|
|
|
General Information
View a brief abstract of this project.
View a complete, printer-friendly profile of this project.
| Evaluator(s) |
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
|
| Investigator(s) |
LaDonna Pavetti
(Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.)
|
| |
| Domain |
Income Security/TANF
|
| Status |
Completed (final report released)
|
| Type |
Research and/or Program Evaluation
|
| Program/Policy Description |
To better understand the characteristics of intermediary organizations and their role in welfare reform efforts, this study explores who these intermediaries are, how widely they are used, how they operate and the issues they face in linking welfare recipients with jobs.
This research has four purposes:
1. To describe the characteristics of intermediaries.
2. To describe the key decisions local welfare offices have made regarding the use of intermediaries.
3. To provide in-depth information on the types of services intermediaries provide, the process they use to link welfare recipients with employers and the challenges they face.
4. To identify lessons that can benefit policymakers and other or newly emerging intermediaries and assess the implications of the findings for future research on welfare employment efforts.
|
| Notes |
No notes reported.
|
| |
| Last Updated |
09/15/03
|
| Type of Summary |
Unreviewed
|
| Contact(s) |
LaDonna Pavetti (lpavetti@mathematica-mpr.com)
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
2100 M Street NW
(T) (202) 484-9220
(F) (202) 863-1763
|
| Submitter(s) |
Research Forum Staff (info@researchforum.org)
National Center for Children In Poverty
215 West 125th St, 3rd Fl
(T) (646)284-9600
(F) not reported
|
Populations Studied
| Target Population |
Local government
Social/Community service agencies
Neighborhood-based organizations
|
| Subgroups Analyzed |
None
|
| Sample Size and Unit |
2 (one rural, one urban) intermediary sites in each of 10 states.
|
| Execution |
Site visits conducted April and August 1999.
Sites were selected to provide broad regional representation; a mix of TANF-funded and WIA-funded sites; a mix of large, medium, and small TANF caseloads; different approaches to moving welfare recipients into employment; and a diversity of administrative and service delivery structures.
|
Sites Studied
AR;
Yavapai and Phoenix, AZ;
Napa and San Diego, CA;
New London and Hartford, CT;
Suwannee and Jacksonville, FL;
Olmsted and St Paul, MN;
Jefferson and Little Rock, NE;
Columbiana and Cleveland, OH;
Uvalde and San Antonio, TX;
Wise and Richmond, VA.
|
|
