ED308297.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DOCUMENT RESUME ED 308 297 CE 052 657 AUTHOR Riccio, James; And Others TITLE GAIN: Early Implementation Experiences and Lessons. California's Greater Avenues for Independence Program. INSTITUTION Manpower Demonstration Research Corp., New York, N.Y. SPONS AGENCY California State Dept. of Social Services, Sacramento. PUB DATE Apr 89 NOTE 359p.; For a related document, see CE 052 658. AVAILABLE FROMManpower Demonstration Research Corporation, Three Park Avenue, New York, NY 10016. PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC15 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Adult Basic Education; Compliance (Legal); *Employment Programs; High School Equivalency Programs; *Job Training; Program Development; Program Implementation; State Legislation; *State Programs; *Welfare Recipients; Welfare Services IDENTIFIERS *California; *Greater Avenues for Independence Program ABSTRACT California's Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program requires that large numbers of welfare recipients receive job training and preparation for employment. A survey of the program analyzed early operations in 8 of the first 10 counties to implement it; data were gathered from program staff, case records, and field research of the first 16-24 months of operation. The survey found that the eight study counties were generally successful in developing the network of education and training services called for by the GAIN legislation. A program model was developed to provide basic education and/or job search assistance. The eight counties' programs have evolved in delivering services, managing the flow of registrants through the services, and obtaining compliance with the program's participation requirements. The systems are expanding to meet GAIN's demands. However, only about one-third of those eligible actually attended GAIN programs. The evaluation suggested immediate improvement in program marketing, participant tracking systems, money management, deferral policies, and basic education services. (Appendices provide supplementary tables, survey questions, and 18 references.) (KC) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. rr, .0'.0.41i1,4., ". 7 -tFt 4.1 . 4,44 iM 4'44 "ze. ` .4co. *IL Y.r.b14t, tva....v4.10`041Afat*Ar:ft. BOARD OF DIRECTORS RICHARD P. NATHAN, Chairman BERNARD E. ANDERSON Professor Managing Partner Woodrow Wilson School of Urban Affairs Partnership Corporation Public and International Affairs Princeton University RAMON C. CORTINES Superintendent PAUL H. O'NEILL, Treasurer San Francisco Unified School District Chairman and CEO Aluminum Company of America ALAN KISTLER President ELI GINZBERG, Chairman Eneri:u.s Human Resource Development Institute Director AFL-CIO Conservati'm of Human Resources Columbia University ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON Professor Georgetown University Law Center ISABEL V. SAWHILL Senior Fellow The Urban Institute ROBERT SOLOW Institute Professor Massachusetts Institute of Technology GILBERT STEINER Senior Fellow Brookings Institution MITCHELL SVIRIDOFF Co-Director of Community Development Research Center New School for Social Research WILLIAM S. WOODSIDE Former Chief Executive OfficerPrimerica Corporation and Chairman, Institute of Educational Leadership JUDITH M. GUERON President Manpower Dean nistration Research Corporation MDRC THE GREATER AVENUES FOR INDEPENDENCE (GAIN) PROGRAM: EARLY IMPLEMENTATION EXPERIENCES AND LESSONS James Riccio, Barbara Goldman, Gayle Hamilton, Karin Martinson, Alan Orenstein with David Long, Stephen Freedman, Electra Taylor, John Wallace Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation April 1989 ("z The Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation's evaluation of the California Greater Avenues forIndependence (GAIN) programisfunded 1:5 a contract fromCalifornia'sState Department of Social Services.This report is the second ofa series on the GAIN program in thefive-year study. The findings in this report do not necessarilyrepresent the official position or policy of the funder. Copyright 1989 by Manpower Demonstration ResearchCorporation 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This second report on the GAIN program in California is the product of many people's work.In the eight study counties, the support of the county welfare directors and staff was critical, and they provided helpful comments on the initial draft of this report. The authors particularly benefited from the assistance and comments of:Pat Cragar, Betsy Kruger, and Sheila Schultz (Butte County); Patrick Hendrix, Janet Rickert, Peggy Soliday, and Ardyss Webster (Fresno County); Dorothy Schalwitz, Barbara Miller, and Fred Logan (Kern County); Lynne Vaughan, Terry Longoria, and Donna DeWeerd (Napa County); Madelyn Martin, John Baarts, Beverly Davidson, Patrick Duterte, and Lloyd Rinde (San Mateo County); Manual Ares, Alette Lundeberg, Sherri Gilligan, Raul Aldana, and John Oppenheim (Santa Clara County); Dennis Pankratz, Lynda lee Whipple, Carol Wright, and Monica Ebert (Stanislaus County); and Ruth Irussi, Patricia Stephenson, Pat Bauer, Henry Arguelles, and Linda Wilson (Ventura County).Appreciation is also expressed for the cooperation of staff at the many service providers in these counties, who both allowed MDRC staff to observe their operations and provided access to needed data. At the State Department of Social Services, staff gave their full cooperation to the research effort. The authors particularly acknowledge the assistance of Dennis Boyle, Kathy Lewis, Del Say les, Bruce Wagstaff, Lynne Reich, Tom Burke, Helen Tsai, Robert Birdseye, Mary Garcia, and Annemarie Soule. The ongoing guidance and support of legislative staff for the overall evaluation is also gratefully acknowledged. At MDRC, numerous staff made important contributions to this project.Judith Gueron, president of MDRC, and Michael Bangser provided overall guidance and valuable comments on earlier drafts of the report. Sharon Rowser, Linda Traeger, and Jim Healy had county liaison responsibilities and, along with Cynthia Guy, conducted field research.Vilma Ortiz helped design the study of basic education. David Navarro had responsibility for administering the staff attitudes survey. Critical programming and related tasks were ably performed by John Wooden, Daniel Edelstein, and Rachel Woolley.Important administrative support was provided by Maggie Meadows. In the Information Services Department, Karen Paget provided overall management and supervision for the participant flow data collection effort.Anne Van Aman and Clareann Grimaldi, assisted by Anne Jenkins, Paul Downs, and many other MDRC staff members, were responsible for data assessments and the collection of the casefile data that inform the entire report. Patti Anderson was responsible for the design and development of the data processing system, supervising Gaston Murray and Margarita Agudelo. Shirley James provided supervision of the data room staff in data management and preparation. Elizabeth Eisner, assisted by Anna Lapinska, coordinated table production.Wendy Campbell edited the report, and Sara Cohen oversaw report production.Patt Pontevolpe, Stephanie Amy Cowell, and Claudette Edwards contributed their word processing skills. The authors also benefited from comments on an early draft of this report provided by members of MDRC's Board of Directors and Advisory Committee, and from design assistance from members of the Implementation Study Advisory Group. The Authors PREFACE In 1985, California created the Greater Avenues for Independence (GAIN) program, a major welfare reform initiative. The legislation called for far-reaching change, outlining a welfare employment program more ambitious in scope and scale than any other implemented to date. The bill required that California's 58 counties (which administer welfare and would operate GAIN) offer comprehensive services -- including basic education-- to welfare recipients obligated to participate and also to those who volunteered.It further mandated that welfare recipients engage in employment activities as long a they remained on the rolls. To accomplish this, counties have had to develop a complex delivery system tor providing these services, assure that services were appropriate, involve clients in key aspects of decision- making, and offer child care and other support services. Recognizing the magnitude of change involved, the legislature gave counties six years to plan and implement the full GAIN program. Importantly, the GAIN legislation called for a careful evaluation of the program, to track its implementation and measure its effectiveness and cost.The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC), under contract to the state Department of Social Services, is conducting this evaluation. This is the second in an ongoing series of reports from this major study.It analyses the early experiences of eight of the first ten counties that took up the challenge of implementing GAIN. It looks at the tasks they faced in translating the legislation into practice and identifies important issues, some of which hay! already been addressed by GAIN administrators and staff. By nature, a report on early operations usually focuses on implementation problems, since it describes a period when program designers and staff are adapting new procedures and defining reasonable expectations and practices. Because of this, we at MDRC are extremely grateful to the eight counties for serving as the laboratories to test and learn about GAIN, and for letting us observe and record that process. The resub; lessons should prove useful to those