| Chapter 2 | Table of Contents | Chapter 4 |
The WtW initiative was created so that states and localities could focus special resources on helping the most disadvantaged low-income Americans achieve some success in the labor market. The BBA set requirements to ensure that most of the WtW funds were spent on services to individuals with a specified combination of employment barriers. The criteria proved too restrictive, however; over the first year of program operations, they impeded grantees' efforts to recruit and serve people with serious employment barriers who nevertheless failed to qualify for the program. This problem led Congress to amend the WtW eligibility criteria, in an effort to expand the eligible population and increase participation.
The second survey provides a basis for observing whether WtW grantees have begun to overcome the concerns created by the original eligibility criteria, but not whether the congressional amendments are having the intended effect. The second survey was mailed to grantees shortly before Congress acted to amend the eligibility rules (fall 1999), and was completed in early 2000, when the changes were just beginning to go into effect for some grantees. In fact, about a third of the organizations that responded to the survey did so before Congress had even acted. The second WtW grantee survey, therefore, does not capture how the recent eligibility changes will influence grantee expectations for or actual participation in WtW programs. The second survey nevertheless makes it possible to describe how early implementation experiences--especially the recruitment difficulties grantees encountered--affected overall expectations for participation in WtW and who is expected to participate, the progress that grantees have made toward their WtW enrollment targets, and their strategies for outreach and recruitment into WtW.
[ Go to Contents ]
Expectations for overall participation in the WtW grants program are affected by several factors related to program funding and early implementation experience. Additional grantees have received funding since the first survey; the plans of the new competitive grantees are likely to affect overall enrollment projections. In addition, formula grantees and a few competitive grantees have received additional funding since the first survey. Since they are asked in the survey to project the number of people they will serve with the WtW funds they have received, funding increments could in some cases be accompanied by revised enrollment projections. Finally, actual experience in the first year of program operations may have affected grantees' predictions of how many people they would be able to recruit and serve.
1. Enrollment Projections Have Increased Marginally as Additional Funds Are Distributed
As additional funds have been distributed to WtW grantees, projections of overall enrollment have increased (Table III.1). On average, respondents to the second survey reported having nearly $3.0 million, compared to $2.2 million reported by respondents to the first survey. This increase is due mostly to the increased funding allocated in formula grants.
Overall expected enrollment also increased, but not in proportion to increases in available funding. Second survey respondents expect, on average, to serve 595 participants, compared to 537 anticipated by respondents to the first survey. While the average funding levels reported in the second survey were 33 percent higher than those reported in the first survey, mean expected total enrollment in WtW programs was only 10 percent higher (Table III.1). In fact, projections of the number of people to be served by formula, competitive, and formula/competitive grantees are actually lower than the projections made by respondents to the first survey. Total expected enrollment by formula grantees, for example, averages 457, down one percent from projections by respondents to the first survey. Similarly, competitive grantees now expect to serve an average of 640 participants, a 29 percent reduction from projections reported in the first survey.
|
TABLE III.1 CHANGES IN SCALE OF WTW PROGRAMS: GRANTEES' TOTAL FUNDING AND PROJECTED PARTICIPATION |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
First Grantee Survey |
Second Grantee Survey |
Percent Change |
|
| Average Total Fundinga | $2,235,733 | $2,974,945 | 33.1 |
| Average Total Funding by Subgroup | |||
| Formula-only granteesb | $1,774,133 | $1,953,270 | 10.1 |
| Competitive-only granteesc | $3,592,818 | $3,678,973 | 2.4 |
| Formula and Competitive granteesd | $10,497,277 | $8,734,384 | -1.7 |
| Average Expected Participationa | 537 | 595 | 10.3e |
| Average Expected Participation by Subgroup | |||
| Formula-only granteesb | 461 | 457 | -0.9 |
| Competitive-only granteesc | 899 | 640 | -28.8 |
| Formula and Competitive granteesd | 1,788 | 1,452 | -18.8 |
|
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).
a Our estimates of average WtW funding and projected participation may be slightly overstated due to double-counting. About 0.2 percent of respondents to the first survey and 5.1 percent of respondents to the second survey appeared to be acting as subcontractors to other WtW grantees. A portion of the WtW funding and participation that these organizations reported also may be included in the reports of their funders — if these grantees also responded to the WtW surveys. b Estimates based on responses from grantees that received formula funds only or formula and discretionary funds. c Estimates based on responses from grantees that received competitive funds only. d Estimate based on responses from grantees that received formula and competitive funds, competitive and discretionary funds, or all three types of funds. e The average participation has increased overall despite the decline among each subgroup of grantees because the respondent sample to the second grantee survey contained a larger proportion of competitive grantees. Organizations that responded to questions on enrollment projection in the second grantee survey included 335 formula-only grantees, 94 competitive-only grantees, and 49 formula and competitive grantees; corresponding figures for the first grantee survey are 371, 24, and 16 respectively. |
|||
This apparent anomaly reflects a change in the composition of the grantee sample. The modest increase in overall WtW enrollment expectations results from a higher proportion of competitive grantees, operating at a larger scale on average than formula grantees. Although competitive grantees on average report lower projected enrollment than in the first survey, they also now constitute a large enough portion of the sample to make overall average projected enrollment higher than in the first survey.
The discrepancy between a modest increase in projected enrollment and the larger reported increase in funding is probably explained by two factors. First, some grantees may have already reported in the first survey on their expected enrollment over the full term of their grant; in the second survey, they could not report any increase in projected enrollment, but might still have reported on receipt of a second installment of grant funds, and thus an increase in their total funding.(1) Second, field visits suggest that some grantees have become a bit more conservative in their projections of enrollment, based on the recruitment difficulties they encountered in the early stages of their program implementation.
2. WtW Programs Still Strive to Serve a Diverse Population
Grantees' more modest expectations for participation in WtW have nevertheless left the projected makeup of WtW's clientele essentially unchanged. Overall, second grantee survey responses suggested few changes in the projected characteristics of the individuals who WtW grantees plan to enroll (Table III.2).
Young women are still expected to comprise the majority of WtW participants. Consistent with WtW's focus on TANF recipients, respondents to the second grantee survey expect the majority of their clients to be women between the ages of 20 and 40. No major differences were found in the demographic characteristics of the overall population of participants that formula and competitive grantees expect to serve, nor in the populations projected by those grantees that responded to both surveys.
|
TABLE III.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF WTW PARTICIPANTS ACROSS ALL RESPONDING GRANTEES (Percentages) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Projected Participantsa |
Participants Enrolled to Date |
||
| Characteristic |
First Grantee Survey |
Second Grantee Survey |
|
| Gender | |||
| Male | 18.8 | 16.7 | 11.3 |
| Female | 81.2 | 83.3 | 88.7 |
| Race | |||
| American Indian/Alaska Nativeb | 3.7 | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| Asian | 3.3 | 3.4 | 2.8 |
| Black/African American | 40.5 | 48.1 | 43.0 |
| Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| White | 51.7 | 45.4 | 50.9 |
| Ethnicity | |||
| Hispanic or Latino | 27.4 | 21.0 | 19.2 |
| Not Hispanic or Latino | 72.6 | 79.0 | 80.8 |
| Age | |||
| Under 20 | 11.2 | 5.6 | 5.6 |
| 20 to 24 | 22.7 | 22.7 | 22.4 |
| 25 to 40 | 51.3 | 58.2 | 59.3 |
| Over 40 | 14.7 | 13.6 | 12.7 |
|
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).
a Estimates based on projected percentages reported by responding grantees, weighted by their projected total enrollment. Categories may not sum to 100 percent, due to data rounding. b The grantee survey sample does not include tribal WtW programs. Thus, projected enrollment of American Indians and Alaska Natives in the WtW initiative overall is underestimated. |
|||
Noncustodial parents, typically fathers, remain an important target group.(2) Consistent with the emphasis on noncustodial parents in WtW's eligibility rules and with many grantees' explicit targeting of this eligible group, men are still expected to account for about 20 percent of WtW participants. About 13 percent of all WtW grantees place special emphasis on serving noncustodial parents. In the second survey, 62 organizations reported that they expect males to account for 30 to 100 percent of their WtW participants; their actual enrollment projections range from 10 to 1,820 male WtW participants, and average about 279.
[ Go to Contents ]
Most grantee organizations have begun enrolling participants, but the pace of enrollment continues to be slow. Of the 487 organizations responding to the second grantee survey, 431 indicated that they had begun enrolling WtW participants. At the time of the second survey, these 431 respondents reported having enrolled a total of 83,689 individuals. Considering the period over which programs have been operating, this overall enrollment continues to lag behind grantees' plans.
1. Overall Enrollment to Date Lags Behind Expectations
On average, respondents to the second grantee survey who had begun enrolling reported that they had about 194 participants enrolled (Table III.3). This figure more than triples the average enrollment levels reported in the first grantee survey (64 participants). The second grantee survey thus shows that programs have made important progress in extending their services to the eligible population.
|
TABLE III.3 WTW PROGRAM ENROLLMENT TO DATE |
|||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Respondents Reporting WtW Enrollment | Percentage of Respondents Reporting Enrollment | Average Total Enrollment | Average Monthly Enrollment | Enrollment To Date as Percent of Total Projected Enrollment | |
| Overall | 431a | 100 | 194 | 19.2 | 31.9 |
| Distribution by Period of Operation: | |||||
| 3 months or less | 32 | 7.4 | 83 | 23.7 | 15.4 |
| 4 to 6 months | 49 | 11.4 | 94 | 23.1 | 18.0 |
| 7 to 12 months | 149 | 35.6 | 189 | 21.4 | 27.6 |
| More than 12 months | 201 | 50.7 | 242 | 15.9 | 41.1 |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program, Second Grantee Survey (November 1999 - February 2000).
a Organizations reporting on WtW enrollment to date represent 88.5 percent of respondents to the survey. |
|||||
The survey responses also reflect, however, the continuing difficulties that grantees have encountered enrolling WtW participants. Grantees have enrolled considerably fewer participants than could be expected given the original plans for a three-year WtW program. Data from the second grantee survey show that, on average, grantees have enrolled 32 percent of the participants they expect to participate in their programs. Grantees were originally given three years from the date they receive their awards (both formula and competitive) to spend their grants, but most grantees planned to enroll participants over a shorter period, to ensure that all can receive a full range of services and postemployment followup. On average, grantees in December 1999 had consumed 39 percent of the 30-month period that might be considered the maximum period over which enrollment would occur in an overall three-year grant period.
Moreover, the average pace of enrollment has not increased; it has remained at about the same level found in the first grantee survey: 19 new participants per month (Table III.4). At this pace, we estimate that grantees would need a total of about 41 months, on average, to meet their participation targets.(3) In sum, grantees are operating substantially behind the pace of enrollment implied in their plans, and participation so far must be viewed as below expectations.
| TABLE III.4 | |
|---|---|
| ENROLLMENT PACE OF WTW PROGRAMS | |
|
Second Grantee Survey (n = 431)a |
|
| Average Number of Participants Enrolled Each Month | 19.2 |
| Distribution of Survey Respondents by the Average Number of Participants Enrolled Each Month (Percentages) | |
| 5 or less | 29.1 |
| 6 to 10 | 20.9 |
| 11 to 25 | 30.0 |
| 26 to 50 | 11.6 |
| 51 to 100 | 6.4 |
| More than 100 | 2.5 |
| Average Number of Months it Would Take Grantees to Meet Their Stated Participation Targets, Given Enrollment Pace at Time of Survey Response | 40.9 |
| Distribution of Survey Respondents by Number of Months it Would Take to Meet Stated Participation Target, Given Enrollment Pace at Time of Survey Response (Percentages) | |
| 24 months or less | 31.9 |
| 25 to 36 months | 25.5 |
| 37 to 48 months | 16.3 |
| 49 to 60 months | 9.2 |
| More than 60 months | 17.1 |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare to Work Grants
Program, Second Grantee Survey (November 1999 -February 2000).
Notes: |
|
Although grantees responding to the second survey project somewhat lower overall enrollment than was projected by respondents to the first survey, it appears unlikely that they will achieve their targets within the enrollment periods originally defined. On average, respondents to the second grantee survey had been enrolling participants for 12 months, and plan to continue enrollment for another 18 months. The resulting average enrollment period of 30 months falls far short of the 41 months we estimate grantees would need to enroll their target numbers of WtW participants, given their current pace of enrollment.
Grantees who responded to both surveys showed some improvement in their enrollment pace, but they are still falling behind the pace they would need to maintain to meet their participation goals. These repeat responders have served far more people than they reported in the first survey; they quadrupled their average number of enrollees from 58 to 278 (Table III.5). Moreover, their average monthly pace of enrollment increased from 18.9 to 19.9. At the same time, in keeping with the additional rounds of funding they have received, these repeat respondents have also increased their enrollment targets. The net result is that, even at their improved enrollment pace, they would require more than 37 months in total to reach their updated service goals, about seven months longer than they currently project enrolling new participants.
|
TABLE III.5 WTW PROGRAM CHANGES AMONG REPEAT SURVEY RESPONDENTS (Averages) |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Grantee Characteristic |
First Grantee Survey |
Second Grantee Survey |
Percent Change |
| Total WtW Funding | $2,184,418 | $2,992,100 | 37.0 |
| Expected Total Participation in WtW | 524 | 652 | 24.4 |
| WtW Enrollment to Date | 58 | 278 | 379.3 |
| Estimated Number of Participants Enrolled Each Month | 18.9 | 19.9 | 5.3 |
| Estimated Number of Months it Would Take Grantees to Meet Their Stated Participation Targets, Given Enrollment Pace at Time of Survey Response | 48.8 | 36.6 | -25.0 |
|
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: Based on the responses of 125 grantee organizations that responded to both grantee surveys, had begun enrolling participants, and had been operating for more than one month at the time of their response to the first WtW grantee survey. |
|||
Two factors may make it possible for the WtW grants program to deliver services as broadly as grantees have planned. First, recent legislative changes expanding WtW eligibility should ease grantees' recruitment difficulties, thus improving the pace of enrollment into their programs and ultimately bringing about increased overall levels of participation in WtW. The Administration has also submitted a proposal to extend the period over which grantee organizations may use their WtW funds by two years. Such a change, if approved by Congress, would enable all grantee organizations to extend the period over which they recruit for their programs and, thus, further improve their chances of meeting WtW participation targets.
2. Recruitment of Noncustodial Parents Has Been Especially Challenging
Consistent with the expected demographic profile of WtW participants, most individuals enrolled in WtW programs to date are females between the ages of 20 and 40 (see Table III.2). About half of the enrolled individuals are white, with an almost equal proportion of African Americans. American Indians, Alaska Natives, persons of Asian descent, Native Hawaiians, and other Pacific Islanders comprise a much smaller portion of WtW participants. The representation of these groups among WtW participants enrolled to date is nevertheless consistent with grantee expectations for their participation overall.
However, male participation in WtW to date lags notably behind expectations. On average, grantees have enrolled about 20 male WtW participants. This figure translates into about 11 percent of participants enrolled to date, or about half of the expected 20 percent share of total participation in WtW. This finding reflects the special challenges faced by WtW programs in identifying and recruiting noncustodial parents.
This recruitment difficulty is particularly clear in the experiences of grantees that are placing special emphasis on serving males.(4) There were 62 such grantees, 13 of which were recent Round 3 competitive grantees and had not begun operations. Of the remaining 49 grantees, 42 had begun enrolling WtW participants and reported having enrolled an average of 44 males, over periods ranging from 3 to 18 months, at an average rate of just five participants per month. This pace falls far short of the 12 new participants these grantees would have to recruit each month, on average, to meet their male participation targets within stated enrollment periods. Data from the second WtW grantee survey thus confirm that organizations placing special emphasis on serving noncustodial parents are finding it especially difficult to reach male customers.
Based on information obtained in the evaluation exploratory site visits, these grantees probably are encountering several kinds of difficulty. First, many of the programs aiming to serve noncustodial parents are relatively new and, therefore, may be facing a steeper "learning curve" as they begin operations and develop all aspects of their interventions. In addition, making initial contact with male customers and getting referrals have proven difficult for some, particularly if they have been attempting to rely on child support enforcement offices for referrals. Establishing eligibility has also been described as a problem by some grantees; TANF agencies are sometimes unwilling to disclose information about the TANF case in which the children of noncustodial parents are members, which has been an essential factor in establishing the noncustodial parents' WtW eligibility. Finally, efforts to get men to enroll in the programs, even once they were deemed eligible, often meet with low success rates.
[ Go to Contents ]
WtW programs will make full use of their resources only if they succeed, in collaboration with local partners, in generating a substantial flow of entrants to their programs. To some extent, WtW participants may be referred by TANF and other agencies. Evaluation site visits strongly suggest, however, that WtW programs also need to reach out energetically to those agencies, to encourage referrals, and to conduct their own outreach and recruitment.
The second grantee survey generally confirms the findings of the first survey on how grantees are going about recruiting participants (Table III.6). Overall, grantees are still most likely by far to name the TANF agency as their principal source of WtW referrals or recruits. Other means of recruiting, however, are also common. Importantly, two shifts in grantees' reported recruitment sources provide evidence to support observations from the exploratory site visits.
|
TABLE III.6 CHANGES IN WTW RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES: FIRST AND SECOND GRANTEE SURVEYS |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grantees Planning to Recruit or Recruiting from These Sources (Percentage of Grantees)a |
Estimated Share of WtW Participants to Be Recruited from Each Source (Percentages) b |
|||
| First Survey | Second Survey | First Survey | Second Survey | |
| TANF Agency | 98.0 | 96.3 | 65.9 | 58.2 |
| JTPA | 58.5 | 49.8** | 5.0 | 4.5 |
| Courts/Corrections | 37.8 | 35.9 | 2.1 | 2.1 |
| Child Support Enforcement | 54.5 | 41.9*** | 4.5 | 3.3 |
| Grantee's Community Outreach | 48.6 | 53.5 | 6.5 | 11.9** |
| Other Organizations' Community Outreach | 34.4 | 33.8 | 6.1 | 6.3 |
| Self-Referral | 45.7 | 50.8 | 2.7 | 4.5* |
| Grantee's Existing Caseload | 37.2 | 27.8*** | 6.3 | 4.9 |
|
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).
a Based on responses of grantees that identified their recruiting sources. They represent 85 percent of all responding grantees in the first survey and 99 percent of respondents to the second survey. b Estimates based on the projected share of total participants grantees expect to recruit using each method weighted by total expected participation. Percentages may not sum to 100 due to data rounding. * Differences between first and second grantee survey results are significantly different from zero at the .10 level, two-tailed test. ** Differences between first and second grantee survey results are significantly different from zero at the .05 level, two-tailed test. *** Differences between first and second grantee survey results are significantly different from zero at the .01 level, two-tailed test. |
||||
1. More Emphasis Is Now Placed on WtW Publicity and Direct Outreach
Grantees appear to be relying somewhat more heavily on their own outreach and customers' self-referrals as a recruitment strategy. These efforts are expected to account for a larger share of WtW participants--about 16 percent in the second survey, compared to about 9 percent in the first survey. This shift toward WtW publicity and direct outreach by grantees is explained partly by a change in the composition of the survey respondent sample. Competitive grantee respondents are now a larger share of the respondent sample than in the first survey. In many cases, competitive grantees are community-based organizations (CBOs), which are more likely than other types of grantee organizations to use direct outreach and self-referral approaches to WtW recruitment. However, the increase in the number of CBO grantees in the sample appears to account for only about one-third of the increased reliance on community outreach and self-referral.
Grantees' publicity efforts are potentially important, not only to attract enrollment from the community, but also when grantees (and other organizations serving welfare recipients) find themselves competing for referrals from TANF or WIA/JTPA agencies. Many grantees have found themselves operating as one of numerous work-related programs from which TANF recipients can choose to fulfill their work activity requirements. In that context, such publicity efforts as media campaigns or mass mailings may be intended to capture a grantee's share of agency referrals, not simply to attract direct interest from the community. Regardless of the local circumstances, the second survey suggests that WtW grantees have assumed a more active role in publicizing their programs, identifying eligible customers, and guiding them through the enrollment process.
2. Strategy for Recruiting Noncustodial Parents Has Shifted
Noncustodial male parents are expected to comprise about 20 percent of all WtW participants, but enrollment of male participants has been well below that relative rate. This pattern appears to have led to two adjustments in how grantees expect to recruit noncustodial parents.
First, it appears that grantees have, to some extent, lost confidence in child support enforcement agencies as a source of WtW referrals. Coordination with child support enforcement (CSE) agencies was initially seen as an important recruitment strategy for WtW programs striving to serve noncustodial parents. Many grantees continue to target this population, but the grantee survey shows a decline in the number of grantees that expect to get referrals from CSE agencies, from 55 percent in the first survey to 42 percent in the second.(5)
Difficulties getting referrals from CSE agencies may be partly addressed by the recently enacted changes in law affecting the WtW program. Confidentiality issues sometimes prevented CSE agencies from sharing information on noncustodial parents potentially eligible for WtW with grantees, from confirming through the appropriate TANF agency that their children were members of a "long-term TANF case," or both. Such concerns were therefore addressed directly in the WtW amendments, which now permit CSE and TANF agencies to share information on noncustodial parents with WIBs to help them identify and contact noncustodial parents with regard to participation in WtW programs.
Second, it appears that grantees that focus on noncustodial parents may be placing greater emphasis than before on getting recruits from the courts and corrections agencies. "Male-emphasis" grantees are equally likely to coordinate with these entities as they are to work with CSE agencies for WtW referrals. However, they expect the courts and corrections departments to account for a larger share of their recruits (eight percent, compared to six percent from CSE agencies).(6) Given low overall enrollment rates, of course, it remains to be seen whether grantees' hopes for success with these recruiting sources will be borne out.
Finally, it is clear that direct outreach and publicity are an important male recruitment strategy. The reductions in the shares of WtW participants expected to be referred from TANF, CSE, and other sources are mirrored by increases in the share of participants expected to be recruited through direct outreach and self-referral. Grantees emphasizing services to males are more likely to use these strategies than other WtW grantees; they expect these recruitment methods, in combination, to yield about 16 percent of all their WtW participants.
[ Go to Contents ]
1. Grantees were asked in both surveys to report the total number of participants they expected to enroll and serve using federal WtW funds. Some grantees might have reported in the first survey only on the enrollment they expected to achieve with the funds already received. Such grantees might have reported in the second survey both an increase in projected enrollment and WtW grant funding.
2. Women are, in some instances, noncustodial parents. This occurs in cases when children have been placed in the father's custody or under protective custody with a grandparent, other relative, or foster family.
3. In the first survey, it was estimated that grantees would need more than five years to meet their enrollment targets at their then current pace. The reduction in the estimated "full enrollment period" is due entirely to decreases in grantees' estimates of their total projected enrollment under formula and competitive grants.
4. These grantees are identified by the fact that they project that 30 to 100 percent of their participants will be male.
5. The same pattern was found among grantees that responded to both surveys.
6. Among the 47 repeat survey respondents that emphasize serving males, the share of referrals expected from courts and corrections departments was 7.1 percent in the first survey and 7.6 percent in the second survey. This difference was not statistically significant.
| Chapter 2 | Table of Contents | Chapter 4 |
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