| Vol. 5, No. 5 March 2001 |
Emerging Issues and Opportunities for Community-Based Organization Involvement in Welfare Reform
By Rebecca Brown
Background
Community-based organizations (CBOs), such as
community action agencies and the local affiliates of Volunteers of America, the
YMCA, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and the Salvation Army, have always
provided certain services to low-income children and families, particularly in
the areas of child welfare and adoption, family preservation, special needs
child care, transportation, and youth development. However, with the emphasis the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 place on “work first”
and the time limits it imposes on cash assistance, the impetus for CBOs to
address additional family needs, such as career counseling, employment training,
and job retention, has grown. CBOs
are becoming integral partners in state and local governments’ welfare-to-work
and workforce development policy and planning processes and service delivery.
As welfare reform progresses, it is likely that CBO involvement in
providing work supports and services to low-income families will continue, if
not increase.
This Issue Note examines the role CBOs have
played and will likely continue to play in supporting families that have left or
are taking steps toward leaving the welfare rolls. It describes some of the emerging challenges CBOs face as
they vie for government contracts, improve their organizational capacity and
accountability, and attempt to meet the needs of low-income families and,
increasingly, hard-to-employ individuals. Finally,
it discusses policy implications, offers program examples, and provides
additional resources for state and local policymakers and CBOs as they make
further decisions under welfare reform.
For more background information on the broad array of
CBO strategies being implemented under welfare reform, see the Welfare
Information Network’s Community-Based Strategies and Faith-Based Involvement
web sites at http://www.welfareinfo.org/collaboration.htm
and http://www.welfareinfo.org/faithbase.htm,
respectively.
Policy Questions
What factors and specific welfare reform and
related legislation have expanded opportunities for CBO involvement in welfare
reform?
The welfare reform law’s devolution of program authority to state and
local governments, as well as its shift to a time-limited, “work-first”
approach to cash assistance, are key driving forces for greater CBO involvement
in welfare reform. Work first
transformed the nature of the TANF eligibility worker’s job from one of
determining eligibility and cutting checks to one of counseling on career
opportunities and providing wrap-around service planning.
This welfare office culture change, in part, enables CBOs to offer more
of the counseling and benefit planning services they have been providing to
low-income families for years. Some of the other provisions in TANF and related legislation
that give CBOs more opportunity to participate in welfare reform include the
following.
“Charitable choice” provision. Section 104 of PRWORA enables faith-based organizations (FBOs)
to compete for state and federal welfare funds on the same basis as other social
service providers. Although FBOs
cannot use government funds for religious missions or to screen the religious
backgrounds of potential clients, they can deliver publicly funded programs that
contain religious messages. However,
states opting to contract with FBOs must provide TANF participants with a
secular program alternative should they choose not to seek services from the FBO.
For more information, see the Welfare Information Network (WIN)
publication “Frequently Asked Questions from State and Local Agencies about
Involving the Faith Community in Welfare Reform,” at http://www.welfareinfo.org/frequent.htm.
“Contracting out” of services by state and local
welfare agencies. PRWORA also allows states
to contract with other private providers, such as nonprofit organizations,
for-profit consulting agencies, and community colleges, to determine eligibility
and make use of contracts, certificates, or vouchers in providing services to
eligible low-income clients. Some
states have made their workforce development agencies responsible for
welfare-related employment services, and many of those agencies have added the
provision of welfare-to-work services to their existing contracts under the
former Job Training Partnership Act. These factors, along with freezes in
public-sector hiring in some states and growing political acceptance of
privatization, have led to an expansion in contracting for welfare-related
services (Yates, November 1998).
Increasingly, CBOs have received performance-based
welfare-to-work contracts from state and/or local governments.
The welfare reform law’s work participation rate requirements, as well
as financial bonuses for decreases in out-of-wedlock births and increases in job
placement and retention prompted states to structure contracts that compensate
providers based on their performance in achieving certain program outcomes.
Designation of CBOs as qualified recipients of
Welfare-to-Work competitive grants. Administered by the U.S.
Department of Labor, the Welfare-to-Work (WtW) competitive grant program
identifies CBOs, local governments, and private industry councils as qualified
applicants for these grants and emphasizes the importance of responding to
community needs as families make the transition from welfare to work.
Nearly 200 WtW competitive grants have been awarded to a single CBO or
coalitions of CBOs to provide postemployment services to hard-to-serve welfare
recipients and noncustodial parents. WtW
formula grants awarded to states and local workforce investment boards (WIBs)
may also be distributed to CBOs at state or WIB option.
States are now requesting federal waivers to spend WtW funds for an
additional two years. For more
information on the WtW grant program, visit the web site of the U.S. Department
of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, at http://wtw.doleta.gov/.
How are CBOs serving low-income families who have
left or are trying to leave welfare? In
addition to child welfare, family preservation, and related services, CBOs are
offering services more directly related to helping individuals achieve
employment outcomes and meet basic needs. Some
organizations, such as the Wildcat Service Corporation in New York City, operate
job-readiness or “soft-skills” training programs that prepare clients to
successfully adapt to workplace demands and responsibilities.
Other groups sponsor mentoring programs in which welfare recipients pair
up with a former welfare recipient, a colleague at work, or another individual
who can help them pursue employment and training opportunities, manage their
finances, improve their parenting skills, and find quality child care.
Community development corporations and local chapters of Habitat for Humanity are some of the CBOs that help low-income
families secure affordable housing or obtain emergency assistance.
Some of PRWORA’s provisions related to convicted
drug felons, domestic violence, and the maintenance of two-parent families have
also contributed to increased caseworker referrals to CBO-operated substance
abuse and mental health treatment programs, domestic violence shelters, and
fatherhood programs. The DeKalb
Economic Opportunity Authority, Inc., a WtW competitive grantee and community
action agency, partners with the DeKalb County Government, the public housing
authority, the DeKalb College, Goodwill Industries of Atlanta, DeKalb County
Chamber of Commerce, and other organizations to provide educational training,
employment assistance, and substance abuse services to noncustodial fathers.
For more information, contact Lois J. Burns, DeKalb Economic Opportunity
Authority, Inc., 404/929-2500.
Other CBOs offer multiple services on-site to address
family needs more holistically. For
example, the SHIELDS for Families Project in Los Angeles is a community-based,
non-profit organization that provides job training, substance abuse and mental
health treatment, and child abuse and domestic violence services to low-income
mothers and their children in order to address interrelated and
cross-generational barriers simultaneously.
What are some of the barriers CBOs confront in
getting involved with welfare reform? Many
CBOs have proven track records in identifying and addressing the needs of
low-income families, with some organizations having operated since the early
nineteenth century. Nevertheless,
CBOs face several challenges to participating in welfare reform given the
multiple infrastructure needs of their organizations and PRWORA’s strict
requirements. For example, states
must meet comprehensive TANF caseload data collection and reporting
requirements, so the burden often falls on CBOs to collect the information and
submit it to the state or county. Some
CBOs, particularly small service providers do not have the data collection
systems needed to track and report detailed information on each program
participant and some cannot finance information system upgrades. The TANF block grant also gives states more flexibility to
contract with CBOs than under the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program, and this flexibility has increased competition for government funds.
Service providers with greater capacity and other financial resources to
leverage are typically in a better position to win contracts, placing smaller
CBOs at a disadvantage.
Limited staff and service capacity are other factors
inhibiting CBO participation in welfare reform. Staff may be lacking in numbers, knowledge about welfare
reform requirements, and requisite skills to meet the needs of certain
low-income clients. For example,
individuals with more serious barriers to employment may need specialized
counseling and treatment services that cannot adequately be assessed and
addressed by some CBOs, particularly those that rely heavily on lay volunteers
to provide services. In other
cases, CBOs do not have the space or facilities needed to serve additional
clients or provide specialized services for the hard-to-employ.
CBOs may have difficulty providing services to low-income families under welfare reform because of a lack of sustainable funding. To remain effective and able to meet contract obligations, CBOs need access to long-term funding sources, as well as high-quality financial management and accounting systems. Some CBOs find they are less likely to secure grants and contracts if they fail to show funders they already have resources to leverage and match any new funding sources. Funders also often like to see positive program outcomes before renewing a CBO’s contract or awarding it any new funds. This can be problematic, however, for programs that do not experience significant changes in client behavior or employment during the initial period of program implementation.
Program outcomes, whether they are positive or
negative, may not materialize until the program has operated for a few years.
Finally, CBOs that lack a solid understanding of the
political environment and relationships with key players also find it difficult
to participate in welfare reform. CBOs
that are used to working within traditional service provider networks must be
willing to reach out to governments, businesses, and other nontraditional
partners to become familiar with these groups’ agendas as well as identify
opportunities for collaboration.
What are some promising approaches CBOs can consider
implementing to overcome these barriers?
Given
the barriers some CBOs face in participating in welfare reform, they may want to
consider the following options.
What opportunities exist for state and local
policymakers to reduce barriers to CBO participation in welfare reform? State and local governments that offer services to low-income
families through CBOs may want to assess whether their policies inhibit current
and potential contract arrangements. State
and local policymakers may want to consider using these strategies to reduce
barriers to CBO participation.
How can CBOs continue to be involved as welfare reform evolves? As states continue to implement welfare reform and assist low-income working families, there will likely be a steady need for CBO involvement in providing services that promote employee retention and advancement and target hard-to-employ individuals. States are gaining information from pilot programs they have implemented during the past few years and are considering options for spending TANF funds in light of these results and other factors. CBOs will continue to play a key role in delivering substance abuse and mental health treatment, domestic violence services, special needs child care, after-school programs, and long-term support services. Several studies suggest multiple employment barriers affect a considerable portion of both welfare “leavers,” who may still be struggling to make ends meet, and TANF “stayers” who may still be experiencing problems in leaving the welfare rolls. CBOs also have a continued role to play in conducting outreach activities to ensure eligible families receive such employment supports as food stamps, Medicaid, and child care. States that received TANF high performance bonuses and financial awards for reducing out-of-wedlock births may want to consider using the new funds to support community-based service delivery.
States, the federal government, researchers, and
other interested parties are also beginning to look ahead to the congressional
reauthorization of the TANF program in 2002.
Many CBOs and their national affiliates are now developing policy
recommendations for reauthorization. Others
are helping their members organize grassroots lobbying efforts and are tracking
other CBOs’ positions on TANF reauthorization [see the Low-Income Networking
and Communications (LINC) project description under “Innovative Practices”].
Recent White House action will also likely provide
additional opportunities for CBO participation in welfare reform.
In January, President George W. Bush established an Executive Office of
Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI) and parallel branches of this
office in five federal departments—Labor, Education, Health and Human
Services, Justice, and Housing and Urban Development.
OFBCI will “promote a policy of respect for and cooperation with
religious and grassroots groups. It
will identify barriers to such groups in federal rules and practices, propose
regulatory and statutory relief, and coordinate new federal initiatives to
empower and partner with faith-based and community-based problem-solvers.” The president also released policy proposals designed to
increase funding and reduce bureaucratic barriers for FBOs and CBOs.
These proposals seek to allow non-itemizers to deduct charitable
contributions from their federal income tax, expand charitable
choice to include other federal programs, encourage states to create charitable
tax credits, create a capital fund to expand FBO and
CBO service capacity, and offer new competitive grants for specific social
programs. For more information, see
Rallying the Armies of Compassion (January 2001) at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/faithbased.pdf.
Research Findings
Research on CBO involvement in welfare reform tends
to focus on assessing organizational capacity to provide services and the types
of partnerships being formed among CBOs, government, and the private sector.
Launched in 1995, the Annie E. Casey Foundation
Jobs Initiative is an eight-year demonstration project providing funding and
support for community-based initiatives in six cities—Denver, Milwaukee, New
Orleans, Philadelphia, St. Louis, and Seattle. The projects aim to help young, low-income workers find and
advance in meaningful jobs and to identify national employment and training
models. Part of the initiative
involves providing technical assistance to CBOs to help them build
organizational capacity. Following
four years of program planning and implementation, some key lessons for CBOs
include the following.
The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation
Project on Devolution and Urban Change is tracking the implementation of
welfare reform in four large urban counties—Cuyahoga (Cleveland, Ohio), Los
Angeles, Miami-Dade, and Philadelphia—between 1997 and 2001.
The project seeks to understand how state and local welfare agencies,
poor neighborhoods, and low-income families are affected by the changes to the
income support system in response to PRWORA.
It includes an institutional study examining how new policies and funding
mechanisms are affecting nonprofit organizations.
Its most recent report includes early findings on welfare reform’s
impact on CBO involvement at the sites. For
example, in Miami-Dade, the new local WAGES Coalition’s performance-based
contracts posed difficulties for smaller nonprofit service providers who could
not maintain operations under the more demanding contract terms.
Welfare reform in Los Angeles saw the emergence of CBOs to provide
domestic violence and counseling services and substance abuse and mental health
treatment, as well as their rise to become potentially important players in the
policymaking process (Quint et al., April 1999).
Results from the institutional study are expected in March 2001.
Researchers with Indiana University examined
the impact of welfare reform on the receipt of social services from FBOs using
data from Indiana’s welfare reform evaluation.
They also analyzed cross-sectional data from Indiana social service
agencies; cases from faith-based and non-faith-based organizations were matched
to compare how these two types of organizations were serving welfare recipients.
Recipients seeking assistance from FBOs were more likely to be
disadvantaged than those seeking services from CBOs—23 percent of FBO clients
were sanctioned cases and 35 percent were individuals with disabilities.
FBOs were also slightly less likely (29.1 percent) than non-FBOs (34
percent) to provide employment and educational services.
However, the study’s authors suggest this discrepancy could be because
FBOs receive less public financial support than non-FBOs (Reingold et al.,
October 2000).
Innovative
Practices
The Annie E. Casey Foundation also just
launched a multi-year demonstration, Making Connections, in 22 cities
across the United States. The
project aims to stimulate and support a local movement that engages residents,
civic groups, political leaders, grassroots groups, public and private sector
leaders, and FBOs in efforts to transform disadvantaged neighborhoods into
family-supportive environments. The
project will focus on connecting low-income families to local labor markets,
social networks, and services and supports to strengthen child and family
well-being. It will also help sites
improve their capacity to gather and use data to measure the effectiveness of
their strategies and to advocate for community change.
Initial program findings are expected in the next few years.
For more information on Making Connections, visit http://www.aecf.org/.
California:
The Neighborhood CIRCLES (Comprehensive, Integrated
Resources for CalWORKS Limited-English Speakers) program in Oakland is an
intensive welfare-to-work program for limited- English-speaking, culturally
isolated welfare recipients. Five
culturally-based organizations work with several resource agencies with ties to
jobs, employment training, transportation, and child care resources to address
the needs of different cultural groups within the community.
It is also implementing a work experience component to ease the
transition of some clients into the American workforce.
CIRCLES grew out of a year-long collaborative planning process involving
35 CBOs and nearly 100 neighborhood welfare recipients from seven different
language groups. Some of the
partners include the East Bay Asian Local Development Corporation, Spanish
Speaking Unity Council, Peralta Services Corporation, Laney College, Merritt
College, Asian Community Mental Health Services, Alameda County Transit, and La
Clinica de la Raza. Contact: Ruben
Briones, Spanish Speaking Unity Council, 510/535-6932 or Helen Shor, East Bay
Asian Local Development Corporation, 510/535-7173.
Louisiana and Pennsylvania:
The
Annie E. Casey Foundation Jobs Initiative sites in New Orleans, Louisiana, and
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, involve CBOs in efforts to secure for their clients
jobs with advancement opportunities and benefits.
In New Orleans, employee referrals come from three community-based
organizations—Citywide Tenants Group, an association of public housing
tenants, and two faith-based coalitions, All Congregations Together and the
Jeremiah Group—that identify and recruit participants from two public housing
complexes. Program planners also
brought together community-based organizations, public housing residents,
businesses, and other stakeholders to devise a soft-skills training component of
the job-readiness program. In
Philadelphia, a similar effort uses CBOs with community connections to raise
program funds and conduct program outreach and recruitment.
For example, Philadelphia Interfaith Action, a coalition of more than 40
congregations, led an advocacy campaign to secure initial state job training
grants and then additional funding from the state legislature.
(For more information on the initiatives, see Gibson, 2000.)
Contact for New Orleans: Darryl Burrows, Metropolitan Area Committee,
504/529-2600. Contact for
Philadelphia: Margaret Berger-Bradley, Delaware Valley Community Reinvestment
Fund, 215/925-1130.
Nebraska:
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services
uses TANF funds to contract with the Urban League of Greater Omaha to provide
holistic case management services to 400 of its inner-city welfare-to-work
clients. The Urban League’s
Network for Holistic Recovery program provides counseling; substance abuse and
mental health referral and monitoring services; family functioning assessments;
educational, career, and vocational testing; and other services. Street outreach and home visiting are used to encourage
program participation and serve individuals in non-threatening environments.
The program has also developed strong relationships with several
specialized service providers to address issues such as substance abuse and
domestic violence. Contact: Thelma Simms, Director, Employment First
Program, Urban League of Greater Omaha, 402/451-1066.
New York: The Welfare Law Center’s Low Income Networking and Communications (LINC) project assists grassroots coalitions of current and former welfare recipients to communicate their social program improvement agendas to the public and one another via the Internet. LINC provides technical assistance to low-income organizing communities, including an introductory course on the Internet and online organizing; a moderated listserv with more than 150 advocacy organizations participating in such discussions as “how to use the media in an advocacy campaign”; and a web site (http://www.lincproject.org/) that houses different organizations’ developments, newsletters, and publications. LINC published an online “Organizer’s Toolkit” as well as launched a web site on welfare reform reauthorization that tracks the reauthorization-related activities of welfare advocacy organizations across the nation. Contact: Gina Mannix, Project Director, LINC, 212/633-6967.
Ohio:
The Ohio Department of Job
and Family Services administers the Prevention, Retention, and Contingency (PRC)
program. The program provides
nearly $700 million in TANF grants to all 88 counties to fund benefits and
services for families with incomes at or below 200 percent of the poverty level;
the benefits and services are not considered “assistance.”
The state developed a PRC model with program eligibility criteria, though
counties may develop their own eligibility plan for PRC clients if they so
choose. PRC enables counties to
design services to best meet the needs of their local communities.
Some of the services counties are providing under PRC include work
subsidies, supportive services, refundable earned income tax credits,
contributions to individual development accounts, counseling and case
management, and transportation benefits. Most
counties subcontract with CBOs and FBOs to provide services.
Contact: Stan Sells, Ohio Department of Job and Family Services,
614/466-6282.
Texas:
For fiscal 2000 and fiscal 2001, the Texas Department
of Human Services awarded $7.5 million in TANF funds to 26 CBOs and FBOs to
serve, on a cost-reimbursement basis, TANF recipients and individuals at risk of
joining the welfare rolls. These
Local Innovation Projects provide non-residential domestic violence services,
substance abuse counseling, vehicle repair, clothing or uniforms needed for
work, telephone utility deposits, relocation assistance, emergency housing
needs, adult literacy and English-as-a-Second-Language classes, and services to
youth in low-income families to encourage them to finish school, avoid
pregnancy, and/or become employed. The
University of Texas School of Social Work will conduct program evaluations of
the 26 contracts. Contact: Bo
Platt, Texas Department of Human Services, 512/438-3450.
For More
Information…
RESOURCE CONTACTS
The Finance Project, 202/628-4200 or visit http://www.financeproject.org/
Annie E. Casey Foundation, or visit http://www.aecf.org/
Center for Community Change, Rich Stolz, 202/342-0567
or visit http://www.communitychange.org/
Coalition on Human Needs, Carrie Kilman, 202/223-2532
or visit http://www.chn.org/
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, 202/785-2908
or visit http://www.liscnet.org/
National Association of Community Action Agencies,
Judy Mason, 202/265-7546 or visit http://www.nacaa.org/
National Association for State Community Service
Programs, Julie Jakopic, 202/624-5850 or visit http://www.nascsp.org/
National Congress for Community Economic Development,
Carol Wayman, 202/289-9020 or visit http://www.ncced.org/
National League of Cities, Institute for Youth,
Education, and Families, Cliff Johnson, 202/626-3000 or visit http://www.nlc.org/IYEF.htm
PUBLICATIONS
Cates, Sharon. Financing Broad-Based Community
Collaboratives. Washington, D.C.: Welfare Information Network, September
1998. Available at http://www.welfareinfo.org/communitycollabs.htm.
Flynn, Margaret. Using TANF to Finance
Out-of-School Time and Community School Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: The
Finance Project, October 1999. Available at http://www.financeproject.org/Brief2.pdf.
Gibson, Cynthia M. Stronger Links: New Ways to
Connect Low-Skilled Workers to Better Jobs. Baltimore, Md.: Annie E. Casey Foundation Jobs Initiative,
2000. Available at http://www.aecf.org/jobsinitiative/strongerlinks.pdf.
Plastrik, Peter, and Judith Combes Taylor. Responding
to a Changing Labor Market: The Challenges for Community-Based Organizations.
Boston, Mass.: Jobs for the Future, January 2001. Available at http://www.aecf.org/jobsinitiative/responding_cbo.pdf.
Quint, Janet, Kathryn Edin, Maria L. Buck, Barbara
Fink, Yolanda C. Padilla, Olis Simmons-Hewitt, and Mary Eustace Valmont. Big
Cities and Welfare Reform: Early Implementation and Ethnographic Findings from
the Project on Devolution and Urban Change. New York, N.Y.: Manpower
Demonstration Research Corporation, April 1999. Available at http://www.mdrc.org/Reports99/UrbanChange/UrbanChange.PDF.
Reingold, David A., Maureen Pirog, and David Brady. Empirical
Evidence on Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations. Bloomington, Ind.:
Indiana University, October 2000. To order, contact mailto:dreingol@indiana.edu.
Roberts, Brandon and Jeffrey D. Padden.
“Community-Based Welfare-to-Work Initiatives.” In Welfare to Wages:
Strategies to Assist the Private Sector to Employ Welfare Recipients, Volume
II. Flint, Mich.: Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, August 1998. Available
at http://www.mott.org/publications/welcomm.pdf.
Rossomando, Christina. Community Action and
Welfare Reform: How CSBG Agencies in Two States Help Disadvantaged Families Move
from Welfare to Work. Washington, D.C.: National Association for State
Community Services Programs, 1998. Available at http://www.nascsp.org/Downloads/welfare.pdf.
Weiss, Marcus and Kevin Kelly. Building Partnerships Between State TANF Initiatives and CDCs: A Guidebook for Practitioners and State Officials, Washington, D.C.: National Congress for Community Economic Development, 1999. To order, contact 202/289-9020.