Early Implementation
of the
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program:

C.   THE POPULATION TO BE SERVED AND HOW THEY WILL BE RECRUITED

The WtW initiative was created so that states and localities could focus special resources on helping the most disadvantaged recipients of public assistance succeed in the labor market.  The BBA requires that at least 70 percent of all (formula and competitive) grant funds be spent on individuals with a specifically defined combination of employment barriers.  They may be TANF recipients themselves who (1) have been receiving TANF or AFDC for 30 or more months, or are within 12 months of reaching a TANF time limit; and (2) face two of the three specified barriers to employment: lack of a high school diploma or GED certificate and low reading or math skills; substance abuse problems; and a poor work history.  Alternatively, they may be noncustodial parents who face two of the same three barriers and have children who are in a long­term TANF case.  Up to 30 percent of the funds may be spent on other TANF recipients or noncustodial parents who have characteristics associated with long­term welfare dependence, such as school dropout, teen pregnancy, or poor work history.  Grantees may, however, exercise some discretion and focus their efforts on particular subgroups within these categories, as long as the overall use of WtW funds meets the 70/30 percent criteria.

Most WtW grantees have experience working with low­income disadvantaged Americans, although, in many cases, their experience may not have focused heavily on the hardest to serve who make up the WtW target population.  The JTPA Title IIA services that PICs provide are explicitly designed for a disadvantaged population, and at least some of the people served by most PICs in Title IIA programs have been welfare recipients.¹  Moreover, many PICs have been contracted by welfare agencies to run TANF work programs.  However, the welfare recipients many PICs have served in the past have often had to meet minimum criteria for entry to training programs.  It is thus likely that many grantees will face new challenges in their efforts to place the WtW population in employment activities and help them retain their jobs.²

One challenge grantees face, therefore, is to identify, seek out, and enroll participants who meet the eligibility criteria and who present the range of problems the grantees feel they can address successfully, given their experience and the resources they can use.  The early survey data, as well as other currently available information, can help document:

• Whether and how grantees plan to focus their efforts on defined subgroups of the eligible population
• How grantees expect to identify and recruit participants
• The demographic characteristics of projected participants, given grantees' location, traditional clientele, and recruiting approaches

1.  Most Grantees Will Serve the Overall WtW Population Rather than Targeted Subgroups

The BBA gives grantees the latitude to focus their WtW services on subgroups of the eligible WtW population.  Grantees might choose to target subgroups for several reasons.  The low­income population in their local area might be facing one particularly severe problem, such as a very high incidence of drug abuse; the grantee might want to focus its outreach and services to deal with that problem (while still accepting individuals who had other problems).  Some grantees (particularly some non­PIC competitive grantees) might have more experience dealing with some types of problems than with others.  For example, a community­based organization (CBO) that has run GED programs might only accept individuals who lack a high school credential.

Targeting particular eligible subgroups can be done in several ways.  Some grantees (such as the CBO that runs GED programs) might focus their entire WtW­funded program on a defined subgroup.  Other grantees might use WtW funds for several programs; one program might seek out certain subgroups (such as noncustodial parents with substance abuse problems), while other programs would serve the overall population that is eligible for WtW services.

Most WtW grantees, however, appear to be preparing to serve the broadly defined population of all those eligible for WtW services.  When asked in the survey whether they would use a subset of the criteria set forth in the legislation to prioritize or focus first on eligible individuals with particular characteristics, more than half (56 percent) of grantee respondents answered affirmatively.  However, when asked specifically which of 10 possible criteria they would use, about a quarter of even those grantees indicated they would use most or all of the criteria in defining their target populations.³  As a result, about 57 percent of respondents overall indicated they were either not targeting at all or were using at least 8 of the 10 criteria (Table C.1).  Among grantees listing any targeting criteria, the most commonly named factors related to the 70 percent eligibility rules (Table C.2).  In general, however, we interpret the survey results as suggesting that most WtW programs are seeking to enroll individuals who are eligible under the rules, rather than focusing on individuals with particular characteristics within that overall eligible group.

TABLE C.1 EXTENT OF TARGETING BY WtW GRANTEES
		All Survey Respondents (n = 414)	Grantees with Formula Fundsa (n = 387)	Grantees with Competitive Funds Only (n = 27)
Extent of Targeting	Criteria Used	Grantees (Percentages)
No Targeting or Broad Targeting	8 or more	56.8	58.4	33.3
Modest Targeting	5 to 7	24.6	23.5	40.8
Narrow Targeting	1 to 4	18.6	18.1	25.9
Source:  National Evaluation of the Welfare­to­Work Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998­February 1999). a Includes all grantees with formula funding.  Of the 387 grantees, 17 also had competitive grants, 48 also had 15 percent discretionary funding, and 5 had both other types of funding.  The numbers of overall survey respondents and formula grant respondents are lower than in Table B.1 because of item non­response.

Some grantees, however, particularly among competitive grantees, are focusing their programs more narrowly.  About 19 percent of survey respondents identified four or fewer targeting criteria for their WtW programs (Table C.1).  In its competitive grant announcement, DOL specified that applicants were encouraged to propose service strategies for specific subgroups of the eligible population, as well as innovative service strategies.  Competitive grantees, at least those that did not receive formula funding, seem to have adopted more focused targeting approaches.⁴  Among the grantees that report more tightly defined targeting (using four or fewer criteria), the most common definitions used are noncustodial parents, and recipients of TANF nearing or past their time limit who lack a high school diploma or GED and also have low math or reading skills (Table C.2).  Even these targeting strategies reflect a focus on the major groups of eligible individuals defined under the BBA.

TABLE C.2 PARTICIPANTS TARGETED BY WtW GRANTEES
	Percent Using Specific Criterion
Eligibility Characteristics/Criteria Used	As Percent of Grantees Using Any Targeting Criteriaa	As Percent of Grantees Doing Narrow Targetingb
No high school diploma or GED and low math/reading skills	78.4	39.0
Poor work history	77.6	37.7
Substance abuse problems	64.2	23.4
Nearing or past TANF time limit	65.5	39.0
Long­term TANF/AFDC recipients	75.4	33.8
Teenage parents	31.0	7.8
Noncustodial parents	62.5	48.1
Public housing residents	24.1	10.4
People with disabilities	24.6	9.1
School dropouts	40.1	5.2
Source:  National Evaluation of the Welfare­to­Work Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998­February 1999). a Percents are of grantees reporting that they will use eligibility criteria set forth in the WtW legislation to prioritize or focus on individuals with particular characteristics.  Such organizations represent 56 percent of grantee survey respondents. b Percents are for the subset of grantee organizations that will rely on four or fewer of the WtW eligibility criteria; such organizations represent 19 percent of survey respondents.

2.  Recruitment Will Rely Most Heavily on Referral from TANF Agencies

TANF agencies are expected to be the principal link for referrals and recruitment of WtW participants (Table C.3).  Almost all WtW grantees plan to recruit from TANF, and most expect to identify more than half of their clients through TANF referrals.  The normal JTPA intake and assessment process will be used as an additional recruiting source for a little more than half of the grantees (this is not surprising, since most WtW grantees are PICs/WDBs).⁵  However, most grantees expect to recruit relatively small proportions of their WtW participants from JTPA sources.

The emphasis on recruiting from TANF agencies reflects the fact that grantees' WtW programs are one of the ways that TANF recipients can satisfy requirements to participate in an employment activity.  Even if they are not explicitly required to participate in a WtW program, many TANF recipients still face substantial pressure to become employed within two years of the time they start receiving TANF.  Many states go further, requiring nonexempt recipients to participate in an employment activity immediately, without regard to how much of their two years has passed.  In these states, entering a WtW program is one way, but not the only way, for recipients to comply, since they can also find a job independently or, in some sites, participate in an employment activity arranged through some other means than the WtW grantee's program (including the regular TANF work program).

TABLE C.3 SOURCES OF WtW REFERRAL AND RECRUITMENT (Percentage of Grantees)
	Grantees Planning to Recruit from These Sourcesa		Estimated Share of Participants to Be Recruited from Each Sourceb
			0­25%	26­50%	51­75%	76­100%
TANF Agency	98.0		10.9	16.4	24.3	48.4
JTPA	58.5		94.6	3.9	0.5	1.0
Courts/Corrections	37.8		97.7	2.3	0	0
Child Support Enforcement	54.5		95.8	3.0	0.6	0.6
Grantee's Community Outreach	48.6		88.2	8.8	2.4	0.6
Other Organizations' Community Outreach	34.4		89.8	5.1	2.6	2.5
Self­Referral	45.7		99.4	0.6	0	0
Grantee's Existing Caseload	37.2		83.2	7.2	6.4	3.2
Source:  National Evaluation of the Welfare­to­Work Grants Program, First Grantee Survey (November 1998­February 1999). a Based on the 352 grantees that identified their recruiting sources.  They represent 85 percent of all responding grantees. b These columns include only grantees that are already or expect to be recruiting from each listed source.

Recruiting noncustodial parents presents different challenges from those faced in recruiting TANF recipients and will require different approaches to finding participants.  The emphasis on serving noncustodial parents — the most common specific targeting criterion among narrowly targeted programs — appears to be reflected in the relatively common plan to obtain referrals from the courts and corrections institutions and from the child support enforcement system.  More than half of grantee respondents indicated they expect to get referrals from the child support enforcement process, and almost 40 percent of the grantees say they will get referrals from the courts and departments of corrections (Table C.3).  However, these sources will account for a small proportion of the participants grantees expect to serve; almost all say they will find fewer than 25 percent of their participants in these ways.⁶

3.  Expected Characteristics of WtW Participants

The demographic characteristics of the population WtW grantees expect to serve reflect the aims of the program.⁷  For example, respondents expect most WtW participants to be women between ages 20 and 40, which is consistent with the focus of the program on TANF recipients (Table C.4).  Congruent with WtW's eligibility rules and many grantees' efforts to recruit noncustodial parents, men are expected to account for about 20 percent of WtW participants.

Other dimensions of the projected caseload composition may reflect not only the national composition of the potentially eligible TANF population, but also the particular locations of grantee organizations and the traditional roles they have played in their local communities.  Overall, the projected caseload across all survey respondents is roughly 52 percent white and 41 percent African American (Table C.4).

As might be expected given the diversity of residential neighborhoods, some grantees will serve populations that are predominantly from one demographic group or another.  About 36 percent of responding grantees said they expected more than 70 percent of their WtW clients to be white, and 16 percent expect to serve a predominantly black caseload (not shown in table).  Organizations with a predominantly Hispanic or Latino clientele represented less than 10 percent of survey respondents (not shown), although 27 percent of all participants are expected to be Hispanic or Latino.

Although the grantee survey did not ask questions about the urbanicity of WtW target areas or populations, it is clear that most participants will be urban residents.  An analysis of the SDAs for WtW grantees that are PICs, WDBs, or equivalent entities shows that only about one percent of PICs/WDBs in the overall grantee survey sample primarily serve counties with rural populations.  In contrast, 60 percent serve metropolitan areas with populations greater than 250,000.

FOOTNOTES

1.  In program year 1996, for example, PICs on average reported that 34 percent of their terminees were AFDC recipients and 39 percent received some form of cash welfare assistance.

2.  Serving individuals who would fall in the WtW population has been less common for PICs than serving welfare recipients in general.  Analysis of JTPA program year 1996 data from the Standardized Program Information Reports suggests that individuals with approximately the characteristics that would qualify them for WtW services made up only about a third of the Title IIA program terminees who were AFDC recipients.  For almost half of all PICs, this more disadvantaged population made up less than 10 percent of their terminees.

3.  The criteria listed included (1) legislated eligibility factors for the "70 percent group" (no high school diploma or GED and low skills; poor work history; substance abuse; nearing or past TANF time limit; long­term welfare receipt; noncustodial parent), as well as other factors that could be used to identify individuals with high risk of long­term welfare receipt (teenage parents; public housing residents; people with disabilities; school dropouts).

4.  It is possible that grantees that have received both formula and competitive grants are also targeting their use of competitive funding to specific subgroups.  Their survey responses pertain to their overall use of targeting criteria, however, so their particular strategies for targeting one component of their program strategy may be obscured.

5.  Some PICs may describe recruiting from the JTPA intake/assessment process as recruiting from their own existing caseload.

6.  The Administration's current proposal to renew the WtW program includes an increased emphasis on serving noncustodial parents and strengthened links to child support enforcement.

7.  Since program enrollments are in their very early stages, the survey asked grantees for the demographic characteristics of the projected overall caseload, based on knowledge of their local area and its TANF caseload and their own service plans, rather than just for characteristics of people already enrolled.

[Section B]

[Table of Contents]

[Section D]