Coordination and Integration of
Welfare and Workforce Development Systems

Chapter V:
Conclusions

Contents of this Chapter:

Key Lessons Learned
- Importance of past relationships
- Coordination efforts had to overcome barriers
- Coordination can occur under a variety of organizational aproaches
- Service systems need to fit local conditions
Implications for the Future
- Coordination can benefit the hard-to-serve client
- Coordination is a process, not an event
- Integration is a means, not an end

This study provides a snapshot of welfare and workforce system coordination in a limited number of sites at a point in time where welfare programs are work-focused and workforce development systems are reorganizing to provide one-stop services to a broad population. As a result, there is an increased interest in coordination between welfare and workforce development agencies and a greater awareness in each other's programs and services. Several key findings emerged.

Key Lessons Learned

The overriding message of this study is that there is no one answer to service delivery coordination, and no ideal time schedule or set of rules that will make coordination happen. The following points highlight lessons to consider when examining any coordination initiative.

Importance of past relationships

Past relationships and coordination approaches, especially those developed in implementing the WIN program and the JOBS program, were important factors in current coordination models and activities.

Coordination efforts had to overcome barriers

Programs and agencies generally encounter one or more serious barriers to coordination. Even successful efforts may not be fully developed--in the sense that one or more other agencies that could be involved are not involved or are only partially collaborating.

Coordination can occur under a variety of organizational approaches

We found examples of good — although generally more limited — coordination in sites where the welfare office was the dominant provider and service location as well as in systems that shared responsibility for service delivery across welfare and workforce development providers. Only one of our study sites, Dayton, was highly integrated, both physically and functionally. Different levels of coordination may be appropriate in different communities.

Service systems need to fit local conditions

One model does not work everywhere. For example, planners must consider issues of scale — a one-stop with all services in one location works in Dayton, but may not work in a larger city. In some localities, a decentralized, neighborhood-based structure may be more effective.

Implications for the Future

The current environment is very dynamic, with economic growth, a changing labor market, new funding sources, more local variation in welfare programs, and implementation of new workforce development policies. In this context, specific examples may quickly become outdated, but it is useful to consider implications for the future that look beyond the current description provided by this study.

Coordination can benefit the hard-to-serve client

It appears that the ability to access many referral services and take a more holistic approach to addressing barriers to work is especially important for the hard-to-serve client. Looking ahead, however, the increased reliance on technology may not meet the needs of those clients who require more personal attention. However, technology may free-up time for providers so that they can devote more attention to the hard-to-serve. Location, access, and referral mechanisms need to be considered from both vantage points — maximizing the effective use of technology and facilitating the progress of the hard-to-serve.

Coordination is a process, not an event

State and local responses to policy changes in the welfare and workforce development arenas reflect historical relationships as well as current policy objectives. Coordination models we observed have evolved over a number of years, and required time and energy on the part of agency staff over a sustained period.

Integration is a means, not an end

Integration should not be promoted for its own sake, but for the improvements it can bring to service delivery. Some of the desired service delivery outcomes can be accomplished in other ways, without a fully integrated system, and in some communities such alternative arrangements might offer the best solution.

Finally, the nature of underlying relationships between these two systems has not changed over time — those who coordinated historically found it easier to do so with WtW and other changes — good management and determination still drives successful coordination. Personality and informal mechanisms continue to be important factors that determine the success of coordination. Many of the barriers to coordination (turf issues, differing reporting requirements, and different philosophies) still exist, and probably always will. Because of the effort coordination requires and the significant barriers faced in some communities, systems with more limited coordination may be more effective in serving clients than poorly managed but technically more "coordinated" efforts.

Creative approaches are being spawned due to greater resources available per client, the need to address multiple barriers faced by many who are still in the welfare system, and the rapid expansion of computer technology and computer-based labor market information. Combined with the tight labor market, which is increasing employer involvement, the current environment offers unprecedented opportunities for partnerships aimed at finding employment for welfare clients and preparing them for better quality jobs. Policies that seek to enhance the factors that promote coordination and minimize barriers will support these efforts.