With the passage of time, most grantees are now in a better position to have completed their planning phase and begun service delivery (Table II.1). All of the 48 state jurisdictions that received formula funding had received their first grant allocations at least a year before the fall 1999 survey began.(1) Of the 383 substate formula grants reported by local grantees in the second survey, almost all were awarded a year or more before the survey (Table II.2). Among the 190 competitive grants awarded by DOL, all but the last 64 awarded in Round 3 were a year or more old.
TIMING OF WtW GRANTS AWARDED BY THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
|Grant Type/Timing of Awarda||Number of Grants||Total Funding to Date
|State Formula Grants||94||$1,979.7|
|Awarded March - December 1998||48b||$1,034.2|
|Awarded March - December 1999||46c||$945.5|
|Awarded May 1998 (Round 1)||51||$199.0|
|Awarded November 1998 (Round 2)||75||$273.0|
|Awarded October 1999 (Round 3)||64||$222.0|
|Total Formula and Competitive Grants as of December 1999||284||$2,673.7|
|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 for FY 1998, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
c Includes the 42 states that accepted formula funds for FY 1999, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Virgin Islands.
TIMING OF LOCAL WTW GRANTS REPORTED BY SURVEY RESPONDENTS, SECOND WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTEE SURVEY
|Date of Grant Notification||Number of Formula Grantsa||Number of Competitive Grants|
|Source: National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program, Second Grantee Survey (November 1999 - February 2000).
a Formula grantees were asked to report the earliest date at which they were awarded a substate formula grant. These organizations could have been subsequently awarded additional substate formula funds.
b The total number of formula grants shown here is slightly less than the 393 (formula, formula/competitive, formula/discretionary, formula/competitive/discretionary) grantees in Table I.1 because a few survey respondents did not report the date of their grant notification.
c The number of grants reported here is different from the number of grantees that can be calculated from Table I.1, because one organization received two competitive grants.
As could be expected, the overwhelming majority of local WtW grantees have now moved beyond planning and into the service delivery phase (Table II.3). Overall, 89 percent of the respondents to the second grantee survey said that they had begun operating their WtW programs, compared to only 50 percent in the first survey. Moreover, the grantees that had not begun service delivery by the time of the second survey were concentrated among the Round 3 competitive grantees that received their funding the month the survey began. A small number of earlier grantees, however, still had not begun service delivery.
|Percentage of Responding Grantees
That Had Begun Operating
|First Grantee Survey||Second Grantee Survey|
|Competitive Round 1 Granteesa||74.0||100.0|
|Competitive Round 2 Granteesa||n.a.||98.3|
|Competitive Round 3 Granteesa||n.a.||22.7|
|State 15% Discretionary Fund Granteesa||60.7||100.0|
|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).
Notes: n.a. = not applicable.
a Grantee categories are not mutually exclusive. Therefore, some grantees may be included in multiple categories if they received more than one type of grant.
As would be expected, grantees are also at a more advanced stage of implementation than at the time of the first survey. According to the second survey, nearly 89 percent of the grantees had begun enrolling WtW participants, and had enrolled an average of 194 people overall (not shown in table). In the first survey, only 43 percent had begun enrollment, and that had an average of 64 participants.(2) Even with this increase, the pace of enrollment and level of participation remain modest compared to the scale of operations grantees had projected.