Further Progress, Persistent Constraints:
Findings From a Second Survey of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program

Chapter II:
Update on Program Structure and Implementation

Contents

1. Implementation Status and Program Services
   1. Most Grantees, Except Recently Funded Ones, Are Now Delivering WtW Services
   2. Grantees Are Less Likely Now to Be Using Other Funds Along with Their WtW Grants
2. Program Structure and Service Priorities
   1. Grantees Are Focusing on the Hardest to Employ, Sometimes with Specialized Programs
   2. Grantees Continue to Emphasize Services That Go Beyond the Work-first Model

The second survey of WtW grantees confirms some aspects of the overall WtW program noted in the first survey, but it also identifies some signs of implementation progress and shifts in direction. Since the grantee population in late 1999 was largely the same as that a year earlier, many of the basic structural, funding, and program design features noted in the first grantee survey (Perez-Johnson and Hershey 1999) were expected to show little change in the second survey. However, the first survey was conducted early in the life of the grants program, so the second could be expected to show expanded service delivery, and possibly some rethinking of resource use and service emphasis. Section A of this chapter focuses on new results from the second survey. It examines the overall stage of program implementation at the time of the second survey and identifies some minor shifts in grantees' reports of program funding. Section B then summarizes those findings about program structure and services that are generally consistent with results from the first survey.

[ Go to Contents ]

A. Implementation Status and Program Services

At the time of the first grantee survey in fall 1998, the rollout of funding and the startup of service delivery in the WtW grants program were still in their early stages. The survey thus captured a very early snapshot of implementation and program emphasis. At that time, half of the 48 formula grants to states had just been awarded within the preceding few months, and the remainder only six to nine months before the survey began. Only half of the local grantees that responded to the first survey had begun service delivery. It is thus fair to expect that, as grantees gained experience with actual operations, some of the plans they described in the first survey might evolve.

1. Most Grantees, Except Recently Funded Ones, Are Now Delivering WtW Services

With the passage of time, most grantees are now in a better position to have completed their planning phase and begun service delivery (Table II.1). All of the 48 state jurisdictions that received formula funding had received their first grant allocations at least a year before the fall 1999 survey began.⁽¹⁾ Of the 383 substate formula grants reported by local grantees in the second survey, almost all were awarded a year or more before the survey (Table II.2). Among the 190 competitive grants awarded by DOL, all but the last 64 awarded in Round 3 were a year or more old.

As could be expected, the overwhelming majority of local WtW grantees have now moved beyond planning and into the service delivery phase (Table II.3). Overall, 89 percent of the respondents to the second grantee survey said that they had begun operating their WtW programs, compared to only 50 percent in the first survey. Moreover, the grantees that had not begun service delivery by the time of the second survey were concentrated among the Round 3 competitive grantees that received their funding the month the survey began. A small number of earlier grantees, however, still had not begun service delivery.

As would be expected, grantees are also at a more advanced stage of implementation than at the time of the first survey. According to the second survey, nearly 89 percent of the grantees had begun enrolling WtW participants, and had enrolled an average of 194 people overall (not shown in table). In the first survey, only 43 percent had begun enrollment, and that had an average of 64 participants.⁽²⁾ Even with this increase, the pace of enrollment and level of participation remain modest compared to the scale of operations grantees had projected.

2. Grantees Are Less Likely Now to Be Using Other Funds Along with Their WtW Grants

WtW grantee programs involve a complex network of collaborators, most often with the local PICs or WIBs as the lead organization. Of the 487 respondents to the second survey, 353 were PICs, WIBs, or the equivalent, a pattern that largely reflects the mandate for states to pass 85 percent of their formula funds to PICs or WIBs or approved alternatives. Although PICs or the equivalent constitute 73 percent of all grantee respondents, TANF agencies have, almost as often, been key participants in developing the grant application; also, community-based organizations, one-stop career centers, employment services, and other agencies are heavily involved (Table II.4).

This close collaboration implies that the services constituting a WtW program may draw on other resources in addition to WtW grants. At the time of the first survey, for example, 65 percent of grantees responding to the survey reported that they planned, in their first grant year, to complement WtW dollars with funds from other sources. Most often, it was expected that other funds would come from JTPA (49 percent of grantees) and TANF block grants (41 percent). Most likely, reliance on these other funds to serve WtW participants reflected the fact that many WtW grantees also provide services to TANF recipients using such funding sources, and that WtW participants are drawn largely from the TANF population.

The second survey suggests, however, that grantees may be less inclined or less pressed to exploit other funding sources and integrate them with WtW grant funds than appeared to be true at the time of the first survey. In the second survey, about half of all respondents reported that they were combining WtW funds and other resources to help pay for WtW services or activities — down from 65 percent in the first survey. Fewer grantees say they are using JTPA and TANF funds to complement WtW funds. Only 26 percent now report that they are using JTPA funds compared to 49 percent in the first survey; corresponding figures for TANF are 28 and 41 percent, respectively (Figure II.1).

Although the complexity and variety of program funding patterns defy simple explanation, the apparent decline in reliance on other funding sources could be due in part to shortfalls in program enrollment associated with the restrictive eligibility criteria specified in the original BBA. Grantees who at first projected large numbers of participants eligible for WtW services may have negotiated for (or, in some cases, been able themselves to allocate) funds from JTPA and TANF sources to complement WtW funds in a comprehensive program of services. As noted in the earlier report based on the first grantee survey, some grantees used estimates of the overall number of TANF recipients likely to be eligible for WtW services as a projection of their total number of referrals and participants.

Actual experience has shown that the number of referrals to WtW programs is often lower than original projections for three reasons. First, referrals from TANF have been lower than anticipated. TANF recipients who might be eligible for WtW services frequently have multiple programs to select from to fulfill their work activity requirements and may therefore be served by TANF work-first programs instead of WtW. Alternatively, TANF recipients may find employment or otherwise leave the TANF rolls before referral to a WtW program. Second, the eligibility criteria have restricted the percentage of TANF recipients who can be confirmed as eligible for WtW services under the "70 percent" criteria, and WtW program operators have been reluctant to enroll individuals meeting the "30 percent" criteria and risk facing financial penalties. Third, declining TANF caseloads have shrunk the pool of potential eligibles who might be referred, thus increasing competition among all programs aiming to serve this population.

Faced with a smaller participant population, some grantees may be choosing not to press for, or allocate, JTPA and TANF funds to serve WtW participants. A PIC that has formula WtW funding, for example, also may be under contract with the TANF agency to provide work-first services such as job readiness classes, job search assistance, and placement. Similar services could be called for as a part of a comprehensive WtW program. If the WtW program were heavily utilized, the PIC might find it useful to use its TANF funds to pay for those preemployment components. If WtW enrollment is low, however, TANF funds could be reserved for other uses (such as serving individuals who fail to qualify for WtW services), in which case WtW funds might suffice for those people found eligible.⁽³⁾ A similar change in the funding allocation calculus might be affecting the use of JTPA funds for WtW programs. In the case of both TANF and JTPA, however, dramatic increases in WtW enrollment in the future, if they materialize, could lead to a reversal of this funding allocation trend.

The decline in grantees' reliance on JTPA and TANF funds may also be associated with the general increase in availability of WtW funds in further rounds of formula funding distribution and competitive grant awards. Grantees reported, on average, about 33 percent more available WtW funding in the second survey than in the first (Table II.5). This increase reflects (1) that most formula grantees had received a second allocation of substate funding, (2) that some formula grantees had received competitive grants in the second or third rounds, and (3) that a few competitive grantees had received a second competitive grant.⁽⁴⁾ Although grantees have now incorporated their additional funding into their estimates of total program participation, average funding levels have increased considerably more than has expected enrollment. Combined with the slow pace of enrollment, the addition of new WtW resources may help explain why TANF and JTPA funds are viewed as a less central part of the resources to be used for WtW programs.  

TABLE II.5 CHANGES IN SCALE OF WTW PROGRAMS: GRANT SIZE AND PROJECTED PARTICIPATION
	First Grantee Survey	Second Grantee Survey
Average Total Funding per Grantee Respondent	$2,235,733	$2,974,945
Distribution of Respondents by Total Funding (Percentages)
$0 to $99,999	1.7	0.6
$100,000 to $249,999	4.2	5.0
$250,000 to $499,999	16.5	8.9
$500,000 to $999,999	27.8	18.8
$1,000,000 to $2,999,999	33.2	34.9
$3,000,000 or more	16.6	31.8
Average Expected Participation	537	595
Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998 -February 1999) and Second Grantee Survey (November 1999-February 2000).

[ Go to Contents ]

B. Program Structure and Service Priorities

Despite advances in program implementation and minor shifts in the use of funding sources, much of the WtW program picture as it emerges from the second survey is consistent with results found in the first survey and with the intent of the BBA. Grantees continue to pursue a variety of program strategies, sometimes as distinct programs, and, to some extent, to target particular groups within the WtW population. The services they are delivering continue to emphasize intensive supportive work environments and job retention.

1. Grantees Are Focusing on the Hardest to Employ, Sometimes with Specialized Programs

Most grantees have organized their programs to help the WtW-eligible population without segmenting participants into separate program paths, based on their characteristics. With the substantial declines in TANF caseloads even since a few years ago, when the BBA was passed, this general-purpose structure avoids overly specialized programs that might serve few participants. About 60 percent of grantees reported — in the second survey, as in the first — that they simply serve all individuals who meet WtW eligibility criteria. Even within such "untargeted" programs, of course, there are often variations in services delivered and participants' activities, based on individual assessments.

Many grantees, however, operate distinct programs within their overall WtW initiative, and in many instances these distinct programs are a framework in which to focus on particular services, on subgroups of the WtW-eligible population, or both. On average, grantees reported in the second survey that they operate almost three distinct programs (Table II.6).⁽⁵⁾ Some of these programs are defined as having a distinct target group.

The pattern of multiple programs and their size suggest that grantees generally devote most of their resources to a core WtW program, although they may also reserve some funds to deal with participants with special needs or in special locations. Although grantees, on average, operate 2.8 distinct programs, they devote an average of about 69 percent of their WtW funds to a single program or to their largest program. A few grantees probably are using an initial screening, or their recruiting methods, to single out individuals with special characteristics who might be better served by a particular program — for example, individuals with demonstrated substance abuse problems, noncustodial parents, residents of particular public housing projects, or people with disabilities. However, site visits and other contacts with WtW grantees suggest that most WtW programs do not use such centralized intake and client referral procedures.

The programs that WtW grantees describe as distinctly targeted are likely to consist mainly of programs operated by different service providers. The aim of these providers sometimes continues to be serving the general WtW-eligible population. As in the first survey, many "targeted" programs are described as focusing on people with all of the federally prescribed eligibility criteria (Table II.7). However, 13 percent of the 1,335 distinct programs described by the 475 grantees who reported on their WtW program structure appear to be more narrowly targeted. These "narrowly targeted" programs serve people who are described by grantees using four or fewer of 12 possible criteria.⁽⁶⁾

Among programs identified from the second grantee survey as narrowly targeted, the target groups most commonly cited resemble those identified in the first survey. Long-term TANF recipients who lack a high school diploma or GED and who have low math or reading skills, and noncustodial parents were most often reported as the intended clients of narrowly targeted programs. Thus, even these targeting strategies reflect a focus on the major groups of eligible individuals as defined under the BBA.

2. Grantees Continue to Emphasize Services that Go Beyond the Work-First Model

In keeping with the goals of the WtW program, grantees have maintained a strong emphasis on preparing participants for work and helping them find employment (Table II.8). Job readiness and job placement, along with assessment and case management, are among the most commonly offered components of WtW grantees' programs, at the time of both the second survey and the first.

However, grantees clearly are dealing with participants whose needs go beyond simply finding a regular job in the open market. Although almost two-thirds of grantees continue to support placement in unsubsidized employment, greater funding emphasis continues to be placed on the various supported work activities most participants are viewed as needing for some time before they would have a good chance of succeeding in a regular unsubsidized job. Some form of supported work activity — on-the-job training, work experience, subsidized employment, or community service — is a feature of almost 85 percent of the grantees' programs. Job retention and other post-employment services are given as much or more emphasis as regular job placement, both in terms of the number of grantees offering such services and the portion of grant funds devoted to them. 

TABLE II.8
PROJECTED USES OF FEDERAL WTW GRANT FUNDS (Percentages)
	Grantees Providing Services with Federal WtW Fundsa		Projected Share of Overall Federal WtW Fundsb
Use of Funds	First Grantee Survey	Second Grantee Survey	First Grantee Survey	Second Grantee Survey
Basic Employment Services
Assessment and/or Case Management	92.9	92.0	11.2	15.0**
Job Readiness	83.5	84.5	6.6	8.1
Job Placementc	82.8	82.6	7.5	7.8
Participant Work Activities
Unsubsidized Employment	65.6	63.7	3.1	5.2
Supported Work Activitiesd	91.1	84.4	21.7	17.2
On-the-job training	75.7	70.4
Work experience program	75.4	59.8
Subsidized employment	60.8	47.7
- in the private sector	55.9	39.8
- in the public sector	52.2	43.2
Community service	48.6	27.2
Postemployment Services
Postemployment Trainingd	87.1	79.2	8.9	10.0
Occupational skills	84.3	70.2
Basic skills or ESL education	74.9	70.5
Job Retention Servicesd	86.1	90.3	8.8	10.8
Counseling	73.2	83.3
Workshops/support groups	61.3	61.9
On-site coaching	59.5	68.9
Mediation with employers to resolve workplace problems	59.2	60.9
Workplace mentors	51.1	41.3
Other Supportive Services
Transportation Assistanced	81.5	83.7	7.0	5.5
Direct transportation assistance to individuals	69.4	75.2
Transportation contracts or subsidies to transportation providers	48.2	45.7
Child Care Assistanced	62.8	67.7	9.2	3.2***
Direct assistance to individuals	43.5	48.1
Contracts or subsidies to providers	41.9	39.9
Substance Abuse Treatment	50.4	46.1	1.8	1.7
Mental Health Services	39.2	36.1	1.0	0.8
Assistance with Other Employment-Related Expenses	71.9	61.3	2.0	2.0
Othere	15.2	32.9	1.6	1.2
Program Administrationf	86.1	77.5	9.6	9.7
Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998 -February 1999) and Second Grantee Survey (November 1999 - February 2000). Note:  ESL = English as a Second Language. a Percentages are of grantee organizations who reported on the services they would provide with federal WtW funds; they represent 95.2 percent of survey respondents in the first grantee survey and 98.8 percent among respondents in the second grantee survey. b Estimated share is based on grantees’ reported percentages, weighted by each grantee’s total federal WtW funding received. Breakouts for service subcategories were not requested in the second grantee survey and therefore cannot be reported. c Respondents were asked to distinguish between funds budgeted for job placement services that staff provide and the work activities themselves in which participants are placed. Some grantees, however, may not have been able to make this distinction, and may have reported the placement function as part of what they had budgeted for work activities. d The overall percentages shown for supported work, post-employment training, job retention, transportation and child care exceed the percentages shown for each of their component activity or service types because some grantees offer more than one type. e Other service or activity categories reported included participant or employer recruitment costs, housing or relocation assistance, individual development accounts, supportive payments to participants, and equipment. f Although grantees are allowed to devote up to 15 percent of funds to administration, some grantees may have found other resources to cover administrative costs, and be devoting all of their WtW grant to services.
*  Difference between first and second survey results was significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. **  Difference between first and second survey results was significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. ***  Difference between first and second survey results was significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test.

[ Go to Contents ]

Footnotes

1.  The 48 state-level grantees at the time of the first survey included 44 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. Six states declined FY 1998 funding: Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. Three additional states — Arizona, Delaware, and North Dakota — declined or returned FY 1999 formula funding.

2.  Of the 415 grantees responding to the first grantee survey, 207 (or 50 percent) indicated that they had begun delivering WtW services. The number of grantees who had begun enrolling WtW participants was lower, however; these 179 organizations were 43.4 percent of respondents to the first grantee survey. In our first report, we explained this discrepancy by the lag that sometimes occurs while programs arrange for referrals, obtain referral lists, conduct outreach, hold orientation sessions, or embark on other activities before beginning formal enrollment of participants.

3.  Evaluation process visits and other contacts with WtW grantees suggest that the complexity of WtW financial reporting requirements may be working against the pooling of WtW funds and funds from other sources to develop comprehensive programs. Some administrators reported that it is more burdensome to try to serve this population under a single program and then, behind the scenes, figure out which funding source to bill for their services, than to administer or subcontract for different programs targeting individuals meeting specific eligibility requirements.

4.  In the second grantee survey, one organization reported that it had received two WtW competitive awards. This information was consistent with DOL records.

5.  Grantees that have received multiple grants (for example, formula and competitive) are in some cases using them to run multiple programs, but the pattern of multiple programs is clearly widespread even among grantees that have received only a single WtW grant. On average, grantees reported 2.4 times as many distinct programs as they had distinct grants (Table II.6).

6.  The grantee survey listed the criteria that make up the 70 percent federal eligibility category as well as several that could be used to qualify individuals in the 30 percent category: no high school diploma or GED and low skills; poor work history; substance abuse problems; nearing or past TANF time limit; long-term recipient; teenage parent; noncustodial parent; public housing resident; people with disabilities; school dropouts; limited English proficiency; and victims of domestic violence.

Where to Now?

Top of Page
Contents of This Chapter

Home Pages:
Human Services Policy (HSP)
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Last updated July 11, 2000