| [Section A] | [Table of Contents] | [Section C] |
To make a difference in individual lives, the substantial resources Congress has provided for the WtW program must be deployed effectively at the local level. DOL must distribute the $3 billion in funding to the states and to competitive grantees. States must distribute at least 85 percent of their formula allocation funds to their substate grantees and decide how to use the 15 percent of their funds over which they have discretion for special projects. At the local level, both formula and competitive grantees can use funding from other sources to support complementary services to create comprehensive approaches to addressing participants' employment difficulties. The initial evaluation survey provides a basis for documenting some of the basic features of the grantees and the resources that have so far been deployed. In this section, information is presented on:
The BBA foresaw that PICs established under the JTPA, or WDBs fulfilling PIC functions, would bear most of the responsibility for delivering WtW services. Given the mandated funding formulas, 64 percent of all funds must go to PICs or designated alternative entities.1 Although six states declined formula funding, we would expect that almost every one of the 577 JTPA SDAs (or a designated alternative agency) in the remaining 48 jurisdictions will be a formula grantee. At the time the survey was initiated, 51 competitive grants had been awarded. PICs also participated in these competitive grants, receiving 18 of the first 51 awarded.
The results in the survey data mirror the pattern foreseeable from the funding process, with PICs accounting for most grantee respondents (Table B.1). Of the 415 responses included in this analysis, 358 were provided by PICs, 18 of which had received Round 1 competitive grants. Almost all formula grantees are PICs; among the 388 respondents that reported receiving formula funds, 33 said they were another type of organization.2 Nonprofit service organizations, including communitybased organizations, account for 19 of the 49 competitive grantees that responded to the survey.
The range of organizations that actually serve WtW program participants, however, will be considerably more diverse than the data on grantee types suggest, because grantees will contract locally with other provider organizations. The BBA and the implementing regulations (20 CFR 645.220) require that postemployment services and services relating to job readiness and job placement be provided through contracts or vouchers. Survey results reflect grantees' plans in accordance with these requirements (and in keeping with PIC practices under JTPA). The 415 survey respondents reported that, in their first year of program operations, they were going to use, on average, 47 percent and 42 percent of their formula and competitive funding, respectively, for contracted services, drawing on a total of 2,376 different providers.
|
TABLE B.1
CHARACTERISTICS OF GRANTEE SURVEY RESPONDENTS: |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of Organizations by Grants Received | ||||
| Organization Type | Number of Organizations | Formula Grants Only | Competitive Grants Only | Both Formula and Competitive Grantsa |
| PIC/WDB or Equivalentb | 358 | 337c | 3 | 18 |
| Other Types: | ||||
| Public human services agencies | 8 | 6 | 1 | 1 |
| Other public agencies | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Nonprofit service organizations | 24 | 5 | 18 | 1 |
| Other | 21 | 16 | 3 | 2 |
| Total | 415 | 366 | 27 | 22 |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the WelfaretoWork Grants
Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998 – February 1999).
a Includes 17 organizations that reported having received WtW competitive grants and state formula funds and 5 organizations that also received state 15 percent discretionary funds. b Five PICs reported that they expected to receive formula WtW funds but had not yet been formally notified of their award. Three of these organizations had no other WtW funds, two had 15 percent discretionary funds. c Includes 41 organizations that reported having received both formula WtW funds and state 15 percent discretionary funds. |
||||
Before funding reached the local organizations actually delivering WtW services, several processes had to be completed at the federal and state levels. States had to submit plans for the use of their formula funds and have them approved by DOL. Some states that received formula funding awards decided to require applications or plans from their PICs before passing on the substate formula funds. DOL had to solicit competitive grant applications, review them, select grantees, and make awards.
As a result, formula and competitive grant funds are reaching states and
local grantees gradually, in stages during 1998 and continuing into 1999
(Table B.2). About half of the 48 statelevel
grants were awarded in the first six months of 1998, and half in the latter
part of the year. Competitive grants are being awarded in three rounds;
although two rounds of grants were awarded by November 1998, only the grants
awarded in May had been announced in time to be included in the first grantee
survey.
|
TABLE B.2
TIMING OF WtW GRANTS AWARDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Grant Type/Timing of Awarda |
Number of Grantsb |
Total Funding to Date (in Millions) |
| State Formula Grants | 48 | $1,034.2 |
| Awarded JanuaryMarch 1998 | 12 | $222.4 |
| Awarded AprilJune 1998 | 14 | $245.0 |
| Awarded JulySeptember 1998 | 21 | $532.3 |
| Awarded October 1998 | 1 | $34.5 |
| Competitive Grants | 126 | $472.0 |
| Awarded May 1998 (Round 1) | 51 | $199.0 |
| Awarded November 1998 (Round 2) | 75 | $273.0 |
| Target Date September 1999 (Round 3) | -- | -- |
| Total Formula and Competitive Grants as of November 1998 | 174 | $1,506.2 |
|
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration.
a Based on date when grant award was announced. b Includes the 44 states that accepted formula funding, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands. |
||
Survey respondents had thus received their WtW grants at various points during 1998, many only shortly before the survey was conducted (Table B.3). States had 30 days to obligate their grant funds to substate grantees, but actual fund transfers could take longer. About 60 percent of substate formula grantees reported receiving their grant notification after midyear, thus reflecting the anticipated lag between states' receipt of their grants and the distribution of allocations to the local level. Moreover, in several states that required local plans, many local grantees reported they had not yet received their actual funds (although they had received notification of the funding allocated to their SDA).
|
TABLE B. 3
TIMING OF LOCAL WtW GRANTS REPORTED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Date of Grant Notification |
Number of Formula Grants | Number of Competitive Grants |
| JanuaryMarch 1998 | 63 | 0 |
| AprilJune 1998 | 86 | 36 |
| JulySeptember 1998 | 190 | 11 |
| OctoberDecember 1998 | 36 | 2 |
| JanuaryFebruary 1999 | 1 | 0 |
| Totala | 376 | 49 |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the WelfaretoWork
Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998February 1999).
a The total number of formula grants shown here is slightly less than the 388 (formula and formula/competitive) in Table B.1 because a few grantees did not report the date of their grant notification. |
||
The scale of resources made available to grantees can be expected to vary widely. Competitive grant sizes are diverse because applicants propose services that vary in nature and intensity and propose serving different numbers of participants. Formula grants depend on a formula devised by each state in accordance with guidelines set by the BBA. Each state's formula must take into account the relative number of people living below the poverty line in each SDA, compared to the poverty population in the state as a whole. It may also take into account the SDA's relative share of TANF recipients and unemployed individuals.
|
TABLE B. 4
SCALE OF WtW PROGRAMS: GRANT SIZE AND PROJECTED PARTICIPATION |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Overall | Formula Grants | Competitive Grants | |
| Average Total Funding per Grantee | $2,235,733 | $1,898,204 | $3,441,700 |
| Distribution of Respondents by Total Funding (Percentages) | |||
| $0 to $99,999 | 1.7 | 1.3 | 2.0 |
| $100,000 to $249,999 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 2.0 |
| $250,000 to $499,999 | 16.5 | 17.6 | 8.2 |
| $500,000 to $999,999 | 27.8 | 32.0 | 2.0 |
| $1,000,000 to $2,999,999 | 33.2 | 33.9 | 24.6 |
| $3,000,000 or more | 16.6 | 10.5 | 61.2 |
| Average Expected Participation | 537 | 464a | 854b |
|
Source: National Evaluation of the WelfaretoWork
Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998February 1999).
a Estimate based on expected participation reported by grantees that received formula funds only or formula and discretionary funds. b Estimate based on expected participation reported by grantees that received competitive funds only. |
|||
Grants received to date reflect differences in the funding mechanism for formula and competitive grants (Table B.4). States are adopting different approaches to distributing formula grant funds. Some are passing on to substate grantees their full share of the state's allotment, to be spent over a threeyear period, but some are distributing funds in increments. Formula substate grantees reported an average grant received of $1.90 million, but this figure includes some grants intended to support just a year or less of services and others that will be used over the full three years.3 Competitive grantees, in contrast, have received their entire threeyear grant. Round 1 competitive grants received by survey respondents averaged $3.44 million. Even taking into account the fact that some formula grantees have received only part of their funding, it appears that competitive grantees will operate services for WtW participants on a larger scale.4 Competitive grantees, for example, project serving an average of 854 participants over the full term of their grant, compared to 461 for formula grantees.
To varying degrees, many of the organizations that have received WtW grants already have experience delivering similar services to lowincome, disadvantaged populations and thus have developed other funding sources to conduct their work. Grantees were asked to identify other funding sources that they expect to draw on, in combination with their WtW grant, to support their overall WtW services. Sixtyfive percent of survey respondents (270 grantees) reported that, during the first grant year, they plan to complement WtW dollars with funds from other sources. JTPA funding and TANF block grants are the most common sources of complementary funding (Figure B.1). PICs can use JTPA funding for WtW participants as long as these participants meet JTPA eligibility criteria, and, in many jurisdictions, PICs have been longstanding providers of services to welfare recipients under contract to human services agencies.5 A smaller proportion of grantees have support for WtW interventions from other state or municipal funds and OneStop Center funds, and a few have support from foundations and private corporations.
1. PICs or designated alternatives would receive 85 percent of the 75 percent of WtW funds that go to states under formula allocations. States can designate alternative entities to administer WtW funds in particular SDAs, under Section 5001(a) of the BBA.
2. Only three of these 33 organizations were among the 11 designated alternative entities included in the survey sample. In other cases, respondents classified themselves as public service agencies, nonprofit groups, or "other" organizations. All of these respondents appear to be the prime contractor for the appropriate JTPA administrative entity.
3. Among survey respondents, 366 of the organizations that received formula grants reported their performance periods. Of these, 66 (or 18.0 percent) reported performance periods of one year or less. Periods of less than one year are most likely defined to extend to the end of the DOL program year in which the grant was awarded.
4. Grantees were also asked to report the amount they would spend from grant funds in the first year of program operations, and those figures also suggest that average funding levels are lower for formula grants ($959,206) than for competitive grants ($1,495,184).
5. All people on TANF are categorically eligible for the JTPA Title II-A Adult Training Program.
| [Section A] | [Table of Contents] | [Section C] |