The policy context for both welfare programs and employment and training
programs operated by the workforce development system has changed dramatically
in the past few years. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 requires welfare agencies to focus more
than in the past on moving welfare recipients into employment. PRWORA provides
funding to welfare agencies in the form of a block grant, Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families (TANF), to support efforts to achieve this objective.
The need to move more TANF clients into work activities and jobs means that
TANF agencies need to expand or develop structural and organizational
arrangements that make this possible, including coordinating with the workforce
development system.
The Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program provides additional funding to serve welfare recipients, but the resources flow through the employment and training system, now commonly called the workforce development system. WtW creates new incentives for the workforce development system to coordinate with the welfare system on behalf of welfare recipients. The workforce development system is also changing, moving towards universal access to employment related services and the use of technology to serve job seekers and employers better.
States and localities are responding to this dynamic environment in different ways, and their responses reflect historical relationships as well as current policy objectives. This study builds on earlier research in the area of service coordination and integration, and provides a current description of local operational interaction between welfare and workforce development programs. It is based on a review of the literature and site visits to twelve localities in six states. The main intent is to add to the understanding about how welfare recipients receive employment-related services. The study identifies different approaches to coordination, the advantages of coordination for clients, and factors that promote or impede coordination.
The term "welfare" is commonly used in two ways — to refer to the broad array of "safety net" programs that support the needy; and to refer specifically to cash assistance for families. This study focuses on the latter, especially benefits and services funded under TANF.
The TANF block grant replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program (JOBS), and the federal Emergency Assistance program. Federal TANF block grant funds may be used for cash welfare payments to families with children, work activities for adult recipients, and supportive services designed to help recipients move from welfare into work. The new rules built into PRWORA increase the emphasis on work by imposing a five-year lifetime limit on receipt of federal welfare benefits (and permitting states to impose even shorter time limits), and require states to ensure that recipients are engaged in work activities.
The term "workforce development system" refers to a broad range of employment and training services and programs whose purpose is to enable job seekers and students to access a wide range of services and information about jobs, the labor market, careers, job placement, education and skills training, financing options, skills standards or certification requirements, and supportive services. The system also serves employers by posting job listings for employers and facilitating contacts with job seekers. While there is variation across states, there are several programs and agencies most likely to be part of the workforce development system. The Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) authorized the provision of employment and training services, through Private Industry Councils (PICs) in designated local service delivery areas (SDAs)(1), to economically disadvantaged adults and youths, dislocated workers, and special populations such as veterans, Native Americans, and migrant and seasonal farmworkers. The Employment Service (ES), authorized by the Wagner-Peyser Act, provides general labor exchange services to members of the labor force in need of jobs and employers seeking workers. The ES is operated through state employment security agencies, and is sometimes called the "Job Service." At the state and local levels, employment security agencies also develop and disseminate labor market information (LMI) and administer the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. In many, but not all states, both the ES and the JTPA administering agency are the same agency at the state level; and in several localities, the ES is the local administrator of JTPA (Martinson 1999).
In most states, much attention in the workforce development system is now focused on creating user-friendly one-stop career centers that provide job seekers and employers with access to a broad range of employment and training services at particular locations or through electronic linkages. As of April 1998, 46 states had received grants from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to establish one-stop centers. In many states these centers have become the focal point of the workforce development system, a trend reinforced by the recent enactment of the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, which mandates the creation of one-stop career centers in all states by July 2000. The WIA was enacted to restructure and streamline multiple workforce development funding streams and ensure that employment and training services would be available to the public in the most efficient manner possible.
Employment-related programs administered by the workforce development system have been involved to varying degrees in state welfare programs over the past three decades. The ES had joint responsibility, with state welfare agencies, for the Work Incentive (WIN) program (the pre-JOBS program for AFDC recipients) in the 1960s and 1970s. To this day, the ES continues in some states to have a major role in providing employment-related services to TANF recipients (e.g., job search and job placement), even though there is no formal nationwide role for the ES in TANF work programs. ES-provided welfare services have often been delivered from locations separate from the main ES offices, sometimes with ES staff co-located with welfare staff, or vice versa.
In the past decade, a variety of models for providing employment-related activities for AFDC recipients were developed by states and localities under the JOBS program. The JOBS program left decisions about how to structure JOBS services largely up to states, but did stipulate that states and localities make use of existing education, employment, and training services in the community. Therefore, while welfare agencies were the lead administrative entity for JOBS, they entered into any number of arrangements, both at the state and local level, to operate JOBS programs and services. While there has been no comprehensive survey on how JOBS employment services were delivered in all states, descriptive information shows that welfare agency staff in many states provided job search assistance and other employment services. But, in a number of states, welfare agencies contracted with the ES or JTPA to deliver these services. In some states, JOBS programs were integrated into one-stop career centers that often included ES, JTPA, education, and other services. Also, because the emphasis in JOBS was on education, many arrangements included community colleges and other education providers. TANF, with its emphasis on work-first, stimulated new or increased (depending on past arrangements) linkages with the workforce development system.
The WtW Grants Program, authorized under the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1997, creates new incentives for the workforce development system to coordinate with the welfare system on behalf of welfare recipients. The grants are to be used by states and localities to help the least employable welfare recipients and the non-custodial parents of recipient children move into jobs with potential for upward mobility.(2) WtW grants complement TANF in that the WtW federal funds are to be used for work-related activities and not for cash welfare payments. WtW grants are administered through the JTPA system of local PICs, in coordination with state and local TANF agencies.
Nearly all WtW grantees expect to receive most of their participants through referrals from the TANF agency. And, in order to assist their participants effectively, staff in WtW programs must be knowledgeable about the state's welfare policies, programs, time limits, and work requirements. Similarly, TANF agencies are actively encouraging or requiring clients to work and/or participate in work programs, one of which can be WtW. Thus, more than in the past, each type of agency has a need to understand policies and programs of the other (Nightingale, et al.1999).
A literature review completed earlier in this project (Martinson 1999, included as Appendix A of this report) formed the basis for the working concepts of coordination and integration applied to this study. Coordination generally refers to situations where two or more organizations work together, through a formal or informal arrangement, to meet one or more goals such as improving the effectiveness and/or cost-effectiveness of programs, improving access to services, avoiding the unnecessary duplication of services, and improving performance. There is generally a distinction between service integration and coordination. Integration is characterized by features such as common intake and "seamless" service delivery, where the client may receive a range of services from different programs without repeated registration procedures, waiting periods, or other administrative barriers. In contrast, coordinated systems generally involve multiple agencies providing services, but clients may have to visit different locations and re-register for each program to obtain services. Integrated services are sometimes, but not always, physically co-located.
Prior research into the coordination of employment and training and welfare programs offers only limited evidence of successful, sustained coordination and no single model or incentive that promotes successful coordination (Martinson 1999). Since this earlier research, there have been many changes in the political and economic context in which welfare and employment and training programs operate. Our study builds on this prior research, and also tries to identify what is new or different given the current environment.
Recently, several studies on service integration have been conducted that examine the new policy environment in both systems. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) conducted a study examining how employment services were provided to TANF recipients in five states (Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin) (GAO 1999). While all of the states studied were early leaders in federal welfare reform and/or one-stop career center development, at the state level, four of the five states (Wisconsin being the exception) maintained the separate systems for workforce development and welfare that existed before the passage of federal welfare reform legislation. More integration occurred at the local level — three of the states brought in the workforce development system to varying degrees to deliver employment and training assistance to TANF clients in some localities. This study also found that no clear consensus existed on which approach best serves the welfare population — a survey of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regional officials indicated that 17 states use workforce development structures, 14 use welfare-dedicated structures, and the rest use various combinations.
Another study which focused on the implementation of the WtW Grants Program in four cities (Chicago, Indianapolis, Philadelphia, and San Francisco) found that one of the most challenging aspects of establishing the program was coordinating relationships and procedures between the welfare and workforce development systems (Leonard 1999). Places that had strong working relationships prior to the WtW program were able to coordinate more effectively. The study noted that the lack of coordination contributed to the low number of referrals made to the program and resulted in a duplication of services in many instances.
A study of implementation in the first 11 states that received WtW formula funds (Trutko, Pindus, et al. 1999) also noted that, in the early months of implementation, one factor slowing recruitment of WtW-eligible participants was the need for workforce development agencies and welfare agencies to establish policies for sharing case information and referring eligible individuals to WtW. The study found that, in states where workforce development agencies had well-established relationships with welfare agencies at the state and local levels because of collaboration on JOBS or TANF work-welfare initiatives (such as Illinois, Michigan, and Oregon), these prior relationships helped to facilitate WtW start-up.
Finally, one study found that policies adopted under welfare reform may actually hinder coordination and other improvement efforts occurring in the workforce development system (Grubb, et al. 1999). This study on the reform of workforce development systems in ten states found that welfare reform and its focus on work-first was in direct contradiction with the workforce development system's mandate to improve skills and raise wages. Moreover, the pressures of welfare reform often exacerbated state and local tensions, alienated employers (who received poorly qualified referrals), and had spillover effects on policies for the non-welfare population.
These studies on service coordination and integration cover an early implementation period for new programs in the welfare and workforce development system. However, at this early stage, it appears that integrating the services provided by these systems continues to remain difficult, with no single preferred model.
The purpose of this study is to provide a current "snapshot" of coordination between the welfare and workforce development systems in the context of welfare reform and the stronger welfare focus on employment. Site visits examined the interaction between welfare and workforce development programs from the perspective of services receipt for the TANF client. The following understandings about service coordination guided our data collection and analysis:
Sites selected represented a range of organizational structures, historical experiences, and economic and demographic variables, but were not selected randomly and do not provide a nationally representative sample. Site selection criteria included the proportion of welfare clients served by the JTPA system, the current state structure of the JTPA and welfare systems, urban/rural setting, and economic conditions. This approach contrasts with studies that focus on "best practice" sites.
Site visits were conducted between May and August 1999 to:
Site visits were conducted over a two day period. Discussions were held with about 10 to 12 respondents from local TANF agencies and workforce development agencies, including the ES, JTPA providers (and administering agencies), and WtW providers, with discussions tailored to the situation in each site. Agency directors, supervisors, and service delivery staff were included in the discussions. (Additional information about site selection, the study sites, and data collection methods can be found in Appendix B.)
This study primarily addresses local operational interactions between the TANF program and the main workforce development programs, within the context of state policy, by closely examining local service delivery. Two important limitations of the study should be noted. First, our observations and findings are based on only 12 site visits. While some broader conclusions are warranted based on similar findings across several sites and additional documentation in the literature, the study results are not nationally representative. Second, this study did not collect information directly from clients. Thus, the descriptions of client flow and service receipt are developed from discussions with service providers and administrators.
The structure of remainder of this report addresses the understandings stated above. Chapter II provides an overview of services provided and describes coordination and service delivery from both the client and the agency perspective. Chapter III discusses factors that promote coordination, and Chapter IV addresses challenges to coordination. The report concludes with lessons learned about coordination in the current service delivery climate and implications for the future. Appendices to the report include an earlier literature review completed for this project, a description of study methods and the sites included in the study, and a summary of agencies providing work-related services in the study sites.
1. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 replaces JTPA and replaces SDAs with local workforce investment areas. At the time of our site visits, states had not completed this transition. Therefore, in this report we refer to the relevant agency as the "JTPA/WIA agency." [return to text]
2. Three-quarters of the federal WtW funds are allocated to states according to a formula based on each state's share of the nation's population living in poverty and the number of adults on welfare. The rest of the funding is awarded to a variety of entities including state or local agencies, non-profit organizations, and Private Industry Councils on a competitive basis. [return to text]
Top of this page
Main Page of Report
Table of Contents:
Executive Summary
Introduction
Coordination and Service Delivery
Factors that Promote Coordination
Challenges to Coordination
Conclusions
Appendix A: Literature Review
Appendix B: Methodology and Site Selection
Appendix C: Summary of Agencies Providing Work-Related
Services
Home Pages:
Human Services Policy
Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Last updated 3/30/00