Overview of Evaluation
Conducted By
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
The Urban Institute
Support Services International, Inc.
Under Contract to the
U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services
with support from the
U.S. Department of Labor and the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, and the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) program it created, made moving people from welfare to work a primary
goal of federal welfare policy. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 furthered
this goal, authorizing the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to award $3 billion
in welfare-to-work grants to states and local communities to promote job
opportunities and employment preparation for the hardest-to-employ recipients
of TANF and for noncustodial parents of children on TANF. Grants are awarded
directly by DOL on a competitive basis to programs in local communities with
innovative welfare-to-work approaches, and through states, on a formula basis,
to the Private Industry Councils or equivalent bodies in all JTPA service
delivery areas (now Workforce Investment Boards, under the Workforce Investment
Act, which replaced JTPA).
The authorizing law instructed the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(DHHS) to evaluate the DOL Welfare-to-Work Grants Program (WtW), including
those undertaken by formula and competitive grantees and by American Indian
and Alaska Native tribal organizations. DHHS, in conjunction with the Departments
of Labor and Housing and Urban Development, originally designed an evaluation
to address five questions:
-
What are the types and packages of services provided by WtW grantees?
How do they compare to services already available under TANF or JTPA/WIA
funding?
-
What are the effects of various WtW program approaches on employment and
on families well-being?
-
What challenges are confronted as grantees implement and operate WtW programs?
-
Do the benefits of WtW programs outweigh their costs?
-
How well do Workforce Investment Boards and other non-TANF
organizations the primary vehicles for funding and operating
WtW programs meet the challenge of implementing WtW programs
for the hardest-to-employ?
In August 1998, DHHS awarded a contract for the evaluation to Mathematica
Policy Research, Inc. (MPR) and its subcontractors, the Urban Institute and
Support Services International, Inc.
The design of the evaluation has evolved somewhat since its inception, in
large part because of the long start-up of WtW programs. Under a modified
design adopted by DHHS, the evaluation plan now includes three main components:
-
A Descriptive Assessment of All WtW Grantees. A mail survey
of all grantees in 1998 and 1999 provided a basis for examining program designs
and activities, target populations, characteristics of participants,
and to the extent that they were available from grantees
themselves placement outcomes. (See the April 2000 report based
on these surveys, titled Further
Progress, Persistent Constraints.)
-
In-Depth Process and Implementation Study. Two rounds of structured
site visits were conducted to local programs of eleven grantees, selected
because of their innovative approaches, settings, or target groups, or because
they are typical of some of the more common WtW interventions. The aim was
to identify implementation issues, challenges and lessons. A January 2001
report was issued based on the first round of in-depth visits conducted in
1999-2000, titled Program Structure and Service Delivery in Eleven
Welfare-to-Work Grant Programs. Upcoming reports will examine in greater
detail the operation of these eleven programs and program costs.
-
Study of Participant Outcomes. In eleven grantee sites, follow-up
data are being collected through 12- and 24-month follow-up surveys and
administrative data, for analysis of participants, program activities, services
received, and welfare and employment outcomes. Findings on participant outcomes
will be reported in 2003.
In addition to this core evaluation, a special process and implementation
study focuses on tribal programs. It documents welfare and employment systems
operated by American Indian and Alaska Native WtW grantees, the supportive
services they provide, and how tribes integrate funds from various sources
to move their members from welfare to work.
-
National Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work
Grants Program: Final Report, September 2004.
-
Targeted Help for the Hard-to-Employ:
Outcomes of Two Philadelphia Welfare-to-Work Programs, September
2004.
-
Unemployment Insurance as a Potential Safety
Net for TANF Leavers: Evidence from Five States, September
2004.
-
Overcoming Challenges to Business and
Economic Development in Indian Country, August 2004.
American Indian tribes and Alaska Native villages have embraced the goals,
objectives, and programs associated with welfare reform, but the lack of
jobs limits the success of tribal programs such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) and Welfare-to-Work (WtW). The lack of jobs is one
of the biggest problems in Indian Country. Recognizing the scope and importance
of this problem, the federal government has promoted business and economic
development (BD/ED) in Indian country. This report presents findings from
a Mathematica study, done under the WtW evaluation, of economic development
initiatives in eight tribes (Cheyenne River Sioux, Citizen Potawatomi, Colville
Confederated Tribes, Gila River, Mississippi Choctaw, Navajo Nation, Three
Affiliated Tribes, and Turtle Mountain Chippewa) and two Alaska Native
corporations (Bristol Bay Native Corporation and Doyon Limited).
-
The Welfare-to-Work Grants Program:
Enrollee Outcomes One Year After Program Entry, Report to Congress,
February 2004
This report is the second of two reports to Congress from HHS' congressionally
mandated evaluation of the US Dept. of Labor's Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants
Program. The report presents findings from the outcomes analysis component
of the evaluation, and describes the characteristics and subsequent experiences
of enrollees in WtW programs in 11 study sites. Main findings address the
characteristics of program enrollees; the nature of the services they received;
and their outcomes in terms of employment, hours worked, wage rates, job
benefits, TANF receipt and poverty status.
(in PDF format)
-
Welfare-to-Work Grants Programs: Adjusting to
Changing Circumstances, November 2003
This report provides an update on the status of WtW program operations and
post-WtW plans for the eleven evaluation study sites as the five-year grant
periods draw to a close. The report highlights the extent of ongoing enrollment,
the ways in which grantees have adapted to a variety of economic and policy
changes that have occurred since the beginning of the program, and grantees'
perceptions of the value of the program.
-
Giving Noncustodial Parents Options: Employment
and Child Support Outcomes of the SHARE Program, October 2003.
The Support Has A Rewarding Effect
(SHARE) initiative operated with Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grant support
in three counties in the state of Washington. SHARE offered three
options to noncustodial parents (NCP) whose minor, dependent children were
receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and who were in
arrears on their support obligations: (1) start paying support, (2) enroll
in a WtW program, or (3) face possible incarceration. The main objective
of this study was to examine the employment, earnings, and child support
outcomes for targeted NCPs.
-
Operating TANF: Opportunities and
Challenges for Tribes and Tribal Consortia, August 2003.
This report is the latest product from the tribal component of HHS'
congressionally mandated evaluation of DOL's Welfare-to-Work Grants Program.
The report describes the challenges and successes of ten tribal grantees
in planning, implementing, and operating tribal TANF, the tribal welfare
program with the most participants and the largest budget. Main findings
address the process by which tribes make the decision to operate a tribal
TANF program, the importance of a coordinated TANF plan, strategies for
transitioning the program from state to tribal control, administrative and
reporting challenges, and successes in adapting the program to reflect tribal
cultural needs and values. The report should be helpful to any tribe implementing
or considering a tribal TANF program.
-
Understanding the Costs of the DOL Welfare-to-Work
Grants Program, August 2002.
This report examines the costs of selected WtW programs. The main objectives
of the WtW cost analysis were to understand the cost structure of these programs
and factors that influenced their costs. Program evaluators and planners
should find this information useful in assessing the outcomes of WtW programs
and in making decisions about future programs with similar objectives.
-
The Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work
Grants Program, August 2002.
The report presents findings from the process and implementation analysis
component of the evaluation, and describes the service delivery operations
of programs funded with WtW grants in eleven study sites. This report is
based on (1) information collected through two rounds of site visits in 1999
and 2001, and (2) management information system data maintained by the programs
on participants and services.
-
Program Structure and Service Delivery in Eleven Welfare-to-Work Grant
Programs, January 2001. This interim report from the evaluation documents
the implementation, structure, and operations of WtW grant-funded programs
in the eleven study sites included in the evaluation, as they existed in
mid-2000.
-
Further Progress, Persistent
Constraints: Findings from a Second Survey of the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program, June 2000.
This report presents the latest findings from HHS congressionally mandated
evaluation of the Department of Labors Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program. Based on a survey of all WtW grantees conducted from November
1999 to February 2000, it provides descriptive information on the status
of WtW programs, enrollment levels, job placements, and service
structures. This descriptive assessment is one of several components
of the overall evaluation, which will also include a process and implementation
study that will identify implementation issues and challenges and participant
outcomes, and a separate process study of tribal WtW grantees.
-
Early Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work
Grants Program: Findings From Exploratory Site Visits and
Review of Program Plans, February 2000.
This report, one of several to be issued under the evaluation, provides
information on the early design, operations, and implementation of the
Welfare-to-Work grants program in selected sites. Based on visits to
22 sites conducted from late-1998 through mid-1999 and a review of documents
submitted by programs to the Department of Labor, the report updates what
we know about WtW implementation challenges and experiences. Written
by staff of Mathematica Policy Research and the Urban Institute.
-
Early Implementation of the Welfare-to-Work
Grants Program, Report to Congress, March 1999.
This report by Irma Perez-Johnson and Alan M. Hershey, Mathematica Policy
Research, responds to a congressional mandate for rapid findings on
Work-to-Welfare (WtW) program implementation. Although the evaluation
will extend through 2004, this report provides early responses to a survey
of grantees conducted at the end of 1998 and, thus, an outline of federally
funded WtW programs and their initial start-up experiences.
For Further Information
If you have any questions about the Evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work Grants
Program,
please call or write:
The HHS project officer:
Alana Landey
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Hubert H. Humphrey Building, Room 404E
200 Independence Avenue, SW
Washington, DC 20201
Tel. ( 202) 401-6636
Fax: (202) 690-6562
E-mail: alana.landey @ hhs.gov |
or |
The contractors project director:
Alan M. Hershey
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.
P.O. Box 2393
Princeton, NJ 08543
Tel. (609) 275-2384
Fax: (609) 799-0005
E-mail: ahershey @ mathematica-mpr.com |
To obtain a printed copy of any report, contact the HHS project
officer.
Where to?
Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
ETAs Welfare-to-Work web page
Employment and Training
Administration
U.S. Department of Labor
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development
Updated 08/12/05