In this chapter, we examine factors that promote coordination, paying particular attention to what distinguishes the current environment and operational relationships from past coordination initiatives. Prior research indicates that there is no single model of coordination and no method that guarantees coordination. Yet, across the sites visited, many of the same factors are in evidence and play important roles in promoting coordination.
A previous history of working together was often cited as an important factor in agency coordination. In many of the sites visited, current organizational relationships reflect the arrangements that were in place as far back as the WIN program in the 1960s and 1970s. For example, ES continues to be an important partner in work-welfare activities, as noted in 8 of the 12 of the sites visited. In several of the sites, current relationships between the welfare and workforce development systems build upon the structure established for administering the JOBS program.(4) In Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Oregon, the JOBS program represented the first time that welfare and JTPA agencies worked together to serve clients.Having worked together on prior initiatives often meant that agency staffs had an awareness of the other programs' objectives and operations and had developed collegial relationships.
A strong economy and low unemployment often lead to high levels of coordination among welfare and employment and training agencies. The tight labor market in many locales has created an environment conducive to the placement of TANF recipients in the workforce. As a result, both workforce development agencies and employers work more closely with the welfare agency to employ TANF recipients.
TANF clients have become sought after "customers" by some workforce development programs. When employers have fewer job applicants to a higher number of job openings they are more receptive to working with programs serving disadvantaged clients (Burbridge and Nightingale 1989). Current labor market conditions have forced many employers to seek out alternative sources, such as WtW and TANF work programs, for recruiting job applicants. In several sites, it has also forced employers to dispel many of their reservations about hiring welfare recipients (i.e., that welfare recipients do not make good employees because of their lack of skills and work experience). Coordination between welfare and workforce development agencies provides more customers for the workforce development agency and the employers they serve, and it enables the welfare agency to offer a wider range of employment-related opportunities for clients. A well-coordinated system and a good economy allow TANF and workforce development agencies to share in the success of placing clients in gainful employment.
As the welfare system has become more employment-focused, welfare agencies have expanded their relationships with employers to create more opportunities to place clients in jobs — both subsidized and unsubsidized. Some TANF agencies have found that coordinating with workforce development providers improves access to employers. In some locations, employers have found themselves bombarded by agencies and organizations trying to place job applicants, and coordination helped to streamline communications and improve relationships with employers.
Technology is having a broad impact on the nature of welfare-workforce system coordination, in some cases making physical location far less important for coordination. Labor market information provided by the DOL as well from state ES agencies, is available on the Internet. Software for preparing resumes, writing cover letters, assessing job interests and skills, and brushing up on basic math and language skills is readily available. These services can be offered at any location that has a computer. On our site visits, we saw computers being used to access labor market information, prepare resumes, and assist in career choices and job searches, at welfare offices, at JTPA/WIA agencies, at one-stop career centers, at community colleges, and at the offices of private employment and training contractors. For the client, this results in fewer separate trips and a choice of locations for some services. For example, a client could check job listings or prepare a resume while at the TANF office to meet with a case manager or after attending a work readiness class at the workforce development agency. For agency staff, technology improves access to information about the programs and services offered by other agencies and facilitates referrals of individual clients.
States and localities have new levels of financial resources available to fund services for welfare recipients and other needy families. There are a number of funding streams within each community that can be used to move individuals from welfare to work including TANF, WtW, JTPA/WIA, and ES. Of these, TANF block grants and WtW grants provide increased funding and flexibility for a wide range of employment-related services for the TANF population. With declining welfare caseloads, less money is needed for cash assistance, but the TANF block grant amounts are fixed. Thus, welfare agencies have more funds available for work-related services. WtW grants provide a new source of funds to meet the often intensive needs of the least-employable portion of the welfare population. In addition to the availability of TANF and WtW funding, the good economy in many places has resulted in increased local resources from tax revenues.
Availability of resources extends services to more clients, provides funding flexibility, encourages coordinated planning, facilitates co-location and one-stop implementation, and stimulates the addition of new services. For example, there is no limit on the length of time an individual can be served under WtW, and the welfare agency can use block grant funds to provide a variety of supportive services, including child care, transportation, uniforms, and other job-related expenses. Welfare and workforce development providers can partner to fund services, such as child care and transportation, that may facilitate an individual's success while enrolled in an employment and training program, and to provide ongoing follow-up and retention services after an individual obtains employment.
With greater financial resources, agencies are more willing to share resources and to come together for planning purposes. WtW represented a new source of funding which, in some sites, provided an incentive for joint planning.
The availability of resources has helped to support the creation of one-stop service centers or has led to the co-location of services in several of the sites visited. With increased funding, some agencies are more likely to enter into arrangements that provide space, equipment or staff services to another agency at a lower cost, which encourages coordination.
Available funding, coupled with federal incentives, is stimulating new services such as post-employment support, job retention, and advancement services. TANF provides strong incentives for welfare recipients to find immediate work, but the five-year limit on cash assistance also creates an incentive for building the basic education and occupational skills of welfare recipients so that they can transition to higher-skilled and higher paying jobs along a career path. WtW 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. In response, some welfare agencies are initiating post-employment training and retention services and promoting coordination with WtW programs to provide additional training opportunities and workplace support.
Some states have taken a pro-active role in improving state-level coordination and in encouraging local coordination. States have promoted coordination through state-level organizational decisions, contracting processes, and initiatives specifically directed towards local level collaboration.
State level organizational decisions include reorganizations of state-level agencies and organizational mandates that more directly affect local operations, such as requiring local welfare agencies to have referral agreements with community colleges or JTPA/WIA agencies. Such reorganizations may be helpful in avoiding conflicting policies across programs, minimizing duplication, and sending a message to local agencies of the importance of coordination.
In addition to coordination among state-level agencies, several states have also made decisions about the delivery of programs at the local level. The contracting process is one approach used to implement those decisions and stimulate coordination at the local level.
A few states have taken additional steps to promote local level coordination, by mandating some type of local interagency coordinating council. While we learned that some of these efforts met resistance at first, consistent support from the state over a period of time helped agencies to overcome differences
In summary, a strong economy, technological advances, greater financial resources, and state initiatives are key factors that promote coordination. Examples presented highlight some of the responses found in the sites we visited. We also learned of many other initiatives still in the planning stages and of continuing challenges to coordination.
4. See Burbridge and Nightingale, 1989 for a discussion of organizational relationships in the WIN program and the JOBS program. [return to text]
5. On December 14, 1999 the Governor of Ohio signed a bill merging the Ohio Department of Human Services and the Ohio Bureau of Employment Security to create the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. [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