Early Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program: Findings From Exploratory Site Visits and Review of Program Plans. FOOTNOTES


1.  This requirement reached 35 percent in FY 1999 and 40 percent for FY 2000.

2.  At the time of this report, Congress had just recently acted, in the FY 2000 appropriation for the Department of Labor, to broaden eligibility criteria and thus allow programs to serve more categories of hard-to-employ individuals with WtW funds.

3.  Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998, new WIBs will replace PICs and WDBs, thus providing states with a means for coordinating workforce investment, adult education and literacy, and vocational rehabilitation services through One-Stop Centers.

4.  Exploratory telephone calls were also made to 80 local program grantees, as part of the process of identifying the sites that were visited. This report is based on information from 22 sites; a twenty-third exploratory visit (to Denver) was conducted after the analysis for this report was completed and is, therefore, not included in the discussions.

5.  The Round 1 competitive grantees and the FY 1998 formula programs were included in the grantee survey that formed the basis for the earlier March 1999 report to Congress (Perez-Johnson and Hershey 1999). The timing of the award of the Round 2 competitive grants meant that they could not be included in the first grantee survey. This report is based on Round 1 and Round 2 competitive grants and FY 1998 formula programs.

6.  Six states (Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming) declined WtW formula funding for FY 1998. Two more (Arizona and North Dakota) declined funding for FY 1999.

7.  Six state-level grantees have received such waivers for some or all of their substate jurisdictions: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Puerto Rico.

8.  It is possible that some of these SDAs are receiving WtW funds indirectly  for example, as a subcontractor to a competitive grantee in their community  but it was not possible to identify such arrangements through the plans and applications.

9.  Brief profiles of each of the 22 grantee programs are presented in Appendix D.

10.  Even in these cases, however, WtW participants may already have been through a job search program operated by the TANF program.

11.  This analysis refers to the eligibility provisions as they existed in the original legislation authorizing WtW, before the amendments enacted in late 1999.

12.  This caution reflects the fact that, under most DOL programs, if a federal audit of the program identifies an individual whose eligibility cannot be verified, the administering agency must repay 100 percent of federal dollars spent on that person. Other federal agencies, including DHHS, apply tolerance levels for error cases before states or localities are required to reimburse the federal government.

13.  Eligibility criteria have been changed by provisions of Title VIII of H.R. 3424, the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000. That title contains the "Welfare-to-Work and Child Support Amendments of 1999." How quickly these changes will affect program operations remains unclear.

14.  The length of postemployment services, however, is limited to the overall three-year period in which the WtW funds can be spent.