Wheels for Work Program

Wheels for Work Program is sponsored by Various Nonprofit Organizations. Provides low-income workers with access to vehicles through donations, low-interest loans, or matched-savings accounts to facilitate employment.

Welfare-to-Work Grants Programs: Adjusting to Changing Circumstances | ASPE Welfare-to-Work Grants Programs: Adjusting to Changing Circumstances Demetra Smith Nightingale, Carolyn Taylor O'Brien, Michael Egner, Nancy Pindus, and John Trutko Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Department of Health and Human Services Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Urban Institute (subcontractor) To obtain a printed copy of this report, send the title and your mailing information to: Human Services Policy, Room 404E Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201 Fax: (202) 690-6562 This report is part of a congressionally mandated evaluation of the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) Grants program , being conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., and its subcontractors the Urban Institute and Support Services International (SSI).

This is a special report from the process analysis component of the evaluation. Several individuals provided useful comments to this report: Alan Hershey of Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Alana Landey of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and other reviewers from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

We owe particular gratitude to administrators and staff in the local sites who generously shared their time with us to document their experiences. Their knowledge and insights are essential to understanding the various program interventions.

Opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not represent official positions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., or the Urban Institute, its trustees or sponsors. Congress established the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants program as part of the Balanced Budget Act (BBA) of 1997.

Its purpose was to provide additional resources to supplement the welfare reform funds included in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to states, which were authorized under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996.

The three billion dollar initiative was intended to support programs, especially in high-poverty communities, to assist the least employable, most disadvantaged welfare recipients make the transition from welfare to work. These funds were also available to help low-income noncustodial parents increase their earnings and better support their children.

The federal WtW funds were distributed by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) in 1998 and 1999. Three-quarters of the funds were distributed by formula to states, which were required to pass on 85 percent of their formula funds to local workforce investment boards (WIBs).

The other quarter of the federal funds were distributed competitively based on grant applications from state and local agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public and private entities. Initially, grantees were expected to spend the funds within three years of their receipt, but amendments in 1999 extended the period to five years, meaning grants end in 2003 and 2004.

(Appendix A provides general background information about the WtW grants program funding and eligibility criteria.) Congress mandated that the WtW grants program be evaluated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS).

Under contract from DHHS, Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., along with its subcontractors the Urban Institute and Support Services International, is conducting the national evaluation to document implementation of WtW programs and employment and welfare outcomes for program participants.

This is one of several reports based on the national evaluation, which has four components: A Descriptive Assessment of All WtW Grantees , based on two surveys of all WtW grantees nationwide to document the planning phase and early program operations. (1) Process and Implementation Analysis, based on exploratory visits to 22 local WtW grant-funded programs, and more detailed analysis of programs in eleven study sites.

(2) Program Cost Analysis in nine of the eleven study sites, documenting the total program costs and participant costs by service category and grantees. (3) Outcomes Analysis in nine of the eleven study sites, describing the characteristics and subsequent employment experiences of enrollees in WtW-funded programs.

(4) Since our last site visits in 2001, several developments and trends might have changed the context within which the WtW programs are implemented, each of which could have precipitated changes or adaptations at the program level. The current report updates information included in the June 2002 process and implementation analysis report.

(5) The 2002 report described the components, services, structure, management, and operations of the programs funded with WtW grants in study sites. That report was based on researcher site visits to each of the study sites in 2001 and described the programs as they existed at that time.

Thus, the purpose of this report is to document how grantees have adapted as they approach or reach the ends of their WtW grant periods and how other conditions in 2002 and 2003 — particularly the slow economy and any state policies related to TANF or the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) — have affected their programs.

The information is based upon follow-up discussions held in mid-2003 with key administrators in each of the eleven study sites. The next chapter describes the operations of the WtW grant-funded programs in the study sites in 2003.

Chapter III summarizes how WtW grantees and programs adapted to economic conditions and TANF or WIA policy changes in 2002 and 2003, and Chapter IV discusses the legacy and lessons of WtW from the perspective of grantee agency administrators in the study sites. II. WTW Operations in 2003 The first WtW grants were awarded by DOL in 1998 and grantees had five years in which to use their funds.

Some grantees spent all their funds within two or three years, but most distributed their resources over a longer period of time. All grants will end by mid-2004. This chapter first describes the status of the grants and program operations in the study sites as of Spring 2003, and then discusses adjustments being made in response to the imminent end of the grants, economic conditions, and TANF and WIA policies.

The information presented is based on discussions held with grantee and program administrators in mid-2003. As discussed in the following sections, in Spring 2003, most grantees were approaching the end of their WtW grant period — only two had already reached the end. Thus, many grant-funded programs were still operating in 2003, and administrators were planning for the end of the grant period.

Update on the Status of Program Operations In most study sites, as of Spring 2003, projects were still operating with either their original WtW grants or with other funds. The study sites are shown in Exhibit 1 , along with their grant period and funding levels, and key features of their programs.

As discussed below, in most sites the same programs were being implemented as had existed in 2001, although some notable service modifications had been introduced in 2002 as programs continued to evolve and as staff prepared for the end of the WtW grant funding. Enrollment levels also continued to rise through 2002 in most sites. WtW Evaluation In-Depth Study Sites Study Site and Grantee/Host Agency Distinctive Program Features Boston.

Office of Jobs and Community Service in Economic Development and Industrialization Corp. Employer-Sponsored Programs Partnerships between employers (commitment to hire) and nonprofit organizations (6-8 week pre-employment, case management, and post-employment support) $11. 3 million (Formula Grant FY1998, FY1999) Chicago. Mayor's Office of Workforce Devel.

26 separate subgrantee agencies, each with unique programs $60 million (Formula Grant FY1998, FY1999; Competitive Grants Round 1 & 2) Fort Worth. Tarrant County Workforce Devel. Board (a.

k. a. Work Advantage) 10 separate subgrantee agencies, each with unique rapid work attachment programs $7.

2 million (Formula Grant FY1998, FY1999; Competitive Grant Round 2) Southeastern Indiana (19- county area). River Valley Resources, Inc. 19 rural counties served by RVR branches providing intensive case management, job placement, and subsidized jobs $7 million (Formula Grant FY1998, FY1999; (Competitive Grant Round 1) Milwaukee. Wisconsin Dept.

of Corrections, Div. of Community Corrections, Reg. 3 Milwaukee County Nontraditional Opportunities for Work (NOW) Program DOC-NOW arranges for noncustodial fathers on probation or parole to receive employment and job retention services through state W-2 (TANF and workforce development) agencies $2 million (state 15% Formula Funds; DOC Funds) Nashville.

Nashville Career Advancement Center Nashville Works/ Pathways Program Structured monthly peer support and individualized employability plans, intensive case management, and problem-solving $4. 2 million (Competitive Grant Round 2) Philadelphia. Transitional Work Corporation Two weeks of job readiness class, then 6 months of paid community service job, then placement in regular job.

$22. 4 million (Formula Grant FY1998, FY1999;Competitive Grant; state 15% Formula Funds; & Pew Charitable Trust Grant) Phoenix. City of Phoenix Human Services Dept.

, Employment and Training Div. Employment and Respect Now (EARN) Alliance Three weeks of pre-employment preparation, then job placement and retention support $5. 95 million (Competitive Grant, Formula Grant FY1998) West Virginia (29-county area).

Human Resources Development Foundation Comprehensive Employment Program Four-week job readiness workshop, then graduated-stress supported work experience for 6 months, with skills training when possible; job placement and wage supplement $4. 9 million (Competitive Grant Round 2) Yakima WA.

Tri-County Workforce Development Council (formerly Tri-Valley PIC) Individualized case management, job search assistance, job placement, subsidized work, supportive services; and separate program for noncustodial parents owing child support $6. 4 million (Formula Grant FY1998, FY1999 Formula Funds; State 15% Formula Funds) Baltimore County, MD; St. Lucie, FL; Long Beach, CA.

Johns Hopkins University, Institute for Policy Studies, SCANS2000 Career Transcript System (CTS) Workplace liaisons through community colleges work with employed individuals and their employers to promote retention and career advancement $5 million for 8 sites, 3 of which are in the evaluation (multi-site Competitive Grant Round 2) Source: Review of grantee applications and information as reported by program administrators during research site visits in 1999, 2000, and 2001.

As of April 2003, in all but two of the study sites, some projects were still operating with WtW grant funds. As shown in Exhibit 1, the end dates for WtW funding in the study sites ranged from late 2001 (Phoenix and JHU-CTS) to mid-2004 (Chicago, Tarrant County, and Nashville). In the other study sites, grants were scheduled to end in 2003.

Thus, some WtW grant funds will continue to be used through mid-2004, especially those operated by agencies that received subcontracts from a primary grantee. For example, in Boston, Chicago and Fort Worth, where the WtW grantee is the local WIA administrative agency, the WtW grants were used to fund several separate programs. In all three cities, subcontracts will be in effect through mid-2004.

In Boston, four of the employer partnership programs will have some funds through late 2003. In Chicago, twelve separately contracted programs were still operating in April 2003 and scheduled to conclude by the end of 2003. One new program, targeting welfare mothers with substance abuse problems, was also funded in mid-2002 and is scheduled to operate through March 2004.

In Fort Worth, the final WtW funds were used to fund a nonprofit agency to provide employment services to noncustodial parents at the courthouse. The NCP initiative is scheduled to operate through March 2004 with WtW funds. It is possible for projects to extend their operations by obtaining WtW funds from other grantees that have later grant periods.

(6) The only example of this in our study sites was in Nashville, where Nashville Works obtained a sub-grant from a third-round competitive grantee, Centerstone Community Mental Health Services, allowing them to continue the Pathways project (begun with their own WtW grant) through mid-2004. 2.

Programs and Services in 2003 About half of the programs still active in 2003 were operating basically as they had in 2001, although some minor modifications were being made as they prepared for the phase-out of the grant. In the other half of active programs in the study sites, a fair amount of program change was initiated in 2002 and 2003 — program models and services were modified, and in some places new projects were just beginning.

Program modifications were made in 2002 and 2003 for two general reasons: (1) to continue to refine or improve the basic program model based on ongoing experience, and (2) to alter the client flow in preparation for the end of the WtW grant. Refining Program Models. Administrators were asked to describe the types of changes that had been made to their programs since our last visit in 2001.

Our earlier visits had identified three general types of programs, although in many places the program service models were still being refined in 2001. The three types of programs identified were: Enhanced Direct Employment Programs , where the emphasis is on providing participants with individualized pre-employment support, counseling, and case management, along with post-employment services for usually a year.

Developmental/Transitional Employment Programs , where the program emphasizes skills development, often along with transitional, subsidized, or community service employment. Intensive Post-Employment Skills Development Programs , where the primary objective is to improve both job retention and specific occupational skills primarily by working with individuals after they start a job.

In general, the same program models were operating in 2003, but several administrators explained that they had incorporated new approaches or modified their staff services based on the experience they had gained in the previous two years about how their programs could be improved. The Philadelphia TWC program, for example, shifted to an interdisciplinary case management model, assigning staff to work in teams to assist participants.

Similarly, the Milwaukee NOW program added new service components, such as short-term paid work experience jobs and anger management workshops to address specific income and behavioral needs of the noncustodial fathers on parole or probation that they were serving. Changing the Client Flow. The most common program modifications made in 2002 and 2003 related to preparing for the end of the WtW grants.

Programs were not altered in major ways, but arrangements were made to help transition WtW participants still active when the grant ends to other programs or funding sources. In most study sites where WtW programs had already ended at the time of our contact, WtW participants active when the funding ended had been referred to One-Stop Career Centers or other employment and training programs in the community.

The referrals usually began about one month before the end of the grant period. In sites where the WtW grantee is the WIA agency, this referral process was evidently quite "seamless," requiring minimal action on the part of the participant and services usually continued without interruption.

For instance, in Phoenix EARN and all of the projects in Chicago funded by the Workforce Agency's WtW grant, staff helped participants create individual plans to follow when their program ended. Administrators in both Phoenix and Chicago explained that nearly all those who were still actively participating when program funding ended were absorbed by other programs funded by WIA and/or TANF.

In both sites, most WtW participants were referred to other programs or One-Stop Centers. The situation in Tarrant County, Texas, was even more direct since the WtW grantee also has responsibility for TANF and Food Stamps work programs as well as being the WIA agency.

The availability of these various funding sources (e.g., WIA, TANF, and Food Stamps Employment and Training) enabled most participants in WtW-funded programs to complete their activities even after WtW funds ended.

While most WtW grantees and projects were beginning to phase down in 2002 and transition participants to other programs, two study grantees (WIA agencies in Chicago and Tarrant County, Texas) used some of their remaining grants to fund new projects that started in 2002.

The decision to start new programs with their remaining funds in part reflects the optimism in those sites that other funding sources will be identified to continue the programs after the WtW grant ends. In both sites several of the earliest WtW-funded projects also continued to operate. In Chicago in 2003, the WtW grantee (the Mayors Office of Workforce Development, or MOWD) was still funding over a dozen programs with WtW funds.

A couple of programs had ended, but a new program, Working Together, started in April 2002, and is scheduled to continue with WtW funding through March 2004. This new program is a joint MOWD and Public Health initiative, for TANF clients meeting WtW eligibility criteria and having substance abuse problems.

It is administered by South West Women Working Together, a non-profit organization and other subcontractors, and provides job training, in-/out-patient substance abuse treatment, and other services.

Similarly, in Tarrant County, Texas, the WIA agency, Work Advantage, continues to fund several projects with their formula and competitive WtW grants, and is using some of the remaining grant funds to support new services for noncustodial parents (NCPs).

Work Advantage is contracting with a nonprofit human service agency to provide services for NCPs, collaborating with the Tarrant County Fatherhood Coalition to promote responsible fatherhood and expansion of employment services available to NCPs in Tarrant County. 3. Enrollment Levels in 2003 A particularly important aspect of the implementation of the WtW grant-funded programs was that the start-up phase was quite slow.

It took about two years in most sites to establish intake, enrollment, outreach, and recruitment procedures. The time extension granted by Congress in 1999 allowed programs more time that would presumably help them reach their goals. But the slow start meant that cumulative enrollment levels by 2002, after three years, were still lower than administrators had initially planned.

By design, the programs are relatively smallscale in terms of numbers of participants (compared, for example, to TANF work programs which often serve nearly all adult welfare recipients in a community). The programs range in size from less than 200 in each of the JHU projects and some small projects in Chicago and Fort Worth, to over 7,000 in the TWC program in Philadelphia (funded partly by WtW grants).

Most of the programs had difficulty with enrollment and recruitment early in the grant period. After two years, programs had incorporated various types of outreach and recruitment that helped increase enrollment, and most programs extended their operational timetable to use the entire five-year period.

As a result, by mid-2003 all the study grantees except Nashville had reached or were close to reaching their original enrollment goals over the five-year period allowed by Congress (compared to the original legislation which allowed three years) ( Exhibit 2 ). Three sites (Philadelphia TWC, Boston, and Indiana RVR) exceeded their planned enrollment levels.

Planned and Actual Enrollment, WtW Programs In Study Sites, April 2003 Because many WtW-funded projects were still operating in 2003, total cumulative enrollments had increased over the 2001 level noted in our 2002 report.

By April 2003, about 23,000 individuals (cumulative total from the start of the programs) had enrolled in the eleven sites studied (up from about 18,000 in mid-2001), for an average of about 2,000 per site (up from an average of about 1,650 per site in mid 2001).

By early 2003, all WtW programs in the study sites had either already stopped enrolling new participants into the WtW-funded projects or had plans to halt enrollment before their grant funding ends. Five of the eleven grantees (Boston, Milwaukee, JHU-CTS, Phoenix, and West Virginia HRDF) had stopped enrolling participants in WtW sometime between mid-2001 and early 2003.

The other six study grantees plan to halt formal enrollment for WtW purposes later in 2003 or early 2004. Administrators explained that they will continue to serve enrolled participants as long as possible with WtW funds, but plan to stop enlisting new participants at least a few months before the end of the grant funding.

To summarize enrollment activities in the six study sites where programs were still operating as of April 2003: Yakima and Fort Worth had stopped enrolling new TANF participants into the basic WtW grant-funded component, but participants were still being enrolled into the special WtW grant-funded project for noncustodial parents.

In Chicago, several programs stopped enrollment in 2002, and each of the original programs that were still operating in 2003 were planning to stop official enrollment for WtW purposes no later than one month before their project end dates. Since they all expect to continue to operate with other (non-WtW) funds, those participants still active would be transferred to other funding sources.

The newest WtW-funded program for TANF recipients with substance abuse problems will continue to enroll participants into early 2004. Indiana RVR projects were still enrolling clients, but had stopped recruiting due to limited funds remaining. Nashville Pathways was still enrolling new participants, and will do so until early 2004.

Philadelphia TWC was also still enrolling new clients with no plans to halt enrollment. Once the WtW grant ends, participants will be served with other (mainly state TANF) funds. All nine of the study sites still operating in 2003 were serving the same types of WtW-eligible individuals they had been serving since the start of the grant.

In general, programs were serving any individuals who met the federal WtW eligibility criteria. In a few sites, programs targeted special populations for whom the programs were originally developed (e.g., noncustodial fathers on probation or parole in Milwaukee).

In addition, in about one-third of the sites, administrators indicated that in 2002 and 2003 they had increased their focus on some special group — particularly noncustodial parents — usually in addition to serving the general WtW eligible population. The Chicago Workforce Board added a new WtW-funded program, Working Together, specifically targeting TANF recipients with substance abuse problems.

In the study sites, "increased focus" on certain groups means either (1) placing more priority on recruiting specific populations, (2) having more active coordination of services or referrals with other programs serving the group, and/or (3) increasing the number of target group individuals served.

In 2001 most of the programs had been focused on serving any parents who met the WtW eligibility criteria established by Congress, although the law did allow programs to specialize, or target, specific subgroups. In general, though, in 2001, programs were serving custodial mothers receiving TANF who met the WtW eligibility criteria.

More specifically, with the exception of the NOW program in Milwaukee and the SHARE program in Yakima, few noncustodial parents were participating in the study programs, although most administrators expressed a desire to serve them.

At that time, program administrators explained that while they were interested in serving noncustodial parents, especially fathers, they had not yet done so for a variety of reasons including early difficulties identifying and engaging this group and other pressing operational issues related to the challenges of conducting outreach and recruitment for the general eligible groups.

By 2003, some administrators indicated that they were emphasizing NCPs more than they had in the past. Two explained that they had been interested in serving this population from the beginning of WtW, but because they had to devote so much effort to general recruitment and enrollment of eligible individuals, that had not been possible.

Once the core projects reached a steady state, these administrators then turned their attention to NCPs. The expansion of services to NCPs in WtW programs also appears to have occurred because of a general increase in the availability of other funds to serve both noncustodial fathers and ex-offenders.

Several WtW administrators, for example, noted that their agency or other agencies in their community had "fatherhood grants" from federal or state child support enforcement agencies or from private foundations. Some also explained that they had "prisoner reentry grants" from either DOL or the Department of Justice.

These other grants were being used in combination with remaining WtW grant funds to serve low-income fathers with employment barriers. Some grantee administrators reported that they are also actively planning to expand programs for non-custodial fathers in their agencies, and that their experience with WtW grants was part of a longer-term plan.

In Fort Worth, Yakima, and West Virginia, for example, long-range plans in the grantee agencies include expanding programs for NCPs. Exhibit 3 describes a few of the NCP initiatives in study sites. Selected Profiles of WtW Programs Targeting Noncustodial Parents Beginning in 2002, Work Advantage in Tarrant Co.

, TX used WtW funds for a staff person located at the courts to help NCPs secure work and navigate the child support system. Work Advantage also began working closely with the Attorney General and the state's child support enforcement agency to identify and secure additional funds to develop employment programs for NCPs. Work Advantage will receive Project RIO (Reintegration of Offenders) funding starting in 2003.

Project RIO is a joint initiative of the Texas Workforce Commission, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, the State Youth Commission, local WIBs, and local school districts. Project RIO funding will supplement remaining WtW funds to expand services for NCPs (especially ex-offenders) in Tarrant County. Both the number and types of NCPs served through WtW-funded programs in Ft.

Worth have expanded over time. Where originally the program had planned to serve primarily homeless and substance abusing NCPs, the program expanded to serve a wide range of low-income/disadvantaged NCPs.

The Yakima WtW grant had been used by the Workforce Development Board from the beginning to implement the SHARE (Support Has A Rewarding Effect) program for NCPs, in addition to a general employment WtW program for all who met the eligibility criteria.

A decision was made in 2002 to devote the remaining WtW funds to SHARE, mainly because, unlike TANF mothers, these individuals are not eligible for Community Jobs, a state-funded paid-work program for TANF recipients. The funds are going to People for People, the main contractor for serving NCPs. NCPs are still recruited the same way as they have been since the beginning of the program, through the Prosecuting Attorney's Office.

Of course, one of the most important issues facing WtW-funded programs is that the grant periods will soon end nationwide, if they have not already ended. Some of the study grantees had, in fact, reached the end of their funding periods in late 2001 or early 2002; all will terminate by mid-2004.

We were interested in learning whether grant-funded programs in the study sites were planning to continue even after the grant period expires, and, if so, what funding would support the programs. In particular, we asked whether TANF or WIA funding was likely to cover the costs of programs that had operated with WtW grant funds and whether they expect to continue to serve TANF recipients in the future. 1.

Will Programs Continue? As of mid-2003, most of the WtW grantees studied hoped to continue operating one or more of their grant-funded projects, or a similar project, for at least a year ( Exhibit 4 ). That is, some of the program models implemented with WtW grants, and usually developed specifically for the grants initiative, may continue in some form.

For example, in Boston, two of the employer partnership programs are continuing even though the WtW grants to those programs ended. The business partners have decided to fund the program themselves for at least one year. The Boston grantee agency is also interested in sponsoring similar projects in the future, although currently there are no funds available to do so.

In Chicago and Tarrant County (Texas), most of the WtW-funded programs, operated mainly by nonprofit service organizations, are continuing with WIA and/or TANF funds.

Plans to Continue WtW Programs After the Grant Expires, by Study Site WtW Program is Expected to Continue X (several of the programs) The Phil@Work program operated by the Transitional Work Corporation in Philadelphia is somewhat unique among the study sites in that it was begun before the WtW grants program, and will continue after the grant funds end.

The grants from the local WIB and the state represented a major portion of the program's total funds, but grants from private foundations and the state TANF agency are the main sources of funding. The TANF agency has committed to provide a special contract to TWC to continue the program for at least one more year, and expectations are that funds will continue beyond that time as well.

Administrators in Milwaukee NOW, Nashville Pathways, Indiana RVR and Yakima hope that they will be able to continue programs, but at the time of our discussions, no final decisions had been made. In the remaining three sites — Phoenix EARN, HRDF in West Virginia, and the JHU-CTS projects — the WtW-funded programs have ended and are not continuing. 2.

What Funding Sources are Used to Continue the Programs? Thus, by 2003, in several study sites, it had already been determined that at least some of the WtW-funded projects will continue after the grant period with other funding — mainly from TANF and WIA.

In some places there is only short-term funding, but in some sites longer-term funding is expected, usually because the program operator is already a WIA or TANF contractor or because the grantee is the WIA agency. In sites where the WtW grantee is also the WIA agency, WIA funds appear to be particularly accessible.

Those grantees seem to have had more success in identifying other sources of funds to continue programs than independent agency grantees (i.e., independent nonprofit organizations). This perhaps reflects the fact that WIA agencies tend to have multiple funding sources and programs.

In Chicago and Tarrant County, Texas, for example, the WIA agencies used their WtW grants to fund several separate projects, most operated by nonprofit community-based organizations. In each of these two sites, WIA administrators reported that most of the projects funded by WtW grants are continuing with WIA, TANF and other funds.

WtW grantees that administer WIA and also are TANF contractors are often able to access TANF funds to continue the program.

For example, in Tarrant County, Texas, the WIA agency, which also administers the TANF and Food Stamps work programs, continues to fund many of the programs that had operated with WtW grant funds using a combination of sources including TANF, WIA, Food Stamps Employment and Training, special grant funds for retention services for TANF recipients, employment services for public housing residents and, most recently, for ex-offenders.

Similarly, in both Yakima and Phoenix, where the WtW grantee is the local WIA agency, many former WtW participants are being served through the One-Stop with WIA funds. In Yakima, many WtW participants