Such a programme was recently tried here in the UK.

I don't know the details but friends effected mentioned:

* Being required to attend an office full time where they were monitored job searching and required to do soft skills courses, which they perceived as not useful.

* After an extended period of joblessness, being required to work for free (while recieving normal out of work benefit), for instance at a supermarket

This was critisised because:

* 'Jobless' people working for 1/4 the minimum wage displaced normal workers

* The programme encouraged people to make a high volume of inappropriate job applications. These make it harder for employers to sift candidates who actually want a job (I notice - do you want 100 angry highschool dropouts applying for your developer roles?), and reduce time and energy available to chase real leads.

* People who landed interviews for real jobs risked catastrophic penalties if they attended the interview, because the bureaucracy often failed to accept that this is what they were doing.

You could argue that this was a badly executed programme. Or that it was more focused on reducing public spending by discouraging people using their social insurance than on rehabilitating anyone. Or you could argue that aspects were good and got a bad rap.

For me, I think the nanny state can be terrifying, and that that no workplace needs people who'd rather be at home.