The Self-Assessment Index differs from other tests, in that it was designed specifically, for welfare-to-work recipient screening. What other test measures cloaked issues, like recipients' truthfulness, substance (alcohol and other drugs) use, barriers to employment, and recipients' abilities to handle stress? The Self-Assessment Index has, empirically, demonstrated reliability, validity, and accuracy. And, the Self-Assessment Index is affordable.

The Self-Assessment Index is designed to screen welfare recipients applying for welfare-to-work programs. The Self-Assessment has 103 items and takes 30 minutes to complete. Automated (computer-scored) reports are available on-site, within two minutes of data entry. The Self-Assessment has five (5) measures (scales): 1. Truthfulness Scale, 2. Alcohol Scale, 3. Drug Scale, 4. Work Index Scale, and 5. Stress Coping Abilities Scale. The Self-Assessment measures recipient truthfulness, quantifies substance (alcohol and other drugs) use or abuse, evaluates work attitudes, and assesses stress coping abilities. The Self-Assessment Index is much more than just another alcohol or drug test.

Five (5) Self-Assessment Index Scales

1. Truthfulness Scale: Measures how open and truthful the client was while completing the Self-Assessment Index. In addition to truthfulness, this scale measures the presence of negative attitudes like denial, guardedness, problem minimization, and attempts to "fake good." Open, guileless, and sincere communication is important in employment interviews, as well as with supervisors and fellow employees. If sustained employment is the goal, honest, candid, and plain speaking is important for positive, employee relationships.


2. Alcohol Scale: When alcohol-related problems are identified, their severity of use is important when matching appropriate intervention or treatment programs. Interventions may range from educational classes, AA meetings, awareness groups, etc. Treatment programs, also, vary from outpatient groups, individual counseling, substance abuse programs, and intensive, outpatient to inpatient treatment. Matching problem "severity" with appropriate treatment "intensity" is important for treatment effectiveness.


3. Drugs Scale: Measures "other drug" abuse. Drugs refer to marijuana, ice, crack, cocaine, ecstasy, amphetamines, barbiturates, heroin, etc. Here, again, severity of abuse is important. Treatment options vary widely, from education classes, sensitivity groups, NA and CA meetings, outpatient groups, individual counseling, chemical dependency programs, intensive outpatient and inpatient treatment. Treatment effectiveness is influenced by the matching of problem severity and treatment intensity.


4. Work Index Scale: Many experienced therapists believe that negativistic attitudes and motivation must change, before related behavioral changes can occur. Learning how to, positively, prioritize paying bills, child care, work clothes, transportation, valuing a job, completing counseling or treatment, peer group opinions, family judgments, etc., is difficult. The Work Index Scale samples many of these covert influences. Client motivation is where the Work Index Scale begins.


5. Stress Coping Abilities Scale: Measures how well the client handles or manages stress and pressure. Poor stress coping is a common, rehabilitation lapse trigger. Stress management, often, involves lifestyle adjustment, which can be difficult when somebody is "just scraping by." Lifestyle adjustment involves prioritizing and adjustment of many of the attitudes discussed in item 4, above. And, substance abuse problems exacerbate other problems. A very high Stress Coping Abilities Scale score (90th percentile and above) indicates the presence of an established, emotional or mental health problem.

Many of these factors (expense, transportation, family support, child care responsibilities, etc.) are subtle, but important barriers to job training and employment. Other factors are more visible (substance abuse and stress coping) and equally important.

The Self-Assessment Index assesses attitudes and behaviors, yielding a welfare recipient profile. The Self-Assessment was developed, specifically, for welfare-to-work evaluation. The Self-Assessment is much more than just another alcohol or drug test; consequently, it measures important attitudes/behaviors missed by other tests. It is brief (103 items), yet effective, when screening barriers to employment.

Why Use The Self-Assessment Index?

Early detection of welfare recipients' barriers to employment, facilitates quicker intervention, which increases the probability of successful employment. This type of information can, also, help in selecting job skill training objectives.

At one sitting, of approximately 15 to 20 minutes' duration, (testing time) staff can acquire a vast amount of welfare recipient information, which facilitates timely intervention and improves job placement success.

Advantages of Screening

Assessment or screening instruments (tests) filter out individuals with serious problems that represent barriers to employment. Serious or severe problems may warrant referral for intervention (e.g., AA, NA or CA meetings, or stress management groups) or treatment (e.g., counseling). This filtering system works, as follows:

Reference to the above table shows that a problem is not identified until a scale score is at, or above the 70th percentile. These risk range percentiles are based upon the Self-Assessment's expanding database. This procedure is fair and avoids extremes, i.e., over-identification or under-identification of problems.

A department or agency's policy might refer clients, with "severe" problem, (11%) for further evaluation, intervention, or treatment services. In this case, eleven percent (11%) of the people screened (Severe Problem, 90th to 100th percentile score) would be referred.

Or, contingent upon staff adopted policy, people with problems and severe problems might be referred. In this case, thirty-one percent (31%) of the people screened (Problem Risk and Severe Problem) would be referred.

In these examples, 89% or 69% (contingent upon adopted policy) of the people screened would not be referred for additional (and expensive) services. Budgetary savings (dollars) would be large, with no compromises in clients receiving appropriate evaluation and/or treatment services. Indeed, more welfare recipients would receive needed help. Without a screening program, there is usually more risk of over, or under-utilization of additional, professional services.