United States General Accounting Office
GAO Report to Congressional Requesters
February 1999
WELFARE REFORM
Status of Awards and
Selected States’ Use of
Welfare-to-Work Grants
GAO/HEHS-99-40
United States
GAO General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548
Health, Education, and
Human Services Division
B-280256
February 5, 1999
The Honorable William F. Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Education
and the Workforce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Howard P. (Buck) McKeon
Chairman, Subcommittee on Postsecondary
Education, Training and Life-Long Learning
Committee on Education and the
Workforce
House of Representatives
Federal and state welfare reform initiatives focus on moving welfare
recipients to work and economic self-sufficiency. To foster this goal, the
Congress authorized welfare-to work grants in the Balanced Budget Act of
1997 (P.L. 105-33). These grants were intended to help hard-to-employ
persons receiving aid under the block grant program of Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), to obtain employment. The
welfare-to-work grants total $3 billion—$1.5 billion to be awarded by the
Department of Labor each year in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. About
75 percent of the funds are for formula grants to states, and nearly
25 percent are for competitive grants to local organizations for innovative
approaches in moving welfare recipients into permanent work. To receive
a formula grant, states must pledge one dollar of state matching funds for
every two dollars of federal welfare-to-work funds. States must also
submit a plan describing how the formula funds will be used and ensure
that the plan was developed in consultation with appropriate state and
local agencies, including those responsible for TANF funds. States, in turn,
must pass most of the formula funds to substate areas that plan for and
administer the funds. Governors may retain a small portion, 15 percent, of
the states’ formula funding for special welfare-to-work projects.
As requested, we are providing information about (1) welfare-to-work
formula and competitive grants awarded to, or declined by, states for
fiscal year 1998; (2) how selected grantees are planning to use these funds;
and (3) how selected grantees plan to meet welfare-to-work requirements
to better integrate the states’ workforce development services with other
human services for welfare recipients. Because the grants were mostly
awarded in the second half of fiscal year 1998, in discussions with your
offices we agreed that it is too early to report on how welfare-to-work
Page 1 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
funding was actually spent or to collect outcome data about the impact of
the funds on finding jobs for hard-to-employ welfare recipients.
In performing this work, we met with Labor officials who administer the
welfare-to-work grants and obtained information on the formula and
competitive grants Labor awarded for welfare-to-work funds available for
fiscal year 1998. We also interviewed state and local officials in six
states—Arizona, California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and
Wisconsin—to obtain information on their plans for the welfare-to-work
grant funding. (See app. I for a full discussion of our scope and
methodology.)
Labor awarded formula grants to 44 states plus the District of Columbia,
Results in Brief Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands with welfare-to-work funding
available for fiscal year 1998, and, as of November 20, 1998, it had awarded
competitive grants to 126 organizations with combined welfare-to-work
funding available for fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Six states—Idaho,
Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming—did not participate
in the welfare-to-work formula grant program. These states, which would
have received a total of about $71 million, chose not to participate for
various reasons, including concerns about their ability to provide state
matching funds. Arizona was the only state that applied for formula grant
funds but did not pledge sufficient matching funds to receive its maximum
federal allocation. The competitive grant funds Labor awarded
represented all welfare-to-work funds available for fiscal year 1998 and
about a third of the fiscal year 1999 funds. Most states had at least one
local service organization that received competitive grant funds.
Three of the six states we reviewed—Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Wisconsin—outlined very specific uses for formula funds, while plans for
the other three states—Arizona, California, and New York—indicated that
the use of these funds would be determined by the local service delivery
areas. Michigan’s and Wisconsin’s plans emphasized assistance to
unemployed noncustodial parents—these parents, mostly fathers, often
have child support payments in arrears and dependents who are receiving
welfare cash assistance. Massachusetts focused on serving TANF recipients
who are reaching their time limits on cash assistance. In contrast,
California’s plan did not emphasize a specific welfare-to-work service
strategy because state officials believed that no one service strategy could
be applied effectively throughout the state. Similarly, Arizona and New
York allowed local service delivery areas to decide on strategies for using
Page 2 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
formula grant funds. One example is an area in New York that plans to hire
staff to be available 24 hours a day to assist the hardest-to-employ TANF
participants in finding and keeping jobs. Plans for the competitive grants
focused more narrowly on a specific population and activity. For example,
in Milwaukee, a competitive grant will be used to provide legal assistance
to long-term welfare recipients and noncustodial parents.
State and local officials in the six states we reviewed noted that a stronger
partnership was developing between the workforce development agencies
and other human service agencies assisting welfare recipients, in part
because of their joint involvement in the welfare-to-work planning
process. For example, Massachusetts developed a welfare-to-work
steering committee that had representatives from state and local
employment and training entities as well as the state’s TANF agency. By
planning and working together, this group shares information that will
minimize duplication of effort in service delivery. Additionally, as local
welfare-to-work plans were developed, local partnerships were formed,
such as a community task force in Arizona with representation from 64
state and local agencies in the service delivery area that were involved
with moving individuals from welfare to work. The welfare-to-work
competitive grantees also coordinated their plans with state and local
officials. For example, the competitive grant in Merced, California, has a
coalition of partners including representatives from the employment and
training community, the local human services agency, and the housing
authority.
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
Background (P.L. 104-193), enacted in August 1996, overhauled the nation’s welfare
system. Although some states were already implementing changes to their
welfare programs before this legislation, the act abolished the federal Aid
to Families With Dependent Children program and established TANF block
grants, which imposed stronger work requirements for welfare recipients
than its predecessor program. TANF provides benefits for a time-limited
period and focuses on quickly putting individuals to work. The TANF block
grants available to states totaled about $16.6 billion in fiscal year
1998—ranging from about $21.8 million in Wyoming to over $3.7 billion in
California. To receive their TANF grants, states must maintain funding for
needy families at specified levels tied to their historical expenditures on
welfare programs.
Page 3 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized $3 billion for welfare-to-work
grants to state (the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands) and local communities to move welfare recipients
into jobs—$1.5 billion is available to be awarded by Labor each year in
fiscal years 1998 and 1999. A small amount of the total grant money was
set aside for special purposes: 1 percent for Native American tribes
($15 million for each year), 0.8 percent for evaluation ($12 million for each
year), and $100 million in fiscal year 1999 for performance bonuses to
states that successfully move welfare recipients into employment.1 After
these set-asides, Labor allocated 75 percent (about $1.1 billion for fiscal
year 1998) of the welfare-to-work funds to states on the basis of a formula
that equally considers the shares of individuals with incomes below the
poverty level and adult recipients of TANF assistance residing in the state.
States must pledge one dollar of nonfederal funding to match every two
dollars of federal funding provided under the formula; up to half of the
match may consist of third-party in-kind contributions. The state
welfare-to-work matching funds are in addition to the state funds that
must be expended as required under TANF block grants.2
Funds not allocated by formula, which are nearly 25 percent of the
welfare-to-work funds (over $368 million for fiscal year 1998), were
available for Labor to award competitively to local organizations. These
organizations—local governments, Private Industry Councils,3 and private
organizations that apply in conjunction with a Private Industry Council or
local government—submit applications to Labor describing how they plan
to use welfare-to-work funds. In addition to giving special consideration to
cities with large concentrations of poverty and to rural areas, Labor
1
Labor, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Governors’
Association, and the American Public Human Services Association, is responsible for developing a
formula for determining performance bonuses.
2
Matching funds, like the federal formula funds, must be spent on eligible individuals and allowable
activities under the authorizing legislation. However, while states must pass most of the formula funds
to substate areas that plan for and administer the funds, states have more discretion regarding the
expenditure of state matching funds.
3
Private Industry Councils were established in 1982 under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA).
JTPA, administered by Labor, provides job training and placement services to economically
disadvantaged adults and youth. The membership of Private Industry Councils reflects stakeholder
populations in the local community, including service providers, community-based organizations,
government agencies, organized labor, and private businesses; the majority of the membership must be
in the private sector. The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 replaced JTPA, and effective July 1, 2000,
Private Industry Councils will be replaced by local Workforce Investment Boards. While there is a
transition period between the two programs, states will continue to use the Private Industry Councils
in place; some states have already renamed their Councils as Workforce Investment Boards; other
states, such as Massachusetts, renamed these Councils as Regional Employment Boards.
Page 4 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
reviews applications and awards competitive grants using the following
criteria:
• the relative need for assistance in the area proposed to be served;
• the extent to which the project proposes innovative strategies for moving
welfare recipients into lasting work;
• the quality of the proposed outcomes of the project;
• the degree to which the project is coordinated with other services; and
• the demonstrated ability of the grant applicant.
To receive its allocation of welfare-to-work formula funds, a state was
required to submit a plan for the use and administration of the grant funds
to Labor. The Secretary of Labor then determined whether the plan met
the statutory requirements, including assurances that the plan was
developed with coordination from appropriate entities in substate areas
and that welfare-to-work programs and funds would be coordinated with
programs funded through the TANF block grants.4 Using an allocation
formula developed by the state, 85 percent of the state’s federal formula
funds were to be passed to local Private Industry Councils. The Private
Industry Councils have policy-making responsibility in these service
delivery areas and administer the welfare-to-work programs at the local
level unless the Secretary of Labor approves a governor’s request to use an
alternative administering agency. The remaining 15 percent of the state’s
formula allotment may be spent on welfare-to-work projects of the state’s
choice, which is described in this report as the governor’s discretionary
fund.
States establish their own formula for allocating formula funds to Private
Industry Councils for local service delivery areas but must give a minimum
weight of 50 percent to the number of people in the area in excess of
7.5 percent of the population whose income is below the poverty level.
States may also consider the local area’s proportion of the state’s
long-term welfare population or the state’s unemployed population.
Additionally, if the amount to be allocated by formula to a local service
delivery area is less than $100,000, that money may be held by the state
and added to the 15 percent governor’s discretionary funds.
Labor was required to obligate the fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds by
September 30, 1998; however, funds for the competitive grants were
multiyear, and Labor could obligate those funds into fiscal year 1999. Both
4
Welfare-to-work activities must be coordinated with those provided through TANF. Hard-to-employ
welfare recipients constitute a significant portion of the TANF-eligible population.
Page 5 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
formula and competitive grants must be spent within 3 years of the grant
award. Under the Balanced Budget Act, the welfare-to-work grants were
initially legislated as multiyear allocations that could be awarded any time
in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, but this law was amended to require that
Labor award formula funds available for fiscal year 1998 by September 30,
1998. If at the end of any fiscal year states have not applied for or have
applied for less than the maximum amount available for formula funds, the
funds are to be transferred to the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury.
Competitive grant funds, however, remain multiyear funds, and there is no
requirement to obligate funds for fiscal year 1998 within the fiscal year.
Grantees have flexibility in designing welfare-to-work strategies geared to
the needs of their own local populations and labor markets. Overall,
welfare-to-work program services help individuals get and keep
unsubsidized employment. Allowable activities include job readiness and
placement services financed through vouchers or contracts; community
service or work experience; job creation through public sector or private
sector employment wage subsidies; and on-the-job training,
postemployment services financed through vouchers or contracts, and job
retention and support services.
Both formula and competitive grant funds are to be used for certain TANF
families—recipients on long-term welfare assistance, TANF recipients with
characteristics of long-term welfare dependence, and/or their noncustodial
counterparts. These people are considered hard to employ and may have
low educational attainment or poor work histories. The law requires that
at least 70 percent of the funds be spent on the hardest to serve long-term
welfare recipients with two of three specified barriers to successful
employment. Up to 30 percent of the grant funds may be spent on
individuals with characteristics of long-term welfare recipients; these
characteristics could include dropping out of school, teenage pregnancy,
or poor work history. Under either the 70- or 30-percent category,
noncustodial parents with dependents receiving TANF assistance may
qualify for welfare-to-work activities. (See table 1 for a summary of
eligibility requirements for welfare-to-work services.)
Page 6 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
Table 1: Eligibility Requirements for Welfare-to-Work Services
Requirement Eligible population
At least 70 percent of welfare-to-work funds Those who have two of the three barriers to employment:
must be spent on the hardest-to-employ — lack a high school diploma or general equivalency degree and have low reading or
individuals: math skills;
— require substance abuse treatment for employment; and
— have a poor work history (that is, have worked no more than 3 consecutive months in
the past 12 calendar months), and
those who are
— long-term TANF recipients who have received cash assistance for at least 30 months
or are within 12 months of losing TANF eligibility because of federal or state time limits; or
— individuals who would otherwise be long-term TANF recipients but have exceeded
time limits on cash assistance; or
— noncustodial parents of minors whose custodial parent is a long-term TANF recipient
or minors who are long-term TANF recipients under “child only” cases.
No more than 30 percent of welfare-to-work Those who exhibit characteristics of long-term welfare dependence, such as having
funds may be spent for the benefit of the dropped out of school, having a teenage pregnancy, or having a poor work history, and
following individuals: those who
— are TANF recipients, or
— would otherwise be TANF recipients but have exceeded their time limits on cash
assistance, or
— are noncustodial counterparts of TANF recipients.
Labor awarded about $1 billion in formula grants for fiscal year 1998 to all
Labor Awarded but six states. The six states that chose not to participate in the formula
Welfare-to-Work grant program would have received about $71 million. Labor also awarded
Grants to Most States a total of almost $500 million in competitive grants using all of the
approximately $368 million in competitive grant funds available for fiscal
and Many Local year 1998 and about a third of the competitive grant funds available for
Organizations fiscal year 1999.
Most States Received Most states applied for and received their full allocation of formula grant
Formula Grants, but Six funds. (See app. II for the amount of formula funds awarded, by state, for
States Declined to fiscal year 1998.) Of the states that applied for formula grant funding,
Arizona was the only state that did not pledge sufficient matching funds to
Participate receive its maximum federal allocation.5 Of the states that declined to
participate in the welfare-to-work program, four states did not submit a
welfare-to-work plan to Labor and the remaining states informed Labor
5
Because of an administrative error, West Virginia did not match $500 of the welfare-to-work grant
funds for which the state was entitled. Guam and the Virgin Islands were waived from the first
$200,000 of the required match and could then request a waiver for the remaining match requirement.
Guam did request a waiver from the full amount of match; however, the Virgin Islands provided its
remaining match, about $77,000. Formula grant funding not awarded by Labor was returned to the U.S.
Treasury. In total, Labor returned almost $80 million, or 7 percent, of the formula funds available for
fiscal year 1998. These funds were the unallocated formula funds for which states had either not
applied or applied for less than the maximum available under the formula.
Page 7 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
that they would not participate in the formula grant program. These six
states chose not to participate for various reasons, including concerns
about their ability to provide state matching funds.
Arizona needed about $9 million in matching funds to obtain its full
allocation of about $17 million in federal welfare-to-work funds; however,
the state legislature was not willing to provide this amount in matching
funds. Instead, the state assured a match of $4.5 million and obtained a
formula grant for $9 million in fiscal year 1998. Initially, Arizona asked the
local service delivery areas to determine whether they could raise the
required matching funds; however, the local areas, while they wanted the
welfare-to-work funding, did not believe they could raise the matching
funds locally.
Of the six states that declined to participate in the welfare-to-work
formula program, four states—Idaho, Mississippi, South Dakota, and
Wyoming—neither informed Labor they would not be participating in
welfare-to-work, nor submitted a welfare-to-work plan to Labor; the
remaining states—Ohio and Utah—informed Labor that they would not
participate. Ohio initially applied for its welfare-to-work allocation, but the
governor later decided the grant was too complex and burdensome,
especially the match requirement. Since Ohio had excess, unobligated TANF
funds, state officials believed the TANF funds should be used to move
welfare recipients to work—especially because there were no matching
requirements and the eligibility requirements were less restrictive. Utah
sent a letter declining its allocation, listing two reasons for its
decision—that the state believed the formula funding was too restrictive
regarding participant eligibility and that it believed the welfare-to-work
grants were too prescriptive and did not allow the state enough flexibility.
A state official in Utah also said that, at the time the letter was sent,
officials believed TANF funds were sufficient to serve the TANF population’s
needs; furthermore, the funds required a state match, which did not seem
feasible at the time.
The states that did not apply for welfare-to-work funds had various
reasons for not participating. For example, an official in Idaho noted that
the state’s TANF caseload had dropped precipitously, consequently the
state had adequate TANF funds to meet the employment and training needs
of the remaining welfare recipients. The official also estimated that no
more than about 350 of the state’s welfare recipients were eligible for
welfare-to-work services—and perhaps as few as 100. A state official in
Mississippi said that a significant amount of TANF funds had been budgeted
Page 8 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
for job skills development and job search. Additionally, the state had set
aside 30 percent of enrollments in JTPA for welfare recipients and was
having difficulty filling these slots. Consequently, in addition to concerns
about the state’s ability to provide matching funds, the state decided
against applying for welfare-to-work funds. The six states may still apply
for fiscal year 1999 funds and have until March 1999 to do so.
Labor Awarded 126 As of November 20, 1998, Labor had awarded a total of 126 competitive
Competitive Grants to grants. On May 27, 1998, Labor announced the first round of competitive
Local Organizations grants, which resulted in awards of about $200 million—approximately
half of the fiscal year 1998 welfare-to-work competitive grant funds—to 51
local organizations.6 On November 20, 1998, Labor awarded the second
round of competitive grants to 75 local organizations; these grants totaled
about $273 million and represented combined competitive grant funds
from the remainder of fiscal year 1998 funds and a portion of the fiscal
year 1999 funds. (See apps. III and IV for a list of the first and second
rounds of competitive grants awarded, by state.) Most states had at least
one local service organization that received competitive grant funds. (See
table 2 for the distribution of welfare-to-work competitive grants awarded
by Labor.)
6
Following Labor’s initial announcement of competitive awards to 49 entities, the award to the
Oakland Private Industry Council was restructured into separate grants to the Oakland Private
Industry Council and the City of Oakland, and an award to Goodwill Industries was restructured into
separate awards to Goodwill Industries of Middle Georgia and Goodwill Industries of San Antonio,
resulting in awards to 51 entities. A Labor official noted that similar changes may occur for the awards
made during the second round of competitive awards and explained that Labor was negotiating the
final figures for these competitive grants with the grant recipients; consequently, she referred to the
second round of competitive grant awards as “proposed” awards.
Page 9 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
Table 2: Number of Competitive Grants
Awarded, by State, as of November 20, Number of grant Number of grant
1998 awards awards
State or territory Round I Round II State or territory Round I Round II
Alabama 1 1 Montana 1
Alaska 1 Nebraska
Arizona 1 1 Nevada
Arkansas 1 New Hampshire 1
California 11 8 New Jersey 2 2
Colorado 1 2 New Mexico 1 1
Connecticut 1 2 New York 2 4
Delaware North Carolina 1 2
District of Columbia 1 1 North Dakota
Florida 2 3 Ohio 1 2
Georgia 2 2 Oklahoma 1
Guam Oregon
Hawaii 1 Pennsylvania 2 1
Idaho Puerto Rico 1
Illinois 3 2 Rhode Island 1
Indiana 2 1 South Carolina
Iowa 1 South Dakota 1
Kansas 1 Tennessee 2
Kentucky 1 1 Texas 2 3
Louisiana 1 Utah 1
Maine 1 Vermont 1 1
Maryland 2 Virginia 2 2
Massachusetts 1 2 Virgin Islands
Michigan 2 Washington 2
Minnesota 2 West Virginia 1
Mississippi 1 Wisconsin 1
Missouri 2 Wyoming
Note: Additional competitive grants were awarded to grant recipients serving sites in multiple
states (see apps. III and IV).
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor data.
Page 10 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
Three states that we reviewed targeted a specific population for formula
Some States and Many grant funds, while the other three states defined their welfare-to-work
Local Communities focus more broadly and did not emphasize a specific service strategy or
Proposed Specific targeted population. In the six states, local communities targeted
populations and designed their welfare-to-work activities consistent with
Initiatives for Their their state’s plan. Competitive grants focused more narrowly on a specific
Welfare-to-Work Grant population and activity.
Funds
Three States Set Specific Three of the six states we reviewed—Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Focus for Formula Grants, Wisconsin—specified populations to be served with formula grant funds,
While Others Allowed such as assistance to unemployed noncustodial parents or TANF recipients
who are reaching their time limits on cash assistance. Plans for the other
Wider Local Discretion three states—Arizona, California, and New York—stated that the use of
welfare-to-work funds would be determined by the local service delivery
areas. (See apps. V through X for a brief description of the formula grant
plans in each of the six states.) In the six states, the local plans we
reviewed proposed a range of welfare-to-work activities for eligible
participants.
Three states planned a specific statewide focus for formula grant funds.
For example, Michigan’s plan emphasized serving unemployed
noncustodial parents who have child support payments in arrears and
whose dependents are receiving TANF assistance. The goal was to increase
payments by these noncustodial parents for child support. Not
participating in the welfare-to-work program has serious
consequences—incarceration—unless there is good cause for
nonparticipation. Michigan required local service delivery areas to devote
50 percent of their welfare-to-work grant funds to assist noncustodial
parents. Wisconsin’s plan also emphasized serving noncustodial parents,
and because its TANF caseload is low, the state also proposed to assist
individuals receiving only TANF child care subsidies. Massachusetts
planned on serving TANF recipients who are reaching their 24-month limit
for receiving cash assistance—about 7,000 were expected to lose cash
assistance benefits on December 1, 1998.
In contrast, three states defined their formula grant focus more broadly
and did not emphasize a specific service strategy. California’s state plan
noted that—given the diversity of the state’s local service delivery
areas—no one service strategy could be effectively applied statewide.
Arizona’s plan outlined the state’s support to local service delivery areas in
Page 11 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
their efforts to target welfare-to-work services to hard-to-serve TANF
recipients, noncustodial parents, and other eligible individuals. New York’s
plan provided a general welfare-to-work focus on improving the
connection to work, although the state plan placed some emphasis on
serving individuals with disabilities; many of these individuals have
experienced long-term welfare dependency and had been exempt from
work requirements under Aid to Families With Dependent Children but are
no longer exempt under the state’s TANF program.
The local plans we reviewed proposed a range of activities for their
formula grant allocations. Because welfare-to-work programs are
administered locally,7 state officials in the six states we reviewed said
local entities have the ability to design welfare-to-work activities and
target populations within the parameters of the state plan. For example,
the New York state plan did not define, beyond the federal
welfare-to-work eligibility requirements, the population to be served with
formula funds, and state officials said that different local plans
emphasized different activities, such as mentoring, case management,
training to upgrade employment, literacy, and career ladder development.
The officials also noted that local service delivery areas considered the
services funded by TANF and proposed to focus formula grant funds on
areas where services were lacking.
In states with a focus on serving a targeted population with formula grant
funds, local service delivery areas focused on these objectives in their
welfare-to-work plans. For example, in Massachusetts, local service
delivery areas, following the state’s direction, will provide services to TANF
recipients facing time limits on cash assistance. Likewise, a service
delivery area in Michigan will identify its welfare-to-work participants
through the Family Independence Agency, which is the TANF agency, and
the Friend of the Court, which refers noncustodial parents. However,
focusing on the needs of its own local population, this service delivery
area also plans to serve several other populations whose characteristics
are associated with or predictive of long-term welfare dependency, such as
rural isolation, substance abuse, homelessness, being a single parent, or
being an offender.
For states leaving more discretion to local service delivery areas in
planning their strategies for the use of formula grant funds, some local
7
Welfare-to-work programs are administered by the Private Industry Councils, unless the governor
requests a waiver that is approved by the Secretary of Labor. In the six states we reviewed, New York
had requested a waiver that covered just 2 of its 33 local service delivery areas; for these 2 areas, the
welfare-to-work program was administered by the human services agencies.
Page 12 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
areas designed their welfare-to-work activities to complement existing
employment delivery systems. For example, in the San Diego, California,
service delivery area, about 3,000 long-term welfare recipients will receive
a package of services, for about 18 to 24 months, designed to meet their
needs, which will include at least 16 hours a week of work activities and
up to 16 hours a week of support services. These services are provided by
competitively procured contractors, and each contract includes an
incentive program to move participants into work expeditiously. Some
local plans emphasized new approaches for moving welfare recipients to
work. For example, local officials in Phoenix, Arizona, plan to use formula
grant funds to develop new relationships with large businesses that will
receive consulting services in exchange for hiring welfare recipients; the
welfare-to-work participants will receive job readiness training as well as
mentoring and job coaching after they are hired to improve their chances
of job retention.
Local officials we interviewed said service delivery areas planned to use
formula grant funds particularly to provide postemployment services. For
example, in New York’s Oneida-Herkimer-Madison service delivery area,
the welfare-to-work program is based on using employment retention
specialists who will provide 24-hour support service to participants. A
third of the area’s formula funds will be spent on the 6-person employment
retention staff; smaller amounts of the formula funds were allocated for
services such as transportation and child care because the program hopes
to use existing programs and resources for these services. Even with its
focus on job retention services, the local service delivery area will
maintain a menu of services so that it can provide all services to clients as
needed.
The welfare-to-work program for a local area in Massachusetts represents
another example of providing postemployment services with formula
grant funds. This welfare-to-work program planned to provide support
after job placement for up to 6 months rather than the 30 to 60 days that
other employment and training programs generally provide participants.
At the time of our review, this program had placed about 10 of the 70
current participants in jobs, and these employed participants were
receiving services such as mentoring and case management. A program
official noted that, until a participant finds a job, the local career center
provides most services; however, once the participant finds a job, the
career center’s role diminishes, and participants primarily are served
through the welfare-to-work program since it can provide postemployment
services. The local area is still developing community resource teams to
Page 13 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
help TANF recipients manage their lives. The official explained that, once
placed in jobs, welfare-to-work participants might fail to report to work if
they are sick or if they cannot obtain child care. Ideally, the community
resource teams would help individuals find resources to assist them with
these situations without losing their jobs.
The proposed use of the governor’s discretionary portion of state formula
funds (up to 15 percent of the formula funds) generally followed the states’
welfare-to-work initiatives. States that targeted populations for
welfare-to-work activities used discretionary funds for those individuals.
For example, Michigan distributed its discretionary funds (about
$6 million) to the local areas in order to provide more funding to serve
noncustodial parents. In Wisconsin, the discretionary funds (about
$2 million) will be used for a variety of purposes; however, the largest
portion of the discretionary funds (about $1.1 million) will be allocated to
the state’s Department of Corrections to provide employment assistance
to noncustodial parents in correctional institutions, on parole, or on
probation. In Massachusetts, which emphasized assistance to TANF
recipients facing time limits on cash assistance, the state planned to
allocate over half of its about $3 million in discretionary funding to the
Department of Transitional Assistance to supplement its program of
assessment and structured employment assistance. Massachusetts also
planned to subsidize five local areas that were allocated the lowest
amount of formula funds. The state used these funds to provide a
minimum of $400,000 to each area because state officials believed that
local areas needed this level of funding to have an effective
welfare-to-work program.
For states that had a broader focus for their formula funds, plans for the
governor’s discretionary funds were analogous with those for local areas
given wider discretion for the use of these funds. In California, the state
distributed the governor’s discretionary funds (about $29 million)
primarily through a competitive process—special consideration was given
to a broad array of programs that addressed needs in rural areas;
leveraged other resources; and demonstrated an innovative, coordinated
approach to services. Of New York’s discretionary funds (over
$14 million), the state planned to use about 70 percent to support varied
services—also on a competitive basis—to move individuals into
employment and provide postemployment services to help working
participants continue to work and increase earnings. Finally, Arizona
combined its discretionary funds (about $1.4 million) with allocations
Page 14 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
made to the local service delivery areas but did not emphasize service to a
specific population as did Michigan.
Welfare-to-Work The plans for competitive grants we reviewed in the six states focused on
Competitive Grants specific populations and activities. The competitive grantees proposed a
Focused on Specific variety of different activities and targeted different populations under this
program for innovative approaches. Some of the welfare-to-work
Populations and Activities competitive grants will be used to complement programs funded by local
formula allocations, and others will function separately from the local
formula grant but rely on the same systems as the formula grantees to
verify welfare-to-work eligibility.
Several competitive grants will complement formula grant programs. For
example, Phoenix planned to use its formula funds to assist participants in
gaining employment with large businesses, while its competitive grant will
be used to link participants with small businesses. The same approach will
be used for both programs. Using both formula and competitive grant
funds, EARN, an acronym for Employment and Respect Now, will assess
and screen participants for drug use, then enroll them in a 5-week job
readiness program that includes some computer-based training. For the
competitive grant, these participants will be placed in employment among
900 small businesses that receive tax credits for employing them.
Throughout the participant’s work experience, EARN staff and volunteers
will provide mentoring, job coaching, and other services for job retention.
Similarly, Detroit’s competitive grant will be used to complement its basic
program of assisting all individuals in obtaining employment by providing
more intense services for the hardest-to-employ population.
Transportation to work sites is often a critical problem for
welfare-to-work participants, and a portion of the competitive grant will be
used to fund a demonstration project called Easy Ride that will purchase
several alternative fuel vehicles and employ a person to coordinate
transportation schedules for welfare-to-work participants. Additionally,
the competitive grant in Detroit will provide more intense job readiness
training such as substance abuse counseling and classes for
English-as-a-Second-Language.
The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission in Boston also planned to
use its competitive grant funds to complement the area’s formula grant
programs by developing a transportation program to help individuals get
to work. An “Access to Jobs” study found specific gaps in transportation
services that hampered individuals from obtaining employment. The study
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
found that people either had no available public transportation, had to
make multiple trips to get from their residence to their work site, or simply
did not know how to make the trip. The Commission will work to connect
city residents to suburban jobs, and suburban residents to jobs in other
suburbs or the city. The program will assist people served by the formula
grant programs and will provide (1) information about transportation
modes, schedules, and day care sites near transportation; (2) direct
assistance, such as subsidies for public transportation; and (3) an
emergency fund for unanticipated transportation needs, allocated on a
case-by-case basis. For example, if someone is not served by public
transportation but has a car in need of repairs, the fund could be used to
keep this individual’s car in running order.
Other competitive grants will function separately from the local formula
grant but rely on the same systems to verify welfare-to-work eligibility as
the formula grantees—the welfare offices or the court system. For
example, Oakland, California, will use its competitive grant to expand its
pilot program to train and place Head Start parents in jobs. The program
staff hope to identify participants who are noncustodial parents or who
have substance abuse problems, but, similar to the welfare-to-work
eligibility determination for the local formula grant, the staff will also
submit a list of interested Head Start parents to the county welfare agency
to verify TANF status. The Private Industry Council of Milwaukee County
will provide legal assistance to long-term welfare clients and noncustodial
parents whose legal problems—combined with poor academic and work
skills—are barriers to employment. For its competitive grant, the Private
Industry Council plans to serve 200 long-term TANF recipients (primarily
women) and 450 noncustodial parents (primarily men) identified by the
welfare agency or the court system—this is the same way that the Private
Industry Council will determine welfare-to-work eligibility for participants
served by the local formula grant. The competitive grant will be used to
provide legal advocacy and case management to participants, track
individuals who drop out of the program and try to reintegrate them, and
develop a process that will place a randomly selected group of
noncustodial parents in unsubsidized or subsidized employment. This
process will require that placement firms pay for the subsidized
employment, thus providing the firms with incentives for finding jobs for
their clients.
In New York City, the Consortium for Worker Education will use its
competitive grant to train and assist women to provide child care from
their homes as satellites for private sector child care centers. The
Page 16 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
Consortium planned to build on its concept of both putting welfare
recipients to work by providing child care in their homes and creating
needed child care slots for workers in New York City. Recruitment for the
program will be managed by two vendors who will advertise, hold
presentations at community centers, and obtain referrals from the city
welfare department. Once recruited, participants will be assessed and
interviewed. For those selected for the program, their welfare-to-work
eligibility will be determined by the city’s TANF agency, which is also the
administrative entity for the city’s local formula grant. Those deemed
eligible must then have their homes inspected for compliance with city
building and health codes. Once accepted, the Consortium will enroll
participants in a 2-week job readiness program followed by a 16-week
Work Experience Program. Participants will spend 60 percent of their
work experience working in a day care center and 40 percent in classroom
training. When individuals have successfully completed their work
experience, they will be hired by the parent company, Satellite Child Care,
Inc. The provider’s home will then be opened as a satellite child care
center, and the provider will receive a $4,000 kit containing various
equipment, including a computer package that has software for children
and distance learning capabilities so the provider can receive continued
instruction. The providers will receive on-going supervision and home
visits from the parent company.
State and local officials in the six states we reviewed noted that a stronger
Stronger Partnerships partnership was developing between the workforce development agencies
Are Developing and other human service agencies assisting welfare recipients. They
Between the attributed this stronger relationship, at least in part, to their joint
involvement in the welfare-to-work planning process. At the state level,
Workforce each of the six states we reviewed had developed a partnership steering
Development and committee, task force, or work group to develop the states’ plans for
formula grant funds and had identified ways to promote integration
Human Service between the workforce development and human service agencies for
Agencies welfare recipients at the local level. Furthermore, recipients of
competitive grant funds also coordinated their plans with state and local
officials.
The six states we reviewed had developed mechanisms to coordinate
welfare-to-work activities with services to the hard-to-employ population.
For example, in Massachusetts, an intergovernmental state steering
committee prepared the state plan for formula grant funds and continues
to respond to technical questions raised by local service delivery areas
Page 17 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
regarding implementation of welfare-to-work programs. The
welfare-to-work stakeholders included representatives from the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development; the Corporation for
Business, Work and Learning; the Executive Office of Health and Human
Services; the Department of Transitional Assistance, which is the state
TANF agency; the Regional Employment Board Association; the Service
Delivery Area Association; the Career Center Office; and the Division of
Employment and Training. By planning and working together, this group
shares information in order to minimize duplication of effort between state
agencies and with the local service delivery areas.
In California, planning for formula grant funds and coordination between
the California Employment Development Department and the state’s
Department of Social Services began as soon as the welfare-to-work
program was introduced by Labor. Both departments are within
California’s Health and Welfare Agency, and, even before welfare-to-work
legislation, these departments had formed a coordination
committee—CalWORKS—to discuss issues regarding the state’s effort to
move welfare recipients into employment. At the state level, California has
an interdepartmental work group that includes representatives of agencies
responsible for education, transportation, housing, community services,
mental health, and job services. In all, the work group includes 15 state
departments responsible for 20 different programs. The state had also
implemented one-stop career centers and had adopted a policy that would
make the county welfare departments part of the one-stop system. The
state further emphasized collaboration by holding five public hearings on
the draft state plan to elicit comments from local service delivery areas
and by posting its plan on the Internet to obtain public comment.
The formula grant plans for the six states we reviewed required
coordination between the workforce development and welfare agencies at
the local level. For example, California required that local plans for
formula funds also be approved by the county welfare department. In New
York, state officials developed guidelines for local formula grant proposals
that required the Private Industry Councils and area social services
districts to develop a written welfare-to-work operational agreement to
detail respective roles, responsibilities, and procedures within the service
delivery area.
At the local level, partnerships were formed to coordinate welfare-to-work
activities provided by the local workforce development agencies with
other human services for welfare recipients. For example, a community
Page 18 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
task force in Flagstaff, Arizona, was formed with representation from 64
state and local agencies in the service delivery area that were involved
with moving individuals from welfare to work. Together, these
stakeholders developed a matrix, listing each organization and the
services offered to welfare recipients, to leverage resources and minimize
duplication of effort. In Michigan, an official representing a local service
delivery area noted that because the TANF population is the hardest to
employ, she relies heavily on the expertise of the Michigan Rehabilitation
Services for assistance regarding participants with more serious
impediments to employment, such as substance abuse or mental illness.
Additionally, because local service providers in Michigan focus on
noncustodial parents, collaborative efforts with the court system are vital
for identifying this population; the Family Independence Agency, which is
the TANF agency, is also an important welfare-to-work partner in
identifying TANF-eligible recipients. According to officials in Wisconsin,
implementation of formula grant programs at the local level is a joint
project between the local workforce development agency and the local
TANF offices. This coordination allows the welfare-to-work funds to be
used to expand on services provided by TANF funds, thus avoiding
duplication of effort in service delivery.
For the welfare-to-work competitive grants we reviewed, competitive
grantees also coordinated their plans with state and local officials. For
example, the competitive grant awarded in Merced, California, is planned
for use in assisting welfare-to-work participants in becoming
self-employed, and a strong aspect of this program is its collaboration with
various partners. The program, which primarily targets noncustodial
parents and public housing residents, has a coalition of partners including
the Merced County Community Action Agency, Employment Development
Department of Merced County, Merced County Private Industry
Council/Private Industry Training Department, Merced County Human
Services Agency, Housing Authority of the County of Merced, and
chambers of commerce throughout the county. In several states we
reviewed, the competitive grants were awarded to the same or similar
entities that received a formula grant; consequently, the competitive grant
linked significantly with the welfare-to-work program established under
the formula grant. In these cases, the competitive grant funds were
generally used to provide the more intensive services needed to help
welfare recipients get and keep jobs.
Page 19 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
B-280256
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for
Agency Comments comment. Labor provided technical comments, which we incorporated in
the report where appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and other
interested parties. Copies also will be made available to others upon
request.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-7014. Major contributors to this report include Sigurd R. Nilsen,
Betty S. Clark, and Carolyn D. Hall.
Carlotta C. Joyner
Director, Education and
Employment Issues
Page 20 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Page 21 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Contents
Letter 1
Appendix I 26
Scope and
Methodology
Appendix II 27
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grants
Awarded for Fiscal
Year 1998
Appendix III 30
Welfare-to-Work
Competitive Grants
Awarded May 27, 1998
Appendix IV 33
Welfare-to-Work
Competitive Grants
Awarded November
20, 1998
Appendix V 37
Arizona’s
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal
Year 1998
Page 22 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Contents
Appendix VI 40
California’s
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal
Year 1998
Appendix VII 46
Massachusetts’
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal
Year 1998
Appendix VIII 50
Michigan’s
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal
Year 1998
Appendix IX 54
New York’s
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal
Year 1998
Page 23 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Contents
Appendix X 58
Wisconsin’s
Welfare-to-Work
Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal
Year 1998
Related GAO Products 64
Tables Table 1: Eligibility Requirements for Welfare-to-Work Services 7
Table 2: Number of Competitive Grants Awarded, by State, as of 10
November 20, 1998
Table V.1: Arizona’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant 39
Allocations
Table VI.1: California’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant 42
Allocations
Table VI.2: Projects Awarded Governor’s Welfare-to-Work 44
Discretionary Funds Through Competition in California
Table VII.1: Massachusetts’ Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula 48
Grant Allocations
Table VIII.1: Michigan’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant 52
Allocations
Table IX.1: New York’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant 55
Allocations
Table X.1: Wisconsin’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant 60
Allocations
Abbreviations
EARN Employment and Respect Now
JTPA Job Training Partnership Act
TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Page 24 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Page 25 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix I
Scope and Methodology
To address the request, we reviewed the legislation authorizing
welfare-to-work grants and the implementing regulations. We met with
Labor officials who administer the grants and obtained information on the
formula grants Labor awarded for welfare-to-work funds available for
fiscal year 1998. We also obtained information about the competitive
grants Labor awarded on May 27, 1998, and November 20, 1998, with
welfare-to-work funds available for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.
We interviewed state and local officials in six states—Arizona, California,
Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin—to obtain
information on their plans for the welfare-to-work grant funding. We
selected four of these states to take advantage of site visits made and
information collected for a concurrent GAO study on states’ experiences in
providing employment and training assistance to TANF clients.8 For this
report, we conducted field visits in states that were early implementers of
welfare reform and of workforce development program consolidation.
Additionally, we included two other states—California and New York—in
our study because they have the largest welfare caseloads. For each of the
six states, we reviewed the state welfare-to-work plan, interviewed
program officials for at least two selected local service delivery areas
receiving allocations of the states’ formula grant funds, and interviewed
one grantee that was awarded competitive grant funds. We also
telephoned officials in the states that declined or did not apply for
welfare-to-work grants to obtain information on the reasons for these
decisions.
We performed our work from May 1998 to December 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
8
Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to TANF Clients
(GAO/HEHS-99-22, forthcoming).
Page 26 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix II
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grants Awarded
for Fiscal Year 1998
Dollars in thousands
Percentage of total 1998 1998 federal
Federal welfare-to-work federal welfare-to-work welfare-to-work funds
State or territory funds awarded funds awardeda State matchb declined
Alabama $13,978 1.36 $6,989 N/A
Alaska 2,927 0.29 1,463 N/A
Arizona 9,000c 0.88 4,500 $8,418
Arkansas 8,490 0.83 4,245 N/A
California 190,417 18.56 95,209 N/A
Colorado 9,879 0.96 4,939 N/A
Connecticut 12,006 1.17 6,003 N/A
Delaware 2,762 0.27 1,381 N/A
District of Columbia 4,646 0.45 2,323 N/A
Florida 50,757 4.95 25,378 N/A
Georgia 28,409 2.77 14,205 N/A
d
Guam 585 0.06 0 N/A
Hawaii 5,086 0.50 2,543 N/A
Idaho N/A N/A N/A 2,794
Illinois 48,663 4.74 24,331 N/A
Indiana 14,552 1.42 7,276 N/A
Iowa 8,332 0.81 4,166 N/A
Kansas 6,668 0.65 3,334 N/A
Kentucky 17,723 1.73 8,861 N/A
Louisiana 23,707 2.31 11,854 N/A
Maine 5,156 0.5 2,578 N/A
Maryland 14,941 1.46 7,470 N/A
Massachusetts 20,692 2.02 10,346 N/A
Michigan 42,226 4.12 21,113 N/A
Minnesota 14,503 1.41 7,252 N/A
Mississippi N/A N/A N/A 12,991
Missouri 19,767 1.93 9,884 N/A
Montana 3,194 0.31 1,597 N/A
Nebraska 4,022 0.39 2,011 N/A
Nevada 3,384 0.33 1,692 N/A
New Hampshire 2,762 0.27 1,381 N/A
New Jersey 23,257 2.27 11,629 N/A
New Mexico 9,716 0.95 4,858 N/A
New York 96,886 9.45 48,443 N/A
North Carolina 25,332 2.47 12,666 N/A
(continued)
Page 27 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix II
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grants Awarded
for Fiscal Year 1998
Dollars in thousands
Percentage of total 1998 1998 federal
Federal welfare-to-work federal welfare-to-work welfare-to-work funds
State or territory funds awarded funds awardeda State matchb declined
North Dakota 2,762 0.27 1,381 N/A
Ohio N/A N/A N/A 44,608
Oklahoma 11,742 1.14 5,871 N/A
Oregon 8,637 0.84 4,318 N/A
Pennsylvania 44,296 4.32 22,148 N/A
Puerto Rico 34,566 3.37 17,283 N/A
Rhode Island 4,420 0.43 2,210 N/A
South Carolina 12,006 1.17 6,003 N/A
South Dakota N/A N/A N/A 2,762
Tennessee 21,644 2.11 10,822 N/A
Texas 76,059 7.41 38,029 N/A
Utah N/A N/A N/A 4,628
Vermont 2,762 0.27 1,381 N/A
Virginia 16,549 1.61 8,274 N/A
d
Virgin Islands 554 .05 77 N/A
Washington 22,675 2.21 11,337 N/A
e
West Virginia 9,805 0.96 4,903 1c
Wisconsin 12,886 1.26 6,443 N/A
Wyoming N/A N/A N/A 2,762
Totalf $1,025,788 100.00 $512,401 $78,962
Percentage of federal
allocationg 93% N/A N/A 7%
(Table notes on next page)
Page 28 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix II
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grants Awarded
for Fiscal Year 1998
Note: N/A = not applicable.
a
The percentage of federal funds awarded is based on each state’s percentage of the
$1,025,787,658 in formula grant funds awarded by Labor.
b
Each state match amount was calculated as one-half of the actual dollar award, rather than the
rounded amount shown as awarded, which was rounded to the nearest thousand.
c
In order to receive the $17.4 million in federal formula funding available for Arizona, the state was
required to assure state matching funds of $8.7 million. Since the state assured a $4.5 million
match, it was awarded $9 million for fiscal year 1998.
d
Labor waived the first $200,000 in matching funds for Guam and the Virgin Islands. Additionally,
Guam requested and was granted a waiver for the balance of its matching funds. The Virgin
Islands, however, assured a match of about $77,000.
e
According to a Labor official, West Virginia’s federal formula grant was $500 less than the state’s
allotted amount as a result of a typographical error in its application. The state decided not to
apply for the additional funding, which, rounded to the nearest thousand dollars, is presented as
1.
f
Totals may not add because of rounding.
g
This amount is based on the full, available amount of fiscal year 1998 federal formula funding,
$1,104,750,000. According to a Labor official, $78,962,342 of this amount was not awarded and
was returned to the U.S. Treasury by Labor.
Source: GAO analysis of Department of Labor data.
Page 29 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix III
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded May 27, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Alabama United Way of Central Birmingham $4,997,966
Alabama
Arizona City of Phoenix Human Phoenix 5,000,000
Services Department,
Employment and Training
Division
Arkansas The City of Little Rock Little Rock 5,000,000
California CHARO Alliance WtW Los Angeles 3,999,650
California Los Angeles Private Los Angeles 3,000,000
Industry Council
California Private Industry Council of San Francisco 4,189,231
San Francisco, Inc.
California The Cambodian Family Santa Ana 1,216,167
California Housing Authority of the Los Angeles 5,000,000
City of Los Angeles
California Community Rehabilitation Long Beach 3,669,874
Industries
California Merced Self-Employment Merced 1,879,120
and Job Opportunity
Coalition
California Oakland Private Industry Oakland 3,000,000
Council
California City of Oakland, Office of Oakland 2,000,000
Aging
California Richmond Private Industry Richmond 3,087,347
Council
California Riverside County Economic Riverside 4,450,000
Development Agency
Colorado Rocky Mountain Denver 1,460,864
Service/Jobs for Progress,
Inc.
Connecticut The WorkPlace, Inc. Bridgeport 5,000,000
District of Columbia Consortium of Family Washington, D.C. 1,965,601
Employment Service
Providers
Florida Florida Developmental Tallahassee 1,660,396
Disabilities Council
Florida Pinellas Workforce Clearwater 1,500,000
Development Board
Georgia Mayor’s Office of Citizens Atlanta 5,000,000
Employment and Training,
Atlanta
Georgia Goodwill Industries of Macon 5,300,000
Middle Georgia
(continued)
Page 30 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix III
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded May 27, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Illinois Bethel New Life Chicago 2,739,506
Illinois DePaul University Chicago 5,000,000
Illinois City of Chicago, the Chicago 3,000,000
Chicago Workforce Board
Indiana Indianapolis Private Indianapolis 5,000,000
Industry Council
Indiana River Valley Resources, Inc. Madison 5,000,000
Kentucky Louisville and Jefferson Louisville 4,999,898
County Private Industry
Council
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Planning Boston 4,082,065
Council
Michigan City of Detroit Employment Detroit 4,860,633
and Training Department
Michigan City of Kalamazoo - Metro Kalamazoo 375,000
Transit System
New Jersey County of Union Elizabeth 5,000,000
New Jersey Hudson County Secaucus 4,914,297
New Mexico Catholic Social Services of Albuquerque 1,343,133
Albuquerque, Inc.
New York Non-Profit Assistance New York 4,871,904
Corporation
New York Consortium for Worker New York 4,966,000
Education
North Carolina Ladder to Success Whiteville 2,638,601
Ohio The Corporation for Ohio Athens 5,000,000
Appalachian Development
Pennsylvania Private Industry Council of Philadelphia 4,351,247
Philadelphia, Inc.
Pennsylvania Resources for Human Philadelphia 1,866,460
Development, Inc.
Texas Houston Works Houston 5,000,000
Texas Goodwill Industries of San San Antonio 5,000,000
Antonio
Vermont Northern Community St. Johnsbury 3,132,518
Investment Corporation
Virginia Hampton University Career Hampton 4,898,000
Advancement Resiliency
Virginia Total Action Against Roanoke 2,736,272
Poverty, Inc.
Wisconsin Private Industry Council of Milwaukee 4,262,054
Milwaukee County
Multisite IAM CARES AK, MO, OH, and 5,000,000
OR
(continued)
Page 31 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix III
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded May 27, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Multisite The NOAH Group, L.L.C PA, VA, and WA 7,800,000
Multisite YouthBuild USA CA, DC, GA, MN, 5,500,000
MO, ND, OH, WA,
and WV
Multisite CET-Welfare-to-Work CA, FL, IL, MD, 4,003,294
National Project NC, NV, NY, TX,
and VA
Multisite The Institute for CA, DC, NY, OH, 4,427,318
Responsible Fatherhood TN, and WI
and Family Revitalization
Multisite National Association of AL, AZ, CA, CT, IL, 4,912,658
Private Industry Councils MD, MN, OR, and
TN
Total 51 grants awarded $199,057,074
Source: Department of Labor.
Page 32 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IV
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded November 20, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Alabama Stillman College Tuscaloosa $3,723,620
Alaska Nine Star Enterprises, Inc. Anchorage 1,279,499
Arizona Pima County Community Tuscon 3,180,776
Services
California City of Long Beach Long Beach 5,000,000
Department of Community
Development
California Goodwill Industries of Los Angeles 4,098,265
Southern California
California Beyond Shelter Los Angeles 1,199,700
California African American Unity Los Angeles 1,357,885
Center
California Catholic Charities of Los Los Angeles 3,037,423
Angeles
California Jobs for Homeless Oakland 1,365,336
Consortium
California San Diego Workforce San Diego 5,000,000
Partnership, Inc.
California County of Tulare Private Visalia 3,824,201
Industry Council, Inc.
Colorado United Cerebral Palsy of Denver 1,321,825
Colorado
Colorado City and County of Denver Denver 3,598,915
Connecticut Community Action Agency New Haven 2,923,000
of New Haven, Inc.
Connecticut The Access Agency, Inc. Willimantic 1,000,750
District of Columbia Washington Alliance Washington, D.C. 5,000,000
Florida Goodwill Industries of North Jacksonville 5,000,000
Florida, Inc.
Florida Miami-Dade County Miami 4,470,000
Florida Latin Chamber of Miami 2,100,000
Commerce of USA
Georgia DeKalb Economic Decatur 2,224,375
Opportunity Authority, Inc.
Georgia City of Savannah Savannah 4,067,000
Hawaii Hawaii County Economic Hilo 4,200,000
Opportunity Council
Illinois Chicago Housing Authority Chicago 5,000,000
Illinois Community and Economic Chicago 5,000,000
Development Association of
Cook County, Inc.
Indiana City of Gary, Department of Gary 5,000,000
Health and Human Services
(continued)
Page 33 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IV
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded November 20, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Iowa Labor Institute for Des Moines 2,118,235
Workforce Development
Kansas City of Topeka Topeka 1,999,917
Kentucky Community Action Council Lexington 2,833,736
Louisiana City of New Orleans New Orleans 5,000,000
Maine Workforce Development Augusta 3,212,516
Centers
Maryland The Baltimore City Office of Baltimore 3,330,199
Employment Development
Maryland Prince Georges Private Landover 4,976,254
Industry Council
Massachusetts Boston Technology Venture Boston 1,139,388
Center, Inc.
Massachusetts Action for Boston Boston 2,785,430
Community Development
Inc.
Minnesota City of Minneapolis Minneapolis 1,860,000
Minnesota Rise Incorporated Spring Lake Park 3,099,779
Mississippi Hinds County Jackson 3,294,191
Missouri Advent Enterprises, Inc. Columbia 3,435,301
Missouri Full Employment Council, Kansas City 4,420,558
Inc.
Montana S & K Holding Company, Polson 2,542,700
Inc.
New Hampshire Southwestern Community Keene 1,000,000
Services, Inc.
New Jersey Mercer County Office of Trenton 4,219,582
Training and Employment
New Jersey County of Essex Newark 4,900,000
New Mexico Santa Fe SER/Jobs for Santa Fe 5,000,000
Progress, Inc.
New York New York City Partnership New York 5,000,000
and Chamber of Commerce
New York City of New York Human New York 2,934,705
Resources Administration
New York Wildcat Service Corporation New York 2,007,017
New York Buffalo and Erie Private Buffalo 4,917,903
Industry Council
North Carolina UDI Community Durham 3,728,134
Development Corporation
North Carolina Bennett College Greensboro 5,000,000
Ohio Private Industry Council of Columbus 4,997,630
Columbus and Franklin
County, Inc.
(continued)
Page 34 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IV
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded November 20, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Ohio Columbus Urban League Columbus 3,149,984
Oklahoma Eastern Workforce Muskogee 2,848,115
Development Board, Inc.
Pennsylvania District 1199C Training and Philadelphia 4,449,928
Upgrading Fund of the
National Union of Hospital
and Healthcare Employers
Puerto Rico Centro de Capacitacion y Caguas 5,000,000
Asesoramiento
Rhode Island Providence/Cranston Providence 3,859,284
Private Industry Council
South Dakota Oglala Lakota College Kyle 2,293,326
Tennessee Tennessee Urban League Chattanooga 5,000,000
Affiliates
Tennessee Nashville/Davidson County Nashville 4,016,694
Private Industry Council
Texas Dallas County Local Dallas 5,000,000
Workforce Development
Board
Texas Tarrant County Workforce Fort Worth 3,254,864
Development Board
Texas County of Webb Laredo 1,000,000
Utah Five County Association of St. George 3,000,000
Governments
Vermont Central Vermont Community Barre 3,120,140
Action Council
Virginia Alexandria Redevelopment Arlington 1,090,000
and Housing Authority
Virginia Richmond Private Industry Richmond 4,993,775
Council
Washington Washington State Labor Seattle 4,619,684
Council (AFL-CIO)
Washington Seattle-King County Private Seattle 5,000,000
Industry Council
West Virginia Human Resources Morgantown 4,934,876
Development Foundation
Multisite Johns Hopkins University AZ, CA, CT, FL, IA, 4,996,535
IL, MD, ME, OR,
and RI
Multisite The America Works AK, CA, FL, IN, 7,872,505
Partnership and NJ
Multisite The Enterprise Foundation CO, DC, MD, MO, 8,000,000
OR, and TX
Multisite International Association of MA, MN, NJ, and 4,204,777
Jewish Vocational Services PA
(continued)
Page 35 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IV
Welfare-to-Work Competitive Grants
Awarded November 20, 1998
State or territory Grantee Location Award amount
Multisite Hispanic Association of AZ, CA, and TX 4,321,269
Colleges and Universities
Multisite Marriott International CA, CO, FL, GA, 3,536,250
Community Employment IL, KY, LA, MD, MI,
and Training Programs MO, NC, NV, OH,
PA, TX, and VA
Total 75 grants awarded $273,287,751
Note: These awards were announced by Labor on November 20, 1998; however, a Labor official
noted that the amounts listed are proposed award amounts.
Source: Department of Labor.
Page 36 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix V
Arizona’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
In Arizona, the Department of Economic Security is the welfare-to-work
federal grant recipient and state administering entity. Arizona submitted
its welfare-to-work plan on August 5, 1998. On August 20, 1998, Labor
awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state totaling
$9,000,000. Although Arizona was eligible for about $17,418,000 in federal
welfare-to-work funds, the state did not identify matching funds sufficient
to receive its maximum federal allocation. Instead, Arizona assured
$4,500,000 in state matching funds over the 3-year grant period. According
to a state official, the state match appropriated by the state legislature was
$1.5 million for 1998; state officials anticipate the legislature will
appropriate the remaining $3 million in 1999.
Arizona required its 16 Private Industry Councils9 to amend their JTPA
plans with descriptions of how formula grant funds would be expended
and to submit these amended plans for state review and approval, rather
than submitting formal welfare-to-work plans. According to a state official,
local plans were reviewed in November 1998, and the Private Industry
Councils planned to implement their welfare-to-work formula grant
programs between November 1998 and January 1999.
The Arizona state plan outlined the full range of federally allowable
Activities and Target welfare-to-work activities and targeting strategies from which the local
Populations service delivery areas may specify the target population and mix of
services most appropriate for their local needs. According to the state
plan, service delivery areas will determine the target group(s) to be served,
and potential welfare-to-work clients may be directly referred to the
service delivery areas by the state welfare recipient employment and
training program, the Division of Child Support Enforcement, or the
superior court through court order. A local official said that since the
approval of the state plan, the Arizona Department of Economic Security
has urged service delivery areas to recruit participants through direct
referrals from the state welfare service system’s employment and training
program, rather than design their own recruiting programs.
The Arizona state plan provided local areas with guidance on the provision
of local activities and services. Specifically, the plan outlined four
categories of job readiness, each of which includes a specific mix of
services based on the participant’s characteristics: Not Ready, Almost
Ready, Ready, and Post Placement. However, local service delivery areas
9
Private Industry Councils are the local grant recipients under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
and are responsible for administering the assistance in a local service delivery area. JTPA requires that
each local area have a plan detailing its proposed use of funds.
Page 37 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix V
Arizona’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
may determine the target population and mix of services most appropriate
for their area’s needs.
Arizona allocated all of the $9,000,000 federal formula grant to the local
Substate Formula service delivery areas using the following formula: 50-percent weight was
Allocations given to the number of people under poverty in excess of 7.5 percent of
the service delivery area population, and 50-percent weight was given to
the number of welfare recipients in the service delivery area having
received assistance for at least 30 months. Three of the service delivery
areas—Apache, Graham, and Greenlee Counties—received no federal
funds because their formula allocations of the $9 million federal grant fell
below the required minimum of $100,000; however, as shown in table V.1,
Arizona allocated state matching funds to each of these service delivery
areas. Arizona planned to use 15 percent of the state match for state
welfare-to-work administration, and the balance of the state match was
allocated to the service delivery areas using the same formula applied to
the federal funds. Local service delivery areas must limit welfare-to-work
administrative costs to 15 percent of their formula grant award.
Although Arizona assured $4.5 million in matching funds for the full
$9 million federal welfare-to-work award, the state legislature
appropriated $1.5 million of the match during 1998. Arizona has an official
state document, referenced in the federal grant agreement, that controls
the disbursement of funds according to the amount of state match
provided. According to a state official, until additional matching funds are
appropriated, service delivery areas are only entitled to their allocations of
the $3 million in federal funds that have been matched with $1.5 million in
state funds. Allocations based on the current and full state match are
included in table V.1.
Page 38 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix V
Arizona’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Table V.1: Arizona’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Allocations
Total funds available for
Federal formula fund allocationa Match allocation welfare-to-work
Initial Total potential Initial Total potential Initial Total potential
allocation allocation allocation allocation allocation allocation
based on $1.5 based on $4.5 based on $1.5 based on $4.5 based on $1.5 based on $4.5
Service delivery area million match million match million match million match million match million match
Apache County $0 $0 $16,238 $48,714 $16,238 $48,714
Cochise County 145,200 435,600 58,934 176,801 204,134 612,401
Coconino County 39,750 119,250 16,134 48,402 55,884 167,652
Gila/Pinal Consortium 167,400 502,200 67,944 203,833 235,344 706,033
Graham County 0 0 35,639 106,917 35,639 106,917
Greenlee County 0 0 5,483 16,449 5,483 16,449
Maricopa County 389,250 1,167,750 157,989 473,966 547,239 1,641,716
Mohave/La Paz Consortium 80,550 241,650 32,694 98,081 113,244 339,731
Navajo County 45,300 135,900 18,386 55,159 63,686 191,059
Navajo Nation 416,700 1,250,100 169,130 507,391 585,830 1,757,491
City of Phoenix 679,800 2,039,400 275,917 827,752 955,717 2,867,152
Pima County 541,500 1,624,500 219,784 659,352 761,284 2,283,852
Santa Cruz County 50,700 152,100 20,578 61,734 71,278 213,834
Yavapai County 47,550 142,650 19,300 57,899 66,850 200,549
Yuma County 132,900 398,700 53,941 161,824 186,841 560,524
Tribal Service Delivery Area 263,400 790,200 106,909 320,726 370,309 1,110,926
Total $3,000,000 $9,000,000 $1,275,000 $3,825,000 $4,275,000 $12,825,000
a
The federal formula fund allocation numbers include both the substate formula funds and the
governor’s discretionary funds, which are 85 percent and 15 percent of the total federal
welfare-to-work award, respectively.
Source: Arizona Department of Economic Security.
Arizona allocated 100 percent of the federal formula grant funds to the
Governor’s local service delivery areas. The state retained none of the allowable
Discretionary Funds 15 percent governor’s discretionary funds ($1,350,000) at the state level.
Of the participants enrolled in welfare-to-work programs, the state
Performance Goals planned to place 56 percent of participants in unsubsidized jobs; of those
placed, the goal is that 56 percent will still be working after 6 months and
have a 1-percent increase in earnings over this time.
Page 39 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VI
California’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
In California, the Employment Development Department is the
welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and state administering entity.
California submitted its welfare-to-work plan to Labor on June 30, 1998.
On July 20, 1998, Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to
the state totaling $190,417,247. The state assured $95,208,624 in state
matching funds over the 3-year grant period. According to a state official,
the state match was appropriated by the legislature, and $10 million was
budgeted for 1998. This state match was appropriated to the California
Department of Social Services, to be allocated among the state’s county
welfare departments for welfare-to-work activities. The welfare
departments, in collaboration with service delivery areas, locally elected
officials, and other local stakeholders, will determine how to use the state
matching funds to meet the welfare-to-work needs of their communities.
California’s 52 local service delivery areas were required to submit
welfare-to-work plans for state review and approval. California believed it
was important for local areas to exhibit a sense of program direction
before receiving welfare-to-work funding and wanted to ensure that
workforce development agencies had coordinated their proposed
welfare-to-work activities with the state’s 58 county welfare departments.
The state legislature passed a law allowing the local areas to prepare joint
plans; consequently, there are a total of 41 local plans. For example, the
eight local service delivery areas in Los Angeles County prepared one plan
for the entire county. According to a state official, as of September 30,
1998, 22 individuals were enrolled in welfare-to-work formula grant
programs statewide.
In California, the local service delivery areas are responsible for
Activities and Target developing welfare-to-work programs to meet their communities’
Populations demographic and workforce needs. California’s state plan noted that given
the diversity of the state’s local service delivery areas, no one service
strategy could be effectively applied statewide. A state official explained
that urban areas with many employment opportunities may choose to
focus heavily on work experiences in the private sector. On the other
hand, rural areas, with fewer employers, may rely heavily on community
service work experiences in their welfare-to-work programs.
California allocated 85 percent, or $161,854,660, of the federal formula
Substate Formula grant to the local service delivery areas using the following formula:
Allocations 55-percent weight was given to the number of people with incomes below
Page 40 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VI
California’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the service delivery area
population; 15-percent weight was given to the number of unemployed
people in the service delivery area; and 30-percent weight was given to the
number of adults receiving welfare for at least 30 months in the service
delivery area. This formula was developed to ensure that all local areas
would receive the $100,000 federally required minimum allocation.
California limited local service delivery areas to an administrative cost cap
of 13 percent.
Page 41 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VI
California’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Table VI.1: California’s Substate
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Federal Federal
Allocations formula fund formula fund
Service delivery area allocation Service delivery area allocation
Alameda $1,520,686 Orange $3,710,069
Anaheim 1,189,382 Richmond 659,692
Butte 1,264,767 Riverside 5,854,845
Carson/Lomita/Torrance 525,315 Sacramento 6,387,277
Contra Costa 1,114,932 San Benito 182,595
Foothill 1,248,269 San Bernardino City 2,143,859
Fresno 7,454,107 San Bernardino County 6,968,031
Golden Sierra 812,364 San Diego 11,837,010
Humboldt 698,513 San Francisco 2,367,832
Imperial 1,600,430 San Joaquin 3,455,691
Kern/Inyo/Mono 4,567,951 San Luis Obispo 628,217
Kings 756,657 San Mateo 524,928
Long Beach 3,792,464 Santa Ana 2,357,717
Los Angeles City 32,080,060 Santa Barbara 1,315,774
Los Angeles County 22,153,146 Santa Clara 2,774,645
Madera 759,106 Santa Cruz 872,717
Marin 185,201 Southeast Los Angeles 1,414,751
County
Mendocino 465,475 Shasta 924,260
Merced 1,888,102 Solano 986,910
Monterey 1,629,955 Sonoma 940,612
Mother Lode 443,480 South Bay 2,136,470
Napa 209,898 Stanislaus 2,659,779
Northern Rural Training 1,179,503 Tulare 3,603,117
and Employment
Consortium
North Central Counties 1,620,726 Ventura 1,818,111
North Santa Clara Valley 340,448 Verdugo 2,080,540
Job Training Consortium
Oakland 3,013,624 Yolo 734,648
Totala $161,854,660
Note: This table does not include state matching funds because the state match was
appropriated to the California Department of Social Services to be allocated among the state’s
county welfare departments for welfare-to-work activities.
a
Total does not add because of rounding.
Source: California State Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Plan.
Page 42 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VI
California’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
The governor’s welfare-to-work discretionary funds, 15 percent of the
Governor’s formula funds, totaled $28,562,587. With $23 million of these funds, as
Discretionary Funds shown in table VI.2, the state funded 24 projects throughout the state that
were selected on a competitive basis. The state required that the proposed
use of these discretionary funds be coordinated with local workforce
preparation and welfare reform partners, and applicants were encouraged
to develop linkages with businesses, economic development practitioners,
and supportive service agencies. Consequently, the grantees will use the
funds in conjunction with other local resources to support a mix of the
federally allowable welfare-to-work employment activities and services as
determined by the local community.
Page 43 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VI
California’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Table VI.2: Projects Awarded
Governor’s Welfare-to-Work Awardee Location Award amount
Discretionary Funds Through Asian American Drug Abuse Program, Inc. Los Angeles $785,280
Competition in California
Amador-Tuolumne Community Action Agency Jackson 660,118
Chrysalis Los Angeles 1,095,436
Community Career Development, Inc. Los Angeles 1,570,560
Contra Costa County Social Service Department Martinez 784,031
El Dorado County Department of Social Placerville 942,415
Services
Fresno County Economic Opportunities Fresno 1,583,158
Commission
Goodwill Industries of Southern California Los Angeles 1,005,168
Housing Authority of San Bernardino County San Bernardino 942,336
Human Resources Agency of Santa Cruz Santa Cruz 785,280
County
Joint Efforts, Inc. San Pedro 785,280
Kern County Bakersfield 785,280
Labor’s Community Services Agency San Diego 488,904
Learning Center of Tehama County Red Bluff 1,089,600
Mendocino County Social Services Department Ukiah 728,650
North Santa Clara Valley Job Training Sunnyvale 866,244
Consortium
Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment Los Angeles 785,280
Rubicon Programs, Inc. Richmond 664,893
Sacramento County Department of Human Sacramento 808,917
Assistance
San Diego Housing Commission San Diego 1,439,057
San Joaquin County Private Industry Council Stockton 1,091,121
South Bay Center for Counseling El Segundo 783,709
Vietnamese Community of Orange County Santa Ana 954,129
Youth Employment Partnership, Inc. Oakland 1,575,154
Total $23,000,000
Source: California Employment Development Department.
An additional $1.5 million of the governor’s discretionary funds was
awarded through a competitive process to six regional collaboratives to
promote and encourage education and leadership through a cooperative
process. The six award recipients included Humboldt County, Ventura
County, San Joaquin County, East Bay Works, Los Angeles County
Collaborative, and the Inland Empire. The remaining $4,062,587 in
Page 44 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VI
California’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
governor’s welfare-to-work discretionary funds will be used by the state
for welfare-to-work administration.
Recognizing that local performance goals may differ somewhat from those
Performance Goals in the state plan, California set three performance goals for the
welfare-to-work program as benchmarks to assist the state in providing
technical assistance to local areas. California’s initial formula grant
program performance goals for the first year include (1) a placement rate,
(2) a follow-up employment rate, and (3) a follow-up increase in earnings
goal. In 1997, California had an average caseload of about 830,000, some of
whom will be provided assistance under welfare-to-work. The state goals
for welfare-to-work are to place a minimum of 45 percent of
welfare-to-work program participants in unsubsidized employment; of
those placed, a minimum of 70 percent should be employed 6 months after
placement, and their average weekly wage at a 6-month follow-up should
increase by 10 percent over the average weekly wage at placement. The
state required that local plans describe local performance goals for
placements, job retention, and increased earnings.
Page 45 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VII
Massachusetts’ Welfare-to-Work Formula
Grant Program for Fiscal Year 1998
In Massachusetts, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development is
the welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and its quasi-public subentity,
the Corporation for Business, Work and Learning, is the state
welfare-to-work administering entity. Massachusetts submitted its
welfare-to-work plan on January 7, 1998. On February 25, 1998, Labor
awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state totaling
$20,692,295. The state assured $10,346,148 in state matching funds over the
3-year grant period, specifically assuring $5 million for 1998. According to
a state official, this match is from funds previously appropriated by the
state legislature for adult basic education and child care programs; the
matching funds will be used to serve welfare-to-work-eligible participants
through these programs.
In Massachusetts, each of the 16 Regional Employment Boards10 was
required to submit a “preplan” proposing local welfare-to-work strategies,
and these plans were incorporated into the state welfare-to-work plan.
Once Labor awarded the formula grant, the state required the Regional
Employment Boards to submit final plans containing additional details
such as local performance goals. According to a state official, the state had
approved all of the local plans by April 1998 and, as of September 30, 1998,
434 individuals were enrolled in welfare-to-work formula grant programs
statewide out of the target population of 7,000 likely to lose cash benefits
by December 1, 1998.
The state planned to use welfare-to-work funds to target and assist welfare
Activities and Target recipients facing the most significant barriers to employment. The state’s
Populations welfare-to-work program focused on serving welfare recipients nearing
the state-imposed 24-month deadline for cash assistance. A state official
said that about 7,000 welfare recipients in Massachusetts were expected to
lose cash assistance benefits as of December 1, 1998. Within the state
focus, the local service delivery areas may further specify the target
population and choose the mix of services most appropriate for their
area’s needs.
The state plans to spend at least 70 percent of formula funds on the
hardest-to-employ long-term welfare recipients as required by law and up
to 30 percent of the grant funds on individuals with characteristics of
long-term welfare recipients. According to a state official, Massachusetts’
welfare-to-work program staff are finding it easier to initially enroll all
10
In Massachusetts, the Regional Employment Boards are the Private Industry Councils. The difference
is that the Regional Employment Boards are given responsibility for overseeing the assistance
provided by a number of programs, in addition to JTPA, that the Private Industry Councils oversee.
Page 46 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VII
Massachusetts’ Welfare-to-Work Formula
Grant Program for Fiscal Year 1998
participants under the 30-percent expenditure category (long-term welfare
recipient). In order to enroll participants under the 70-percent expenditure
category (those determined to be the hardest to employ), additional
testing is necessary to verify eligibility characteristics. Although state and
local officials are confident that there are enough people with the
necessary characteristics to satisfy the 70-percent requirement, they note
that the additional assessment needed for their eligibility determination is
expensive and time consuming.
Massachusetts allocated 85 percent of the federal formula grant, or
Substate Formula $17,588,452, to the local service delivery areas using the following formula:
Allocations 50-percent weight was given to the number of people with incomes below
the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the service delivery area
population; 10-percent weight was given to the number of unemployed
people in the service delivery area; and 40-percent weight was given to the
number of long-term welfare recipients in the service delivery area having
received assistance for at least 30 months. By the substate formula, all of
the areas received more than the required $100,000 minimum; however,
the state decided to allot a minimum of $400,000 to each local area.
Consequently, as shown in table VII.1, $524,808 of the governor’s
welfare-to-work discretionary funds were used to increase the allocations
for five local service delivery areas to this level. According to a state
official, the Regional Employment Boards may use no more than
12.23 percent of their grants for welfare-to-work administrative purposes.
Page 47 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VII
Massachusetts’ Welfare-to-Work Formula
Grant Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Table VII.1: Massachusetts’ Substate
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Federal formula Governor’s fund Total federal
Allocations Service delivery area fund allocation allocation funding
Berkshire County $280,805 $119,195 $400,000
Boston 5,927,502 N/A 5,927,502
Bristol County 566,464 N/A 566,464
Brockton 498,272 N/A 498,272
Cape Cod and Islands 193,764 206,236 400,000
Franklin/Hampshire 640,600 N/A 640,600
Hampden County 2,997,136 N/A 2,997,136
Lower Merrimack Valley 1,253,900 N/A 1,253,900
Metro-North 821,102 N/A 821,102
Metropolitan South West 373,313 26,687 400,000
New Bedford 1,005,099 N/A 1,005,099
Northern Middlesex 634,865 N/A 634,865
Northern Worcester 263,537 136,463 400,000
South Coastal 363,773 36,227 400,000
Southern Essex 671,190 N/A 671,190
Southern Worcester 1,097,130 N/A 1,097,130
Total $17,588,452 $524,808 $18,113,260
Notes: This table does not include state matching funds because the state match is from funds
previously appropriated by the state legislature for state adult basic education and child care
programs; the matching funds will be used to serve welfare-to-work-eligible participants through
these programs. However, the table does include governor’s discretionary funds that were
allocated to five local service delivery areas to raise their allocations up to the $400,000
state-imposed minimum funding level for welfare-to-work programs.
N/A = not applicable.
Source: Massachusetts Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
The governor’s welfare-to-work discretionary funds, 15 percent of the
Governor’s formula funds, totaled $3,103,843. The state planned to use these funds for
Discretionary Funds the following purposes: $524,808 to subsidize the five service delivery
areas allocated the lowest amount of welfare-to-work formula funding;
$165,000 to the Corporation for Business, Work and Learning to provide an
information system technology upgrade capable of handling interagency
welfare-to-work data; $718,562 for state welfare-to-work administration;
and $1,695,473 for the Department of Transitional Assistance to
supplement its program of assessment and structured employment
assistance.
Page 48 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VII
Massachusetts’ Welfare-to-Work Formula
Grant Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Although specific, numeric performance goals were not included in the
Performance Goals state plan, the state proposed to serve 3,979 welfare-to-work participants
and will measure placement in private sector employment, placement in
any employment, the duration of placement, and increases in earnings.
The state required each local service delivery area to specify performance
goals based on these measurements.
Page 49 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VIII
Michigan’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
In Michigan, the Michigan Jobs Commission is the welfare-to-work federal
grant recipient and state administering entity. Michigan submitted its
welfare-to-work plan on December 11, 1997. On January 29, 1998, Labor
awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state totaling
$42,226,331. The state assured $21,113,166 in matching funds over the
3-year grant period. According to a state official, this match was
appropriated by the state legislature, and $10 million was appropriated
through September 30, 1998.
Michigan required its 25 local service delivery areas to submit two local
plans for state review and approval: one for the federal formula grant
funds and another for state matching funds appropriated by the state
legislature. According to a state official, all of the local plans were
approved by September 4, 1998, and, as of September 30, 1998, about 340
individuals were enrolled in welfare-to-work formula grant programs
statewide.
The state planned to use welfare-to-work funds primarily to serve
Activities and Target noncustodial parents. On July 1, 1998, Michigan instituted a statewide
Populations noncustodial parent program and, depending on their eligibility, these
parents may be served with welfare-to-work funds. To increase child
support payments, Michigan’s state plan emphasized serving unemployed
noncustodial parents who have child support payments in arrears and
whose dependents are receiving TANF assistance; the failure of
noncustodial parents to participate in the welfare-to-work program
without good cause could lead to their incarceration. Local service
delivery areas must devote 50 percent of their welfare-to-work grant funds
to assist this population. Michigan distributed its governor’s discretionary
formula funds to the local areas, providing them with more funding to
meet their noncustodial parent expenditure goal. Furthermore, the courts
will identify and refer eligible participants to welfare-to-work programs.
Within this state focus on noncustodial parents, the local service delivery
areas designed their own strategies for the use of welfare-to-work funds,
including services to the hardest-to-employ TANF clients referred to
welfare-to-work programs by the state welfare agency. For all
welfare-to-work participants, the state plan emphasized vigorous case
management during the first 90 days of employment to ensure employment
retention.
Page 50 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VIII
Michigan’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Michigan allocated all of the $42,226,331 federal formula grant to the local
Substate Allocations service delivery areas using the following formula: 50-percent weight was
given to the number of people with incomes below the poverty level in
excess of 7.5 percent of the service delivery area population, and
50-percent weight was given to the number of welfare recipients in the
service delivery area who had received assistance for at least 30 months.
Along with the federal formula funds, Michigan obligated $19,212,981 in
state matching funds to the local service delivery areas, for a total of
$61,439,312, using the same formula applied to the federal funds. Although
two local service delivery areas were allocated less than $100,000 by
formula, as shown in table VIII.1, the state provided them with their
formula allocations of both federal and state welfare-to-work funds.
Michigan planned to use 9 percent ($1,900,185) of the state matching funds
for welfare-to-work administration; service delivery areas may spend up to
15 percent of their allocations on welfare-to-work administration.
Page 51 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VIII
Michigan’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Table VIII.1: Michigan’s Substate
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Total
Allocations Federal formula welfare-to-work
Service delivery area fund allocationa Match allocation funds allocated
Region 7B $796,073 $362,214 $1,158,287
Calhoun ISD 882,675 401,617 1,284,292
Saginaw/Midland/Bay 2,340,684 1,065,012 3,405,696
Berrien/Cass/Van Buren 1,376,057 626,106 2,002,163
The Job Force 456,446 207,683 664,129
City of Detroit 16,073,065 7,313,244 23,386,309
Eastern U.P. 189,105 86,043 275,148
Career Alliance 3,475,444 1,581,327 5,056,771
CAPC 727,984 331,232 1,059,216
Thumb Area 522,321 237,656 759,977
Kalamazoo/St. Joseph 870,407 396,035 1,266,442
West Central 648,456 295,048 943,504
Lansing Tri-County 1,091,952 496,838 1,588,790
Macomb/St. Clair 890,831 405,328 1,296,159
Muskegon/Oceana 1,063,814 484,035 1,547,849
Northeast 477,161 217,108 694,269
Northwest 571,142 259,870 831,012
Oakland County 1,218,317 554,335 1,772,652
Western U.P. 337,368 153,503 490,871
Livingston 23,681 10,775 34,456
Washtenaw 418,295 190,324 608,619
SEMCA 5,498,733 2,501,923 8,000,656
Ottowa 42,987 19,559 62,546
ACSET/Allegan 1,362,353 619,870 1,982,223
South Central 870,980 396,296 1,267,276
Total $42,226,331 $19,212,981 $61,439,312
a
The federal formula fund allocation numbers include both the substate formula funds and the
governor’s discretionary funds, which are 85 percent and 15 percent of the total federal
welfare-to-work award, respectively.
Source: Michigan Jobs Commission.
Michigan allocated 100 percent of the federal formula grant funds to the
Governor’s local service delivery areas. The state retained none of the allowable
Discretionary Funds 15 percent governor’s discretionary funds ($6,333,950) at the state level.
Page 52 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix VIII
Michigan’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Performance goals were not included in the state plan, but Michigan
Performance Goals planned to measure duration of placement into unsubsidized employment,
increased child support collection, and earnings, measured after 90 days of
employment and other times throughout the year.
Page 53 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IX
New York’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
In New York, the Department of Labor is the welfare-to-work federal grant
recipient and state administering entity. New York submitted its
welfare-to-work plan on June 29, 1998. On September 11, 1998, Labor
awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state totaling
$96,886,094. The state assured $48,443,047 in state matching funds over the
3-year grant period. According to a state official, the state provided half of
the state match through a legislative appropriation and required local
service delivery areas to provide the remaining half of the state match
through in-kind or cash contributions.
New York requested that an alternate agency be designated to administer
the welfare-to-work program in 2 of its 33 service delivery areas. The
Secretary of Labor granted waivers for these two areas, and the
welfare-to-work program is administered by the human services agencies
for New York City and the Syracuse/Onondaga area. The state required
these two human services agencies and the remaining 31 Private Industry
Councils to submit plans proposing local welfare-to-work strategies and
incorporated these plans in the New York State welfare-to-work plan. As
of September 30, 1998, a state official said that most of the local areas
were designing their welfare-to-work eligibility determination processes in
conjunction with the local social services departments, but none of the
local areas had reported enrollments of welfare-to-work participants in the
formula grant program.
New York’s state plan for formula funds proposed a general focus on
Activities and Target improving the connection to work, providing postemployment assistance,
Populations and serving the needs and requirements of employers. The state plan
emphasized serving individuals with disabilities, many of whom have
experienced long-term welfare dependency but are no longer exempt from
work requirements. Within these state initiatives, the local service delivery
areas may further specify the target population and choose the mix of
services most appropriate for their area needs.
New York allocated 85 percent, or $82,353,180, of the federal formula grant
Substate Formula to the local service delivery areas using the following formula: 50-percent
Allocations weight was given to the number of people with incomes below the poverty
level in excess of 7.5 percent of the service delivery area population,
25-percent weight was given to the number of long-term welfare recipients
in the service delivery area having received assistance for at least 30
months, and 25-percent weight was given to the number of unemployed
Page 54 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IX
New York’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
people in the service delivery area. By using this formula, as shown in
table IX.1, all of the service delivery areas in New York qualified for more
than $100,000 in formula funds. Local areas can use up to 15 percent of
their funding for administrative costs.
Table IX.1: New York’s Substate Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Allocations
Federal formula State match Local in-kind or Total funds available
Service delivery area fund allocation allocation cash match for welfare-to-work
Oyster Bay $406,989 $101,747 $101,747 $610,483
Hempstead/Long Beach 697,284 174,321 174,321 1,045,926
Suffolk County 1,501,134 375,284 375,284 2,251,702
New York City 58,483,523a 14,620,881 14,620,881 87,725,285
Yonkers City 694,484 173,621 173,621 1,041,726
Westchester County Balance 787,626 196,907 196,907 1,181,440
Rockland County 364,907 91,227 91,227 547,361
Dutchess/Putnam 315,083 78,771 78,771 472,625
Orange County 698,684 174,671 174,671 1,048,026
Ulster County 331,636 82,909 82,909 497,454
a
Sullivan County 246,071 61,518 61,518 369,107
Albany/Rensselaer/Schenectady 1,270,215 317,554 317,554 1,905,323
Columbia/Greene 257,107 64,277 64,277 385,661
Fulton/Montgomery/Schoharie 426,013 106,503 106,503 639,019
Saratoga/Warren/Washington 455,907 113,977 113,977 683,861
Clinton/Essex/Franklin/Hamilton 618,555 154,639 154,639 927,833
Jefferson/Lewis 493,460 123,365 123,365 740,190
St. Lawrence County 512,484 128,121 128,121 768,726
Herkimer/Madison/Oneida 1,051,568 262,892 262,892 1,577,352
Broome/Tioga/Tompkins 842,144 210,536 210,536 1,263,216
Chenango/Delaware/Otsego 457,801 114,450 114,450 686,701
Cayuga/Cortland 384,836 96,209 96,209 577,254
Syracuse/Onondaga 1,238,839 309,710 309,710 1,858,259
Oswego County 391,178 97,795 97,795 586,768
Chemung/Schuyler/Steuben 674,720 168,680 168,680 1,012,080
Ontario/Seneca/Wayne/Yates 480,778 120,195 120,195 721,168
Rochester City 1,926,488 481,622 481,622 2,889,732
Monroe County Balance 420,825 105,206 105,206 631,237
Genesee/Livingston/Orleans/Wyoming 438,531 109,633 109,633 657,797
Niagara County 680,567 170,142 170,142 1,020,851
Buffalo/Erie/Cheektowaga/Tonawanda 3,676,328 919,082 919,082 5,514,492
(continued)
Page 55 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IX
New York’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Federal formula State match Local in-kind or Total funds available
Service delivery area fund allocation allocation cash match for welfare-to-work
Allegany/Cattaraugus 557,202 139,301 139,301 835,804
Chautauqua County 570,213 142,553 142,553 855,319
b
Total $82,353,180 $20,588,299 $20,588,299 $123,529,778
Note: The state provided half of the matching funds through a legislative appropriation and
required local service delivery areas to provide the remaining half of the matching funds through
in-kind or cash contributions.
a
Through the federal formula fund allocation to substate areas, New York City received
$58,483,523 and Sullivan County received $246,071. However, these two service delivery areas
applied for and received additional federal welfare-to-work funding through the governor’s
discretionary funds, amounting to $2,168,000 for New York City and $61,000 for Sullivan County.
These amounts are not included here.
b
Numbers may not add because of rounding.
Source: New York State Department of Labor.
New York planned to use the governor’s discretionary funds, 15 percent of
Governor’s the formula funds or $14,532,914, for several purposes, awarding grants to
Discretionary Funds a variety of organizations—some to supplement allocations to service
delivery areas, others to independent organizations. The largest amount of
funding, $8.5 million, was allocated to a multiagency effort called the New
York Works Employment Retention and Advancement program for
innovative projects to serve “work-limited” individuals, such as people
with mental illness, substance abusers, and people with disabilities.
Through this program, the state will fund, on a competitive selection basis,
as many projects as possible, with awards ranging from a $50,000
minimum to an $850,000 maximum. These projects will provide specific
services to move clients into employment and provide postemployment
services to help working participants keep their jobs and increase their
earnings.
New York also planned to use $2,229,000 of the governor’s funds for grants
to two local service delivery areas. Although all of the local service
delivery areas in the state had the opportunity to obtain additional
welfare-to-work moneys from the governor’s discretionary funds, only two
applied. New York City and Sullivan County, the service delivery areas
with the highest and lowest formula grants, received $2,168,000 and
$61,000, respectively. New York’s client information campaign received
$3,271,000 of the funds for projects designed to help clients make
informed employment choices while transitioning off welfare. These
Page 56 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix IX
New York’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
projects include an update of the state’s resource guide, a faith-based
initiative, a CD-ROM, teleconferences, and an agreement with the state’s
Department of Transportation print shop for printed materials. Finally,
about $500,000 was designated for the Office of Alcohol and Substance
Abuse Services to provide services for welfare-to-work-eligible substance
abusers.
The state planned to place 38 percent of the those who receive assistance
Performance Goals through the welfare-to-work grant program in unsubsidized jobs;
furthermore, the state planned that of those placed, 46 percent are to
continue to be employed after 6 months and to have an increase in
earnings of $214 over this time period.
Page 57 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix X
Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
In Wisconsin, the Department of Workforce Development is the
welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and state administering entity.
Wisconsin submitted its welfare-to-work plan on April 13, 1998. On June
15, 1998, Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state
totaling $12,885,951.11 Collectively, the state and local service delivery
areas assured $6,442,976 in state matching funds over the 3-year grant
period. According to a state official, local service delivery areas were
required to match their federal allocations, and recipients of the
governor’s discretionary funds matched their allocations.
Wisconsin required its 11 local administrative entities to submit local
welfare-to-work plans for state review and approval.12 One local service
delivery area chose not to submit a plan.13 According to a state official, as
of September 30, 1998, no welfare-to-work participants had been enrolled
statewide in formula grant programs.
Wisconsin planned to target noncustodial parents with its formula grant
Activities and Target funds and, because its TANF caseload is low, the state also proposed to
Populations assist individuals receiving TANF child care subsidies rather than cash
assistance. A state official explained that for working families, child care
subsidies are considered TANF payments, making recipients eligible for
welfare-to-work as long-term TANF recipients. Within the state’s focus, the
local service delivery areas may further specify the target population and
choose the mix of services most appropriate for their area’s needs.
Wisconsin allocated local service delivery area funding from 85 percent, or
Substate Formula $10,953,058, of the federal grant using the following formula: 50-percent
Allocations weight was given to the number of people with incomes below the poverty
level in excess of 7.5 percent of the service delivery area population, and
11
On April 20, 1998, Wisconsin submitted a written request to Labor for $12,711,210 in federal
welfare-to-work funds. This amount reflected a reduction from the state’s federal formula allotment to
account for $174,741 in welfare-to-work funds declined by one of the local service delivery areas. On
June 1, 1998, the state sent Labor a letter transmitting its signed grant agreement requesting the full
$12,885,951. Although the service delivery area still declined to accept the funds, the state requested
that the full amount be awarded to the state so that it could allocate maximum funding to all local
jurisdictions. Wisconsin obligated all its formula funds except for the $174,741, which the state plans
to return to Labor.
12
Wisconsin is encouraging its Private Industry Councils to expand their focus and convert to
Workforce Development Boards. Thus, depending on the area, the local administrative entity for the
welfare-to-work program may be either a Private Industry Council or a Workforce Development Board.
13
Prior to July 1, 1998, Marathon County, North Central, and Central were separate service delivery
areas but were then combined into a single Workforce Development Area called North Central. Before
the restructuring, the Central portion declined to participate in the welfare-to-work program.
Page 58 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix X
Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
50-percent weight was given to the number of long-term welfare recipients
in the service delivery area having received assistance for at least 30
months. Since one service delivery area could not obtain matching funds
for its allocation of $174,741 and chose not to participate in the
welfare-to-work program, Wisconsin deducted this amount from the total
substate funds available and allocated $10,778,317 of the federal funds
among the remaining delivery areas, as shown in table X.1. Two local
service delivery areas, Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington and Marathon
County, qualified for less than the $100,000 federally required minimum;
consequently, their allocations reverted to the governor’s discretionary
funds before being issued to the two local areas. Local service delivery
areas may use up to 15 percent of their welfare-to-work funds for
administrative costs.
Page 59 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix X
Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Table X.1: Wisconsin’s Substate
Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Federal
Allocations formula Local match Total funds available
Service delivery area allocation allocation for welfare-to-work
Southeastern $527,326 $263,663 $790,989
Fox Valley (Northern Lake
Winnebago and
Winne-Fond-Lake) 136,811 68,406 205,217
Marathon Countya 76,644 38,322 114,966
South Central (Dane County
and South Central) 287,479 143,740 431,219
Northwest 441,405 220,703 662,108
Centrala 0 0 0
West Central 486,902 243,451 730,353
Waukesha-Ozaukee-
Washington 64,216 32,108 96,324
North Centrala 155,832 77,916 233,748
Bay Area (Northeastern and
Lake Michigan) 364,646 182,323 546,969
Southwest (Southwest and
Rock County) 337,801 168,901 506,702
Western 473,712 236,856 710,568
Milwaukee 7,425,543 3,712,772 11,138,315
Totalb $10,778,317 $5,389,159 $16,167,476
Note: This table does not show state matching funds because local service delivery areas in
Wisconsin were required to match their federal allocations.
a
Since the Central portion of the new North Central service delivery area declined to participate in
the welfare-to-work program, North Central’s other two portions—Marathon County and North
Central—were funded as separate entities under welfare-to-work. Therefore, although the state
technically has only 11 service delivery areas, 13 service delivery areas are listed in this table,
including North Central’s three subsections.
b
Totals may not add because of rounding.
Source: Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development.
The governor’s discretionary welfare-to-work funds, 15 percent of the
Governor’s formula fund allocation, totaled $1,932,893 and are planned to be used for
Discretionary Funds a variety of purposes, many independent of the service delivery areas. For
example, $1,092,959 was awarded to the state’s Department of Corrections
to provide employment assistance to noncustodial parents in correctional
institutions, on parole, or on probation; $180,000 to the state’s Bureau of
Apprenticeship Standards for an apprenticeship program; $90,000 to the
Page 60 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix X
Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
United Migrant Opportunity Services for projects serving migrants and
seasonal farmworkers in rural areas; $180,000 to be allocated among 8
projects serving Southeast Asian immigrants; $100,000 to the state’s
Division of Economic Support to modify its data support system; $100,000
to the Division of Workforce Excellence for welfare-to-work
administration; and $189,934 to the Division of Economic Support to hire
research analysts. Additionally, the allocations for the two local service
delivery areas that received under $100,000 were temporarily added to the
governor’s discretionary funds and were reallocated to the two local areas.
A state official said that Wisconsin did not include specific, numeric
Performance Goals performance goals in its state plan, but the service delivery areas have
local goals that are similar to their JTPA performance measures. Wisconsin
had approximately 30,000 TANF recipients in 1997, some of whom will
receive assistance from welfare-to-work. Of those who receive assistance
from welfare-to-work, the goal is for a significant percentage to obtain
unsubsidized employment, ranging from 40 percent in Milwaukee to
80 percent in other areas of the state; of those placed in unsubsidized
employment, duration goals range from 40 percent of participants
remaining employed after 3 months in Milwaukee to 70 percent remaining
employed after 12 months in areas with lower unemployment; and for
wage increases, the goal is that participants will experience a countable
increase in earnings, such as the goal of a 40-percent wage increase over
previous wage levels in Milwaukee, with starting wages as high as $7.75 an
hour.
Page 61 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix X
Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Page 62 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Appendix X
Wisconsin’s Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant
Program for Fiscal Year 1998
Page 63 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Related GAO Products
Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program
(GAO/RCED-99-36, Dec. 8, 1998).
Welfare Reform: Early Fiscal Effects of the TANF Block Grant
(GAO/AIMD-98-137, Aug. 18, 1998).
Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare
Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998).
Welfare Reform: Transportation’s Role in Moving From Welfare to Work
(GAO/RCED-98-161, May 29, 1998).
(205362) Page 64 GAO/HEHS-99-40 Welfare-to-Work Grants
Ordering Information
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.
For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov
or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov
PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 GAO
Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested
Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States' Use of Welfare-to-Work Grants
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1999-02-05.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)