EARLY IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
WELFARE-TO-WORK
GRANTS PROGRAM
John Trutko
Nancy Pindus
Burt S. Barnow
Demetra Smith Nightingale
FINAL REPORT
July 1999
This report was prepared at The Urban Institute under a sub-contract from James Bell Associates for the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do
Final Report-7/9/99
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary …………………………………………………………… I
Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 1
Overview of the WtW Grants Program ……………………………………… 3
Key Study Findings ……………………………………………………………. 8
Status of Implementation ………………………………………………... 8
Description of Activities/Programs …………………………………….. 12
Coordination ……………………………………………………………. 20
Implementation Challenges …………………………………………….. 22
Early Effects of the WtW Program …………………………………….. 30
Conclusions/Recommendations ………………………………………... 32
Appendices
A. Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Discussion Guide
for State-Agency Respondents
B. Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Status (Formula Grants)
Discussion Guide Outline for Local Programs
C. Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Status: Contacts with
National Organizations
D. State Administrative Structures
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program authorized under the Balanced Budget Act of
1998 offers states and localities an opportunity to implement employment-related services specifically
designed to meet the often intensive needs of the least-employable portion of the welfare population.
The WtW programs have been asked to start-up very quickly. The first grants were awarded by the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in January 1998, Congress has authorized the program for only two
years, and funds must be spent within three years. This report provides preliminary documentation
based on discussions with administrators and staff (by phone and in person during site visits) in the first
11 states1 that received WtW funds under the formula-funded component of the program (i.e., grants to
states, with 85 percent of the state funds passed through to localities), highlighting program strategies
that have been adopted and summarizing key implementation issues.
KEY FINDINGS
The general finding from this preliminary review is that WtW formula funds, as intended, are
being targeted to those with the greatest barriers to employment; but implementation has been slower
than anticipated. The funds have created both challenges and opportunities. In general, states and local
SDAs have used the opportunity of the WtW grants to specifically consider how welfare recipients are
served and, in many places, have developed new programs and services. However, administrators and
staff in state and local WtW agencies indicate they may need more time and greater flexibility to spend
WtW dollars.
C
All states and localities included in this study have had a slower than planned flow of
TANF recipients into the WtW program. The number of participants served as of the end
of 1998 ranged from 35 in Hawaii to 2,882 in Illinois.
C
WtW provided some amount of impetus to focus policy planning on hard-to-employ
welfare recipients. In all 11 states, at the state or local level or both, there has been some
specific program development or special initiative for the WtW target group. In many places,
there are now new special efforts to target and reach out to the least-employable TANF
recipients (i.e., one of the main WtW target populations) or there are separate initiatives
specifically developed for WtW. A key distinction between WtW and both TANF and JTPA
is that there is no time limit on how long WtW services can be provided to a particular client
once they are formally enrolled into WtW. As one state administrator described the program,
this flexibility provides resources to fill the gaps in the continuum of services needed by
1
The eleven states are: Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,
Nevada, Oregon, and South Carolina.
i
individuals transitioning from welfare to work.
C
As intended by Congress, WtW employment services are building on the TANF work
policies, which usually incorporate an immediate job entry, or work-first, approach. While
state and local program operators noted that the WtW program complemented TANF Aworkfirst@ efforts already underway in their states, some questioned the wisdom of restricting
education and training opportunities under WtW to participants only after they are employed.
This limits the range of services that programs can provide to those with the most serious
problems and barriers and those with very minimal or no employment experience.
C
WtW grant programs are using some of their resources to provide supportive
services, and they are linking with other agencies and programs to expand the
availability and range of support services available to WtW participants.
Transportation, child care, housing, and referrals to programs addressing substance abuse and
domestic violence are all generally included in WtW service networks (although usually not all
of these services are offered in any one site).
C
There are indications that programs are moving in the direction of expanding postemployment services, but since only a small number of participants have been placed in jobs
to date, it is too early to say whether WtW will actually increase such services.
<
In all 11 states studied, some initiative has been taken to implement services
intended to increase an individual== s ability to retain a job, for instance by providing
active case management services for a longer time period than in the past; identifying and
getting commitment from mentors in the workplace; and tracking participants for longer
follow-up (six months and longer after starting a job), well beyond what was usually
done before WtW in either JTPA or TANF.
<
Several of the states and localities are also beginning to develop postemployment education/training strategies aimed at career advancement.
C
Noncustodial parents are clearly a high-priority target group in WtW at the federal
level and in many states; however, at the local operational level it has proven very
difficult to find and serve this population.
C
The WtW program has been both a challenge and an impetus to coordination between
workforce development and welfare agencies at the state and local levels. The nature
of the program (administered by DOL and targeted to welfare recipients) requires coordination
between the JTPA/workforce development system and the TANF/welfare system to serve the
target population. While WtW has had a generally positive effect on expanding and intensifying
ii
coordination at the state and local levels, this process has not always been easy or trouble-free.
Establishing linkages and appropriate referral procedures has been time-consuming.
IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES
Despite the increasing coordination between welfare and workforce development agencies and
the early evidence of some potentially promising service strategies, state and local WtW administrators
identified several factors that have affected the implementation process, particularly the difficulty they
have had recruiting long-term welfare recipients and non-custodial parents. The slow implementation is
reportedly due to the following factors:
C
Continuing decline in the TANF caseload means that there are fewer WtW eligibles
than some administrators had expected, even among the long-term welfare population.
Almost all of the state and local officials cited decreases in TANF caseloads as an underlying
factor slowing local program startup and recruitment efforts.
C
It has been a particular challenge to identify clients who meet the very specific
eligibility requirements, particularly under the 70 percent criteria.2 Local programs
have had the most difficulty recruiting individuals who meet the Atwo of three@ legislativelyspecified barriers to employment.
C
The problems with identifying those eligible under the 70 percent provision has in some places
resulted in a related concern that it will be difficult to reach the requirement that no more than
2
At least 70% of the WtW funds must be used for long-term welfare recipients with labor market
problems: (1) on TANF or AFDC for 30 or more months or within one year of reaching a TANF time limit,
AND (2) facing 2 of 3 labor market problems: (i) no high school diploma or GED and low reading or math
skills, (ii) need treatment for substance abuse, or (iii) Apoor work history@; OR non-custodial parents of TANF
children if that parent meets the above criteria. Up to 30% of WtW funds can be used for potential long-term
welfare dependents, that is TANF recipients who have characteristics associated with long-term welfare
dependency, such as pregnant teens, or persons with a poor work history.
iii
30 percent of the grant be spent on those meeting the 30 percent criteria. Some programs
are, therefore, restricting the number of persons they serve who are only eligible
under the 30 percent category for fear that may affect their ability to reach the 70
percent spending requirement.
C
More time and staff effort has been required than expected to establish
administrative procedures, negotiate to obtain lists of TANF recipients who meet WtW
eligibility criteria, comply with various reporting provisions, and obtain information required to
determine eligibility. Welfare data systems, for example, can not generally be used to identify
substance abusers or persons with low basic skills. A couple of administrators reported that
the welfare system has data only on the current welfare spell. State welfare data systems are
still not typically able to identify whether a person has received TANF or welfare for a
cumulative total of 30 months (the official WtW eligibility criteria), although most states are in
the process of modifying their systems.
C
Both TANF and JTPA agencies had only limited prior experience recruiting noncustodial parents.
In summary, the Welfare-to-Work grants program is off to a slow start and it is too early to
judge its success or failure. The new program has a number of very strong features that should increase
services to a population with serious employment barriers: targeting those with multiple barriers to
employment, mandating services to non-custodial parents, allowing an open-ended period during which
job retention and post-employment services can be provided, and operationalizing coordination
between the welfare and the workforce development systems at both the state and local levels. In
particular, the legislative targeting on the hardest-to-employ is providing impetus in the field to develop
new strategies for seeking out persons who may have had few program opportunities in the past and to
establish interagency linkages to coordinate resources, services, and information. While there was
general agreement that WtW services are correctly targeted to those with the greatest barriers to
employment and advancement, there is serious concern about how to define the 70 percent target
group. Most respondents felt that the stringent eligibility requirements were excluding some whose
needs are as great as those of the currently eligible population, such as persons with a high school
diploma or GED but lacking basic skills and work experience.
iv
EARLY IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE
WELFARE-TO-WORK
GRANTS PROGRAM
John Trutko
Nancy Pindus
Burt S. Barnow
Demetra Smith Nightingale
FINAL REPORT
July 1999
This report was prepared at The Urban Institute under a sub-contract from James Bell Associates for the U.S.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do
Final Report-7/9/99
not represent official positions of DOL-ETA, JBA, or the Urban Institute or its sponsors.
EARLY IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE WELFARE-TO-WORK FORMULA GRANTS PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program, authorized under the Budget Reconciliation
Act of 1997, is the latest component of federal welfare reform and provides states and localities with
supplemental funds to help welfare recipients with the most serious employment problems move into
jobs that have some potential for upward mobility. WtW provides an important opportunity to design
programs and services specifically for the least-employable welfare recipients and to enhance the
effectiveness of the state=s welfare reform efforts under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) block grant. The first grants were distributed in early 1998.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a status report on the early implementation (through
December 1998) of the WtW grants program in eleven states that were among the earliest to receive
funds under the formula-funded portion of the WtW program: Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, and South Carolina. This report
examines early implementation experiences at both the state and local levels, including targeting and
recruitment strategies, service delivery approaches, administrative issues/problems, and early results.
The preliminary findings of this report are intended to provide general operational background
Final Report-7/9/99
information to the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), including examples of potentially promising
strategies that are being implemented as well as feedback from the field on outstanding legislative and
regulatory issues affecting implementation.
The information provided in this report is based on the following data sources:
$
Site visits were conducted in five states -- Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oregon, and South
Carolina. Each site visit involved discussions with state workforce development and welfare
agencies= program administrators to understand the current status of WtW implementation in the
state, variations in program strategies/approaches, and emerging implementation
problems/issues.
$
Discussions with state administrators were followed by site visits to one or two localities within
each state to gain the perspectives of local workforce development and welfare agency staff and
more in-depth understanding of the early implementation (e.g., recruitment strategies, service
delivery approaches/strategies, early results, and implementation issues/problems). Eight local
programs were visited: Chicago and Moline (IL), Boston (MA), Detroit and Flint (MI), Salem
(OR), and Aiken and Greenwood (SC). Appendix A provides a copy of the discussion guide
used with state administrators and Appendix B provides a copy of the discussion guide used
with local program administrators.
$
Telephone discussions were conducted with state workforce development and welfare agency
administrators in the six other early implementing states -- Hawaii, Kansas, Louisiana,
Minnesota, Nebraska, and Nevada. The same discussion instrument used during site visits at
the state level was used to guide these telephone discussions (see Appendix A).
$
Telephone discussions were conducted with representatives of five national associations
involved in planning, implementation, or tracking the WtW program. Appendix C provides a
listing of the names of discussants and their organizations, along with the discussion guide used.
$
State WtW grant proposals submitted to DOL by the 11 states that were the focus of this study
were reviewed, as well as other readily available reports and information on the status of WtW
initiatives.1
1
Appendix D summarizes state administrative structures based on a review of Welfare-toWork grants.
Final Report-7/9/99
3
This paper begins with an overview of the WtW program, then focuses on major study findings relating
to the early implementation experience of the states and localities contacted.
OVERVIEW OF THE WTW GRANTS PROGRAM
WtW was enacted to complement the major welfare reform provisions established in 1996
under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), particularly
the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. States have considerable flexibility
to use the TANF block grant funds for cash welfare payments to families with children, work activities
for welfare parents, and related services which those parents may need to move from welfare to work.
The WtW grants complement TANF in that the WtW federal funds are specifically designated for
work-related activities and not for cash welfare payments. WtW funds are targeted on specific groups
within the welfare population who are least employable or face particular barriers to employment.
Under WtW, the federal government is distributing $3 billion -- $1.5 billion in FY 1998 and
$1.5 billion in FY 1999 -- to help move welfare recipients into jobs. Some funds are set aside at the
national level for Indian and Native American programs ($30 million), for evaluation activities ($24
million), and for performance bonuses for Asuccessful@ states ($100 million). One-quarter of the grant
funds are distributed competitively based on applications submitted to DOL (these are referred to as
competitive grants). Three-quarters of the federal WtW funds are allocated to states according to a
formula based on each state=s share of the poverty population and number of adults on welfare. These
WtW formula grants -- the focus of this study -- account for the largest share of WtW funding, about
$1.1 billion in FY 1998. The amount of federal funds available under the state formula grants for FY
1998 ranges from about $3 million in small states such as Wyoming, New Hampshire, and North
Final Report-7/9/99
4
Dakota, to over $190 million in California.
A total of 44 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands requested and
received WtW formula funds for FY 1998.2
Unlike TANF, which is administered at the national level by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), the WtW program is administered by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).
To receive WtW formula funds, a state submits an amendment to its TANF plan to the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and DOL explaining generally how the new funds
will be used. The federal funds require a one-third match, but up to 50 percent of the state match can
be in-kind rather than cash. Governors designate which state agency will receive and administer the
state formula funds. The state WtW agency must then distribute 85 percent of the state grant to local
Job Training and Partnership Act (JTPA) service delivery areas (SDAs)/Private Industry Councils
(PICs) according to the same formula used for allocation of funds to the states. States can request
DOL to approve an entity other than an SDA to administer WtW in a local area, but the request for an
alternative administrative entity must be justified in terms of administrative or managerial limitations of the
SDA. Locally, competitive grantees and SDAs (as formula sub-grantees) have responsibility for
program design, administration, and service delivery approaches.
2
Six states (Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) decided not to
request WtW funding for FY 1998. All states, regardless of whether they received WtW formula funds
in FY 1998 -- can elect to receive WtW funds in FY 1999. Even if states do not request the formula
funds in either year, local groups and organizations can submit applications to receive WtW competitive
funds.
Final Report-7/9/99
5
The 15 percent state set-aside funds can be used for state administration (limited to 5 percent),
data systems modifications, or special purposes or projects related to WtW as determined by the
Governor or state WtW agency.
WtW is intended to help states and localities meet their welfare reform objectives by providing
resources to move the least employable welfare recipients and non custodial parents into long-term
unsubsidized employment. Through the combination of formula and competitive grants, WtW provides
states and localities with funds that can be used for a broad range of employment-related activities,
including:
$
wage subsidies in the public or private sectors;
$
on-the-job training;
$
job readiness;
$
job placement services;
$
post-employment services;
$
job vouchers for job readiness, placement or post-employment services, community
service, or work experience;
$
job retention services; and
$
supportive services (if not otherwise available).
WtW grantees are permitted substantial flexibility in designing welfare-to-work strategies geared
to the needs of the local labor market and economy. The overall goal of the authorized activities under
the program is to get WtW eligible participants into unsubsidized employment and help them remain
permanently employed. A complementary goal of the WtW program is to provide education, training,
Final Report-7/9/99
6
and support services to facilitate career development and wage enhancement of welfare recipients once
they become employed.
With regard to allowable activities under WtW, there is one important service restriction: WtW
funds cannot be used for stand-alone (pre-employment) job training or education. However, the funds
can be used for training or education once a person has begun work, either as a post-employment
service in conjunction with work or as a work-based activity. Hence, WtW funds can be used
creatively by workforce development agencies to support skills training and work combinations. WtW
funds can also be used for paid and unpaid community service or work experience jobs, including
subsidized employment in the public and non-profit sectors and traditional on-the-job training.
Under WtW, both the formula and competitive grants are to fund services for the hardest- toemploy welfare recipients. At least 70 percent of funds must be used for (1) long-term TANF
recipients or recipients who are within one year of reaching the TANF time limit and who also have two
of three legislatively-specified problems: less than a high school education and low reading or math
skills, substance abuse problems, or Apoor work history@; or (2) non custodial parents who have two of
the same three legislatively-specified problems and have a child who is a long-term welfare recipient or
is within one year of reaching the TANF time limit.3 Up to 30 percent of the funds can be used for
3
For more information on effective practices for serving non custodial parents through WtW
grants see: Karin Martinson, Serving Non custodial Parents Through Welfare-to-Work Grants:
Labor Market Characteristics, Employment Barriers, and Service Strategies, The Urban Institute,
Final Report-7/9/99
7
TANF recipients or non custodial parents who have Acharacteristics associated with long-term welfare
dependency,@ such as teenage parents, persons with poor work histories, or high school dropouts.
Finally, Congress authorized the WtW grants program for two years, and allowed the funds to
be spent over a three-year period. This means the state and local system must become operational
quickly. This temporary status of the program created unique challenges in the early implementation
stage. The following provide a few examples of early planning and start-up experiences in several
states, highlighting some of the hurdles faced by states and localities beginning to serve WtW-eligible
participants:
C
In Hawaii, formula grant funds were allocated to the four local operating entities
upon approval of the state=s WtW application (in March 1998). Grant awards
were not issued to the local program entities for several months following
approval of the state plan (one local operating entity received its grant award on
July 1, 1998 and the other three local operating entities on September 30, 1998).
Local programs are still just getting off the ground (programs had served a total
of 35 WtW participants statewide by December 31, 1998). One state
administrator characterized start-up as follows: Awe=re up...not running...its more
like a slow trot...we thought it would be easy, but the numbers [of WtW eligible
individuals] are not that large.@
C
The Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs distributed WtW
formula funds to 26 SDAs in the state immediately following approval of its state
plan (in February 1998). The point at which the SDAs began to serve WtW
participants varied considerably because of the need to plan service delivery,
establish referral arrangements, and procure services. For example, because it
used a competitive contracting process which required preparation of a Request
for Proposal (RFP), review of proposals, etc., Chicago awarded subcontracts to
10 of 11 WtW service providers in July 1998, followed by a final award to an 11th
1998.
Final Report-7/9/99
8
service provider in November 1998.
C
Kansas== WtW grant was approved in March 1998 and funds were allocated to the
state=s five SDA/PICs in early April. However, local programs did not begin
serving WtW participants until July 1998, when the state legislature appropriated
funds for the match. As of December 1998, all SDA/PICs were operational and
serving WtW participants (about 108 statewide), but they were struggling to get
their participation levels up.
Thus, WtW offers states and localities an opportunity to implement employment-related services
specifically designed to meet the often intensive needs of the least-employable portion of the welfare
population. It also strongly encourages them to coordinate the JTPA/workforce development system
and the TANF/welfare system to serve the target population. But they have been asked to start-up
very quickly.
KEY STUDY FINDINGS
This early documentation of the implementation of the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) formula grants
indicates that, as intended, WtW funding has targeted resources to those with the greatest barriers to
employment, but implementation has been slower than anticipated. The WtW grants provided states
and localities with an influx of funds to be spent quickly -- creating both challenges and opportunities.
Our discussions with state and local agencies indicate they may need more time and greater flexibility to
spend WtW dollars. Environmental conditions have both helped and hindered WtW. Declining welfare
roles have reduced the numbers available within the target population, but a strong economy has helped
with job placement. WtW has helped to encourage workforce development agencies (at state/local
levels) to think about expanding available services and focus additional efforts on the hard to employ.
It is clearly too early to assess impacts of the WtW grants, but this study did find a variety of service
Final Report-7/9/99
9
models, innovative practices, and implementation challenges which can inform future policy and planning
for the WtW grants program. The following sections summarize implementation status, WtW services,
coordination between workforce development and welfare agencies, implementation challenges, and
early effects of the WtW program.
Status of Implementation
Table 1 summarizes the status and key state decisions regarding implementation of the WtW
formula grants. The administering state agency for the WtW formula grants is usually the Department of
Labor or equivalent agency that oversees JTPA and other employment and training programs. In two
of the eleven states studied, Nevada and Oregon, the administering agency is in the same state agency
that administers TANF; in the other nine states, WtW is administered through the workforce
development/JTPA state agency. In all of these eleven states, the SDAs are the local WtW
administrative entities.4
Of the eleven Aearly implementing@ states, one (Nebraska) received its WtW funds in January
1998, six (IL, LA, MA, MI, NV, SC) received their WtW funds in February 1998, three (HI, KS,
MN) received their WtW in March 1998, and one state, Oregon, received its funds in August 1998.
All these states allocated funds to the local SDAs within one month after receipt of funds from the U.S.
Department of Labor (as required by the legislation), but the extent of local implementation varied. For
4
Nationwide, only 7 other states have located WtW within the same agency that administers
TANF. Also, only a few states have designated administrative entities at the local level that are other
than SDAs, and even then the alternative entities operate in only a few localities. In nearly all places,
local WtW formula-funded programs are administered by SDAs.
Final Report-7/9/99
10
example, local implementation ranged from February through July in Illinois and from March through
September in Massachusetts, as SDAs hired staff, finalized plans, and/or solicited bids from
subcontractors. So, as of September 1998, some services were being provided to individuals locally in
all eleven states. As of November 1998, several states (e.g., HI, MN, NV, OR) indicated that at least
some of their local formula programs were not yet fully operational.
Service Activity. Table 2 summarizes state level service activity for the 11 states, as reported
for this study by the state WtW agency. 5 All states contacted under this study, as well as the eight
localities visited, reported slower than expected recruitment of TANF recipients into the WtW program.
The number of WtW participants served by states ranged from 35 in Hawaii to 2,882 in Illinois, the
state that was closest to being Afully operational.@ The states had just begun to place clients in
unsubsidized employment, as most clients being served were in some phase of job readiness training,
job search, or subsidized employment.
Of the eight local sites visited (see Table 3), two sites (Flint, Michigan and Salem, Oregon) had
not yet served any clients as of November 1998. Of those local sites that were serving clients, the
number of WtW clients served as of October or November 1998 ranged from 25 in Detroit, MI to
785 in Chicago, IL. All but one of the local sites visited used contractors to provide services.
Implementation of WtW took longer in those sites that selected new contractors through a competitive
bidding process. The Moline, Illinois SDA, which used in-house staff and local collaborators to provide
services, was able to begin providing services the same month that funds were received from the state.
5
Data have been requested from Massachusetts and Oregon and are forthcoming.
Final Report-7/9/99
11
There are several reasons for the slower than anticipated implementation, but state and local
WtW administrators reported particular difficulties with recruitment of individuals meeting the 70 percent
targeting requirement. This and other implementation challenges are discussed later in this paper.
State Match. Under the WtW program, states are required to match every $2 of federal
WtW funds expended by $1 of state or local in-kind or cash expenditures. Up to 50 percent of the
state match can be in-kind rather than cash. Of the 11 early implementing states, nine (HI, IL, KS,
MA, MI, NE, NV, OR, SC) provided the match entirely with state funds. Only two states,
Louisiana and Minnesota, provided the match through a combination of state and local funds:
C
After several months of consideration, the Louisiana legislature agreed to pay 50
percent of the matching funds required under WtW (approximately $2 million per
year for 3 years). This left the other 50 percent of matching funds to local
workforce development boards. The local agencies can cover the match with
either cash or in-kind contributions, though it was expected that most would rely
upon in-kind contributions (such as space, equipment, and salary/fringe). Once
help was provided on how to come up with in-kind contributions to the match,
local agencies did not object to the match requirement. It is not expected that
localities will experience difficulties coming up with the match, though some may
need additional technical assistance on how to document their in-kind
contributions.
C
In Minnesota, the match is coming from a combination of state and local
initiatives. So far, the state and local agencies have not come up with all of the
money for the match, but they are confident they will through other governmental
initiatives. They have found that the criteria for what constitutes an allowable
match has changed over time and this has made the match process more difficult.
Administrators in several states indicated that the decision to use only state funds for the match
was based on the desire to obtain the federal funding and implement quickly, and that arranging local
matching commitments would have taken too long. In a few states, there was also concern that some
localities, if required, could not or would not come up with the match. In two states, Kansas and
Final Report-7/9/99
12
Louisiana, local WtW implementation was delayed until the state legislature appropriated funds for the
match.
15 Percent Discretionary Funds. While 85 percent of a state=s formula funds must be
passed through to local workforce development boards, the remaining 15 percent can be used for statedesignated special projects and to cover state administrative costs. Strategies for using the 15 percent
discretionary funds in the first year varied somewhat across states. All states used a portion (often less
than 5 percent) of the 15 percent discretionary funds to cover the costs of state administration and some
nominal amount for computer systems modifications. Some states, such as Nebraska, distributed the 15
percent funds based on the same formula they used to distribute the 85 percent funds. Several states
had competitive procurement processes or distributed some of the money for special projects. For
example, Illinois awarded three competitive grants in Chicago; Oregon emphasized case management in
funding special projects; South Carolina funded transportation and a project for identifying non custodial
fathers. Kansas directed discretionary funds toward projects that filled gaps in their existing service
system, including transportation, microenterprise development, and serving disabled individuals.
Massachusetts allocated some of its discretionary funds to small SDAs to bring all localities= funding to
at least $400,000.
Description of Activities/Programs
The WtW program complements TANF by providing additional funds, targeting funding on
long-term welfare recipients, and permitting the flexibility to serve recipients longer and with a wider
range of services. In some states (e.g., Michigan, Oregon, Massachusetts, and Hawaii) the WtW grant
Final Report-7/9/99
13
programs are closely connected, even integrated, with existing TANF work programs, often because
the SDA has a main role in the TANF work program as well.
Local service delivery approaches and strategies vary quite a bit, though, regardless of the
program administrative structure or link with TANF. But in all the states reviewed, there was either a
special effort to target and reach out to the WtW eligible groups or there was a separate initiative
specifically developed for WtW. For example, in most of the states, local programs have been
developed that focus on job placement, a traditional employment service, but several of the states report
that they are also specifically emphasizing placement in jobs that pay wage rates high enough to keep
participants from returning to the rolls or that have some upward potential. Also, in all the states, there is
some effort to provide services that will enhance job retention, for instance, by providing active case
management services for a longer time period than in the past (e.g., for six months or longer); identifying
and obtaining commitments from mentors in the workplace; and providing post-placement
education/training strategies aimed at career advancement.
Employment Services. As intended by Congress, in general in these states= WtW
employment services are building on the TANF work policies, which right now usually incorporate an
immediate job entry, or work-first, approach. 6 That is, TANF recipients -- and often applicants as well
-- are expected to directly test the labor market to see if they can get jobs, sometimes with the
assistance of staff providing job readiness training, counseling, job search workshops, job clubs, and/or
6
For a description of work first programs in TANF, see Pamela Holcomb, et al., Building an
Employment Focused Welfare System: Work First and Other Work-Oriented Strategies in Five
States. The Urban Institute, Washington, D.C., 1998.
Final Report-7/9/99
14
job leads. If individuals are not successful in their initial efforts to secure regular employment, only then
do most TANF programs consider other activities such as training or employment or community service
job assignments. The early WtW formula programs link to the TANF work-first strategies in different
ways. Some of the WtW grant programs use similar work-first approaches, requiring or encouraging
individuals to seek regular work before considering other activities; some serve TANF clients who have
not succeeded in obtaining a job; and some forego the job search activity and move individuals
immediately into a structured employment situation. In other words, some of these WtW programs are
providing enhanced work-based services to TANF clients that are consistent with a definition of Aworkfirst@ that is broader than just placing individuals quickly into regular unsubsidized employment.
Strategies implemented by the states and localities in this study include:
C
Traditional on-the-job training (OJT) and other forms of subsidized employment with
private sector employers (e.g., TANF grant diverted to employer as a wage subsidy)-if possible with a promise of permanent employment at some point in the future.
Example: In Moline, Illinois, a primary focus of the WtW services has been an
activity called work testing. Work testing consists of placing WtW individuals at a
private employer for a 30-day trial period. At the end of the trial period, if an
individual was successful during that time, there is an expectation that the
employer will hire the individual outright. The employer, however, has no written
or legal obligation to hire the worker. During the work-testing period, the
individual receives payment from the SDA. The WtW staff make themselves
available to the worker and the employer during this 30-day trail period. During
the 30-day period, workers are given a toll-free (800) telephone number to call in
to WtW counselors. Thus far, the WtW program in Moline has had good success
with clients being retained as regular employees -- about 50% of individuals who
have gone through 30 days of work testing have been hired as regular staff. The
SDA had thought that OJT would be the main form of work activity for
individuals in the program, but work testing has been the most commonly used
activity.
Final Report-7/9/99
15
C
Community service jobs, public service employment, or community work experience,
used to prepare individuals who could not otherwise get jobs with private sector
employers.
Example: The City of Detroit plans to use a substantial portion of its WtW
funding to operate a Public Service Employment (PSE) program for WtW eligible
TANF clients. PSE will be allowed for up to 6 months, 25-30 hours per week.
The remaining time is intended for training to better prepare the client for an
unsubsidized position (training curricula are being developed with input from
employers). The City has built flexibility into the PSE=s so that participants can
move from one PSE slot to another if it enhances long-term employability. As
part of the PSE, employers are expected to provided training, feedback and
mentoring. In addition, at the end of the PSE, employers are expected to hire the
individual. During the PSE the individual receives a competitive wage, paid by a
staffing agency under contract to the City, of $7.00-$8.00 on average. It is hoped
that unsubsidized placement wages will be $10.00-$11.00 upon completion of the
PSE.
C
Job preparation programs, supported work, or apprenticeships that can include
preparing individuals for a specific job or providing job training in an actual job setting.
Example: Boston== s local formula WtW grant program administered by the SDA
consists of partnerships with 4-6 firms in specific
industries (e.g., health care, hospitality, and retail)
that provide workplace-based training to
individuals, and agree to hire those who complete
the 6-week workplace-based cycle as regular
employees. Each firm is partnered with a
community-based organization that provides
intensive and on-going case-management to
participants at the workplace during the cycle.
Post-Employment Services. A key distinction between WtW and both TANF and JTPA is
that there is no time limit on how long WtW services can be provided to a particular client once they are
formally enrolled in WtW. As one state administrator described the program, WtW provides resources
Final Report-7/9/99
16
to fill the gaps in the continuum of services needed by individuals transitioning from welfare to work.
Consistent with recent trends in workforce development policy, WtW specifically encourages programs
to consider ways to provide services that will upgrade the employability and skills of workers -- in this
case welfare recipients who transition into a job. WtW resources can be used for post-employment
training, including combining WtW funding with other sources of public funding for incumbent worker
skills development (e.g., Pell grants). Since only a small number of WtW participants have been placed
in jobs to date, it is too early to gauge whether WtW will actually increase use of post-employment
services, but there are indications that states and localities are moving in the direction of expanding such
services. Examples of post-employment services being implemented or planned include:
C
Ongoing case management and follow-up (e.g., Detroit);
C
Customized training/supported work at employer sites (e.g., Boston); and
C
Work-place based computer learning centers (e.g., Chicago).
At both the state and local levels, several administrators also noted they are beginning to think
about how to incorporate a focus on career advancement as a way to enable welfare recipients to
obtain jobs that provide long-term sufficiency. The level of interest of welfare recipients in postemployment services is difficult to determine at this point, however, and there is some question as to
whether, once employed, WtW participants will have the motivation, time, energy, resources, and child
care needed to pursue additional school or training. A related issue is whether employers will support
upgrade training efforts, through, for example, allowing paid time off from work, providing flexible work
schedules, offering classes at the job site, or paying for the training costs.
In addition to expanding post-employment education and training opportunities, states and
Final Report-7/9/99
17
localities are moving forward with plans to offer other post-employment services, especially job
retention and mentoring:
C
Maintaining toll-free telephone numbers for individuals and employers to call the case
managers (e.g., Moline, IL);
C
Sending participants postcards periodically once they start work reminding them of
assistance that is available (e.g., Chicago, IL);
C
Work site visits by case managers (e.g., Moline, IL); and
C
Continuing post-employment support until the individual has a 6-month work history
(e.g., Chicago, IL) or until he or she obtains a wage of $11.00 per hour (e.g., Detroit,
MI ).
Support Services. WtW grant programs are using some of their resources to provide
supportive services and they are linking with other agencies and programs to expand the availability and
range of support services available to WtW participants. Transportation, child care, housing, and
referrals to programs addressing substance abuse and domestic violence are all generally included in
WtW service networks (although usually not all of these services are offered in any one site). Much
thought has been given to transportation needs of WtW participants, since getting recipients to and from
where the jobs are located is critical to job placement and retention. Tokens for public transportation
are the main source of help in large cities, but other approaches are being tested in non-metropolitan
areas, including money for car repairs, vans, and partnerships with local WtW competitive grant
programs to fund or coordinate transportation services. Two states, Kansas and South Carolina, used
part of their 15 percent discretionary funds for transportation services.
Program staff at the Chicago site reported that the most common barrier to both short and long
term participation is child care, especially if the client has an irregular work schedule. There is a
Final Report-7/9/99
18
shortage of providers in Chicago, and most child care is being provided by family members. The two
local SDAs visited in South Carolina contract for child care services for WtW participants when these
are not provided by the Department of Social Services.
Hawaii used part of its discretionary funds to support a special initiative targeted on
noncustodial parents and substance abusers, populations that require special supportive services. One
of the major initiatives funded by the WtW grant in Nebraska involves serving persons with substance
abuse problems. Funds from WtW and other public programs are being combined to provide a full
range of services to WtW-eligible persons with substance abuse problems, short of funding direct
medical treatment. Some of the case managers at the Chicago site have experience with serving victims
of domestic violence and/or persons with substance abuse problems. They make referrals for substance
abuse and mental health services when indicated. Case managers in a number of sites reported that
they increasingly arrange for a range of services through the local welfare agency, such as dental care,
eyeglasses if needed for work, work clothes and uniforms, and work tools and equipment, and use
WtW funds for these services if other payment sources are not available.
Services to Non custodial Parents. WtW has provided resources and encouragement for
states and localities to provide employment and training services and support services to noncustodial
parents of TANF children. The legislative intent, and the stated goal, in many of the states and localities
contacted, is to get non custodial parents working steadily and then upgrade their skills and earnings so
they are better able to financially support their families.7
7
At the time of the site visits (October 1998), few of the programs contacted were aware that
Congress had amended the original WtW eligibility criteria regarding non custodial parents. By the time
Final Report-7/9/99
19
Noncustodial parents are clearly a high-priority target group in WtW at the federal level and in
many states. For example, Michigan had requested that localities spend 50 percent of WtW funds on
non custodial parents. Nevada elected to serve non custodial parents first in their WtW program
because the child support enforcement and welfare agency had a pre-existing program in conjunction
with the court=s Hearing Master in the Las Vegas area to serve noncustodial parents (and the welfare
agency=s computer system could identify potential WtW eligible non custodial parents.)
However, in general, at the operational level, it has proven very difficult for formula programs
to find and serve this population. Most WtW formula programs so far are depending on referrals of
individuals from either the TANF agency or the JTPA/workforce development system (e.g., one-stops).
But few of these organizations have experience recruiting non custodial parents, even if they have
served some number of them through their regular programs. Without special outreach efforts,
noncustodial parents will not routinely flow into the program.
Even in those states that have targeted non custodial parents, recruitment has been slow. Local
administrators indicate that non custodial parents are simply hard to find. At the time of the site visits, a
number of local programs had recently begun to more actively identify this group of parents, for
example, by:
C
Establishing procedures with Courts, Friends of the Court, and Child Support
Enforcement agencies, which can legally require fathers to participate in an employment
program if they are not current with their child support obligations.
Example: In at least one county in Illinois this is aggressively implemented by
the visits were completed, however, sites generally had been informed about the change.
Final Report-7/9/99
20
one judge who recently started to invoke and publicize a state statute that allows
judges to order non custodial parents who cannot pay child support to participate
in JTPA. Apparently this statute was not widely known about, but it is now being
publicized throughout the state. The court in one county now refers noncustodial
parents to the local Illinois Employment and Training Center (IETC). A court
order requires the non custodial parent to report within 7 days for assessment of
job skills, evaluation of possible substance abuse problems, and assessment of
need for housing, transportation or other support services which may prevent
immediate employment. Individuals are assessed for eligibility for WtW.
C
Coordinating with non-profit community-based organizations that work with lowincome fathers (e.g., fatherhood programs), which could increase voluntary participation
in WtW programs by eligible fathers.
Example: South Carolina has subcontracted a portion of its 15 percent funds to
the Urban League to identify non custodial parents.
C
Specifically informing non custodial parents who are in the child support enforcement
agency=s files about local job opportunities and services, including WtW.
Example: The Boston Regional Employment Board had some success in recruiting
non custodial fathers at a job fair for welfare recipients facing a December 1
deadline for losing their welfare benefits. This job fair attracted over 1,000
welfare recipients and non custodial fathers. The job fair was advertised through
mailing, postings, and word-of-mouth. To help welfare recipients prepare for the
job fair, a WtW-contracted service provider held 12 Ajob-readiness@ workshops
which helped recipients develop resumes and address interview issues.
Employer Involvement. The combination of SDAs having additional funding for employmentrelated services and a tight labor market in many areas has helped WtW programs to expand existing
linkages between the workforce development system and local employers.
Example: In Boston, one focus of the SDA=s WtW grant program is customized,
employer-provided job preparedness training. The job preparedness training is shortterm, and leads directly to a job with the firm providing the training. To date, the SDA
has contracted with five employers to operate programs which prepare WtW participants
for jobs at each of the firms. The SDA is actively seeking out other firms to sponsor
similar types of employer-based initiatives. The SDA only contracts with employers that
make a firm commitment to hire successful graduates of the program. It also looks for
Final Report-7/9/99
21
firms that offer career ladders. Employers have come forward to develop programs to
prepare workers for permanent jobs. They have been willing to provide training and
mentoring, help with curriculum development, and arrange paid time for new workers to
receive training.
Coordination
While WtW has a generally positive effect on expanding and intensifying coordination at the
state and local levels, the establishment of linkages and appropriate referral procedures can be timeconsuming and not always painless for those involved. Some state and local officials (both in workforce
development and welfare agencies) noted the insularity and bureaucracy of other agencies with which
they need to coordinate. In some instances, establishing linkages and getting the information needed
(especially around referrals of WtW eligible clients) resulted in Aturf@ battles and a series of meetings
involving give-and-take between agency administrators. Several examples of ways in which the WtW
program is both a challenge and an impetus to coordination between workforce development and
welfare agencies at the state and local levels follow:
C
State workforce development officials in Hawaii characterized relations with the
state=s TANF agency as Avery good...DHS has been really wonderful with helping
to identify WtW eligible individuals...they have been very accommodating at the
state and local levels.@ The workforce development and welfare agencies had
worked together in the past at the state and local levels, but not to the extent they
are now working together: AWtW helped to make coordination really
meaningful.@
C
In Illinois, state workforce
development officials noted
that the fundamental need for
referrals by SDAs from local
DHS offices provided a
strong motivation for
collaboration. Over time and
Final Report-7/9/99
22
with regular weekly meetings,
the SDAs have done a good
job of making themselves
known to the local DHS
offices. The state workforce
development and welfare
agencies encourage the local
level offices to work out
issues. Co-location has been
used mostly for recruitment
of WtW clients, but in general
WtW hasn=t resulted in more
sustained co-location. Where
the programs are in a onestop together, it is not due to
WtW, but is the result of
welfare reform that took
place much earlier.
C
In Kansas, the WtW program represented the first time the state=s workforce
development and TANF agencies have jointly developed policies, procedures, and
systems together-- it has been a good experience. Procedures have been
developed for identifying TANF eligibles as well as non custodial parents. The
policy committee that was formed in planning the WtW implementation is holding
ongoing meetings about twice a month; they also have a Aquestion-and-answer@
series that is distributed to everyone at both agencies; they have joint case
manager meetings and joint trainings -- they have had three joint training
sessions so far and two more are scheduled.
C
Relations between the Louisiana Department of Labor and the state=s TANF
agency were characterized as very good -- the two agencies have worked closely
together at the state and local levels on planning and implementation of the
program. If there are problems at the local level, a team from the state=s
workforce development and TANF agencies will visit the locality to resolve issues.
At the local level, SDAs have established interagency teams to oversee and
manage WtW (which include both PIC and local welfare office staff). WtW has
helped to bring the workforce development and TANF agencies together and
stimulated coordination at the state and local levels.
C
The Michigan Employment Commission and the Family Independence Agency
Final Report-7/9/99
23
(FIA) have been able to collaborate well and closely on WtW as a result of having
worked together over the past seven years on welfare reform (particularly the
state=s Work First program). There have been relatively few turf battles at the
state level, as well as at the local level, where workforce development boards and
local FIA agencies have worked closely on planning local WtW initiatives. There
have been extensive discussions and sharing of data between the workforce
development agencies and welfare agencies at the state and local levels.
Implementation Challenges
Despite the increasing coordination between welfare and workforce development agencies and
the early evidence of some potentially-promising service strategies, in-depth discussions with state and
local WtW administrators identified several factors that have slowed implementation of WtW and
affected their ability to recruit long-term welfare recipients and noncustodial parents. The five key
challenges identified are:
C
Decreases in the TANF caseload.
C
Difficulties in identifying clients that meet the requirements for 70% eligibility and the
related concern that they will serve too many 30% eligibles.
C
Additional time and procedures needed in order to comply with other eligibility
determination requirements.
C
Setting up procedures with welfare agencies for referrals, information sharing, and
reporting.
C
Limited experience in recruiting non custodial parents and limited initial interest of non
custodial parents in WtW services.
Decreases in the TANF Caseload. Reflecting national trends, all of the states contacted
(with the exception of Hawaii) had experienced substantial decreases in their TANF caseload since
enactment of federal welfare reform legislation in August 1996. According to the Administration on
Final Report-7/9/99
24
Children and Families (ACF) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the number of
TANF recipients in the United States decreased by 32 percent between August 1996 and June 1998.
As shown in Table 4, four states (KS, LA, OR, SC) had caseload declines of over 40 percent during
this period, and another four states reported caseload declines of 25 to 40 percent (IL, MA, MI, NV).
The precipitous decline in TANF caseloads has translated into a shrinking pool of TANF recipients
(even long-term recipients) from which to recruit WtW participants. Almost all of the state and local
officials we interviewed cited decreases in TANF caseloads as an underlying factor slowing local
program start-up and recruitment efforts.
Targeting Requirements (70 Percent Eligibility). A second factor affecting participation
levels in the WtW program -- one cited by state and local officials as their greatest hurdle in recruitment
of WtW participants -- is the stringency of the 70 percent eligibility targeting and spending requirements.
Under the WtW program, grant funds must be expended according to the following rules:
At least 70 percent of WtW grant funds must be spent on individuals who are:
C
long-term TANF recipients (with 30 or months of welfare receipt) or recipients who are
within one year of reaching the TANF time limit and who also have two of three
legislatively-specified problems: (1) less than a high school education and low reading or
math skills, (2) substance abuse problems, or (3) Apoor work history@; or
C
non custodial parents who have two of the same three legislatively-specified problems
and have a child who is a long-term welfare recipient or is within one year of reaching
the TANF time limit.
Up to 30 percent of WtW grant funds may be spent on individuals who have:
C
characteristics associated with long-term welfare dependence, such as school dropout,
teen pregnancy, or poor work history; and are either recipients of TANF assistance or
noncustodial parents.
Final Report-7/9/99
25
Despite substantial decreases in the number of welfare recipients over the past two years, state
and local administrators in the 11 states contacted reported generally having a large enough pool of
welfare recipients meeting either the 30 months of welfare receipt requirement or being within 12 months
of termination from TANF.8 However, these same officials reported that local WtW programs were
experiencing substantial difficulties finding and recruiting enough individuals who met two out of the three
barriers to employment. State and local officials felt that the additional barriers cited in the WtW
legislation were overly stringent, particularly the requirement that a long-term welfare recipient lack a
high school degree or a GED and have basic skills deficiencies. Many welfare recipients were
screened out of the pool of those eligible under the 70 percent criteria because they already had a high
school diploma or GED, despite having poor basic skills (i.e., reading and/or math skills below 9th
grade) and a poor work history.
Program administrators noted that long-term recipients with basic skills deficiencies have a
critical need for WtW services not only to secure and keep jobs, but also to advance to higher paying
jobs that might eventually permit self-sufficiency. Nearly all of the state and local officials we
interviewed urged, at a minimum, that the education/basic skills employment barrier should be modified
so a long-term TANF recipient would meet this barrier=s requirement if he/she lacked a high school
diploma or GED or had low reading or math skills. Other state and local administrators argued for
8
Some state administrators noted that there were isolated localities within their state (in suburban
and rural areas) where there were very few welfare recipients that would even meet this requirement.
Final Report-7/9/99
26
elimination of the requirement for additional barriers to employment -- so that all TANF recipients with
30 or more months of welfare receipt or who face termination from TANF within 12 months could be
served under the program. Furthermore, some state and local administrators noted that there were
many former welfare recipients and other individuals with similar basic skills deficiencies trapped in lowpaying jobs who would benefit from post-employment services available under WtW. They hoped that
program regulations would be relaxed so more working poor parents, especially former welfare
recipients, could take advantage of the WtW services.
In summary, while there was general agreement that WtW services are correctly targeted to
those with the greatest barriers to employment and advancement, there is serious concern about how to
define the 70 percent target group. Most respondents felt that the stringent eligibility requirements were
excluding some individuals whose needs are as great as those of the currently eligible population.
Some local WtW programs have also had to slow their recruitment of individuals eligible under
the 30 percent targeting requirement because of concerns that they will not be able to recruit enough
individuals to meet the 70 percent spending requirement. Faced with stringent program rules on
reimbursement of federal funds if 70 percent of WtW expenditures are not for individuals meeting the 70
percent targeting requirement, local programs have carefully monitored participation and expenditure
levels -- and, generally, have been unwilling to let expenditures on the 30 percent eligible target group
get out of line with expenditure requirements.9 Both state and local WtW officials noted that, given
9
Local WtW program operators are generally workforce development boards, who have in the
past administered the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). They are accustomed to severe repayment penalties for expenditures on ineligible participants under the JTPA program -- and hence, tend
to be cautious in their approach to eligibility determination and implications for future audits.
Final Report-7/9/99
27
experiences to date, there is too much uncertainty about whether local programs will be able to recruit
enough individuals meeting the 70 percent target group in the future to get too far out ahead on
expenditures on the 30 percent eligibles. This has been a source of frustration and concern to some
local program operators because most programs are faced with a surplus of 30 percent eligible
individuals who are seeking and need WtW services. Without WtW services, there is concern that such
individuals will experience difficulties securing and keeping jobs that pay sufficient wages. Furthermore,
local program administrators worry that individuals who are not enrolled as part of the 30 percent target
group under WtW will lose the opportunity, once employed, to take advantage of post-employment
services in the future that might help them retain and advance in their jobs.
As noted above, state and local administrators recommended relaxation of the eligibility
targeting rules. At a minimum, they suggest that any future audits of WtW expenditures be based on
WtW allocations rather than expenditures (i.e., so that up to 30 percent of the WtW allocation to local
programs can be spent on 30 percent eligible individuals regardless of expenditures on the 70 percent
eligible target group).
While state and local program operators noted that the WtW program complemented TANF
Awork-first@ efforts already underway in their states, some questioned the wisdom of restricting
education and training opportunities under WtW to only after participants are involved in work. These
program administrators noted that many of the individuals served by the WtW program are among the
most difficult to serve welfare recipients (as a result of the 70 percent targeting requirement) and face
profound barriers to labor market entry. While a work-first approach may be well-suited to many
WtW participants (especially those closing in on their time limits), some administrators questioned
Final Report-7/9/99
28
whether it made sense to categorically close off education and training as options prior to employment
for long-term welfare recipients with significant basic skills deficiencies and little previous labor market
experience.
Other Eligibility Determination Issues. Several other concerns were raised about the
procedures that must be followed to determine WtW eligibility. Staff at a number of local WtW
programs said that the basic skills test results on file at the welfare offices were not current (e.g.,
collected two or more years before) and so it was necessary to test, or re-test, many persons referred
to the WtW program. The enrollment process is delayed in some localities where confidentiality issues
have arisen in terms of local welfare offices being able to share information about a TANF recipient=s
substance abuse problems. And even when local welfare agencies are willing to share information on
substance abuse problems, that information is often incomplete or outdated. WtW administrators also
noted that program participants are often reluctant to share information about alcohol or drug use,
especially when they are first meeting with WtW staff. Overall, local programs visited for this study
reported that relatively few individuals qualified under the 70 percent criteria on the basis of substance
abuse problems. One site raised the question of whether it is possible to reclassify a client enrolled first
as part of the 30 percent eligibility group and later found to have a substance problem or some other
barrier that would make her/him eligible under the 70 percent provision.
Setting up Procedures with Welfare Agencies. Another factor slowing recruitment of WtW
eligible participants, at least in the early months of implementation, was the need for state and local
workforce development agencies responsible for WtW to establish formal policies and procedures with
welfare agencies, particularly relating to procedures for sharing case information and referring eligible
Final Report-7/9/99
29
individuals to WtW. Before WtW, there were widely varying degrees of linkages between workforce
development and welfare agencies at the state and local levels. In some instances -- such as Illinois,
Michigan, and Oregon -- workforce development agencies had well-established relationships with
welfare agencies at the state and local levels because of previous and ongoing collaboration on TANF
Awork-first@ initiatives. In other states and localities, there was much less communication and
coordination between workforce development and welfare agencies. While previous relationships
helped to facilitate WtW start-up, even in the states where there were pre-existing and strong linkages,
it was necessary for state and local agencies to establish procedures for sharing information on
potentially-eligible WtW individuals, referring them to WtW, and tracking their progress once enrolled in
WtW activities.
All of the local WtW programs we visited were depending to a large extent upon welfare
agencies to identify and pre-screen WtW-eligible TANF clients. In most places, state or local welfare
offices provide each local WtW program with a listing (generally on a monthly basis) of individuals
meeting the 30-month time requirement or within 12 months of termination from TANF. One or two
states reported difficulty in providing this information from their management information systems, and in
general, the systems were only able to track current spells on TANF. These lists of welfare recipients
also generally provide some additional information (such as education level, scores on basic skills tests,
and indications of substance abuse problems), though as noted earlier, this information was not always
complete, reliable, or up-to-date. State and local administrators indicated that it took from several
weeks to several months -- and even longer (and some local programs were still working on and
refining
Final Report-7/9/99
30
coordination issues at the time of our visits) -- to establish timely and orderly procedures for transfer of
information and, if appropriate, referral of WtW-eligible welfare recipients.
Recruiting Non custodial Parents. A fifth factor that has played a role in slower than
anticipated levels of participation in the WtW program has been low non custodial parent enrollment
levels. The WtW program provides resources and encouragement for states and localities to initiate
employment, training, and support services aimed at enhancing the employability of non custodial
parents of welfare children. As discussed earlier, several states have made serving non custodial
parents a major priority under the WtW program.
However, actual recruitment of non custodial parents has been slow and difficult. Local agency
officials we interviewed noted that non custodial parents are difficult to identify and contact (sometimes
avoiding detection, especially if they have arrearages in child support payments) and can be reluctant to
participate in WtW programs in the absence of a court order mandating participation. Table 2 (shown
earlier) provides an overview of the small numbers of non custodial parents served to date in the 11
states visited.
Before WtW, none of the local programs we visited had well-established channels specifically
for recruiting or serving non custodial parents, although they may have had a number of persons in their
programs who were non custodial parents. Most efforts to date by local WtW programs have focused
on identifying potential agencies that can refer fathers, and only recently are programs instituting more
direct outreach procedures. In states visited, the most common method for recruiting non custodial
parents was through the child support enforcement program. For example, the WtW program may be
Final Report-7/9/99
31
given a mailing list of parents in the child support enforcement data base. However, the child support
data are not likely to include any information that could help identify whether or not the parent would be
eligible for WtW services or even need employment assistance. Some local WtW program
administrators reported that they have been hampered in establishing referral agreements with other
agencies by confidentiality concerns, especially on the part of welfare and child support enforcement
agencies. A number of programs are beginning to develop strategies such as outreach through the
media and community-based fatherhood groups, organization of job fairs, and coordination with the
court system. Many of these efforts are still in their early planning stages, but local WtW program
operators are not overly optimistic that expanded linkages and direct outreach efforts will increase the
flow of non custodial parents to their WtW programs.
Early Effects of the WtW Program
All of the state and local WtW administrators stressed that it was still much too early to draw
conclusions about the effects of WtW on program participants. State and local administrators stressed
the importance of longer term measures of program success -- particularly whether participants retained
jobs over the long term and were able to establish long-term self-sufficiency. Program administrators
were looking to WtW as a source of funds that would enable workforce development agencies to work
with (over a sustained period) and enhance the employability of the most disadvantaged welfare
recipients. In addition, the program was viewed as a vehicle for serving a population -- disadvantaged,
unemployed or underemployed noncustodial parents -- for which there have been few available
employability services in the past.
Final Report-7/9/99
32
As shown earlier in Table 2, the number of those served placed in unsubsidized employment is
relatively small and there is no data yet available on job retention rates. The lack of data on job
placement and retention is a function of several factors: (1) local programs are still in the early stages of
implementation, (2) recruitment has been slower than anticipated in many areas, and (3) it takes from
several weeks to several months (and longer when you examine job retention outcomes) for WtW
participants to transition through program services and into unsubsidized jobs. With regard to initial job
placement, most state and local program administrators were optimistic about placing a high proportion
of WtW participants in jobs, primarily because of generally robust local economic conditions
(accompanied by labor shortages in some instances). In addition, the time limits faced by many WtW
participants and requirements to be involved in work activities provided an added urgency that helped
to focus the efforts of WtW participants on job placement. State and local WtW officials were more
cautious about long-term effects of the program. There was considerable concern over how well WtW
participants would fare within local labor markets should there be a general economic downturn -- e.g.,
would WtW participants be among the first to be let go if there was a recession? WtW program
operators also expressed concerns over whether wage rates would be high enough to promote longterm self-sufficiency, whether program participants would really take advantage of WtW postemployment education and training activities, and whether such activities would make a significant
difference on career advancement and wage growth. Several examples of the perspectives of state and
local administrators on effects of WtW follow:
C
In Louisiana, state workforce development officials cautioned that it was too
Final Report-7/9/99
33
early to talk about program outcomes -- particularly in light of the small number
of program participants served to date. Generally, in the early stages of the
program, SDAs reported that WtW participants have had little difficulty finding
jobs.
C
In Michigan, state and local officials indicated that the state economy is very
robust, with very low unemployment (a statewide rate of about 3.7 percent).
However, pockets of unemployment exist in certain areas of the state (particularly
in urban areas) and among certain types of individuals (young, African American
males). While there is a consensus that there are plentiful jobs available in most
localities within the state, many pay low wages, do not include fringe benefits, and
have little potential for career advancement. An added difficulty is that many job
openings are located outside central cities, making it necessary to arrange
transportation for WtW participants.
C
In Oregon, state and local workforce development officials stressed it is too early
to talk about impacts of WtW on participants -- relatively few welfare recipients
have even been enrolled for services yet. State officials speculated that WtW will
help to continue to reduce welfare caseloads at a time when the state is expecting
that caseload declines will flatten out. It is anticipated that WtW will help by
intensifying services available for the hard-to-serve (which is the majority of
those still left on Oregon=s welfare rolls) and also may help to expand postemployment services for those already employed. The state economy has been
very strong over the past 3 or 4 years. State officials are hopeful that the average
wage at placement under the WtW program will exceed what has been achieved
in the state=s work-first initiative (a wage of about $7.00 per hour). While the
average wage achieved under the state=s work-first program has been enough to
get people off the welfare rolls, it has not been enough to assure long-term selfsufficiency.
Conclusions/Recommendations
In summary, the Welfare-to-Work grants program is off to a slow start and it is too early to
judge its success or failure. Rather, this is the ideal time to consider the program=s strengths and
weaknesses and fine-tune aspects of the program in order to increase the likelihood that the program
will successfully address the goals set forth in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997.
Final Report-7/9/99
34
The new program has a number of very strong features that appear to show some early
potential for improving the availability and range of services to a population with very serious
employment barriers, among them: targeting those with multiple barriers to employment, mandating
services to noncustodial parents, allowing an open-ended period during which job retention and postemployment services can be provided, and operationalizing coordination between the welfare and the
workforce development systems at both the state and local levels. In particular, the legislative targeting
on the hardest-to-employ is providing impetus in the field to
develop new strategies for seeking out persons who may have had few program opportunities in the
past and to establish interagency linkages to coordinate resources, services, and information.
A number of the program=s shortcomings identified in this report will resolve themselves as
implementation progresses, such as the somewhat slow recruitment of eligibles, the confusions about
some of the program definitions and reporting requirements, and the difficulties encountered in
developing procedures to coordinate information exchanges and client referrals between welfare and
WtW agencies. Other implementation problems, though, might require formal revisions to federal
policies within the context of the overall objectives of the WtW legislation. For example, the strongest
message from the field is that DOL and Congress should make changes that broaden the eligibility
criteria--in a sense, fine-tuning the legislation but still maintaining the goals of serving those most in need
and providing services that move clients toward self-sufficiency. One specific recommendation in this
regard is that DOL add some flexibility to the targeting requirements for long-term TANF recipients, for
example, by adopting language along the following lines:
At least 70 percent of WtW grant funds must be spent on individuals who are long-term
Final Report-7/9/99
35
TANF recipients (with 30 or more months of welfare receipt) or recipients who are within one
year of reaching the TANF time limit or who also have two of three legislatively-specified
problems: (1) less than a high school education and low reading or math skills, (2) substance
abuse problems, or (3) Apoor work history.@
However, we view this recommendation as a short-term solution. Over the longer-term, WtW
grantees need to consider more aggressive outreach strategies to identify eligible participants and DOL
should consider eligibility guidelines that address the basic WtW goals of self-sufficiency without the
direct reliance on TANF rules and records. As currently implemented, most workforce development
agencies are dependent upon local welfare agencies for WtW referrals. PICs do little direct outreach
on their own, so they are reliant on the quality of linkages with welfare agencies. Some workforce
development agencies have done their own outreach and are beginning to develop creative strategies in
recruiting welfare-to-work participants (e.g., working with community groups, housing projects, etc.),
but this has come about only recently, as recruitment problems have surfaced.
What becomes clear in reviewing the client flow of the TANF and WtW programs is that: 1) the
WtW program is built around TANF and TANF rules, and 2) the pool of TANF clients is shrinking.
But that doesn=t mean that there are shrinking numbers of low-income parents who have serious
problems in the labor market. There are many underemployed low-income working parents, including
former TANF recipients and those who, although possibly eligible, have never been on TANF (or
AFDC before it), who can benefit from the services provided under WtW. One must be cautious about
expanding eligibility and guard against reducing the availability of services to those most in need. But
given the shrinking cash assistance system, it is timely to consider other means of identifying those
working poor with children who are the most in need without relying on the TANF system for eligibility
or referrals.
Final Report-7/9/99
36
APPENDIX A
Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation
Discussion Guide for State Agency Respondents
A.
GENERAL IDENTIFICATION
A.1
Agency and Respondent Identification/Background
A.2
Agency Roles in Implementing Welfare-to-Work Grants Program
B.
STATUS AND STRUCTURE OF WtW GRANTS PROGRAM
B.1
Current status of the WtW formula grants:
When did the state receive its grant from DOL?
When were grants awarded to subgrantees in the state (start and end dates)
What is the current status of implementation (e.g., how many grantees are Aup and
running@ and serving clients?)
B.2
Describe the funding stream for Welfare-to-Work Grants--what organizations receive funds
from the state and do they, in turn, subcontract with other organizations?
B.3
How many local subgrantees and types (e.g., SDAs) are there in the state?
B.4
What are the state requirements for the match? (State or local monies, cash or in-kind?)
B.5
How is the state using or planning to use the 15% WtW funds set aside for discretionary use by
states?
B.6
Describe the state=s system for tracking WtW grant activity and the availability of information on
number of individuals served, spending, performance, etc.
B.7
Describe what the grant is used for across the state (e.g., expanding existing services, increasing
number of people served, new program, special initiative or service, etc.)
B.8
Describe any innovative programs being implemented at the local level using WtW funding.
B.9
Are all the local WtW programs similar? How do they vary?
WtW Early Implementation State Guide 10/98
Page 1
C.
WtW PROGRAM--Planning and Early Implementation
C.1
Goals and objectives of WtW: compared to welfare reform/TANF? Compared to
JTPA/Workforce Development?
C.2
How easy or hard has it been to implement the WtW grant/program at the state level?
Problems or implementation issues (especially any related to unclear Federal regulations
and program rules).
D.
PROGRAM COORDINATION/COLLABORATION
D.1
Role of Employment/Labor and TANF Agencies in administering program
D.2
Formal arrangements for collaboration (e.g., contracts for service delivery, regular meetings,
joint task force, interagency agreement, etc.)
D.3
Is there any collocation/one-stop service delivery?
D.4
Has WtW changed the working relationships between the two agencies (or departments within
an agency)?
E.
LABOR MARKET CONTEXT
E.1.
What is the state economy like right now?
Unemployment rate:________ What=s the unemployment situation? Does it seem easy to find
jobs?
What kinds of jobs and wages are former welfare clients getting? Any differences between
TANF and WtW participants?
E.2.
Are there any other special economic conditions in the state or any local area that are important
to know about?
F.
GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF WtW
F.1
In general, what is your overall opinion about WtW? Is it a useful strategy? Is there anything
WtW Early Implementation State Guide 10/98
Page 2
else you think we should know about WtW?
F.2
What would you say are the main strengths of WtW?
F.3
What would you like to see changed in WtW to improve it or make it more successful?
Describe any special or unique problems or issues that the federal agencies may be able to fix
e.g., providing additional clarification, changing regulations, etc.)
F.4
Is there anything else that you consider to be especially innovative or unique about your state=s
approach to WtW?
F.5
Do you have any early impressions about outcomes for WtW participants so far ( getting off of
TANF, enhancing basic or job-specific skills, etc.)?
WtW Early Implementation State Guide 10/98
Page 3
APPENDIX B
Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Status (Formula Grants)
Discussion Guide Outline for Local Programs
A.
GENERAL IDENTIFICATION
A.1
Grantee and Respondent Identification Background
A.2
Current WtW Grant Project Period: Start Date: ___/___/___ End Date: ___/___/___
A.3
Current status of the WtW grant program/services
B.
ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND (for grantee organization)
B.1
Type of organization
B.2
General mission/objectives
B.3
Size--staff, annual budget, number of clients served
B.4
Major funding sources for this year (e.g., WtW?, JTPA?, TANF?, city/state funds, etc.)
B.5
What is the organization=s service area and has it changed with WtW funding?
B.6
What population groups has this organization typically served or worked with?
B.7
What types of employment-related programs or services did this organization provide before
the WtW grant program? (ask about services for welfare recipients)
C. WtW PROGRAM--Planning and Early Implementation
C.1
Rationale for Involvement in WtW
C.2
What other programs or local initiatives provide similar types of services for welfare recipients?
C.3
Goals and Objectives
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 1
C.4
Start-up
- How easy or hard has it been to implement the WtW grant/program?
- What changes from the original implementation plan have been made so far and why?
- Do you expect that there will be any major changes in the next 6 months? What do you think
the program will be like in 6 months?
-
Problems or implementation issues (especially any related to unclear regulations and
program rules).
D. WtW PROGRAM - General Structure
D.1
Overview of what the grant is used for--expanding existing services, increasing number of people
served, new program or special initiative or service, etc
D.2
Funding:
- How much of the match is in cash? How much is in-kind?
How is the match provided? State government? Local Government?
Were there any special issues or problems coming up with the match?
Delays in getting matching funding from state and any problems with this?
D.3 Service Area
Geographic area served
Program/service locations
D.4 Program structure:
Organization and staffing (obtain organization chart if available)
-
Who has overall responsibility for WtW?
-
Are there any subcontractors or subgrantees under the WtW grant? How were they
selected? [probe: competitive process?] [get list of subcontractors/subgrantees]
-
How does WtW compare with services available under TANF or JTPA II.A.?
E. WtW PROGRAM--Population
E.1
Number of participants/persons served [get copies of any aggregate management data reports].
Current, To-Date, and Planned Numbers [obtain MIS aggregate report if possible]:
-
Total number of TANF recipients currently active: ______
Total number of non-custodial parents currently active: ______
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 2
E.2
Planned total number of TANF recipients to be served: ______
Planned total number of non-custodial parents to be served: ______
Client Referrals to and From the Program
-
E.3
To date, the number of persons referred to WtW by the TANF agency:____________
The number of persons who come to WtW from another route:____________ [specify
referral sources]
The number of persons who have received some WtW service:_______________
How does this level of activity compare to what you normally do or did before WtW? Are
you serving more people, is this about the same number of people, or is it fewer?
Target Groups
-
Do you have specific groups that are or will be targeted under the WtW grant, or are you
serving all those eligible?
-
What are the specific target groups under the WtW grant?
-
Are these the same types of clients/persons this organization/program has served in the past,
or are any of them new groups?
-
Can you provide any breakdown of Welfare-to-Work participant characteristics to-date?
-
What are the most important barriers to working that you have found among the WtW
participants?
F. WtW PROGRAM--Client Flow
F.1
General Client Flow--how people move through the system. (Obtain flow chart if available)
F.2
Outreach/Inflow
-
How do people get into the WtW program? Are people selected or identified in some
way?
-
Is there a regular referral process? [e.g., from TANF agency, PIC, Child Support, courts,
community-based organizations, other parts of this organization?]
-
Is there a screening process to identify people in other [e.g., TANF, JTPA, One-Stop,
Child Support] programs who might be eligible for WtW services?
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 3
-
Is there any outreach to get eligible people into this program?
-
Has it been easy to get eligible people into the program? Are there more applicants than
you can serve, do you have waiting lists?
-
Or, has it been hard to identify and recruit participants? Why? What has been done or can
be done about this?
F.3
Intake/Enrollment Process
F.4
Assignment to Services
F.5
F.6
-
How is it decided what services individuals will get?
-
Are people assigned to a particular staff person or case manager?
Participant Mandatory Requirements
-
Are any or all of the people served required to be here--or required to cooperate or
participate? [e.g., TANF, Child Support Enforcement]
-
What are the penalties for not participating? How strictly are they enforced? Who reports
or tracks cooperation?
Case Termination
-
How long can people receive WtW services?
-
How and when do people officially leave or terminate from the program?
-
Have you had many dropouts? When and why does it occur?
-
What have been the program=s experiences with termination? How many people have
officially terminated from WtW to date? [Describe patterns emerging]
G. WtW PROGRAM--Services
G.1
Employment Services
-
Types of services provided
Are these provided in-house, or do you have contractors? Or do you refer clients
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 4
G.2
elsewhere?
Do participants get vouchers for any of these services?
Are any special efforts being made to create or develop new employment?
Supportive Services
-
G.3
Types of services provided
Which of these are provided in-house, or do you have contractors? Or do you refer clients
elsewhere for the actual services?
Do participants get vouchers for any of these services?
Post-Employment Services
-
Types of services provided [e.g., job retention support, transitional services like child care,
coaches/case managers, education or training]
How about post-employment education and training?
Are any of these provided in-house or do you have contractors? Or do you refer clients
elsewhere for support?
Do participants get vouchers for any of these services?
H. PROGRAM COORDINATION/SERVICE INTEGRATION
H.1
Major Partners
Name of the partner organization or program
How long the linkage has existed and how it came about [pre-WtW or new]
Nature of the linkage (including types of services provided through the linkage)
[if relevant] Number and types of participants referred in either direction (annually or
monthly)
[If not already addressed, specifically ask about whether and how WtW interacts with the following:]
-
H.2
TANF agency and TANF work program
JTPA [PIC, Workforce Development Board]
One-Stop Career [Job] Center
Community-based organizations [e.g., community action agency, Urban League, youth
programs]
Are there any formal linkages with local employers or businesses?
I. LABOR MARKET CONTEXT
I.1. What is the local economy like right now?
-
Unemployment rate:________ What=s the unemployment situation? Does it seem easy to
find jobs?
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 5
-
What kinds of jobs do your clients seem to be able to get? [availability of job openings,
including availability of entry level/low skill jobs; areas of local labor shortages]
What wages do your clients seem to be able to get? [e.g., wage rates in the locality for entry
level work]
I.2. What are the major local employers and their employment requirements?
I.3. Are there any other special local economic conditions here that are important to know about?
(e.g., in- or out-migration of major employers, recent major layoffs, base closings)
I.4
J.
Do your participants live near employment centers, or do they live quite a distance? What
strategies or solutions address this problem?
WtW PROGRAM -- Preliminary Data and Outcomes
J.1
Data Reporting Systems and Data Availability
J.2.
How many WtW participants have been placed in jobs so far? [get reports/numbers if available]
In unsubsidized jobs:
How many?_____________
What types of occupations or businesses?
What average starting wages?
In subsidized jobs:
- How many?_____________
- What types of jobs? [probe: clerical, aides, etc.]
- What types of assignments? [probe: single slot, crews, etc.]
- Are these paid in addition to TANF grant or not? [probe: how much pay?_____________]
J.3
Do you have any sense yet of other outcomes or effects [e.g., changes in welfare receipt, skills
upgrading, continuing education?
K. GENERAL PERCEPTIONS OF WtW
K.1
In general, what is your overall opinion about WtW? Is it a useful strategy? Is there anything else
you think we should know about WtW?
K.2
What would you say are the main strengths of WtW?
K.3
What would you like to see changed in WtW to improve it or make it more successful? Describe
any special unique problems or issues that the federal agencies may be able to fix e.g., providing
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 6
additional clarification, changing regulations, etc.)
K.4
Describe the responses of employer community your WtW activities.
K.5
Is there anything else that you consider to be especially innovative or unique about your
program?
WtW Early Implementation Local Guide 10/98
Page 7
APPENDIX C
Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Status: Contacts with National Organizations
Responding Organizations
Gary Moore, National Association of Private Industry Councils (NAPIC)
Evelyn Ganzglass, National Governors Association (NGA)
Elaine Ryan, American Public Welfare Association (now called APHSA)
Steve Savner, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
JimVan Erden and Peter Koch, National Alliance of Business (NAB)
National Association for Equality of Opportunity in Higher Education
Telephone Questionnaire
1.
What do you know about implementation of the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grant program (formula
grants only)--e.g., familiar with the legislation; status of implementation nationally? (Is there anyone
else in the organization we should talk to?)
2.
Has your organization been involved in planning with any states or local formula grantees? If yes,
describe.
3.
Are there any special initiatives your organization is involved in with respect to the WtW grant
program? If so, describe. Request any reports or information that is available.
4.
Is or has your organization conducted any surveys of your membership to learn about what they are
doing with respect to the WtW grant program? If so, describe. Request any reports or information
that is available. Probe for specific target groups or services, e.g.,: nearing TANF time limit,
noncustodial parents, substance abuse problems, limited English speaking, no high school/GED, etc.;
supportive services, post employment services.
5.
Is or has your organization been involved in any other tracking or monitoring of implementation of
the WtW grant program? If so, describe. Request any reports or information that is available.
6.
Does your organization have any role, or plan to have any role in providing technical assistance to
states or grantees regarding WtW implementation?
7.
Are there any areas where clarifications or changes are needed in the legislation or regulations
pertaining to the WtW grant program? (Expressed either by members or by the national organization)
8.
Do you have any sense of early impacts of this program -- e.g., what is the money being used for,
what benefits are clients getting, any client outcomes yet? Have you heard of any problems or of any
innovative programs?
Table D-3
Distribution of SDAs by their Official Role in the
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program
Number of
SDAs
Percent of
SDAs
Formula Sub-grantee Only
533
84.1%
Formula and Competitive Grantee
16
2.5%
Formula and Competitive Sub-grantee
(in a multi-site competitive grant)
10
1.6%
Formula funds given to local agency other than PIC a
18
2.8%
State did not have a FY 1998 Formula Grant b
57
9.0%
634
100.0%
Not receiving Competitive and not receiving
Formula Funds because:
Total Number of SDAs
SOURCE: The Urban Institute WTW Grant Review Database, 1999
a
Of these SDAs, 2 are located in New York, 3 in Hawaii and 13 in Puerto Rico.
b
Some SDAs in this category may be receiving some WTW funds as a local participating partner
in competitive grant programs, but no data are yet available on such arrangements.