Early Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants Program

Final Report-7/9/99EARLY IMPLEMENTATIONOF THEWELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTS PROGRAMJohn TrutkoNancy PindusBurt S. BarnowDemetra Smith NightingaleFINAL REPORTJuly 1999This report was prepared at The Urban Institute under a sub-contract from James Bell Associates for the U.S.Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration. Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do TABLE OF CONTENTSExecutive Summary ..................................................................... IIntroduction ............................................................................... 1Overview of the WtW Grants Program ............................................. 3Key Study Findings ...................................................................... 8Status of Implementation ......................................................... 8Description of Activities/Programs ............................................ 12Coordination ...................................................................... 20Implementation Challenges ..................................................... 22Early Effects of the WtW Program ............................................ 30Conclusions/Recommendations ................................................ 32AppendicesA. Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Discussion Guide for State-Agency RespondentsB. Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Status (Formula Grants)Discussion Guide Outline for Local ProgramsC. Welfare-to-Work Early Implementation Status: Contacts withNational OrganizationsD. State Administrative Structures iEXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants Program authorized under the Balanced Budget Act of1998 offers states and localities an opportunity to implement employment-related services specificallydesigned to meet the often intensive needs of the least-employable portion of the welfare population. The WtW programs have been asked to start-up very quickly. The first grants were awarded by theU.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in January 1998, Congress has authorized the program for only twoyears, and funds must be spent within three years. This report provides preliminary documentationbased on discussions with administrators and staff (by phone and in person during site visits) in the first11 states1 that received WtW funds under the formula-funded component of the program (i.e., grants tostates, with 85 percent of the state funds passed through to localities), highlighting program strategiesthat have been adopted and summarizing key implementation issues.KEY FINDINGSThe general finding from this preliminary review is that WtW formula funds, as intended, arebeing targeted to those with the greatest barriers to employment; but implementation has been slowerthan anticipated. The funds have created both challenges and opportunities. In general, states and localSDAs have used the opportunity of the WtW grants to specifically consider how welfare recipients areserved and, in many places, have developed new programs and services. However, administrators andstaff in state and local WtW agencies indicate they may need more time and greater flexibility to spendWtW dollars.C All states and localities included in this study have had a slower than planned flow ofTANF recipients into the WtW program. The number of participants served as of the endof 1998 ranged from 35 in Hawaii to 2,882 in Illinois.C WtW provided some amount of impetus to focus policy planning on hard-to-employwelfare recipients. In all 11 states, at the state or local level or both, there has been somespecific program development or special initiative for the WtW target group. In many places,there are now new special efforts to target and reach out to the least-employable TANFrecipients (i.e., one of the main WtW target populations) or there are separate initiativesspecifically developed for WtW. A key distinction between WtW and both TANF and JTPAis that there is no time limit on how long WtW services can be provided to a particular clientonce they are formally enrolled into WtW. As one state administrator described the program,this flexibility provides resources to fill the gaps in the continuum of services needed by 1The eleven states are: Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska,Nevada, Oregon, and South Carolina. iiindividuals transitioning from welfare to work.C As intended by Congress, WtW employment services are building on the TANF workpolicies, which usually incorporate an immediate job entry, or work-first, approach. Whilestate and local program operators noted that the WtW program complemented TANF Αwork-first≅ efforts already underway in their states, some questioned the wisdom of restrictingeducation and training opportunities under WtW to participants only after they are employed. This limits the range of services that programs can provide to those with the most seriousproblems and barriers and