Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States' Use of
Welfare-To-Work Grants (Letter Report, 02/05/99, GAO/HEHS-99-40).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information about: (1)
welfare-to-work formula and competitive grants awarded to, or declined
by, states for fiscal year (FY) 1998; (2) how selected grantees are
planning to use these funds; and (3) how selected grantees plan to meet
welfare-to-work requirements to better integrate the states' workforce
development services with other human services for welfare recipients.

GAO noted that: (1)  The Department of Labor (DOL) awarded formula
grants to 44 states plus the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico,
and the Virgin Islands with welfare-to-work funding available for FY
1998, and, as of November 20, 1998, it had awarded competitive grants to
126 organizations with combined welfare-to-work funding available for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999; (2) six states--Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming--did not participate in the
welfare-to-work formula grant program; (3) these states, which would
have received a total of about $71 million, chose not to participate for
various reasons, including concerns about their ability to provide state
matching funds; (4) Arizona was the only state that applied for formula
grant funds but did not pledge sufficient matching funds to receive its
maximum federal allocation; (5) the competitive grant funds Labor
awarded represented all welfare-to-work funds available for FY 1998 and
about a third of the FY 1999 funds; (6) most states had at least one
local service organization that received competitive grant funds; (7)
three of the six states GAO reviewed--Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Wisconsin--outlined very specific uses for formula funds, while plans
for the other three states--Arizona, California, and New York--indicated
that the use of these funds would be determined by the local service
delivery areas; (8) Michigan's and Wisconsin's plans emphasized
assistance to unemployed noncustodial parents--these parents, mostly
fathers, often have child support payments in arrears and dependents who
are receiving welfare cash assistance; (9) Massachusetts focused on
serving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families recipients who are
reaching their time limits on cash assistance, in contrast, California's
plan did not emphasize a specific welfare-to-work service strategy
because state officials believed that no one service strategy could be
applied effectively throughout the state; (11) similarly, Arizona and
New York allowed local service delivery areas to decide on strategies
for using formula grant funds; (12) state and local officials in the six
states GAO reviewed noted that a stronger partnership was developing
between the workforce development agencies and other human service
agencies assisting welfare recipients, in part because of their joint
involvement in the welfare-to-work planning process; and (13) the
welfare-to-work competitive grantees also coordinated their plans with
state and local officials.

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

 REPORTNUM:  HEHS-99-40
     TITLE:  Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States' Use 
             of Welfare-To-Work Grants
      DATE:  02/05/99
   SUBJECT:  Public assistance programs
             Employment or training programs
             Locally administered programs
             Federal grants
             State-administered programs
             Formula grants
             Program graduation
             State/local relations
IDENTIFIER:  HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program
             Arizona
             California
             Massachusetts
             Michigan
             New York
             Wisconsin
             
******************************************************************
** 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 - STATUS OF AWARDS
AND SELECTED STATES' USE OF
WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANTS

GAO/HEHS-99-40

Welfare-to-Work Grants

(205362)


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

  EARN - Employment and Respect Now
  JTPA - Job Training Partnership Act
  TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

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


B-280256

February 5, 1999

The Honorable William F.  Goodling
Chairman, Committee on Education
 and the Workforce
House of Representatives

The Honorable Howard P.  (Buck) McKeon
Chairman, Subcommittee on Postsecondary
 Education, Training and Life-Long Learning
Committee on Education and the
 Workforce
House of Representatives

Federal and state welfare reform initiatives focus on moving welfare
recipients to work and economic self-sufficiency.  To foster this
goal, the Congress authorized welfare-to work grants in the Balanced
Budget Act of 1997 (P.L.  105-33).  These grants were intended to
help hard-to-employ persons receiving aid under the block grant
program of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), to obtain
employment.  The welfare-to-work grants total $3 billion--$1.5
billion to be awarded by the Department of Labor each year in fiscal
years 1998 and 1999.  About 75 percent of the funds are for formula
grants to states, and nearly 25 percent are for competitive grants to
local organizations for innovative approaches in moving welfare
recipients into permanent work.  To receive a formula grant, states
must pledge one dollar of state matching funds for every two dollars
of federal welfare-to-work funds.  States must also submit a plan
describing how the formula funds will be used and ensure that the
plan was developed in consultation with appropriate state and local
agencies, including those responsible for TANF funds.  States, in
turn, must pass most of the formula funds to substate areas that plan
for and administer the funds.  Governors may retain a small portion,
15 percent, of the states' formula funding for special
welfare-to-work projects. 

As requested, we are providing information about (1) welfare-to-work
formula and competitive grants awarded to, or declined by, states for
fiscal year 1998; (2) how selected grantees are planning to use these
funds; and (3) how selected grantees plan to meet welfare-to-work
requirements to better integrate the states' workforce development
services with other human services for welfare recipients.  Because
the grants were mostly awarded in the second half of fiscal year
1998, in discussions with your offices we agreed that it is too early
to report on how welfare-to-work funding was actually spent or to
collect outcome data about the impact of the funds on finding jobs
for hard-to-employ welfare recipients. 

In performing this work, we met with Labor officials who administer
the welfare-to-work grants and obtained information on the formula
and competitive grants Labor awarded for welfare-to-work funds
available for fiscal year 1998.  We also interviewed state and local
officials in six states--Arizona, California, Massachusetts,
Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin--to obtain information on their
plans for the welfare-to-work grant funding.  (See app.  I for a full
discussion of our scope and methodology.)


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

Labor awarded formula grants to 44 states plus the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands with
welfare-to-work funding available for fiscal year 1998, and, as of
November 20, 1998, it had awarded competitive grants to 126
organizations with combined welfare-to-work funding available for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999.  Six states--Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio,
South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming--did not participate in the
welfare-to-work formula grant program.  These states, which would
have received a total of about $71 million, chose not to participate
for various reasons, including concerns about their ability to
provide state matching funds.  Arizona was the only state that
applied for formula grant funds but did not pledge sufficient
matching funds to receive its maximum federal allocation.  The
competitive grant funds Labor awarded represented all welfare-to-work
funds available for fiscal year 1998 and about a third of the fiscal
year 1999 funds.  Most states had at least one local service
organization that received competitive grant funds. 

Three of the six states we reviewed--Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Wisconsin--outlined very specific uses for formula funds, while plans
for the other three states--Arizona, California, and New
York--indicated that the use of these funds would be determined by
the local service delivery areas.  Michigan's and Wisconsin's plans
emphasized assistance to unemployed noncustodial parents--these
parents, mostly fathers, often have child support payments in arrears
and dependents who are receiving welfare cash assistance. 
Massachusetts focused on serving TANF recipients who are reaching
their time limits on cash assistance.  In contrast, California's plan
did not emphasize a specific welfare-to-work service strategy because
state officials believed that no one service strategy could be
applied effectively throughout the state.  Similarly, Arizona and New
York allowed local service delivery areas to decide on strategies for
using formula grant funds.  One example is an area in New York that
plans to hire staff to be available 24 hours a day to assist the
hardest-to-employ TANF participants in finding and keeping jobs. 
Plans for the competitive grants focused more narrowly on a specific
population and activity.  For example, in Milwaukee, a competitive
grant will be used to provide legal assistance to long-term welfare
recipients and noncustodial parents. 

State and local officials in the six states we reviewed noted that a
stronger partnership was developing between the workforce development
agencies and other human service agencies assisting welfare
recipients, in part because of their joint involvement in the
welfare-to-work planning process.  For example, Massachusetts
developed a welfare-to-work steering committee that had
representatives from state and local employment and training entities
as well as the state's TANF agency.  By planning and working
together, this group shares information that will minimize
duplication of effort in service delivery.  Additionally, as local
welfare-to-work plans were developed, local partnerships were formed,
such as a community task force in Arizona with representation from 64
state and local agencies in the service delivery area that were
involved with moving individuals from welfare to work.  The
welfare-to-work competitive grantees also coordinated their plans
with state and local officials.  For example, the competitive grant
in Merced, California, has a coalition of partners including
representatives from the employment and training community, the local
human services agency, and the housing authority. 


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

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
(P.L.  104-193), enacted in August 1996, overhauled the nation's
welfare system.  Although some states were already implementing
changes to their welfare programs before this legislation, the act
abolished the federal Aid to Families With Dependent Children program
and established TANF block grants, which imposed stronger work
requirements for welfare recipients than its predecessor program. 
TANF provides benefits for a time-limited period and focuses on
quickly putting individuals to work.  The TANF block grants available
to states totaled about $16.6 billion in fiscal year 1998--ranging
from about $21.8 million in Wyoming to over $3.7 billion in
California.  To receive their TANF grants, states must maintain
funding for needy families at specified levels tied to their
historical expenditures on welfare programs. 

The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 authorized $3 billion for
welfare-to-work grants to state (the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands) and local
communities to move welfare recipients into jobs--$1.5 billion is
available to be awarded by Labor each year in fiscal years 1998 and
1999.  A small amount of the total grant money was set aside for
special purposes:  1 percent for Native American tribes ($15 million
for each year), 0.8 percent for evaluation ($12 million for each
year), and $100 million in fiscal year 1999 for performance bonuses
to states that successfully move welfare recipients into
employment.\1 After these set-asides, Labor allocated 75 percent
(about $1.1 billion for fiscal year 1998) of the welfare-to-work
funds to states on the basis of a formula that equally considers the
shares of individuals with incomes below the poverty level and adult
recipients of TANF assistance residing in the state.  States must
pledge one dollar of nonfederal funding to match every two dollars of
federal funding provided under the formula; up to half of the match
may consist of third-party in-kind contributions.  The state
welfare-to-work matching funds are in addition to the state funds
that must be expended as required under TANF block grants.\2

Funds not allocated by formula, which are nearly 25 percent of the
welfare-to-work funds (over $368 million for fiscal year 1998), were
available for Labor to award competitively to local organizations. 
These organizations--local governments, Private Industry Councils,\3
and private organizations that apply in conjunction with a Private
Industry Council or local government--submit applications to Labor
describing how they plan to use welfare-to-work funds.  In addition
to giving special consideration to cities with large concentrations
of poverty and to rural areas, Labor reviews applications and awards
competitive grants using the following criteria: 

  -- the relative need for assistance in the area proposed to be
     served;

  -- the extent to which the project proposes innovative strategies
     for moving welfare recipients into lasting work;

  -- the quality of the proposed outcomes of the project;

  -- the degree to which the project is coordinated with other
     services; and

  -- the demonstrated ability of the grant applicant. 

To receive its allocation of welfare-to-work formula funds, a state
was required to submit a plan for the use and administration of the
grant funds to Labor.  The Secretary of Labor then determined whether
the plan met the statutory requirements, including assurances that
the plan was developed with coordination from appropriate entities in
substate areas and that welfare-to-work programs and funds would be
coordinated with programs funded through the TANF block grants.\4
Using an allocation formula developed by the state, 85 percent of the
state's federal formula funds were to be passed to local Private
Industry Councils.  The Private Industry Councils have policy-making
responsibility in these service delivery areas and administer the
welfare-to-work programs at the local level unless the Secretary of
Labor approves a governor's request to use an alternative
administering agency.  The remaining 15 percent of the state's
formula allotment may be spent on welfare-to-work projects of the
state's choice, which is described in this report as the governor's
discretionary fund. 

States establish their own formula for allocating formula funds to
Private Industry Councils for local service delivery areas but must
give a minimum weight of 50 percent to the number of people in the
area in excess of 7.5 percent of the population whose income is below
the poverty level.  States may also consider the local area's
proportion of the state's long-term welfare population or the state's
unemployed population.  Additionally, if the amount to be allocated
by formula to a local service delivery area is less than $100,000,
that money may be held by the state and added to the 15 percent
governor's discretionary funds. 

Labor was required to obligate the fiscal year 1998 formula grant
funds by September 30, 1998; however, funds for the competitive
grants were multiyear, and Labor could obligate those funds into
fiscal year 1999.  Both formula and competitive grants must be spent
within 3 years of the grant award.  Under the Balanced Budget Act,
the welfare-to-work grants were initially legislated as multiyear
allocations that could be awarded any time in fiscal years 1998 and
1999, but this law was amended to require that Labor award formula
funds available for fiscal year 1998 by September 30, 1998.  If at
the end of any fiscal year states have not applied for or have
applied for less than the maximum amount available for formula funds,
the funds are to be transferred to the General Fund of the U.S. 
Treasury.  Competitive grant funds, however, remain multiyear funds,
and there is no requirement to obligate funds for fiscal year 1998
within the fiscal year. 

Grantees have flexibility in designing welfare-to-work strategies
geared to the needs of their own local populations and labor markets. 
Overall, welfare-to-work program services help individuals get and
keep unsubsidized employment.  Allowable activities include job
readiness and placement services financed through vouchers or
contracts; community service or work experience; job creation through
public sector or private sector employment wage subsidies; and
on-the-job training, postemployment services financed through
vouchers or contracts, and job retention and support services. 

Both formula and competitive grant funds are to be used for certain
TANF families--recipients on long-term welfare assistance, TANF
recipients with characteristics of long-term welfare dependence,
and/or their noncustodial counterparts.  These people are considered
hard to employ and may have low educational attainment or poor work
histories.  The law requires that at least 70 percent of the funds be
spent on the hardest to serve long-term welfare recipients with two
of three specified barriers to successful employment.  Up to 30
percent of the grant funds may be spent on individuals with
characteristics of long-term welfare recipients; these
characteristics could include dropping out of school, teenage
pregnancy, or poor work history.  Under either the 70- or 30-percent
category, noncustodial parents with dependents receiving TANF
assistance may qualify for welfare-to-work activities.  (See table 1
for a summary of eligibility requirements for welfare-to-work
services.)



                                     Table 1
                     
                      Eligibility Requirements for Welfare-
                                 to-Work Services

Requirement                Eligible population
-------------------------  -----------------------------------------------------
At least 70 percent of     Those who have two of the three barriers to
welfare-to-work funds      employment:
must be spent on the       --lack a high school diploma or general equivalency
hardest-to-employ          degree and have low reading or math skills;
individuals:               --require substance abuse treatment for employment;
                           and
                           --have a poor work history (that is, have worked no
                           more than 3 consecutive months in the past 12
                           calendar months), and
                           those who are
                           --long-term TANF recipients who have received cash
                           assistance for at least 30 months or are within 12
                           months of losing TANF eligibility because of federal
                           or state time limits; or
                           --individuals who would otherwise be long-term TANF
                           recipients but have exceeded time limits on cash
                           assistance; or
                           --noncustodial parents of minors whose custodial
                           parent is a long-term TANF recipient or minors who
                           are long-term TANF recipients under "child only"
                           cases.

No more than 30 percent    Those who exhibit characteristics of long-term
of welfare-to-work funds   welfare dependence, such as having dropped out of
may be spent for the       school, having a teenage pregnancy, or having a poor
benefit of the following   work history, and
individuals:               those who
                           --are TANF recipients, or
                           --would otherwise be TANF recipients but have
                           exceeded their time limits on cash assistance, or
                           --are noncustodial counterparts of TANF recipients.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------
\1 Labor, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human
Services, the National Governors' Association, and the American
Public Human Services Association, is responsible for developing a
formula for determining performance bonuses. 

\2 Matching funds, like the federal formula funds, must be spent on
eligible individuals and allowable activities under the authorizing
legislation.  However, while states must pass most of the formula
funds to substate areas that plan for and administer the funds,
states have more discretion regarding the expenditure of state
matching funds. 

\3 Private Industry Councils were established in 1982 under the Job
Training Partnership Act (JTPA).  JTPA, administered by Labor,
provides job training and placement services to economically
disadvantaged adults and youth.  The membership of Private Industry
Councils reflects stakeholder populations in the local community,
including service providers, community-based organizations,
government agencies, organized labor, and private businesses; the
majority of the membership must be in the private sector.  The
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 replaced JTPA, and effective July 1,
2000, Private Industry Councils will be replaced by local Workforce
Investment Boards.  While there is a transition period between the
two programs, states will continue to use the Private Industry
Councils in place; some states have already renamed their Councils as
Workforce Investment Boards; other states, such as Massachusetts,
renamed these Councils as Regional Employment Boards. 

\4 Welfare-to-work activities must be coordinated with those provided
through TANF.  Hard-to-employ welfare recipients constitute a
significant portion of the TANF-eligible population. 


   LABOR AWARDED WELFARE-TO-WORK
   GRANTS TO MOST STATES AND MANY
   LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Labor awarded about $1 billion in formula grants for fiscal year 1998
to all but six states.  The six states that chose not to participate
in the formula grant program would have received about $71 million. 
Labor also awarded a total of almost $500 million in competitive
grants using all of the approximately $368 million in competitive
grant funds available for fiscal year 1998 and about a third of the
competitive grant funds available for fiscal year 1999. 


      MOST STATES RECEIVED FORMULA
      GRANTS, BUT SIX STATES
      DECLINED TO PARTICIPATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

Most states applied for and received their full allocation of formula
grant funds.  (See app.  II for the amount of formula funds awarded,
by state, for fiscal year 1998.) Of the states that applied for
formula grant funding, Arizona was the only state that did not pledge
sufficient matching funds to receive its maximum federal
allocation.\5 Of the states that declined to participate in the
welfare-to-work program, four states did not submit a welfare-to-work
plan to Labor and the remaining states informed Labor that they would
not participate in the formula grant program.  These six states chose
not to participate for various reasons, including concerns about
their ability to provide state matching funds. 

Arizona needed about $9 million in matching funds to obtain its full
allocation of about $17 million in federal welfare-to-work funds;
however, the state legislature was not willing to provide this amount
in matching funds.  Instead, the state assured a match of $4.5
million and obtained a formula grant for $9 million in fiscal year
1998.  Initially, Arizona asked the local service delivery areas to
determine whether they could raise the required matching funds;
however, the local areas, while they wanted the welfare-to-work
funding, did not believe they could raise the matching funds locally. 

Of the six states that declined to participate in the welfare-to-work
formula program, four states--Idaho, Mississippi, South Dakota, and
Wyoming--neither informed Labor they would not be participating in
welfare-to-work, nor submitted a welfare-to-work plan to Labor; the
remaining states--Ohio and Utah--informed Labor that they would not
participate.  Ohio initially applied for its welfare-to-work
allocation, but the governor later decided the grant was too complex
and burdensome, especially the match requirement.  Since Ohio had
excess, unobligated TANF funds, state officials believed the TANF
funds should be used to move welfare recipients to work--especially
because there were no matching requirements and the eligibility
requirements were less restrictive.  Utah sent a letter declining its
allocation, listing two reasons for its decision--that the state
believed the formula funding was too restrictive regarding
participant eligibility and that it believed the welfare-to-work
grants were too prescriptive and did not allow the state enough
flexibility.  A state official in Utah also said that, at the time
the letter was sent, officials believed TANF funds were sufficient to
serve the TANF population's needs; furthermore, the funds required a
state match, which did not seem feasible at the time. 

The states that did not apply for welfare-to-work funds had various
reasons for not participating.  For example, an official in Idaho
noted that the state's TANF caseload had dropped precipitously,
consequently the state had adequate TANF funds to meet the employment
and training needs of the remaining welfare recipients.  The official
also estimated that no more than about 350 of the state's welfare
recipients were eligible for welfare-to-work services--and perhaps as
few as 100.  A state official in Mississippi said that a significant
amount of TANF funds had been budgeted for job skills development and
job search.  Additionally, the state had set aside 30 percent of
enrollments in JTPA for welfare recipients and was having difficulty
filling these slots.  Consequently, in addition to concerns about the
state's ability to provide matching funds, the state decided against
applying for welfare-to-work funds.  The six states may still apply
for fiscal year 1999 funds and have until March 1999 to do so. 


--------------------
\5 Because of an administrative error, West Virginia did not match
$500 of the welfare-to-work grant funds for which the state was
entitled.  Guam and the Virgin Islands were waived from the first
$200,000 of the required match and could then request a waiver for
the remaining match requirement.  Guam did request a waiver from the
full amount of match; however, the Virgin Islands provided its
remaining match, about $77,000.  Formula grant funding not awarded by
Labor was returned to the U.S.  Treasury.  In total, Labor returned
almost $80 million, or 7 percent, of the formula funds available for
fiscal year 1998.  These funds were the unallocated formula funds for
which states had either not applied or applied for less than the
maximum available under the formula. 


      LABOR AWARDED 126
      COMPETITIVE GRANTS TO LOCAL
      ORGANIZATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

As of November 20, 1998, Labor had awarded a total of 126 competitive
grants.  On May 27, 1998, Labor announced the first round of
competitive grants, which resulted in awards of about $200
million--approximately half of the fiscal year 1998 welfare-to-work
competitive grant funds--to 51 local organizations.\6

On November 20, 1998, Labor awarded the second round of competitive
grants to 75 local organizations; these grants totaled about $273
million and represented combined competitive grant funds from the
remainder of fiscal year 1998 funds and a portion of the fiscal year
1999 funds.  (See apps.  III and IV for a list of the first and
second rounds of competitive grants awarded, by state.) Most states
had at least one local service organization that received competitive
grant funds.  (See table 2 for the distribution of welfare-to-work
competitive grants awarded by Labor.)



                          Table 2
          
          Number of Competitive Grants Awarded, by
               State, as of November 20, 1998

                Number of                     Number of
               grant awards                  grant awards
              --------------                --------------
State or       Round   Round  State or       Round   Round
territory          I      II  territory          I      II
------------  ------  ------  ------------  ------  ------
Alabama            1       1  Montana                    1
Alaska                     1  Nebraska
Arizona            1       1  Nevada
Arkansas           1          New                        1
                               Hampshire
California        11       8  New Jersey         2       2
Colorado           1       2  New Mexico         1       1
Connecticut        1       2  New York           2       4
Delaware                      North              1       2
                               Carolina
District of        1       1  North Dakota
 Columbia
Florida            2       3  Ohio               1       2
Georgia            2       2  Oklahoma                   1
Guam                          Oregon
Hawaii                     1  Pennsylvania       2       1
Idaho                         Puerto Rico                1
Illinois           3       2  Rhode Island               1
Indiana            2       1  South
                               Carolina
Iowa                       1  South Dakota               1
Kansas                     1  Tennessee                  2
Kentucky           1       1  Texas              2       3
Louisiana                  1  Utah                       1
Maine                      1  Vermont            1       1
Maryland                   2  Virginia           2       2
Massachusett       1       2  Virgin
 s                             Islands
Michigan           2          Washington                 2
Minnesota                  2  West                       1
                               Virginia
Mississippi                1  Wisconsin          1
Missouri                   2  Wyoming
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Additional competitive grants were awarded to grant recipients
serving sites in multiple states (see apps.  III and IV). 

Source:  GAO analysis of Department of Labor data. 


--------------------
\6 Following Labor's initial announcement of competitive awards to 49
entities, the award to the Oakland Private Industry Council was
restructured into separate grants to the Oakland Private Industry
Council and the City of Oakland, and an award to Goodwill Industries
was restructured into separate awards to Goodwill Industries of
Middle Georgia and Goodwill Industries of San Antonio, resulting in
awards to 51 entities.  A Labor official noted that similar changes
may occur for the awards made during the second round of competitive
awards and explained that Labor was negotiating the final figures for
these competitive grants with the grant recipients; consequently, she
referred to the second round of competitive grant awards as
"proposed" awards. 


   SOME STATES AND MANY LOCAL
   COMMUNITIES PROPOSED SPECIFIC
   INITIATIVES FOR THEIR
   WELFARE-TO-WORK GRANT FUNDS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Three states that we reviewed targeted a specific population for
formula grant funds, while the other three states defined their
welfare-to-work focus more broadly and did not emphasize a specific
service strategy or targeted population.  In the six states, local
communities targeted populations and designed their welfare-to-work
activities consistent with their state's plan.  Competitive grants
focused more narrowly on a specific population and activity. 


      THREE STATES SET SPECIFIC
      FOCUS FOR FORMULA GRANTS,
      WHILE OTHERS ALLOWED WIDER
      LOCAL DISCRETION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Three of the six states we reviewed--Massachusetts, Michigan, and
Wisconsin--specified populations to be served with formula grant
funds, such as assistance to unemployed noncustodial parents or TANF
recipients who are reaching their time limits on cash assistance. 
Plans for the other three states--Arizona, California, and New
York--stated that the use of welfare-to-work funds would be
determined by the local service delivery areas.  (See apps.  V
through X for a brief description of the formula grant plans in each
of the six states.) In the six states, the local plans we reviewed
proposed a range of welfare-to-work activities for eligible
participants. 

Three states planned a specific statewide focus for formula grant
funds.  For example, Michigan's plan emphasized serving unemployed
noncustodial parents who have child support payments in arrears and
whose dependents are receiving TANF assistance.  The goal was to
increase payments by these noncustodial parents for child support. 
Not participating in the welfare-to-work program has serious
consequences--incarceration--unless there is good cause for
nonparticipation.  Michigan required local service delivery areas to
devote 50 percent of their welfare-to-work grant funds to assist
noncustodial parents.  Wisconsin's plan also emphasized serving
noncustodial parents, and because its TANF caseload is low, the state
also proposed to assist individuals receiving only TANF child care
subsidies.  Massachusetts planned on serving TANF recipients who are
reaching their 24-month limit for receiving cash assistance--about
7,000 were expected to lose cash assistance benefits on December 1,
1998. 

In contrast, three states defined their formula grant focus more
broadly and did not emphasize a specific service strategy. 
California's state plan noted that--given the diversity of the
state's local service delivery areas--no one service strategy could
be effectively applied statewide.  Arizona's plan outlined the
state's support to local service delivery areas in their efforts to
target welfare-to-work services to hard-to-serve TANF recipients,
noncustodial parents, and other eligible individuals.  New York's
plan provided a general welfare-to-work focus on improving the
connection to work, although the state plan placed some emphasis on
serving individuals with disabilities; many of these individuals have
experienced long-term welfare dependency and had been exempt from
work requirements under Aid to Families With Dependent Children but
are no longer exempt under the state's TANF program. 

The local plans we reviewed proposed a range of activities for their
formula grant allocations.  Because welfare-to-work programs are
administered locally,\7

state officials in the six states we reviewed said local entities
have the ability to design welfare-to-work activities and target
populations within the parameters of the state plan.  For example,
the New York state plan did not define, beyond the federal
welfare-to-work eligibility requirements, the population to be served
with formula funds, and state officials said that different local
plans emphasized different activities, such as mentoring, case
management, training to upgrade employment, literacy, and career
ladder development.  The officials also noted that local service
delivery areas considered the services funded by TANF and proposed to
focus formula grant funds on areas where services were lacking. 

In states with a focus on serving a targeted population with formula
grant funds, local service delivery areas focused on these objectives
in their welfare-to-work plans.  For example, in Massachusetts, local
service delivery areas, following the state's direction, will provide
services to TANF recipients facing time limits on cash assistance. 
Likewise, a service delivery area in Michigan will identify its
welfare-to-work participants through the Family Independence Agency,
which is the TANF agency, and the Friend of the Court, which refers
noncustodial parents.  However, focusing on the needs of its own
local population, this service delivery area also plans to serve
several other populations whose characteristics are associated with
or predictive of long-term welfare dependency, such as rural
isolation, substance abuse, homelessness, being a single parent, or
being an offender. 

For states leaving more discretion to local service delivery areas in
planning their strategies for the use of formula grant funds, some
local areas designed their welfare-to-work activities to complement
existing employment delivery systems.  For example, in the San Diego,
California, service delivery area, about 3,000 long-term welfare
recipients will receive a package of services, for about 18 to 24
months, designed to meet their needs, which will include at least 16
hours a week of work activities and up to 16 hours a week of support
services.  These services are provided by competitively procured
contractors, and each contract includes an incentive program to move
participants into work expeditiously.  Some local plans emphasized
new approaches for moving welfare recipients to work.  For example,
local officials in Phoenix, Arizona, plan to use formula grant funds
to develop new relationships with large businesses that will receive
consulting services in exchange for hiring welfare recipients; the
welfare-to-work participants will receive job readiness training as
well as mentoring and job coaching after they are hired to improve
their chances of job retention. 

Local officials we interviewed said service delivery areas planned to
use formula grant funds particularly to provide postemployment
services.  For example, in New York's Oneida-Herkimer-Madison service
delivery area, the welfare-to-work program is based on using
employment retention specialists who will provide 24-hour support
service to participants.  A third of the area's formula funds will be
spent on the 6-person employment retention staff; smaller amounts of
the formula funds were allocated for services such as transportation
and child care because the program hopes to use existing programs and
resources for these services.  Even with its focus on job retention
services, the local service delivery area will maintain a menu of
services so that it can provide all services to clients as needed. 

The welfare-to-work program for a local area in Massachusetts
represents another example of providing postemployment services with
formula grant funds.  This welfare-to-work program planned to provide
support after job placement for up to 6 months rather than the 30 to
60 days that other employment and training programs generally provide
participants.  At the time of our review, this program had placed
about 10 of the 70 current participants in jobs, and these employed
participants were receiving services such as mentoring and case
management.  A program official noted that, until a participant finds
a job, the local career center provides most services; however, once
the participant finds a job, the career center's role diminishes, and
participants primarily are served through the welfare-to-work program
since it can provide postemployment services.  The local area is
still developing community resource teams to help TANF recipients
manage their lives.  The official explained that, once placed in
jobs, welfare-to-work participants might fail to report to work if
they are sick or if they cannot obtain child care.  Ideally, the
community resource teams would help individuals find resources to
assist them with these situations without losing their jobs. 

The proposed use of the governor's discretionary portion of state
formula funds (up to 15 percent of the formula funds) generally
followed the states' welfare-to-work initiatives.  States that
targeted populations for welfare-to-work activities used
discretionary funds for those individuals.  For example, Michigan
distributed its discretionary funds (about $6 million) to the local
areas in order to provide more funding to serve noncustodial parents. 
In Wisconsin, the discretionary funds (about $2 million) will be used
for a variety of purposes; however, the largest portion of the
discretionary funds (about $1.1 million) will be allocated to the
state's Department of Corrections to provide employment assistance to
noncustodial parents in correctional institutions, on parole, or on
probation.  In Massachusetts, which emphasized assistance to TANF
recipients facing time limits on cash assistance, the state planned
to allocate over half of its about $3 million in discretionary
funding to the Department of Transitional Assistance to supplement
its program of assessment and structured employment assistance. 
Massachusetts also planned to subsidize five local areas that were
allocated the lowest amount of formula funds.  The state used these
funds to provide a minimum of $400,000 to each area because state
officials believed that local areas needed this level of funding to
have an effective welfare-to-work program. 

For states that had a broader focus for their formula funds, plans
for the governor's discretionary funds were analogous with those for
local areas given wider discretion for the use of these funds.  In
California, the state distributed the governor's discretionary funds
(about $29 million) primarily through a competitive process--special
consideration was given to a broad array of programs that addressed
needs in rural areas; leveraged other resources; and demonstrated an
innovative, coordinated approach to services.  Of New York's
discretionary funds (over $14 million), the state planned to use
about 70 percent to support varied services--also on a competitive
basis--to move individuals into employment and provide postemployment
services to help working participants continue to work and increase
earnings.  Finally, Arizona combined its discretionary funds (about
$1.4 million) with allocations made to the local service delivery
areas but did not emphasize service to a specific population as did
Michigan. 


--------------------
\7 Welfare-to-work programs are administered by the Private Industry
Councils, unless the governor requests a waiver that is approved by
the Secretary of Labor.  In the six states we reviewed, New York had
requested a waiver that covered just 2 of its 33 local service
delivery areas; for these 2 areas, the welfare-to-work program was
administered by the human services agencies. 


      WELFARE-TO-WORK COMPETITIVE
      GRANTS FOCUSED ON SPECIFIC
      POPULATIONS AND ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

The plans for competitive grants we reviewed in the six states
focused on specific populations and activities.  The competitive
grantees proposed a variety of different activities and targeted
different populations under this program for innovative approaches. 
Some of the welfare-to-work competitive grants will be used to
complement programs funded by local formula allocations, and others
will function separately from the local formula grant but rely on the
same systems as the formula grantees to verify welfare-to-work
eligibility. 

Several competitive grants will complement formula grant programs. 
For example, Phoenix planned to use its formula funds to assist
participants in gaining employment with large businesses, while its
competitive grant will be used to link participants with small
businesses.  The same approach will be used for both programs.  Using
both formula and competitive grant funds, EARN, an acronym for
Employment and Respect Now, will assess and screen participants for
drug use, then enroll them in a 5-week job readiness program that
includes some computer-based training.  For the competitive grant,
these participants will be placed in employment among 900 small
businesses that receive tax credits for employing them.  Throughout
the participant's work experience, EARN staff and volunteers will
provide mentoring, job coaching, and other services for job
retention.  Similarly, Detroit's competitive grant will be used to
complement its basic program of assisting all individuals in
obtaining employment by providing more intense services for the
hardest-to-employ population.  Transportation to work sites is often
a critical problem for welfare-to-work participants, and a portion of
the competitive grant will be used to fund a demonstration project
called Easy Ride that will purchase several alternative fuel vehicles
and employ a person to coordinate transportation schedules for
welfare-to-work participants.  Additionally, the competitive grant in
Detroit will provide more intense job readiness training such as
substance abuse counseling and classes for
English-as-a-Second-Language. 

The Metropolitan Area Planning Commission in Boston also planned to
use its competitive grant funds to complement the area's formula
grant programs by developing a transportation program to help
individuals get to work.  An "Access to Jobs" study found specific
gaps in transportation services that hampered individuals from
obtaining employment.  The study found that people either had no
available public transportation, had to make multiple trips to get
from their residence to their work site, or simply did not know how
to make the trip.  The Commission will work to connect city residents
to suburban jobs, and suburban residents to jobs in other suburbs or
the city.  The program will assist people served by the formula grant
programs and will provide (1) information about transportation modes,
schedules, and day care sites near transportation; (2) direct
assistance, such as subsidies for public transportation; and (3) an
emergency fund for unanticipated transportation needs, allocated on a
case-by-case basis.  For example, if someone is not served by public
transportation but has a car in need of repairs, the fund could be
used to keep this individual's car in running order. 

Other competitive grants will function separately from the local
formula grant but rely on the same systems to verify welfare-to-work
eligibility as the formula grantees--the welfare offices or the court
system.  For example, Oakland, California, will use its competitive
grant to expand its pilot program to train and place Head Start
parents in jobs.  The program staff hope to identify participants who
are noncustodial parents or who have substance abuse problems, but,
similar to the welfare-to-work eligibility determination for the
local formula grant, the staff will also submit a list of interested
Head Start parents to the county welfare agency to verify TANF
status.  The Private Industry Council of Milwaukee County will
provide legal assistance to long-term welfare clients and
noncustodial parents whose legal problems--combined with poor
academic and work skills--are barriers to employment.  For its
competitive grant, the Private Industry Council plans to serve 200
long-term TANF recipients (primarily women) and 450 noncustodial
parents (primarily men) identified by the welfare agency or the court
system--this is the same way that the Private Industry Council will
determine welfare-to-work eligibility for participants served by the
local formula grant.  The competitive grant will be used to provide
legal advocacy and case management to participants, track individuals
who drop out of the program and try to reintegrate them, and develop
a process that will place a randomly selected group of noncustodial
parents in unsubsidized or subsidized employment.  This process will
require that placement firms pay for the subsidized employment, thus
providing the firms with incentives for finding jobs for their
clients. 

In New York City, the Consortium for Worker Education will use its
competitive grant to train and assist women to provide child care
from their homes as satellites for private sector child care centers. 
The Consortium planned to build on its concept of both putting
welfare recipients to work by providing child care in their homes and
creating needed child care slots for workers in New York City. 
Recruitment for the program will be managed by two vendors who will
advertise, hold presentations at community centers, and obtain
referrals from the city welfare department.  Once recruited,
participants will be assessed and interviewed.  For those selected
for the program, their welfare-to-work eligibility will be determined
by the city's TANF agency, which is also the administrative entity
for the city's local formula grant.  Those deemed eligible must then
have their homes inspected for compliance with city building and
health codes.  Once accepted, the Consortium will enroll participants
in a 2-week job readiness program followed by a 16-week Work
Experience Program.  Participants will spend 60 percent of their work
experience working in a day care center and 40 percent in classroom
training.  When individuals have successfully completed their work
experience, they will be hired by the parent company, Satellite Child
Care, Inc.  The provider's home will then be opened as a satellite
child care center, and the provider will receive a $4,000 kit
containing various equipment, including a computer package that has
software for children and distance learning capabilities so the
provider can receive continued instruction.  The providers will
receive on-going supervision and home visits from the parent company. 


   STRONGER PARTNERSHIPS ARE
   DEVELOPING BETWEEN THE
   WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND HUMAN
   SERVICE AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

State and local officials in the six states we reviewed noted that a
stronger partnership was developing between the workforce development
agencies and other human service agencies assisting welfare
recipients.  They attributed this stronger relationship, at least in
part, to their joint involvement in the welfare-to-work planning
process.  At the state level, each of the six states we reviewed had
developed a partnership steering committee, task force, or work group
to develop the states' plans for formula grant funds and had
identified ways to promote integration between the workforce
development and human service agencies for welfare recipients at the
local level.  Furthermore, recipients of competitive grant funds also
coordinated their plans with state and local officials. 

The six states we reviewed had developed mechanisms to coordinate
welfare-to-work activities with services to the hard-to-employ
population.  For example, in Massachusetts, an intergovernmental
state steering committee prepared the state plan for formula grant
funds and continues to respond to technical questions raised by local
service delivery areas regarding implementation of welfare-to-work
programs.  The welfare-to-work stakeholders included representatives
from the Department of Labor and Workforce Development; the
Corporation for Business, Work and Learning; the Executive Office of
Health and Human Services; the Department of Transitional Assistance,
which is the state TANF agency; the Regional Employment Board
Association; the Service Delivery Area Association; the Career Center
Office; and the Division of Employment and Training.  By planning and
working together, this group shares information in order to minimize
duplication of effort between state agencies and with the local
service delivery areas. 

In California, planning for formula grant funds and coordination
between the California Employment Development Department and the
state's Department of Social Services began as soon as the
welfare-to-work program was introduced by Labor.  Both departments
are within California's Health and Welfare Agency, and, even before
welfare-to-work legislation, these departments had formed a
coordination committee--CalWORKS--to discuss issues regarding the
state's effort to move welfare recipients into employment.  At the
state level, California has an interdepartmental work group that
includes representatives of agencies responsible for education,
transportation, housing, community services, mental health, and job
services.  In all, the work group includes 15 state departments
responsible for 20 different programs.  The state had also
implemented one-stop career centers and had adopted a policy that
would make the county welfare departments part of the one-stop
system.  The state further emphasized collaboration by holding five
public hearings on the draft state plan to elicit comments from local
service delivery areas and by posting its plan on the Internet to
obtain public comment. 

The formula grant plans for the six states we reviewed required
coordination between the workforce development and welfare agencies
at the local level.  For example, California required that local
plans for formula funds also be approved by the county welfare
department.  In New York, state officials developed guidelines for
local formula grant proposals that required the Private Industry
Councils and area social services districts to develop a written
welfare-to-work operational agreement to detail respective roles,
responsibilities, and procedures within the service delivery area. 

At the local level, partnerships were formed to coordinate
welfare-to-work activities provided by the local workforce
development agencies with other human services for welfare
recipients.  For example, a community task force in Flagstaff,
Arizona, was formed with representation from 64 state and local
agencies in the service delivery area that were involved with moving
individuals from welfare to work.  Together, these stakeholders
developed a matrix, listing each organization and the services
offered to welfare recipients, to leverage resources and minimize
duplication of effort.  In Michigan, an official representing a local
service delivery area noted that because the TANF population is the
hardest to employ, she relies heavily on the expertise of the
Michigan Rehabilitation Services for assistance regarding
participants with more serious impediments to employment, such as
substance abuse or mental illness.  Additionally, because local
service providers in Michigan focus on noncustodial parents,
collaborative efforts with the court system are vital for identifying
this population; the Family Independence Agency, which is the TANF
agency, is also an important welfare-to-work partner in identifying
TANF-eligible recipients.  According to officials in Wisconsin,
implementation of formula grant programs at the local level is a
joint project between the local workforce development agency and the
local TANF offices.  This coordination allows the welfare-to-work
funds to be used to expand on services provided by TANF funds, thus
avoiding duplication of effort in service delivery. 

For the welfare-to-work competitive grants we reviewed, competitive
grantees also coordinated their plans with state and local officials. 
For example, the competitive grant awarded in Merced, California, is
planned for use in assisting welfare-to-work participants in becoming
self-employed, and a strong aspect of this program is its
collaboration with various partners.  The program, which primarily
targets noncustodial parents and public housing residents, has a
coalition of partners including the Merced County Community Action
Agency, Employment Development Department of Merced County, Merced
County Private Industry Council/Private Industry Training Department,
Merced County Human Services Agency, Housing Authority of the County
of Merced, and chambers of commerce throughout the county.  In
several states we reviewed, the competitive grants were awarded to
the same or similar entities that received a formula grant;
consequently, the competitive grant linked significantly with the
welfare-to-work program established under the formula grant.  In
these cases, the competitive grant funds were generally used to
provide the more intensive services needed to help welfare recipients
get and keep jobs. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

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. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor and
other interested parties.  Copies also will be made available to
others upon request. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-7014.  Major contributors to this report include Sigurd R. 
Nilsen, Betty S.  Clark, and Carolyn D.  Hall. 

Carlotta C.  Joyner
Director, Education and
 Employment Issues


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

To address the request, we reviewed the legislation authorizing
welfare-to-work grants and the implementing regulations.  We met with
Labor officials who administer the grants and obtained information on
the formula grants Labor awarded for welfare-to-work funds available
for fiscal year 1998.  We also obtained information about the
competitive grants Labor awarded on May 27, 1998, and November 20,
1998, with welfare-to-work funds available for fiscal years 1998 and
1999. 

We interviewed state and local officials in six states--Arizona,
California, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, and Wisconsin--to
obtain information on their plans for the welfare-to-work grant
funding.  We selected four of these states to take advantage of site
visits made and information collected for a concurrent GAO study on
states' experiences in providing employment and training assistance
to TANF clients.\8 For this report, we conducted field visits in
states that were early implementers of welfare reform and of
workforce development program consolidation.  Additionally, we
included two other states--California and New York--in our study
because they have the largest welfare caseloads.  For each of the six
states, we reviewed the state welfare-to-work plan, interviewed
program officials for at least two selected local service delivery
areas receiving allocations of the states' formula grant funds, and
interviewed one grantee that was awarded competitive grant funds.  We
also telephoned officials in the states that declined or did not
apply for welfare-to-work grants to obtain information on the reasons
for these decisions. 

We performed our work from May 1998 to December 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\8 Welfare Reform:  States' Experiences in Providing Employment
Assistance to TANF Clients (GAO/HEHS-99-22, forthcoming). 


WELFARE-TO-WORK FORMULA GRANTS
AWARDED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
========================================================== Appendix II

                                  (Dollars in thousands)

                                          Percentage of
                   Federal welfare-  total 1998 federal                      1998 federal
State or              to-work funds     welfare-to-work         State     welfare-to-work
territory                   awarded     funds awarded\a       match\b      funds declined
---------------  ------------------  ------------------  ------------  ------------------
Alabama                     $13,978                1.36        $6,989                 N/A
Alaska                        2,927                0.29         1,463                 N/A
Arizona                     9,000\c                0.88         4,500              $8,418
Arkansas                      8,490                0.83         4,245                 N/A
California                  190,417               18.56        95,209                 N/A
Colorado                      9,879                0.96         4,939                 N/A
Connecticut                  12,006                1.17         6,003                 N/A
Delaware                      2,762                0.27         1,381                 N/A
District of                   4,646                0.45         2,323                 N/A
 Columbia
Florida                      50,757                4.95        25,378                 N/A
Georgia                      28,409                2.77        14,205                 N/A
Guam                            585                0.06           0\d                 N/A
Hawaii                        5,086                0.50         2,543                 N/A
Idaho                           N/A                 N/A           N/A               2,794
Illinois                     48,663                4.74        24,331                 N/A
Indiana                      14,552                1.42         7,276                 N/A
Iowa                          8,332                0.81         4,166                 N/A
Kansas                        6,668                0.65         3,334                 N/A
Kentucky                     17,723                1.73         8,861                 N/A
Louisiana                    23,707                2.31        11,854                 N/A
Maine                         5,156                 0.5         2,578                 N/A
Maryland                     14,941                1.46         7,470                 N/A
Massachusetts                20,692                2.02        10,346                 N/A
Michigan                     42,226                4.12        21,113                 N/A
Minnesota                    14,503                1.41         7,252                 N/A
Mississippi                     N/A                 N/A           N/A              12,991
Missouri                     19,767                1.93         9,884                 N/A
Montana                       3,194                0.31         1,597                 N/A
Nebraska                      4,022                0.39         2,011                 N/A
Nevada                        3,384                0.33         1,692                 N/A
New Hampshire                 2,762                0.27         1,381                 N/A
New Jersey                   23,257                2.27        11,629                 N/A
New Mexico                    9,716                0.95         4,858                 N/A
New York                     96,886                9.45        48,443                 N/A
North Carolina               25,332                2.47        12,666                 N/A
North Dakota                  2,762                0.27         1,381                 N/A
Ohio                            N/A                 N/A           N/A              44,608
Oklahoma                     11,742                1.14         5,871                 N/A
Oregon                        8,637                0.84         4,318                 N/A
Pennsylvania                 44,296                4.32        22,148                 N/A
Puerto Rico                  34,566                3.37        17,283                 N/A
Rhode Island                  4,420                0.43         2,210                 N/A
South Carolina               12,006                1.17         6,003                 N/A
South Dakota                    N/A                 N/A           N/A               2,762
Tennessee                    21,644                2.11        10,822                 N/A
Texas                        76,059                7.41        38,029                 N/A
Utah                            N/A                 N/A           N/A               4,628
Vermont                       2,762                0.27         1,381                 N/A
Virginia                     16,549                1.61         8,274                 N/A
Virgin Islands                  554                 .05          77\d                 N/A
Washington                   22,675                2.21        11,337                 N/A
West Virginia               9,805\e                0.96         4,903                 1\c
Wisconsin                    12,886                1.26         6,443                 N/A
Wyoming                         N/A                 N/A           N/A               2,762
=========================================================================================
Total\f                  $1,025,788              100.00      $512,401             $78,962
=========================================================================================
Percentage of                   93%                 N/A           N/A                  7%
 federal
 allocation\g
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A = not applicable. 

\a The percentage of federal funds awarded is based on each state's
percentage of the $1,025,787,658 in formula grant funds awarded by
Labor. 

\b Each state match amount was calculated as one-half of the actual
dollar award, rather than the rounded amount shown as awarded, which
was rounded to the nearest thousand. 

\c In order to receive the $17.4 million in federal formula funding
available for Arizona, the state was required to assure state
matching funds of $8.7 million.  Since the state assured a $4.5
million match, it was awarded $9 million for fiscal year 1998. 

\d Labor waived the first $200,000 in matching funds for Guam and the
Virgin Islands.  Additionally, Guam requested and was granted a
waiver for the balance of its matching funds.  The Virgin Islands,
however, assured a match of about $77,000. 

\e According to a Labor official, West Virginia's federal formula
grant was $500 less than the state's allotted amount as a result of a
typographical error in its application.  The state decided not to
apply for the additional funding, which, rounded to the nearest
thousand dollars, is presented as 1. 

\f Totals may not add because of rounding. 

\g This amount is based on the full, available amount of fiscal year
1998 federal formula funding, $1,104,750,000.  According to a Labor
official, $78,962,342 of this amount was not awarded and was returned
to the U.S.  Treasury by Labor. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Department of Labor data. 


Appendix III WELFARE-TO-WORK
COMPETITIVE GRANTS AWARDED MAY 27,
1998
========================================================== Appendix II

State or                                             Award
territory     Grantee             Location          amount
------------  ------------------  ------------  ----------
Alabama       United Way of       Birmingham    $4,997,966
              Central Alabama

Arizona       City of Phoenix     Phoenix        5,000,000
              Human Services
              Department,
              Employment and
              Training Division

Arkansas      The City of Little  Little Rock    5,000,000
              Rock

California    CHARO Alliance WtW  Los Angeles    3,999,650

California    Los Angeles         Los Angeles    3,000,000
              Private Industry
              Council

California    Private Industry    San            4,189,231
              Council of San      Francisco
              Francisco, Inc.

California    The Cambodian       Santa Ana      1,216,167
              Family

California    Housing Authority   Los Angeles    5,000,000
              of the City of Los
              Angeles

California    Community           Long Beach     3,669,874
              Rehabilitation
              Industries

California    Merced Self-        Merced         1,879,120
              Employment and Job
              Opportunity
              Coalition

California    Oakland Private     Oakland        3,000,000
              Industry Council

California    City of Oakland,    Oakland        2,000,000
              Office of Aging

California    Richmond Private    Richmond       3,087,347
              Industry Council

California    Riverside County    Riverside      4,450,000
              Economic
              Development Agency

Colorado      Rocky Mountain      Denver         1,460,864
              Service/Jobs for
              Progress, Inc.

Connecticut   The WorkPlace,      Bridgeport     5,000,000
              Inc.

District of   Consortium of       Washington,    1,965,601
Columbia      Family Employment   D.C.
              Service Providers

Florida       Florida             Tallahassee    1,660,396
              Developmental
              Disabilities
              Council

Florida       Pinellas Workforce  Clearwater     1,500,000
              Development Board

Georgia       Mayor's Office of   Atlanta        5,000,000
              Citizens
              Employment and
              Training, Atlanta

Georgia       Goodwill            Macon          5,300,000
              Industries of
              Middle Georgia

Illinois      Bethel New Life     Chicago        2,739,506

Illinois      DePaul University   Chicago        5,000,000

Illinois      City of Chicago,    Chicago        3,000,000
              the Chicago
              Workforce Board

Indiana       Indianapolis        Indianapolis   5,000,000
              Private Industry
              Council

Indiana       River Valley        Madison        5,000,000
              Resources, Inc.

Kentucky      Louisville and      Louisville     4,999,898
              Jefferson County
              Private Industry
              Council

Massachusett  Metropolitan Area   Boston         4,082,065
s             Planning Council

Michigan      City of Detroit     Detroit        4,860,633
              Employment and
              Training
              Department

Michigan      City of Kalamazoo   Kalamazoo        375,000
              -Metro Transit
              System

New Jersey    County of Union     Elizabeth      5,000,000

New Jersey    Hudson County       Secaucus       4,914,297

New Mexico    Catholic Social     Albuquerque    1,343,133
              Services of
              Albuquerque, Inc.

New York      Non-Profit          New York       4,871,904
              Assistance
              Corporation

New York      Consortium for      New York       4,966,000
              Worker Education

North         Ladder to Success   Whiteville     2,638,601
Carolina

Ohio          The Corporation     Athens         5,000,000
              for Ohio
              Appalachian
              Development

Pennsylvania  Private Industry    Philadelphia   4,351,247
              Council of
              Philadelphia, Inc.

Pennsylvania  Resources for       Philadelphia   1,866,460
              Human Development,
              Inc.

Texas         Houston Works       Houston        5,000,000

Texas         Goodwill            San Antonio    5,000,000
              Industries of San
              Antonio

Vermont       Northern Community  St.            3,132,518
              Investment          Johnsbury
              Corporation

Virginia      Hampton University  Hampton        4,898,000
              Career Advancement
              Resiliency

Virginia      Total Action        Roanoke        2,736,272
              Against Poverty,
              Inc.

Wisconsin     Private Industry    Milwaukee      4,262,054
              Council of
              Milwaukee County

Multisite     IAM CARES           AK, MO, OH,    5,000,000
                                  and OR

Multisite     The NOAH Group,     PA, VA, and    7,800,000
              L.L.C               WA

Multisite     YouthBuild USA      CA, DC, GA,    5,500,000
                                  MN, MO, ND,
                                  OH, WA, and
                                  WV

Multisite     CET-Welfare-to-     CA, FL, IL,    4,003,294
              Work National       MD, NC, NV,
              Project             NY, TX, and
                                  VA

Multisite     The Institute for   CA, DC, NY,    4,427,318
              Responsible         OH, TN, and
              Fatherhood and      WI
              Family
              Revitalization

Multisite     National            AL, AZ, CA,    4,912,658
              Association of      CT, IL, MD,
              Private Industry    MN, OR, and
              Councils            TN

==========================================================
Total         51 grants awarded                 $199,057,0
                                                        74
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  Department of Labor. 


WELFARE-TO-WORK COMPETITIVE GRANTS
AWARDED NOVEMBER 20, 1998
========================================================== Appendix IV

State or                                             Award
territory     Grantee             Location          amount
------------  ------------------  ------------  ----------
Alabama       Stillman College    Tuscaloosa    $3,723,620

Alaska        Nine Star           Anchorage      1,279,499
              Enterprises, Inc.

Arizona       Pima County         Tuscon         3,180,776
              Community Services

California    City of Long Beach  Long Beach     5,000,000
              Department of
              Community
              Development

California    Goodwill            Los Angeles    4,098,265
              Industries of
              Southern
              California

California    Beyond Shelter      Los Angeles    1,199,700

California    African American    Los Angeles    1,357,885
              Unity Center

California    Catholic Charities  Los Angeles    3,037,423
              of Los Angeles

California    Jobs for Homeless   Oakland        1,365,336
              Consortium

California    San Diego           San Diego      5,000,000
              Workforce
              Partnership, Inc.

California    County of Tulare    Visalia        3,824,201
              Private Industry
              Council, Inc.

Colorado      United Cerebral     Denver         1,321,825
              Palsy of Colorado

Colorado      City and County of  Denver         3,598,915
              Denver

Connecticut   Community Action    New Haven      2,923,000
              Agency of New
              Haven, Inc.

Connecticut   The Access Agency,  Willimantic    1,000,750
              Inc.

District of   Washington          Washington,    5,000,000
Columbia      Alliance            D.C.

Florida       Goodwill            Jacksonville   5,000,000
              Industries of
              North Florida,
              Inc.

Florida       Miami-Dade County   Miami          4,470,000

Florida       Latin Chamber of    Miami          2,100,000
              Commerce of USA

Georgia       DeKalb Economic     Decatur        2,224,375
              Opportunity
              Authority, Inc.

Georgia       City of Savannah    Savannah       4,067,000

Hawaii        Hawaii County       Hilo           4,200,000
              Economic
              Opportunity
              Council

Illinois      Chicago Housing     Chicago        5,000,000
              Authority

Illinois      Community and       Chicago        5,000,000
              Economic
              Development
              Association of
              Cook County, Inc.

Indiana       City of Gary,       Gary           5,000,000
              Department of
              Health and Human
              Services

Iowa          Labor Institute     Des Moines     2,118,235
              for Workforce
              Development

Kansas        City of Topeka      Topeka         1,999,917

Kentucky      Community Action    Lexington      2,833,736
              Council

Louisiana     City of New         New Orleans    5,000,000
              Orleans

Maine         Workforce           Augusta        3,212,516
              Development
              Centers

Maryland      The Baltimore City  Baltimore      3,330,199
              Office of
              Employment
              Development

Maryland      Prince Georges      Landover       4,976,254
              Private Industry
              Council

Massachusett  Boston Technology   Boston         1,139,388
s             Venture Center,
              Inc.

Massachusett  Action for Boston   Boston         2,785,430
s             Community
              Development Inc.

Minnesota     City of             Minneapolis    1,860,000
              Minneapolis

Minnesota     Rise Incorporated   Spring Lake    3,099,779
                                  Park

Mississippi   Hinds County        Jackson        3,294,191

Missouri      Advent              Columbia       3,435,301
              Enterprises, Inc.

Missouri      Full Employment     Kansas City    4,420,558
              Council, Inc.

Montana       S & K Holding       Polson         2,542,700
              Company, Inc.

New           Southwestern        Keene          1,000,000
Hampshire     Community
              Services, Inc.

New Jersey    Mercer County       Trenton        4,219,582
              Office of Training
              and Employment

New Jersey    County of Essex     Newark         4,900,000

New Mexico    Santa Fe SER/Jobs   Santa Fe       5,000,000
              for Progress, Inc.

New York      New York City       New York       5,000,000
              Partnership and
              Chamber of
              Commerce

New York      City of New York    New York       2,934,705
              Human Resources
              Administration

New York      Wildcat Service     New York       2,007,017
              Corporation

New York      Buffalo and Erie    Buffalo        4,917,903
              Private Industry
              Council

North         UDI Community       Durham         3,728,134
Carolina      Development
              Corporation

North         Bennett College     Greensboro     5,000,000
Carolina

Ohio          Private Industry    Columbus       4,997,630
              Council of
              Columbus and
              Franklin County,
              Inc.

Ohio          Columbus Urban      Columbus       3,149,984
              League

Oklahoma      Eastern Workforce   Muskogee       2,848,115
              Development Board,
              Inc.

Pennsylvania  District 1199C      Philadelphia   4,449,928
              Training and
              Upgrading Fund of
              the National Union
              of Hospital and
              Healthcare
              Employers

Puerto Rico   Centro de           Caguas         5,000,000
              Capacitacion y
              Asesoramiento

Rhode Island  Providence/         Providence     3,859,284
              Cranston Private
              Industry Council

South Dakota  Oglala Lakota       Kyle           2,293,326
              College

Tennessee     Tennessee Urban     Chattanooga    5,000,000
              League Affiliates

Tennessee     Nashville/          Nashville      4,016,694
              Davidson County
              Private Industry
              Council

Texas         Dallas County       Dallas         5,000,000
              Local Workforce
              Development Board

Texas         Tarrant County      Fort Worth     3,254,864
              Workforce
              Development Board

Texas         County of Webb      Laredo         1,000,000

Utah          Five County         St. George     3,000,000
              Association of
              Governments

Vermont       Central Vermont     Barre          3,120,140
              Community Action
              Council

Virginia      Alexandria          Arlington      1,090,000
              Redevelopment and
              Housing Authority

Virginia      Richmond Private    Richmond       4,993,775
              Industry Council

Washington    Washington State    Seattle        4,619,684
              Labor Council
              (AFL-CIO)

Washington    Seattle-King        Seattle        5,000,000
              County Private
              Industry Council

West          Human Resources     Morgantown     4,934,876
Virginia      Development
              Foundation

Multisite     Johns Hopkins       AZ, CA, CT,    4,996,535
              University          FL, IA, IL,
                                  MD, ME, OR,
                                  and RI

Multisite     The America Works   AK, CA, FL,    7,872,505
              Partnership         IN, and NJ

Multisite     The Enterprise      CO, DC, MD,    8,000,000
              Foundation          MO, OR, and
                                  TX

Multisite     International       MA, MN, NJ,    4,204,777
              Association of      and PA
              Jewish Vocational
              Services

Multisite     Hispanic            AZ, CA, and    4,321,269
              Association of      TX
              Colleges and
              Universities

Multisite     Marriott            CA, CO, FL,    3,536,250
              International       GA, IL, KY,
              Community           LA, MD, MI,
              Employment and      MO, NC, NV,
              Training Programs   OH, PA, TX,
                                  and VA

==========================================================
Total         75 grants awarded                 $273,287,7
                                                        51
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  These awards were announced by Labor on November 20, 1998;
however, a Labor official noted that the amounts listed are proposed
award amounts. 

Source:  Department of Labor. 


ARIZONA'S WELFARE-TO-WORK FORMULA
GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
=========================================================== Appendix V

In Arizona, the Department of Economic Security is the
welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and state administering
entity.  Arizona submitted its welfare-to-work plan on August 5,
1998.  On August 20, 1998, Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula
grant funds to the state totaling $9,000,000.  Although Arizona was
eligible for about $17,418,000 in federal welfare-to-work funds, the
state did not identify matching funds sufficient to receive its
maximum federal allocation.  Instead, Arizona assured $4,500,000 in
state matching funds over the 3-year grant period.  According to a
state official, the state match appropriated by the state legislature
was $1.5 million for 1998; state officials anticipate the legislature
will appropriate the remaining $3 million in 1999. 

Arizona required its 16 Private Industry Councils\9 to amend their
JTPA plans with descriptions of how formula grant funds would be
expended and to submit these amended plans for state review and
approval, rather than submitting formal welfare-to-work plans. 
According to a state official, local plans were reviewed in November
1998, and the Private Industry Councils planned to implement their
welfare-to-work formula grant programs between November 1998 and
January 1999. 

ACTIVITIES AND TARGET POPULATIONS

The Arizona state plan outlined the full range of federally allowable
welfare-to-work activities and targeting strategies from which the
local service delivery areas may specify the target population and
mix of services most appropriate for their local needs.  According to
the state plan, service delivery areas will determine the target
group(s) to be served, and potential welfare-to-work clients may be
directly referred to the service delivery areas by the state welfare
recipient employment and training program, the Division of Child
Support Enforcement, or the superior court through court order.  A
local official said that since the approval of the state plan, the
Arizona Department of Economic Security has urged service delivery
areas to recruit participants through direct referrals from the state
welfare service system's employment and training program, rather than
design their own recruiting programs. 

The Arizona state plan provided local areas with guidance on the
provision of local activities and services.  Specifically, the plan
outlined four categories of job readiness, each of which includes a
specific mix of services based on the participant's characteristics: 
Not Ready, Almost Ready, Ready, and Post Placement.  However, local
service delivery areas may determine the target population and mix of
services most appropriate for their area's needs. 

SUBSTATE FORMULA ALLOCATIONS

Arizona allocated all of the $9,000,000 federal formula grant to the
local service delivery areas using the following formula:  50-percent
weight was given to the number of people under poverty in excess of
7.5 percent of the service delivery area population, and 50-percent
weight was given to the number of welfare recipients in the service
delivery area having received assistance for at least 30 months. 
Three of the service delivery areas--Apache, Graham, and Greenlee
Counties--received no federal funds because their formula allocations
of the $9 million federal grant fell below the required minimum of
$100,000; however, as shown in table V.1, Arizona allocated state
matching funds to each of these service delivery areas.  Arizona
planned to use 15 percent of the state match for state
welfare-to-work administration, and the balance of the state match
was allocated to the service delivery areas using the same formula
applied to the federal funds.  Local service delivery areas must
limit welfare-to-work administrative costs to 15 percent of their
formula grant award. 

Although Arizona assured $4.5 million in matching funds for the full
$9 million federal welfare-to-work award, the state legislature
appropriated $1.5 million of the match during 1998.  Arizona has an
official state document, referenced in the federal grant agreement,
that controls the disbursement of funds according to the amount of
state match provided.  According to a state official, until
additional matching funds are appropriated, service delivery areas
are only entitled to their allocations of the $3 million in federal
funds that have been matched with $1.5 million in state funds. 
Allocations based on the current and full state match are included in
table V.1. 



                                        Table V.1
                         
                            Arizona's Substate Welfare-to-Work
                                Formula Grant Allocations

                    Federal formula fund                           Total funds available
                        allocation\a          Match allocation      for welfare-to-work
                   ----------------------  ----------------------  ----------------------
                                    Total                   Total                   Total
                      Initial   potential     Initial   potential     Initial   potential
                   allocation  allocation  allocation  allocation  allocation  allocation
                     based on    based on    based on    based on    based on    based on
                         $1.5        $4.5        $1.5        $4.5        $1.5        $4.5
Service delivery      million     million     million     million     million     million
area                    match       match       match       match       match       match
-----------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Apache County              $0          $0     $16,238     $48,714     $16,238     $48,714
Cochise County        145,200     435,600      58,934     176,801     204,134     612,401
Coconino County        39,750     119,250      16,134      48,402      55,884     167,652
Gila/Pinal            167,400     502,200      67,944     203,833     235,344     706,033
 Consortium
Graham County               0           0      35,639     106,917      35,639     106,917
Greenlee County             0           0       5,483      16,449       5,483      16,449
Maricopa County       389,250   1,167,750     157,989     473,966     547,239   1,641,716
Mohave/La Paz          80,550     241,650      32,694      98,081     113,244     339,731
 Consortium
Navajo County          45,300     135,900      18,386      55,159      63,686     191,059
Navajo Nation         416,700   1,250,100     169,130     507,391     585,830   1,757,491
City of Phoenix       679,800   2,039,400     275,917     827,752     955,717   2,867,152
Pima County           541,500   1,624,500     219,784     659,352     761,284   2,283,852
Santa Cruz County      50,700     152,100      20,578      61,734      71,278     213,834
Yavapai County         47,550     142,650      19,300      57,899      66,850     200,549
Yuma County           132,900     398,700      53,941     161,824     186,841     560,524
Tribal Service        263,400     790,200     106,909     320,726     370,309   1,110,926
 Delivery Area
=========================================================================================
Total              $3,000,000  $9,000,000  $1,275,000  $3,825,000  $4,275,000  $12,825,00
                                                                                        0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The federal formula fund allocation numbers include both the
substate formula funds and the governor's discretionary funds, which
are 85 percent and 15 percent of the total federal welfare-to-work
award, respectively. 

Source:  Arizona Department of Economic Security. 

GOVERNOR'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

Arizona allocated 100 percent of the federal formula grant funds to
the local service delivery areas.  The state retained none of the
allowable 15 percent governor's discretionary funds ($1,350,000) at
the state level. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS

Of the participants enrolled in welfare-to-work programs, the state
planned to place 56 percent of participants in unsubsidized jobs; of
those placed, the goal is that 56 percent will still be working after
6 months and have a 1-percent increase in earnings over this time. 


--------------------
\9 Private Industry Councils are the local grant recipients under the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and are responsible for
administering the assistance in a local service delivery area.  JTPA
requires that each local area have a plan detailing its proposed use
of funds. 


CALIFORNIA'S WELFARE-TO-WORK
FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1998
========================================================== Appendix VI

In California, the Employment Development Department is the
welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and state administering
entity.  California submitted its welfare-to-work plan to Labor on
June 30, 1998.  On July 20, 1998, Labor awarded fiscal year 1998
formula grant funds to the state totaling $190,417,247.  The state
assured $95,208,624 in state matching funds over the 3-year grant
period.  According to a state official, the state match was
appropriated by the legislature, and $10 million was budgeted for
1998.  This state match was appropriated to the California Department
of Social Services, to be allocated among the state's county welfare
departments for welfare-to-work activities.  The welfare departments,
in collaboration with service delivery areas, locally elected
officials, and other local stakeholders, will determine how to use
the state matching funds to meet the welfare-to-work needs of their
communities. 

California's 52 local service delivery areas were required to submit
welfare-to-work plans for state review and approval.  California
believed it was important for local areas to exhibit a sense of
program direction before receiving welfare-to-work funding and wanted
to ensure that workforce development agencies had coordinated their
proposed welfare-to-work activities with the state's 58 county
welfare departments.  The state legislature passed a law allowing the
local areas to prepare joint plans; consequently, there are a total
of 41 local plans.  For example, the eight local service delivery
areas in Los Angeles County prepared one plan for the entire county. 
According to a state official, as of September 30, 1998, 22
individuals were enrolled in welfare-to-work formula grant programs
statewide. 

ACTIVITIES AND TARGET POPULATIONS

In California, the local service delivery areas are responsible for
developing welfare-to-work programs to meet their communities'
demographic and workforce needs.  California's state plan noted that
given the diversity of the state's local service delivery areas, no
one service strategy could be effectively applied statewide.  A state
official explained that urban areas with many employment
opportunities may choose to focus heavily on work experiences in the
private sector.  On the other hand, rural areas, with fewer
employers, may rely heavily on community service work experiences in
their welfare-to-work programs. 

SUBSTATE FORMULA ALLOCATIONS

California allocated 85 percent, or $161,854,660, of the federal
formula grant to the local service delivery areas using the following
formula:  55-percent weight was given to the number of people with
incomes below the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the
service delivery area population; 15-percent weight was given to the
number of unemployed people in the service delivery area; and
30-percent weight was given to the number of adults receiving welfare
for at least 30 months in the service delivery area.  This formula
was developed to ensure that all local areas would receive the
$100,000 federally required minimum allocation.  California limited
local service delivery areas to an administrative cost cap of 13
percent. 



                         Table VI.1
          
           California's Substate Welfare-to-Work
                 Formula Grant Allocations

                     Federal                       Federal
                     formula                       formula
Service delivery        fund  Service delivery        fund
area              allocation  area              allocation
----------------  ----------  ----------------  ----------
Alameda           $1,520,686  Orange            $3,710,069
Anaheim            1,189,382  Richmond             659,692
Butte              1,264,767  Riverside          5,854,845
Carson/Lomita/       525,315  Sacramento         6,387,277
 Torrance
Contra Costa       1,114,932  San Benito           182,595
Foothill           1,248,269  San Bernardino     2,143,859
                               City
Fresno             7,454,107  San Bernardino     6,968,031
                               County
Golden Sierra        812,364  San Diego         11,837,010
Humboldt             698,513  San Francisco      2,367,832
Imperial           1,600,430  San Joaquin        3,455,691
Kern/Inyo/Mono     4,567,951  San Luis Obispo      628,217
Kings                756,657  San Mateo            524,928
Long Beach         3,792,464  Santa Ana          2,357,717
Los Angeles City  32,080,060  Santa Barbara      1,315,774
Los Angeles       22,153,146  Santa Clara        2,774,645
 County
Madera               759,106  Santa Cruz           872,717
Marin                185,201  Southeast Los      1,414,751
                               Angeles County
Mendocino            465,475  Shasta               924,260
Merced             1,888,102  Solano               986,910
Monterey           1,629,955  Sonoma               940,612
Mother Lode          443,480  South Bay          2,136,470
Napa                 209,898  Stanislaus         2,659,779
Northern Rural     1,179,503  Tulare             3,603,117
 Training and
 Employment
 Consortium
North Central      1,620,726  Ventura            1,818,111
 Counties
North Santa          340,448  Verdugo            2,080,540
 Clara Valley
 Job Training
 Consortium
Oakland            3,013,624  Yolo                 734,648
==========================================================
Total\a                                         $161,854,6
                                                        60
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  This table does not include state matching funds because the
state match was appropriated to the California Department of Social
Services to be allocated among the state's county welfare departments
for welfare-to-work activities. 

\a Total does not add because of rounding. 

Source:  California State Welfare-to-Work Formula Grant Plan. 

GOVERNOR'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

The governor's welfare-to-work discretionary funds, 15 percent of the
formula funds, totaled $28,562,587.  With $23 million of these funds,
as shown in table VI.2, the state funded 24 projects throughout the
state that were selected on a competitive basis.  The state required
that the proposed use of these discretionary funds be coordinated
with local workforce preparation and welfare reform partners, and
applicants were encouraged to develop linkages with businesses,
economic development practitioners, and supportive service agencies. 
Consequently, the grantees will use the funds in conjunction with
other local resources to support a mix of the federally allowable
welfare-to-work employment activities and services as determined by
the local community. 



                         Table VI.2
          
          Projects Awarded Governor's Welfare-to-
              Work Discretionary Funds Through
                 Competition in California

Awardee                         Location      Award amount
------------------------------  ------------  ------------
Asian American Drug Abuse       Los Angeles       $785,280
 Program, Inc.
Amador-Tuolumne Community       Jackson            660,118
 Action Agency
Chrysalis                       Los Angeles      1,095,436
Community Career Development,   Los Angeles      1,570,560
 Inc.
Contra Costa County Social      Martinez           784,031
 Service Department
El Dorado County Department of  Placerville        942,415
 Social Services
Fresno County Economic          Fresno           1,583,158
 Opportunities Commission
Goodwill Industries of          Los Angeles      1,005,168
 Southern California
Housing Authority of San        San                942,336
 Bernardino County               Bernardino
Human Resources Agency of       Santa Cruz         785,280
 Santa Cruz County
Joint Efforts, Inc.             San Pedro          785,280
Kern County                     Bakersfield        785,280
Labor's Community Services      San Diego          488,904
 Agency
Learning Center of Tehama       Red Bluff        1,089,600
 County
Mendocino County Social         Ukiah              728,650
 Services Department
North Santa Clara Valley Job    Sunnyvale          866,244
 Training Consortium
Pacific Asian Consortium in     Los Angeles        785,280
 Employment
Rubicon Programs, Inc.          Richmond           664,893
Sacramento County Department    Sacramento         808,917
 of Human Assistance
San Diego Housing Commission    San Diego        1,439,057
San Joaquin County Private      Stockton         1,091,121
 Industry Council
South Bay Center for            El Segundo         783,709
 Counseling
Vietnamese Community of Orange  Santa Ana          954,129
 County
Youth Employment Partnership,   Oakland          1,575,154
 Inc.
==========================================================
Total                                          $23,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------
Source:  California Employment Development Department. 

An additional $1.5 million of the governor's discretionary funds was
awarded through a competitive process to six regional collaboratives
to promote and encourage education and leadership through a
cooperative process.  The six award recipients included Humboldt
County, Ventura County, San Joaquin County, East Bay Works, Los
Angeles County Collaborative, and the Inland Empire.  The remaining
$4,062,587 in governor's welfare-to-work discretionary funds will be
used by the state for welfare-to-work administration. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS

Recognizing that local performance goals may differ somewhat from
those in the state plan, California set three performance goals for
the welfare-to-work program as benchmarks to assist the state in
providing technical assistance to local areas.  California's initial
formula grant program performance goals for the first year include
(1) a placement rate, (2) a follow-up employment rate, and (3) a
follow-up increase in earnings goal.  In 1997, California had an
average caseload of about 830,000, some of whom will be provided
assistance under welfare-to-work.  The state goals for
welfare-to-work are to place a minimum of 45 percent of
welfare-to-work program participants in unsubsidized employment; of
those placed, a minimum of 70 percent should be employed 6 months
after placement, and their average weekly wage at a 6-month follow-up
should increase by 10 percent over the average weekly wage at
placement.  The state required that local plans describe local
performance goals for placements, job retention, and increased
earnings. 


MASSACHUSETTS' WELFARE-TO-WORK
FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1998
========================================================= Appendix VII

In Massachusetts, the Department of Labor and Workforce Development
is the welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and its quasi-public
subentity, the Corporation for Business, Work and Learning, is the
state welfare-to-work administering entity.  Massachusetts submitted
its welfare-to-work plan on January 7, 1998.  On February 25, 1998,
Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state
totaling $20,692,295.  The state assured $10,346,148 in state
matching funds over the 3-year grant period, specifically assuring $5
million for 1998.  According to a state official, this match is from
funds previously appropriated by the state legislature for adult
basic education and child care programs; the matching funds will be
used to serve welfare-to-work-eligible participants through these
programs. 

In Massachusetts, each of the 16 Regional Employment Boards\10 was
required to submit a "preplan" proposing local welfare-to-work
strategies, and these plans were incorporated into the state
welfare-to-work plan.  Once Labor awarded the formula grant, the
state required the Regional Employment Boards to submit final plans
containing additional details such as local performance goals. 
According to a state official, the state had approved all of the
local plans by April 1998 and, as of September 30, 1998, 434
individuals were enrolled in welfare-to-work formula grant programs
statewide out of the target population of 7,000 likely to lose cash
benefits by December 1, 1998. 

ACTIVITIES AND TARGET POPULATIONS

The state planned to use welfare-to-work funds to target and assist
welfare recipients facing the most significant barriers to
employment.  The state's welfare-to-work program focused on serving
welfare recipients nearing the state-imposed 24-month deadline for
cash assistance.  A state official said that about 7,000 welfare
recipients in Massachusetts were expected to lose cash assistance
benefits as of December 1, 1998.  Within the state focus, the local
service delivery areas may further specify the target population and
choose the mix of services most appropriate for their area's needs. 

The state plans to spend at least 70 percent of formula funds on the
hardest-to-employ long-term welfare recipients as required by law and
up to 30 percent of the grant funds on individuals with
characteristics of long-term welfare recipients.  According to a
state official, Massachusetts' welfare-to-work program staff are
finding it easier to initially enroll all participants under the
30-percent expenditure category (long-term welfare recipient).  In
order to enroll participants under the 70-percent expenditure
category (those determined to be the hardest to employ), additional
testing is necessary to verify eligibility characteristics.  Although
state and local officials are confident that there are enough people
with the necessary characteristics to satisfy the 70-percent
requirement, they note that the additional assessment needed for
their eligibility determination is expensive and time consuming. 

SUBSTATE FORMULA ALLOCATIONS

Massachusetts allocated 85 percent of the federal formula grant, or
$17,588,452, to the local service delivery areas using the following
formula:  50-percent weight was given to the number of people with
incomes below the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the
service delivery area population; 10-percent weight was given to the
number of unemployed people in the service delivery area; and
40-percent weight was given to the number of long-term welfare
recipients in the service delivery area having received assistance
for at least 30 months.  By the substate formula, all of the areas
received more than the required $100,000 minimum; however, the state
decided to allot a minimum of $400,000 to each local area. 
Consequently, as shown in table VII.1, $524,808 of the governor's
welfare-to-work discretionary funds were used to increase the
allocations for five local service delivery areas to this level. 
According to a state official, the Regional Employment Boards may use
no more than 12.23 percent of their grants for welfare-to-work
administrative purposes. 



                        Table VII.1
          
          Massachusetts' Substate Welfare-to-Work
                 Formula Grant Allocations

                       Federal    Governor's         Total
Service delivery  formula fund          fund       federal
area                allocation    allocation       funding
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Berkshire County      $280,805      $119,195      $400,000
Boston               5,927,502           N/A     5,927,502
Bristol County         566,464           N/A       566,464
Brockton               498,272           N/A       498,272
Cape Cod and           193,764       206,236       400,000
 Islands
Franklin/              640,600           N/A       640,600
 Hampshire
Hampden County       2,997,136           N/A     2,997,136
Lower Merrimack      1,253,900           N/A     1,253,900
 Valley
Metro-North            821,102           N/A       821,102
Metropolitan           373,313        26,687       400,000
 South West
New Bedford          1,005,099           N/A     1,005,099
Northern               634,865           N/A       634,865
 Middlesex
Northern               263,537       136,463       400,000
 Worcester
South Coastal          363,773        36,227       400,000
Southern Essex         671,190           N/A       671,190
Southern             1,097,130           N/A     1,097,130
 Worcester
==========================================================
Total              $17,588,452      $524,808   $18,113,260
----------------------------------------------------------
Notes:  This table does not include state matching funds because the
state match is from funds previously appropriated by the state
legislature for state adult basic education and child care programs;
the matching funds will be used to serve welfare-to-work-eligible
participants through these programs.  However, the table does include
governor's discretionary funds that were allocated to five local
service delivery areas to raise their allocations up to the $400,000
state-imposed minimum funding level for welfare-to-work programs.

N/A = not applicable.

Source:  Massachusetts Department of Labor and Workforce Development. 

GOVERNOR'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

The governor's welfare-to-work discretionary funds, 15 percent of the
formula funds, totaled $3,103,843.  The state planned to use these
funds for the following purposes:  $524,808 to subsidize the five
service delivery areas allocated the lowest amount of welfare-to-work
formula funding; $165,000 to the Corporation for Business, Work and
Learning to provide an information system technology upgrade capable
of handling interagency welfare-to-work data; $718,562 for state
welfare-to-work administration; and $1,695,473 for the Department of
Transitional Assistance to supplement its program of assessment and
structured employment assistance. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS

Although specific, numeric performance goals were not included in the
state plan, the state proposed to serve 3,979 welfare-to-work
participants and will measure placement in private sector employment,
placement in any employment, the duration of placement, and increases
in earnings.  The state required each local service delivery area to
specify performance goals based on these measurements. 


--------------------
\10 In Massachusetts, the Regional Employment Boards are the Private
Industry Councils.  The difference is that the Regional Employment
Boards are given responsibility for overseeing the assistance
provided by a number of programs, in addition to JTPA, that the
Private Industry Councils oversee. 


MICHIGAN'S WELFARE-TO-WORK FORMULA
GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
======================================================== Appendix VIII

In Michigan, the Michigan Jobs Commission is the welfare-to-work
federal grant recipient and state administering entity.  Michigan
submitted its welfare-to-work plan on December 11, 1997.  On January
29, 1998, Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the
state totaling $42,226,331.  The state assured $21,113,166 in
matching funds over the 3-year grant period.  According to a state
official, this match was appropriated by the state legislature, and
$10 million was appropriated through September 30, 1998. 

Michigan required its 25 local service delivery areas to submit two
local plans for state review and approval:  one for the federal
formula grant funds and another for state matching funds appropriated
by the state legislature.  According to a state official, all of the
local plans were approved by September 4, 1998, and, as of September
30, 1998, about 340 individuals were enrolled in welfare-to-work
formula grant programs statewide. 

ACTIVITIES AND TARGET POPULATIONS

The state planned to use welfare-to-work funds primarily to serve
noncustodial parents.  On July 1, 1998, Michigan instituted a
statewide noncustodial parent program and, depending on their
eligibility, these parents may be served with welfare-to-work funds. 
To increase child support payments, Michigan's state plan emphasized
serving unemployed noncustodial parents who have child support
payments in arrears and whose dependents are receiving TANF
assistance; the failure of noncustodial parents to participate in the
welfare-to-work program without good cause could lead to their
incarceration.  Local service delivery areas must devote 50 percent
of their welfare-to-work grant funds to assist this population. 
Michigan distributed its governor's discretionary formula funds to
the local areas, providing them with more funding to meet their
noncustodial parent expenditure goal.  Furthermore, the courts will
identify and refer eligible participants to welfare-to-work programs. 
Within this state focus on noncustodial parents, the local service
delivery areas designed their own strategies for the use of
welfare-to-work funds, including services to the hardest-to-employ
TANF clients referred to welfare-to-work programs by the state
welfare agency.  For all welfare-to-work participants, the state plan
emphasized vigorous case management during the first 90 days of
employment to ensure employment retention. 

SUBSTATE ALLOCATIONS

Michigan allocated all of the $42,226,331 federal formula grant to
the local service delivery areas using the following formula: 
50-percent weight was given to the number of people with incomes
below the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the service
delivery area population, and 50-percent weight was given to the
number of welfare recipients in the service delivery area who had
received assistance for at least 30 months. 

Along with the federal formula funds, Michigan obligated $19,212,981
in state matching funds to the local service delivery areas, for a
total of $61,439,312, using the same formula applied to the federal
funds.  Although two local service delivery areas were allocated less
than $100,000 by formula, as shown in table VIII.1, the state
provided them with their formula allocations of both federal and
state welfare-to-work funds.  Michigan planned to use 9 percent
($1,900,185) of the state matching funds for welfare-to-work
administration; service delivery areas may spend up to 15 percent of
their allocations on welfare-to-work administration. 



                        Table VIII.1
          
            Michigan's Substate Welfare-to-Work
                 Formula Grant Allocations

                                                     Total
                       Federal                 welfare-to-
Service delivery  formula fund         Match    work funds
area              allocation\a    allocation     allocated
----------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
Region 7B             $796,073      $362,214    $1,158,287
Calhoun ISD            882,675       401,617     1,284,292
Saginaw/             2,340,684     1,065,012     3,405,696
 Midland/Bay
Berrien/Cass/        1,376,057       626,106     2,002,163
 Van Buren
The Job Force          456,446       207,683       664,129
City of Detroit     16,073,065     7,313,244    23,386,309
Eastern U.P.           189,105        86,043       275,148
Career Alliance      3,475,444     1,581,327     5,056,771
CAPC                   727,984       331,232     1,059,216
Thumb Area             522,321       237,656       759,977
Kalamazoo/St.          870,407       396,035     1,266,442
 Joseph
West Central           648,456       295,048       943,504
Lansing Tri-         1,091,952       496,838     1,588,790
 County
Macomb/St. Clair       890,831       405,328     1,296,159
Muskegon/Oceana      1,063,814       484,035     1,547,849
Northeast              477,161       217,108       694,269
Northwest              571,142       259,870       831,012
Oakland County       1,218,317       554,335     1,772,652
Western U.P.           337,368       153,503       490,871
Livingston              23,681        10,775        34,456
Washtenaw              418,295       190,324       608,619
SEMCA                5,498,733     2,501,923     8,000,656
Ottowa                  42,987        19,559        62,546
ACSET/Allegan        1,362,353       619,870     1,982,223
South Central          870,980       396,296     1,267,276
==========================================================
Total              $42,226,331   $19,212,981   $61,439,312
----------------------------------------------------------
\a The federal formula fund allocation numbers include both the
substate formula funds and the governor's discretionary funds, which
are 85 percent and 15 percent of the total federal welfare-to-work
award, respectively. 

Source:  Michigan Jobs Commission. 

GOVERNOR'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

Michigan allocated 100 percent of the federal formula grant funds to
the local service delivery areas.  The state retained none of the
allowable 15 percent governor's discretionary funds ($6,333,950) at
the state level. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS

Performance goals were not included in the state plan, but Michigan
planned to measure duration of placement into unsubsidized
employment, increased child support collection, and earnings,
measured after 90 days of employment and other times throughout the
year. 


NEW YORK'S WELFARE-TO-WORK FORMULA
GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998
========================================================== Appendix IX

In New York, the Department of Labor is the welfare-to-work federal
grant recipient and state administering entity.  New York submitted
its welfare-to-work plan on June 29, 1998.  On September 11, 1998,
Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant funds to the state
totaling $96,886,094.  The state assured $48,443,047 in state
matching funds over the 3- year grant period.  According to a state
official, the state provided half of the state match through a
legislative appropriation and required local service delivery areas
to provide the remaining half of the state match through in-kind or
cash contributions. 

New York requested that an alternate agency be designated to
administer the welfare-to-work program in 2 of its 33 service
delivery areas.  The Secretary of Labor granted waivers for these two
areas, and the welfare-to-work program is administered by the human
services agencies for New York City and the Syracuse/Onondaga area. 
The state required these two human services agencies and the
remaining 31 Private Industry Councils to submit plans proposing
local welfare-to-work strategies and incorporated these plans in the
New York State welfare-to-work plan.  As of September 30, 1998, a
state official said that most of the local areas were designing their
welfare-to-work eligibility determination processes in conjunction
with the local social services departments, but none of the local
areas had reported enrollments of welfare-to-work participants in the
formula grant program. 

ACTIVITIES AND TARGET POPULATIONS

New York's state plan for formula funds proposed a general focus on
improving the connection to work, providing postemployment
assistance, and serving the needs and requirements of employers.  The
state plan emphasized serving individuals with disabilities, many of
whom have experienced long-term welfare dependency but are no longer
exempt from work requirements.  Within these state initiatives, the
local service delivery areas may further specify the target
population and choose the mix of services most appropriate for their
area needs. 

SUBSTATE FORMULA ALLOCATIONS

New York allocated 85 percent, or $82,353,180, of the federal formula
grant to the local service delivery areas using the following
formula:  50-percent weight was given to the number of people with
incomes below the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the
service delivery area population, 25-percent weight was given to the
number of long-term welfare recipients in the service delivery area
having received assistance for at least 30 months, and 25-percent
weight was given to the number of unemployed people in the service
delivery area.  By using this formula, as shown in table IX.1, all of
the service delivery areas in New York qualified for more than
$100,000 in formula funds.  Local areas can use up to 15 percent of
their funding for administrative costs. 



                                        Table IX.1
                         
                           New York's Substate Welfare-to-Work
                                Formula Grant Allocations

                                    Federal                   Local in-       Total funds
                               formula fund   State match  kind or cash     available for
Service delivery area            allocation    allocation         match   welfare-to-work
-----------------------------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ----------------
Oyster Bay                         $406,989      $101,747      $101,747          $610,483
Hempstead/Long Beach                697,284       174,321       174,321         1,045,926
Suffolk County                    1,501,134       375,284       375,284         2,251,702
New York City                  58,483,523\a    14,620,881    14,620,881        87,725,285
Yonkers City                        694,484       173,621       173,621         1,041,726
Westchester County Balance          787,626       196,907       196,907         1,181,440
Rockland County                     364,907        91,227        91,227           547,361
Dutchess/Putnam                     315,083        78,771        78,771           472,625
Orange County                       698,684       174,671       174,671         1,048,026
Ulster County                       331,636        82,909        82,909           497,454
Sullivan County                   246,071\a        61,518        61,518           369,107
Albany/Rensselaer/                1,270,215       317,554       317,554         1,905,323
 Schenectady
Columbia/Greene                     257,107        64,277        64,277           385,661
Fulton/Montgomery/Schoharie         426,013       106,503       106,503           639,019
Saratoga/Warren/Washington          455,907       113,977       113,977           683,861
Clinton/Essex/Franklin/             618,555       154,639       154,639           927,833
 Hamilton
Jefferson/Lewis                     493,460       123,365       123,365           740,190
St. Lawrence County                 512,484       128,121       128,121           768,726
Herkimer/Madison/Oneida           1,051,568       262,892       262,892         1,577,352
Broome/Tioga/Tompkins               842,144       210,536       210,536         1,263,216
Chenango/Delaware/Otsego            457,801       114,450       114,450           686,701
Cayuga/Cortland                     384,836        96,209        96,209           577,254
Syracuse/Onondaga                 1,238,839       309,710       309,710         1,858,259
Oswego County                       391,178        97,795        97,795           586,768
Chemung/Schuyler/Steuben            674,720       168,680       168,680         1,012,080
Ontario/Seneca/Wayne/Yates          480,778       120,195       120,195           721,168
Rochester City                    1,926,488       481,622       481,622         2,889,732
Monroe County Balance               420,825       105,206       105,206           631,237
Genesee/Livingston/Orleans/         438,531       109,633       109,633           657,797
 Wyoming
Niagara County                      680,567       170,142       170,142         1,020,851
Buffalo/Erie/Cheektowaga/         3,676,328       919,082       919,082         5,514,492
 Tonawanda
Allegany/Cattaraugus                557,202       139,301       139,301           835,804
Chautauqua County                   570,213       142,553       142,553           855,319
=========================================================================================
Total\b                         $82,353,180   $20,588,299   $20,588,299      $123,529,778
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  The state provided half of the matching funds through a
legislative appropriation and required local service delivery areas
to provide the remaining half of the matching funds through in-kind
or cash contributions. 

\a Through the federal formula fund allocation to substate areas, New
York City received $58,483,523 and Sullivan County received $246,071. 
However, these two service delivery areas applied for and received
additional federal welfare-to-work funding through the governor's
discretionary funds, amounting to $2,168,000 for New York City and
$61,000 for Sullivan County.  These amounts are not included here. 

\b Numbers may not add because of rounding. 

Source:  New York State Department of Labor. 

GOVERNOR'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

New York planned to use the governor's discretionary funds, 15
percent of the formula funds or $14,532,914, for several purposes,
awarding grants to a variety of organizations--some to supplement
allocations to service delivery areas, others to independent
organizations.  The largest amount of funding, $8.5 million, was
allocated to a multiagency effort called the New York Works
Employment Retention and Advancement program for innovative projects
to serve "work-limited" individuals, such as people with mental
illness, substance abusers, and people with disabilities.  Through
this program, the state will fund, on a competitive selection basis,
as many projects as possible, with awards ranging from a $50,000
minimum to an $850,000 maximum.  These projects will provide specific
services to move clients into employment and provide postemployment
services to help working participants keep their jobs and increase
their earnings. 

New York also planned to use $2,229,000 of the governor's funds for
grants to two local service delivery areas.  Although all of the
local service delivery areas in the state had the opportunity to
obtain additional welfare-to-work moneys from the governor's
discretionary funds, only two applied.  New York City and Sullivan
County, the service delivery areas with the highest and lowest
formula grants, received $2,168,000 and $61,000, respectively.  New
York's client information campaign received $3,271,000 of the funds
for projects designed to help clients make informed employment
choices while transitioning off welfare.  These projects include an
update of the state's resource guide, a faith-based initiative, a
CD-ROM, teleconferences, and an agreement with the state's Department
of Transportation print shop for printed materials.  Finally, about
$500,000 was designated for the Office of Alcohol and Substance Abuse
Services to provide services for welfare-to-work-eligible substance
abusers. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS

The state planned to place 38 percent of the those who receive
assistance through the welfare-to-work grant program in unsubsidized
jobs; furthermore, the state planned that of those placed, 46 percent
are to continue to be employed after 6 months and to have an increase
in earnings of $214 over this time period. 


WISCONSIN'S WELFARE-TO-WORK
FORMULA GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR 1998
=========================================================== Appendix X

In Wisconsin, the Department of Workforce Development is the
welfare-to-work federal grant recipient and state administering
entity.  Wisconsin submitted its welfare-to-work plan on April 13,
1998.  On June 15, 1998, Labor awarded fiscal year 1998 formula grant
funds to the state totaling $12,885,951.\11 Collectively, the state
and local service delivery areas assured $6,442,976 in state matching
funds over the 3-year grant period.  According to a state official,
local service delivery areas were required to match their federal
allocations, and recipients of the governor's discretionary funds
matched their allocations. 

Wisconsin required its 11 local administrative entities to submit
local welfare-to-work plans for state review and approval.\12 One
local service delivery area chose not to submit a plan.\13 According
to a state official, as of September 30, 1998, no welfare-to-work
participants had been enrolled statewide in formula grant programs. 

ACTIVITIES AND TARGET POPULATIONS

Wisconsin planned to target noncustodial parents with its formula
grant funds and, because its TANF caseload is low, the state also
proposed to assist individuals receiving TANF child care subsidies
rather than cash assistance.  A state official explained that for
working families, child care subsidies are considered TANF payments,
making recipients eligible for welfare-to-work as long-term TANF
recipients.  Within the state's focus, the local service delivery
areas may further specify the target population and choose the mix of
services most appropriate for their area's needs. 

SUBSTATE FORMULA ALLOCATIONS

Wisconsin allocated local service delivery area funding from 85
percent, or $10,953,058, of the federal grant using the following
formula:  50-percent weight was given to the number of people with
incomes below the poverty level in excess of 7.5 percent of the
service delivery area population, and 50-percent weight was given to
the number of long-term welfare recipients in the service delivery
area having received assistance for at least 30 months.  Since one
service delivery area could not obtain matching funds for its
allocation of $174,741 and chose not to participate in the
welfare-to-work program, Wisconsin deducted this amount from the
total substate funds available and allocated $10,778,317 of the
federal funds among the remaining delivery areas, as shown in table
X.1.  Two local service delivery areas, Waukesha-Ozaukee-Washington
and Marathon County, qualified for less than the $100,000 federally
required minimum; consequently, their allocations reverted to the
governor's discretionary funds before being issued to the two local
areas.  Local service delivery areas may use up to 15 percent of
their welfare-to-work funds for administrative costs. 



                         Table X.1
          
            Wisconsin's Substate Welfare-to-Work
                 Formula Grant Allocations

                                               Total funds
                       Federal       Local   available for
Service delivery       formula       match     welfare-to-
area                allocation  allocation            work
------------------  ----------  ----------  --------------
Southeastern          $527,326    $263,663        $790,989
Fox Valley             136,811      68,406         205,217
 (Northern Lake
 Winnebago and
 Winne-Fond-Lake)
Marathon County\a       76,644      38,322         114,966
South Central          287,479     143,740         431,219
 (Dane County and
 South Central)
Northwest\             441,405     220,703         662,108
Central\a                   \0           0               0
West Central           486,902     243,451         730,353
Waukesha-Ozaukee-      64,216\      32,108          96,324
 Washington
North Central\a        155,832      77,916         233,748
Bay Area               364,646     182,323         546,969
 (Northeastern and
 Lake Michigan)
Southwest              337,801     168,901         506,702
 (Southwest and
 Rock County)
Western                473,712     236,856         710,568
Milwaukee            7,425,543   3,712,772      11,138,315
==========================================================
Total\b             $10,778,31  $5,389,159    $16,167,476\
                             7
----------------------------------------------------------
Note:  This table does not show state matching funds because local
service delivery areas in Wisconsin were required to match their
federal allocations. 

\a Since the Central portion of the new North Central service
delivery area declined to participate in the welfare-to-work program,
North Central's other two portions--Marathon County and North
Central--were funded as separate entities under welfare-to-work. 
Therefore, although the state technically has only 11 service
delivery areas, 13 service delivery areas are listed in this table,
including North Central's three subsections. 

\b Totals may not add because of rounding. 

Source:  Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development. 

GOVERNOR'S DISCRETIONARY FUNDS

The governor's discretionary welfare-to-work funds, 15 percent of the
formula fund allocation, totaled $1,932,893 and are planned to be
used for a variety of purposes, many independent of the service
delivery areas.  For example, $1,092,959 was awarded to the state's
Department of Corrections to provide employment assistance to
noncustodial parents in correctional institutions, on parole, or on
probation; $180,000 to the state's Bureau of Apprenticeship Standards
for an apprenticeship program; $90,000 to the United Migrant
Opportunity Services for projects serving migrants and seasonal
farmworkers in rural areas; $180,000 to be allocated among 8 projects
serving Southeast Asian immigrants; $100,000 to the state's Division
of Economic Support to modify its data support system; $100,000 to
the Division of Workforce Excellence for welfare-to-work
administration; and $189,934 to the Division of Economic Support to
hire research analysts.  Additionally, the allocations for the two
local service delivery areas that received under $100,000 were
temporarily added to the governor's discretionary funds and were
reallocated to the two local areas. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS

A state official said that Wisconsin did not include specific,
numeric performance goals in its state plan, but the service delivery
areas have local goals that are similar to their JTPA performance
measures.  Wisconsin had approximately 30,000 TANF recipients in
1997, some of whom will receive assistance from welfare-to-work.  Of
those who receive assistance from welfare-to-work, the goal is for a
significant percentage to obtain unsubsidized employment, ranging
from 40 percent in Milwaukee to 80 percent in other areas of the
state; of those placed in unsubsidized employment, duration goals
range from 40 percent of participants remaining employed after 3
months in Milwaukee to 70 percent remaining employed after 12 months
in areas with lower unemployment; and for wage increases, the goal is
that participants will experience a countable increase in earnings,
such as the goal of a 40-percent wage increase over previous wage
levels in Milwaukee, with starting wages as high as $7.75 an hour. 




--------------------
\11 On April 20, 1998, Wisconsin submitted a written request to Labor
for $12,711,210 in federal welfare-to-work funds.  This amount
reflected a reduction from the state's federal formula allotment to
account for $174,741 in welfare-to-work funds declined by one of the
local service delivery areas.  On June 1, 1998, the state sent Labor
a letter transmitting its signed grant agreement requesting the full
$12,885,951.  Although the service delivery area still declined to
accept the funds, the state requested that the full amount be awarded
to the state so that it could allocate maximum funding to all local
jurisdictions.  Wisconsin obligated all its formula funds except for
the $174,741, which the state plans to return to Labor. 

\12 Wisconsin is encouraging its Private Industry Councils to expand
their focus and convert to Workforce Development Boards.  Thus,
depending on the area, the local administrative entity for the
welfare-to-work program may be either a Private Industry Council or a
Workforce Development Board. 

\13 Prior to July 1, 1998, Marathon County, North Central, and
Central were separate service delivery areas but were then combined
into a single Workforce Development Area called North Central. 
Before the restructuring, the Central portion declined to participate
in the welfare-to-work program. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
=========================================================== Appendix 0

Welfare Reform:  Implementing DOT's Access to Jobs Program
(GAO/RCED-99-36, Dec.  8, 1998). 

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

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

Welfare Reform:  Transportation's Role in Moving From Welfare to Work
(GAO/RCED-98-161, May 29, 1998). 


*** End of document. ***