|
|
|
Recommendations
|
Connecticut's Jobs First Program Evaluation: Early Data on the Implementation of Connecticut's Jobs First Program (12/01/97)
|
|
"Thus, a key challenge in the coming months will be to encourage and assist recipients to obtain stable jobs that provide enough income to support their families…"(20).
"Another critical task will be to create a process for reviewing cases that reach the time limit… Because case-by-case decisions are likely to involve considerable staff discretion, it will be important to develop procedures to ensure that recipients in similar situations are treated consistently"(21).
|
| |
|
Connecticut's Jobs First Evaluation: Early Implementation of Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative (07/01/98)
|
|
“It is too early to say whether Jobs First approach will prove to be an effective way to increase employment and reduce welfare dependence. From an operational perspective, the approach has both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, while Jobs First’s financial incentives may prove to be costly, its administrative costs are likely to be fairly low. Thus, relative to some other programs, Jobs First is likely to direct a greater hare of resources to low-income working families rather than to staff salaries. On the other hand, the fact that many recipients do not interact much with staff means that there are relatively few opportunities for workers to help clients understand how they might best respond to the new rules. This situation magnifies the need for staff training, not just on rules and regulations, but also on how to market and discuss the new policies”(ES-6).
|
| |
|
Connecticut's Jobs First Evaluation: Final Report on Connecticut's Welfare Reform Initiative (02/01/02)
|
|
When drawing conclusions based on the Jobs First evaluation, however, it is important to
remember that the program is an unusual hybrid and was implemented in a specific manner. First,
Jobs First has one of the shortest time limits in the nation, but, during the period studied, those who
had very low income when they reached the limit typically received benefit extensions. Second, the
program includes an unusually generous earned income disregard, which allowed many working
parents in the study to retain their entire welfare grant at least temporarily. Third, Jobs First pro-vides
employment-services to help people find jobs, but the program was not implemented very
intensively. The effects of Jobs First reflect the complex interactions of these components. Finally,
the evaluation period was characterized by an unusually strong economy, which likely fostered job-finding
and helped reduce the chances that Jobs First would harm vulnerable families.
|
| |
|
|
