community college involvement in welfare-to-work programs

This article was downloaded by: [McGill University Library]On: 23 November 2014, At: 11:22Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 MortimerStreet, London W1T 3JH, UK

Community CollegeJournal of Research andPracticePublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

COMMUNITY COLLEGEINVOLVEMENT INWELFARE-TO-WORKPROGRAMSStephen G. Katsinas, Grace Banachowski,Timm J. Bliss, J. Matthew ShortPublished online: 15 Dec 2010.

To cite this article: Stephen G. Katsinas, Grace Banachowski, Timm J.Bliss, J. Matthew Short (1999) COMMUNITY COLLEGE INVOLVEMENT INWELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAMS, Community College Journal of Research andPractice, 23:4, 401-421, DOI: 10.1080/106689299264792

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/106689299264792

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever asto the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucjc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/106689299264792

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/106689299264792

are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the viewsof or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not beliable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs,expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoevercaused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relationto or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and privatestudy purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply,or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

ôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôôô

COM M UNITY COLLEGE INVOLVEM ENT INWELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAM S

Stephen G. KatsinasThe University of Toledo, Educational Leadership, Toledo, Ohio, USA

Grace BanachowskiThe University of Toledo/Owens Community College, Toledo, Ohio,USA

Timm J. BlissOklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK, USA

J. Matthew ShortThe University of Toledo, Toledo, Ohio, USA

This article discusses community college involvement in a key welfare-to-worktraining program, the Jobs Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program(JOBS), as a mirror to re�ect on the larger issue of how federal and state work-force policy impacts publicly-controlled institutions of higher education. A qualit-ative assessment of JOBS programs at community colleges framed discussionregarding the challenges community colleges face as they attempt to preserve theseprograms within an era of devolved responsibility for welfare-to-work funding fromthe federal government to the states.

Historically, the federal government was responsible for theadministration of welfare programs created by the New Deal.However, enactment of The Personal Responsibility and WorkOpportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) in August of1996 under the Clinton administration devolved federal responsibilityto the states. Title I of P.L. 104-193 created a new program, Tempo-

Address correspondenc e to Stephen G. Katsinas, University of Toledo, EducationalLeadership, Toledo, Ohio 43606, USA.

Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 23: 401–421, 1999Copyright 1999 Taylor & FrancisÓ

1066-8926/99 $12.00 1 .00 401

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

402 S. G. Katsinas et al.

rary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which combined currentfunding under the former Aid to Families With Dependent Children(AFDC), Emergency Assistance (EA), and Job Opportunities andBasic Skills Training (JOBS) programs into a single capped entitle-ment. Many analysts predict that welfare is the �rst of manyfederally funded programs, including employment and training, voca-tional education, and adult literacy, that will eventually be turnedover to state governments.

The states had between October of 1996 and July 1, 1997 to submita state plan and make the change from AFDC to TANF (NationalConference of State Legislatures, 1997) thereby ending ‘‘welfare as weknow it.’’ One word de�nes the philosophy of the new law–work. Thisis drastically di� erent from the philosophy of welfare legislationimplemented during the 1980s, which emphasized education and train-ing. The fact that reformed welfare legislation makes little mention ofeducation and training creates a practical disincentive for states toinvest in longer-term postsecondary vocational education for welfarerecipients.

Under the new law, families on welfare for 5 cumulative years (orless at the states’ option) are ineligible for cash aid. However, statesmay use their own funds to support recipients who qualify for assist-ance after 5 years. The Welfare Reform Technical Corrections Actof 1997 (H.R. 1048) permits states to exempt up to 20% of theirwelfare caseload from the 5-year limit, but it fails to de�ne whattype of vocational education counts toward participation in workactivities. It also fails to clarify how the 20% limit for vocationaleducation should be interpreted—whether the 20% of welfare recipi-ents who can count vocational education refers to a portion of thework participation target or a state’s entire welfare caseload(American Association of Community Colleges, 1997a). Consequently,the states are left to de�ne vocational education and to ‘‘reasonably’’interpret the law. Funding for higher education will be denied if cur-ricula such as developmental education—a virtual prerequisite tocommunity college involvement in welfare-to-work programs—arenot incorporated in the de�nition of vocational education created ineach state.

In light of their increasing dependence on external funds for insti-tutional functioning, the possibility that community colleges willface yet additional cuts in state funding for curricular programsraises serious questions regarding the mission and functions of theseopen-door, open-access institutions and their ability to provide anavenue for economic independence to welfare-dependent citizens.First, what role do these programs play in serving truly disadvan-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

Welfare-to-Work Programs 403

taged students? Second, how will devolution of federal responsibilityfor the administration of welfare programs to the states impact theability of community colleges to serve welfare recipients? And third,how far below the �nal year of high school should the postsecondaryfunction of developmental education extend in preparing substantialnumbers of welfare recipients for college-level studies? The last twoquestions are particularly relevant for institutions that uniformlyprofess to be open-door, open-access in their mission because substan-tial numbers of welfare recipients possess reading and mathematicsskills well below the 12th grade and require developmental educationcourses to prepare them for the collegiate study necessary to securejobs (Hill & O’Neil, 1993; U.S. Department of Health and Human Ser-vices, 1989; Vedder & Gallaway, 1992). This group of underpreparedstudents—the primary population served by welfare-to-work pro-grams at community colleges—are at risk of being alienated frompostsecondary education. Developmental education courses that donot fall under the states’ de�nition of vocational education will notqualify for state investments in higher education.

This article draws on research funded in December of 1993 by theOffice of Family Assistance in the U.S. Department of Health andHuman Services (DHHS) to assess community college participation inthe JOBS program. Speci�cally, DHHS was interested in identifyingmodel JOBS programs and using this information to facilitate col-laboration between welfare providers and community colleges(Katsinas, Bliss, & Short, 1995). It begins with a brief discussion ofcommunity college involvement in the JOBS program within thelarger historical context of workforce preparation programs, followedby a section on the results of a qualitative study of JOBS programaccomplishments and factors that appear to lead to e� ective com-munity college involvement in welfare-to-work programs. It closeswith discussion about the impact of 1996 welfare legislation on com-munity colleges and their students, o� ering thoughts on the appropri-ate role of community colleges in providing services to the trulydisadvantaged. It considers the experiences of community collegesimplementing the federal government’s major welfare-to-workprogram (i.e., JOBS) in the late 1980s and early 1990s as a vehicle todiscuss the appropriate mission and functions of community collegesin workforce preparation programs. Although a number of four-yearinstitutions deliver training programs to JOBS recipients, this studyis limited to JOBS-participating community colleges because theygenerally o� er a much wider array of sub-baccalaureate programsand services to temporarily dislocated and long-term unemployedworkers than their four-year counterparts (Hartle, 1997).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


THE ROLE OF COM M UNITY COLLEGES INWELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAM S, A HISTORIC ALPERSPECTIVE

Federal intervention and investment in higher education began withthe Northwest Ordinance of 1787, which set aside land taken bytreaty from American Indians for the establishment of elementary,secondary, and postsecondary institutions. The Land Grant Act of1862 proposed that proceeds from the sale of federal land in the Westbe set aside for the states to establish mechanical schools and agricul-tural stations (U.S. Statutes at Large 12 [1862] , p. 503). Additionalinvestments in higher education on the part of the federal govern-ment to train the U.S. workforce included the Smith-Hughes Act of1916, which exempli�ed a conscious e� ort on the part of the educa-tional establishment to accept responsibility for vocational educa-tion. This was followed by the publicly sponsored public worksprograms of the alphabet agencies, such as the Civilian ConservationCorps (CCC) and the Works Projects Administration (WPA), estab-lished by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal. The purpose of thesedepression-era e� orts was to alleviate temporary unemployment thatoccurs in the troughs during short-term ‘‘boom and bust’’ businesscycles. In general, these job training programs were expanded duringthe Great Society era.

The �rst large-scale, systematic attempt to move long-term unem-ployed citizens into the workforce was launched during the 1960sand 70s by interest groups and agencies outside the traditional educa-tional establishment (Law, Knuth, & Bergman, 1992). The primaryvehicle for this involvement were programs funded under the Com-prehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) passed during thesecond Nixon Administration in 1973 (U.S. Civil Service Commission,1977) and later replaced by the Jobs Training Partnership Act (JTPA)in 1982. Research shows that these programs, which included earlychildhood interventions such as Head Start and formal education andtraining programs, made important contributions both to the wagesof individuals and to the growth of the economy (Rassell & Appel-baum, 1992).

As JTPA replaced CETA, the con�ict inherent in shifting pur-poses, which mirrored changes in the political system, was accentuat-ed by the di� erences in orientation of the two major federal agenciesthat administered the programs, the Department of Labor and theDepartment of Health and Human Services. In part, CETA wasreplaced by JTPA because proponents of the later believed that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


clients were best served by a program based on a ‘‘labor attachment’’model, which promoted the immediate re-connection of the long-termunemployed to jobs, rather than CETA and similar programs thatemphasized the ‘‘human investment’’ model. The con�ict betweenthese two models, the former placing a high value on the socialbene�t of work and the later emphasizing education and training forhigher wage jobs and careers, has persisted through the years.

In the 1980s, Title II (45 CFR Part 205) of the Family Support Actof 1988 (FSA), JOBS redirected federal welfare policy away from onlyproviding cash assistance toward helping AFDC parents and teensobtain the services needed to get and to keep jobs. Although states hadbeen required to assist AFDC recipients in obtaining employmentsince 1968, welfare-to-work programs prior to JOBS were criticizedfor serving the small numbers of clients who were most likely toobtain employment even without cash assistance because theyalready possessed marketable skills prior to receiving services. Advo-cates for the labor attachment model argued that connection to theculture of work reinforces positive self-esteem and provides otherbene�ts to AFDC recipients and their families, and that it was abetter approach to the problem of unemployment and welfare depen-dency than a model that provided higher levels of extended educationand training. The FSA promoted a return to the human resourceinvestment model which characterized earlier programs like CETA.Over a 5-year phase-in period, FSA promulgated changes in welfare-to-work programs that required coordination between programsfunded through the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) of 1982 andother service providers in the community to deliver comprehensiveservices to AFDC recipients.

Although community colleges delivered educational services to wel-fare recipients prior to 1988, federally funded education and trainingprograms were speci�cally prohibited as an allowable training activ-ity for AFDC recipients prior to the creation of JOBS. Under FSA,however, the prohibition against postsecondary education as an allow-able activity for AFDC recipients was lifted for the �rst time. Conse-quently, community colleges had the opportunity to become active indelivering training services speci�cally tailored to meet the needs ofthe unemployed and underemployed, including JOBS recipients, andmany did so. In 1990, NETWORK, an organization founded in 1989 andself-billed as ‘‘America’s Two-Year College Employment, Training, andLiteracy Consortium,’’ released the results of a survey of 1,126 com-munity, junior and technical colleges regarding institutional involve-ment in employment, training and literacy programs (NETWORK,as cited in Swender, 1991). The NETWORK survey concluded that

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


during 1989 federal �scal year, public and private sector employment,training, and literacy activities at the two-year college level rangedbetween $84,300,098 and $203,399,582 based upon actual survey results[of the 384 responding institutions] , or the extrapolation �gures [for all1,367 two-year institutions] which placed the contract amounts between$247,050,287 and $596,098,774 . . . (p. 3).

Of the 384 two-year colleges that responded to the NETWORKsurvey, 274 provided JTPA funded employment and training pro-grams. The NETWORK Survey estimated that during the �scal year1989 two-year colleges received between $47,425,000 and $114,999,721in funds under JTPA, and served a total of 118,100 individuals (anaverage of 431 participants for each of the 274 respondinginstitutions). Thus the average cost per participant served wasbetween $401.53 and $973.67, an amount which was far below thenational average for JTPA programs during that same time period.NETWORK used its survey results to project the level of involvementof two-year colleges in JTPA programs. The NETWORK Survey pro-jected that community colleges served approximately 346,000 partici-pants and that the total JTPA funding ranged from $139,000,000 to$337,099,182 (NETWORK, as cited in Swender, 1991, pp. 3–4). Thephase-in of FSA and its JOBS provisions was largely completed bythe time of the NETWORK study.

Community college practitioners soon discovered that the welfareprovider community knew little about community colleges, and viceversa. In 1994, DHHS provided �nancial support for a national study(Bliss, 1994) to assess the extent of community college participationin the JOBS program, and to identify e� ective and innovative JOBSprogram practices that involved community colleges. The purpose ofthis initiative was to bridge the gap between the welfare providercommunity and community colleges regarding successful JOBSprogram initiatives. Two reports were written: one aimed at thewelfare provider community to assist them in cooperating with com-munity colleges to deliver JOBS services, the other aimed at com-munity college practitioners to inform them about what they neededto know to e� ectively collaborate with welfare providers to deliverJOBS services to AFDC clients. Both reports contained summarycase studies of community college JOBS programs and an analysis ofinnovative JOBS program practices. Readers interested in examiningthese reports in their entirety may refer to the 152 page document, AStudy of Community College Participation in the JOBS Program: AReport to America’s Community Colleges (Katsinas et al., 1995).

Neither of the two reports were published by DHHS because of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


changing priorities within the agency. Two possible reasons areo� ered to explain DHHS’ lack of interest in publishing reports thatshowed a federally funded, state-administered program such as JOBSactually worked. One, following the stunning congressional Republi-can victory in the 1994 elections, officials within the Clinton Admin-istration knew that the votes weren’t there to reauthorize FSA withits JOBS provisions intact. Two, if welfare was to be block-granted tothe states, then any DHHS-sponsored report showing JOBS in a goodlight would be perceived on Capitol Hill as supporting a strongerfederal role in promoting welfare-to-work, a perception the ClintonAdminstration wished to avoid.

The challenge of educating the welfare bureaucracy about how toe� ectively collaborate with community colleges was quite similar tothe challenge community college practitioners faced following thecreation of JTPA in 1982. However, there were signi�cant di� er-ences. Passage of JTPA abolished the existing CETA program, sweep-ing away what some critics called an entrenched professionalbureaucracy that administered a permanent public works program(Donnelly, 1982). Instead of professionals assessing and placing hard-to-employ citizens in subsidized public-sector jobs, JTPA allowed gov-ernors to submit state plans for the expenditure of federal funds thatallowed for the creation of some 628 Private Industry Councils (PICs).By statute, and based on the premise that employers knew more thantraining professionals about local labor markets, the majority ofmembers of local PICs had to be from the private sector.

In 1996, a total of $4.5 billion was spent on JTPA, 100% of whichwere federal funds because JTPA is a non-matched program (Konz,1997). States were required to pass at least 78% of all JTPA fundsreceived to local PICs, which exercised control through a process ofawarding performance contracts (Federal Register, 1989). Communitycolleges possessed a signi�cant measure of in�uence over the alloca-tion of JTPA funds, likely due to the fact that community collegesthemselves often placed representatives on the PICs (Bliss, 1994).Some states, including Iowa and Tennessee, chose to submit JTPAplans that actually located the offices for their PICs on the campusesof their community colleges. Under JTPA, practical incentives tolearn how to e� ectively collaborate with community colleges to meetthe goals of state plans were created for the employment and trainingbureaucracy within the �fty states.

Conversely, whereas FSA’s JOBS program was funded on a 55–45%federal-state match, no local control boards were created to allocatefunds. Like JTPA, however, states were required to submit plans forspending JOBS funds to the U.S. DHHS. The JOBS program was

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


created upon the base of some 50 years of federal, state and countyinvolvement in the delivery of AFDC. In general, governors chose torely upon the much older existing state, county and city welfare pro-vider agencies that dated back to the creation of the AFDC programunder the Social Security Act in 1936. By relative comparison, com-munity colleges were the ‘‘new kids on the block’’ whose emergenceas a major player in federally-sponsored employment and trainingprograms coincided with the creation of JTPA in the early 1980s(Katsinas, 1994).

The FSA recognized that the problems facing the underclass arecomplex and that no single program is capable of providing the ser-vices necessary to overcome all the obstacles faced by this population(Bliss, 1994). The FSA also recognized that welfare was an entitlementand that poor families face multiple barriers as they attempt to over-come their circumstances. Consequently, it promoted coordinationbetween agencies involved with income security and other social ser-vices (including housing, health, employment and job training, educa-tion, economic development, transportation, and criminal justice) tocreate e� ective multifaceted social service strategies. The JOBSprogram, through its ability to provide, mandate, and coordinatenumerous services, was envisioned by its creators as a starting pointto develop a comprehensive and integrated system. To the extent thatlong-term welfare dependents exist on the fringes of the wage-labormarket, JOBS was an attempt to reintegrate AFDC recipients intothe mainstream economy. In this way, JOBS broadened vocationaloptions and attended to the supportive service needs of recipients byaddressing problems that undermine employability, such as poorhealth, emotional problems, and substance abuse. The goal of JOBSwas to facilitate the movement of AFDC recipients from the welfarerolls to self-sufficiency through the delivery of comprehensive andcoordinated services. Researchers argued that the most critical strat-egy to encourage coordination among agencies was to create andmaintain a consensus that coordination was in the self-interest ofeach participating agency (Bailis, 1991). Increasingly, educationalagencies were included among the list of agencies with which welfareproviders collaborate (Ibid).

By the time the JOBS program came on line in the late 1980s andearly 1990s, community colleges were already signi�cantly involvedin employment and training, welfare-to-work and adult literacy pro-grams. Community college involvement in JTPA coincided with thesigni�cant increase in older students served by community collegesduring the early 1980s. From 1980 to 1986, the mean age of communitycollege students rose from 27 to 29 (National Center for Education

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Statistics, 1993). Many of the nation’s 1,200 two-year colleges devel-oped programs to serve older students, particularly older women stu-dents. In 1978, about one half of all community college students werewomen; by 1991, 58% of all community college students were female,and the mean age was 31 (Ibid). Also, extensive community collegeinvolvement with TRIO programs (a series of programs funded underTitle IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 and established to helplow-income Americans enter college and graduate) such as UpwardBound, Educational Opportunity Centers, and Talent Search, createda broader base of student support services for disadvantaged stu-dents.

The literature describing training and employment programsfunded by federal and state governments is extensive (Boesel &McFarland, 1984; Campbell, 1992; Friedlander & Burtless, 1995;Koon, 1997; National Alliance of Business, Inc., 1992; Tanner, 1996;U.S. Employment and Training Administration, 1991; U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, 1995b; U.S. General Accounting Office, 1995a;Wider Opportunities for Women, Inc., 1993). Also, recently availableinformation enables us to assess the federal role in the e� ectiveimplementation of these programs (Kemple 1993; National Commis-sion for Employment Policy, 1993). The U.S. General AccountingOffice (1994a), for example, explored the extent to which federal pro-grams that provide employment training assistance overlap in thepopulations they target and the services they provide. In May of 1992,congressional hearings were held in Chicago, Illinois to discuss thenature and requirements of JOBS training programs (U.S. GeneralAccounting Office, 1992a). In July and August of 1992, additionalhearings were held in Washington, DC regarding waste and misuse offederal on-the-job training funds provided through JTPA (U.S.General Accounting Office, 1992b). Further investigation exploredwhether participants in JOBS programs were �nding employmentand leaving welfare (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1994b, 1995b).

Despite the relatively large body of literature describing trainingand employment programs, there are virtually no quantitative orqualitative studies that evaluate community college practices forimplementing JOBS programs (Bliss, 1994). The absence of researchin this area is cause for concern. If the JOBS program is the center ofwelfare-to-work training programs at community colleges, theabsence of assessment negatively re�ects on the permanency of theseinstitutions ’ commitment to assist welfare recipients secure meaning-ful employment and reduce dependency. Attention is now turned toan assessment of community college involvement in JOBS programs.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


CHARACTERISTICS OF WELFARE-TO-WORK PROGRAM S ATCOM M UNITY COLLEGES

The qualitative study of JOBS program practices at community col-leges is based on full-length case studies presented in Part II of thecompanion report to the study, A Study of Community College Partici-pation in the JOBS Program: A Report to America’s Community Col-leges (Katsinas et al., 1995). This report was completed with fundingfrom the DHHS’ Office of Family Assistance, however it is importantto note that �nancial support from DHHS in no way infers itsendorsement of the �ndings or conclusions o� ered here. The qualit-ative study followed Bliss’ 1994 quantitative assessment of com-munity college participation in JOBS programs. In his study, surveyswere mailed to 1,170 community colleges that comprised the entiremembership list of the American Association of Community Colleges,to which 277 institutions from 45 states responded. One survey ques-tion asked participants if their ‘‘community college’s JOBS programever received an award from [their] state or local welfare agencyand/or government’’ (Bliss’ 1994 survey instrument). Of the 207 com-munity colleges that responded to this question, 40 community col-leges, or 19%, indicated that they received an award for their JOBSprogram and 167 colleges, or 81% said they did not.

A letter was then sent to institutions that affirmatively respondedto receiving an award for their JOBS program, inviting them to par-ticipate in a study of JOBS program practices that was being pre-pared for DHHS. In addition to supplying a contact person and thetitle of the JOBS program, participants were asked to respond to sixopen-ended questions that were developed in consultation withDHHS officials, including : (a) What are the key demographic andprogrammatic elements of your JOBS program?; (b) What is thehistory of your college’s involvement with the JOBS program?: (c)What are the key accomplishments of your JOBS program?; (d) Howis your JOBS program funded? ; (e) What are the barriers that yourJOBS program must overcome to achieve success? ; and (f) What spe-ci�c awards and recognition has your college received for its JOBSprogram? Approximately 25 (63%) of the 40 community colleges sentadditional information regarding their welfare-to-work program tothe researchers.

Di� erences between the 19 community colleges in terms of geog-raphy, state funding patterns, governance, and state-assigned mis-sions in�uenced the type of services they provided to bene�t JOBSprogram participants. No institutional type had exclusive title to aJOBS program success story. There was no single perfect model, and

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


there were clear di� erences between key programmatic elements thatworked well in rural verses urban or suburban settings, and viceversa. Each voice from the �eld told its own story, and each story wasa source of reference for other community colleges that wish toimprove their JOBS program.

What practices were extant in most of the programs? Four broadthemes emerged from the data, including (1) Program Mission,(2) Program Characteristics, (3) Program Barriers, and (4) ProgramCollaboration.

Program M ission

Each community college reported that participation in JOBS wasintegral to its open-door mission. Several community colleges report-ed that they would continue serving educationally disadvantaged stu-dents whether or not JOBS funds were available, although at a muchreduced service level. This suggests a commitment on the part of thecommunity colleges to maintain an open-door philosophy. Eachprogram emphasized Adult Basic Education and General EquivalencyExamination (GED) attainment, a result consistent with the datafrom Bliss’ 1994 survey. Without such services, the institutions wouldnot be open-door, open-access institutions, and American higher edu-cation would become, in the words of Kempner & Kinnick (1990), ‘‘asingle elimination tournament.’’

As ‘‘second chance’’ institutions, it is not surprising to �nd that 9of the 19 community college JOBS case study respondents placedlong-term education on equal footing with short-term employmentplacements, and made a signi�cant commitment to raise their stu-dents’ reading and mathematics grade level functioning—therebyallowing students to choose from careers across the college’s entirecurriculum. Los Angeles Southwest College in California, and Linn-Benton and Mt. Hood Community Colleges in Oregon reportednotable improvements in the grade level functioning of students afterthey participated in the JOBS program.

Program Characteristics

Nearly all of the programs summarized (16 of 19, or 84%) emphasizedbuilding student self-esteem through the JOBS programs. Two of the19 community colleges tried to keep their JOBS students in cohortgroups. Officials at the rural-based Haywood Community College(HCC) in North Carolina believed that keeping students together

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


created a support network that ‘‘bolstered self-esteem and fosteredstudent success.’’

Twelve of the 19 (63%) institutions reported that JOBS partici-pants were ‘‘mainstreamed’’ wherever possible into the regular com-munity college curriculum. This was often accomplished byclustering students in introductory career, college success and devel-opmental education courses to form a support network. JOBS partici-pants were enrolled in regular, credit-bearing college courses withnon-JOBS students to promote an ‘‘I can make it too’’ attitude.Respondents reported that JOBS students felt right at home oncemainstreamed into the curriculum and familiarized with the college-going regimen.

Integrating developmental education and creating an attitude ofsuccess was important for the 19 community colleges in deliveringservices to JOBS clients. This likely relates to the low success levelenjoyed by JOBS clients in the educational system prior to enroll-ment in the JOBS program delivered by the community college.Twelve of the 19 (63%) institutions indicated that over 40% of theirJOBS students lacked a high school diploma upon program entry.One college, Northeastern Oklahoma A&M, found that 36% of itsJOBS students were the �rst generation in their families to graduatefrom high school. The linkage between income and employmentstatus, low education attainment, and inter-generational povertycombine to make it difficult and challenging to provide services tothis population.

Most institutions worked to ensure that JOBS participants couldaccess all college services and were treated as regular students.Miami-Dade Community College (FL) and Northeastern OklahomaA&M College were examples of urban and rural community collegesthat systematically worked to deliver an array of support services totheir JOBS participants. Representatives from each institution notedthat accessible support services were crucial to promoting studentmotivation, academic success, and eventual job placement. Again, itis important to note that these institutions were actively involved indelivering opportunity programs such as Upward Bound, TalentSearch, and Specialized Student Services prior to JOBS.

Program Barriers

Officials at DHHS responsible for the administration of FSA recog-nized that a comprehensive array of services was needed to moveAFDC recipients from welfare to work. To e� ectively assess JOBSprograms at community colleges, they wanted to know whether com-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


munity colleges delivering JOBS programs collaborated with otherservices and to identify the barriers faced by AFDC recipients partici-pating in JOBS programs. There were striking di� erences betweenresponding rural, suburban, and urban community colleges regardingthe barriers faced by JOBS participants. Twelve of the 19 (63%) insti-tutions reported that their JOBS students experienced problems withchild care, and 13 of the 19 (68%) reported problems with transporta-tion. Meeting the ‘‘20 hour rule,’’ which required that JOBS partici-pants work at least 20 hours per week, was difficult to achieve inrural areas because JOBS participants ‘‘owned old cars that oftenbroke down.’’ The lack of subsidized public transit for their JOBSstudents was consistently mentioned by the reporting rural com-munity colleges as a barrier : a barrier that did not apply in the urbancontext where publicly subsidized mass transit exists.

Barriers that JOBS clients needed to overcome in order to succeedin education and training programs delivered by community collegesincluded learning disabilities and alcohol and drug abuse. Eleven ofthe 19 (58%) institutions reported signi�cant learning disabilities fortheir JOBS students. Seven of the 19 (37%) reported, suspected, oractually diagnosed alcohol, drug and/or mental health problems forthe students served in their JOBS program. Dealing with the chal-lenge of delivering appropriate services to overcome learning dis-abilities and problems associated with alcohol, drugs, and mentalhealth revealed a signi�cant di� erence in orientation betweenwelfare system and community college professionals. Whereaswelfare professionals were prepared for the possibility that such prob-lems existed among AFDC recipients, most community college pro-fessionals were not. Community colleges that reported an awarenessof these issues developed speci�c interventions to address them, andthey were involved in collaborative e� orts—including JTPA–prior tothe passage of the FSA in 1988.

Program Collaboration

Eight of the 19 institutions reported that their JOBS programs wasdirectly involved with the private sector. This is likely a conservative�gure because information regarding this issue was not speci�callyrequested from the respondents. An example of private sector involve-ment with JOBS program services o� ered on a community collegecampus was found at the College of Lake County (CLC) in Illinois.Officials at CLC stated that ‘‘success of the program can be attrib-uted to linkages with business and industry,’’ which resulted in the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


employment of JOBS students immediately after completing educa-tion and training programs at the community college.

Direct collaboration between community college officials andJTPA program sta� di� ered signi�cantly by geographic setting.Interestingly, every suburban and urban community college reportedthat collaboration with JTPA preceded the creation of JOBS in 1988,and �ve of those seven programs continued direct involvement withJTPA. This suggests that population density is related to the degreeof program collaboration in some way. Two notable examples of col-laboration among welfare and JTPA providers and community col-leges are Cleveland State Community College in rural Tennessee, andJoliet Junior College in suburban Chicago, Illinois. The local servicedelivery agency entity for JTPA is actually located on the campus ofCleveland State. The JOBS program at Joliet addressed the needs ofwelfare recipients through ‘‘a comprehensive assessment of educa-tional, vocational and general support service needs, cooperative pro-gramming, and interagency referral of students.’’

Nearly all of the respondents, 17 of 19 (89%) reported regular col-laboration among local welfare providers and community collegesta� . They viewed collaboration as essential to program successbecause it functionally tied together both the commitment and theservices they provide. There were some institutions, however, thatlisted collaboration with social service agencies as a barrier toprogram success. One institution, for example, listed the ‘‘lack ofintegration among agencies working with public aid clients resultingin duplication of services’’ as a key barrier inhibiting the develop-ment and consequent success of the institution’s JOBS program.

Typically, sta� from the local welfare provider referred JOBSclients to a community college. The college, in turn, developed anindividualized learning plan for each JOBS client. Both worked toinsure provisions for appropriate services. Welfare providersarranged available child care transportation, and other support ser-vices. Community colleges facilitated the delivery of student supportservices and education and training programs. These services werefunded by a variety of sources, including programs under JTPA and,in some cases, federal student aid programs.

Several respondents voiced the concern that speci�c rules withinJOBS and other federal training programs, as well as the federalstudent aid programs, often worked at cross purposes, which inhib-ited their ability to efficiently and e� ectively serve JOBS clients.Additional concerns were cited, including difficulties JOBS clientsfaced in meeting minimum grades to receive need-based student aid,student loan indebtedness, and the ‘‘20 hour rule.’’ At John Tyler

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Community College in Virginia, officials expressed concern thatproblems faced by JOBS participants were interrelated (i.e., with-drawals or poor grades related to problems with transportation orday care, which resulted in the loss of satisfactory academic progressfor �nancial aid and, inevitably, high student attrition). At DundalkCommunity College in Maryland, JOBS program administratorsnoted that despite coordination e� orts with JTPA, ‘‘[The] currentJTPA guidelines that require job placement within 90 days ofprogram completion precluded the matriculation of completers intothe regular DCC college curriculum,’’ since degree completion isnecessary to achieve higher wage jobs.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Community colleges are the largest delivery system of formal educa-tion to adult learners in the United States (Katsinas, 1994). TheAmerican Association of Community Colleges estimates that morethan 10 million adult students are served by two-year colleges eachyear (American Association of Community Colleges, 1997a). Today, theaverage age of a community college student is 28. Many studentsattend community colleges after lengthy periods of ‘‘stopping out’’and thus are often underprepared for college-level work upon entry tohigher education. Research demonstrates that the longer the delaybetween high school and college, the more likely students will needdevelopmental education courses in English, mathematics, studyskills, and oral communication in order to succeed at the post-secondary level (Kempner & Kinnick, 1990).

One way community colleges in this study served underpreparedstudents was to provide a supportive environment for adult learnersand JOBS clients, who often possessed little con�dence in theirability to succeed at college-level work. By mainstreaming these stu-dents into the regular college curriculum rather than segregatingthem from it, respondents believed students felt they were no di� er-ent than other students. This is consistent with literature that showsthe e� ectiveness of integrating underprepared students into the main-stream of students at community colleges (Cohen & Brawer, 1996;Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). According to the respondents, inte-grating students positively impacted their self-concept and self-esteem, and was credited as a major factor in JOBS program success.

Another major and perhaps paramount factor, identi�ed by thecommunity colleges in the sample as contributing to the success oftheir JOBS program, was institutional commitment. Community col-leges that were committed to JOBS program success worked hard to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


o� er coordinated services, eliminating internal and external barriersto collaboration and cooperation. The mission statements of theseinstitutions often included adult literacy. In the view of the authors,there is perhaps no better indication of a truly open-door communitycollege than the speci�c inclusion of adult literacy in its missionstatement.

An important internal barrier to the implementation of JOBS pro-grams within the institutions themselves was the overall fundingmechanism for community colleges. In most states, funding for com-munity colleges to serve their students is built around a full-timeenrollment (FTE) driven model. This model sharply contrasts withthe funding model used for workforce training programs such asJOBS or JTPA. A major challenge for community college workforcetraining and preparation programs personnel revolves around the�nancial management and ease of blending programs with di� erentfunding sources together in a cohesive and coherent way to facilitatestudent access through the system. Business officers unfamiliar andunwilling to learn how to work with alternative forms and �nancialsystems are often a barrier. At some institutions, the long-term e� ectis the creation of two classes of employees; those who deliver regularFTE-based, state compensated courses supported by hard funds, andsecond class citizens who deliver workforce training and preparationprograms that are not. Limited state funding for community collegesfor the delivery of ‘‘regular’’ college course work only exacerbatesthe challenge to deliver pre-college basic skills studies which areo� ered ‘‘on the margin’’ and must ‘‘pay for themselves.’’

In this study, community college officials cited external barriers tothe e� ective implementation of JOBS programs including, a lack ofcollaboration and cooperation among the various employment andtraining, adult literacy, and welfare-to-work agencies, as well asaccess to child care and transportation services. These responseswere consistent with the responses of community college pro-fessionals in Bliss’ 1994 quantitative survey. An internal barrier citedby several respondents was the false perception that by servingwelfare recipients who were ‘‘on the dole,’’ the community collegewas denying services to ‘‘regular’’ students. Several respondentsnoted that being aligned with a ‘‘welfare’’ program was a disadvan-tage rather than a public relations asset in the community.

IM PLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Engaging in research of this kind raised an interesting issue, whethercollege involvement in delivering education and training to welfare

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


recipients constitutes an appropriate mission and function for thecommunity college. The passage of the Personal Responsibility andWork Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 e� ectively ended theFSA of 1988 and its JOBS training program. Aid to AFDC, state andlocal administration program funds, Emergency Assistance, and theJOBS program funding were bundled into TANF block grants andsent to the states. Time limits were established so that families onwelfare for 5 cumulative years (or less at the state’s option) becameineligible for further cash aid. Under TANF, states may use their ownfunds to provide cash assistance after 5 years, but many states, partic-ularly in the South and Midwest, will not choose to do this becausethere is little in the way of positive press to be gained by promotinglong-term �nancial support to welfare recipients. In fact, an absoluteentitlement of some 50 years standing—aiding dependent children byaiding their families—was replaced by a block grant program thatprovides the needy with nothing more than temporary assistance.

The labor market attachment model of TANF has replaced thehuman resource investment model of FSA’s JOBS program, whichemphasized basic skill building and longer-term education and train-ing programs to promote economic self-sufficiency among the unem-ployed. For the �rst time, welfare provider agencies must meetminimum work participation requirements stipulated in their stateplans. States are required to show increasing work participationrates for single-parent heads of households from 25% in �scal year1997 to 50% in �scal year 2002. Two-parent household work partici-pation rates must increase from 75 to 90% over the same period. Thesevere �nancial penalties states must pay to the federal governmentif they fail to meet these work participation requirements will forcethe welfare provider community to quickly become skilled at laborattachment.

The new TANF requirements rede�ne the parameters of com-munity college involvement in welfare-to-work programs, in terms ofboth the locus of policy development and the type of students servedby two-year institutions. Under TANF, decisions regarding whichinstitutions, if any, will provide education and training to welfarerecipients will be made at the state level. Will the state plans countdevelopmental education and English as a Second Language as anallowable vocational education activity ? Will community collegesdecide on their own to provide education and training services towelfare recipients, or will they be mandated by state legislatures todo so ? Questions such as these will be resolved at the state level infuture years, therefore it is essential that community college officials

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


are involved in decision-making at the state level (Parker, 1997; Rey-nolds, 1997).

In terms of students served, some might argue that JOBS servicesat community colleges reached only into the top quarter of the 5million AFDC recipients in 1992. Similar to the practice of whatcritics refer to as the ‘‘creaming’’ of services provided to JTPA recipi-ents (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1989), it is likely that the topquarter of the AFDC population possess higher rates of high schoolattendance and graduation, test at higher levels of grade levelachievement in mathematics and English, and, therefore, are muchmore ready that the other three-fourths of the AFDC population forpostsecondary education and training provided by community col-leges. Again, the type of education and training services, and thechoice of delivery entity will be made at the state level.

In her presentation to the 1997 American Association of Com-munity Colleges Convention, Nan Poppe, Director of the MaywoodPark Center of Mt. Hood Community College in Portland, OR, recog-nized the dilemma faced by community colleges:

TANF totally eliminates the national safety net. When the state blockgrant runs out, it runs out. Conceivably, the day could come whensomeone comes in asking for help, possesses no money, and would beturned away . . . Community colleges that have o� ered JOBS programswill have to ‘‘retool’’ them to respond to a ‘‘Work First’’ environment.There is no mood in the United States of America for subsidizingwelfare recipients to go to college. Community colleges will need tostay involved with the nation’s welfare-to-work system as it is reshapedto insure that community colleges maintain a training role that leads togainful employment and �ts within TANF regulations (Visdos & Poppe,1997).

What, then, is the future role of community colleges in providingcommunity services? Cohen and Brawer (1996) argue that there are�ve functions performed by community colleges—general education/transfer, technical/occupational/vocational education, continuingeducation, developmental education, and community services. Thesefunctions become quite blurred for community colleges involved inworkforce preparation programs. Developmental education is almostalways provided in these programs, whether or not the programserves temporarily dislocated workers, the long-term unemployed, orrecent high school graduates. Issues such as these warrant furtherresearch.

Clearly, a new era is at hand. A major purpose of institutions of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


higher education will likely be to provide programs and services topersons not only to assist them in achieving social mobility, but, asdescribed by John E. King in his 1988 speech ‘‘The Hitties KnewThem Not,’’ to maintain social mobility as well. If lifelong learning iskey to American social development, this role will become ever moreimportant. For this reason, we predict that more states will follow themodel of Missouri, where its Coordinating Board for Higher Educa-tion is taking the lead to develop a database that cuts across all unitsof the state government, and assesses welfare, job training, voca-tional rehabilitation, and higher education. Missouri’s Governor, MelCarnahan, is asking four basic questions, including (a) How manypeople enter the job system after participation in various educationand training programs?, (b) What is the wage level upon entry?, (c)How many move from welfare to work?, and (d) How many receivebetter pay following the skill upgrading they receive from variouseducation and training delivery entities? We predict that state gover-nors and legislators will increasingly ask these types of questions. Itis hoped, therefore, that this article will contribute to the formulationof meaningful questions regarding the role of higher education in pro-moting and maintaining social mobility, and encourage researchersto engage in investigations that yield information pertinent to thewelfare reform debate.

REFERENCES

American Association of Community Colleges. (1997a). Pocket pro�le of community col-leges : Trends and statistics, 1997–1998. Washington, DC: Author.

American Association of Community Colleges. (1997b, April 1). Comparison of prior lawand the Personal Responsibility A nd Work Opportunity Reconcillation Act of 1996[On-line] . Available : http ://www.aacc.nche.edu /govtrel/legisu/welfare/Welfar.htm

Bailis, L. N. (1991). Challenges and opportunities for coordination. In Making the con-nection: Coordinating education and training for a skilled workforce (pp. 17–19).Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Bliss, T. J. (1994). The involvement of America’s community colleges in the JobOpportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training program. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

Boesel, D., & McFarland, L. (1994). National assessment of vocational education, �nalreport to Congress, V olume III : Educational reform. Washington, DC: GovernmentPrinting Office.

Campbell, M. B. (1992, March). Non-university sectors and the provision of higher educa-tion in OECD countries: Problematic of articulation. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the Comparative and International Education Society, Annapolis, MD.

Cohen, A., & Brawer, F. (1996). The American community college (3rd ed.). San Fran-cisco : Jossey-Bass.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Donnelly, H. (1982, March 6). Out of CETA’s ashes: New, smaller job training programemerging to help the hard-core unemployed. Congressional Quarterly, 517–519.

Federal Register. (1989, April 18). 54, 15638–15695.Friedlander, D., & Burtless, G. (1995). Five years after: The long-term e� ects of welfare-

to-work programs. New York : Russell Sage Foundation.Hartle, T. W. (1997, June 13). Letter to the House Committee on Education and the Work-

force Regarding Applied Technology Education Act. [On-line] Available:[email protected]

Hill, M. A., & O’Neil, J. (1993, August). Underclass behaviors in the United States :Measurement and analysis of determinants. Unpublished manuscript, BaruchCollege, City University of New York.

Katsinas, S. G. (1994). Is the open-door closing? The democratizing role of the com-munity college in the Post-Cold War Era. Community College Journal, 64, 22, 24–28.

Katsinas, S., Bliss, T. J., & Short, J. M. (1995, June). A study of community collegeparticipation in the JOBS program: A report to America’s community colleges.Resources in Education. Los Angeles, CA : ERIC Clearinghouse for Community Col-leges, ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 399–979.

Kemple, J. J. (1993). The national JTPA study : Site characteristics and participationpatterns. New York : Manpower Demonstration Research Corp.

Kempner, K., & Kinnick, M. (1990). Catching the window of opportunity : Being ontime for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 61, 535–547.

Konz, T. (1997). Perceptions of state Human Resource Investment Council memberstoward workforce development programs at community colleges. Unpublished docto-ral dissertation. The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH.

Koon, R. L. (1997). Welfare reform: Helping the least fortunate become less dependent.New York : Garland.

Law, C., Knuth, R. A., & Bergman, S. (1992). What does research say about school-to-work transition? Oak Brook: NOREL.

National Alliance of Business, Inc. (1992). The business guide to publicly-funded train-ing and employment programs. Washington, DC: National Alliance of BusinessInformation Services.

National Center for Education Statistics. (1993). Digest of education statistics. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

National Commission for Employment Policy. (1993). Private Industry Councils :Examining their mission under the Jobs Training Partnership Act. (Special ReportNo. 35). Washington, DC: Author.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (1997, April 21). Analysis of the PersonalResponsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996: Conference A gree-ment for H.R. 3734 [On-line] . Available: http://www.ncsl.org /statefed/hr3734.htm

NETWORK. America’s Two-Year College Employment, Training, and Literacy Consor-tium. (1990). Results of the 1989–90 NETWORK Survey of two-year college involve-ment in employment, training, and literacy. Report by the NETWORK Board ofDirectors, Cleveland, OH: Author.

Parker, D. (1997, June/July). Welfare reform and the rural community college. Com-munity College Journal, 28–31.

Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (1991). How college a� ects student: Findings andinsights from twenty years of research. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.

Rassell, M. E., & Appelbaum, E. (1992). Investment in learning : An assessment of theeconomic return. Washington, DC: Investment 21.

Reynolds, W. A. (1997, March 21). For students on welfare, degrees pay dividends[Point of View] . The Chronicle of Higher Education, A68.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014


Swender, H. (1991). An analysis of the perceptions of state and local policy makers ofcommunity college participation in JOBS Training Partnership Act programs.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, OK.

Tanner, M. (1996). The end of welfare: Fighting poverty in a civil society. Washington,DC: Cato Institute.

U.S. Civil Service Commission, Bureau of Intergovernmental Personnel Programs.(1977). Political activities under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1989). Aid to Families with Depen-dent Children: Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program; Childcare and supportive services: Conforming changes to existing regulations. Washing-ton, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Fam-ilies. (1997, April 21). Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), TemporaryAssistance for Needy Families (TANF) : 1960–1996 [On-line] . Available : http ://www.acf.dhhs.gov /news/afdc6097.htm

U.S. Employment and Training Administration. (1991). Training and employment reportof the Secretary of Labor: July 1990–September 1991, Washington, DC: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office.

———. (1989). Job Training Partnership A ct : Services and outcomes for participantswith di� ering needs. (GAO/HRD-89-52). Washington, DC: Author.

———. (1992a). Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program. Hearing beforethe Committee on Ways and Means, of the Subcommittee on Human Resources.102d Cong., 2nd Sess., (May). Washington, DC: Author.

———. (1992b). Waste and misuse of federal on-the-job training funds: Hearings beforethe Subcommittee on Employment and Housing, of the Committee on GovernmentOperations, 102d Cong., 2nd Sess., (July–August). Washington, DC: Author.

———. (1992c). A compilation of federal education, job training, and related statute.Hearings before the Committee on Education and Labor. 102d Cong., 1st Sess.,(December). Washington, DC: Author.

———. (1994a). Multiple employment training programs: Overlapping programs can addunnecessary administrative costs. Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Com-mittee on Appropriations, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC: Author.

———. (1994b). Welfare to work: Current A FDC program not sufficiently focused onemployment. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. Washing-ton, DC: Author.

U.S. General Accounting Office. (1995a). Multiple employment training programs: Infor-mation crosswalk on 163 employment training programs. Washington, DC: Author.

——. (1995b). Welfare to work. Measuring outcomes for JOBS participants. Report to theRanking Minority Member, Committee on Finance, U.S. Senate. Washington, DC:Author.

U.S. Statutes at Large. (1861). No. 12, 503.Vedder, R., & Gallaway, L. (1992). The war on the poor. Lewisville, TX : Institute for

Policy Innovation.Visdos, R. J., & Poppe, N. (1997, April). America’s new workforce development system:

What does welfare reform mean to institutions and participants. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Association of Community Colleges, Anaheim,CA.

Wider Opportunities for Women, Inc. (1993). Women and non-traditional work. Washing-ton, DC: Author.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McG

ill U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

11:

22 2

3 N

ovem

ber

2014

community college involvement in welfare-to-work programs

Documents