Welfare Reform: States' Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to
TANF Clients (Letter Report, 02/26/99, GAO/HEHS-99-22).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how states that were
early implementers of welfare reform and of one-stop career centers were
providing employment and training assistance under welfare reform,
focusing on the: (1) structural approaches states are using to provide
employment and training services to Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) clients; (2) employment and training assistance the
states are providing; and (3) funding sources states are using to pay
for this assistance.

GAO noted that: (1) it is too early to tell what the most efficient and
effective model is--all five states GAO visited were continuing to
modify the structure of their workforce development and welfare systems
to adapt to the new environment created by welfare reform; (2) some
states are making significant changes, however, to their structural
approaches to serving the TANF clients; (3) nationwide, states largely
provide these services through two different structures; (4) in 14
states, TANF clients receive employment and training services primarily
through centers dedicated to serving only welfare clients; 17 states
primarily use their local workforce development structures to deliver
these services; and the remaining states use a combination of
approaches; (5) the fives states GAO visited all provide employment and
training services centered on getting TANF clients into the workforce as
quickly as possible; (6) training focuses more on job readiness than on
acquiring new vocational skills, in some cases using unpaid work
experience or community service work to teach job-readiness skills; (7)
despite the similarity in types of services available in the five
states, the approach used to deliver these services varies; (8) two
states tailor the initial services to meet individual client needs, and
two states provide the same initial services to all clients without
regard to clients' needs; (9) services in the fifth state, Ohio, differ
in approach from county to county; (10) the TANF block grant, rather
than workforce development programs, is the principal source of funding
for employment and training assistance to TANF clients; (11) even where
the workforce development system is providing services to the state's
TANF clients, it is doing so with TANF funds; (12) according to state
officials, this funding pattern results from the fact that TANF funds
are plentiful and flexible, whereas workforce development funds are
limited; and (13) welfare's hard-to-employ clients may be assisted by a
new 2-year, $3 billion welfare-to-work grant program administered
through workforce development systems, but at the time of GAO's
fieldwork, the four states that applied for these grants were just
beginning to implement their programs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-22
     TITLE:  Welfare Reform: States' Experiences in Providing Employment 
             Assistance to TANF Clients
      DATE:  02/26/99
   SUBJECT:  Welfare benefits
             Public assistance programs
             Employment or training programs
             Disadvantaged persons
             Workfare
             State-administered programs
             Block grants
IDENTIFIER:  HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
             Aid to Families with Dependent Children Program
             Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training Program
             Job Training Partnership Act Program
             AFDC Work Incentive Program
             Wisconsin Employment Skills Advancement Program
             Massachusetts
             Arizona
             Wisconsin
             AFDC
             Ohio
             Michigan
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

February 1999

WELFARE REFORM - STATES'
EXPERIENCES IN PROVIDING
EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE TO TANF
CLIENTS

GAO/HEHS-99-22

Welfare Reform Employment Assistance

(205365)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  AFDC - Aid to Families With Dependent Children
  DBME - Division of Benefits and Medical Eligibility (Arizona)
  DERS - Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (Arizona)
  DLWD - Department of Labor and Workforce Development
     (Massachusetts)
  DTA - Department of Transitional Assistance (Massachusetts)
  DWD - Department of Workforce Development (Wisconsin)
  EMPOWER - Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and Encouraging
     Responsibility (Arizona)
  FIA - Family Independence Agency (Michigan)
  GED - general equivalency diploma
  HHS - Department of Health and Human Services
  JOBS - Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
  JTPA - Job Training Partnership Act
  MJC - Michigan Jobs Commission
  PRWORA - Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
     Reconciliation Act
  TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
  WIN - Work Incentive

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-278935

February 26, 1999

The Honorable Christopher Shays
The Honorable Edolphus Towns
House of Representatives

Federal welfare reform legislation enacted in 1996 made major changes
in the type of assistance available to needy families.  While the
previous program, Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC),
provided families with cash assistance for an indefinite period, the
new one, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), provides
benefits for a time-limited period and focuses on quickly putting
clients to work.  Many states were already reforming their welfare
systems using AFDC waivers, but the dramatic shift to a "work first"
orientation under TANF has focused welfare agencies even more on
helping needy adults with children find and maintain employment\1 --a
goal that has long been the province of the workforce development
system.  Bringing together these two systems--welfare and workforce
development\2 --to address the employment goals of welfare reform may
be seen as an effective way to make the best use of each system's
expertise and resources.  In fact, historically, about a third of the
participants in the nation's primary workforce development program
for economically disadvantaged adults--JTPA title IIA--have been
welfare recipients.  Moreover, the workforce development system has
been retooling its delivery system--consolidating the delivery of
services through one-stop career centers--in an effort to make it
easier for all clients, including those on welfare, to access
services.  It is not known, however, given the broad flexibility
afforded the states by the new welfare block grant, whether states
are bringing in the workforce development system at the state and
local levels to lend their expertise and resources in the new "work
first" environment. 

Although we have limited information on how well different approaches
are working, you asked us to gather information on how states that
were early implementers of welfare reform and of one-stop career
centers were providing employment and training assistance under
welfare reform.  Specifically, you asked us to determine (1) the
structural approaches states are using to provide employment and
training services to TANF clients, (2) the employment and training
assistance the states are providing, and (3) the funding sources
states are using to pay for this assistance.  To address these
issues, we performed in-depth field visits in five states, where we
interviewed state and local officials and observed operations.  We
also collected program information, where available, on all 50
states.  Additional information on our scope and methodology is in
appendix I. 


--------------------
\1 See, for example, Welfare Reform:  States Are Restructuring
Programs to Reduce Welfare Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18,
1998). 

\2 For this report, we define the "workforce development system" as
the state or local entity that has responsibility for administering
programs that originate through the Department of Labor, such as the
state Employment Service or Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
programs; "welfare system" is defined as the state or local entity
that has responsibility for administering programs that originate
through the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), such as
the previous Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) training
program and the TANF program. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The welfare reform emphasis on "work first" has prompted a
significant rethinking of how best to get welfare clients into jobs. 
It is still too early to tell what the most efficient and effective
model is--all five states we visited, for example, were continuing to
modify the structure of their workforce development and welfare
systems to adapt to the new environment created by welfare reform. 
Some states are making significant changes, however, to their
structural approaches to serving TANF clients.  For example,
Wisconsin has an integrated workforce development and welfare system
at both the state and local levels to provide employment and training
assistance to TANF clients.  Nationwide, states largely provide these
services through two different structures.  In 14 states, TANF
clients receive employment and training services primarily through
centers dedicated to serving only welfare clients; 17 states
primarily use their local workforce development structures to deliver
these services; and the remaining states use a combination of
approaches.  In our visits we found similar results. 

  -- While some organizational changes are being made, in all of the
     states except Wisconsin--Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, and
     Ohio--the state-level workforce development and welfare
     structures are largely the same separate systems that existed
     before the passage of federal welfare reform legislation. 

  -- At the local level, however, three of these states bring in the
     workforce development system statewide to varying degrees to
     provide employment and training assistance to TANF clients. 
     (Apps.  II through VI describe the approaches, assistance, and
     funding in the five states we visited.)

The five states we visited all provide employment and training
services centered on getting TANF clients into the workforce as
quickly as possible.  Training focuses more on job readiness than on
acquiring new vocational skills, in some cases using unpaid work
experience or community service work to teach job-readiness skills. 
Despite the similarity in types of services available in the five
states, the approach used to deliver these services varies.  Two
states tailor the initial services to meet individual client needs,
and two states provide the same initial services to all clients
without regard to clients' needs.  Services in the fifth state, Ohio,
differ in approach from county to county. 

The TANF block grant, rather than workforce development programs, is
the principal source of funding for employment and training
assistance to TANF clients.  Even where the workforce development
system is providing services to the state's TANF clients, it is doing
so largely with TANF funds.  According to state officials, this
funding pattern results from the fact that TANF funds are plentiful
and flexible, whereas workforce development funds are limited. 
Welfare's hard-to-employ clients may be assisted by a new 2-year, $3
billion welfare-to-work grant program administered through workforce
development systems, but at the time of our fieldwork, the four
states that applied for these grants were just beginning to implement
their programs. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

For at least 30 years, states' welfare and workforce development
systems have been collaborating at some level to provide employment
and training services to welfare clients, but their efforts often
focused more on skills training than on getting a job.  Over time,
federal welfare reform initiatives have given states greater
flexibility to design and administer their welfare programs to serve
their unique program needs, including greater flexibility in
collaborating with workforce development systems.  At the same time,
the workforce development system has established a new service
delivery mechanism, called the one-stop career center, which states
have been implementing to deliver employment and training services to
all clients. 


      WELFARE'S EARLY EMPLOYMENT
      AND TRAINING EFFORTS HAD
      LIMITED LINKS TO WORKFORCE
      DEVELOPMENT SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

The requirement for states to administer employment and training
programs for their AFDC clients began in 1967 with the Work Incentive
(WIN) program.  The program was jointly administered at the federal
level by Labor and HHS, along with its predecessor, the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, and at the state and local levels by
the state Employment Service and public welfare offices.  WIN's
successes were limited, according to critics, largely because the
program lacked coordination between the welfare agencies and local
employment and training agencies.  Only the most job-ready
participants were served by the program, and relatively few clients
became successfully employed.\3 Starting in 1981, WIN demonstration
projects were established that gave states greater flexibility to
design their programs--states could now require clients to work.  WIN
demonstrations also allowed states to give welfare agencies full
responsibility for administering the programs instead of sharing
responsibility with state Employment Service offices.  Half of the
states adopted WIN demonstrations in lieu of regular WIN, which, in
part, led to a diminished role for Labor in providing employment and
training services to welfare clients.\4

The JOBS program replaced the WIN program when the 1988 Family
Support Act was enacted.  JOBS provided AFDC participants a broad
range of services, including education and training assistance, as
well as supportive services; and, for the first time, legislation
required states to place a specified minimum percentage of AFDC
adults in education and training activities.  The JOBS program was
administered at the federal level by HHS and at the state level by
state AFDC agencies.  Unlike WIN, which had a clear federal role for
the workforce development system, JOBS remained within the welfare
system.  As a result, a separate structure was established within the
welfare system to oversee employment and training assistance to
welfare clients and, in many cases, to provide services.\5

States began experimenting with their AFDC and JOBS programs when HHS
began allowing waivers, as authorized under the Social Security Act,
which often strengthened work requirements.  Between January 1987 and
August 1996, 45 states and the District of Columbia obtained waivers
from HHS, and 35 of these states used the waivers to strengthen the
requirements for welfare recipients to participate in work
activities.\6 States also used these waivers to try new ways of
delivering services.  While some localities expanded the role of
those responsible for determining eligibility to include case
management responsibilities, others used teams of specialists--such
as workforce development staff--to coordinate a client's activities. 
In many cases, states' welfare reforms under waivers were implemented
in selected geographic areas rather than statewide.\7

Large-scale changes in federally funded welfare programs occurred as
a result of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) enacted in August 1996.  Title I of the
law replaced the AFDC program, including JOBS, with a fixed block
grant--TANF--designed to promote work over welfare.  PRWORA places
restrictions on the amount of time a recipient can receive benefits
and requires states to impose work requirements for adults.\8 \9 In
addition, states must meet steadily rising requirements for the
percentage of adults that must participate in work activities--25
percent in fiscal year 1997, rising to 50 percent in fiscal year
2002.  States decide which activities constitute "work" for the
purposes of obtaining assistance, but PRWORA limits what states can
count as work to meet their federal participation rate.  Allowable
work activities for adult recipients\10 include subsidized or
unsubsidized employment, on-the-job training, unpaid work experience,
community service, vocational educational training, and providing
child care services to certain other participants.  Recipients
receiving training to get a high school diploma or to improve
reading, math, or English language skills are not counted as engaged
in a work activity if that is the only activity in which they are
engaged.\11 In addition, PRWORA places limits on the amount of
training that a state can count as work participation.  To be counted
as engaged in a work activity, clients may only participate in job
readiness training for a total of 6 weeks and in vocational training
for a total of 12 months.  Furthermore, states may have only 30
percent or less of their caseloads in vocational training count
toward the work participation rate.  States also have the option of
using TANF funds to provide cash payments or other one-time
inducements to individuals seeking regular benefits to divert them
from beginning to receive cash assistance.\12


--------------------
\3 For further discussion, see Evidence Is Insufficient to Support
the Administration's Proposed Changes to AFDC Work Programs
(GAO/HRD-85-92, Aug.  27, 1985) and Work and Welfare:  Current AFDC
Work Programs and Implications for Federal Policy (GAO/HRD-87-34,
Jan.  29, 1987). 

\4 For more historical background, see Pamela A.  Holcomb, Welfare
Reform:  The Family Support Act in Historical Context (Washington,
D.C.:  The Urban Institute, Nov.  1993). 

\5 For further discussion, see Welfare to Work:  Current AFDC Program
Not Sufficiently Focused on Employment (GAO/HEHS-95-28, Dec.  19,
1994), Welfare to Work:  Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing
Job Placement (GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995), Welfare to Work: 
Participants' Characteristics and Services Provided in JOBS
(GAO/HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995), JOBS and JTPA:  Tracking Spending,
Outcomes, and Program Performance (GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994),
and Welfare Reform:  States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce
Welfare Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998). 

\6 As defined by (1) lowering the age-of-youngest-child exemption to
under 1 year, (2) establishing a full-family sanction for
noncooperation with work requirements, or (3) allowing or requiring
noncustodial parents to participate in JOBS. 

\7 For more information on AFDC waivers, see Welfare Waivers
Implementation:  States Work to Change Welfare Culture, Community
Involvement, and Service Delivery (GAO/HEHS-96-105, July 2, 1996) and
Welfare Reform:  Three States' Approaches Show Promise of Increasing
Work Participation (GAO/HEHS-97-80, May 30, 1997). 

\8 Unless the client is found to be exempt from the work requirement. 

\9 This work requirement is also extended to teen heads of household. 

\10 Adult recipients are those who are at least 20 years of age. 

\11 Beginning in fiscal year 1999, 5 hours of this type of
training--basic skills and general equivalency diploma (GED)--are
allowed to be counted if the clients have met the first 20 hours in
other work activities. 

\12 For a discussion of states' approaches to diverting clients from
the cash assistance rolls, see Richard P.  Nathan and Thomas L. 
Gais, Overview Report:  Implementation of the Personal Responsibility
Act of 1996 (Albany, N.Y.:  Federalism Research Group, The Nelson A. 
Rockefeller Institute of Government, State University of New York,
Oct.  1998) and Kathleen A.  Maloy and others, A Description and
Assessment of State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities
Under Welfare Reform (Washington, D.C.:  The George Washington
University Medical Center, Center for Health Policy Research, Aug. 
1998). 


      WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
      HAS BEEN UNDERGOING CHANGES
      IN THE WAY SERVICES ARE
      DELIVERED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.2

While the welfare system was undergoing change, the workforce
development system was also retooling by consolidating the delivery
of services through one-stop career centers.  The one-stop initiative
was designed to bring together all workforce development
programs--each with its own target population--into a single system
that serves all individuals, regardless of their eligibility for any
specific program.  Development of one-stop career centers has been
furthered by the passage of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998
(P.L.  105-220), which requires that all states and localities use it
to deliver most employment and training services (except TANF-related
services) by July 1, 2000.  All 50 states have received at least some
planning and/or implementation grant funds to use as start-up
funding, which totaled nearly $320 million through fiscal year 1998. 
Labor awarded the first planning grants in fiscal year 1994; these
included two of the states we visited--Arizona and Michigan.  It
awarded implementation grants, which also began in fiscal year
1994,\13 to six states, including two states we
visited--Massachusetts and Wisconsin.\14 To provide implementation
grant funds, Labor required states to demonstrate that their one-stop
systems would include agencies with responsibility for the various
Labor programs, such as Employment Service, Unemployment Insurance,
JTPA titles II and III, the Senior Community Service Employment
Program under title V of the Older Americans Act, and Veterans'
Employment and Training Service.  In developing one-stop systems,
Labor has encouraged states to involve other agencies, including both
workforce development and human services, in the planning and
delivery of services.\15 After implementation, operational funds for
the one-stop centers are provided by the programs contained in the
centers, such as JTPA title IIA, Employment Service, Vocational
Rehabilitation, and the TANF block grant.  (For more information on
states' one-stop planning and implementation grants as well as their
sources of operational funds, see table VII.1.)


--------------------
\13 Some states did not receive planning grants but instead
immediately received implementation grant funds. 

\14 Ohio received no planning grant funds and first received its
implementation grant funds during fiscal year 1995. 

\15 For further information on one-stop career centers, see Deborah
Kogan and others, Creating Workforce Development Systems That Work: 
An Evaluation of the Initial One-Stop Implementation Experience
(Menlo Park, Calif.:  Social Policy Research Associates, Aug.  15,
1997). 


   WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND
   WELFARE SYSTEMS ARE STILL
   LARGELY INDEPENDENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

When providing employment and training services to welfare clients,
the workforce development and welfare systems are still largely two
separate systems.  Of the five states we visited, which were all
early leaders in federal welfare reform and one-stop career center
development, only Wisconsin has an integrated workforce development
and welfare system at both the state and local levels.  The other
four states have separate welfare and workforce development systems,
often using the welfare system to establish employment and training
policies.  At the local level, the workforce development
system--through one-stop career centers, where they are in
place--usually provides employment and training assistance to TANF
clients.  One state is implementing a separate welfare-dedicated
structure statewide to provide employment and training assistance to
its welfare clients.  Table 1 summarizes these functions at the state
and local levels. 



                          Table 1
          
            Location of Employment and Training
             Policy-making and Service Delivery

                     Location of employment and training
                    --------------------------------------
State               policy-making       service delivery
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Arizona             Welfare system      Welfare system

Massachusetts       Welfare system      Workforce
                                        development system

Michigan            Joint               Workforce
                                        development system

Ohio                Welfare system      County option
                    (state and county)

Wisconsin           Joint               Joint
----------------------------------------------------------

      STATE STRUCTURES RARELY
      INTEGRATED, AND WELFARE
      SYSTEM OFTEN SETS POLICY FOR
      EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
      SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

The workforce development and welfare systems are fully integrated
into a single agency at both the state and local levels in only one
of the five states we visited--Wisconsin.  In the remaining four
states, where the workforce development and welfare systems are not
integrated, only Michigan uses its workforce development agency to
establish employment and training policies for TANF clients.  In the
remaining three states, the welfare system establishes the employment
and training policies for their clients.  In these cases, welfare
agencies decide such things as the nature of employment assistance
and the type of training to make available to clients.  Only in
Wisconsin has the organizational structure changed from what existed
before federal welfare reform.  However, all five states are
continuing to make changes in their workforce development and welfare
systems to respond to the new environment under welfare reform. 

In Wisconsin, a single state agency, the Department of Workforce
Development (DWD), develops policies for all aspects of the TANF
program, including cash assistance and employment and training. 
Separate divisions within the DWD--the Division of Economic Support
and the Division of Workforce Excellenceï¿½administer the TANF and the
traditional workforce development programs, but because program
services are delivered together at the local level, policy decisions
at the state level often involve both divisions of the department. 
The merging of the two agencies into a single one in Wisconsin
occurred just before its September 1996 TANF effective date.  Before
this change, the welfare and workforce development systems were in
separate agencies, and the former JOBS program was administered by
the state welfare system. 

Of the other four states we visited, only Michigan uses its workforce
development system in developing employment and training policies for
TANF clients.  The Michigan Jobs Commission (MJC), the state's
workforce development agency, and the Family Independence Agency
(FIA), the state's welfare agency, jointly establish employment and
training policies for TANF clients, with TANF funds for these
services appropriated to MJC directly.  FIA establishes policies for
the cash assistance and sanctioning portions\16 of the program. 
These state-level structures are essentially the same ones that
existed before TANF--Michigan's 1994 welfare reform efforts created
the state's Work First program and also established a partnership
between MJC and FIA.  Under this partnership, MJC provided employment
and training services to welfare clients who were required to
participate in the former JOBS program. 

The other three statesï¿½Arizona, Massachusetts, and Ohioï¿½use their
welfare systems to establish the employment and training policies for
their TANF clients.  In Arizona, as in Wisconsin, a single cabinet
agency--the Department of Economic Security--administers both the
welfare and the workforce development programs.  However, unlike
Wisconsin, Arizona's administration of TANF employment and training
services is not integrated with that of the traditional workforce
development programs.  Arizona's Division of Benefits and Medical
Eligibility--part of the welfare systemï¿½develops policy on the cash
assistance portion of TANF, and the structure that was used to
administer the former JOBS program sets policy for TANF employment
and training, receiving all of Arizona's TANF dollars related to
these services.  This structure--still called JOBS--remains a
separate unit within Arizona's Division of Employment and
Rehabilitation Services, as it had before TANF under JOBS. 
Traditional workforce development programs, including JTPA and
Employment Service, are administered separately, and JTPA and
Employment Service staff generally have no role in developing
employment and training policies for TANF clients.\17 In
Massachusetts, the structure remains basically the same as it was
prior to TANF.  All TANF policy decisions--including those guiding
employment and training assistance--are made by the state's welfare
agency, the Department of Transitional Assistance.  This agency
receives all TANF funds for the state, and arranges for services to
be provided to TANF clients through contracts with state and local
workforce development agencies.  In Ohio, many TANF policies are made
at the county level, including the nature of allowable work
activities and the local structures used to deliver employment and
training services.  The stateï¿½through the Ohio Department of Human
Services--decides maximum benefit levels and required hours per week
of work.  Whether made at the county or state level, however, all
employment and training policies are developed by the welfare system. 
The relationship between the workforce development and welfare
systems was basically unchanged with the implementation of TANF in
Ohio. 

All five states we visited continue to make changes in the structure
of their workforce development and welfare systems to adapt to the
new environment created by welfare reform.  For example, the
organizational structure in the Ohio Department of Human Services was
continuing to evolve at the time of our visit as the Department
changed its role from one of policy-making to one of technical
assistance under the new county-based decision-making.  The
Department is setting up new state-to-county liaison positions,
called ï¿½account managers,ï¿½ to assist in this role.  It is also
developing a new branch dedicated to economic development and is
establishing linkages with the Ohio Department of Development for the
purpose of developing job opportunities for welfare clients.  And
Michigan officials said that the state's workforce development system
is monitoring TANF clients' progress after the initial 90-day
placement period is over, a role that previously was performed
exclusively by the welfare system.  Officials in these states
reported that they expect additional changes in the next year or two,
but they noted that changing organizational structures and approaches
is a difficult and slow process, in part because of factors such as
institutional rigidity, reticence to change, and uncertainty about
the future. 


--------------------
\16 Clients are referred to FIA for possible reduction or loss of
benefits when they fail to comply with their work requirements. 

\17 This description reflects the structure of the program at the
time of our fieldwork.  Subsequent to our visit, Arizona officials
reported that some organizational changes had been made; however, we
cannot comment on the nature of these changes.  See app.  II. 


      WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
      OFTEN CALLED UPON TO DELIVER
      SERVICES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

In three of the five states we visitedï¿½Wisconsin, Michigan, and
Massachusettsï¿½the local workforce development system is called upon
throughout the state to deliver employment and training services.  In
addition, in some locations in Ohio, county welfare agencies use the
workforce development system to provide services.  When services are
provided by the workforce development system, they are usually
provided through one-stop career centers.  However, Arizona and some
locations in Ohio are implementing separate welfare-dedicated centers
to provide employment and training assistance to their welfare
clients, while they are developing one-stop career centers to serve
their nonwelfare clients.  Nationwide, 17 states use one-stop career
centers or other traditional workforce development structures, 14
states use welfare-dedicated centers, and the remaining states use a
combination of service delivery options, according to HHS officials,
as the primary means to provide employment and training services to
TANF clients.  (See table VII.2 for a listing of each state's service
delivery approach.)

Three states we visited--Wisconsin, Michigan, and Massachusetts--use
their local workforce development system throughout the state to
deliver employment and training assistance to TANF clients, in many
cases through one-stop career centers.  One-stop centers are used
statewide in Wisconsin and Michigan; however, they play somewhat
different roles in each state.  In Wisconsin, just as state-level
policy-making is integrated within the welfare and workforce
development systems, local service delivery is also integrated. 
Eligibility staff and employment and training staff are collocated in
one-stop centers, and all services to welfare clients--including
eligibility determination--as well as services to nonwelfare clients
are available there.  In contrast, Michigan's eligibility
determination is performed in the local welfare office, and TANF
clients are then referred to a one-stop career center to receive
employment and training assistance, often side by side with
nonwelfare clients.  In Massachusetts, one-stop centers are not yet
statewide, but where they are available, they deliver employment and
training services to TANF clients.  In those sites without one-stop
career centers, other traditional workforce development structures
are used--primarily the agencies administering the Employment
Service.  Services in Massachusetts, however, unlike Wisconsin or
Michigan, are brought to TANF clients at the welfare offices by the
workforce development staff rather than sending the TANF clients to
the local workforce development agency or one-stop career center to
receive those services.  Massachusetts' workforce development
officials told us that they provide employment and training
assistance in welfare offices as a convenience to the client and to
facilitate a client's easy transition to meeting work requirements
and obtaining other supportive services. 

Rather than bring in the workforce development system to provide
employment and training services, Arizona and some locations in Ohio
have developed separate welfare-dedicated centers to serve their
welfare clients.  Although not yet statewide, Arizona's
welfare-dedicated structures--called Employing and Moving People Off
Welfare and Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER) centers--when fully
implemented are slated to provide all TANF-related services,
including eligibility and employment and training services in one
location.  Nonwelfare clients receive their employment and training
services elsewhere, sometimes through one-stop career centers, but
these centers generally do not serve TANF clients in Arizona. 
Similarly, four counties in Ohio at the time of our visit were
developing welfare-dedicated centers called ï¿½Opportunity Centersï¿½ to
serve their TANF clients.  In Franklin County, for example,
Opportunity Centers have been established to provide all services to
welfare clients, including eligibility determination and employment
and training services.  As in Arizona, these centers do not generally
provide services to nonwelfare clients. 

State and local officials we spoke with differed about where they
believed welfare clients' employment and training needs are better
served--through one-stop centers (or any other traditional workforce
development structure) or through centers dedicated to serving only
welfare clients.  The philosophy of the one-stop system has been one
of serving a ï¿½universal populationï¿½--services are available to all
clients, with some services for some clients funded out of targeted,
categorical programs.  The goal of consolidation into one-stops has
been to reduce the redundancy and the duplication of effort that
stems from having multiple employment and training programs serving
the same needs.  A related goal has been to eliminate the confusion
that a client might experience in trying to access multiple programs. 
In this view, welfare clients are seen as similar to all other job
seekers, obtaining employment and training services along with all
other clients from service providers who specialize in the field of
employment and training.  According to HHS officials, 17 states use
one-stop career centers or other traditional workforce development
structures as the primary means to deliver employment and training
services to welfare clients.  An alternative approach to serving
welfare clients in workforce development structures is to provide
services to these clients in centers that target all services to
welfare clients only.  These centers are usually staffed by service
providers who specialize in the needs of the welfare clients and
often include workers who specialize in determining eligibility. 
These centers may also provide a range of other related services,
including child support enforcement services, help with finding child
care, and screening for domestic violence and mental health problems. 
In this latter view, welfare clients are seen as having unique needs
that are better served by individuals with special knowledge of
welfare and related issues.  HHS officials reported that 14 states
have established welfare-dedicated centers as the primary means to
provide employment and training services to TANF clients. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS FOCUS
   MORE ON GETTING A JOB THAN ON
   ACQUIRING NEW SKILLS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

The five states provide employment and training services that focus
on preparing TANF clients to enter the workforce in the shortest
amount of time.  For example, training focuses more on job
readiness--how to write a resume or how to dress appropriately for
the work place--than on acquiring new vocational skills.\18 In
addition, states sometimes use unpaid work experience or community
service work to teach job-readiness skills.  The role of vocational
skills training has declined in the five states we visited since
welfare reform was passed.  Even though the use of vocational and
basic skills training has generally declined, officials told us it
might still be needed to help TANF clients find employment in some
areas, particularly where there is widespread unemployment.  TANF
clients' need for vocational and basic skills training is likely to
increase in the future as welfare reform progresses, according to
officials in the states we visited, largely because TANF clients who
remain unemployed have fewer job skills than those who have already
left the welfare rolls.\19


--------------------
\18 These findings are similar to those reported in a study of seven
states in Welfare Reform:  States Are Restructuring Programs to
Reduce Welfare Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998). 

\19 At this time, no comprehensive information is available on a
nationwide level by which to judge the relative success of one
approach in helping welfare clients get and keep jobs compared with
any other approach.  See, for example, Richard P.  Nathan and Thomas
L.  Gais, Overview Report:  Implementation of the Personal
Responsibility Act of 1996. 


      SERVICES FOCUS MORE ON JOB
      PLACEMENT THAN ON SKILLS
      TRAINING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Driven by states' work-first philosophies, the employment and
training approach has changed in the states we visited from one of
helping clients acquire skills before employment to one of preparing
clients to enter the job market as quickly as possible. 
Job-readiness training has emerged as the training focus for TANF
clients in many locations we visited.  This readiness
training--lasting from 1 to 6 weeks--usually includes instruction in
preparing resumes, interviewing skills, and dressing appropriately
for the work environment.  Some areas make attending readiness
training a mandatory first work activity.  Franklin County, Ohio,
requires completion of readiness training as a condition of receiving
cash benefits.  Sometimes these readiness training classes are also
used to teach employability skills--like getting to work regularly
and on time and resolving conflicts appropriately--found to be
important in preparing clients who have no previous work history for
the world of work.\20

In a growing trend under welfare reform, employability skills are
also taught by way of experience in the job market, such as trial
jobs, unpaid work experience, community service jobs, or subsidized
and unsubsidized employment. 

Because of PRWORA's focus on work, vocational and basic skills
training, including English as a second language and GED training, is
generally reserved for those who need it to get or keep a job or to
advance in a career path.  In the states we visited, skills training
is often simultaneous with a work activity and in addition to meeting
the minimum work requirement.  In the case of English language
training, the focus is often on learning vocabulary needed in the
work environment.  Long-term vocational training is generally
declining in these states.  For example, in Ohio, where 1 in 3
clients had received job skills training or postsecondary education
in prior years, after the state came under federal welfare reform,
only about 1 in 10 had received such training.  Shorter-term skills
training--usually not more than a month--has replaced the longer-term
vocational training for most clients.  These short-term classes are
geared toward acquiring specific new skills, like computer skills, or
upgrading current skills, like typing, or are driven by local
employer needs.  In Massachusetts, where training activities are
available to more clients than in the other four states, skills
training is given to any client who chooses to participate and who is
not yet required to go to work because of the age of his or her
youngest child.  Once a client is required to work in Massachusetts,
however, he or she may only access training if already meeting the
work requirement. 

TANF clients' need for skills training sometimes varies depending on
the local economy.  In many areas we visited, the strong economy,
coupled with entry-level labor shortages, led employers to require
little of their entry-level employee candidates.  In Circleville,
Ohio, for example, we were told that many employers do not require
high school diplomas as a condition of hire.  In Circleville, TANF
clients readily obtain jobs that meet their work requirements without
being given skills training.  On the other hand, in Ironton, Ohio,
where unemployment rates are well above the statewide average,
employers demand higher skill levels of their new hires.  Many of the
TANF clients in this area lack high school diplomas or the
equivalent, a condition of hire for most employers in the area.  In
this isolated area with widespread unemployment, relatively more
clients are receiving skills training.  Officials in Ironton told us
that PRWORA's limitation on skills training--particularly GED
training--is a barrier to the program's success in raising TANF
clients' skill levels to meet the demands of the area's labor market. 

TANF clients' need for skills training is also increasing as welfare
reform continues.  States we visited told us that they had early
successes in putting clients to work largely because those clients
were more job-ready.  With the TANF caseloads declining, clients who
remain unemployed have fewer skills and less work experience, and are
harder to serve than those who obtained jobs earlier.  Some areas
reported that they are looking for ways to provide greater training
opportunities to their TANF clients, either to upgrade skills to get
the first job or to prepare entry-level clients to move up, making
way for more entry-level workers.  Michigan, for example, has set
aside $12 million for postemployment training for TANF clients who
are already meeting their work requirements.  Similarly, Wisconsin
has a $1 million Employment Skills Advancement Program under which
poor working parents--including TANF clients--receive grants for
attending vocational training or education programs. 

When providing placement assistance, the five states generally
provide three different levels of services--self-directed (or
self-paced), assistance performed in groups, and individualized
one-on-one.  Clients are often successful in obtaining jobs using a
self-directed approach or through group job search assistance. 
Self-directed job search usually involves the client using resource
rooms with the Internet or other computerized job search capabilities
or using hard-copy listings of job openings.  Group job search
assistance most often consists of job clubs, where clients meet with
other job seekers and local employers to obtain information on the
available job market and assistance in marketing the clients' skills. 
A few clients are not successful in obtaining a job through the
self-directed or group approaches, and a more intensive, one-on-one
approach is used.  This process sometimes includes individualized job
development for an unsubsidized job but also may include finding
opportunities to provide the client with work experience, such as
placing the client in a trial job, internship, community service
work, or unpaid work experience to gather a work history while
continuing to collect cash benefits.  For example, Arizona officials
told us that, for those clients unable to obtain an unsubsidized job,
many--4,215 in fiscal year 1997--were placed in unpaid work
experience to develop a work history.  Often, those clients have gone
on to be placed in unsubsidized positions with the same employer when
their work experience term is complete.  In some rare cases,
subsidized employment might be considered; however, in several
locations we visited, officials reported that subsidized employment
is rarely offered because no incentives are necessary in the current
labor market for employers to hire welfare clients.  For example, in
Michigan, only 42 participants out of a total of nearly 148,000 in
fiscal year 1997 were placed in subsidized employment.  In Ohio, an
average of 1 percent or fewer per month of participants in work
activities were placed in subsidized employment during calendar year
1997.  Similarly, in Wisconsin, only one-half of 1 percent of TANF
clients were in subsidized employment in July 1998. 


--------------------
\20 See Employment Training:  Successful Projects Share Common
Strategy (GAO/HEHS-96-108, May 7, 1996). 


      STATES SOMETIMES TAILOR
      SERVICES TO CLIENTS' NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

In two states--Arizona and Michigan--employment and training services
to TANF clients follow the same prescribed process, with the same
initial services given to nearly all clients without regard to the
client's characteristics or needs.  Only after a client fails to get
a job are more individualized services available.  In contrast, two
states--Massachusetts and Wisconsin--individualize the process, that
is, the services the client receives and the order in which they are
provided depend upon the individual client's needs.  In one state,
Ohio, the nature and order of the services vary by county, though
most of the counties we visited follow the prescriptive approach. 

Arizona, Michigan, and several locations in Ohio prescribe one
employment and training process for all TANF clients.  Arizona
requires all clients statewide to attend a 2-week job-readiness
training course--designed to improve their job-seeking and interview
skills--as their first work activity.  After readiness training, if
clients do not obtain a job, they are required to participate in 2
weeks of job search, usually through job clubs, where job seekers
assist each other in their job search.  In Michigan, the primary work
activity for clients is searching for a job.  Rather than doing
readiness training or assessments upfront, Michigan's program lets
the marketplace determine the suitability of a client's skills for
available jobs.  In both Arizona and Michigan, however, if clients do
not get jobs within a few weeks, they are assessed, and other, more
individualized, services are made available.  Most of the locations
we visited in Ohio use a similar, prescriptive approach to provide at
least initial services.  For example, Franklin County--the city of
Columbus--requires all clients to complete a 2-week job-readiness
training class as their first work assignment, before cash benefits
begin.  Montgomery County--Dayton--also uses a prescriptive approach,
requiring that all clients\21 go through three 2-week segments of
job-readiness training as their first work assignment.  Clients who
do not get a job by the end of the 6 weeks of readiness training are
then referred to more individualized services.  Similarly, in
Ironton, in Lawrence County, all clients follow the same initial
process whereby they register for employment services and receive
2-1/2 days of vocational assessment followed by targeted job search
for a period up to 30 days.  If clients do not have a job at the end
of this period, more individualized services are provided. 

In Wisconsin and Massachusetts, the employment and training process
is individualized rather than prescribed.  In Wisconsin, employment
and training services for TANF clients are based on the caseworker's
evaluation of how ready the client is to go to work, usually by
taking into account a client's prior work history and potential
barriers to employment, such as housing and the availability of child
care and transportation.  As a result, clients are assigned to a
specific category of job readiness--one of four "rungs" of a
ladder--and all services received, including the availability of cash
assistance and the type of work activity required of the client,
depend on the rung of the ladder to which the client is assigned. 
For example, the top rung of the ladder--unsubsidized employment--is
for clients who have a strong employment history and work skills. 
These clients receive only case management services to help them get
a job and do not receive cash assistance.  In contrast, the fourth
rung--W-2 transition\22 --is for clients who are not job-ready and
who cannot participate in the other three rungs because they have
substantial barriers to employment, such as being homeless or
addicted to drugs or alcohol.  Allowable activities for these clients
include those related to obtaining shelter, attending drug and
alcohol treatment programs, and caring for a family member with
severe incapacity.  In Massachusetts, the process is also
individualized, and staff provide specific services based upon the
needs of the individual.  Massachusetts does categorize clients,
however, on the basis of the age of their youngest child at the time
of application, and the service options available to the client vary
depending upon that classification.  For example, clients whose
youngest child is 6 years old or in the first grade are required to
go to work within 60 days.  These clients may access training
services only if they are already meeting their work requirement. 
Clients whose youngest child is under age 6 are not required to go to
work.\23 They may choose to access a broad range of employment and
training services, including longer-term vocational training. 


--------------------
\21 All clients who have never been to the center or have not been
employed within a year are sent to job-readiness training. 

\22 W-2, or Wisconsin Works, is the title of Wisconsin's Work First
program. 

\23 Clients whose youngest child is between the ages of 2 and 6 are
exempt from the work requirement, but the state's 2-year time limit
applies.  Those whose youngest child is under age 2 are exempt from
both the work requirement and the time limit. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   ASSISTANCE IS CHIEFLY FINANCED
   BY TANF FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

The TANF block grant, and not workforce development programs, is the
principal source of funding for employment and training assistance to
TANF clients.  In fact, even where the workforce development system
is providing services to the state's TANF clients, it is doing so
largely with TANF funds.  Furthermore, four of the five states we
visited spent more TANF funds on employment and training services for
their TANF clients than JTPA title IIA spent on all its clients,
including those on TANF.  Welfare-to-work grants funded by the
Department of Labor are another source of funding for the
hardest-to-serve clients; however, at the time of our fieldwork, the
states were just beginning to receive their funding and it was too
soon to know how states would use the grants to serve their TANF
clients. 


      STATES REPORT THAT TANF
      FUNDS ARE PLENTIFUL AND
      FLEXIBLE, WHEREAS WORKFORCE
      DEVELOPMENT FUNDS ARE
      LIMITED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Under TANF, because of declining caseloads, states have had more
federal and state funds available to them than they would have had
under the previous system of financing welfare programs.  In
contrast, the one workforce development program that has historically
provided employment and training assistance to welfare clients, JTPA
title IIA, has fewer funds and must serve a broader population than
TANF clients.  States also have greater flexibility in the use of
their TANF funds than they have with their JTPA title IIA funds. 

States have more resources for their TANF clients than were
previously available under AFDC and JOBS, and they are using some of
these funds to provide employment and training services to their TANF
clients.  We recently reported that states have an estimated $4.7
billion--or, on average, about 25 percent--more in total budgetary
resources available for their welfare programs under TANF than they
would have had with comparable caseloads under AFDC.\24 For the
states we visited, these additional budgetary resources ranged from a
high of 65 percent more--or $271 million--for Wisconsin to 22 percent
more--or about $69 million--for Arizona.\25 Given these budgetary
resources, and the states' declining caseloads on which the funds may
be spent, the states we visited are funding employment and training
services using the TANF funds rather than those available through the
workforce development system.  Table 2 shows the amount of federal
and state TANF money available to each state we visited and the
amount each state spent on employment and training services to its
TANF clients.  Wisconsin spent the largest percentage, nearly 16
percent--or $75 million--of available federal and state TANF funds on
employment and training services; the other states we visited spent
about 6 percent or less of their available resources. 



                          Table 2
          
             Fiscal Year 1997 TANF Spending on
             Employment and Training Assistance

                   (Dollars in millions)

                                                Percentage
                                                  of total
                                  TANF funds    TANF funds
                    Total TANF      spent on      spent on
                       funds\a    employment    employment
State                available  and training  and training
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Arizona                 $311.9         $16.2           5.2
Massachusetts            650.8          21.6           3.3
Michigan               1,158.8          73.6           6.3
Ohio                   1,168.9          11.9           1.0
Wisconsin                476.7          75.0          15.7
----------------------------------------------------------
\a This amount includes the funds available for TANF (total funds
awarded less funds transferred to the Child Care and Development
Block Grant and the Social Services Block Grant) plus the amount of
state funds the state reported expending. 

Sources:  Total TANF fund amounts from HHS.  TANF funds spent on
employment and training are reported by the states visited; we did
not independently verify these amounts. 

Although the states we visited predominantly use their federal and
state TANF funding to provide employment and training services to
TANF clients, these clients can also obtain services funded by the
workforce development system, such as the JTPA title IIA program. 
JTPA title IIA, however, provides services for a broader population
than TANF clients, and the amount associated with it was smaller in
four of the five states we visited than the amount the states
reported spending on employment and training services alone for TANF
clients from their available TANF funds.  For example, in Michigan,
nearly $74 million of TANF funds was spent on employment and training
for TANF clients, while the state's JTPA title IIA allotment was only
about $28 million.  Similarly, in Wisconsin, $75 million of federal
and state TANF funds was spent on employment and training, but only
about $9.5 million was available from JTPA title IIA.  (See table 3.)



                          Table 3
          
          TANF Spending on Employment and Training
          Assistance Compared With JTPA Title IIA

                   (Dollars in millions)

                     Federal and state
                      TANF funds spent
                     on employment and            JTPA IIA
State                       training\a         allotment\b
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Arizona                          $16.2               $13.8
Massachusetts                     21.6                17.0
Michigan                          73.6                28.5
Ohio                              11.9                29.5
Wisconsin                         75.0                 9.5
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Data are for fiscal year 1997, the most recent year for which data
are available. 

\b Amounts are for program year 1996, which covered the period July
1996 to June 1997.  Since fiscal year 1997 covered the period October
1996 to September 1997, it overlapped program year 1996 by the
9-month period from October 1996 to June 1997. 

Sources:  Information on federal and state TANF funds spent was
provided by the states visited, and we did not independently verify
these amounts.  The Department of Labor provided the JTPA title IIA
allotment amounts. 

Compared with most traditional workforce development funds, including
JTPA title IIA, the TANF block grant also provides the states with
enhanced flexibility in the way they use their funds.  Under TANF,
states may decide which types of poor families they serve, how they
allocate funds to a variety of services, and what type of assistance
they provide.  In contrast, JTPA title IIA, as a formula-driven
program, dictates who can be served, how funds are allocated, and
what type of services may be provided with the funds.  In fact, the
services allowable under JTPA title IIA are generally limited to
training related to a vocation, with job search assistance available
primarily to those who receive training.\26

Given the role that TANF funds are playing in financing employment
and training services, the use of JTPA title IIA funds to serve TANF
clients has generally declined.  Relative to all JTPA title IIA
clients, the proportion of clients who were also AFDC/TANF clients
has declined somewhat.  From program year\27 1995 through program
year 1996--the latest years for which nationwide data are
available--the proportion of JTPA title IIA clients who were also
receiving AFDC/TANF benefits declined slightly nationwide from 35.6
percent to 33.6 percent.  Thirty-four states experienced declines
during this period, which ranged from a low of 0.1 percentage point
in Arizona and Colorado to a high of 19.1 percentage points in New
Hampshire.  (See table VII.3 for information on all 50 states.) For
the states we visited--where we were able to obtain data through
program year 1997--the declines continued in four of the five
states--Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio (see fig.  1). 
Over the 3-year period from 1995 to 1997, the declines in these four
states ranged from 8.8 percentage points in Massachusetts to 5.2
percentage points in Arizona.  Wisconsin was the only state that
showed an increase--9.1 percentage points--of JTPA title IIA clients
who were AFDC/TANF.\28

   Figure 1:  Proportion of JTPA
   Title IIA Clients Who Were
   AFDC/TANF Clients for Program
   Years 1995, 1996, and 1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\24 While current circumstances provide states with additional
budgetary resources, there is no guarantee that this situation will
continue into the future.  Even if, for example, economic conditions
weaken and more families need assistance, the TANF block grant amount
will not increase. 

\25 For further information, see Welfare Reform:  Early Fiscal
Effects of the TANF Block Grant (GAO/AIMD-98-137, Aug.  18, 1998). 

\26 Unless the state has been granted a waiver specifically designed
to allow stand-alone job search assistance.  Among our site visit
states, Michigan and Ohio were the only ones granted such a waiver at
the time of our visit. 

\27 Labor defines ï¿½program yearï¿½ as the period from July 1 to June
30. 

\28 Wisconsin did, however, have a decline during this time period in
the number of clients served, including a decline in the number of
clients who were AFDC/TANF over the 3-year period. 


      WELFARE'S HARD-TO-EMPLOY
      CLIENTS MAY BE ASSISTED BY
      NEW WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

The Congress recently authorized an additional source of funding,
federal welfare-to-work grants, for job placement services,
transitional employment, and other support services for the
hardest-to-employ TANF clients, and states are just beginning to
implement their programs.  These grants, totaling $3 billion, are
being awarded over a 2-year period through the Department of Labor,
with the majority of the funds disbursed as formula funds to the
states and some funding available for competitive grants.  While
there is no match requirement for competitive grants, states must
provide a one-dollar match for every two dollars they receive in
formula funding.  Most of the states' allocation is passed to local
Private Industry Councils established under JTPA, which administer
the welfare-to-work formula grant programs.  The Private Industry
Councils are required to coordinate activities with the local TANF
agencies. 

At the time of our visits, two states--Massachusetts and
Michigan--had applied for their maximum federal allocation, and
fiscal year 1998 funds had been awarded by Labor, but neither state
had fully implemented its program.  After our visits, Labor awarded
welfare-to-work formula funds to two other states--Arizona and
Wisconsin.  Wisconsin applied for its maximum federal allocation, but
Arizona did not pledge sufficient matching funds to receive its
maximum federal allocation.  Arizona needed about $9 million in
matching funds to obtain its maximum allocation of about $17 million
in federal welfare-to-work formula funds; instead, the state pledged
a match of $4.5 million and obtained a formula grant for $9 million
in fiscal year 1998.  Ohio initially applied for its maximum federal
allocation--nearly $45 million--but later was among six states that
decided not to participate in the welfare-to-work formula grant
program.\29 (See table 4.) Because of these circumstances, none of
the states had fully implemented their welfare-to-work programs. 



                          Table 4
          
                   Welfare-to-Work Grants

                    Date welfare-to-
                    work                 Amount of FY 1998
                    grant award           federal welfare-
State               announced                to-work award
------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Arizona             August 20, 1998            $ 9,000,000
Massachusetts       February 25, 1998           20,692,295
Michigan            January 29, 1998            42,226,331
Ohio                Not applicable          Not applicable
Wisconsin           June 15, 1998               12,885,951
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Department of Labor. 


--------------------
\29 For further information, see Welfare Reform:  Status of Awards
and Selected States' Use of Welfare-to-Work Grants (GAO/HEHS-99-40,
Feb.  5, 1999). 


   CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

The passage of PRWORA in August 1996 dramatically changed the federal
role in providing assistance to needy families.  Through the annual
$16.5 billion TANF block grant, states have been given broader
flexibility to design and implement their welfare programs, but
coupled with this flexibility is a stronger emphasis on
accountability for outcomes.  States must now put an ever-increasing
number of clients into work activities and limit clients' length of
stay on federal cash assistance.  As a result, states are changing
the way they do business and are requiring more clients to
participate in work activities and find jobs.  Nationwide, TANF
caseloads have dropped over 34 percent since 1996 to a low of about 3
million in June 1998. 

In responding to the demands of welfare reform, only one state we
visited--Wisconsin--has fully integrated its welfare and workforce
development systems at the state and local levels.  Not all states
are moving in this direction.  By the same token, only one of the
remaining four states--Michigan--draws upon the expertise of the
workforce development system to establish employment and training
policies for its TANF clients.  In the other three states, the
welfare system determines the employment and training assistance
services to be offered to TANF clients.  While the workforce
development system may often be called upon to deliver the services,
little actual organizational change has occurred to bring these two
systems together since PRWORA was enacted.  The design of the
welfare-to-work grant program and the implementation of the Workforce
Investment Act may lead to greater collaboration, but it is too soon
to know for sure.  In the five states whose systems we reviewed, the
need for additional resources to serve the welfare population does
not appear to be a means to push these two systems to work together,
largely because the states report they have adequate TANF funds right
now to serve the needs of their TANF clients. 

With regard to the structures used to provide employment and training
services to welfare clients, no clear-cut answer emerges as to the
best approach.  Some state and local officials said that welfare
clients' employment and training needs are served most effectively
and efficiently through one-stop career centers or other traditional
workforce development structures.  Officials in other states said
that all welfare-related services, including employment and training,
should be provided at centers dedicated to serving only welfare
clients.  One state we visited uses a hybrid approach, wherein
traditional workforce development structures are used to provide the
services, but the services are brought to the welfare client in a
welfare system setting.  Clearly, no consensus exists on which
approach best serves the welfare client--17 states use workforce
development structures, 14 use welfare-dedicated structures, and the
rest use various combinations.  Furthermore, until reliable,
comparable outcome and impact studies are conducted, it will be
impossible to determine whether any one approach or combination of
approaches works better than the others. 

It is likely that changes in the structure of the states' welfare and
workforce development systems will continue over the next several
years, even in these states with early experience in welfare reform
and one-stop career centers.  Each of the five states continues to
make more changes, and more are needed for these states to consider
themselves successful in implementing welfare reform.  With the
recent passage of the Workforce Investment Act, further changes in
the workforce development system are likely to affect the
relationship between the two systems, and more adjustments will
probably occur.  Finally, factors such as institutional rigidity,
reticence to change, and uncertainty about the future make the
process of change a difficult one.  Revising organizational
approaches, reforming systems, and overcoming institutional rigidity
take time, and this is an iterative process. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor for
comment.  Labor provided technical comments, which we incorporated in
the report where appropriate. 

We also provided a draft of this report to HHS for comment.  HHS
provided technical comments and noted that the report provided useful
information about state efforts in developing policy and implementing
TANF.  We have incorporated HHS' technical comments in the report
where appropriate. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, House Committee on Government
Reform; the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services;
appropriate congressional committees; and other interested parties. 

Please call Carlotta C.  Joyner or Sigurd R.  Nilsen, Assistant
Director, Education and Employment Issues, at (202) 512-7014 or
Cynthia M.  Fagnoni at (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report.  Major contributors are listed in
appendix VIII. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner, Director
Education and Employment Issues

Cynthia M.  Fagnoni, Director
Income Security Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

We designed our study to gather information about employment and
training services provided to TANF clients, including the structures
and funding sources used to provide those services.  To do so, we
collected available information on the TANF and workforce development
programs in all 50 states.  We then selected five states that were
early implementers of both welfare reform and workforce development
consolidation and obtained detailed information during field visits
to these states.  During this fieldwork, we visited four localities
within each state, selected to give us a mix of urban and nonurban
areas, as well as a variety of service providers.  During our visits,
we interviewed state and local officials in the workforce development
and welfare systems, observed processes, and reviewed documents.  We
did our work between December 1997 and November 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


   DATA COLLECTION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

To obtain information on the TANF and workforce development programs
in every state, we contacted federal and regional officials in the
Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS).  In addition, we contacted experts and obtained data from
agencies with special knowledge of the subject area, including the
Urban Institute, the National Governors' Association, the National
Conference of State Legislatures, the National Association of
Counties, the American Public Human Services Association, and the
Rockefeller Institute.\30 We also administered a short survey to
regional officials of both Labor and HHS.  Our efforts to gather
comparable information on all states were hampered by the relatively
limited amount of programmatic data available nationwide encompassing
both the welfare and workforce development systems. 

To select the sites for our visits, we identified states that had
TANF effective dates\31

before January 1, 1997, and that had obtained their Department of
Labor one-stop implementation grants before program year 1997. 
Sixteen states met both criteria.  We organized these 16 states into
four categories according to Urban Institute's classification system
that describes state-level integration between the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) and welfare programs.  Table I.1 shows this
classification system and its key elements.  We combined the Urban
Institute's categories 2 and 3, and judgmentally selected at least
one state from each of the resulting three categories.  We selected
these states to provide geographic dispersion, as well as a mix of
state- and county-administered TANF programs.  Table I.2 shows the
states in our sampling frame, that is, the 16 states that met our
criteria for selection, including their welfare caseloads at the time
we selected our sites.  Table I.3 shows the states we selected and
the localities visited as well as the dates of those visits. 



                         Table I.1
          
           Categories of State-Level Integration
          Between JTPA and Welfare Reform Programs

                                                 Number of
                                                    states
                                                     where
                                                  category
Category type   Key elements                       applies
--------------  ------------------------------  ----------
1. Structural   The administration of JTPA and           6
 integration     all or part of the welfare-
 of welfare      to-work programs is
 and JTPA        integrated (with other
 system at the   programs) within a single
 state level     employment and training or
                 workforce development agency
                 at the state level.
2. Formal       No state-level integration.             16
 interaction     Agency administering JTPA has
 between         separate formal
 welfare and     administrative responsibility
 JTPA system     for all or some aspects of
 at the state    TANF work programs, and/or
 level           welfare agency has
                 transferred all or some TANF
                 work funds to the agency that
                 administers JTPA. Local
                 service delivery structures
                 may vary widely across the
                 state.
3. Formal       A formal financial or                    6
 interaction     nonfinancial agreement exists
 between         for the state Employment
 welfare and     Services agency, which also
 Employment      administers JTPA, to provide
 Services        some or all TANF work
 agency (and     services locally. Service
 indirect role   delivery structure is fairly
 for JTPA) at    standardized throughout the
 the state       state.
 level
4. Minimal or   No formal state contracts or            23
 no formal       interagency management teams.
 role for JTPA   Relationships are locally
 or Employment   driven.
 Services
 agency at the
 state level
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  States total 51 because they include the District of Columbia. 

Source:  The Urban Institute, The Structural Link Between JTPA and
State Welfare Reform Programs in 1997 (Washington, D.C.:  Dec. 
1997). 



                         Table I.2
          
            16 States in GAO Sampling Frame, by
                  Urban Institute Category

                                                    Origin
                                One-stop                al
                            implementati    Number   Urban
                                on grant   of TANF  Instit
                      TANF          date  cases in     ute
              implementati      (program     March  catego
State              on date         year)      1998      ry
------------  ------------  ------------  --------  ------
Category 1: Integrated JTPA system with all or part of
TANF program
----------------------------------------------------------
Florida            10/1/96          1996   110,826       1
==========================================================
Michigan           9/30/96          1996   127,416       1
Texas              11/5/96          1994   147,620       1
Utah               10/1/96          1996    10,927       1
==========================================================
Wisconsin          9/30/96          1994    12,843       1

Categories 2 and 3: JTPA and TANF (and Employment Services
and TANF) prog
----------------------------------------------------------
==========================================================
Arizona            10/1/96          1995    39,433       2
Connecticut        10/1/96          1994    49,122       2
==========================================================
Massachusett       9/30/96          1994    67,043       2
 s
Missouri           12/1/96          1995    61,580       2
Oklahoma           10/1/96          1996    24,704       2
Vermont            9/20/96          1996     7,487       3

Category 4: Minimal or no formal role for JTPA or
Employment Services at
----------------------------------------------------------
California        11/26/96          1996   714,269       4
Indiana            10/1/96          1995    36,434       4
Kentucky          10/18/96          1995    53,433       4
Maryland           12/9/96          1994    46,461       4
==========================================================
Ohio               10/1/96          1995   141,750       4
----------------------------------------------------------
We chose local sites in each state on the basis of guidance provided
by the state's officials.  In general, we selected local sites to
give us a balance of urban and nonurban sites, a variety of service
delivery types (one-stop centers, traditional workforce development
structures, and welfare-dedicated centers), and a range of TANF
client caseload sizes.  In addition, we chose some sites with
relatively higher unemployment. 



                         Table I.3
          
            Site Visit Schedule and Local Sites
                          Visited

State         Dates         Local sites
------------  ------------  ------------------------------
Arizona       3/2-3/6       Flagstaff, Mesa/Tempe, Tucson,
                            and Phoenix,

Massachusett  5/12-7/15     Cambridge, Holyoke, Lawrence,
s                           and Springfield

Michigan      5/11-5/19     Detroit, Midland, Romulus/
                            Wayne, and Traverse City

Ohio          3/30-4/9      Circleville, Columbus, Dayton,
                            and Ironton

Wisconsin     3/30-4/8      Grant County, Kenosha,
                            Milwaukee, and Walworth County
----------------------------------------------------------
We did our fieldwork using a standardized case study methodology.  To
collect the data, teams of at least three people spent 5 to 10 days
in each state.  During these visits, we interviewed state and local
policymakers in the areas of employment, training, and human
services, as well as budget analysts responsible for these budget
activities.  We also reviewed relevant documents.  At the local
service delivery sites, in addition to interviewing policymakers, we
observed operations and interviewed staff members who were providing
the services to TANF clients. 

Some limitations exist in any methodology that gathers information
about programs that are undergoing rapid change, such as welfare
reform.  Results presented in our report represent only the
conditions present in our states and localities at the time of our
site visits.  We cannot comment on any changes that may have occurred
after our fieldwork.  Furthermore, our fieldwork focused on in-depth
analysis of a few selected states and localities.  While we provide
some similar contextual information on all 50 states, we cannot
generalize our findings beyond the 5 states we visited and their
localities. 


--------------------
\30 The Rockefeller Institute of Government is currently conducting a
study in 20 states of states' implementation of the Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA). 

\31 "TANF effective dateï¿½ denotes the date the state came under the
TANF block grant requirements. 


ARIZONA
========================================================== Appendix II

Arizona began reforming its welfare system and consolidating its
workforce development system in the mid-1990s.  In November 1995, the
state implemented its initial welfare reform legislation, which
established the Employing and Moving People Off Welfare and
Encouraging Responsibility (EMPOWER) program.  The intent of this
program was to create a culture change from an emphasis on cash
assistance to a focus on work and self-sufficiency.  Since then, the
state has passed additional legislation to restructure the EMPOWER
program to comply with PRWORA and to establish and implement a pilot
program in selected areas to privatize a portion of its welfare
service delivery.  The primary vehicle through which the state is
consolidating its workforce development system is its one-stop career
centers.  Arizona received a one-stop planning grant from the
Department of Labor in 1994, and an implementation grant in 1995. 
While both of these efforts fall under the purview of the state's
Department of Economic Security, the majority of TANF clients do not
receive employment and training services through the state's one-stop
career centers.  Most TANF clients receive these services through
EMPOWER centers--which consolidate cash assistance, employment and
training, and child care and support services for TANF clients--or
through separate offices that formerly served Job Opportunities and
Basic Skills (JOBS) training program clients and now serve only TANF
clients.  Services provided include a job-readiness workshop, job
search assistance, work experience, training, and supportive
services, all of which are predominantly funded from the TANF block
grant. 


   ARIZONA'S WELFARE REFORM
   EFFORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:1

Arizona began its welfare reform efforts before the passage of
federal legislation--under AFDC waivers granted in 1995--with its
initial welfare reform legislation establishing the EMPOWER program. 
The program included provisions to limit the time adults could
collect welfare benefits and to limit increasing benefits for
additional children born to families on welfare.  In October 1996,
Arizona began implementing its TANF plan, which emphasized employment
and parents' acceptance of their personal responsibility for their
family's self-sufficiency.  To fully comply with PRWORA, the state
needed to pass additional welfare reform legislation and did so in
April 1997.  This legislation requires all clients to engage in work
activities but does allow for some temporary deferrals.  The
legislation also provided for a pilot project to deliver welfare
services for approximately 12 percent of the caseload through the
private rather than the public sector, but this provision had not
been implemented at the time of our field visit.  The Arizona welfare
system is state administered, with services delivered by state staff
through local offices.  Major provisions of the program are shown in
table II.1. 



                               Table II.1
                
                 Provisions of Arizona's TANF Plan--the
                            EMPOWER Program

Provision           Description
------------------  --------------------------------------------------
Cash assistance     $204 for 1 individual with a rental obligation.
(per month)         For each additional individual, $71/month is added
                    to the grant. $128 for 1 individual without a
                    rental obligation. For each additional individual,
                    $45/month is added to the grant.

Time limits for     Adult household members may receive assistance
cash assistance     only for 24 months during a 5-year period. Adults
                    may receive only 60 months of case assistance
                    during their lifetime.

Hours weekly of     The minimum work participation levels established
allowable work      in PRWORA plus 5 additional hours per week as
activities          provided in state rules.
required

Work participation  Unless they are temporarily deferred, all clients
requirements        are required to engage in work activities.

Allowable work      --unsubsidized employment
activities to meet  --subsidized private or public employment
participation       --work experience
requirements        --on-the-job training
                    --job search and job readiness assistance
                    --community service programs
                    --vocational education training (for up to 1 year,
                    and only 30 percent of clients in work activities
                    may be in this activity)
                    --job skills training directly related to
                    employment
                    --education directly related to employment (in the
                    case of a recipient who lacks a high school
                    diploma or general equivalency diploma (GED))
                    --satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or
                    in a course of study leading to a GED (in the case
                    of a recipient who has not yet completed secondary
                    school or received a certificate)

Reasons for         --single-parent head-of-household with child under
temporary           age 1
deferrals from      --single-parent with child under age 13 when child
work participation  care is unavailable, unaffordable, or unsuitable
                    --parent under age 18 caring for a child under 12
                    weeks of age
                    --high school student or dependent child
                    --disabled person or person caring for a disabled
                    dependent
                    --victim of domestic violence
                    --child-only cases

Diversion program   None at this time.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Arizona Department of Economic Security. 

Since January 1993, Arizona's AFDC/TANF family caseload has declined
46 percent, from 68,982 to 37,008 in June 1998 (see fig.  II.1). 

   Figure II.1:  Arizona's
   AFDC/TANF Family Caseload, Jan. 
   1993-June 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  HHS Administration for Children and Families. 

For the most part, TANF clients obtain employment in the service
industry, particularly in the banking, telephone call center, hotel,
retail sales, clerical, health care, and fast food and restaurant
sectors.  Arizona's economy has shifted over the years from copper,
cattle, and cotton to services, manufacturing, electronics, and
tourism.  Most of the jobs are in the large metropolitan areas of
Phoenix and Tucson.  These areas are experiencing a shortage of
workers, particularly in the high technology and entry-level markets. 
At the time of our visit, the Arizona economy was strong, with a 1997
unemployment rate of 4.6 percent, down from 5.5 in 1990, with a peak
during those years of 7.6 in 1992. 


   ARIZONA'S WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
   SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:2

In 1994, Arizona received a planning grant from the Department of
Labor to begin creating a one-stop career center system across the
state.  Arizona continued to work toward system development when it
was awarded a 3-year implementation grant from the Department of
Labor in 1995.  The state opened its first four centers in 1996 and
anticipated statewide coverage--that is, at least one center in each
of Arizona's 15 counties--by the fall of 1998.  The first four
centers opened included geographic areas covering 50 percent of the
state's population, while the second four centers--opened in
1997--included geographic areas representing another 38 percent of
the state's population.  The Arizona Department of Economic Security
contracts with the local entities to operate some centers, and others
are operated in state facilities in partnership with the service
delivery areas. 

Arizona designed its one-stop system to provide universal access for
customers to choose basic, high-quality employment, training, and
education services.  Basic services available at the one-stop centers
include

  -- career information, including regional, national, and local
     demand occupations; skill requirements and earning potential; as
     well as information about education and training providers;

  -- job openings;

  -- testing and assessment;

  -- hiring requirements and referrals;

  -- job search assistance; and

  -- program information. 

The mandatory core program services provided at the one-stop centers
include services through the Job Service (Arizona's Employment
Service office), Veterans' Employment and Training program, programs
through titles II and III of JTPA, Unemployment Insurance, and the
Senior Community Services Employment program.  Other programs and
services, such as consumer credit counseling, community college,
school-to-work program, chambers of commerce, community action
programs, veterans programs, nontraditional employment for women, and
Head Start, can also be offered at the centers.  Each center serves
clients on the basis of a tier system:  tier one is self-service,
tier two is group services, and tier three is one-on-one services. 


   STATE STRUCTURE FOR DELIVERING
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:3

A separate entity within Arizona's workforce development division
provides employment and training services to TANF clients only.  The
Department of Economic Security administers both welfare and
workforce development services statewide.  Within the Department of
Economic Security, the Division of Benefits and Medical Eligibility
(DBME) is responsible for all TANF services except employment,
training, and child care services.  These services are housed within
the Division of Employment and Rehabilitation Services (DERS), which
is also responsible for traditional workforce development programs
such as JTPA and the Employment Service.  (See fig.  II.2 for
Arizona's organizational structure for employment, training, and
TANF-related services.) Within DERS, the Child Care Administration
provides child care services to TANF clients, and the JOBS
administration\32 oversees employment- and training-related services. 
These two administrations are responsible for making policy decisions
for their respective services, as they were under the previous JOBS
program, and the current staff continue to provide services to TANF
clients only.  Within DBME, the Family Assistance Administration
determines eligibility for cash assistance and authorizes other
assistance such as food stamps and Medicaid. 

   Figure II.2:  Arizona's
   Organizational Structure for
   Employment and Training
   Services and TANF Assistance

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are welfare system; shaded blocks are
workforce development system.  Half-shaded blocks have elements of
each system. 

\a Since our field visit in March 1998, the Department of Economic
Security has combined the JOBS and JTPA administrations into one. 
The welfare-to-work program resides here. 

Arizona is transitioning its welfare delivery system from one that
delivered many different services through multiple offices to one
that is a system of welfare centers, called EMPOWER centers,
resembling one-stop career centers but dedicated to serving only
welfare clients.  In the past, clients had to visit multiple
locations within a community to obtain all of the TANF-related
services they needed.  For example, clients would go to the local
Family Assistance Administration office to learn whether they were
eligible for assistance, then to the local JOBS office to obtain
employment and training services, and to a third location for child
care or child support services.  However, in October 1997, Arizona
began converting these offices into local EMPOWER centers to bring
together in one location all TANF-related services and to provide a
resource room for clients to access the state's employment service
job listings and other employment assistance tools.  Because there
are far fewer JOBS staff than staff who determine TANF eligibility,
JOBS staff are not collocated with eligibility staff at EMPOWER
centers in all areas of the state.  TANF clients continue to receive
their eligibility services from Family Assistance Administration
staff and their employment and training services from JOBS staff,
regardless of where these staff are located. 

TANF clients at this time do not routinely obtain employment and
training services through the state's one-stop career centers along
with other clients\33 because the state developed a TANF client flow
that routes them to JOBS staff rather than the traditional workforce
development staff at one-stop centers.  The Assistant Director of
DERS told us that he strongly believes that welfare clients should
not be on a separate track from other clients and hopes to eventually
bring these two systems together. 


--------------------
\32 At the time of our visit, JOBS had its own administration.  Since
that time, the Department of Economic Security has combined the JOBS
and JTPA administrations into one.  Although the JOBS program was
replaced by TANF, Arizona retained the JOBS structure to provide
services to TANF clients, and it retained the JOBS name. 

\33 In a few rural locations, such as Showlow and Stafford-Globe,
EMPOWER and one-stop centers are collocated. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES PROVIDED TO TANF
   CLIENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:4

Arizona's welfare reform effort is a ï¿½work firstï¿½ model that requires
all clients to participate in work activities as soon as possible
after benefits have been approved.  The state identified four
categories of clients who are a priority for employment and training
services:  (1) individuals who are subject to the time limits, (2)
custodial teen parents, (3) two-parent families, and (4) individuals
who are currently under sanction for noncompliance.  The state's
client flow, implemented in all local Family Assistance
Administration and JOBS offices, begins with clients applying for
cash assistance at a Family Assistance office or EMPOWER center. 
Once determined eligible, clients view a ï¿½welcome tape,ï¿½ which
highlights the state's expectation that assistance is temporary and
that all clients will obtain employment.  Clients then meet with a
JOBS counselor for an initial interview.  At this point, some clients
may be temporarily deferred,\34 although the JOBS Administrator told
us that the state expects to defer only about 5 percent of its cases. 
The JOBS counselor then places clients in a rapid placement program. 

The rapid placement program begins with 2 weeks of job-readiness
training called "Steps to Self-Sufficiency." Readiness training
focuses heavily on job search techniques and strategies, covering
topics such as the elements of a job search, communication and
teamwork, planning for the future, assertiveness, job interviews, and
stress management.  If a client has not obtained employment by the
end of the job-readiness training, the client moves into a 2-week job
search component.  This component includes a "job club," a group in
which clients provide support for each others' job searches.  The
JOBS Administrator estimated that about 50 percent of the clients
going through the rapid placement program obtain employment by the
end of these 4 weeks. 

Clients who do not obtain employment after the job search component
then receive case management services from a JOBS counselor.  In this
phase, the JOBS counselor works with each client to identify the best
short-term transition activity that will ultimately lead to
unsubsidized work.  These activities include further job search
assistance, job development, subsidized work, unpaid work experience,
community service work, on-the-job training, or basic education or
vocational training.  At this point, most clients enter unpaid work
experience and few clients move into subsidized work or on-the-job
training through JTPA.  The JOBS Administrator explained that they
have had a dramatic decrease in the number of clients (other than
teen parents) entering basic education, a GED program, or other
training as a result of PRWORA's limitations on allowable educational
work activities that meet the work requirement.  (See fig.  II.3,
which depicts client flow for Arizona's TANF clients.)

In fiscal year 1997, 10,975 clients participated in the job-readiness
training, 205 in on-the-job training, 12 in subsidized work, 4,215 in
unpaid work experience, 45 in the community service program, 2,633 in
basic skills training, and 3,557 in vocational training.\35

   Figure II.3:  Arizona TANF
   Client Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system.  Half-shaded blocks are services provided by both systems. 

Although basic education or vocational training is technically an
option under the short-term transition activities, state and local
officials told us that they generally use other options because of
their ï¿½work firstï¿½ philosophy.  Most training they provide beyond the
job-readiness training is generally short-term, customized training
in specific industry sectors such as food service, hospitality,
health care, electronics, child care, and telephone call centers. 
For example, clients can obtain customer service training, which
applies directly to telephone call centers as well as other industry
sectors.  The state often works directly with specific employers that
provide job placement after training.  At the time of our visit, the
state had just completed a training plan with the Tucson Medical
Center, resulting in a commitment by the medical center to hire 40
clients.  State officials believe the best training for a job is a
job and therefore prefer to have clients test the marketplace first. 


--------------------
\34 For a list of deferrals, see table II.1. 

\35 Because each state maintains its data differently, client
participation data are presented differently and for different time
periods in each appendix. 


   FUNDING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:5

Arizona's federal and state TANF funds comprise the predominant
source of funding for employment and training services for TANF
clients.  Arizona's 1997 federal and state TANF funds available
totaled about $312 million,\\36 of which the state estimates it spent
about $16 million to provide employment and training services to TANF
clients.  Moreover, although JOBS officials told us that the number
of TANF clients entering training has decreased, Arizona TANF clients
are still accessing JTPA title IIA funds for training.  During
approximately the same time period,\37 the Arizona JTPA title IIA
funding allotment, which must serve a broader population than TANF
clients, totaled about $13.8 million. 

While TANF clients are still accessing services funded through JTPA
title IIA training, the state's emphasis on work leaves little
opportunity for training, and fewer TANF clients are accessing these
services.  In 1995, 982 JTPA title IIA clients were AFDC/TANF
clients, while in 1997 this number decreased to 620.  Moreover, the
proportion of title IIA clients who were AFDC/TANF declined between
these 2 years by 5 percentage points.  (See table II.2.)



                         Table II.2
          
            Number of JTPA Title IIA Clients for
                   Program Years 1995-97

                             Total              Percentage
                          clients\   AFDC/TANF    who were
Program year                     a     clients   AFDC/TANF
------------------------  --------  ----------  ----------
1995                         2,847         982        34.5
1996                         3,033       1,042        34.4
1997                         2,093         620        29.6
----------------------------------------------------------
\a For purposes of our work, participants are defined as those who
terminated from the program during the program year. 

Source:  Program year 1995 and 1996 data are from the Department of
Labor.  Program year 1997 data are from the Arizona Department of
Economic Security and are preliminary. 

All TANF funds go directly to the Department of Economic Security. 
The funds for cash assistance flow through DBME to the Family
Assistance Administration, while the funds for employment and
training services for TANF clients flow through DERS to the JOBS
administration (see fig.  II.4). 

   Figure II.4:  Flow of TANF
   Funds in Arizona

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In August 1998, Labor awarded Arizona $9 million in welfare-to-work
funds for fiscal year 1998.\38 The Department of Economic Security is
both the grant recipient and the state administering entity.  The
state plans to use these funds for the full range of federally
allowable welfare-to-work activities and targeting strategies most
appropriate for local needs.  However, at the time of our visit,
Arizona had not yet been awarded these funds. 


--------------------
\36 This total includes the amount of funds available for TANF (total
funds awarded less funds transferred to the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and to the Social Services Block Grant), plus
the amount of state TANF funds expended. 

\37 TANF funding is distributed on a federal fiscal year basis, while
JTPA funding is distributed on a program year basis.  Federal fiscal
year 1997 ran from October 1996 to September 1997, while program year
1996 ran from July 1996 to June 1997. 

\38 To receive a formula grant, states must assure that $1 of state
matching funds is available for every $2 of federal welfare-to-work
funds.  Arizona has assured the Department of Labor that it will
provide $4.5 million in state matching funds over the 3-year grant
period.  However, to date, the Arizona legislature has only
appropriated $1.5 million in matching funds for 1998; consequently,
the state is currently allocating its grant funds on the basis of
receiving $3 million in federal funds. 


   LOCAL SITE VISITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix II:6

We visited four local sites in Arizona, as shown in figure II.5: 
Phoenix, Tempe/Mesa, Flagstaff, and Tucson.  We chose these sites to
provide a mix of geographic locations, including a mix of urban and
nonurban sites, as well as different service delivery structures. 
Each of these sites followed the prescribed client flow.  Table II.3
summarizes information on the sites we visited. 

   Figure II.5:  Local Sites
   Visited in Arizona

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                         Table II.3
          
             Information on Local Sites Visited

           Number of
                TANF  Type of     Facilities
Location    families  community   visited         Comments
--------  ----------  ----------  --------------  --------
Flagstaf         223  Nonurban    Family          One-
f                                 Assistance      stop
                                  Administration  center
                                  office; JOBS    was
                                  office;         under
                                  employment      developm
                                  service         ent
                                  office; JTPA
                                  service center

Mesa/          269\a  Urban       EMPOWER
Tempe                             center; JOBS
                                  office; one-
                                  stop career
                                  center

Phoenix          453  Urban       EMPOWER
                                  center;
                                  multiagency
                                  site

Tucson           177  Urban       EMPOWER         JOBS
                                  center; one-    staff
                                  stop career     member
                                  center          located
                                                  on-site
                                                  at one-
                                                  stop
                                                  center
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The TANF caseload cited is for the Tempe EMPOWER center we
visited. 


MASSACHUSETTS
========================================================= Appendix III

Massachusetts began reforming both its workforce development and
welfare systems in the early to mid-1990s.  Debate on welfare reform
began in the early 1990s and culminated in 1995 with the passage of
the state's welfare reform legislation.  This legislation's intent
was to transform a system that fostered dependency into one that
would promote self-sufficiency.  In 1994, Massachusetts became one of
the first six states to receive a one-stop career center
implementation grant from the Department of Labor to transform its
fragmented array of employment and training programs into a
high-quality, integrated service delivery system.  The state opened
its first one-stop career center in February 1996, but statewide
implementation was delayed.  However, the initiative is currently
moving forward, with all centers expected to be operational within
the next 12 months.  The welfare and workforce development systems in
Massachusetts have a long history of working together.  For many
years, the welfare system has contracted with the workforce
development system to provide employment and training services to
TANF clients, and this arrangement continues today.  Workforce
development staff generally provide these services to TANF clients in
local welfare offices, and the TANF federal block grant and state
dollars are the predominant funding sources for these services. 


   MASSACHUSETTS' WELFARE REFORM
   EFFORTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:1

Massachusetts' welfare reform legislation, passed in 1995, required
clients to work and take individual responsibility for their
families, and it made public assistance a transitional, rather than
long-term, form of assistance.  To implement this legislation, the
state obtained AFDC waivers from the Secretary of Health and Human
Services--effective on November 1, 1995--that placed work
requirements on able-bodied recipients who had school-aged children
in school full time.  Although the state legislation called for time
limits on cash assistance, Massachusetts did not obtain an AFDC
waiver to implement this part of its reform.  Time limits were
implemented later under the TANF plan, which took effect in December
1996.  Massachusetts' welfare system is state administered and
locally delivered.  Major provisions of its TANF plan are shown in
table III.1. 



                        Table III.1
          
           Provisions of Massachusetts' TANF Plan

Provision     Description
------------  --------------------------------------------
Cash          $343 to $997\a
assistance
(per month)

Time limits   Nonexempt clients are generally limited to
for cash      24 months of assistance in a continuous 60-
assistance    month period.

Hours weekly  Minimum of 20 hours per week.
of allowable
work
activities

Work          All nonexempt recipients who have received
participatio  60 days of benefits and whose child of
n             record\b is mandatory full-time school age
requirements  are required to meet work requirements.

Allowable     Unsubsidized employment, subsidized
work          employment, community service, combining
activities    work and community service, participating in
to meet work  an employment services program\c component
participatio  that began on or before 1/1/95, meeting his
n             or her housing search requirements while in
requirements  a temporary emergency shelter, or
              participating in the substance abuse
              treatment program while in a substance abuse
              shelter.

Reasons for   Those exempt from both the time limits and
exemptions    work requirements include disabled parents,
              parents caring for a disabled child or
              spouse, pregnant women in their third
              trimester, grantees whose child of record is
              under the age of 2 or who have any child
              under the age of 3 months, teen parents
              under the age of 20 who are attending high
              school full time and are meeting the
              requirements of structured living, and
              ineligible grantees.

              Clients exempt from the work requirement but
              not the time limit are those whose child of
              record is between the ages of 2 and
              mandatory full-time school age.

Training      Training is an option for all clients,
provisions    although those who are required to go to
              work must meet their work requirement as a
              prerequisite to participation in training
              activities.

Diversion     None.
program
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Not including $40 per month rent allowance for clients not living
in public housing. 

\b A child of record is defined as the youngest child of a parent (1)
receiving assistance on July 1, 1995, or the date the waivers are
effective, whichever is later; or (2) in the case of applicants, at
the time the parent first applies for assistance after July 1, 1995,
or the date the waivers are effective, whichever is later. 

\c The employment services program is administered by the Department
of Transitional Assistance and offers job placement, education,
skills training, transportation, supported work, and other services
necessary for TANF clients to quickly obtain and maintain employment. 

Source:  Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance. 

Since January 1993, Massachusetts' AFDC/TANF family caseload has
declined 44 percent, from 113,571 to 63,501 in June 1998 (see fig. 
III.1). 

   Figure III.1:  Massachusetts'
   AFDC/TANF Family Caseload, Jan. 
   1993-June 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  HHS Administration for Children and Families. 

Many Massachusetts TANF clients find employment in the service
industry, particularly in health care, food service, retail, and
clerical positions.  Major industries in the state include the
service industry, trade, manufacturing, government, finance,
transportation and utilities, and construction.  Massachusetts state
officials told us that the state is experiencing some skills
shortages, particularly in the areas of software development,
telecommunications, and manufacturing (specifically, machinists).  At
the time of our study, the Massachusetts economy was strong.  The
statewide unemployment rate had declined from 6.0 percent in 1990 to
4.0 percent in 1997, with a peak during these years of 9.1 in 1991. 
Although most of the state is experiencing this strong economy, it
does have some pockets of high unemployment, such as the cities of
Lawrence and New Bedford, where the 1997 unemployment rates were 8.8
and 9.3, respectively. 


   MASSACHUSETTS' WORKFORCE
   DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
   CONSOLIDATION
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:2

In 1994, Massachusetts was one of six states to receive a one-stop
career center implementation grant from Labor to combine its multiple
employment and training programs into a coherent, client-centered
workforce development system.  However, the original design and
implementation of the state's one-stop career center system caused
considerable turmoil within the workforce development community that,
along with fiscal problems, stalled statewide implementation.  At the
time of our visit, Massachusetts had seven one-stop career centers
operating in 3 of its 16 Regional Employment Board areas.\39 In early
1998, the state modified its one-stop career center design and
reorganized the entity overseeing the one-stop center implementation,
and now expects to have all one-stops operational within the next 12
months. 

The one-stop centers offer individual clients the set of core
services outlined by the Department of Labor, including

  -- information on local labor markets, career options, education
     and training program availability and quality, jobs currently
     available within the region and state, and eligibility
     requirements for training programs and financial aid resources;

  -- basic assessment of customer skills and interests;

  -- job search assistance;

  -- unemployment insurance enrollment;

  -- veterans' employment and training services;

  -- older worker employment and training services; and

  -- referrals to specialty program providers. 


--------------------
\39 In 1988, Massachusetts expanded the role of the then Private
Industry Councils to include local policy-making responsibility for
all workforce development initiatives.  At that time, the state
renamed the Private Industry Councils to Regional Employment Boards. 
The state is divided into 16 local Regional Employment Boards and
describes its workforce development system as "centrally guided and
locally controlled."


   STATE STRUCTURE FOR DELIVERING
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:3

Massachusetts' welfare and workforce development systems have a long
history of working together to provide employment and training
services to TANF clients that continues today.  The Department of
Transitional Assistance (DTA) is responsible for all TANF
policy-making and services provided to TANF clients, including those
for employment and training.  DTA contracts with state and local
workforce development agencies to provide employment and training
services to TANF clients, just as it did under the JOBS program, and
DTA provides some direct assistance for services such as subsidized
work and community service through its local office workers.  DTA
contracts with the Division of Employment and Training--housed within
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)--to provide
employment assistance to TANF clients across the state through the
state's local Employment Service and one-stop career center staff. 
DTA also contracts primarily with the local JTPA entities to provide
training services to TANF clients.  Figure III.2 shows Massachusetts'
organizational structure for employment, training, and TANF-related
services. 

   Figure III.2:  Massachusetts'
   Organizational Structure for
   Employment and Training
   Services and TANF Assistance

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are welfare system; shaded blocks are
workforce development system. 

Because the Massachusetts workforce development system has not yet
fully transitioned to one-stop career centers,\40 the workforce
development entity that actually provides employment assistance to
TANF clients varies across the 16 Regional Employment Board areas. 
In those areas where one-stop career centers exist, career center
staff provide employment services,\41 and in those areas without
one-stop career centers, state Employment Service staff provide these
services.  Regardless of the service provider, employment services
are generally provided to TANF clients at local welfare offices--the
same location where DTA staff determine eligibility for cash
assistance and provide or authorize other services such as Food Stamp
and Medicaid benefits, as well as support services such as child
care.  Providing services in the local welfare offices rather than at
the one-stop career centers (or Employment Service offices) is at the
request of DTA state officials who believe their clients are better
served if all services are provided on-site at DTA welfare offices. 
For training services, TANF clients see local JTPA staff in all areas
of the state regardless of whether there is a one-stop career center
or not.  DTA again prefers that local JTPA staff provide access to
training services at the local welfare offices where feasible. 
Therefore, while TANF clients are not precluded from directly
accessing services at the state's one-stop career centers or local
workforce development offices, workforce development system staff are
generally outstationed at local welfare offices.  One program we
visited in western Massachusetts periodically takes some TANF clients
to the one-stop career center so the clients can be slowly introduced
to the career center environment. 


--------------------
\40 At the time of our field visit, 3 of the 16 Regional Employment
Board areas had made this transition. 

\41 In two of the seven one-stop career centers established at the
time of our visit, Employment Service--the Division of Employment and
Training--staff were part of the one-stop career center collaborative
providing services.  Therefore, in those two centers, employment
services to TANF and other clients were provided by Employment
Service staff. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES PROVIDED TO TANF
   CLIENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4

Unlike some of the other states we visited, Massachusetts does not
prescribe the employment and training services TANF clients must
receive, even if they are required to work or are subject to the
state's 2-year benefits time limit.  The state divides its TANF
caseload into two categories--exempt and nonexempt--and the
proportion of the total caseload in each category is about 50 percent
(see table III.2 for Massachusetts' categorization of TANF clients). 
The time limit and work requirements do not apply to exempt clients. 
While the time limit does apply to all nonexempt clients, the work
requirement applies only to those nonexempt clients whose child of
record is at the age of mandatory, full-time schooling (generally, 6
years old).  Therefore, a large proportion of TANF clients in
Massachusetts--nearly 81 percent in July 1998--are not required to
participate in a work activity, and about half of all TANF clients
are subject to the 2-year time limit. 



                        Table III.2
          
             Categories of Massachusetts' TANF
                          Clients

                            Time
Category                    limit   Work    Service
--------------------------  ------  ------  --------------
Exempt
----------------------------------------------------------
Includes clients whose      No      No      Can access all
child of record is under                    employment and
the age of 2 and clients                    training
who have any child under                    services.
the age of 3 months. Also
includes disabled adults,
adults caring for a
disabled child or spouse,
pregnant women in their
third trimester, teen
parents under the age of
20 who are attending high
school full time and are
meeting the requirements
of structured living, and
ineligible grantees.


Nonexempt
----------------------------------------------------------
Child of record is between  Yes     No      Can access all
the ages of 2 and the                       employment and
mandatory full-time school                  training
age.                                        services.

Child of record is of the   Yes     Yes     Can access all
mandatory full-time school                  employment and
age.                                        training
                                            services if
                                            meeting work
                                            requirement.
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance. 

DTA workers encourage those clients who are not required to work to
begin accessing services as soon as possible.  Their service options
include job search assistance and training--including longer-term
education and training programs.  Clients who are subject to the work
requirement must first meet their work requirement before being
eligible for other training services. 


      CLIENT FLOW
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.1

As shown in figure III.3, TANF clients apply for benefits at their
local DTA office, where a caseworker determines whether the client is
eligible, and if eligible, whether the client is exempt from the time
limits and the work participation requirements.  If a client is
required to go to work, the DTA worker refers the client to either
Division of Employment and Training or one-stop career center
staff--depending upon staff location--for job search and placement
assistance.  If a client does not obtain employment by the 60th day
of receiving benefits, he or she is required to perform community
service for a minimum of 20 hours per week.  DTA workers then assist
the client with a community service placement.  Those clients who are
not required to go to work but want to work are also referred to
either Division of Employment and Training or one-stop career center
staff.  DTA workers generally refer those clients who are interested
in training assistance to the local JTPA agency.\42

   Figure III.3:  Massachusetts'
   TANF Client Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system. 

\a Clients with a child of record who is of mandatory school age must
be in a work activity after 60 days of receiving benefits. 
Therefore, the service options shown are available to these clients
both before and after this 60-day period, but clients must be meeting
their work requirement after the 60th day to access these services. 


--------------------
\42 In some cases, DTA workers refer clients to other vendors for
services such as community colleges or those providing services for
the state's supported work program. 


      JOB PLACEMENT ASSISTANCE
      SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.2

All TANF clients accessing job placement assistance services are
informally assessed to identify the client's strengths and barriers
to employment and then provided services according to the client's
needs.  This assessment includes a review and evaluation of the
client's

  -- occupational goals;

  -- vocational skills;

  -- aptitudes and interests;

  -- work history;

  -- previous job training and the availability of similar jobs in
     the local labor market;

  -- educational attainment levels and basic literacy and English
     proficiency;

  -- understanding of the world of work (job retention skills such as
     reliability, conflict resolution, and appropriate dress); and

  -- job-readiness skills, motivation, and willingness to actively
     participate, and his or her potential for immediate employment. 

Job placement assistance services provided to TANF clients include
job search assistance; developing job-readiness skills such as resume
writing and interviewing; and developing ï¿½soft skills,ï¿½ such as
getting to work on time and appropriate dress.  Massachusetts
recently developed a group-structured job search model to help
provide employment services to the first group of TANF clients
reaching the 2-year time limit in December 1998.  This
group-structured job search is a minimum 20-hour-per-week job search
model that includes job-readiness topics and activities (such as
self-esteem building; motivation development; employer expectations;
time management; and appearance, dress, and hygiene) and job search
topics and activities (such as identifying skills, abilities,
accomplishments, finding job leads, resume development, and interview
preparation).  While the state's welfare reform law does not require
participation in this activity, DTA workers strongly encourage
clients to participate. 

In addition to the structured job search, other DTA programs that
assist clients with job placement include basic job search,
Massachusetts Office of Refugees and Immigrants (a structured job
search program for non-English and non-Spanish speakers), Supported
Work (a program that places clients with considerable barriers to
employment in highly supportive work sites before transitioning them
to unsubsidized employment), and the Full Employment Program (a
program that matches clients with employers who provide training and
mentoring in exchange for wage subsidizes). 

During fiscal year 1997, 7,184 clients accessed job placement
assistance services, and about the same number of clients enrolled in
community service.  In addition, 569 clients enrolled in
Massachusetts' Full Employment Program and another 1,890 enrolled in
the Supported Work program.\43 \44


--------------------
\43 These numbers represent the number of individual clients who
enrolled in these services.  Therefore, if a client enrolled in more
than one activity, that client would be counted in each enrollment. 

\44 Because each state maintains its data differently, client
participation data are presented differently and for different time
periods in each appendix. 


      TRAINING SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:4.3

The state's "work first" philosophy and the implementation of time
limits has changed the pattern of training for clients receiving cash
assistance.  According to state officials, before welfare reform,
training activities were delivered sequentially.  Clients
participated in training for extended periods of time, beginning with
adult basic education and/or English-as-a-
second-language training, moving into GED preparation, and then
progressing into occupational training.  According to state
officials, long-term sequential training methodologies are no longer
practical for clients subject to time-limited benefits.  Under the
state's 2-year time limit, clients who are nonexempt from the work
requirement can only obtain training while otherwise meeting their
work requirement.  Clients who are not required to go to work can
also participate in education and training services. 

Education services provided by DTA include the Young Parents Program
(direct contracts with providers to serve TANF clients who are
pregnant and/or parents and between the ages of 14 and 22), and
contracts with the JTPA entities to provide adult basic education,
English for employment, English as a second language, and general
education development.  Training services funded by DTA include
skills training, the Community College Voucher Program, and Parents
Fair Share.  The skills training programs are administered by the
JTPA entities and are predominantly short-term (averaging 4 to 12
weeks in duration) with a placement outcome.  The Community College
Voucher Program provides certificate and noncertificate skills
training programs that range between 1 and 6 months and have a job
placement outcome.  Parents Fair Share provides employment and
training services to unemployed absent parents of children receiving
TANF benefits in the Springfield area.  According to DTA, the largest
proportion of clients who enrolled in education and training in
fiscal year 1997 enrolled in skills training.  (See table III.3 for
1997 training activities.)



                        Table III.3
          
             Number of TANF Clients in Training
                Activities, Fiscal Year 1997

                                   Number of    Percentage
Training activity                    clients    of clients
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Skills training                        5,687            43
GED                                    2,814            21
Community college                      2,005            15
High school                            1,437            11
Other college                            629             5
English as a second language             419             3
Adult basic education                    120             1
----------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  These data represent clients enrolled in training activities
but do not include clients who are in paid employment.  If a client
enrolled in more than one activity, he or she would be counted in
each activity.

Because each state maintains its data differently, client
participation data are presented differently and for different time
periods in each appendix. 

Source:  Massachusetts Department of Transitional Assistance. 


   FUNDING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:5

Funding to support employment and training services for TANF clients
comes largely from the federal TANF block grant and the related state
funds.  Massachusetts' 1997 federal and state TANF funds totaled
about $651 million,\45 of which about $21.6 million was used to
provide employment and training services to TANF clients.  In
addition, TANF clients are still obtaining services funded by JTPA
title IIA.  During roughly this same time period,\46 the JTPA title
IIA funding allotment for Massachusetts totaled about $17 million. 

While TANF clients in Massachusetts are still receiving services
funded through JTPA title IIA, fewer clients have done so over the
last 3 years.  In 1995, 3,708 JTPA title IIA clients were AFDC/TANF,
while in 1997, this number decreased to 1,142.  Moreover, the
proportion of clients who were AFDC/TANF declined between 1995 and
1997 by 8.8 percentage points.  See table III.4. 



                        Table III.4
          
            Number of JTPA Title IIA Clients for
                   Program Years 1995-97

                                                Percentage
                         Total     AFDC/TANF      who were
Program year         clients\a       clients     AFDC/TANF
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
1995                     7,020         3,708          52.8
1996                     4,770         2,129          44.6
1997                     2,593         1,142          44.0
----------------------------------------------------------
\a For purposes of our work, participants are defined as those who
terminated from the program during the program year. 

Source:  Program year 1995 and 1996 data are from the Department of
Labor.  Program year 1997 data are from the Massachusetts Corporation
for Business, Work and Learning. 

All TANF funds flow to DTA.  DTA then disseminates the employment and
training funds through contracts with the workforce development
system and provides other TANF services through its local DTA offices
(see fig.  III.4). 

   Figure III.4:  Flow of TANF
   Funds in Massachusetts

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

\a In addition to contracts between DTA and Division of Employment
and Training/one-stop career centers and the JTPA entities, DTA also
has direct contracts with providers in supported work, Young Parents
Program, community colleges, Massachusetts Office of Refugees and
Immigrants, Parents Fair Share, GED testing, and transportation
assistance. 

In February 1998, Labor awarded Massachusetts $20,692,295 in
welfare-to-work funds for fiscal year 1998.  Massachusetts'
Department of Labor and Workforce Development is the grant recipient,
and its quasi-public subentity, the Corporation for Business, Work
and Learning, is the welfare-to-work state administering entity. 
According to a state official, the majority of the service delivery
areas (the local welfare-to-work entities) are coordinating their
welfare-to-work programs with existing employment programs (including
short-term job-readiness/
placement programs and subsidized employment programs) and providing
clients with new postplacement retention and support services.  Some
service delivery areas are offering variations to existing programs
with employers.  At the time of our field visit, Massachusetts had
not yet fully implemented this program. 


--------------------
\45 This total includes the amount of funds available for TANF (total
funds awarded less funds transferred to the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and to the Social Services Block Grant), plus
the amount of state dollars the state reported expending. 

\46 TANF funding is distributed on a federal fiscal year basis, while
JTPA funding is distributed on a program year basis.  Federal fiscal
year 1997 ran from October 1996 to September 1997, while program year
1996 ran from July 1996 to June 1997. 


   LOCAL SITE VISITS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:6

We visited four local sites in Massachusetts, as shown in figure
III.5, to discuss employment and training service delivery to TANF
clients.  We selected these sites to reflect different workforce
development system designs and to provide a mixture of geographic
locations, unemployment rates, and service providers (see table
III.5).  The Springfield one-stop career center is operated by a
for-profit vendor.  The Cambridge one-stop career center is operated
by the local JTPA entity, while the Holyoke one-stop career center is
operated by a collaboration of vendors that includes the local
chamber of commerce, community college, and the Division of
Employment and Training office.  The fourth site, Lawrence, has not
yet transitioned to a one-stop career center system and is therefore
providing employment and training services under the more traditional
workforce development system.  All sites provided employment and
training services to TANF clients under contracts with DTA.  Table
III.5 summarizes information concerning the local sites. 

   Figure III.5:  Local Sites
   Visited in Massachusetts

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                        Table III.5
          
             Information on Local Sites Visited

           Number of                          Employment
          TANF cases        1997              and training
            (at time  unemployme  Type of     service
Location   of visit)     nt rate  community   provider
--------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ------------
Cambridg       929\a         2.4  Urban       One-stop
e                                             career
                                              center
                                              operated by
                                              JTPA entity

Holyoke      9,620\b         5.7  Urban\c     One-stop
                                              career
                                              center
                                              operated by
                                              a
                                              collaborativ
                                              e including
                                              local
                                              chamber of
                                              commerce,
                                              community
                                              college, and
                                              Division of
                                              Employment
                                              and Training
                                              office

Lawrence       2,850         8.8  Urban       Division of
                                              Employment
                                              and Training
                                              and JTPA
                                              entities

Springfi     9,620\b         5.7  Urban\c     One-stop
eld                                           career
                                              center
                                              operated by
                                              for-profit
                                              vendor
----------------------------------------------------------
\a This caseload number includes all of the Metro North Regional
Employment Board caseload, which the Cambridge career center, along
with another career center, serves. 

\b This caseload number is an estimate and includes all four DTA
office caseloads, which service the Springfield Regional Employment
Board.  The Springfield Regional Employment Board has two career
centers, both of which we visited--Holyoke and Springfield. 

\c Both Holyoke and Springfield are urban areas, but the career
centers serve the entire Regional Employment Board area, which
includes nonurban areas. 


MICHIGAN
========================================================== Appendix IV

Michigan began reforming its welfare and workforce development
systems in the early to mid-1990s.  The state began its welfare
reform efforts in 1992 with a focus on helping clients become
self-sufficient, and in 1995 it passed welfare reform legislation
requiring clients to participate in work activities, and designating
the state's workforce development system as part of the process.  The
primary vehicle through which Michigan is consolidating its workforce
development programs is the one-stop career center.  The state began
this effort before the federal one-stop career center grant dollars
were available to states, opening its first center in 1992.  Michigan
received a planning grant from the Department of Labor in 1994, and
an implementation grant in 1996.  The state's workforce development
system provides employment and training services to TANF clients
through these one-stop centers.  Services to TANF clients include
employment services such as job search and placement assistance, job
skills training, and supportive services, all of which are largely
funded from the TANF block grant. 


   MICHIGAN'S WELFARE REFORM
   EFFORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:1

Michigan's welfare reform efforts began several years before federal
welfare reform legislation was passed in 1996.  In 1992, using AFDC
waivers, the state developed a welfare reform agenda called ï¿½To
Strengthen Michigan Families,ï¿½ which was guided by the philosophy
that welfare clients need to become self-sufficient.  Again using
AFDC waivers, in October 1994, the state instituted its Work First
program, which required job search as a condition of eligibility for
AFDC benefits, and began sanctioning clients who did not comply.  In
1995, to further underscore the new emphasis on work, the state
passed welfare reform legislation, which required clients to sign a
social contract as a condition of receiving benefits, required
clients to participate in a work activity, and established the role
of the state's workforce development system in providing employment
and training assistance to welfare clients.  Michigan came under the
requirements of TANF on September 30, 1996, and major provisions of
its TANF plan are summarized in table IV.1. 



                         Table IV.1
          
          Provisions of Michigan's TANF Program--
              the Family Independence Program

Provision       Description
--------------  ------------------------------------------
Cash            Depends on family size and location. In
assistance      1998, state average was $378.
(per month)

Time limits     Michigan currently has no time limits for
for cash        assistance.\a
assistance

Hours weekly    20 hours for single parents with children
of allowable    under 6 years old; 25 hours for single
work            parents with children aged 6 and over; 35
activities      hours for two-parent families (55 hours if
required        utilizing federally funded child care).

Work            All eligible adults and children ages 16
participation   and 17 enrolled in the Family Independence
requirements    Program not attending school full time
                must

                --participate in employment-related
                activities that meet federal requirements,
                or
                --meet requirements for a temporary
                deferral from participation requirements,
                or
                --be referred to the Work First program
                for employment-related activities, or
                --be in a good-cause processing period for
                a maximum of 20 days, or
                --be penalized for noncompliance.

Allowable work  --unsubsidized employment
activities to   --subsidized employment
meet work       --on-the-job training
participation   --job search and readiness assistance
requirements\a  --community service programs
                --job skills training\b
                --education directly related to
                employment\b
                --secondary education (GED or high school
                classes)
                --providing child care for other
                recipients

Reasons for     --under age 16 or at least age 65
deferrals from  --mother of a child under the age of 3
work            months
participation   --disability or blindness
                --caretaker of disabled person
                --local office discretion for critical
                event (for example, homelessness or
                domestic violence)

Training        Readiness training can be provided but is
                not required. Occupational training may be
                provided after clients obtain unsubsidized
                employment, but client must continue to
                meet work requirement.\b Client is not
                required to accept additional hours
                offered by employer if client is in
                training program.

Diversion       No formal program.\c
program
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Michigan will fund services and give cash assistance to clients
who have passed the federal time limit on benefits with state funds. 

\b At the time of our visit, vocational educational training,
postsecondary education, and postemployment occupational training
were available only to recipients meeting work requirements and
employed 20 hours per week for 30 days.  Since our visit, however,
skills training may now be provided immediately upon unsubsidized
employment placement. 

\c According to officials, discussions of whether any upfront
assistance could prevent the client from going on cash assistance are
held during the initial eligibility interview. 

Source:  State of Michigan Family Independence Agency Program
Eligibility Manual (Apr.  1, 1998). 

Since January 1993, the number of Michigan's AFDC/TANF families has
declined 49 percent from 228,377 to 115,410 in June 1998 (see fig. 
IV.1). 

   Figure IV.1:  Michigan's
   AFDC/TANF Family Caseload, Jan. 
   1993-June 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  HHS Administration for Children and Families. 

Many TANF clients in Michigan are obtaining employment in the
agriculture, manufacturing, and service industries, including
hospitality to support the new gambling industry.  Major industries
within the state include transportation equipment manufacturing,
retail trade, and services.  At the time of our visit, Michigan's
economy was strong.  The unemployment rate has declined from 7.6
percent in 1990 to 4.2 percent statewide in 1997, with a peak during
these years of 9.3 in 1991.  Although this rate was generally low
throughout the state, there were pockets of higher unemployment--such
as the city of Detroit, with an unemployment rate nearly twice that
of the rest of Michigan.  Some areas also experienced seasonal
fluctuations. 


   MICHIGAN'S WORKFORCE
   DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
   CONSOLIDATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:2

Michigan began its workforce development consolidation before the
availability of federal funding for this effort.  It opened its first
one-stop career center in 1992, received a planning grant from the
Department of Labor in 1994, and an implementation grant in program
year 1996.  Rather than roll out additional one-stop centers in
phases, the state decided to implement them statewide immediately. 
Although it initially planned to use a ï¿½no wrong doorï¿½
approach--whereby one-stop career centers are linked electronically
with multiple points of entry rather than physically collocated--the
state has decided to require each local area to have at least one
center that physically collocates services by July 1999. 

In 1995, the state expanded the administrative role of the Private
Industry Councils beyond JTPA programs to include other
workforce-development-
related programs, including the Work First program (which provides
employment and training assistance exclusively to TANF clients), the
School-to-Work program, the Employment Service funded by the
Wagner-Peyser Act, vocational rehabilitation, vocational education,
and veterans' employment services.  In this broader role, the Private
Industry Councils became Workforce Development Boards, and the
professional staff organizations that support them became Michigan
Works!  Agencies.  There are 25 Michigan Works!  Agencies--which are
equivalent to JTPA's Service Delivery Areas.  To avoid any conflicts
of interest, the state prohibits the Workforce Development Boards and
Michigan Works!  Agencies from directly providing services to program
applicants and participants unless a waiver gives them this
authority.  Organizations including public school districts and both
for-profit and not-for-profit private sector entities deliver
services through competitively bid contracts with the Michigan Works! 
Agencies.  These services include

  -- training program information and referral;

  -- labor exchange information (utilizing the automated Michigan
     Talent/Job Bank);

  -- self-assessment tools;

  -- resume writing software and support;

  -- employer directories for job search;

  -- use of the local human services directory; and

  -- information concerning labor market, occupational, training,
     financial aid, job search skills, and work place accommodation. 


   STATE STRUCTURE FOR DELIVERING
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:3

Michigan provides employment and training services to TANF clients
through its workforce development system entity, the Michigan Jobs
Commission (MJC).  MJC and the Family Independence Agency (FIA), the
state's welfare agency, jointly develop TANF policy for employment
and training services.  The Work First program, housed within the
Commission's Workforce Development office, oversees the delivery of
these services to TANF clients statewide.  At the local level, the
Work First program staffï¿½employees of the entity awarded the contract
to provide client services--usually work at the state's one-stop
career centers where TANF clients access employment and training
services.  FIA is responsible for determining TANF eligibility and
sanction activities.  Figure IV.2 shows Michigan's state structure
for employment, training, and TANF-related services. 

   Figure IV.2:  Michigan's
   Organizational Structure for
   Employment and Training
   Services and TANF Assistance

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are welfare system; shaded blocks are
workforce development system. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES PROVIDED TO TANF
   CLIENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:4

Michigan's welfare reform effort follows a ï¿½work firstï¿½ modelï¿½that
is, it requires all clients, except those who are deferred, to enroll
in a work activity.  TANF clients first enter the system through an
FIA local office, where they meet with a family independence
specialist (see fig.  IV.3).  Before determining eligibility, the
specialist assigns the client to an orientation session that is
jointly conducted by FIA and Michigan Works!  Agency staff.  All
clients are required to attend the orientation within 10 workdays of
this initial meeting, and cash benefits do not begin until the client
has done so.  Some clients drop out of the program after orientation. 
In fiscal year 1997, approximately 173,000 clients were referred and
of those, about 26,000 terminated the program after orientation. 

In addition to the eligibility determination for cash assistance, the
family independence specialist determines whether a client may be
deferred\47 from the Work First program.  All deferrals are
temporary--no longer than 90 days, but there is no limit on the
number of times a client may be deferred.  However, relatively few
clients are deferred.  Of the approximately 173,000 clients referred
to orientation in fiscal year 1997, about 500 were deferred. 

   Figure IV.3:  Michigan TANF
   Client Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system.  Half-shaded blocks are services provided by both systems. 

\a After our visit, effective October 1, 1998, the client flow was
modified so that clients will be served by Michigan Works!  Agency
until the case is closed as a result of the client's income. 

After orientation, eligible clients are then referred to a one-stop
service center and assigned to a Work First case manager.  Clients
must then enroll in an employment-related activity within 10 days,
and the primary activity is job search.  However, one-stop center
staff may also provide other employment services to Work First
clients,\48 including job development and placement, job skills
training,\49 and supportive services to remove barriers to
employment.  At the time of our visit, clients were monitored by the
Work First case manager--and thus MJC--for 90 days after being placed
in unsubsidized employment.  At the end of 90 days, monitoring and
follow-up was performed by FIA until the client became
self-sufficient.\50

During fiscal year 1997, the two employment and training activities
in which clients were overwhelmingly engaged were unsubsidized
employment and job search/readiness activities.  These two activities
accounted for almost 90 percent of the activities for Work First
clients (see table IV.2).  Michigan makes very little use of
subsidized work, community service, and unpaid work experience. 
While formal assessments were once frequently performed for many
clients, they are now generally reserved for clients who have
difficulty obtaining a job, accounting for only 6 percent of client
activities.  Michigan's current philosophy is that the job market
will determine what skills a client needs to obtain employment. 
Vocational and occupational training is largely reserved for those
clients who are already meeting their work requirements. 



                         Table IV.2
          
             Number of TANF Clients Enrolled in
           Employment and Training Activities for
                          FY 1997

                                   Number of    Percentage
                                      client     of client
Activity                        activities\a    activities
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Unsubsidized work                     66,014           42%
Subsidized work                           42           <1%
Community service                      2,983            2%
Unpaid work experience                    37           <1%
Job search and readiness              74,280           47%
Assessment and employment              9,457            6%
 planning
Providing child care or other             12           <1%
 work experience
Job development and placement            749           <1%
Postsecondary education                  147           <1%
Vocational training                    1,925            1%
On-the-job training                      436           <1%
Basic skills training,                 1,267            1%
 including English as a second
 language and remedial
 training
High school or GED                       447           <1%
Other miscellaneous education             23           <1%
 and training activities
Substance abuse treatment                 66           <1%
Total activities                     157,885        100%\b
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Because each state maintains its data differently, client
participation data are presented differently and for different time
periods in each appendix. 

\a These numbers include duplicate counts--that is, if a client was
enrolled in more than one activity, the client would be counted in
each activity. 

\b Percentages may not equal 100 because of rounding. 

Source:  MJC Management Information System. 


--------------------
\47 Those who may be temporarily deferred include mothers with a
child under 3 months of age, clients who are disabled or blind, and
clients who are caring for someone who is disabled.  At the
discretion of the local office, deferrals may also be granted for a
specific circumstance, such as homelessness.  However, a client's
substance abuse may not be considered a reason for deferral; he or
she is expected to work while receiving treatment. 

\48 One-stop centers are required to provide a spectrum of "core
services" to any client who requests them, regardless of whether the
client is a TANF client, including training program information and
referral, labor exchange information (utilizing the automated
Michigan Talent Bank/Job Bank), self-assessment tools, resume writing
software and support, employer directories for job search, use of the
local human services directory; and information concerning the labor
market, occupational training, financial aid, job search skills, and
work place accommodation. 

\49 For clients otherwise meeting their work requirement. 

\50 However, after our visit, effective October 1, 1998, the client
flow was modified so that clients will be served by the Michigan
Works!  Agency until the case is closed on the basis of client
earnings. 


   FUNDING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:5

Funding to support employment and training services for TANF clients
comes largely from TANF block grant.  Michigan's 1997 federal and
state TANF funds totaled almost $1.2 billion,\51 of which about $73.6
million was used to provide employment and training services to TANF
clients.  In addition, TANF clients in Michigan are still obtaining
services funded by JTPA title IIA.  During roughly the same time
period,\52 the JTPA title IIA funding allotment for Michigan was
almost $28 million. 

While TANF clients in Michigan are still receiving services funded
through JTPA title IIA, fewer clients have been doing so over the
last 3 years.  In 1995, just over 2,030 JTPA title IIA clients were
AFDC/TANF, while in 1997, this number decreased to just under 1,700. 
Moreover, the proportion of clients who were AFDC/TANF declined
between 1995 and 1997 by 6.4 percentage points.  (See table IV.3.)



                         Table IV.3
          
            Number of JTPA Title IIA Clients for
                   Program Years 1995-97

                                                Percentage
                         Total     AFDC/TANF      who were
Program year         clients\a       clients     AFDC/TANF
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
1995                     6,458         2,030          31.4
1996                     7,051         1,851          26.3
1997                     6,801         1,700          25.0
----------------------------------------------------------
\a For purposes of our work, participants are defined as those who
terminated from the program during the program year. 

Source:  Program year 1995 and 1996 data are from the Department of
Labor.  Program year 1997 data are from MJC and are preliminary. 

TANF funds are appropriated by the Michigan legislature and the funds
for employment and training services flow to MJC, which in turn
provides these funds to the 25 local Michigan Works!  Agencies. 
These agencies then use these funds to provide employment and
training services for TANF clients through the state's one-stop
career centers.  TANF funds for cash assistance and child care
services flow to FIA, which provides those services through its local
offices (see fig.  IV.4). 

   Figure IV.4:  Flow of TANF
   Funds in Michigan

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In January 1998, Labor awarded Michigan $42,226,331 in
welfare-to-work funds for fiscal year 1998.  MJC is both the grant
recipient and the state administering agency.  The state plans to use
the equivalent of 50 percent of these funds to serve noncustodial
parents.  Local service delivery areas must devote 50 percent of
their welfare-to-work grant funds to assist this population. 
However, at the time of our visit, Michigan had not yet fully
implemented this program. 


--------------------
\51 This total includes the amount of funds available for TANF (total
funds awarded less funds transferred to the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and to the Social Services Block Grant, plus
the amount of state dollars the state reported expending. 

\52 TANF funding is distributed on a federal fiscal year basis, while
JTPA funding is distributed on a program year basis.  Federal fiscal
year 1997 ran from October 1996 to September 1997, while program year
1996 ran from July 1996 to June 1997. 


   LOCAL SITE VISITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix IV:6

We visited four sites in Michigan, as shown in figure IV.5, to
discuss employment and training service delivery to TANF clients.  We
selected these sites to provide a mixture of geographic locations,
urban and rural communities, and a National Learning Laboratory.  All
the sites we visited follow the statewide system of client flow
discussed.  Detroit has the largest TANF caseload in the state, while
the other three sites have much smaller caseloads.  Traverse City was
designated as a one-stop career center learning laboratory by the
Department of Labor.  Table IV.4 summarizes information concerning
the sites we visited. 

   Figure IV.5:  Local Sites
   Visited in Michigan

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                                        Table IV.4
                         
                            Information on Local Sites Visited

               Number
               of TANF
               families                Name of Michigan  Employment and
               (Mar.     Type of       Works\            training service
Location       98)       community     Agency            provider(s)       Comments
-------------  --------  ------------  ----------------  ----------------  --------------
Detroit        45,000    Urban         City of Detroit   78 separate       Network of two
               (est.)                  Employment and    contractors       full service
                                       Training                            one-stop
                                       Department                          centers and 13
                                                                           "self-
                                                                           sufficiency
                                                                           centers"

Midland        473       Urban/rural   Saginaw-          1 contractor--    Project Zero
                                       Midland-Bay       Arnold Center,    site\a
                                       Michigan Works\   Inc. (private,
                                       Agency            nonprofit)

Romulus/       1,015     Suburban/     Southeast         1 contractor--    Project Zero
Wayne                    rural         Michigan          Employment and    site\a
                                       Community         Training
                                       Alliance          Designs, Inc.
                                                         (private, for-
                                                         profit)

Traverse City  210       Rural         Northwest         1 contractor--    Department of
                                       Michigan Council  Traverse Bay      Labor Learning
                                       of Governments    Area              Laboratory
                                                         Intermediate
                                                         School District
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Project Zero is a pilot project begun in six locations in
Michigan, so-called because the project's goal is to lower to zero
the number of cash assistance clients who lack any earned income. 


OHIO
=========================================================== Appendix V

Ohio's reform efforts began well before federal initiatives to
consolidate workforce development programs and reform welfare. 
Welfare reform began in 1988 when the state began obtaining waivers
to its AFDC program, primarily focusing its efforts on education,
employment, and self-sufficiency.  Employment and training program
consolidation in the state dates back to 1991 with the creation of
customer service centers.  Ohio began receiving Labor's one-stop
career center grants in 1995 and currently has 25 one-stop career
center systems in place.  At the time of our visit, the state
provided employment and training services through two separate
cabinet offices.  The Ohio Bureau of Employment Services oversees
workforce development programs, including JTPA, Employment Service,
and the one-stop career centers.  The Ohio Department of Human
Services develops some policies for the TANF program, but much of the
policy-making responsibility, including the nature of employment and
training assistance, has been delegated to the county departments of
human services.  There is therefore much local variation in TANF
employment and training services and the structures used to deliver
them. 


   OHIO'S WELFARE REFORM EFFORTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:1

Ohio began reforming its welfare system before the enactment of
federal welfare reform legislation.  Beginning in 1988, the state
began obtaining waivers to its AFDC program, ultimately receiving 20
such waivers.  In 1994, 2 years before the passage of federal TANF
legislation, state legislation changed the focus of welfare programs
from providing financial assistance to emphasizing employment,
responsibility, and self-sufficiency.  This reform effort required
all able-bodied adults to be involved in some form of employment or
training for at least 20 hours per week.  The state also obtained
waivers allowing state officials to require cash assistance
recipients to obtain a high school education or a GED, and to
implement a program designed to promote school attendance by pregnant
and parenting teenagers on welfare.\53 The Ohio Department of Human
Services, which is the state's welfare agency, had rule-making
authority under these early efforts.  In July 1997, in response to
the federal legislation, the state legislature created "Ohio Works
First." This program permits counties, through their county
commissioners and departments of human services, to decide many
elements of the welfare program.  While the Ohio Department of Human
Services determines eligibility requirements and benefit levels, as
well as the minimum hours clients must participate in a work
activity, counties define work requirements and diversion program
characteristics.\54 Table V.1 summarizes major provisions of Ohio's
TANF program. 



                               Table V.1
                
                  Provisions of Ohio's TANF Plan--Ohio
                              Works First

Provision               Description
----------------------  ----------------------------------------------
Cash assistance (per    Range is from $216 (1 person) to $1,219 (15
month)                  people); $90 each additional person over 15
                        (for example, a household of 3 would receive
                        $362/month).

Time limits for cash    36 months, consecutive or nonconsecutive; 24
assistance              months additional with good cause. Time limits
                        apply after October 1, 1997.

Hours weekly of         30 hours of work activities and developmental
allowable work          activities, of which 20 hours must be in
activities required     countable activities as defined by PRWORA.
                        Counties may allow up to 20% of their
                        caseloads to participate in alternative work
                        activities countable under federal law.

Work participation      All able-bodied adults or minor heads of
requirements            household, except as exempted (see below).

Allowable work          Work activities--specified by the counties.\a
activities to meet      These include unsubsidized employment,
work participation      including activities deemed legitimately
requirements            entrepreneurial; on-the-job training,
                        including training for child day-care facility
                        or in-home aide; certain community service
                        activities; vocational education training
                        activities; jobs skills training related to
                        employment; education activities related to
                        employment for those who have not earned a
                        high school diploma or equivalent; education
                        activities for participants attending a
                        secondary school or a course of study to earn
                        a GED; and child care service activities
                        aiding another participant.

                        Developmental activities--may include school
                        enrollment, adult basic education classes,
                        postsecondary education, counseling, parenting
                        classes, and so on.

                        Alternative work activities--may include
                        parenting classes, alcohol or drug abuse
                        addiction services, counseling for domestic
                        violence victims, searching for housing, and
                        so on.

Exemptions              Counties may exempt from work requirements
                        single-parent families with children less than
                        1 year old.

                        Counties may exempt from time limit not more
                        than 20% of the average monthly number of
                        participants from both the initial 36 months
                        and the additional 24 months if time limit is
                        hardship. However, counties cannot provide
                        exemption until after initial 36 months have
                        passed.

Training provisions     Specified by the counties. First 5 hours of
                        postsecondary education may count within the
                        20 hours of required work after the first 12
                        months the recipient has been enrolled in
                        postsecondary education.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Counties must exceed the federal minimum work activity
participation rate by not less than 5 percentage points on a
statewide average basis. 

Source:  Ohio's TANF plan dated October 7, 1997. 

The number of Ohio's cash assistance families has declined by 49
percent from 257,665 families in January 1993 to 131,350 in June 1998
(see fig.  V.1). 

   Figure V.1:  Ohio's AFDC/TANF
   Family Caseload, Jan. 
   1993-June 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  HHS Administration for Children and Families. 

At the time of our visit, Ohio's economy was strong, but there were
pockets of high unemployment.  The unemployment rate ranged from 2.6
percent to 18.5 percent among the 88 counties; 9 counties had
double-digit unemployment.  The statewide unemployment rate had
dropped to 4.7 percent (adjusted) in March 1998 from a high of 7.3
percent in 1992. 


--------------------
\53 These two waivers continue under TANF but are set to expire in
2002. 

\54 Counties are required to have some type of diversion program. 
They can choose the model developed by the Ohio Department of Human
Services, or they can design one of their own. 


   OHIO'S WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
   SYSTEM CONSOLIDATION
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:2

Consolidation of workforce development activities into one-stop
career centers began in Ohio in 1991 with the creation of customer
service centers.  These service centers originated in an effort to
coordinate workforce development programs and service delivery
systems to improve the quality and range of employment and training
services provided to Ohio's citizens.  In 1995, Ohio began receiving
Department of Labor one-stop career center implementation grant
funds.\55

At the time of our visit, state officials reported that 23 one-stop
career center\56 systems were operating in 77 of the 88 counties. 
Two additional systems were in the final planning stages.  When fully
implemented, the 25 one-stop systems will include well over 300
sites.  In contrast to Wisconsin and Michigan, collocation has not
been an essential characteristic of Ohio's one-stop program.  In many
cases, the one-stop system has included programs that were
electronically linked to each other--called a "no wrong door"
approach.  That is, participants may gain access to all services
through any member agency (such as Employment Services or county
departments of human services).  In other cases, a core of member
agencies is collocated and electronically linked to satellite
sites--called "hub and cluster." Sometimes at these no-wrong-door and
hub-and-cluster locations customers themselves interact
electronically with other one-stop partners through the use of
cameras and microphones hooked to partners' computers.  Each stop of
the career center system offers a core set of services, including

  -- customer-oriented information, including labor market
     information, availability of quality training and education
     programs, and initial eligibility for community programs;

  -- testing and assessment;

  -- job search assistance;

  -- job matching referral; and

  -- direct access to state-required agencies. 

The Ohio Department of Human Services is a one-stop partner at the
state level, but using one-stop centers to administer TANF services
is left to the discretion of each county.  In some cases, one-stop
centers are not used to deliver services to TANF clients--separate
welfare-dedicated structures, similar to one-stop centers, called
"opportunity centers," provide services to TANF clients.  However, in
other cases, some or all TANF services are provided at one-stop
centers or at other workforce development system locations. 


--------------------
\55 Ohio did not receive a one-stop planning grant. 

\56 Ohio refers to its one-stop career centers as "One-Stop
Employment and Training Systems." However, for continuity in the
report, we refer to them as one-stop career centers. 


   STATE STRUCTURE FOR DELIVERING
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:3

Ohio has two separate departments at the state level that administer
workforce development and welfare programs (see fig.  V.2). 
Workforce development programs reside within the Ohio Bureau of
Employment Services.  The Ohio Department of Human Services
administers all TANF activities--including employment and training
services--as well as other welfare and child-care-related programs. 
The Bureau has no state-level policy-making role in providing
employment and training services to TANF clients. 

   Figure V.2:  Ohio's
   Organizational Structure for
   Employment and Training
   Services and TANF Assistance

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are welfare system; shaded blocks are
workforce development system. 

The Bureau has responsibility for most workforce development programs
funded by the Department of Labor.  It administers all titles of
JTPA, the Employment Service, and the one-stop career center system. 
The Bureau also houses a Workforce Development Branch whose primary
function is economic development.  The organizational structure is
not arranged around a programmatic theme--officials told us this was
intended to allow greater integration of program functions.  There
are 30 JTPA service delivery areas in Ohio.  One-stop career center
development largely follows the JTPA structure.\57 The state
Employment Service, on the other hand, is a state-based program with
56 offices that serve 88 counties; the territories served by these
offices may not follow county lines.  Employment Service staff, who
are state employees, may not be located in one-stop service centers,
depending upon local preference. 

While a new Ohio Department of Human Services organizational
structure was being developed at the time of our visit, some
organizational changes had already occurred.  Like the Bureau, the
Department has created an Office of Workforce Development.  The
Family Services Branch of the Office of Workforce Development has
responsibility for TANF employment and training policies.  Another
branch--Workforce Initiatives--is responsible for state and regional
economic development with a focus on establishing a job market for
TANF clients.  With the devolution of TANF policy-making to the
counties, Department officials see the Department's role as that of
providing technical assistance to the counties and monitoring their
activities.  To assist in that new role, they have established a new
position--account manager--to serve as the primary liaison between
the Department and county human services departments. 

At the local level, each county may decide which structures to use to
deliver services to TANF clients, including employment and training
services.  The Department proposed the concept of opportunity centers
to deliver services to TANF clients.  In the four counties that have
chosen to use them, these centers provide the full range of services
from eligibility determination to training and job placement,
including case management.  The centers are sometimes linked to a
one-stop center.  One-stop centers are also being used by some
counties to provide employment and training assistance to TANF
clients. 


--------------------
\57 However, in at least one case, a single county has aligned itself
with two separate one-stop centers. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES PROVIDED TO TANF
   CLIENTS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:4

Employment and training services to TANF clients in Ohio, as in the
other states we visited, usually focused on getting a client a job. 
The types of services provided, however, and the order of those
services were different for each location we visited.  (See
discussion of local site visits that follows.) Table V.2 shows the
average number of participants per month in each category during
calendar year 1997.  As shown in table V.2, the largest single work
activity category for TANF clients, on average, per month was the
work experience program, with approximately half of the participants
in this category for the last 6 months of the year.  Job skills and
postsecondary education declined over the two 6-month periods from 27
percent during the first 6 months of the year to 11 percent during
the last 6 months.  Only about 1 percent of TANF clients participated
in subsidized employment.  The proportion of clients receiving job
development/job-readiness services was also small, down to 3 percent
in the last 6 months. 



                         Table V.2
          
          Average Number of Ohio TANF Participants
          per Month in Each Work Activity, during
                     Calendar Year 1997

                         Average             Average
                      participants/       participants/
                     month for Jan. 1    month for July 1
                     to June 30, 1997    to Dec. 31, 1997
                    ------------------  ------------------
                                  % of                % of
Activity              Number     total    Number     total
------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------
High school/adult      3,031         9     2,087         9
 basic education
 or GED
Job skills             9,302        27     2,595        11
 training/
 postsecondary
 education
Job development/       1,588         5       727         3
 job readiness
Vocational             1,311         4     1,099         4
 assessment
Work experience       11,996        35    12,113        50
 program
LEARN\a                   18        <1        21        <1
Job club               5,262        15     4,098        17
Individual job         1,872         5     1,437         6
 search
Subsidized               136        <1       273         1
 employment
On-the-job                16        <1        11        <1
 training
==========================================================
Total                 34,532              24,461
----------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  Data include duplicate counts--that is, if a client was
enrolled in more than one activity, he or she was counted in each
activity.

Because each state maintains its data differently, client
participation data are presented differently and for different time
periods in each appendix. 

\a The Linking Employers and Recipients to Needs program is an effort
in its early stages to establish a nonpaid internship placing
recipients with employers. 

Source:  Ohio Works First data, Ohio Department of Human Services. 


   FUNDING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:5

Funding to support employment-related services for TANF clients comes
largely from the TANF block grant.  Ohio's share of federal TANF
funds in fiscal year 1997 was about $728 million, and the state
contribution to serving TANF clients was about $417 million.  Ohio
state officials reported that they spent $11,946,538 during fiscal
year 1997 to provide employment and training assistance to TANF
clients.  Figure V.3 shows the flow of TANF funds in the state of
Ohio.  TANF funds are appropriated by the Ohio legislature and all
TANF funds are provided to the Ohio Department of Human Services to
be distributed to the county departments of human services.  The
Department distributes these funds to the counties primarily on the
basis of the size of the county's caseload. 

   Figure V.3:  Flow of TANF Funds
   in Ohio

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

While TANF clients in Ohio are still accessing services funded
through JTPA title IIA, fewer clients have been doing so over the
last 3 years.  In 1995, nearly 4,000 JTPA title IIA clients were
AFDC/TANF, while in 1997 this number decreased to about 2,400. 
Moreover, the proportion of clients who were AFDC/TANF declined
between 1995 and 1997 by nearly 6 percentage points.  See table V.3. 



                         Table V.3
          
            Number of JTPA Title IIA Clients for
                   Program Years 1995-97

                                                Percentage
                         Total     AFDC/TANF      who were
Program year         clients\a       clients     AFDC/TANF
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
1995                     9,176         3,989          43.5
1996                     6,693         2,855          42.7
1997                     7,028         2,641          37.6
----------------------------------------------------------
\a For purposes of our work, participants are defined as those who
terminated from the program during the program year. 

Source:  Program year 1995 and 1996 data are from the Department of
Labor.  Program year 1997 data are from the Ohio Bureau of Employment
Services and are preliminary. 

Ohio initially applied for its nearly $45 million welfare-to-work
formula grant, but later declined to participate, citing concerns
about the complexity of the grant process and the requirement for the
dollar match.  Officials reported that they had excess, unobligated
TANF funds that were less restrictive and could be used for many of
the same purposes. 


   LOCAL SITE VISITS
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6

We visited four local sites chosen in concert with officials at the
Bureau's one-stop office and those within the Workforce Initiatives
Branch of the Department.  We chose these local sites to obtain a mix
of urban and nonurban locations, varying service-delivery styles, and
programs in high- and low-unemployment areas.  Figure V.4 shows the
location of sites visited in Ohio.  Table V.4 summarizes information
about these sites. 

   Figure V.4:  Local Sites
   Visited in Ohio

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                         Table V.4
          
             Information on Local Sites Visited

                     Number of              Type of
                    TANF cases              employment and
                      (at time              training
                            of  Type of     service
Location              visit)\a  community   provider
------------------  ----------  ----------  --------------
Circleville                289  Nonurban    One-stop
(Pickaway County)                           career center

Columbus, Franklin       8,912  Urban       Welfare-
County Opportunity                          dedicated
Center                                      center

Ironton Center           1,220  Nonurban,   One-stop
(Lawrence County)               high        career center
                                unemployme
                                nt

The Job Center,          4,538  Urban       One-stop
Dayton (Montgomery                          career center
County)                                     (all TANF-
                                            related
                                            services,
                                            including
                                            eligibility)

Statewide               91,677
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Reflects number of assistance groups in the caseload that would be
required to participate in work and would be used to calculate the
all-family participation rate.  Source for caseload data:  Ohio
Department of Human Services Participation Rates Report as of Mar. 
31, 1998. 


      CIRCLEVILLE (PICKAWAY
      COUNTY) ONE-STOP SYSTEM
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.1

Circleville's one-stop system is a network of service providers that
are electronically linked, dubbed a "no-wrong-door" approach.  Very
few services are actually delivered on-site at the one-stop career
center office; electronic linkages are formed by way of the
one-stop's Web site and also through its local area network system. 
TANF clients are served by the one-stop core partners as determined
appropriate by their caseworker at the Pickaway County Department of
Human Services, also a partner in the Circleville One-Stop System. 
Because unemployment rates are very low in the Circleville area, the
lack of a high school diploma or a GED is not a barrier to
employment--students are reportedly dropping out of high school
because they already have jobs.  At the time of our visit, Pickaway
County reported that it had 289 TANF assistance groups\58 (all
families). 

TANF clients receive individualized services on the basis of their
needs and abilities.  Figure V.5 shows the client flow in Pickaway
County.  Clients may enter the system through any of the partners;
however, if the client appears to be eligible for the TANF program,
he or she would be referred to the Pickaway County Department of
Human Services for initial screening and eligibility determination. 
This one-stop center has pioneered a new data-sharing concept that
allows agencies who have signed confidentiality agreements to access
and annotate a client's records.  This common intake and case
management system will only be used in cases in which multiple
agencies are providing services to the same client.  As soon as
eligibility has been determined, all TANF clients are required to
attend an orientation session, during which clients are informed of
work requirements.  These orientation sessions are usually conducted
on the day eligibility has been determined.  After the orientation,
clients are assigned to an employment service worker, they develop a
self-sufficiency plan, and they receive their first work assignment. 
Those clients who have serious barriers to employment, such as drug
or alcohol dependence or domestic violence, are referred to
one-on-one targeted case management.  Those without serious barriers
are sent to a 2-week job-readiness training class, called "Job
Transitions," for their first work assignment.  From there, clients
may be referred to other services, such as GED/basic skills training
(Adult Basic Literacy Education), training to obtain a commercial
driver's license, or short-term vocational training.  Clients may
also be referred for additional social services, such as mental
health counseling.  Once the client has obtained subsidized or
unsubsidized employment, the workforce development system will
provide one-on-one job retention services to help the client maintain
employment. 

   Figure V.5:  Pickaway County
   Ohio Works First Client
   Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system. 

The role of the workforce development system in providing employment
and training assistance to TANF clients in Pickaway County is to make
formal client assessments and develop job openings that are
appropriate for the clients.  The workforce development system also
assists with identifying and providing for clients' training needs,
such as short-term vocational training, and provides one-on-one
retention services after placement. 


--------------------
\58 Assistance group is defined as a group of individuals (such as
family) treated as a unit for purposes of determining eligibility for
and amount of assistance provided under Ohio Works First. 


      FRANKLIN COUNTY OPPORTUNITY
      CENTER (SOUTH COMMUNITY
      CENTER, COLUMBUS)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.2

The center is part of a system of centers in the county--called
opportunity centers--dedicated to serving only welfare clients.  It
is operated by the County Department of Human Services, and the staff
are all county employees.  All TANF-related services are available
on-site.  At the time of our visit, the county had 8,912 TANF
assistance groups (all families). 

All TANF clients at the Franklin County Opportunity Center receive
similar services in the same order.  Figure V.6 shows the client flow
at this center.  After an initial screening, the client is assigned a
caseworker who interviews the client and reviews the case.  The
caseworker stays with the client throughout the process and may also
assist the client in obtaining food stamps, Medicaid, assignment to
rehabilitation or counseling, and assistance in identifying the
noncustodial parent.  The first work assignment for all TANF clients
is a 2-week self-esteem and job-readiness class.  This class must be
completed before the client begins receiving cash assistance.\59
After the class, if he or she is not yet employed, the client goes to
the job club.  Clients with reading and math levels below eighth
grade may take basic skills courses for 10 hours a week but must
perform some other work activity for an additional 20 hours per week. 
In addition, some short-term training classes are provided to clients
who need them.  One such short-term training class--called Marketable
Office Skills Training--is a collaborative partnership between the
county, the Urban League, IBM Corporation, and the United Way.  This
13-week, 25-hour program assists clients in acquiring or updating
their computer skills. 

   Figure V.6:  Franklin County
   TANF Client Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system. 

The center provides several types of job search assistance services. 
To provide individual services, the center was locating a private
employment service permanently on-site within a few weeks of our
visit.  Center officials also reported that they frequently have
employers on-site to conduct mass hirings.  During the month of April
1998, for example, at least nine different employers were scheduled
to interview for positions in the areas of food service, patient
care, clerical and data entry, customer service, and warehousing. 

The Franklin County Opportunity Centers are developing linkages with
the workforce development system, and will become part of the
one-stop system when it is fully implemented.  Generally, funding for
all services is provided from state or federal TANF funds.  Some Ohio
Works First clients were able to use JTPA title IIA funds to pay for
training opportunities at the community college. 


--------------------
\59 After 1 week in readiness training, however, the client may begin
to receive food stamps. 


      IRONTON ONE-STOP CENTER
      (LAWRENCE COUNTY)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.3

The Ironton one-stop center--called the ï¿½Workforce Development
Resource Centerï¿½--has the following partners on-site--the Employment
Service, JTPA, Collins Career Center (operated by the Joint
Vocational School), Ohio University, Adult Basic Literacy Education,
and Head Start Day Care.  The one-stop center has a combination of
state, county, and private sector employees.  While the Lawrence
County Department of Human Services is not on-site, the one-stop is
initiating a new program to integrate its services with those of the
Department for the benefit of TANF clients.  Lawrence County had
1,220 TANF assistance groups (all families) at the time of our visit. 

Lawrence County is in an isolated area in the Appalachian region of
southern Ohio, a region with relatively high unemployment.  Lawrence
County's unemployment rate at the time of our visit was higher than
the statewide average--7.2 percent compared with 4.3 percent
statewide--and nearly all surrounding counties had rates in excess of
10 percent--some as high as 16 percent.  Therefore, there is little
opportunity for clients in the Lawrence County area to go to nearby
communities to get jobs.  As a result of this high unemployment,
employers in the area can be more selective in hiring than in other
areas of Ohio we visited, and the skill levels of TANF clients often
fall short of meeting employers' demands.  Unlike Circleville, for
example, where clients are easily able to obtain employment without a
high school diploma, jobs in the Ironton area require a high school
diploma, and most of the area's TANF clients lack a high school
diploma or GED.  Competition for any job opening is stiff--a single
job at McDonald's brought 50 or more applicants in this small
community.  Clients also have difficulty relocating, often having
lived in the region for generations. 

The Workforce Development Resource Center and the Lawrence County
Department of Human Services were beginning a new process to
integrate services for Lawrence County TANF clients.  Figure V.7
shows this new client flow.  Under this concept, a TANF client must
first go to the Lawrence County Department of Human Services office
to determine eligibility for cash assistance, food stamps, and
Medicaid.  Clients are then referred to the Workforce Development
Resource Center and are seen by the Ohio Bureau of Employment
Services to register for employment services on Ohio's electronic Job
Net.  If the client is not immediately employed, he or she receives a
formal vocational assessment and is sent to a 4-week job search
class.  If no job has been found during the job search assignment,
the TANF clients are then referred to an employment advisor at the
one-stop.  The employment advisor works with the client during a
30-day period to remove barriers.  Some barriers that may need to be
addressed include lack of skills and the need for child care,
transportation, and/or counseling.  The Workforce Development
Resource Center would like to focus on providing short-term skills
training, but TANF's limitations on training and education pose a
problem for service providers, as does the high percentage of the
caseload that lacks a diploma or GED.  Funding for services comes
from a combination of state and federal TANF funds; JTPA, all titles;
the Employment Service; state Department of Education funds; and
other state grants. 

   Figure V.7:  Lawrence County
   Ohio Works First Client
   Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system. 


      THE JOB CENTER,
      MONTGOMERY-PREBLE ONE-STOP
      CENTER (DAYTON)
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix V:6.4

This one-stop center, modeled after the Kenosha, Wisconsin, center,
is a highly evolved one-stop that at the time of our visit served an
average of 1,500 clients on-site per day.  The one-stop center is
operated by Montgomery County in collaboration with the 43 partner
agencies on-site at the time of our visit,\60 each renting space and
providing staff.  These agencies include the county department of
human services, the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services, local
government, community-based organizations (nonprofit), and four
for-profit staffing agencies.  The facility currently occupies 3-1/2
acres of the 8-acre facility, and it employs 650 people who are a
combination of county, state, and private employees.  About
one-fourth of the clients were on public assistance, including TANF. 
At the time of our visit, Montgomery County had 4,538 assistance
groups (all families).\61

The process followed by a TANF client in Montgomery County is
relatively standardized; it is also well integrated with services
provided to other clients.  All services are provided on-site.  All
clients entering the center--TANF and non-TANF--start at the
reception area.  The center's goal is an empty waiting room, and
employees work to minimize the waiting time for all clients.  Clients
all receive a "15-second" screening up front, then move quickly to
services.  Figure V.8 shows the TANF client flow at this center. 
TANF clients are initially screened using a triage approach--
screeners do a records check and evaluate in general terms where the
client might be qualified for services such as Medicaid, food stamps,
and cash assistance.  The screeners then refer the TANF clients to
one of three multidisciplinary teams that do the final eligibility
assessment and advise clients on the programs' requirements. 
Benefits begin once all paperwork has been completed and data
verified.  After the multidisciplinary team evaluations, the client
moves on to a case manager, who works with the client to assess
supportive services needs and refers him or her to an orientation
session.  All of these events occur on the first day, and clients are
required to stay through the entire process.  They are also given
their work assignment on the first day--usually three 2-week
modules\62 of job-readiness training.\63 Clients who do not get a job
during this period move to another job-readiness activity or "fast
track." Fast track training is geared toward building specific
skills, such as computer skills, and is to be completed in 4 weeks at
35 hours per week.  If the client still has no job at this point, he
or she is assigned to a work experience program.  In general,
training plays a very small role at this location--20 hours (of the
32 hours per week the client is required to participate) must be
spent at work. 

   Figure V.8:  Montgomery County
   Ohio Works First Client
   Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system.  Half-shaded blocks are services provided by both systems. 

Placement assistance is provided in a variety of ways on-site.  The
center houses four staffing agencies on-site, including agencies that
provide temporary-to-permanent job placements and placements in
specialized areas.  The state Employment Service is also on-site.  In
addition, the center has an extensive resource room with a variety of
on-line job search tools and frequently conducts job fairs or mass
hirings.  The facilities include private interview rooms for
employers to use in screening and interviewing potential new hires. 

Funding for services come from the programs to which the client is
referred and includes state and federal TANF funds as well as funds
available through JTPA title IIA, the Employment Service, and other
sources. 


--------------------
\60 The number of partner agencies has increased to 47 since our
visit. 

\61 Preble County is also served by this one-stop; however, its
clients receive human services assistance at another location. 
Preble County had only 92 assistance groups on the caseload at the
time of our visit. 

\62 Two weeks each are dedicated to job search, 2 to job retention,
and 2 to job progression. 

\63 All clients who have never been to the center or have not been
employed within a year are sent to job readiness training.  The
center estimates that about 80 percent attend this training. 


WISCONSIN
========================================================== Appendix VI

Wisconsin has been reforming both its welfare and workforce
development systems for well over a decade.  Through the years, the
state has implemented a number of welfare reform demonstration
projects, and in 1996, the governor signed legislation creating the
Wisconsin Works (W-2) program.  This program eliminated the automatic
welfare check and operates under the belief that everyone is capable
of some level of work.  Wisconsin has also spent considerable time
overhauling its workforce development system from a group of
individual programs to a system that coordinates all available
services and programs to comprehensively meet the needs of its
customers.  The state opened its first one-stop career center long
before receiving one of the first one-stop career center
implementation grants in 1994 from the Department of Labor and has
nearly completed statewide coverage.  The welfare and workforce
development systems work together to provide employment and training
services to TANF-eligible clients through the locally managed
one-stop centers.  Staff from both systems provide a mix of services
to TANF clients, predominantly funded through the TANF block grant. 


   WISCONSIN'S WELFARE REFORM
   EFFORTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:1

The philosophy of Wisconsin's welfare reform program is that work
fulfills a basic human need because it connects individuals to
society and its values, and that welfare isolates clients from
society by providing income without the need for work.  The W-2
program ends entitlement, places time limits on cash assistance, and
requires clients to participate in a work activity.  This effort is
the culmination of many past demonstration projects and waivers
obtained from HHS to modify the AFDC program.  Wisconsin's TANF plan,
which is the W-2 program, was approved by HHS in September 1996, and
the state announced statewide implementation on April 1, 1998.  The
W-2 program is state administered and locally delivered.  Major
provisions of Wisconsin's TANF plan are shown in table VI.1. 



                         Table VI.1
          
            Provisions of Wisconsin's TANF Plan

Provision           Description
------------------  --------------------------------------
Cash assistance     --unsubsidized employmentï¿½no cash
(per month)         payment
                    --trial jobs: up to $300 per month to
                    employer; client receives no less than
                    the federal minimum wage from the
                    employer
                    --community service jobs: flat grant
                    of $673 per month
                    --W-2 transition: flat grant of $628
                    per month

Time limits for     60-month lifetime limit; 24-month
cash assistance     limit on W-2 positions other than
                    unsubsidized employment. Exceptions
                    are (1) custodial parent of a child 12
                    weeks old or less and (2) individuals
                    on a Native American reservation with
                    over 50 percent unemployment.

Hours weekly of     --unsubsidized employment: not
allowable work      applicable (no cash payments)
activities          --trial jobs: not applicable (full-
required            time employment assumed and employer
                    subsidy decreased proportionally when
                    hours are not full time)
                    --community service jobs: up to 30
                    hours per week of work and 10 hours of
                    education and training activities
                    --W-2 transition: up to 28 hours per
                    week of work activities, which may
                    include alcohol and other substance
                    abuse evaluation assessment, and
                    treatment; mental health activities;
                    counseling or physical rehabilitation
                    activities; and up to 12 hours per
                    week of education and training
                    activities.

Work participation  All clients are expected to meet work
requirements        participation requirements, except a
                    custodial parent with a child 12 weeks
                    old or less.

Allowable work      Unsubsidized employment, subsidized
activities to meet  employment, community service, short-
work participation  term job skills training, job search
requirements        activities, job skills development,
                    motivational training, life skills
                    training, and postsecondary education.

Exemptions          Custodial parent of a child 12 weeks
                    old or less. All other clients unable
                    to obtain employment are placed in W-
                    2 transition and perform other work
                    activities.

Training            Training is an option for clients, but
provisions          long-term training is no longer an
                    option.

Diversion           Before filing an application for W-2,
                    clients meet with a resource
                    specialist who attempts to identify
                    other sources of assistance that would
                    eliminate the need for W-2 enrollment.
                    If the resource specialist believes
                    the client could conduct a productive
                    job search, the specialist then
                    diverts the client to a job search.
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 

Since January 1993, Wisconsin's AFDC/TANF family caseload has
declined 86 percent, from 81,291 cases to 11,276 cases in June 1998
(see fig.  VI.1). 

   Figure VI.1:  Wisconsin's
   AFDC/TANF Family Caseload, Jan. 
   1993-June 1998

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  HHS Administration for Children and Families. 

Many Wisconsin TANF clients find employment in the service and retail
industries.  According to state officials, Wisconsin has six very
distinct regional economies.  Major industries in the southeast
include durable goods manufacturing and the service sector, including
business services, health care, legal, and educational services.  The
northeast is strong in paper and allied products manufacturing as
well as kindred products manufacturing, while the south central area
is strong in government, educational services, and tourism-related
industries.  Southwestern Wisconsin's industries include agriculture,
specialty manufacturing, and tourism-related industries.  The
north-central area's strength is lumber and wood products
manufacturing, paper and allied products manufacturing, and tourism,
while northwestern Wisconsin has a strong attachment to the Minnesota
markets but is also strong in manufacturing and agriculture-related
industries. 

At the time of our visit, Wisconsin was enjoying a strong economy. 
The statewide unemployment rate has been low over the last 7 years,
declining from 4.4 percent in 1990 to 3.7 percent in 1997, with a
peak of 5.5 in 1991. 


   WISCONSIN'S WORKFORCE
   DEVELOPMENT SYSTEM
   CONSOLIDATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:2

Wisconsin began consolidating its workforce development system over a
decade ago with a pilot project in southwest Wisconsin in 1985 that
brought together employment services provided by the Job Service and
training programs provided by JTPA (through the local Private
Industry Councils).  According to a State Legislative Audit Bureau
report in 1994, 12 state agencies administered over 100 employment
and job training programs.  In 1996, Wisconsin created the Department
of Workforce Development to streamline government by replacing this
myriad of programs with one comprehensive employment and training
system called the Partnership for Full Employment.  The W-2 program
is an integral part of this system.  In 1994, Wisconsin also became
one of the first six states to receive a one-stop career center
implementation grant from the Department of Labor to develop a
statewide system of one-stop career centers, called job centers. 

The job center system is Wisconsin's statewide service delivery
infrastructure for the Partnership for Full Employment services at
the local level.  Core services include

  -- a computerized listing of job openings;

  -- job search assistance;

  -- testing and assessment;

  -- information on careers, jobs, and labor markets;

  -- information on workforce development support services;

  -- information on education and training programs; and

  -- automated links to the unemployment insurance system. 

In addition, W-2 clients receive services such as eligibility
determination, case management, and employment and training services
at the job centers.  The minimum core partners include JTPA programs
(through the Private Industry Councils), the Job Service, the Carl
Perkins Vocational Education and Adult Basic Acts programs (through
the Wisconsin Technical College System), the TANF program (through
W-2 agencies), and Vocational Rehabilitation.  Job Service and
Vocational Rehabilitation are state- administered and -operated
programs.  Most job centers have additional employment and training
partner agencies, programs, and services.  Wisconsin's job center
system has near statewide coverage with 76 operational job centers as
of September 1998. 


   STATE STRUCTURE FOR DELIVERING
   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:3

In Wisconsin, the workforce development and welfare systems come
together to provide employment and training services to TANF (W-2
program) clients.  The Department of Workforce Development,
consisting of eight major divisions, is responsible for both systems
(see fig.  VI.2).  Within the Department, the Division of Economic
Support is responsible for W-2 program implementation and
policy-making, as well as all other income support programs and
benefits paid to children, families, and individuals in temporary
need.  The division contracts with an organization in each county (or
in the case of Milwaukee, six districts) called the W-2 agency, to
deliver TANF services locally through the job centers.  Most W-2
agencies are county governments, but both nonprofit and private
organizations also hold W-2 contracts.  Within the Department of
Workforce Development, the Division of Workforce Excellence has
responsibility for employment and training programs such as JTPA and
the Job Service, as well as responsibility for job center operations,
the collection and analysis of labor market information, and other
programs.  While the state has decided that clients will receive
employment and training services, including W-2 services, through the
job center system, how each center provides these services is left to
local discretion.  In the sites we visited, both W-2 and workforce
development staff provided employment and training services to TANF
clients at the local job centers.  For example, while case management
services were provided by the W-2 staff, employment assistance was
often provided by both the Employment Service and W-2 staff.  In one
job center we visited, each client was assigned to one of three
service delivery teams made up of both workforce development and W-2
staff. 

   Figure VI.2:  Wisconsin's
   Organizational Structure for
   Employment and Training
   Services and TANF Assistance

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are welfare system; shaded blocks are
workforce development system.  Half-shaded blocks have elements of
each system. 


   EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES PROVIDED TO TANF
   CLIENTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:4

Wisconsin's welfare reform effort is a ï¿½work firstï¿½ model that
requires all clients to participate in some work activity shortly
after applying for cash assistance.  Before a client applies for cash
assistance, a resource specialist meets with the client to try to
divert him or her from submitting an application for assistance.\64
Once a client applies for assistance, a W-2 staff person--called the
financial and employment planner--assesses the client's recent work
history, education, skills, interests, and abilities, and determines
if the client is job ready.  On the basis of this assessment, the
planner places the client on one of four rungs of an employment
ï¿½ladder,ï¿½ shown in table VI.2. 



                         Table VI.2
          
               Wisconsin's W-2 Program Ladder

                                                Percentage
                                                of clients
                                                on rung in
Ladder rung   Client attributes and services     July 1998
------------  ------------------------------  ------------
Unsubsidized  --Judged ready for                      31.6
 employment    unsubsidized employment
               --Assigned to job search
               --Receives case management
               and support services
               --Not eligible for monthly
               cash assistance
Trial jobs    --Lacks sufficient work                  0.5
 (subsidized   experience to be ï¿½job ready"
 employment)   --Provided a subsidized job
               (state subsidizes the
               employer)
               --Receives at least minimum
               wage, case management, and
               support services
Community     --Has poor work habits or low           54.0
 service job   job skills
 (work         --Assigned to job serving a
 experience    useful public purpose
 training)     --Receives monthly cash
               assistance, case management,
               support services, up to 30
               hours per week of work
               training activities, and up
               to 10 hours per week of
               education and training
               activities
W-2           --Unable to obtain subsidized           13.9
 transition    employment because of severe
 (work         barriers
 experience    --Assigned to up to 28 hours
 training)     of appropriate activity given
               client's limitations (such as
               substance abuse treatment or
               caring for a family member
               with a severe incapacity) and
               up to 12 hours per week of
               education and training.
               --Receives monthly cash
               assistance, case management,
               and support services
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 

The highest and most desirable rung on the employment ladder is
unsubsidized employment.  The state expects those positions it
subsidizes for the trial jobs rung to convert to unsubsidized
positions, but this rung is essentially unused because of Wisconsin's
robust economy.  The community service jobs are intended to provide
clients with an opportunity to practice work habits and skills such
as punctuality, reliability, and social skills necessary to succeed
in the work place.  These clients may also be required to participate
in up to 10 hours per week in education and training activities such
as GED training or in courses that provide an employment skill,
English as a second language, parenting skills, life skills, job
skills, or other basic adult education.  Clients on the W-2
transition rung include those who are determined incapacitated for at
least 60 days because of physical or mental limitations or substance
abuse, those needed in the home to care for another member of the W-2
group who is severely incapacitated, or those incapable of working
for reasons such as legal problems, family crises, homelessness,
domestic abuse, or children's school or medical activities. 

Once the financial and employment planner determines the appropriate
rung of the ladder, the client and the planner jointly develop an
employability plan that details the logical, sequential series of
actions that will move the client off assistance to self-sufficiency. 
The local W-2 agency must ensure that each client is initially
assigned to the highest possible rung on the ladder and moves up to
the next appropriate rung at the earliest opportunity, with
unsubsidized employment as the ultimate goal.  See figure VI.3 for
Wisconsin's W-2 client flow. 

   Figure VI.3:  Wisconsin TANF
   Client Flowchart

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Nonshaded blocks are services provided by the welfare system;
shaded blocks are services provided by the workforce development
system.  Half-shaded blocks are services provided by both systems. 

The financial and employment planner determines the client's
placement on the W-2 ladder, monitors the client's progress, and
provides other services such as assisting the client with a community
service placement and accessing needed support services such as child
care and transportation.  While the state outlined the W-2 program
elements and decided that these services would be delivered through
the local job centers, each local W-2 agency decides how to deliver
the services.  This means that the entity delivering the service can
vary across the state.  For example, in some job centers, the
financial and employment planner may provide job search and placement
assistance, while in other areas the Employment Service staff within
the job center may provide this service.  In general, staff from both
the workforce development and welfare systems provide employment and
training services to TANF clients at the local job centers throughout
the state.  Many W-2 agencies have entered into subcontracts with a
variety of employment and training partner agencies for specific W-2
program services. 

The nature of training has changed under welfare reform in Wisconsin. 
Before welfare reform, clients could attend training up to 24
consecutive months.  However, the current system has changed the face
of training so that skills training is short term and
employment-focused.  The state, however, was unable to provide
training and other outcome data regarding employment and training
activities for TANF clients this early in the W-2 program experience. 


--------------------
\64 The resource specialist does this by helping the client access
other community resources or, if the resource specialist believes the
client is capable, helping the client begin a job search. 


   FUNDING EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:5

Funding to support employment and training services for TANF clients
comes predominantly from the TANF block grant.  Wisconsin's 1997
federal and state TANF funds totaled about $477 million,\65 of which
about $75 million was used to provide employment and training
services to TANF clients.  In addition, TANF clients are still
obtaining services funded by JTPA title IIA in Wisconsin.  During
roughly the same time period,\66 the JTPA title IIA funding allotment
for Wisconsin totaled just over $9 million. 

While TANF clients in Wisconsin are still accessing services funded
through JTPA title IIA, fewer clients have been doing so.  In 1995,
1,423 JTPA title IIA clients were AFDC/TANF clients, while in 1997,
this number had decreased slightly to 1,185.  However, the proportion
of JTPA title IIA clients who were AFDC/TANF increased between 1995
and 1997 by 9.1 percentage points.  See table VI.3. 



                         Table VI.3
          
            Number of JTPA Title IIA Clients for
                   Program Years 1995-97

                                                Percentage
                         Total     AFDC/TANF      who were
Program year         clients\a       clients     AFDC/TANF
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
1995                     3,591         1,423          39.6
1996                     3,146         1,095          34.8
1997                     2,431         1,185          48.7
----------------------------------------------------------
\a For purposes of our work, clients are defined as those who
terminated from the program during the program year. 

Source:  Program year 1995 and 1996 data are from the Department of
Labor.  Program year 1997 data are from Wisconsin's Department of
Workforce Development and are preliminary. 

Most TANF funds are allocated to the Department of Workforce
Development, and W-2 agencies are paid on the basis of contracts with
the Division of Economic Support.  A portion of federal TANF funds is
allocated to the Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services
for some support services.  Figure VI.4 illustrates this flow of
funds. 

   Figure VI.4:  Flow of TANF
   Funds in Wisconsin

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

In June 1998, Labor awarded Wisconsin $12,885,951\67 in
welfare-to-work formula grant funds.  The Department of Workforce
Development is the grant recipient and the administering entity. 
Wisconsin planned to target services to noncustodial parents with its
welfare-to-work formula grant funds, and, because its TANF caseload
is low, the state also proposed to assist individuals who were
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 funds as long-term TANF recipients. 


--------------------
\65 This total includes the amount of funds available for TANF (total
funds awarded less funds transferred to the Child Care and
Development Block Grant and to the Social Services Block Grant), plus
the amount of state dollars the state reported expending. 

\66 TANF funding is distributed on a federal fiscal year basis, while
JTPA funding is distributed on a program year basis.  Federal fiscal
year 1997 ran from October 1996 to September 1997, while program year
1996 ran from July 1996 to June 1997. 

\67 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 fund 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. 


   LOCAL SITE VISITS
-------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VI:6

We visited four local sites in Wisconsin to discuss employment and
training service delivery to TANF clients (see fig.  VI.5).  Working
with state officials, we selected these sites to reflect a mix of
urban and nonurban settings, varying caseloads, and varying types of
W-2 agencies.  Table VI.4 summarizes information concerning these
local sites.  Milwaukee Job Center South is one of two large job
centers in Milwaukee County, which has by far the largest W-2
caseload in the state.  Conversely, Grant and Walworth Counties are
rural areas with only a handful of cash assistance clients.  Kenosha
has a caseload between these extremes and was designated a national
learning laboratory by the One-Stop Career Center Office in the
Department of Labor. 

   Figure VI.5:  Local Sites
   Visited in Wisconsin

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                                        Table VI.4
                         
                            Information on Local Sites Visited

                   Number of TANF cases
                       (July 1998)
                  ----------------------
                   Receiving
                        cash              Type of
Location          assistance       Total  community     W-2               Comments
----------------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ----------------  ---------------
Grant County Job           3           6  Nonurban      Southwest JOBS    Consortium
Center                                                                    manages W-2
                                                                          program for
                                                                          five counties

Kenosha County           146         366  Urban and     Kenosha County    Job center
Job Center                                rural         Department of     management
                                                        Human Services    contracted to
                                                                          private firm by
                                                                          local
                                                                          Department of
                                                                          Human Services

Milwaukee Job          1,135       1,803  Urban         United Migrant    Part of
Center South                                            Opportunity       Milwaukee Job
                                                        Services          Center Network
                                                                          of two
                                                                          comprehensive
                                                                          one-stop
                                                                          centers and
                                                                          numerous
                                                                          satellite
                                                                          locations

Walworth County           14          43  Nonurban      Kaiser Group,     Kaiser Group is
Job Center                                              Inc.              a for-profit
                                                                          private sector
                                                                          company
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICES
AND FUNDING IN THE STATES
========================================================= Appendix VII


   ONE-STOP CAREER CENTERS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:1

All 50 states have received at least some planning and/or
implementation grant funds, totaling nearly $320 million through
fiscal year 1998.  Labor awarded the first planning and
implementation grants in fiscal year 1994.  Not all states received
planning grants; some instead immediately began receiving
implementation grant funds.  These one-stop grants were designed to
develop the concept and establish the structures, but operational
funds for the one-stop centers are provided by the programs within
the system, such as JTPA title IIA or the Wagner-Peyser-funded
Employment Service.  Table VII.1 shows the sources of operating
funds, as well as the total amount each state received in one-stop
career center grant funds. 



                                                                     Table VII.1
                                                       
                                                            One-Stop Career Center Summary

                                                                                                    Sources of operating funds
                                                                              -----------------------------------------------------------------------
                       One-stop center                                 Total
                        implementation      Total planning    implementation                     Vocational       Wagner-
State                     program year             grant\a           grant\a          JTPA   Rehabilitation        Peyser          TANF         Other
------------------  ------------------  ------------------  ----------------  ------------  ---------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Alabama                           1997            $275,000        $4,275,000             X                              X
Alaska                            1996             295,000         3,775,000             X                X             X             X             X
Arizona                           1995             200,000         7,800,006             X                              X                           X
Arkansas                          1997             346,000         2,000,000             X                              X             X             X
California                        1996             600,000        15,700,000             X                              X             X             X
Colorado                          1996             299,954         6,660,000             X                X             X             X             X
Connecticut                       1994                 N/A         9,481,616             X                              X             X             X
Delaware                          1997             206,250         1,500,000             X                              X
Florida                           1996             650,000        12,225,000             X                X             X             X             X
Georgia                           1997             325,000         4,000,000             X                X             X             X             X
Hawaii                            1997             206,250         1,450,000
Idaho                             1996             300,000         3,800,000             X                              X             X
Illinois                          1995                 N/A        15,308,688             X                X             X             X             X
Indiana                           1995             299,715         9,969,614             X                              X                           X
Iowa                              1994                 N/A         9,431,616             X                X             X             X             X
Kansas                            1998             325,000         2,500,000
Kentucky                          1995             200,000         7,754,843             X                X             X                           X
Louisiana                         1995                 N/A         3,693,772             X                X             X
Maine                             1997             187,500         3,700,000             X                X             X                           X
Maryland                          1994                 N/A        11,192,480             X                              X
Massachusetts                     1994                 N/A         9,742,500             X                              X                           X
Michigan                          1996             400,000         5,200,000             X                X             X                           X
Minnesota                         1995              50,000         7,451,906                                            X                           X
Mississippi                       1997             275,000         2,000,000
Missouri                          1995                 N/A         4,845,700             X                X             X             X
Montana                           1997             324,780         1,500,000             X                              X                           X
Nebraska                          1998             206,250         1,865,000
Nevada                            1997             206,250         3,700,000
New Hampshire                     1997             206,250         2,000,000             X                              X
New Jersey                        1995             400,000        11,076,561             X                              X             X             X
New Mexico                        1997             325,000         3,700,000             X                              X
New York                          1997             312,500        12,950,000             X                              X
North Carolina                    1995                 N/A         8,862,376             X                X             X             X             X
North Dakota                      1998             206,250         1,500,000
Ohio                              1995                 N/A        15,508,287                                            X
Oklahoma                          1996             200,000         5,642,500             X                              X             X             X
Oregon                            1997             300,000         5,550,000             X                X             X             X             X
Pennsylvania                      1997             347,300         6,000,000             X                              X
Rhode Island                      1997             187,500         2,775,000             X                X             X                           X
South Carolina                    1997             275,000         2,500,000             X                              X                           X
South Dakota                      1997             206,250         1,500,000             X                X             X             X             X
Tennessee                         1997             250,000         6,475,000
Texas                             1994                 N/A        18,401,243             X                X             X             X             X
Utah                              1996             200,000         3,700,000             X                              X             X             X
Vermont                           1996             198,846         2,775,000             X                X             X             X             X
Virginia                          1997             486,821         4,000,000             X                              X
Washington                        1997             450,000         6,475,000             X                X             X             X             X
West Virginia                     1998             325,000         2,000,000             X                              X
Wisconsin                         1994                 N/A        11,042,480             X                X             X             X             X
Wyoming                           1997             206,250         1,500,000                                            X
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total                                          $11,260,916      $308,456,188
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A = not applicable. 

\a Planning and implementation grant amounts for each state are as of
September 28, 1998. 

Source:  Department of Labor headquarters and regional officials. 


   LOCAL STRUCTURES USED TO
   DELIVER EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING
   SERVICES TO TANF CLIENTS
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:2

Local administrative structures varied across the 50 states. 
According to HHS officials, 17 states, including 3 we visited, use
one-stop centers or other traditional workforce development
structures as the primary means to deliver employment and training
services to TANF clients.  Another 14 states, including 1 state we
visited, have established welfare-dedicated centers as the primary
means to provide employment and training services to these clients. 
The remaining states use a combination of service delivery options
(see table VII.2). 



                        Table VII.2
          
           Primary Local Mechanism for Providing
                          Services

            Traditiona
                     l
             workforce
            developmen    Welfare-                  Varies
                     t   dedicated  Mix\  Other\        by
State        structure     centers     a       b    county
----------  ----------  ----------  ----  ------  --------
Alabama                                        X
Alaska                                 X
Arizona                          X
Arkansas                         X
California                       X
Colorado                                                 X
Connecticu           X
 t
Delaware                                       X
Florida              X
Georgia                                        X
Hawaii                           X
Idaho                                  X
Illinois                               X
Indiana              X
Iowa                 X
Kansas                           X
Kentucky             X
Louisiana                        X
Maine                                          X
Maryland                         X
Massachuse           X
 tts
Michigan             X
Minnesota                              X
Mississipp                       X
 i
Missouri                               X
Montana                                X
Nebraska                                       X
Nevada                                 X
New                  X
 Hampshire
New Jersey           X
New Mexico                                     X
New York                               X
North                            X
 Carolina
North                X
 Dakota
Ohio                                                     X
Oklahoma                               X
Oregon                           X
Pennsylvan                       X
 ia
Rhode                X
 Island
South                            X
 Carolina
South                X
 Dakota
Tennessee                        X
Texas                X
Utah                 X
Vermont                                X
Virginia                         X
Washington                             X
West                 X
 Virginia
Wisconsin            X
Wyoming              X
----------------------------------------------------------
\a Clients are served in about equal numbers at traditional workforce
centers and welfare-dedicated centers. 

\b Mechanisms include social services staff directly referring
clients to contractors or other agencies that provide employment or
training services to adult TANF clients. 

Source:  HHS regional officials. 


   JTPA TITLE IIA SUMMARY FOR
   PROGRAM YEARS 1995 AND 1996
------------------------------------------------------- Appendix VII:3

Table VII.3 provides information on funding allocations and the
number of clients leaving the program in program years 1995 and 1996. 
It also provides information on the proportion of clients who were
also enrolled in AFDC/TANF.  Relative to all JTPA title IIA clients,
the proportion of clients who were also AFDC/TANF clients declined
somewhat in many states from program year 1995 to 1996.  Thirty-four
states had declines during this period that ranged from a low of 0.1
percentage point in Arizona and Colorado to a high of 19.1 percentage
points in New Hampshire. 



                                                                     Table VII.3
                                                       
                                                       JTPA Title IIA Summary for Program Years
                                                                    1995 and 1996

                             Program year 1995                                                  Program year 1996
                  ----------------------------------------  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      JTPA IIA         Total    Percentage                                                               Percentage point change in %
                      allotted  participants      who were    JTPA IIA allotted               Total      Percentage who  AFDC/TANF from PY 1995 to PY
State                    funds            \a          AFDC                funds      participants\a      were AFDC/TANF                          1996
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  -------------------  ------------------  ------------------  ----------------------------
Alabama            $18,422,732         7,317         16.9%          $13,665,742               7,008               15.9%                          -1.0
Alaska               2,837,523           491         39.5%            2,567,694                 501               41.5%                           2.0
Arizona             13,935,061         2,847         34.5%           13,773,635               3,033               34.4%                          -0.1
Arkansas             9,664,236         1,351         21.5%            7,008,959               1,380               21.5%                     No change
California         176,173,325        28,404         33.2%          149,753,588              27,316               34.5%                           1.4
Colorado             9,930,813         3,036         38.9%            7,202,293               2,634               38.8%                          -0.1
Connecticut         10,156,627         1,309         41.0%            7,366,063               1,638               32.4%                          -8.7
Delaware             2,630,042           700         33.3%            2,119,367                 694               32.9%                          -0.4
Florida             53,192,656        12,321         37.0%           40,661,143               9,819               34.0%                          -3.0
Georgia             22,142,035         7,412         41.5%           16,058,445               6,133               37.5%                          -4.0
Hawaii               2,977,386           637         29.8%            3,672,768                 721               32.3%                           2.5
Idaho                3,194,169           570         31.4%            2,996,561                 553               27.8%                          -3.6
Illinois            42,901,850         7,889         33.2%           32,646,845               6,633               34.2%                           1.0
Indiana             15,399,204         3,362         25.8%           13,246,703               2,701               23.5%                          -2.3
Iowa                 5,396,367           960         42.3%            3,913,699                 707               43.7%                           1.4
Kansas               6,345,185           999         48.4%            4,601,826               1,202               39.9%                          -8.6
Kentucky            14,745,934         3,099         34.9%           12,312,685               2,424               32.0%                          -2.9
Louisiana           24,378,762         3,824         26.3%           21,144,090               4,333               23.4%                          -2.8
Maine                5,345,984           727         33.0%            4,163,587               1,119               30.7%                          -2.3
Maryland            15,292,528         6,330         26.3%           11,090,860               4,090               19.0%                          -7.3
Massachusetts       23,469,898         7,020         52.8%           17,021,474               4,770               44.6%                          -8.2
Michigan            39,070,058         6,458         31.4%           28,495,837               7,051               26.3%                          -5.2
Minnesota           11,057,240         3,392         40.7%            8,019,230               2,590               43.1%                           2.4
Mississippi         12,961,173         3,395         18.7%           10,123,204               3,009               14.5%                          -4.2
Missouri            17,412,714         4,112         41.9%           12,628,519               3,864               38.7%                          -3.2
Montana              3,158,989           561         47.4%            2,601,482                 418               51.9%                           4.5
Nebraska             2,630,042           667         36.0%            2,119,367                 717               34.0%                          -2.0
Nevada               5,012,949         1,428         35.9%            4,587,956               1,321               38.4%                           2.5
New Hampshire        3,850,939           536         50.0%            2,792,882                 669               30.9%                         -19.1
New Jersey          29,934,546         8,500         36.7%           25,918,524               6,908               33.4%                          -3.3
New Mexico           7,024,514           982         31.1%            5,817,558               1,032               37.8%                           6.7
New York            81,867,897        12,830         37.2%           63,670,017              15,189               35.7%                          -1.5
North Carolina      17,084,620         3,652         39.5%           13,822,357               3,490               36.8%                          -2.7
North Dakota         2,630,042           648         22.5%            2,119,367                 644               17.4%                          -5.1
Ohio                38,727,805         9,176         43.5%           29,517,477               6,693               42.7%                          -0.8
Oklahoma            12,070,920         1,714         32.3%            8,754,399               1,451               27.2%                          -5.1
Oregon              12,167,986         2,928         23.3%            8,824,795               2,509               17.6%                          -5.6
Pennsylvania        43,523,589        15,772         52.4%           38,462,093              12,346               53.6%                           1.1
Rhode Island         4,177,738           622         50.5%            3,379,959                 656               54.0%                           3.5
South Carolina      15,607,751         3,739         26.9%           11,319,476               3,169               27.6%                           0.8
South Dakota         2,630,042           954         22.6%            2,119,367                 945               22.2%                          -0.4
Tennessee           16,340,812         3,630         53.8%           12,679,992               3,311               45.4%                          -8.4
Texas               78,781,890        14,658         25.8%           66,453,677              13,572               24.9%                          -0.9
Utah                 3,004,148           909         28.6%            2,298,126                 610               31.3%                           2.7
Vermont              2,630,042           804         30.7%            2,119,367                 575               24.7%                          -6.0
Virginia            16,259,008         4,255         29.4%           14,075,092               3,956               26.4%                          -3.0
Washington          20,170,821         4,338         39.0%           16,895,807               4,061               39.2%                           0.2
West Virginia       11,682,542         1,768         31.2%            8,813,245               1,284               32.1%                           0.9
Wisconsin           12,191,704         3,591         39.6%            9,529,322               3,146               34.8%                          -4.8
Wyoming              2,630,042           368         27.2%            2,119,367                 465               26.0%                          -1.2
=====================================================================================================================================================
Total             $1,004,824,8       216,992         35.6%         $807,065,888             195,060               33.6%                          -2.0
                            80
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a We define participants as those who left the program during the
program year (terminees). 

Source:  Department of Labor. 


GAO CONTACTS AND STAFF
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
======================================================== Appendix VIII

GAO CONTACTS

Sigurd Nilsen, Assistant Director, (202) 512-7003
Dianne Murphy Blank, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-5654

STAFF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In addition to those named above, the following individuals made
important contributions to this report.  Denise de Bellerive Hunter
participated in planning, data collection, and reporting, and led two
site visits.  Robert Sampson participated in planning and data
collection, including leading a site visit, and he managed the
preparation of the site visit appendixes.  Sheila Nicholson assisted
with the site visits and managed the 50-state data collection and
presentation.  Mary Roy led one site visit and assisted with two
others.  Betty Clark, Margaret Boeckmann, Bill Keller, Edward
Tuchman, and Christopher Clark assisted with data collection and
analysis.  Stefanie Weldon advised on legal issues.  Elizabeth T. 
Morrison and Ann McDermott assisted with report preparation.  Richard
Nathan, of the Rockefeller Institute, and Gale Harris advised on
technical issues. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY
============================================================ Chapter 0

Holcomb, Pamela A.  Welfare Reform:  The Family Support Act in
Historical Context.  Washington, D.C.:  The Urban Institute, Nov. 
1993. 

Kogan, Deborah, and others.  Creating Workforce Development Systems
That Work:  An Evaluation of the Initial One-Stop Implementation
Experience.  Menlo Park, Calif.:  Social Policy Research Associates,
Aug.  15, 1997. 

Maloy, Kathleen A., and others.  A Description and Assessment of
State Approaches to Diversion Programs and Activities Under Welfare
Reform.  Washington, D.C.:  George Washington University Medical
Center, Center for Health Policy Research, Aug.  1998. 

Nathan, Richard P., and Thomas L.  Gais.  Overview Report: 
Implementation of the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996.  Albany,
N.Y.:  State University of New York, Oct.  1998. 

The Urban Institute.  The Structural Link Between JTPA and State
Welfare Reform Programs in 1997.  Washington, D.C.:  The Urban
Institute, Dec.  1997. 

U.S.  General Accounting Office.  Employment Training:  Successful
Projects Share Common Strategy.  GAO/HEHS-96-108, May 7, 1996. 

_____.  Evidence Is Insufficient to Support the Administrations's
Proposed Changes to AFDC Work Programs.  GAO/HRD-85-92, Aug.  27,
1985. 

_____.  JOBS and JTPA:  Tracking Spending, Outcomes, and Program
Performance.  GAO/HEHS-94-177, July 15, 1994. 

_____.  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:  Status of Awards and Selected States' Use of
Welfare-to-Work Grants.  GAO/HEHS-99-40, Feb.  5, 1999. 

_____.  Welfare Reform:  Three States' Approaches Show Promise of
Increasing Work Participation.  GAO/HEHS-97-80, May 30, 1997. 

_____.  Welfare to Work:  Current AFDC Program Not Sufficiently
Focused on Employment.  GAO/HEHS-95-28, Dec.  19, 1994. 

_____.  Welfare to Work:  Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing
Job Placement.  GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995. 

_____.  Welfare to Work:  Participants' Characteristics and Services
Provided in JOBS.  GAO/HEHS-95-93, May 2, 1995. 

_____.  Welfare Waivers Implementation:  States Work to Change
Welfare Culture, Community Involvement, and Service Delivery. 
GAO/HEHS-96-105, July 2, 1996. 

_____.  Work and Welfare:  Current AFDC Work Programs and
Implications for Federal Policy.  GAO/HRD-87-34, Jan.  29, 1987. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Welfare Reform:  Status of Awards and Selected States' Use of
Welfare-to-Work Grants (GAO/HEHS-99-40, Feb.  5, 1999). 

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:  Three States' Approaches Show Promise of Increasing
Work Participation (GAO/HEHS-97-80, May 30, 1997). 

Welfare Waivers Implementation:  States Work to Change Welfare
Culture, Community Involvement, and Service Delivery
(GAO/HEHS-96-105, July 2, 1996). 

Employment Training:  Successful Projects Share Common Strategy
(GAO/HEHS-96-108, May 7, 1996). 


*** End of document. ***