[gimme1ibertee]

Maybe one year would be better than 18 months though

I originally thought about a year,but most training courses take at least one year to complete.

I just saw a study that showed most people on assistance give up looking for a job after about 6 months.

The additional six months would allow for job placement,securing suitable transportation and child care....just a safety cushion to eliminate excuses of not having enough time to find a ride,child care or a job.
At the end of all of that,if a person can't get it together,they're on their own. They cannot rely on govt assistance for anything whatsoever. When signing the contract,they would be agreeing that they understand that.

That's when your charity-handout plan kicks in.

[Secret Agent Man]

Not trying to be argumentative, but just because most training programs take at least a year, doesn’t mean the government’s training program has to take a year. They could be looking for some level of work WHILE taking the training program. There’s probably a lot of inane stuff in those programs that don’t really need to be there, or aren’t necessary for them to actually get some kinds of work.

[Secret Agent Man]

Also, while you say this contract would be the same for all local governments who are in charge of running things, you an be damn sure that if local governments are going to run their programs, they are all going to change their contracts. You are not going to have any uniformity, as some places will be far more generous and extend deadlines or not make it one time only, and other places may make things even less enticing.

San Fran’s program will not be the same as Boise’s. The very idea that local governments run it but every local government will use the identical contract, while on paper looks like it would work, will not work in the real world. If you say they all have to by federal mandate then local government’s are not really in control.