| Chapter 3 | Table of Contents | Chapter 5 |
The ultimate aim of WtW grantees is to place participants in unsubsidized jobs that have the potential to make them economically self-sufficient. The BBA directed grantees to use their WtW funds "to move individuals into and keep individuals in lasting unsubsidized employment" (Section 403(a)(5)(C)(i)). However, Congress and the DOL recognized the challenges grantees would face in helping the hard-to-employ target population of WtW programs toward this objective. Grantees are thus authorized to use a variety of strategies for placing participants in work activities that could lead to sustained unsubsidized jobs. These strategies include:
Aside from these defined services, grantees are given considerable flexibility in shaping employment activities that could help participants move into jobs that provide a decent living and help them advance to higher wages.
The second grantee survey provides a basis for judging how well WtW grantees are doing in moving participants into various work activities. In many cases, of course, WtW participants may still be in interim activities designed to prepare them for unsubsidized employment. It is, therefore, still too early to judge overall success in placing WtW participants in unsubsidized, private sector jobs and other types of employment, the duration of such placements, or the increases in wages that WtW participants realize — all program outcomes in which Congress has expressed an interest. However, enough time has passed to allow for some preliminary description of grantees' goals for work activity and employment placements, their progress toward fulfilling those goals, and the types of jobs in which participants are being placed.(1)
[ Go to Contents ]
Given their ultimate goals and the challenges they face, grantees must plan for a mix of work activities for their participants. The second grantee survey confirms earlier findings on the relative emphasis grantees place on various types of employment activities.
1. Grantees Emphasize Unsubsidized Employment But Set Realistic Expectations
Grantees' placement plans clearly reflect the BBA's goal that WtW participants ultimately be employed in unsubsidized, private sector jobs. Virtually all WtW grantees aim to place participants in unsubsidized employment, although they may use other non-grant funds for that purpose and WtW grant funds for interim employment activities and other preparatory steps (Table IV.1).(2) Ninety-six percent of grantees responding to the second survey indicated that they will place WtW participants in unsubsidized jobs.(3)
|
TABLE IV.1 PLACEMENT OF WTW PARTICIPANTS IN WORK ACTIVITIES |
|||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percent of WtW Grantees Making This Type of Placement | Percent of Total WtW Placements in This Type of Activity | Percent of WtW Participants Placed in This Type of Activity | Placements to Date as a Percent of Total Projected Placements | ||||
| Types of Placements | Projected | To Date | Projected | To Date | Projected | To Date | |
| Unsubsidized Employment | 95.6 | 77.7 | 62.3 | 59.7 | 44.2 | 35.8 | 23.8 |
| Supported Work Activities | 83.2 | 79.8 | 37.7 | 40.3 | n.a.a | n.a.a | 26.5 |
| Work experience | 76.1 | 49.9 | 17.5 | 22.8 | 12.4 | 13.7 | 32.3 |
| On-the-job training | 65.4 | 35.6 | 7.1 | 3.8 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 13.3 |
| Subsidized private sector employment | 50.8 | 20.8 | 6.5 | 5.7 | 4.6 | 3.4 | 21.8 |
| Subsidized public sector employment | 46.1 | 16.3 | 3.4 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 2.8 | 34.0 |
| Community service | 35.3 | 14.2 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 1.9 | 25.1 |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program, Second Grantee Survey (November 1999 - February 2000).
Notes: The information presented in this table is based on the responses of 480 grantees who provided information on WtW placements to date and expectations for placement expectations for their overall grant periods. These organizations represent 98.6 percent of the overall respondent sample for the second grantee survey. Numbers of placements and participants placed differ because individual participants can have multiple placements a The number in this cell is not simply the sum of the percentages of participants placed in the various types of supported work activities listed, since some participants are placed in a sequence of such activities. The second grantee survey did not include information that would allow us to estimate this number without double counting. n.a. = not available |
|||||||
At the same time, grantees have set realistic targets for placement of WtW participants into unsubsidized employment. The total number of unsubsidized job placements grantees expect to make during the period of their WtW grant is under half (44 percent) of all the people they expect to enroll as program participants (Table IV.1). Grantee targets for unsubsidized placements thus seem to recognize the challenges inherent in placing relatively inexperienced and low-skilled individuals who sometimes have additional employability barriers to overcome (such as disability, substance abuse, or mental health issues).
The realistic level of these targets for placement in unsubsidized jobs also reflects grantees' reasonable expectations of some attrition from their programs before the point of placement in an unsubsidized job. Field visits suggest that some attrition may occur as WtW participants who were required under TANF rules to participate instead find jobs and leave the rolls, or leave the rolls and the WtW program for other reasons, never reaching the point at which the WtW program would place them in a regular job. Moreover, those individuals who are enrolled late in the grant period, even if they remain engaged, simply may not progress to an unsubsidized job before the end of grant funding for the WtW program.(4)
2. Supported Work Activities Are Important Interim Steps For Most Participants
Supported work activities are another important component of grantees' efforts to help WtW participants move toward unsubsidized employment. Included are work experience, on-the-job training (OJT), subsidized positions in the public or private sectors, and community service. Of the 480 grantees that reported on placement in work activities, only 80 organizations (17 percent) indicated that they plan to place participants only in unsubsidized jobs (not shown in table) and not to place any in supported work activities. Almost 80 percent of grantee respondents indicated they are using both unsubsidized employment and supported work strategies (not shown in table). It is clear from evaluation site visits that the vast majority of grantees are using supported work activities as ways to prepare enrollees prior to linking them to unsubsidized employment. For many participants, a sequence of work activity placements may be required.
Clearly, involvement in supported work activities is viewed as a routine part of the WtW program experience for many participants. Supported work placements are expected to account for 38 percent of all placements, while placements in unsubsidized positions are expected to account for 62 percent (Table IV.1). These figures provide only a rough measure of the relative use of these types of placements in combination, but they suggest that as many as 61 percent of those WtW participants ultimately placed in unsubsidized employment may also participate in a supported work activity.(5) A variety of circumstances could exclude supported work activities from the experiences of some WtW participants, such as their own preferences to move directly into a regular job, program staff's assessment that participants are ready for employment, or the difficulties grantees might encounter developing enough supported work slots.
Grantees are, to varying degrees, relying on different forms of supported work (Table IV.1). More than three-quarters of grantees plan to use work experience placements; 12 percent of WtW participants is expected to be placed in such activities. A majority of grantees (65 percent) are using OJT slots. However, only about 5 percent of WtW participants are expected to be placed in such positions, perhaps reflecting the more stringent demands OJT places on participants, in the form of performance expectations, and on employers, in the form of close supervision and customized training. More than half the responding grantees indicated they are linking participants to subsidized positions in either the private and public sectors (not shown in table); based on their responses, we estimate that, if grantees' plans are realized, seven percent of WtW enrollees will be placed in subsidized employment at some point during their participation in the program.(6)
Fewer grantees reported using community service placements. Evaluation site visits suggest that community service is sometimes used as a placement strategy where sanctions are strictly enforced if TANF recipients are not engaged in a work activity after a specified number of months of assistance. In that context, WtW programs are sometimes closely coordinated with TANF work-participation programs and feature community service placements in which TANF recipients can be quickly placed to help them satisfy their work requirement and avoid being sanctioned.(7) Field visits also suggest that short-term, nonwage community service positions are sometimes used with participants who need to get accustomed gradually to attending a worksite and working with other people.(8) In most instances, however, it is likely that participants prefer paid work experience positions.
[ Go to Contents ]
WtW grantees are indeed moving large numbers of participants into both unsubsidized employment and supported work activities that can provide an interim step towards such employment. Of the 480 grantees providing employment placement information, 350 (73 percent) indicated that they had already placed WtW participants in work activities. By the time they responded to the survey, in late 1999 or early 2000, these grantees had made 50,106 placements of all types. Survey responses on placements made to date suggest that movement into employment activities is slower than grantees had projected, and has a long way to go before goals are reached. The survey also suggests that grantees that have been operating since the first survey have increased their emphasis on placement in unsubsidized employment relative to the use of supported work activities.
1. Progress in Work Activity Placements Reflects Delays in Enrollment
Both field visits and the grantee survey suggest that grantees are moving expeditiously to place participants in work activities once they are enrolled in the WtW program. Most grantees provide for relatively short workplace readiness classes lasting a few weeks, after which participants are expected to move into a work activity of some kind.
The overall number of actual placements in work activities gives some indication that participants, once enrolled, are moving into work activities with reasonable promptness. Grantees responding to the survey had enrolled more than 80,000 people in their programs (see Chapter III), and about 50,000 placements in work activities had been made. Some participants undoubtedly have been placed in more than one activity, but these figures suggest that the majority of enrolled participants had at the time of the survey entered an employment activity. Since a lag between enrollment and placement is to be expected, and because some grantees had begun operations recently, it seems that grantees are being reasonably diligent and successful in moving people into workplace activities of some kind.
Nevertheless, grantees have a long way to go to meet placement goals, largely because of the slow pace of enrollment in their programs. Placements in unsubsidized employment at the time of the survey had reached about 24 percent of grantees' goals, while placements in various types of supported work activities ranged from about 13 percent to 34 percent of placement goals. It can be expected, of course, that placements will be higher in later phases of the grant period, as more participants make it past the preliminary job readiness activities. As with enrollment, however, the pace of employment placements will have to quicken if the goals are to be met within the originally defined three-year grant period. On average, grantees have made 40 placements per month since they started enrolling participants. To meet the overall goal across all programs, even allowing for placements up to the end of their grant period, grantees will have to increase this pace to 60 per month.
This challenge is evident in the fact that grantees generally fell short of meeting their first-year targets for placement in employment activities (Table IV.2). Grantees that responded to both surveys reported in the first survey on the number of placements they projected for the first year, and in the second survey on actual placements for that year. These repeat survey respondents reported placing an average of 95 participants in unsubsidized jobs, about 78 percent of their average target of 122. Other types of placement fell further short of goals; placements in work experience and subsidized jobs were about half or less of targets, and in OJT and community service about a quarter or less. To place as many participants as were originally planned, grantees' placement rates will have to accelerate, or grantees will need more time to reach their goals — or both. The two-year extension on the use of WtW grants sought by the Administration might make it possible for WtW funds to yield placements at the levels originally planned.
|
TABLE IV.2 PLACEMENT OF WTW PARTICIPANTS IN WORK ACTIVITIES AMONG REPEAT RESPONDENTS |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Percentage of WtW Grantees Planning to Use or Using Each Type of Placement | ||||
| Types of Employment Placements | First Grantee Survey | Second Grantee Survey | Projected Number of Placements to Be Made in First WtW Year (Average)a | Actual Number of WtW Participants Placements Made as of Second Survey Response (Average)a |
| Unsubsidized Employment | 88.4 | 92.6* | 121.5 | 94.5 |
| Supported Work Activities | ||||
| Work experience | 70.3 | 68.5 | 73.6 | 41.5** |
| On-the-job training | 72.0 | 55.0*** | 43.1 | 6.8*** |
| Subsidized private sector employment | 46.1 | 36.3** | 31.3 | 14.3* |
| Subsidized public sector employment | 41.4 | 31.0** | 39.9 | 11.5* |
| Community service | 38.8 | 26.1*** | 42.4 | 11.1*** |
|
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 Averages are for those grantees who reported in the first grantee survey that they would use, or in the second survey that they are using, a given type of placement. For grantees reporting in the second grantee survey that they were now making a type of placement they did not anticipate using as of their first survey response, we assumed that the projected number of placements in the first year of WtW operations was zero. * 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. |
||||
2. Actual Placements Emphasize Regular Jobs and Paid Work Experience
Although placements in employment activities overall have fallen behind grantees' planned pace, the types of placements being made are, for the most part, consistent with grantees' plans. In responses to the second survey, grantees as a whole indicated that on average they will make 62 percent of their placements in unsubsidized jobs; so far, such jobs account for about 60 percent of actual placements (Table IV.1). Paid work experience was expected to account for about 18 percent of all placements and thus far accounts for about 23 percent of actual placements.
Grantees appear, however, to be emphasizing or succeeding with other types of supported work activities somewhat less than they anticipated. OJT accounts for a smaller fraction of total placements to date than was projected (Table IV.1). Among grantees responding to both surveys, substantially fewer expected at the time of the second survey to use OJT, subsidized jobs, and community service than they did in the first survey (Table IV.2). Although these repeat responders had fallen short of their expected first-year placements of all types, the shortfall was particularly striking for OJT and community service. Grantees had originally projected less use of these kinds of placements, perhaps because they often have to be tailored to each individual participant, and the second survey suggests that this challenge may be even greater than grantees had expected.
[ Go to Contents ]
Given the low skills and poor work history that define the population eligible for WtW services, it can be expected that the jobs in which WtW programs place participants will be relatively low-wage, low-skill occupations. The challenge facing grantees is to prepare participants for these positions so they can hold onto them, because in many instances even these low-wage jobs, if combined with food stamps and child care assistance, can improve participants' overall income. A secondary challenge is to help them move up in these occupations, to higher wages and perhaps more responsibility.
As could be expected, WtW placements are concentrated in service and administrative support occupations (Table IV.3).(9) Almost 90 percent of WtW grantees listed one or more jobs classified as service occupations among the top 10 occupations in which they had placed participants. The specific service occupations listed (Table IV.4) most often included janitorial or maid service, home health, nursing, and other personal care aides, child care, and kitchen workers and other food facility staff (including cashiers and waitresses or waiters). About 76 percent of grantees reported administrative support occupations among their 10 most common placements. These are most often receptionists, teacher's aides, and stock clerks. With lower but still considerable frequency, grantees listed among their common placements positions in sales, as cashiers and retail clerks, and production occupations such as machine operators and assembly line workers.
|
TABLE IV.3 PLACEMENT OF WTW PARTICIPANTS ACROSS MAJOR OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES |
||
|---|---|---|
| Occupational Category | Percent of Grantees Having Placed WtW Participants in This Category | Percent of Reported WtW Placements in This Categorya |
| Executive, Administrative, and Managerial Occupations | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Natural Scientists and Mathematicians | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Social Scientists, Social Workers, Religious Workers, and Lawyers | 4.0 | 0.1 |
| Teachers, Librarians, and Counselors | 2.3 | 0.1 |
| Registered Nurses, Pharmacists, Dietitians, Therapists, and Physician Assistants | 2.5 | 0.0 |
| Writers, Artists, Entertainers, and Athletes | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Health Technologists and Technicians | 3.3 | 0.2 |
| Technologists and Technicians, Except Health | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Marketing and Sales | 66.4 | 13.9 |
| Administrative Support Occupations, Including Clerical | 76.3 | 24.7 |
| Service Occupations | 89.6 | 40.5 |
| Agricultural, Forestry, and Fishing Occupations | 8.6 | 0.7 |
| Mechanics and Repairers | 5.6 | 0.4 |
| Construction and Extractive Occupations | 11.1 | 1.3 |
| Precision Production | 6.8 | 0.6 |
| Production Occupations | 49.0 | 10.4 |
| Transportation and Material Moving Occupations | 12.1 | 0.7 |
| Handlers, Equipment Cleaners, Helpers, and Laborers | 30.6 | 4.7 |
| Military Occupations | 0.5 | 0.0 |
| Miscellaneous Occupations | 14.4 | 1.4 |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program, Second Grantee Survey (November 1999- February 2000) and Standard
Occupational Classification Manual (1980).
Note: Percentages are based on the responses of 335 grantees who provided information on the top 10 occupations in which they had placed WtW participants. These grantees represent 80.0 percent of the respondent sample for the second grantee survey. The occupations listed were coded using SOC codes at the four-digit level and then aggregated at the two-digit level to arrive at the information presented in this table. a Figures less than .05 percent are rounded to zero. |
||
|
TABLE IV.4 WAGES AND EMPLOYMENT OUTLOOK FOR THE TOP 10 OCCUPATIONS IN WHICH WTW GRANTEES HAVE PLACED PARTICIPANTS |
||
|---|---|---|
| Occupationa | 1996 Weekly Median Earningsb | 1998-2006 Projected U.S. Job Growthc |
| 1. Janitors and Maids | $270 - 300 | 0-9% |
| 2. Health Aides, Psychiatric Aides, and Other Nursing Aides | $292 | 21-35% |
| 3. Cashiers | $247 | 10-20% |
| 4. Child Care Workers | $250 | 21-35% |
| 5. Cooks and Other Kitchen Workers | $250 | 10-20% |
| 6. Retail Sales Persons | $396 | 10-20% |
| 7. Receptionists | $333 | 21-35% |
| 8. Teacher Aides | $315 | 21-35% |
| 9. Food Service Workers, Including Waiters and Waitresses | $270 | 10-20% |
| 10. Stock Clerks | $429 | 0-9% |
|
Sources: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program, Second Grantee Survey (November 1999- February 2000), Standard
Occupational Classification Handbook (1980), and Bureau of Labor Statistics,
"Occupational Outlook Handbook, 1998-99" (http://stats.bls.gov, 03/08/2000).
a Occupational definitions are based on Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes, 1980 version. Although the SOC underwent a major revision in 1998, most government agencies did not begin using the revised classifications until January 1, 2000, so occupational information is not yet available based on the new codes. b Figures are based on the typical earnings of full-time, salaried workers. c Occupational job growth is coded based on expectations for overall employment growth through the year 2006. Overall average job growth is expected to be in the range of 10-20 percent. |
||
The wages participants earn when they enter these jobs are certainly modest. Grantees reported that participants entering unsubsidized jobs earned an average of $6.81 per hour. In paid work experience and subsidized public sector jobs, participants were reported to be receiving $5.50 to $5.60 per hour. OJT placements have been running at an average of $6.47, probably reflecting the higher skill levels of the positions for which employers are willing to provide the level of training required for such arrangements.
The entry-level jobs that WtW participants enter require little education or training, and advancement is difficult. Typically, no more than a high school diploma is required and, even with little or no work experience, participants can be placed in jobs. Some occupations, like janitorial or food service jobs, have no specific education requirements. Opportunities for advancement tend to be limited, particularly in small firms; the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2000), for example, noted the barriers to advancement for janitorial workers in organizations where there is only a single maintenance worker. Some such jobs, of course, can lead to better pay for those who persist and for those who manage to gain more training or education.
[ Go to Contents ]
1. The grantee survey provides aggregate measures of employment placements, but it does not provide a basis for judging whether participants are actually doing better or worse than they would have in the absence of the WtW programs.
2. Table IV.1 reports on grantees' responses to questions on overall program placement goals and progress, regardless of the funding sources used to support placement efforts and work activities. The pattern here is different from that shown earlier in Table II.7, which reported on the allocation of WtW grant funds to different program activities. Some employment activities are less prominent in Table II.7 than here, because some grantee organizations were already involved in providing those activities and did not have to devote WtW funds to them.
3. The remaining grantees — about 4 percent of all respondents — are using supported work placements but do not expect to make placements in unsubsidized jobs. Such a response could occur, for example, if a WtW grantee is working in collaboration with another organization that handles placement in unsubsidized jobs.
4. The estimate that 44 percent of WtW participants will be placed in unsubsidized employment may actually overstate the extent of projected progress of participants, since grantees are most likely reporting the number of placements they expect to make in each activity. Some grantees may incorporate into their projections the expectation that some people will be placed multiple times if the initial one proves unsuccessful. However, some individuals whom grantees will be unable to report as entering unsubsidized employment under the WtW grant program by the time it ends could be served further with other funds, and eventually be placed in a job.
5. We note that this is a rough and maximum measure since not all individuals who participate in WtW supported work activities will reach the point of placement in unsubsidized employment. However, if all participants in supported work activities were among those who enter unsubsidized employment, the rate of involvement in supported work activities as an interim step would be 37.7 divided by 62.3, or 61 percent.
6. Grantee responses suggest that two out of every three subsidized positions will be in the private sector, which is consistent with our field observations. Subsidies are not often needed to encourage government agencies and other public sector organizations to hire WtW participants; thus, these worksites are often used for work-experience placements. WtW wage subsidies are often offered and publicized, however, to encourage private employers to consider hiring WtW participants.
7. The WtW regulations themselves do not make participation mandatory, so the use of community service as a "sanction protection" is likely to be observed only where TANF work requirements are vigorously enforced.
8. The WtW regulations require that all participant work activities be paid. We describe community service positions as "nonwage" because WtW participants placed in such activities typically work in exchange for their cash benefits and do not receive additional compensation.
9. The survey asked grantees to list the 10 occupations in which they placed the most WtW participants. It also asked the average wage at which WtW participants had been placed in various types of employment activities.
| Chapter 3 | Table of Contents | Chapter 5 |
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 June 26, 2000