Supported Work Works The experiences of an obscure employee at the Oakland Airport don't ordinarily occasion editorial comment. But we're preoccupied today with such a worker - a mother at the age of 14 and a welfare re cipient for 11 years. In 1977, fed up at last with life on the public dole, she enrolled in an experimental program called Supported Work which is aimed at welfare mothers, ex-addicts and others who find it hard to get, and keep, jobs. With a dictionary in one hand and a helpful supervisor close by, she learned to spell, punctuate and type up to 70 words a minute. Now she carns $7 an hour. Her experience typifies that of hundreds of other participants in the national Supported Work demonstration, perhaps the most extensive and careful social experiment ever attempted. The results are now in, after five years, and they are, in the the case of welfare recipients, wonderfully encouraging. Supported Work works. For taxpayers, it can mean spending fewer dollars for welfare. For welfare recipients, it can mean earning more dollars, and pride, from work. The Supported Work idea originated in Europe with sheltered workshops for handicapped people. The Vera Institute of Justice in New York City imported the concept in 1972, applying it to former addicts. By counting their Federal support payments as part of their "salary," Vera created jobs for them; a surprising proportion of addicts became self-supporting. That raised a national question: Could public welfare funds be used to draw other kinds of troubled people into jobs and off the dole? The Ford Foundation and several Federal agencles created the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation to test the idea in 15 cities. The demonstration presupposed that many people, long dependent on welfare, lacked motivation, normal work habits, marketable skills and employment records. Hence, to force them precipitately into the labor market would be unfair and futile. Instead, the program tailored the work place to the worker. Once participants became accustomed to coming to work and on time, job demands were steadily increased until supported workers could match normal workers. They were given tasks in small crews, as day-care aides, hospital admission personnel, bank tellers and library aides. Supervisors kept close and sympathetic watch. The results were somewhat favorable for ex-addicts and inconclusive or discouraging for teen-agers and ex-inmates. But in the case of welfare mothersby far the largest category of welfare recipients - the experiment was a resounding succes. More than a year after leaving the program, participating women were working 35 percent more hours and earning 50 percent more money than a comparison g. Jup of nonparticipants. Twice as many participants had given up welfare altogether. And the results were most favorable for recipients who had been on welfare longest and possessed the fewest skills. The program was just as successful in another way. It more than paid for itself in saved welfare payments and new income taxes. Its success documented, Supported Work should now be tried on a larger scale. The Labor Department intends to use it in several places as part of a $280million demonstration project already begun. In any even, local manpower and welfare agencies need not walt to emulate the Supported Work model. Liberals have long contended that even the most dependent welfare recipients possess the work ethic. Conservatives have long contended that welfare funds can be used to encourage work. This experiment shows that both are right. Many employment approaches are needed for welfare's many populations. For those with skills and for whom welfare is a way station, a nudge may suffice. But as Tom Bethell recently wrote in Harper's, for the chronically poor to work their way up the ladder of achievement "it is necessary first to get on the ladder." Supported Work provides such a boost for wel. fare recipients, and a bargain for taxpayers to boot. ADVOCAP INC. COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM Main Office: 174 West Division Street Fond du Lac, WI 54935 SUMMARY Other Offices located at: 120 North- Commercial St. -TESTIMONY OF ROSALIE TRYON Re: 5.1312 MARCH 12, 1980. 1. POOR PEOPLE (INCLUDING WELFARE RECIPIENTS) ENDORSE GOAL OF ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY 2. THE LEAST EMPLOYABLE DO NOT/CANNOT GET JOBS UNLESS OPPORTUNITY IS STRUCTURED TO BUILD CONFIDENCE, GOOD WORK HABIT S, SKILLS, WORK RECORD 3.SUPPORTED WORK - THE S-YR. DEMONSTRATION AND RESEARCH OFFERS STRONG EVIDENCE THAT A "BRIDGE OF THE RIGHT KIND OF WORK EXPERIENCE" CAN REVERSI A RECORD OF FAILURES FLEAD TO PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS. 4 SUPPORTED WORK CREATES NEW, TRANSITIONAL JOBS, PERFORMS USEFUL NEEDED WORK AND TAILORS THE WORK PLACE TO THE WORKER BUILDING SUCCESS UPON SUCCESS. 5. TAXPAYERS SAVE MONEY, COMMUNITIES KPEOPLE BENEFIT FROM THE WORK DONE, SUPPORTED WORKERS GET JOBS AND STAY ON THOSE JOBS. 6. SUPPORTED WORK WORKS!! IT WORKS VERY WELL FOR EXCEPTIONALLY DIFFICULT POPULATIONS. WELFARE MOTHERS DID BEST OF ALL ! -40% of ALL OUR WORKERS BOTJOBS 48% of AFDC MOTHERS MOVED TO JOBS 89%% HAD NEVER RECEIVED MANPOWER SERVICES ADVOCACY IS THE JO3- COMMUNITY ACTION IS THE RIETHICO "MOST JOBS ARE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR AFDC STARTING SALARIES RANGED FROM MINIMUM WAGE to $5.42 AN HOUR. -S.W. GRADUATES ARE STAYING ON JOBS GETTING PROMOTED, LEAVING WELFARE OR REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF AID NEEDED. 7. RECOMMEND THAT SUPPORTED WORK: - PRECEDE JOB SEARCH OR -BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO REQUIRED JOB VIRED BE EXPANDED NOW FOR AFDC GROUPS BE CONTINUED FOR OTHERS HARD-TO-EMPLOY CITA AMENDED ADDING S.W. TiTLE HEW EXPAND "WELFARE WAIVER " to DIVERY WAGE Poo & FOR AFDC PORTIONS OF GRANTS TO SELECTIVE RESEARCH CONTINUE NEW PROJECYS SERVE MENTALLY RETARDED AND FORMER MENTAL PATIENTS (WITH R&D) -DEMON STRATION TICH NIQUES BE USED IN FUTURE MANPOWER/SOCIAL PROGRAMS S.1312 BE REVISED TO UTILIZE SUPPORTED WORK AS ISK STEP, OR AS AS ALTERNATIVE WITH OR TO SELECTIVELY COMPARE PLANNED "TRAINING & WORK OPPORTUNITIES. PAGE 2 ROSALIE TRYON Senator NELSON. Our next panel is to be Mr. Robert E. David, executive director, South Carolina Employment Security Commission and Powell Cozart, employment service director, Michigan Employment Security Commission, and Stuart Verchereau, director, employment security division, Vermont Department of Employment Security. It is nice to have you here today. STATEMENT OF WILLIAM L. HEARTWELL, JR., EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE INTERSTATE CONFERENCE OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AGENCIES; ROBERT E. DAVID, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, SOUTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION; POWELL COZART, EMPLOYMENT SERVICE DIRECTOR, MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION; AND STUART VERCHEREAU, DIRECTOR, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DIVISION, VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, A PANEL Mr. HEARTWELL. Mr. Chairman, I am William L. Heartwell, Jr., executive vice president of the Interstate Conference of Employment Security Agencies. As you are aware, the Interstate Conference represents the 50 States, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., in all employment security matters. We have planned our testimony today in accordance with the wishes of the committee to discuss first about welfare reform. Recognizing the time constraints, we have asked each of our panelists to summarize their statements and for the remainder to be put in the record. First, I would like to introduce Ms. Powell Cozart, who is the employment service director for the Michigan Employment Security Commission who will speak to welfare reform. Senator NELSON. Your statements will be printed in full in the record so if you can summarize them for us, we would appreciate it. Ms. COZART. Thank you very much, Senator. My remarks will center on our recommendations for changes in Senate bill 1312 and, as you indicated, we will only speak to those sections which we feel deserve clarification. We think some areas need more explanation and should be different from the proposals in the administration bill. The first is in the funding of the program. We strongly believe that this should be an entitlement program with full Federal funding. The administration proposes only $187 million in new money for the entire job search program. We feel that is insufficient. No. 1, we are talking about the AFDC enrollees plus the AFDC eligibles. There is no way of knowing the number of AFDC eligibles, and the fact is that given the state of the economy, we believe that the AFDC rolls will increase greatly. Second, concerning the cash match, we feel that this should not be required. CETA does not have, on its side of the program, a cash match requirement. We recommend, therefore, that no cash match be required. However, should any match be approved, we would support in-kind contributions as are allowed under the WIN program In terms of where the funds should go for the job search assistance program as well as the PSE and training slots, we are recommending that the Governor or legislatively designated State agency receive the funds for these programs and have the responsibility for preparing the plan which would denote the program operation in that particular State. Third, in terms of the structure to deliver the job search assistance program, the legislation now indicates the folding in of the WIN system. We believe the opposite should happen in that the WIN system is in place. It is considered a successful program, and we are recommending the expansion of the WIN program to include the full responsibility for the job search assistance part of the program. Fourth, as indicated by a number of other participants this morning, we are suggesting that the 8-week period for job search be allowed a greater flexibility, depending upon the needs of the individual, the background of the individual and certainly the economy of the area. We do not feel one should have to remain in a job search program 8 weeks before going on to the other portions of the program. Fifth, the planning process for both job search and training, we think, should start at the local level. Rather than have the State employment and training council involved in the actual development of the State plan, we feel that it should start from the local level and include CETA prime sponsors, the welfare agency, certainly the job service agency and the PIC's, if they are in place, and other employer groups in the local community. Sixth, we are very much concerned with the bill that now indicates removal of PSE slots from title II-D of CETA and shifting them to the proposed part E. We feel that II-E should stand alone as a welfare directed part, that the slots not be touched under II-D, and that sufficient slots should be made available for PSE and training under II-E. We are very much concerned, also that the limitation on training funds will severely hamper the program. If the States are unsuccessful in placing participants in unsubsidized jobs, and there are no PSE or training slots available, the result is a greater welfare burden on the States. Essentially, these are our recommendations that we wanted to expand on. We did give you the written, more extensive language regarding our proposals, and we will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mr. Cozart follows:] |