The evaluation has two main purposes. First, it has documented and assessed the structure and implementation of WtW programs at the local level. Second, it is tracking outcomes of program participants in selected sites.

To fulfill these purposes, the study uses a three-part strategy:

1. Basic nationwide documentation of WtW programs has been developed through analysis of program plans and two rounds of a national survey of all WtW grantees. Data collection included a mail survey of all grantees and, to provide contextual information for interpreting survey data, visits to 35 sites.

2. An intensive process and implementation analysis was conducted in 12 in-depth sites; the analysis was based on two rounds of site visits and program data, plus two focus groups per site during each round.

3. Follow-up data have been collected from administrative records and surveys in 11 sites as a basis for outcomes analysis. Data collection included:

• Sample enrollment using Inter-Active Voice Response (IVR)
• A baseline interview, which was self-administered at the sites after enrollment.
• 12- and 24-month followup after enrollment. Computer-assisted telephone interviews with field follow-up locating was conducted.
• A special study survey of Philadelphia participants.

The WtW evaluation also features a special study of grants to American Indian tribes. That study has provided information to Congress, tribes, and others on how tribes are using WtW funding, the types of services provided, the attributes of people served, and the relationship between new WtW programs and other tribal programs already in operation. Special studies have been conducted of the operation of tribal TANF programs and of tribal economic development initiatives.

Research questions addressed by this study include:

1. What types and packages of services do WtW grantees provide? How do they compare to services already available under TANF or Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) funding?

2. What are the outcomes of WtW program participants?

3. What challenges do grantees confront as they implement and operate WtW programs?

4. What are the costs of operating WtW programs?

5. How well do PICs and other non-TANF organizations — the primary vehicles for funding and operating WtW programs — meet the challenge of serving those hardest to employ?

The purpose of the Welfare to Works grants was to address the following concerns:

1. Providing additional resources to assist the least employable, most disadvantaged welfare recipients move from assistance to work, acknowledging that this group may require more assistance.

2. Supplementing TANF funds with funds that can be used only for work and work-related activities, not cash assistance.

3. Expanding employment services to non-custodial parents of welfare children to increase their ability to support their children.

4. Targeting resources to specific communities.

Welfare to Work grants are intended to supplement TANF funds. To reinforce the employment focus of the Welfare to Work grants the program falls under the Department of Labor and at the local level , Private Industry Councils (PIC) that administer the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and now the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).

Employment Activities:
Job search and readiness activities, job placement services provided on welfare to work grant sites.

Support/Social Services:
Substance abuse treatment, legal counseling, life-skills classes, mental health services, peer support, and mediation groups provided on welfare to work grant sites.

Other support services evaluated include those provided to tribal Native American groups, child care, and transportation assistance.

• Grantees are emphasizing rapid attachment to supportive work.
• Grantees are in the very earliest stages of implementation.
• Grantees surveyed feel the WtW eligibility criteria too strict.

• The Welfare to Work grants have caused a proliferation of programs, esp. in urban areas, that are attempting to reach out to previously underserved populations.
• Welfare to work has created an expanded role for non-profit and community based organizations.
• The presence of WtW funds has encouraged increased efforts to improve coordination between the JPTA system and welfare agencies.
• The inclusion of non-custodial parents as a target group in WtW has accelerated the development of programs for this population.
• A number of WtW programs are developing creative strategies for providing education and training that is linked to work and offered in a work-based setting.
• WtW has provided an additional resource base for local programs to expand the availability of support services.

• Many welfare to work programs place special emphasis on supported employment.
• Job retention services are beginning to get increased attention in WtW sites.
• In the first year of operations, WtW grantees spent considerable time on administrative and enrollment issues.
• Potentially promising strategies are being developed and refined in some WtW grants programs
• About half of the Welfare to Work grants programs are attempting to focus on specific subgroups of the overall eligible population.
• Local programs are accessing and using WtW grant funds in a variety of ways.
• PICs and community based organizations (CBOs) are the main local actors but delivering WtW services involves complex institutional arrangements.
• The delivery of services is highly desirable.

• A variety of public and private organizations can establish and operate programs for low income non custodial parents (NCPs).
• Programs can benefit from collaboration and coordination among agencies.
• Recruitment is a critical challenge and a major component of programs serving NCPs.
• Recruitment is a critical challenge and component of programs serving NCPs.
• A combination of positive inducements and pressures may prove successful than either a completely voluntary program or a harshly punitive program.
• Helping NCPs understand and negotiate the child support enforcement system may be an important program service.
• Programs that provide employment-related services to low-income NCPs should ensure that a range of services is available to address the varied problems of these people and their families.

• WtW start up and implementation involved many challenges but the grants have nonetheless encouraged the development of some innovative programs and strategies at the community level.
• A number of strategies are being used in the WtW grant programs to increase enrollment and participation. Some of these include: direct and proactive outreach approaches; scheduling activities and components more closely together; and incorporating special financial provisions into service providers’ contracts.
• In general, WtW grants are being used to serve all persons who meet the federal eligibility criteria with some programs focusing on special subgroups such as non-custodial parents, limited English speakers and persons with special problems and barriers.
• The WtW programs are primarily work focused and offer a variety of services and activities.
• Most WtW administrative agencies are workforce development agencies , but this does not mean they are necessarily distinct from TANF.
• No one particular administrative structure or program model is necessarily preferable to another in terms of ease of administration or operational implementation.
• The first two years of WtW implementation were dominated by problems that programs have had enrolling eligible participants.
• There is a strong feeling at the local level that the presence of the WtW grants has contributed to program development for hard to serve groups.
• WtW services are delivered through a highly decentralized service delivery system that relies heavily on contracted service providers, primarily community-based organizations.
• The WtW grant-funded programs exist within a complex organizational structure at the local level.

• WtW Implementation has advanced, but participation levels still lag.
• The projected scale of WtW projects remains modest.
• Grantees emphasize unsubsidized jobs but set realistic placement goals.
• Most placements to date have been in low wage service occupations.

• Three general program models were implemented in the study sites. They include:
  • Enhanced Direct Employment Models, where the emphasis is on providing participants with individualized pre-employment support, counseling, and case management, along with post-employment services for usually a year or more.
  • Developmental/Transitional Employment Models, where the program emphasizes skills development, often along with transitional, subsidized, or community service employment.
  • Intensive Post-Employment Skills Development Models, where the primary objective is to improve both job retention and specific occupational skills primarily by working with individuals after they start a job.
• WtW grantees focus on the most disadvantaged but most programs have difficulties enrolling eligible individuals.
• WtW programs go beyond job readiness and self-directed job search assistance in the sense that they provide intensive individualized case management, coaching or support; and many programs that include more intensive developmental components and activities.
• WtW programs generally provide some type of post-employment services, primarily to help individuals retain their jobs.
• WtW grantees report that about half of their program participants have entered regular unsubsidized employment.
• WtW participants follow four different “pathways to employment.”
• While this report does not address effectiveness, a number of potentially promising program strategies were developed in the study sites.
• The WtW grant experiences suggest a number of policy and operational lessons about serving welfare and low income parents with serious employment problems.

• Welfare to work costs per participant reflected meaningful differences in program design. On average, variations in costs per participant—which ranged from $1,887 to $6,641— reflected three dominant service approaches.
• On average, welfare to work programs cost more than WIN, less than Supported Work, and about the same as JOBS programs.
• Future efforts could cost as much as, if not more, than Welfare to Work.

• In most sites, WtW grant-funded programs were operating in 2003.
• Sites still operating in 2002 and 2003 continued to enroll participants throughout 2002 and into 2003.
• In preparation for the grant phase-out, enrollment of new participants was halted in most study sites about 6 months before the end of their grant period.
• Several of the WtW sites increased their efforts in 2002 to target certain populations.
• Post-WtW plans: In most sites, long term funding is very uncertain.
• In the study sites, no WtW program adjustments were made in 2002 or 2003 in response to TANF time limits.
• TANF funds for work programs are becoming more scarce in some (but not all) sites.
• WtW grant-funded programs were generally not affected by WIA or One stop implementation in 2002 or 2003.
• No major programmatic changes were made to WtW grant programs in 2002 and 2003 as a result of the slow economy.
• WtW’s flexibility and focus on welfare is viewed positively by grantee administrators.

• Welfare dependence fell sharply in the year following program entry.
• In only 3 of the 11 study sites, most program enrollees were working within one year even if they were not employed at the time of program entry or during the follow up survey.
• In most of the study sites, almost 80% of the enrollees were using the employment preparation entry in the year following program entry.
• Welfare dependence among program participants decreased in the year following program entry.
• Consistent with the profile of TANF recipients, welfare to work recipients typically were female, unlikely to be married, and were most likely members of ethnic or minority groups.
• There were roughly equal numbers of enrollees above and below the age of 30 in most study sites.
• Many WtW enrollees in the study sites faced significant barriers to employment.
• Most enrollees had received welfare assistance, as case heads, at some point in their lives.
• WtW enrollees who were employed on year after program entry worked full time, or nearly so, on their principal job.
• For enrollees who were employed, low wages were a barrier to escaping poverty.
• End of the year household incomes were low and poverty rates high for WtW enrollees in all of the study sites.
• Although poverty was pervasive among WtW enrollees on year after program entry, its incidence was lower among those who were employed, typically by about 20 percentage points relative to the rate for employees who were not employed.

• SHARE involved collaboration among the welfare and workforce investment systems, child support enforcement agency, and employment and training providers.
• The SHARE approach emphasized close monitoring of child support compliance.
• SHARE also strove to limit the burden of child support obligations on the noncustodial parents (NCPs), so these did not become a disincentive to work.
• NCPs are a hard to reach population.
• NCP’s took different paths through SHARE.
• Fewer than a quarter of NCP cases referred to SHARE were resolved with reestablishment of child support.
• The further the share process went, the greater the likelihood of reestablishing child support.
• Reestablishing child support payments required substantial effort.
• NCPs worked more, earned more, and paid more child support after referral to SHARE than before.
• Outcomes improved for NCPs who took part in SHARE, but also for those who did not.
• SHARE probably contributed to the observed increases in employment, earnings, and child support payments.
• More rigorous evaluation could help clarify how programs like SHARE influence outcomes.

• Most WtW enrollees were TANF recipients who faced significant barriers to employment.
• WtW enrollees were much more likely to receive employment preparation services than skill enhancement services.
• Most enrollees were employed sometime during the second year after they entered WtW, but their employment tended to be unstable.
• Employment fell between the first and second years after program entry.
• Enrollees who were employed two years after program entry typically worked about the same number of hours as those who were employed at the end of the first year, but for somewhat greater compensation.
• The incidence of poverty was high among WtW enrollees two years after program entry, but it was lower among those who were employed.

• Effective inter-agency partnerships are important.
• Increased Service Capacity is an Important Legacy.
• Program Flexibility Encourages Innovative Programming.
• Stringent eligibility criteria and fiscal requirements can result in low program enrollment.
• Correcting the rules governing a temporary program may be ineffective.
• Finally, the very use of such temporary funding may accentuate program design and implementation problems.

• The RSC and TWC programs differed in the populations they targeted and in the intensity and duration of their service approaches.
• RSC and TWC participants’ employment increased.
• Participants’ earnings increased.
• Participants’ TANF receipt declined steadily.
• Consistent with the targeting and sequencing of the programs, RSC and TWC participants differed in their outcomes over time.
• Observable factors, including background characteristics, economic conditions, and program completion, are likely to be associated with outcomes.
• Observable factors explained most of the difference in RSC and TWC participants’ employment and about half their differences in earnings and TANF receipt.
• Educational attainment, prior earnings, and prior TANF receipt were key factors related to outcomes.
• The effects of unobserved factors remain important and can be disentangled only with more rigorous research.
• Intensive services can target the most disadvantaged.
• Services related to retention and advancement may help participants build on their employment experience and achieve further gains.