.

In contrast, case managers from Hill House and the Urban League reported that theirgoal was to contact each participant about once a month, although case managers from HillHouse reported that they attempted to contact less-stable and younger participants morefrequently. Not surprisingly, Hill House and the Urban League maintained regular contactwith a much smaller proportion of their caseloads than the other two agencies did. At HillHouse, slightly more than 4 in 10 participants received one to three contacts a month, andno 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 thatachieved in PESD. The average number of contacts with PESD participants during their firstsix months in the program was 6.4 (compared with 7.7 in GAPS) and ranged from 4.5 to 7.7contacts across the four PESD programs (Haimson and Hershey 1997). One possible reasonfor the higher level of contact achieved by the GAPS programs may be the fact that theprogram is voluntary. All GAPS participants either responded to a letter from the countywelfare agency, which offered employment retention services, or were recruited directly bythe GAPS providers. In contrast, PESD participants were automatically referred to theprogram by the county welfare agency when they became employed. It is not surprising that

FIGURE IV.3

METHODS USED FOR CONTACTS WITH GAPS PARTICIPANTS*

66

611

2 410

Telephone Calls Office Visits Home Visits Workplace Visits Meetings inOther Locations

Letters0

20

40

60

Percent of Contacts

Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.

*During first year of program operations.

38

participants who have actively sought help would have more frequent contact with a programthan participants who have not. In addition, GAPS case managers had somewhat smallercaseload sizes than did PESD case managers. Caseloads ranged from 40 to 70 in GAPS 6to 12 months after program implementation, compared with caseloads of 65 to 120 duringa 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 wellas other service providers on the participants’ behalf, they made about two-thirds of thesecontacts by telephone (Figure IV.3). These telephone calls were brief, lasting about 10minutes on average (Figure IV.4). Case managers routinely called participants to check ontheir employment status, provide information, follow up on referrals, and giveencouragement and support. In addition, case managers made just under one in four contactswith participants during face-to-face meetings in the GAPS offices, in participants’ homesand workplaces, and in other locations (Figure IV.3). Not surprisingly, face-to-face contactslasted 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 contactsduring face-to face meetings (33 percent) and the largest proportion during home visits (19percent). This agency is neighborhood-based, with a service area restricted to the immediatecommunities surrounding its offices. Because Rankin case managers are close by andfamiliar with the neighborhoods, they can more easily visit participants in their homes. In

FIGURE IV.4

AVERAGE LENGTH OF CONTACT, BY CONTACT METHOD*

10

41

33

28

37

Telephone Calls Office Visits Home Visits Workplace Visits Meetings inOther Locations

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Minutes

Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.

*During first year of program operations.

39

contrast, the Urban League, which serves participants who live throughout AlleghenyCounty, including a substantial number who live far from their downtown office, conductedonly three percent of its contacts through home visits. Case managers from the UrbanLeague reported that both the distance between their office and participants’ homes and theirlack of familiarity with some sectors of the county made home visiting difficult.

Case managers made very few contacts through workplace visits. Only two percent ofcontacts occurred at participants’ worksites (Figure IV.3). Case managers reported that mostparticipants do not feel comfortable meeting with them at work, because they do not wantemployers and coworkers to know that they had received TANF or had enrolled in a programlike GAPS. PESD case managers reported similar concerns among their program’sparticipants (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 servicedelivery strategy, at the time of the May 1998 site visits the agencies had not yetimplemented this service component. Because of the rapid influx of initial referrals at someagencies and the immediate needs of newly enrolled participants, implementing peer groupsessions was not a high priority in the program’s first year. Thus, during the first year ofprogram operation, contact between case managers and participants occurred almostexclusively on a one-on-one basis, rather than in support groups or workshops the programorganized.

40

About 1 in 10 contacts took the form of letters, which GAPS case managers used tocommunicate with participants about a variety of issues. For example, Hill House casemanagers sent a welcome letter to each participant referred to their program. GAPS agenciesalso used letters to invite participants to events such as job fairs or tax preparationworkshops, provide information about benefits and services, or locate participants who couldnot be reached by telephone.

GAPS case managers initiated three out of four contacts with or on behalf ofparticipants. Participants initiated only 20 percent of contacts, and the rest were initiated bystaff from other programs or agencies. The frequency with which participants initiatedcontacts varied across the four programs. At Hill House, participants initiated 4 in 10contacts. Because this agency had a large volume of initial referrals and only one casemanager for much of the first year, staff may not have been able to initiate contacts to checkon participants’ status as frequently as other programs were. In contrast, at Rankin, whichhad a larger staff and enrolled participants at a slower pace, participants initiated only about1 in 10 contacts.

3. Types of Services Provided to Participants

GAPS case managers provided a broad range of services to participants during theprogram’s first year, including (1) brief contacts to check on participants’ employment status,(2) supportive counseling, (3) help in obtaining services and benefits, (4) employmentassistance, and (5) material and financial assistance. The rest of this section describes eachof the five types of services GAPS provided.

a. Check-In Contacts

GAPS case managers devoted considerable effort to checking in with participants abouttheir employment status. During the first year of program operations, one in three contactswere check-in contacts, usually brief telephone calls, in which no other services wereprovided (Figure IV.5). Case managers reported that these conversations enabled them toestablish positive relationships with participants and helped participants to becomecomfortable requesting assistance from the program. In addition, during these calls, casemanagers were able to identify issues which, if not addressed, could potentially affectparticipants’ ability to maintain employment in the future.

Across the four GAPS programs, Neighborhood Centers had the highest proportion ofcontacts that were check-in only (53 percent), and Rankin had the lowest (19 percent). Whilecase managers at both of these agencies attempted to complete weekly contacts withparticipants, 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 servicethey provide. Moreover, case managers provided supportive counseling more often than anyother service during the program’s first year; 38 percent of all contacts included supportivecounseling sessions (Figure IV.5). Similarly, in PESD, counseling was the most commonlyprovided service and the service considered most important by program staff (Haimson and

FIGURE IV.5

FRACTION OF CONTACTS IN WHICH SPECIFIC SERVICES WERE PROVIDED*

3338

23

106

Check-InOnly

SupportiveCounseling

Help ObtainingServices and

Benefits

EmploymentAssistanceServices

Material andFinancialAssistance

0

10

20

30

40

50

60Percent of Contacts

Source:

*During first year of program operations.

With the exception of "check-in only" contacts, more than one service could be provided during a contact.

Note: GAPS Service Use Logs.

41

Hershey 1997). During site visits, GAPS case managers indicated that all participants needsupport and encouragement, sympathetic listening, and help to develop strategies for copingwith their employment and personal problems. According to service use logs, almost three-quarters of participants (73 percent) received supportive counseling during the first year ofprogram operations.

Across all four GAPS agencies, case managers and participants discussed housing morethan any other topic during supportive counseling sessions. One woman’s experience,described during a focus group session with GAPS participants, illustrates the way in whichcounseling about housing issues can prevent job loss. This participant needed to findsuitable 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 moretime to searching for housing. After discussing the situation with a GAPS case manager, shereceived additional counseling and assistance from the agency’s housing advocate, foundsuitable housing, and continued working.

Other frequently discussed topics of counseling sessions included self-esteem andmorale, workplace behavior and conflicts, family problems, goal setting and planning, andtransportation. One focus group participant described how her GAPS case manager helpedher develop a strategy for discussing a workplace conflict with her supervisor: “She told mehow to go about talking to someone higher and telling them what the problem was withoutsaying it like a child . . . how to professionally handle it. It really helped me out because Iwas ready to quit.”

42

c. Help Obtaining Services and Benefits

GAPS case managers helped participants obtain a variety of services and benefits bymaking referrals to other service providers and helping participants straighten out problemswith 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 serviceproviders, such as housing assistance programs, food banks, agencies that provide clothingor furniture, child care providers, education and training programs, tax preparers for helpwith the EIC, and legal services. On follow-up surveys, 22 percent of participants reportedreceiving a referral from GAPS to another service provider during their early months in theprogram. In addition, case managers often referred participants to other programs housedwithin their own agencies. For example, Hill House case managers said that they referredGAPS participants to mental health counseling, alcohol and drug treatment programs, andhealth care providers located at the Hill House community center. The Urban League’s casemanagers reported referring about one-third of their GAPS participants to the agency’shousing 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 withbenefits 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 groupparticipant described how her case manager intervened on her behalf to straighten outproblems with her Transitional Child Care benefits: “My caseworker didn’t want to pay meso [my GAPS case manager] called my caseworker’s supervisor, who didn’t want to donothing. So she called my caseworker’s supervisor’s supervisor, and we got results.”

GAPS participants received substantially less assistance with straightening out welfarebenefit problems than did PESD participants. The fraction of PESD participants whoreceived help straightening out problems with benefits during their first six months in theprogram ranged from 24 to 65 percent across the four PESD programs, compared with 13percent among GAPS participants (Haimson and Hershey 1997). There are two possibleexplanations for the more frequent help with welfare benefit problems among PESDparticipants. First, unlike in GAPS, PESD case managers worked within the welfare agency.Therefore, PESD case managers may have been both more knowledgeable of welfareprogram rules and in a better position to resolve any benefit problems that arose.

Second, PESD participants were referred to the program immediately upon obtainingemployment. In contrast, many GAPS participants had worked several months before beingreferred to the program. Many problems with welfare benefits occur during the early weeksof employment, as cash assistance grants get adjusted for new earnings and as transitionalbenefits begin. Since most GAPS participants had been working for some time when theyentered 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 toparticipants during the program’s first year. On follow-up surveys, about half of participantsreported that they discussed “getting a new job” with their case manager during their earlymonths in the program. However, only 15 percent reported receiving help finding or lookingfor work, and only 5 percent reported receiving help writing a resume.

In fact, the substantially higher level of job search assistance reported as part of the PESD evaluation3

is most likely due in large part to the fact that the PESD figures include all job search assistance receivedthrough the welfare department (Haimson and Hershey 1997).

43

Several possible explanations exist for the relatively low level of employment assistanceprovided by GAPS. First, program participants who lost jobs and returned to cash assistancecould (and most likely did) receive job search assistance through the county welfare agency,rather than through GAPS. Second, because the vast majority of GAPS participants entered3

the program with jobs and most did not lose their jobs in the program’s early months, findinga new job may not have been a pressing need for many participants. Third, case managersappear to have devoted more effort to providing employment assistance to participants wholost jobs than to helping participants who maintained their employment advance to betterjobs. During site visits, case managers said that many participants were still struggling tomake the transition from welfare to work. With full-time jobs and child-rearingresponsibilities, 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 firstyear included employment assistance activities (Figure IV.5). About half the employment-related contacts included advice about how to look for work. The rest involved jobplacement assistance and advice on job advancement. To help participants find jobs, GAPScase 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 HillHouse, GAPS participants can access a computer lab to use a self-directed resume-writingprogram, print copies of resumes, and search the Internet. In addition, Hill House and theUrban League refer unemployed GAPS participants to other in-house programs that providejob 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 providingparticipants with material and financial assistance (Figure IV.5). According to service uselogs, just over one in four participants received help obtaining in-kind goods from GAPSduring the program’s first year. Case managers referred participants to Goodwill, theSalvation 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-kindgoods directly. For example, Neighborhood Centers provided eyeglasses and children’s toys,and Rankin provided furniture, diapers, and home safety equipment. To help participantsobtain food, GAPS agencies typically referred participants to area food banks, and in someinstances, provided food or food vouchers directly.

In some cases, GAPS agencies also provided emergency financial assistance to addresscrises that could jeopardize participants’ employment. In follow-up surveys, one in fiveparticipants reported receiving financial assistance from GAPS during their early months inthe program. Much of this assistance came in the form of bus tickets, which were typicallyprovided in limited quantities when participants faced temporary transportation crises ingetting to work. In addition to bus tickets, GAPS programs provided some participants with

44

help paying for housing, utilities or household furnishings, car-related expenses, householdappliances, and child care.

Hill House provided substantially more financial assistance to its GAPS participantsthan did the other GAPS agencies. On follow-up surveys, about 27 percent of Hill Houseparticipants 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 portionof its GAPS grant to establish a Critical Need Fund for GAPS participants who face financialcrises that could prevent them from working. Typical grants from the fund are between $100and $200. For example, the agency provided funds to a single father of twins who neededhis car for traveling to work and child care but could not afford to make needed repairs. Theprogram 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 andhousehold budget designed to prevent another financial crisis from occurring. Other GAPSagencies 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 theprogram progresses, it is useful to examine changes in the level of contact with the programover time. In a program like GAPS, case managers and participants might be expected toengage in more frequent contact during the initial months after enrollment, when casemanagers are conducting intake and assessment meetings and addressing participants’immediate needs. However, once the program addresses these urgent needs and participantsgain more experience in the workplace, contact between case managers and participants maygradually decline. In fact, the lives of some participants may stabilize to the point that theyno longer wish to participate in the program. However, participants who lose their jobs orexperience other crises may need to increase their contact with case managers, at leasttemporarily.

The level of participants’ contact with GAPS did decline as their time in the programprogressed. Contact levels were highest during their first month after program enrollment(two contacts per month on average), when case managers were conducting initial meetingswith participants and addressing immediate needs (Figure IV.6). In their second month inGAPS, participants’ level of contact dropped to about 1.3 contacts per month on average andcontinued 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-facecontact between case managers and participants also declined over time. Researchers foundsimilar declines in the level of contact over time in the PESD evaluation (Haimson andHershey 1997).

The contact levels presented in Figure IV.6 are averages across many participants. Ofcourse, service use patterns vary by individual. Many GAPS participants experiencedperiods of weeks or months with relatively few contacts with their case manager, followedby a period in which they were in frequent contact with the program. For example, althoughvery few participants (only about one percent) averaged four or more contacts each monthduring their first nine months in GAPS, 44 percent had at least one month with four or morecontacts during this period. Excluding the first month of program participation, when many

FIGURE IV.6

MONTHLY LEVEL OF PROGRAM CONTACT DURINGPARTICIPANTS' FIRST NINE MONTHS IN GAPS*

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Months in the Program

0

1

2

3Number of Contacts

*Participants enrolled through November 1998.

Source: GAPS Service Use Logs.

All Contacts

Face-to-Face Contacts

45

participants have more frequent contact with the program, 35 percent had a month with fouror more program contacts.

In some cases, these periods of more frequent program contact may be triggered bycrises in participants’ lives. For example, according to service use logs, one GAPSparticipant 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. Anotherparticipant had a period of frequent program contact when her boyfriend became abusive.She received counseling, as well as help with accessing housing assistance, making itpossible 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 aresatisfied 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 programare more likely to use the services GAPS offers and to seek help from the program when theyhave a problem that could jeopardize their employment. This section describes GAPSparticipants’ level of satisfaction with various aspects of the program and the extent to whichparticipants found the services useful for helping them stay employed.

FIGURE IV.7

SATISFACTION WITH AND PERCEIVED USEFULNESS OF GAPS SERVICES

73

83 82

3934

Overall Setof Services

How EasilyCan Reach

Case Manager

How WellCase ManagerUnderstands

Problems

In Helpingto Handle

Difficult WorkSituations

In HelpingThem Keep

a Job

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100Percent of Participants

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

Satisfied with Particular Aspects of GAPS Think GAPS Useful

46

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 theycould reach their GAPS case manager. The comments of focus group participants illustrateparticipants’ appreciation for their case managers’ responsiveness. For example, one focusgroup participant said, “It’s not like having a caseworker, it’s like having a friend. You cancall them any time. . . . You call them and they’re right there. If they don’t call you thatnight, they’ll call you the next day. They’re on it.” A similar proportion of participants (82percent) said that they were satisfied with how well their case managers understood theirproblems. One focus group participant reported how she decided to enroll in GAPS becauseof 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, andthat’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, andencouragement they receive from their case managers. Many focus group participantsstressed the importance of knowing that GAPS case managers were concerned about themand available to help them if needed. For example, one participant said, “Every time theycall, I know everybody is going to say the same thing. They ask how you’re doing. Even ifnothing 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 likeI didn’t want to get up. They helped me get up and go do what I got to do.”

47

2. Perceived Usefulness of GAPS Services

While participants received a great deal of moral support from GAPS and expressedsatisfaction with that aspect of the program, many did not consider the program’s servicesuseful in helping them maintain employment or handle problems on the job. Only one inthree participants found GAPS useful for helping them keep a job, and just under two in fivesaid the program was useful for helping them handle difficult situations at work (FigureIV.7). Despite their satisfaction with the supportive counseling services the programprovided and the caring approach the case managers employed, many GAPS participantsapparently did not see a link between this case management-based counseling approach andtheir ability to continue working.

Furthermore, in follow-up surveys, when participants who had indicated that GAPSservices had not helped them stay employed were asked to identify additional services thatwould have been helpful, 51 percent said that no service GAPS could have provided wouldhave helped them find or keep a job. Perhaps many participants viewed GAPS as primarilya counseling program and did not expect the program to offer other types of services theyconsidered to be more useful for maintaining employment. Alternatively, because arelatively 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 maintainstable employment.

Responses to follow-up survey questions suggest that participants may want moretangible services and financial help from the program to supplement the case managementand counseling services the program provides. For example, among those who were able topoint to a service they did not receive from GAPS but that they thought would have beenhelpful, participants most often mentioned getting help in finding jobs and in paying for childcare and transportation. Although each of the four GAPS programs provided these servicesto some extent, all emphasized supportive counseling over financial assistance and jobplacement 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 GAPSparticipants, we can also learn from differences across the four GAPS programs in the levelof participant satisfaction. Across all four GAPS programs, Rankin participants hadsubstantially higher levels of satisfaction across every measure of satisfaction included in thesurvey. For example, 9 in 10 Rankin participants reported satisfaction with the programoverall, compared to only about 7 in 10 for all programs combined. Likewise, while onlyone-third of all GAPS participants found program services useful for helping them keep ajob, half of Rankin’s participants found the program useful in this area.

There are two possible explanations for the higher level of satisfaction among Rankinparticipants. First, Rankin was able to deliver more services (and, particularly, more in-person services) to its participants than were the other agencies. Rankin case managerscontacted their participants more frequently than average and provided a service (beyond aroutine 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 visitsthan did the other GAPS programs, which may have enabled them to provide a morepersonalized set of services.

48

Differences in characteristics of the GAPS agencies and the caseloads they serve maypartly explain why Rankin could provide this higher level of personalized service. Unlikethe 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. GAPSparticipants typically live within a mile or two of the GAPS office, and many live withinwalking distance. Consequently, staff know the community and its residents well and canmore 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. Theymay, therefore, be in a better position than case managers from countywide programs tomake appropriate referrals.

Differences in recruitment methods across the four agencies may provide a secondexplanation for the higher satisfaction levels among GAPS participants. Because ACAO wasnot able to generate enough referrals to Rankin, the agency (unlike the other GAPSprograms) recruited most of its participants directly. Many of these recruits had participatedin other Rankin programs and thus were likely to have had a positive opinion of the agencyalready.

49

V

ECONOMIC PROGRESS OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS

he success of GAPS participants in their efforts to become self-sufficient depends onTtheir ability to remain employed and reduce dependence on welfare. At the sametime, they must make enough money to support their families and maintain health

insurance coverage. Moreover, to achieve a higher standard of living for themselves andtheir families, participants must progress toward better job skills and higher wages. In thischapter, relying mainly on data from the GAPS first follow-up survey (conducted 6 to 10months after participants entered the program), we examine participants’ early progress intaking each of these steps toward self-sufficiency.

The key findings concerning the short-term economic progress of GAPS participantsinclude:

# Continuous Employment For Most Participants During the Early Months.The great majority of GAPS participants succeeded in maintaining theiremployment during their early months in the program. During their first sixmonths in GAPS, participants spent 88 percent of their time employed, onaverage. Moreover, 79 percent of participants were employed continuouslyduring their first six months in the program.

# Unemployment Spells Among Some Participants. About one in fiveparticipants had an unemployment spell during their first six months in GAPS.Participants who had a child during their early months in the program and thosewith health problems were most at risk of unemployment. Younger participantsand those who began the program with below-average wages and no fringebenefits were also more likely than other participants to become unemployed.

# Relatively Low Wages and Few Fringe Benefits. GAPS participants work forrelatively low wages ($6.97 per hour, on average) and few fringe benefits.Although 50 percent of participants had health insurance available to them attheir current job, only 27 percent were actually covered by an employer-providedinsurance policy at the time of the follow-up survey. Most participants hold jobsin services and retail trade, employment sectors that typically offer lower wages.

# Low Rates of TANF Participation; More Frequent Use of Other FinancialSupports. Although all GAPS participants are former TANF recipients, onlyone in four were receiving TANF at the time of the follow-up survey.Participants were more likely to be receiving other types of governmentassistance, however. For example, two out of three were receiving food stamps,half were receiving the EIC, and a third were receiving Transitional Child Carebenefits.

These percentages are slightly lower than those presented in Table V.1 because some GAPS participants1

were no longer employed at the time of the follow-up survey.

50

# 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 childrenof GAPS participants were even more likely to be insured, with 93 percenthaving either public or private health insurance coverage.

The rest of this chapter describes in more detail these and other findings concerning theshort-term economic progress of GAPS participants.

A. EMPLOYMENT STABILITY

Maintaining stable employment is crucial for welfare recipients in their efforts towardself-sufficiency. For this reason, the primary goal of GAPS is to help recently employedwelfare recipients remain employed. In this section, we examine how successful GAPSparticipants are at maintaining employment during their early months in the program. Wealso 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, aswell 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 relativelylow 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 offeredhealth insurance and paid vacation, while fewer than half offered other benefits, such as sickleave, a retirement plan, or flexible employment hours. In addition, because employer-provided health insurance often comes at considerable cost to the employee, only about halfof GAPS participants who had health insurance available to them through their employeractually participated in the plan. At the time of the follow-up survey, 50 percent ofparticipants had health insurance available to them at their current job; however, only 27percent were covered by an insurance policy through their employer.1

The majority (84 percent) of GAPS participants worked in services and retail, whichtypically offer low wages. Two-thirds held jobs in the service sector, particularly in healthcare and social services (which includes child care), or worked for temporary employmentagencies. In fact, 14 percent of GAPS participants reported that their current or most recentjob was through a temporary employment agency. Most of those not working in the servicesector worked in the retail trade, employed by restaurants, bars, supermarkets, or conveniencestores. In contrast, few participants reported working in construction, manufacturing,transportation, or public utilities, employment sectors that typically offer higher wages.

51

TABLE V.1

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE CURRENT OR MOST RECENT JOBSOF GAPS PARTICIPANTS

(Percentages)

All GAPS Participants

Hourly Wage

Less than $5.00 4$5.00 to $5.99 26$6.00 to $6.99 24$7.00 to $7.99 21$8.00 to $8.99 13$9.00 to $9.99 7$10.00 or more 5

(Average Wage) ($6.97)

Hours Worked per Week

1 to 19 620 to 29 1630 to 39 2540 47More than 40 6

(Average Hours) (35)

Employer-Provided Health Insurance

Available to Participant 54Participant Covered by Policy 29

Other Fringe Benefits

Paid Vacation 55Sick Leave 39Retirement/Pension 41Flextime 43

Industrial Sector

Construction/Manufacturing 1Transportation/Public Utilities 3Retail Trade 19Finance, Insurance, Real Estate 10Services 65Public Administration 2

Sample Size 298

SOURCE: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

FIGURE V.1

JOB SATISFACTION AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

61

47

8489 90

0

20

40

60

80

100Percent

Salary Benefits Number of Hours Worked

Shift Worked Actual Work Done

Satisfaction with Particular Aspects of Current or Most Recent Job

52

2. How Satisfied Are GAPS Participants with Their Jobs?

GAPS participants reported a fairly high level of job satisfaction. For example, in spiteof working for low wages, most (61 percent) reported being satisfied with their salary (FigureV.1). Large majorities reported that they were satisfied with the actual work they do (90percent), 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 daytimebusiness hours. Among those working standard daytime hours, 95 percent reported beingsatisfied with the time of day they work, compared with only 77 percent among thoseworking nonstandard hours.

The high job satisfaction levels among GAPS participants do not necessarily indicatestrong attachment to their current employers, however. For example, a third of participantswho were employed at the time of the follow-up survey reported that they did not expect tobe working in the same job in a year. Moreover, half of those who were currently employedreported that they were actively looking for another job.

GAPS participants were least satisfied with their fringe benefits. Fewer than half (47percent) reported being satisfied with the benefits offered by their employers. GAPSparticipants reported dramatically different levels of satisfaction with their benefits,depending on whether health insurance was available through their employer. Amongparticipants whose employers offered health insurance, 74 percent were satisfied with theirfringe benefits, compared with only 16 percent of those whose employers did not offer healthinsurance.

FIGURE V.2

PERCENTAGE OF TIME EMPLOYED AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

41

61

8289 87 86

0

20

40

60

80

100Percent

6 to 9 Months Before Entering

GAPS

3 to 6 MonthsBefore Entering

GAPS

0 to 3 Months Before Entering

GAPS

0 to 3 Months After Entering

GAPS

6 to 9 Months After Entering

GAPS

3 to 6 MonthsAfter Entering

GAPS

GAPS Entry

a

aThis number is based on an early cohort of GAPS participants.

Almost all GAPS participants were employed when they applied for the program. However, some2

applicants lost their jobs before the welfare department processed their applications and sent them on to oneof the GAPS service providers. These unemployed applicants were allowed to enroll in the program.

For the analysis presented in this chapter, someone who did not work for more than two consecutive3

weeks is considered to have experienced an unemployment spell.

53

3. How Successful Are GAPS Participants at Staying Employed?

The great majority of GAPS participants succeeded in maintaining their employmentduring their early months in the program. For example, during their first six months inGAPS, participants spent 88 percent of their time employed, on average (Figure V.2).Moreover, 79 percent of participants were employed continuously during their first sixmonths in the program.

In spite of these high employment rates, some GAPS participants had periods when theywere not employed during their initial months in the program. For example, about fivepercent of participants entered GAPS without a job (Figure V.3). An additional 16 percent2

lost or quit their jobs during their first six months in the program and did not obtain anotherjob within two weeks. Therefore, about one in five participants (21 percent) had a period3

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 thatthis number may rise to about one in four after nine months of program participation (Figure

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Months After Entering GAPS

0

5

10

15

20

25

30Percent

FIGURE V.3

PERCENTAGE OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS WITH AN UNEMPLOYMENT SPELL*

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

All GAPS Participants

Early Cohort of Participants

*Participants are considered to have had an unemployment spell if they did not work for two consecutive weeks.

54

V.3). It appears that most of these unemployment spells did not end quickly. Amongparticipants who became unemployed during their first few months in GAPS, only about 20percent were reemployed within three months.

A substantial fraction of GAPS participants lose or change jobs without experiencingan unemployment spell, however. For example, 33 percent of participants who enteredGAPS with a job had a job end during their first six months in the program. This proportionincludes 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 reemployedwithin this period (and, therefore, considered to have been unemployed).

Employment retention rates among GAPS participants were high relative to those of allnewly employed welfare recipients. For example, Rangarajan et al. (1998), using nationallyrepresentative data from the 1980s and early 1990s, find that over half of welfare recipientswho found jobs became unemployed within six months. In contrast, among participants whoentered GAPS with a job, only 16 percent had an unemployment spell within six months ofentering the program.

Several possible explanations exist for the much lower rate of job loss among GAPSparticipants. 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 orGED certificate, compared with a third of the national sample studied by Rangarajan and hercolleagues. Second, the economy in the Pittsburgh area, as in the rest of the nation, was very

FIGURE V.4

REASONS REPORTED BY GAPS PARTICIPANTS FOR JOBS ENDING*

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

20

8

6

8

2

24

2

12

16

22

10

20

12 12

7

15

7

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Those with No Subsequent Unemployment Spell

Those with a Subsequent Unemployment Spell

Percent

Laid Off Fired Pregnancy or Health Problem

Child Care Problem

Transportation Problem

Took Another Job

Didn't Like Job

Dissatisfied with Schedule

Dissatisfied with Benefits or Salary

*Participants can report more than one reason for a job ending.

55

strong during 1997 and 1998, which most likely helped some participants maintainemployment. Third, the national results are from the pre-TANF era. In the new environmentof work requirements and time limits, welfare recipients may be more likely to maintainemployment. Finally, the GAPS program itself may have helped some participants avoid jobloss 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 threereported that their jobs ended because they were laid off or fired or that the job wastemporary. Reported reasons for job loss varied somewhat depending on whether theparticipant experienced an unemployment spell after the job ended (Figure V.4). Forexample, those who experienced a period of unemployment after their job ended frequentlyreported that their jobs ended because of pregnancy or a health problem, transportationproblems, or simply dislike of the job. In contrast, those who did not become unemployedafter their job ended mentioned these reasons relatively infrequently. Instead, they weremore likely than others to report that their jobs ended because they took another job orbecause they were dissatisfied with particular aspects of their jobs, such as schedule, salary,or benefits.

The percentages in Table V.2 are calculated using the results of a logistic regression model in which a4

binary variable representing whether the participant became unemployed during her first six months in GAPSis 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 twoconsecutive weeks when she was not working during her first six months in GAPS. The percentages in thetable represent the likelihood that a participant who has the particular characteristic, but who otherwise has theaverage characteristics of all participants, becomes unemployed.

56

5. Which GAPS Participants Are Most Likely to Become Unemployed?

For a better understanding of the reasons for job loss and for improvement in theprogram’s ability to target services to those most at risk of unemployment, it is useful toanalyze which GAPS participants were most likely to become unemployed during their earlymonths in the program. Table V.2 presents this analysis. Consistent with the reasons4

participants cited for job loss, those who had a baby during the first six months in theprogram and those with health problems that limit their activities were among those most atrisk of becoming unemployed. For example, a typical participant who had a baby during herearly months in GAPS had a 36 percent chance of an unemployment spell, compared witha 16 percent chance for a similar participant who did not have a baby. Similarly, participantswho reported a health problem that limited their daily activities had a 30 percent chance ofbecoming unemployed, compared with only a 14 percent chance for similar participants whodid not have a health problem.

Younger GAPS participants were also more likely than other participants to becomeunemployed. A typical participant who was less than 30 years old had a 22 percent chanceof becoming unemployed during her first six months in GAPS, compared with an 11 percentchance for participants who were 30 or older. During site visits, case managers from two ofthe GAPS agencies stressed that they thought that their younger participants were moreunstable and faced more barriers to employment. According to these case managers, youngerparticipants had more problems organizing their finances and households and greaterdifficulty handling conflicts at work. For this reason, case managers at one GAPS agencyactively targeted younger participants for followup.

GAPS participants who began the program with below-average wages and no fringebenefits were more likely than other participants to become unemployed. For example, atypical participant who began GAPS with a job that paid less than $7.00 an hour had almosta 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 onlya seven percent chance of becoming unemployed during that period. Similarly, GAPSparticipants whose employers did not provide health insurance coverage had about a 1-in-5chance of becoming unemployed during the first six months, compared with a 1-in-10 chancefor similar participants whose employers provided insurance coverage. The finding thatwelfare recipients who find better jobs are more likely to maintain employment is consistentwith earlier research using a nationally representative sample (Rangarajan et al. 1998). It isunclear from this evidence, however, whether getting better jobs causes welfare recipientsto maintain their employment longer. It is also possible that certain welfare recipients havecharacteristics that make them both more likely to obtain better jobs and more likely to keepthem.

57

TABLE V.2

PROBABILITY OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS BECOMING UNEMPLOYED,BY INDIVIDUAL AND JOB CHARACTERISTICS

(Percentages)

Probability of UnemploymentSpell During First Six Months in

GAPS

Overall 16

Age (Years)Younger than 30 22*30 or older 11

Race/EthnicityAfrican American 13*White or other 25

EducationHas high school diploma or GED 17Has neither high school diploma nor GED 7

Had a Child Under Five at EnrollmentYes 18No 13

Gave Birth During First Six Months in GAPSYes 36*No 16

Months Worked in Past Three YearsLess than six 18Six or more 15

Owns a CarYes 12No 18

Has Health Problem That Limits ActivitiesYes 30*No 14

Hourly Wage at EnrollmentLess than $7.00 23*$7.00 or more 7

Employer at Enrollment Provided Health InsuranceYes 9*No 19Don’t know 10

GAPS ProgramHill House Association 9*Neighborhood Centers Association 17Rankin Christian Center 17Urban League of Pittsburgh 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 wereunemployed at program entry were excluded from this analysis.

*Differences across the categories are statistically significant at the .10 level.

GED = General Equivalency Degree.

58

Finally, participants at the Hill House Association GAPS program were less likely thanother participants to become unemployed. A typical participant at Hill House had only a ninepercent 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 becomingunemployed during this period.

There are two possible explanations for this difference. First, participants were notassigned to the four GAPS programs randomly. Instead, participants were assigned toprograms 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 hadinitial differences in their employment barriers, work readiness, motivation, or other factorsthat may have affected their likelihood of maintaining employment. Although themultivariate analysis presented in Table V.2 adjusts for some of these initial differences,other unmeasured differences in participants’ initial characteristics could exist across the fourprograms and could explain the difference in outcomes.

Second, the particular GAPS program model implemented at Hill House may have beenmore 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 HillHouse, more than the other agencies, followed a strategy of focusing its efforts less onroutine check-ins with all participants and more on providing services to participants whoactively 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 ofother agencies, these contacts were longer than average and more likely to be initiated byparticipants. In addition, Hill House, more than the other GAPS agencies, providedemergency financial assistance to participants, helping them pay for such things as bustickets, car repair, furniture, and other household items.

The fact that Hill House participants had better employment outcomes than otherparticipants may suggest, therefore, that a strategy that focuses more resources on providingemergency financial assistance and other services to certain participants and less on routinecheck-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 doesnot provide definitive evidence that adopting this service delivery approach would improveparticipant outcomes.

B. INCOME SOURCES AND BENEFITS

As one might expect among recent welfare recipients, GAPS participants have lowincome 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 povertylevel for a family of three ($12,802). About a third of GAPS participants reported incomesbelow the poverty level for a family of three, whereas 12 percent reported incomes more thantwice the poverty level.

At the time of the first follow-up survey, most GAPS participants were working and notreceiving welfare. Therefore, earnings were by far their most important income source. Themajority (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

59

TABLE V.3

INCOME SOURCES OF GAPS PARTICIPANTS

Income Source

Percentage withIncome from

Source

Average MonthlyIncome from Source

(in Dollars)

Percentage ofTotal Income from

Source

Earnings 84 911 66

TANF 24 74 5

Food Stamps 65 130 10

Transitional Child Care 32 146 11

SSI 7 39 3

Child Support 18 34 3

Other Sources 15 36 3

All Sources 97 1,370 100

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 oftotal income of GAPS participants, on average.

In contrast, cash assistance (such as TANF, SSI, and General Assistance) made up asmall fraction of the total income of GAPS participants. Only about one in four participantswas receiving TANF at the time of the follow-up survey, and, on average, TANF benefitsmade up only five percent of the total income of participants. However, other types ofbenefits, such as food stamps and Transitional Child Care, were a more substantial fractionof total income. Two out of three participants reported receiving food stamps in the previousmonth, and one in three reported receiving Transitional Child Care. On average, both ofthese 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 theprevious month. Those who did most commonly received them by having the father’s wagesgarnished (43 percent). Another sizable fraction (37 percent) received payments from a childsupport enforcement agency. Only 20 percent of those receiving child support (and less than4 percent of all participants) received child support payments directly from the father of theirchildren.

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 participantsreceived food vouchers through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,

FIGURE V.5

HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS*

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

68

20

12

80

137

Had PublicInsurance

Had PrivateInsurance Only

Had NoInsurance

Had PublicInsurance

Had PrivateInsurance Only

Had NoInsurance

0

20

40

60

80

100Percent

GAPS Participants Minor Children of GAPS Participants

*At time of follow-up survey.

60

Infants, and Children (WIC), administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Inaddition, 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 forthe low participation rate appears to be a lack of knowledge of the benefit. More than 40percent of those not participating in the EIC had never heard of the tax credit. GAPS casemanagers did discuss the EIC with some participants. During follow-up surveys, 20 percentof 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 insurancecoverage at the time of the follow-up survey, typically through Medicaid or another publicinsurance program. Two-thirds of participants, and 8 in 10 of their children, were coveredby public health insurance (Figure V.5). In contrast, only one in five GAPS participants andfewer 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 moreheavily on public insurance than private insurance. First, many employers of GAPSparticipants either do not offer health insurance benefits or offer them at considerableexpense 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

Among the 24 percent of GAPS participants who reported receiving TANF during the month prior to5

the survey, 97 percent had public insurance coverage, 3 percent had private insurance coverage only, and nonewere uninsured. Among participants not receiving TANF in the previous month, 59 percent had publicinsurance coverage, 25 percent had private insurance coverage only, and 16 percent were uninsured.

61

therefore automatically covered by Medicaid. In addition, many other participants had5

recently received TANF and were therefore eligible for transitional Medicaid benefits.Third, once transitional Medicaid benefits are exhausted, the children of many GAPSparticipants become eligible for Pennsylvania’s Children’s Health Insurance Program(CHIP). The availability of CHIP benefits for low-income children most likely explains, atleast 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 thefollow-up survey. Twelve percent of participants and seven percent of their children werenot covered by either a public or a private insurance program. At the time of the site visitsto the four GAPS programs in May 1998, program staff indicated that lack of insurancecoverage was not an issue they heard about frequently from participants. However, thenumber of uninsured participants may grow over time, as more of them exhaust their 12months of transitional Medicaid benefits. Lack of insurance coverage may therefore becomea more pressing issue for participants and one that GAPS case managers must address morefrequently.

GAPS staff did report that some participants had experienced difficulties in making thetransition from Medicaid to private insurance coverage. For example, some have had toswitch health care providers because of managed care restrictions. Others have had to stopvisiting the emergency room for routine health care visits, which private insurers will notcover. Program staff reported that some participants prefer to use the emergency room fornonemergency 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, participantsmay move to higher-paying jobs over time. The average wage of GAPS participants didincrease modestly during their first 6 to 10 months in the program. On average, participantsbegan GAPS with an hourly wage of $6.72. Over the 6- to 10-month follow-up periodcovered by the survey, their hourly wages increased to an average of $6.97, or about fourpercent. Wage changes varied substantially among participants: about a third reportedhourly wage increases of 50 cents or more during the follow-up period, while 15 percentreported hourly wage decreases of 50 cents or more.

Although their wages have remained relatively low and wage increases thus far havebeen modest, participants report that working has had important nonmonetary benefits forthem. For example, more than two-thirds of participants reported that, during the past sixmonths, 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 hadimproved 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.

FIGURE V.6

WORKING AND SELF-ESTEEM AMONG GAPS PARTICIPANTS

Source: GAPS First Follow-Up Survey.

70

18

6 6

"A Great Deal" "A Fair Amount" "A Small Amount" "Not at All"0

20

40

60

80Percent

How much has working improved your opinion of yourself and your abilities?

62

More than 90 percent thought that it was “very likely” that they would be employed a yearfrom now, while more than 70 percent indicated that it was “not likely at all” that they wouldbe receiving TANF at that point.

Comments made during focus groups highlight how employment has improved theconfidence and self-esteem of many participants. For example, one participant said, “It feelsgood 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 takecare 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.”

63

VI

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE GAPS STUDY

he experiences of the four GAPS service providers and their participants can provideTguidance for other policymakers and program operators as they design and implementemployment 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, wepresent preliminary lessons concerning (1) delivering case management services,(2) supplementing case management with other supportive services, and (3) targetingemployment retention services.

A. DELIVERING CASE MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Case management is the central element of the GAPS program model. In fact, much ofwhat 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. Duringthese contacts, case managers offer counseling, advice, and moral support and providereferrals to other agencies for additional support services. In this section, we present lessonsgathered from the GAPS study on delivering case management services to promoteemployment retention among welfare recipients.

# Newly employed welfare recipients value the counseling, moral support, andpersonal attention that a dedicated case manager can provide.

GAPS participants clearly appreciate the personalized support and attention they receivefrom 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 casemanagers, and a similar fraction indicated satisfaction with how well their case managersunderstood their problems. Similarly, focus group participants described many specificexamples of how their case manager’s support and concern were important and helpful tothem. However, because the GAPS study was not designed to measure program impacts, itprovides no definitive evidence of the effectiveness of these services in promotingemployment retention among welfare recipients.

Neighborhood Centers initially served only participants from the Northside section of Pittsburgh, its1

customary service area. However, after having difficulty generating enough referrals from within its servicearea, 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

# Neighborhood-based programs may be useful resources for welfare agenciesthat want to deliver case management services to newly employed welfarerecipients.

Welfare agencies that plan to deliver case management services to newly employedwelfare recipients may want to consider relying on neighborhood-based programs to servesome participants. An employment retention program that serves only nearby communitieshas two main advantages over a program that serves participants from many communitiesand neighborhoods. First, staff at a program serving nearby neighborhoods may be more ableto have regular in-person contact with participants. For example, Rankin Christian Center,which, unlike the other three GAPS programs, served only participants from theneighborhoods surrounding its offices, had more in-person contacts with its participants anddelivered more supportive counseling and other services than did the other GAPS serviceproviders, which served participants from throughout Allegheny County. This frequent in-1

person contact by Rankin case managers, as well as the high service content of thesecontacts, may help explain the higher levels of program satisfaction among Rankinparticipants.

Second, staff at agencies serving a small set of neighborhoods will be more familiar withall the relevant support services available to their participants. An important function ofGAPS case managers is to refer participants to support services available to them throughother social service agencies. GAPS case managers who served participants from throughoutthe 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 othermaterial assistance in all the different towns and neighborhoods where their participants live.

# Working with neighborhood-based programs to provide employment retentionservices may require careful planning to assure adequate enrollment.

Working with neighborhood-based programs to provide employment retention servicesmay require careful planning on the part of county welfare agencies. For example, RankinChristian 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 onlyabout half that number. This shortfall suggests that Rankin’s service area may not containenough eligible TANF recipients who are interested in employment retention services toallow Rankin to meet its enrollment goal. Welfare agencies that rely on programs servingsmall areas to deliver employment retention services will need to work closely with theseorganizations to establish realistic enrollment goals. In addition, welfare agencies will needto monitor carefully the pace of enrollment into these programs. When shortfalls arise,welfare agencies may need to make special targeted efforts to recruit participants livingwithin the service areas of these neighborhood-based programs.

As discussed in Chapter 3, the introduction in February 1999 of a new child care assistance program in2

Pennsylvania, Child Care Works, may address many of the potential difficulties surrounding use of child caresubsidies. However, out-of-pocket child care expenses will not be reduced under the new program.

65

B. SUPPLEMENTING CASE MANAGEMENT WITH OTHER SERVICES

Evidence from the first year of the GAPS study suggests that newly employed welfarerecipients may be skeptical that case management alone will help them stay employed.Although GAPS participants liked the supportive counseling and advice they received fromtheir case managers, in follow-up surveys, many expressed skepticism about the ability ofthese services to help them maintain employment. Similarly, recent evidence from the PESDevaluation suggests that the case management approach to promoting employment retentionmay 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 wantmore tangible services from the program to supplement the counseling, advice, and moralsupport that case managers provide. When asked which services that they did not receivefrom the program would have been helpful, participants most often mentioned help findingjobs and help finding and paying for child care and transportation. In this section, wedescribe services that employment retention programs might use to supplement and enhancethe case management approach.

# Some participants may need additional assistance to help them cope withemergencies and cover ongoing work-related expenses.

Although welfare recipients who have left cash assistance for employment oftencontinue to receive certain benefits and supports, such as food stamps and Transitional ChildCare benefits, some former recipients may require additional assistance to address specificneeds. For example, although child care subsidies are available to welfare recipients inAllegheny County, evidence from GAPS follow-up surveys suggests that child care costsremain a substantial issue. Many participants (including those receiving subsidies) reportedmonthly out-of-pocket child care expenses of $200 or more, a substantial expense for peoplewhose average monthly earnings were less than $1,100. Employment retention programs2

may, therefore, want to consider offering additional child care assistance to someparticipants.

Similarly, some participants moving from welfare to work may need additionalassistance with transportation expenses, which differ from child care costs in that fewsubsidies are available. Although all GAPS service providers offer participants short-termhelp with bus tickets, case managers described participants’ desire for help with monthly buspasses, car insurance, and other transportation expenses. Employment retention programsmay want to consider offering some participants additional transportation assistance to helpthem make initial car payments, cover insurance costs, or purchase monthly bus passesduring 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. GAPScase managers described many financial difficulties that can threaten participants’ ability to

However, as discussed in Chapter V, the GAPS study was not designed to estimate program impacts.3

Therefore, the better outcomes among Hill House participants could be attributable to other factors, includinginitial differences between them and the participants of the other three GAPS agencies.

66

maintain employment, such as expensive car repairs, overdue rent or utility bills, or largesecurity deposits required to obtain a new apartment. Employment retention programs maywant to offer participants small loans or grants to help them through a financial crisis, assome GAPS service providers did. Along with this emergency financial assistance, anemployment retention program can provide budget advice and supportive counseling onunderlying housing, transportation, or other problems.

# Programs that supplement case management with additional tangible servicesmay have more success at engaging participants and, ultimately, at improvingtheir economic outcomes.

Providing supplemental services that are of clear tangible benefit to participants mayhelp employment retention programs, particularly voluntary ones, attract and engageparticipants. For example, Rankin provides its participants with smoke detectors, bicyclehelmets for children, and other home safety devices. Although these items are not directlyrelated to participants’ employment success, Rankin case managers and focus groupattendees indicated that this type of assistance was appreciated and helped convinceparticipants that program staff cared about them and their families. The fact that the programoffered this specific and tangible help may partly explain the higher levels of programsatisfaction, as well as program contact, among Rankin’s participants.

Similarly, emergency financial assistance may help engage some participants andultimately improve their economic outcomes. For example, among the four GAPS serviceproviders, Hill House provided emergency assistance to the largest fraction of its participantsand provided larger grants than did the other agencies. Hill House’s more frequent use ofthis type of assistance may partly explain the better employment outcomes among itsparticipants.3

# Services that help newly employed welfare recipients improve the reliability oftheir child care arrangements may be particularly useful.

According to GAPS participants, breakdowns in child care arrangements occur withsome regularity. Most GAPS participants use relatives or other informal providers to carefor their children, and these arrangements are more prone to breakdown than those withformal providers, such as day care centers and preschools. For example, at the time of thefollow-up survey, more than 1 in 10 participants who used an informal child care providerhad missed an entire day of work in the previous month. In contrast, among those using daycare centers or other group care arrangements, only 1 in 20 had missed an entire day becauseof a child care problem.

Employment retention programs like GAPS may be able to provide services that increasethe reliability of participants’ child care arrangements and thus reduce their risk of missingtime from work. For example, case managers could research the center-based programs in

67

the neighborhoods where participants live, form working relationships with certain centers,and even accompany participants on visits to these centers. In follow-up surveys, manyparticipants 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 carearrangements.

Other participants, however, may prefer to continue using informal child carearrangements 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 informalproviders are more readily available during nonstandard work hours. An employmentretention program may be able to improve the reliability of these informal arrangements, andthus prevent participants from missing work because of child care problems, by providingthem 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 orlicensed family day care home for occasional use by participants whose regular arrangementsbreak down. Participants who need to begin new jobs on short notice could also use theseslots until they make permanent arrangements.

# A greater emphasis on job advancement for newly employed welfare recipientsmay 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 focussubstantial additional effort to place unemployed participants in new jobs. However, mostparticipants 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 theprogram), their wages continued to average about $7.00 an hour. In addition, amongemployed GAPS participants, 49 percent indicated on follow-up surveys that they werecurrently looking for another job. Since most participants have maintained employment, butat low wages, and since many employed participants continue to look for new jobs, a greaterprogram emphasis on job advancement may be appropriate for promoting the economicsuccess of participants. The fact that participants who began the program with below-average wages were at greater risk of unemployment during their early months in theprogram also suggests that additional job advancement assistance may be needed.

Employment retention programs can pursue two different strategies to promote jobadvancement. First, case managers can encourage participants working at low-wage jobs tofind higher-paying employment. Help with writing and producing resumes, sharpeninginterview skills, assessing strengths, and identifying appropriate career goals may also beuseful. In fact, although most participants remained employed throughout their early monthsin the program, many indicated on follow-up surveys that they would like the program tohelp them more with job search.

Second, programs can help participants obtain the appropriate training to advance tohigher-paid employment. GAPS case managers indicated that most participants would have

See Rangarajan et al. 1998 for a more complete discussion of the merits of targeting certain groups of4

welfare recipients for employment retention services.

Higher levels of participant contacts at a program could represent one of two things. First, the program5

may serve needier participants who require more frequent contact and service provision. Second, the programmay have the necessary resources to make a higher level of participant contacts possible. Given the substantialdifferences in caseload sizes across the four GAPS service providers during the early months of programoperations, as well as the relatively small observed differences in the type of participants served across theseprograms (see Table II.2), the latter explanation seems more plausible for the more frequent participant contactby case managers at Rankin and Neighborhood Centers.

68

difficulty adding a long-term training program to their busy schedules of full-time work andchild rearing. However, programs could help participants find, and even pay for, short-termtraining activities, such as brief computer software courses.

C. TARGETING EMPLOYMENT RETENTION SERVICES

One useful strategy for programs serving newly employed welfare recipients may be tofocus their limited resources on participants who seem most at risk of job loss. Since most4

GAPS participants remained employed during their early months in the program, focusinga higher proportion of program resources on participants who appear at high risk of job lossmay be appropriate. In this section, we discuss lessons learned from the GAPS study ontargeting employment retention services.

# In employment retention programs with limited resources, it may be best tofocus efforts on those who appear at risk of job loss and those who activelyseek help.

More than any other GAPS service provider, Hill House used targeting as a servicedelivery strategy. Because their larger caseloads (about 70 participants per case managerduring the period covered by this report) made frequent contact with all their participantsimpractical, case managers adopted a strategy of attempting to communicate with mostparticipants about once a month and targeting less stable and younger participants for morefrequent contact. In addition, the fact that the agency had the highest proportion ofparticipant-initiated contacts suggests that Hill House, more than any other GAPS serviceprovider, focused its efforts on participants who actively sought help. In contrast, casemanagers at Neighborhood Centers and Rankin attempted contacts with all participants ona more frequent basis. Case managers at these agencies had smaller caseloads and were ableto set and achieve higher goals for how frequently they contacted their participants. GAPSparticipants served by these two agencies were contacted twice as often as were Hill Houseparticipants.5

One might expect, therefore, that participants at Rankin and Neighborhood Centerswould have the best economic outcomes, since these agencies delivered more services toparticipants, at least as measured by the frequency of contact. However, during their earlymonths in the program, Hill House participants had better economic outcomes than similarparticipants in Rankin and Neighborhood Centers. For example, a typical Hill Houseparticipant had only a 9 percent chance of becoming unemployed during her first six months

69

in GAPS, compared with a 17 percent chance for a similar participant in the other twoprograms.

This result suggests that when an agency is faced with the need to serve manyparticipants, the Hill House strategy of targeting participants who seem most at risk ofunemployment and who actively seek help from the program may be effective. It may alsosuggest that moving to caseloads smaller than those at Hill House may not necessarilyimprove participants’ outcomes. As discussed earlier, however, since the GAPS study wasnot designed to measure program impacts, the better outcomes among Hill Houseparticipants could be the result of other factors, including initial differences in the types ofparticipants the agency served. Therefore, this finding does not provide definitive evidencethat this service delivery approach would improve participant outcomes.

What types of participants should employment retention programs target for morefrequent contact? Our analysis of the employment outcomes of GAPS participants suggeststhat those who had low-wage jobs and no fringe benefits, those who were younger, those whohad health problems, and those who had children during their early months in the programwere at highest risk of unemployment. As they attempt to make the most of their limitedresources, future employment retention programs may want to focus their efforts on thesehighest-risk participants.

71

REFERENCES

Haimson, Joshua, and Alan Hershey. “Getting Help to Stay Employed: The Use ofPostemployment Services.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., April1997.

Haimson, Joshua, Alan Hershey, and Anu Rangarajan. “Providing Services to Promote JobRetention.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., October 1995.

Rangarajan, Anu, and Tim Novak. “The Struggle to Sustain Employment: The Effectivenessof the Postemployment Services Demonstration.” Draft report. Princeton, NJ:Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., December 1998.

Rangarajan, Anu, Peter Schochet, and Dexter Chu. “Employment Experiences of WelfareRecipients Who Find Jobs: Is Targeting Possible?” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica PolicyResearch, Inc., August 1998.

Rangarajan, Anu. “Keeping Welfare Recipients Employed: A Guide for States DesigningJob Retention Services.” Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 1998.

Rangarajan, Anu “Taking the First Steps: Helping Welfare Recipients Who Get Jobs KeepThem.” 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.

73

APPENDIX A

his appendix contains in-depth profiles of each of the four GAPS agencies. EachTprofile provides background information about the agency’s history and mission anda 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 inPittsburgh’s Hill District joined together to form a comprehensive social service agency. HillHouse has since evolved into an active community organization that offers senior services,community development initiatives, a family self-sufficiency program, programs for youngmothers and fathers, and child care and child development services. At its KauffmannProgram Center, Hill House operates an after-school program for children in grades 1through 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 communityfor meetings, forums, and other events. The Hill House Center, located in the heart of theHill District, provides space to many other human services agencies, including a dental clinicoperated by the health department; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women,Infants, and Children (WIC); Duquesne University’s law and psychology clinics, MercyHospital, 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 theYoung Mothers program, which provides General Equivalency Degree (GED) preparation,an eight-week job readiness course, case management, and referrals for teenage mothers whoreceive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). Initial interest in the GAPSprogram grew out of agency staff’s desire to provide employment retention and supportservices to women who entered employment after completing the Young Mothers program.Although most GAPS participants were not in the Young Mothers program, staff have foundthat 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 withmore than ten years of experience in criminal justice and drug and alcohol rehabilitation andthree years of experience working in the Young Mothers program. In February 1998, ThePittsburgh Foundation provided additional funding for a second full-time worker. He is alsoa veteran case manager with previous experience in the Hill House senior services programand in the mental health field. Both case managers maintain weekend and evening officehours, regularly stop by participants’ homes after work, and call participants from theirhomes in the evening. In addition, both case managers carry beepers so that participants canreach them when they are not in the office.

74

2. Recruitment

Hill House accepts participants from throughout Allegheny County. Although most HillHouse participants have been referred by the Allegheny County Assistance Office (ACAO),Hill House also has recruited four former Young Mothers participants. A few participantshave also been referred by other agencies. Within about a day of receiving a referral, HillHouse sends each participant a welcome letter that asks her to contact the GAPS office. Ifthe participant does not call within three days, case managers follow up by telephone tobriefly explain the program and set up an initial meeting. Participants’ response to the offerof services has been strong. Of the 150 referrals received during the program’s first ninemonths, 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 needsassessment during the program’s early months was minimal. Case managers asked about theparticipants’ jobs, hours worked, and child care arrangements and determined whether theyhad 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 childcare.

After the second case manager was hired and trained, program staff developed an intakeand tracking form for case managers to use for initial intake and ongoing tracking ofparticipants’ needs. The form collects information in areas that case managers believe to beindicators 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 casemanagers reported that they try to telephone participants once a month to monitor theiremployment status. In addition, case managers said that they try to maintain more frequentcontact with participants who are very young or who are living in more precariouscircumstances.

4. Types of Services Provided

According to case managers, most contacts with participants involve counseling aboutwork-related or personal issues. In addition, case managers refer some participants to theDuquesne Mental Health Clinic for individual therapy and to the Hill Collaborative forreferrals to drug and alcohol treatment programs. Both agencies have offices at the HillHouse Center.

Hill House staff reported that they frequently help participants straighten out problemsor confusion about transitional benefits, especially Transitional Child Care. Case managers,who often find that participants are not aware of the benefits available to them, regularlyprovide this information, intervene with ACAO when problems arise, and help participantscomplete application forms.

Hill House established a Critical Need Fund to provide financial assistance to purchasematerial goods and services for participants in crisis. Participants must request funds inwriting and work with a case manager to develop a plan (usually a household budget) for

75

preventing the crisis from reoccurring. The director of Education and Support Servicesmakes 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 bustickets for participants.

When participants lose their jobs, case managers refer them to the Family Self-Sufficiency 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. Casemanagers also help participants with resumes and sometimes refer them directly to jobopenings. In addition, GAPS participants have access to the Hill House CAN, where theycan write resumes with a self-directed program, print copies of resumes and letters, andsearch the Internet. GAPS participants are also invited to attend job fairs held at theKauffman Program Center about every three months. Although some unemployedparticipants reapply for TANF on their own, case managers encourage them to seek new jobsinstead.

Most other services are provided through referral. Although Hill House supplies somematerial assistance directly, case managers usually refer participants to other organizationsfor food, clothing, furniture, and household goods. When participants want to seek educationand training, Hill House case managers provide information about area training centers andcommunity colleges. For help with housing, case managers make referrals to the housingauthority’s Central Relocation Agency, the Urban League of Pittsburgh, and a housingagency located at the Hill House Center. Referrals are also made for help with the EarnedIncome Credit (EIC) and to child care providers, counseling programs, alcohol and drugtreatment programs, and health care providers, many of which are located at the Hill HouseCenter.

B. NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS ASSOCIATION

Neighborhood Centers Association, a community-based, multiservice agency, has servedPittsburgh’s Northside for more than a century. The agency operates a variety of programsfor primarily low-income residents at two Northside locations--Manchester House and theLimbach Community Center. The GAPS program is headquartered at Manchester house,near the homes of many GAPS participants. Neighborhood Centers has five programsinvolving services to help children, including abuse and neglect prevention, parentingeducation, and intervention for families in crisis. Social activities, recreation, nutritionservices, 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 summeryouth 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 andelectric bills) and a program that provides free eyeglasses to low-income people.

Neighborhood Centers also operates the Family Service Program, which providessupport services to low-income families, most of whom receive public assistance. Althoughit does not focus specifically on employment, the Family Service Program provides similarservices to those provided through the GAPS program. For example, the Family Service

76

Program and GAPS both provide supportive counseling, life skills education (budgeting,comparison shopping, healthy meal preparation), and referrals. The Family Service Programis funded by the Allegheny County Department of Federal Programs.

Staff interest in the GAPS program grew out of experience operating the Family ServiceProgram at Neighborhood Centers. GAPS meets a previously unmet need for former FamilyService Program participants, because the Neighborhood Centers did not have resources tocontinue providing followup and support to participants who left public assistance foremployment. Although services provided through GAPS are more focused on maintainingemployment, the agency used the Family Support Program model to design its GAPSprogram.

1. Program Staffing

Three case managers spend 75 percent of their time on GAPS and 25 percent on theFamily Support Program. In addition, a life skills specialist spends 40 percent of her timeon GAPS and 60 percent on the Family Support Program. Case managers refer participantsto 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 allotmentsfor participants if they are at work. All case managers have from nine months to 10 years ofexperience working for Neighborhood Centers in the Family Support Program. The lifeskills specialist is experienced in home health care.

Case managers work flexible hours so that they can conduct home visits during eveningsand on weekends. Staff work from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M. when no evening home visits arescheduled, 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 worka later shift (for example, 11 A.M. to 7 P.M.) or to use “flextime” to leave work early onanother day.

Neighborhood Centers requires staff to complete 40 hours of training each year. Inaddition to Learning Community meetings sponsored by The Pittsburgh Foundation, theGAPS supervisor has brought in staff from area employment services programs to train staffon providing reemployment services, and a representative from the Urban League ofPittsburgh provided training on housing issues.

2. Recruitment

Initially, Neighborhood Centers restricted its GAPS program to residents of theNorthside, its traditional service area. However, because the agency did not receive enoughreferrals from the welfare office, it began accepting participants from anywhere in AlleghenyCounty and now serves Southside neighborhoods, McKeesport, and other communities.Case managers reported that they try to telephone potential participants within a day or soof 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 takesplace during home visits, the case manager describes the program, completes an intake form,and asks the participant to sign a consent form.

77

3. Needs Assessment and Tracking

Case managers conduct an initial needs assessment by completing an intake sheet thatcollects basic information about children, household composition, income, and employmentand gathers participants’ needs in detail. Case managers use monthly assessment forms andnarrative 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 witheach participant, because they think that such visits produce more successful serviceoutcomes. When a home visit is not possible, case managers talk with participants bytelephone. With participants’ permission, case managers also meet with participants at ornear their worksites during lunch or other breaks. According to agency staff, virtually allservices 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 generallyprovided by case managers during home visits. Topics of sessions include time and moneymanagement, self-esteem, work issues (proper dress, interviewing skills, how to address aprevious job loss during an interview), appropriate communication with employers, andpersonal relationship problems. Most participants also receive life skills instruction on suchtopics as comparison shopping and budgeting.

Case managers reported that they spend some time helping participants obtaintransitional benefits available through the welfare department. While a few participants haveneeded help with Transitional Child Care, most already have this benefit when they enter theprogram. However, case managers have found that participants are not aware of all thetransitional benefits for which they are eligible.

Neighborhood Centers has a small loan fund and a tangible-aid fund to help GAPSparticipants 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 payback a small amount each month (with no interest). The tangible-aid fund is a last resort tohelp with crises, and participants do not have to repay the fund. Tangible-aid funds havebeen used for car repairs, car inspection, bus passes, and food vouchers. When participantsrequest the funds, they must show that the funds are for a one-time purchase and develop aplan 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 searchstrategies, provide job lists from Goodwill and other employment newspapers, and providelists of employment agencies. Case managers also provide pamphlets that containinstructions for resume writing, as well as sample resumes. Managers direct participants whoneed to prepare resumes to computers and typewriters available at the public library;sometimes Neighborhood Centers secretaries prepare resumes for participants. WhileNeighborhood Centers does not hold job fairs, case managers encourage participants toattend job fairs held by Goodwill and Hill House Association.

Neighborhood Centers provide other services through referral. Case managers referparticipants to food banks, Goodwill, the Salvation Army, and other similar agencies for

78

material assistance and provide some items, such as food vouchers, eyeglasses, andchildren’s clothing, directly. Other referrals are made to agencies such as the Urban Leagueof 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 asettlement house for Eastern European immigrants. It serves Rankin, Braddock, and TurtleCreek, now mostly small African American communities of 2,000 to 7,000 people. For thepast nine years, Rankin has worked in partnership with Children’s Hospital of Pittsburgh tooperate a family support center called the Family Care Connection (FCC). This collaborationbegan when Children’s Hospital wanted to focus child abuse prevention services on high-riskcommunities within Allegheny County and selected Rankin and neighboring communitiesas target service areas.

FCC provides a wide range of family support, health, and educational programs. Forexample, it operates the First Steps program, an intensive program of prenatal outreach andcare and ongoing family support. While First Steps focuses on health services, it alsoidentifies families at risk of child abuse and intervenes with support and respite services. Inaddition, FCC provides emergency food assistance, literacy programs, a summer breakfastand lunch program, after-school tutoring, recreation programs, a summer day camp, and aHead Start program. Rankin also provides CPR training for the community, aerobics classes,workshops on asthma and healthy eating, and children’s play groups. Many GAPSparticipants live near Rankin’s offices, some even within walking distance. Thus, they areeasily able to enjoy virtually all the services and programs of Rankin and FCC.

Most GAPS participants already have experience with Rankin and FCC, primarilythrough First Steps. Rankin’s decision to apply for GAPS funding arose from the recognitionthat, while more and more local residents were getting jobs, they still faced problems thatjeopardized 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/alcoholcounselor, a mental health counselor, family support workers, GAPS case managers, andAmericorps volunteers.

The GAPS program is staffed by two case managers and one Americorps volunteer, allformer welfare recipients. One case manager and the Americorps volunteer are workingtoward associate’s degrees. Both case managers began at Rankin as Americorps volunteersand were hired as new employees to work with the GAPS program. In addition tosupervision and training for all employees, Rankin has provided some specialized trainingfor GAPS staff, including training on the EIC provided by a tax expert.

GAPS staff work flexible hours, including evenings when necessary, to accommodateparticipants’ work schedules. An FCC staff person is on call 24 hours a day so participantscan always get in touch with someone. All staff, including GAPS case managers, rotate this

79

responsibility. GAPS staff also carry beepers so participants can reach them easily. Staffregularly 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 whohad been on TANF and had recently begun working. GAPS staff made presentations tomany groups that meet at Rankin (for example, children’s play groups) and to all the areaservice providers who operate job readiness programs under contract with the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Public Welfare (DPW). Because most community residents are familiar withRankin and many have participated in First Steps or other Rankin programs, their responseto the offer of services was positive.

GAPS case managers try to keep their first contact with potential participants very low-key. 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 bymailing the participant a calendar for writing down appointments.

3. Needs Assessment and Tracking

GAPS case managers reported that, rather than conduct a formal assessment withparticipants, 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 byphone calls and home visits.

In addition to regular contact, staff have used several strategies to build trust, so thatparticipants will feel comfortable asking for help when they need it. For example, Rankinhas received several small grants to operate a home safety inspection program and a bicyclesafety program. FCC staff have gone to 60 homes to do safety inspections and deliver freesafety kits containing smoke detectors, safety latches, and other supplies. In addition, theyhave 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 plansfor approaching both their employment-related and their personal problems.

According to the GAPS case managers, other commonly provided services includematerial assistance, as well as help with transitional benefits, child care, and housing. WhileRankin does not have funds for emergency financial assistance, the agency does providesome in-kind material assistance, such as furniture, diapers, and bus tickets. GAPS casemanagers intervene with the welfare office on a regular basis when participants either do notknow they are eligible for transitional benefits or have problems obtaining them, usually forchild care and medical assistance. Rankin helps participants find child care by providing listsof licensed or registered providers who have space available.

Assistance resolving housing problems has been a major benefit for several GAPSparticipants. Rankin has a full-time housing advocate on staff who is available to help GAPS

80

participants resolve housing problems. On behalf of Rankin participants, he regularlyinteracts with three housing authorities, the local U.S. Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) office, landlords, property managers, and public utility companies.

During the program’s first nine months of operation, only a handful of Rankin’s 105GAPS 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, ratherthan on employment services.

D. URBAN LEAGUE OF PITTSBURGH

The Urban League of Pittsburgh is an 80-year-old community organization with themission 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, offersservices in employment, education, housing, youth development, early childhooddevelopment, and other areas and has recently opened a charter school. The Urban League’sservices are open to all Allegheny County residents, regardless of race or ethnicity.

According to agency officials, the Urban League applied for GAPS funding becauseUrban 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 agencyalready had extensive experience with the target population. Furthermore, GAPS providesthe agency with an opportunity to work with participants on a long-term basis, something thatthe Urban League is seldom able to do in many of its other programs. Finally, the UrbanLeague views GAPS as part of the larger welfare reform movement and sees it as a goodopportunity 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. Althoughthe program began with only one GAPS case manager, The Pittsburgh Foundation providedadditional 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 andalcohol addiction and AIDS/HIV. The second case manager has experience in drug andalcohol rehabilitation services. Both case managers were new hires without experience atthe Urban League.

Urban League case managers work regular business hours, as well as two evenings aweek and occasional weekends. One case manager carries a beeper so that participants cancontact her at any time. The other case manager gives participants her home telephonenumber. Both case managers are on call to participants 24 hours a day. Because about halfthe Urban League’s participants live in outlying areas of Allegheny County, such as EastPittsburgh and McKeesport (15 to 20 miles from the Urban League office), both casemanagers spend a great deal of time traveling to meet with participants in or near their homesor worksites.

81

2. Recruitment

The Urban League has recruited all its GAPS participants through the county welfareoffice, which made so many referrals that the agency had to maintain a large waiting list forseveral 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 face-to-face meeting, usually in the participant’s home, to complete both a detailed intake formand a shorter needs assessment form. The intake form asks a detailed set of questions thatcover many areas, including employment history, education level, family background, arresthistory, health status (including mental health and substance abuse problems), child carearrangements, personal interests, and social services used. The needs assessment form is achecklist 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 amonth to track their progress. During the first nine months of program operations, casemanagers reported that they were successful a little less often. While most of these follow-upcontacts are made by telephone, some are made in person, usually in participants’ homes orin public meeting places near their homes or workplaces. Regular followup, especially face-to-face contact, is challenging for the Urban League, because such a large portion of theircaseload lives far from the Urban League office.

4. Types of Services Provided

Urban League case managers devote much of their time to providing supportivecounseling, as they find that many participants just need someone to listen to them andprovide reassurance. Counseling sessions often cover work-related issues, includingguidance about proper dress and behavior at work, and for those with temporary or part-timejobs, guidance about upgrading to full-time positions. Other common counseling topicsinclude money management, parenting issues, family problems, and domestic violence.

The Urban League also provides help with child care, primarily by helping participantsobtain Transitional Child Care and Child Care Partnership funds. Case managers helpparticipants fill out paperwork, provide orientation about the steps required to obtain thebenefits, and coach them through contacts with the welfare office. In April 1998, the agencysponsored a workshop about obtaining Child Care Partnership funds that was attended by 13GAPS participants. In addition, the Urban League helps some participants identifyappropriate child care providers in their communities.

Many of the Urban League’s GAPS participants experienced a job loss during the firstfew months of enrollment, often when placements obtained through temporary agenciesended. The Urban League’s GAPS case managers offer assistance with resume writing andinterview skills on an individual basis. However, the program does not have the resourcesto provide direct help with job readiness instruction or job training. For this reason, casemanagers refer participants to other providers for these services. Staff have investedconsiderable time in learning about employment services available through other providers.

82

Participants can also access the Urban League’s employment department, whichmaintains a job bank of available positions and offers employment counseling services.Although the employment department does not offer assistance in resume writing orreproduction, it will fax participants’ resumes to potential employers and provide participantswith job leads.

Other common services the Urban League’s GAPS program provides include limitedtransportation assistance and referrals for material assistance and help with housing. To helpwith transportation, the Urban League provides participants with up to a week’s worth of bustickets. Although the program has few resources to provide financial or material assistancedirectly, 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 havereferred about one-third of their participants to the Urban League’s housing assistance officefor help with impending evictions or inadequate housing. Housing assistance, historicallyone of the major services of the Urban League, includes counseling, emergency sheltergrants, and a home ownership program.

GAPS case managers also help participants reapply for TANF after a job loss. Casemanagers encourage them to return to TANF while they look for a new job, because thisenables them to obtain employment and job training services and transitional benefits whenthey return to work. Urban League case managers have also helped a few participants withsufficient work history to obtain unemployment compensation benefits.

APPENDIX B

GAPS SERVICE USE LOG FORMS

85

EXHIBIT B.1

SERVICE USE LOG FOR THE GAPS PROGRAM

Participant Name: MPRID #: GAPS Worker Name: Program:

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)Date Initiated Contact Service Type(s) Time Spent in

(MM/DD/YR) Mode By With (Up to 4 Entries) Minutes Notes

86

EXHIBIT B.2

THE GAPS INITIATIVE: EMPLOYMENT RETENTION PROGRAMSERVICE USE LOG CODE SHEET

Mode of Contact Discussion Concerning (continued)

Telephone TEL Time management TIMLetter or memo LET Housing issues HOUFace to face in GAPS office OFF Problems in family and relationships FAMFace to face at client’s workplace JOB Alcohol/drug issues ALCFace to face at client’s home HOM Nutrition issues NUTFace to face at other community location PUB Transportation TRPGroup meeting or training GRP Violence, abuse, discord VAA

Contact Initiated by Health issues HLT

GAPS staff GAPClient CLI Help Gaining Access to Services and BenefitsEmployer EMP Help applying for or resolving problems concerning TANF or food stamps WELOther agency staff OTH Help applying for Earned Income Tax Credit EIT

Party Contacted Help finding child care or dealing with child care problems CCP

GAPS staff GAP Help with other health insurance HEAClient CLI Help finding medical care provider AMCEmployer EMP Referral to education or training JTROther agency staff OTH Help with clothing/furnishings CLFFamily FAM General referral (to other agencies for housing, legal aid, food, clothing, mental health, GRF

Services Rendered (indicate up to four) Followup on referral (to determine if services were pursued or provided) FUR

Monitoring and Contact Attempts Provision of General contact to check on client status/progress CHK Emergency financial help FINEffort to locate client’s whereabouts LOC In-kind material help (clothing, furniture, household goods, etc.) MATInitial contact INC Food assistance FDAInitial assessment INA Emergency shelter ESHCall to client with no answer or left message NOA Transportation services TRS

Participation in Peer Support Group (Case Manager Led) PRG Help Finding Employment

Discussion Concerning Job placement help (calls to employers, help setting appointments, rides to interviews, JPLWorkplace behavior or ethics WPB etc.)Resolving workplace conflicts/negotiating workplace conditions WPC Job club (led by case manager) JCLParenting skills PRS Advancement assistance (advice to currently employed client on finding a better job) ADVMoney management MMG Job Fair JFR

Consumer skills CSK

General goals and contingency planning CTG

Morale/self-esteem MOR

Help obtaining child care benefits, including transitional child care CCB

Help applying for or resolving questions or problems concerning Medicaid MED

etc.)

General job search advice JSA