North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant study : promising strategies to obtain and retain employment

              North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 1
by
Elizabeth C. Weigensberg
Jennie Vaughn
Ally Donlan
D.F. Duncan, Principal Investigator
Jordan Institute for Families
August 2008
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Promising Strategies to Obtain and Retain Employment
2 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Table of Contents
Executive Summary........................................................................................................3
Introduction...................................................................................................................4
Study Description ..........................................................................................................6
Implementation..............................................................................................................8
Work First Participants............................................................................................... 10
Promising Strategies.................................................................................................... 12
Outcomes...................................................................................................................... 27
Continuation of Strategies ......................................................................................... 35
County Recommendations ........................................................................................ 36
Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 39
Appendix....................................................................................................................... 41
References..................................................................................................................... 42
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 3
Executive Summary
Since it began in 2006, the North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant (WFDG)
has enabled 53 counties across the state to implement innovative strategies to assist
Work First participants with obtaining and retaining employment. The objectives of this
study were to describe the WFDG county initiatives and to identify those strategies that
show promise toward promoting employment for Work First participants. A variety of
data was collected to evaluate and identify promising WFDG strategies, including inter-views
with state officials, a content analysis of all WFDG county proposals, a Web sur-vey
of all 53 WFDG counties, site visits and telephone interviews with WFDG officials,
and an analysis of county participant rates. Many of the county WFDG efforts have been
identified as promising strategies, meaning they were new or expanded initiatives that
addressed barriers to employment, achieved positive outcomes, viewed as promising by
those who implemented the efforts, and evaluated as having the potential to be repli-cated
by other counties or statewide. This study identified 20 specific promising strate-gies,
which are organized into the following 12 categories: job preparation, job search,
providing up front services, transportation assistance, participant incentives, case
management, assessments, serving hard-to-serve populations, swift sanctions, Pay After
Performance, collaboration with government agencies and community partners, and
working with employers. The WFDG strategies have contributed to positive outcomes
for Work First, including increasing participation rates, finding alternative sources of
financial support, improving participants’ self-esteem and motivation, as well as build-ing
relationships with community partners and employers. However, county WFDG
officials have noted that some of these promising strategies may not be sustained when
the WFDG funding ends. In addition, after county WFDG officials had reflected on
their experiences and challenges, they provided recommendations for changes to policy
and practice that would help them to better serve Work First families.
4 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Introduction
North Carolina’s Work First program was established by executive order in 1995 to serve
as the state’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. The Work
First Program is administered by the North Carolina Department of Health and Human
Services, Division of Social Services (NC-DSS). The underlying principle of Work First is
that parents have a basic responsibility to support themselves and their children (NC-DSS,
2007). The goals of Work First go beyond simply moving families off the rolls and include
a broad focus on job retention and child and family enrichment services. Work First
incorporates the following three strategies to move families toward self-sufficiency: (1)
diversion—providing one-time cash assistance for unexpected emergencies; (2) work—
requiring participation in work-related activities (including training and job-readiness
activities); and (3) retention—providing supportive services once participants obtain
employment. County departments of social services are required to provide these services
to families whose incomes are at or below 200% of the federal poverty level and who meet
the eligibility criteria. Families are limited to 24 cumulative months of Work First assis-tance
in North Carolina if they are receiving employment services. The number of welfare
cases in North Carolina has significantly decreased in the period since Work First was
implemented. In June 1995, the state welfare caseload was 127,402; as of April 2008, the
Work First statewide caseload was approximately 26,444 (Duncan, Kum, Flair, & Lanier,
2008).
To promote individual responsibility and hold state TANF programs accountable, the Per-sonal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 created mandato-ry
work requirements for individuals and set minimum work participation rates for states
(U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2007). The participation rates represent
the percentage of eligible Work First cases that complete work-related requirements each
month. Participation rates are assessed with two measures: (1) the “all family” participa-tion
rate, which includes both single-parent and two-parent households; and (2) the “two
parent” participation rate, which consists of families with two parents living in the home
who are able to work. The minimum federal standard for the all family participation rate
is set at 50% of the caseload, whereas the minimum standard for the two parent participa-tion
rate is set at 90% of the caseload. According to NC-DSS officials, North Carolina had
consistently met federal participation rate standards with the assistance of caseload reduc-tion
credits, which allowed states a percentage credit toward participation rates that was
based on the state’s caseload reduction since 1995. However, the TANF reauthorization,
which was part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, changed the base year for estimating
caseload reduction credits from 1995 to 2005; this change reduced the percentage credits
and contributed to a decline in North Carolina’s participation rates.
With the state struggling to meet the federal standards for participation rates, the North
Carolina General Assembly allocated $19,048,322 of TANF funds in the form of Work
First Demonstration Grants (WFDG) to counties. The goal of the WFDG was to identify
promising strategies that would improve work participation rates. These funds provided
counties with the opportunity to try creative, innovative approaches to increase their
participation rates. Previously, such approaches may not have been possible given the
policies that regulate Work First funding. To receive WFDG funding, counties submitted
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 5
proposals describing their innovative strategies to NC-DSS. If the proposal was approved,
each county was eligible to receive WFDG funds for up to three years. In the first year of
the WFDG, during state fiscal year (SFY) 2007, 36 counties participated in demonstra-tion
projects. Grants ranged from $15,600 to $500,000. A total of $5,691,175 was allocated
for the demonstration projects. In the second year of the WFDG project, SFY 2008, there
were 52 participating counties, of which 35 counties continued efforts begun in the first
year of the WFDG and 17 counties were new to the WFDG. Only one county from the
first grant cycle chose not to participate after its first year in the program. Please see the
Appendix for a complete listing of WFDG counties. During the second year of the WFDG
(SFY 2008), $6,331,336 in grants was awarded and ranged from $6,335 to $500,000. Be-cause
many counties did not start their WFDG efforts until the second year of the pro-gram
and counties are eligible for up to three years of funding, the state legislature allowed
the WFDG to include two more funding cycles—SFY 2009 and SFY 2010—which was
an extension of the original WFDG proposal and increased the total time for the WFDG
program from 3 years to 4 years.
6 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Study Description
This study was requested by NC-DSS to evaluate innovative county efforts that have been
implemented as part of the WFDG to help Work First participants achieve and maintain
employment. The WFDG study had the following two objectives:
Describe the county initiatives im 1. plemented as part of the WFDG.
2. Identify promising strategies that assist Work First participants in obtaining and
maintaining employment.
In addition to describing the range of WFDG strategies and highlighting the most promis-ing
strategies, this study provides a context for understanding counties’ experiences with
their WFDG efforts. To accurately describe the various WFDG strategies, we gathered
information about the implementation of these strategies as well as the populations of
Work First participants these strategies targeted. In addition, to identifying promising
strategies, we obtained Work First outcomes, which included participation rates, informa-tion
on the diversion of Work First applicants, and percentages of first-time Work First
applicants. Furthermore, because the WFDG provides time-limited funding for county
demonstration projects, county officials were asked to describe their plans for sustaining
the strategies after the funding ends. Last, county workers were asked for their suggestions
regarding additional support that could be provided by NC-DSS and their recommenda-tions
for changes to policy and practice that would help them to better serve Work First
participants.
Data collection and analysis efforts for the study began in July 2007 and lasted through
May 2008. A variety of data sources were used to gather information for this study.
▶▶ Two interviews were conducted with NC-DSS officials, including state and regional
staff who worked with counties involved with the WFDG. A total of 15 NC-DSS
staff participated in these information-gathering interviews, which led to a better
understanding of the administration of the WFDG.
▶▶ A content analysis was conducted of the 95 proposals that counties submitted to
NC-DSS to apply for the WFDG in SFY 2007 and SFY 2008.
▶▶ A Web-based survey was administered to all 53 WFDG counties during Febru-ary
and March 2008. The survey was distributed via e-mail to the primary WFDG
contact for each county. All 53 counties responded to the survey, yielding a survey
response rate of 100%. The survey contained 20 items that asked about the county’s
experience with its WFDG strategies, including implementation, Work First popu-lations
served, and outcomes.
▶▶ In-depth site visits and telephone interviews were conducted from January 2008
through April 2008 with a selected group of 17 counties, which represented 32%
of all WFDG counties. The counties were selected to represent a range of diverse
characteristics, including size, location, urban/rural, type of WFDG strategies, par-ticipation
rates, and when they started the WFDG1. Over the course of 10 site visit
interviews and 7 telephone interviews, 83 participants were interviewed, including
county staff and community partners that were involved with the WFDG strategies.
1The following 17 counties participated in site visits and telephone interviews: Alamance, Anson, Buncombe,
Catawba, Cleveland, Cumberland, Forsyth, Haywood, Henderson, New Hanover, Northampton, Orange,
Person, Richmond, Robeson, Wake, and Wilson.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 7
▶▶ Both the all family and two parent Work First participation rates were analyzed
for the WFDG counties. Statistics were obtained regarding the average participa-tion
rates before and during the WFDG as well as the number of counties meeting
federal requirements.
Criteria were established to help identify promising strategies. Strategies that are de-scribed
as “promising” have met the following criteria:
1. Address at least one barrier or challenge related to obtaining and retaining
employment
2. Represent a new, expanded, or enhanced initiative for the demonstration county
3. Are identified as promising by the county implementing the strategy
4. Show positive results or the potential for positive results in regard to improving
participation rates or achieving other positive outcomes for Work First
participants
5. Have the potential for replication in other counties
Applying these criteria ensured sufficient evidence was available to support a claim that a
strategy was promising. Evidence was obtained from all the data collection efforts, includ-ing
the Web survey, the site visit and telephone interviews, as well as the analysis of the
participation rates. Even though in some instances there has been insufficient time to fully
assess the outcome of a strategy, we considered all available information including pre-liminary
results or anecdotal evidence that might indicate the potential outcome.
8 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Implementation
The proposed WFDG strategies involved creating new programs or enhancing existing
ones, so services typically could not begin immediately after counties were notified by
NC-DSS that their proposals were approved. A majority of counties experienced some
lag time between the date of approval and full implementation of their WFDG strategies.
Based on data from the Web survey, 8% of counties fully implemented their WFDG strat-egies
within one month of approval, whereas 17% of counties needed one to two months,
21% needed three to four months, 32% required five to six months, and 9% of counties
reported that they needed more than six months to fully implement their WFDG strate-gies.
In addition, 13% of counties reported that at the time of the survey, in February 2008,
their strategies were not fully implemented.
Although a few counties did not encounter barriers to implementation, a majority of
counties faced challenges that contributed to a delay. Among the range of challenges, the
most frequently encountered obstacle was negotiating contracts with providers. Ad-ditional
barriers included hiring new staff, changes in demographics or needs of Work
First participants, changes with collaborative partners, insufficient funds, and revised
budgets. Other reported barriers included lack of participant cooperation and motivation,
grant amendments, delays within other county agencies, regulation restraints of partner
agencies, logistics, and time required for developing marketing strategies. Percentages of
counties reporting each type of implementation barrier are depicted in Figure 1, which is
based on the responses of the 47 counties that replied to this question on the survey.
Figure 1
Percentage of counties (n=47) reporting WFDG implementation barriers
34%
47%
28%
11%
17%
38%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Hiring􀀃􀍮new􀀃􀍳
staff
Contracts􀀃􀍷with􀀃􀍰
providers
Change􀀃􀍩in􀀃􀍤
demographics􀀃􀌯
/􀀃􀍮needs􀀃􀍯of􀀃􀍗
Work􀀃􀍆First􀀃􀍰
participants
Change􀀃􀍷with􀀃􀍣
collaborative􀀃􀍰
partners
Insufficient􀀃􀍦
funds􀀃􀌯/􀀃􀍲revised􀀃􀍢
budget
Other
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 9
Counties used several approaches to address these implementation barriers. A common
strategy was to seek outside resources and assistance from community partners. Alamance
County, for example, consulted with current community partners to identify service
providers for their WFDG strategies. Some counties reported using a temporary staffing
agency to provide additional staff, and other counties contracted with child care providers
to create additional day care services for participants. Several counties mentioned the ef-fectiveness
of increased communication, both within the agency and in their relationships
with outside contractors. Flexibility was also an important factor to successfully overcome
implementation challenges. For example, the staff of Orange County Work First took on
additional responsibilities, such as driving participants to their Work Enrichment classes,
until new staff could be hired. A survey respondent from another county described how
the staff overcame obstacles by reallocating resources and maintaining frequent, regular
communication with vendors and contracted service providers. Despite the many chal-lenges
and delays, most counties were able to successfully implement their WFDG strate-gies
within several months of receiving WFDG award notification.
10 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Work First Participants
The Work First populations of each of the 53 WFDG counties varied considerably in
terms of numbers and participants’ characteristics and needs. In April 2008, the Work
First caseload sizes of WFDG counties ranged from as few as 43 to as many as 2,875 cases,
with an average of 379 Work First cases, which included child-only cases (Duncan et al.,
2008). The counties selected for in-depth interviews reported average Work First casel-oads
ranging from 12 to 55 cases per worker, which often included cash assistance and
child-only cases. Moreover, the number of first-time participants (i.e., those who have not
previously been Work First participants) in a county’s Work First population also varied
widely. In some counties only a small number of participants were new to the Work First
program, whereas other counties, such as Orange County, reported that up to 95% of their
Work First caseload were first-time participants.
Counties also reported varying types of Work First participants who faced different bar-riers
to employment. In particular, the number of incapacitated participants, classified
as “F” codes, varied greatly by county. For instance, some counties reported very few
incapacitated participants, whereas other counties, such as Catawba County, reported
nearly half of their caseload included incapacitated participants. However, not all those
categorized as incapacitated participants are completely unable to work. Counties re-ported
that they have found or expect to find varying percentages of their incapacitated
participants ineligible to work after an evaluation. Many counties used functional capacity
assessments, often supported with WFDG funds, to evaluate the strengths and needs of
these participants. Of the 48 counties that answered this question on the Web survey, 11
counties (23%) reported that greater than 25% of their incapacitated participants would
be found ineligible to work after an evaluation, as compared to 31 counties (65%) coun-ties
reported that evaluations would indicate that only 10% or fewer of their incapacitated
participants would be found ineligible to work. Counties also varied in the extent to which
their Work First families faced other barriers to employment, including substance abuse,
mental health issues, and family violence.
Counties tailored their WFDG strategies to meet the needs of the Work First families
in their caseloads. Although the majority of these strategies were designed to impact all
Work First participants, a number of counties reported that their strategies targeted a sub-group
of participants with particular barriers to employment, such as lack of transporta-tion,
low educational attainment, or a criminal record. Figure 2 illustrates the percentage
of the 53 counties that used WFDG strategies targeted to particular subgroups.
Counties also have served or expect to serve different numbers of participants, depend-ing
on the county’s size and selected strategies. According to the Web survey, the number
of participants expected to be served by the WFDG funded strategies ranged from one to
more than 1,000 participants. On average, each WFDG strategy was expected to serve ap-proximately
63 participants. Nearly half of the 17 counties interviewed reported they were
meeting their expectations for the number of participants they intended to serve with
their WFDG strategies.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 11
Figure 2
Percentage of counties (n=53) with WFDG strategies targeting subpopulations of Work
First participants
60%
38%
30%
30%
28%
19%
17%
13%
9%
9%
6%
6%
6%
2%
2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
All􀀃􀍰participants
Incapacitated/F􀍲􇉣codes
Applicants
Hardest􀀃􀍴to􀀃􀍳serve
Transportation􀀃􀍢barriers
New􀀃􀍰participants
Unskilled/no􀀃􀍤diploma/GED
Employed􀀃􀍰participants
Child􀀃􀍣care􀀃􀍢barriers
Mental􀀃􀍨health􀀃􀍢barriers
Substance􀀃􀍁Abuse􀀃􀍢barriers
Prior􀀃􀍣criminal􀀃􀍢backgrounds
Other
Domestic􀀃􀍖Violence􀀃􀍢barriers
Non􀍲􇉣custodial􀀃􀍰parents
12 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Promising Strategies
WFDG strategies were identified as promising based on meeting five criteria: (1) addressing
at least one major barrier in obtaining and keeping a job; (2) creating a new or expanding an
existing program for a county; (3) demonstrating positive results or showing the potential
for positive results; (4) being endorsed as promising by counties practicing the strategy; and
(5) exhibiting potential for replication in other localities. Based on these criteria, project staff
identified 20 promising strategies, which are organized into 12 categories: job preparation,
job search, providing up front services, transportation assistance, participant incentives, case
management, assessments, serving hard-to-serve populations, swift sanctions, Pay After Per-formance,
collaboration with government agencies and community partners, and working
with employers. In this section, we provided a description of each promising strategy along
with examples from counties that have implemented the strategy.
As part of the analysis to determine which WFDG strategies were promising, it was important
to include the opinions of county Work First workers regarding the strategies they would iden-tify
as most promising based on their experience. Therefore, as part of the Web survey sent to
all WFDG counties, each respondent was asked to name up to three WFDG strategies he or
she thought were the most promising. Respondents were asked to consider only those strategies
implemented in their county. Figure 3 depicts the percentage of the 53 WFDG counties that
identified each type of strategy as one of their three most promising strategies. All of the strategies
recommended by the counties are included among the promising strategies identified in this sec-tion,
except for the strategy of hiring new staff. Because hiring new staff was often incorporated
in the implementation of other strategies, we chose not to present it as a separate strategy.
Figure 3
Percentage of WFDG counties (n=53) identifying each type of strategy as one of their
three most promising strategies
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 13
Using the recommendations of county WFDG staff in conjunction with the criteria devel-oped
by project staff for identifying promising strategies, we found the following WFDG
strategies to be the most promising.
Job Preparation
According to the Web survey, 31 counties implemented some type of job preparation
strategy as part of the WFDG. Job preparation activities help participants acquire and
develop readiness skills needed to obtain and retain employment as well as provide
participants with opportunities for learning professional skills though job training
experiences. These activities includes job readiness classes, mentoring and job coach-ing
programs, and experiential activities such as community service, work experience,
and on-the-job training. Job preparation strategies were identified by 51% of counties
as one of the most promising types of strategy to help Work First participants find
employment.
Job readiness classes
Based on the review of the WFDG county proposals, 16 counties have implemented
job readiness classes as part of their WFDG efforts. Job readiness classes demonstrate
general workplace expectations and teach Work First participants the skills required
to achieve success in the workplace. Such skills include time management, profession-al
appearance, and conflict resolution. Job readiness classes are typically held on-site
at the local Work First office or on the campus of a community college. Some counties
combine their job readiness classes with supervised job search efforts. Frequently, job
readiness classes conclude with a graduation or celebration during which the partici-pants
receive recognition for their accomplishments and certificates of achievement.
Prior to the WFDG, many counties offered job readiness classes; however, the WFDG
provided an opportunity to expand and enhance these classes by using creative,
innovative approaches. Counties that implemented job readiness classes under the
WFDG have achieved positive outcomes, including increased participation rates and
improved job retention.
Promising County Example
Using WFDG funds, Orange County expanded its existing job readiness class from 2 weeks to 12 weeks
in length. Classes are conducted six and a half hours a day, Monday through Friday, in a newly furnished
classroom with 20 state-of-the-art computers. Participants are provided with lunch and transportation to
and from class. The focus of the first 4 weeks is exclusively on overcoming participants’ barriers to suc-cessful
employment. Community experts and service providers are frequently brought into the classroom
to give presentations on topics such as childcare, domestic violence, mental health, nutrition, and self-care.
In addition, the curriculum includes classes on human resource development taught by an instructor from
nearby Durham Technical Community College. Class content includes computer skills, money management,
finding a job that matches skills and interests, interviewing tips, and customer service skills. Job readiness
classes are combined with two weeks of work experience, in which a participant is placed with an employ-er
to obtain experience in the workplace. In recognition of their efforts and to enhance motivation, class
participants receive gift cards and other incentives when they reach milestones and meet personal goals.
(continued on next page)
14 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
On-the-job training
Some counties found they had participants who were ready to work but lacked em-ployment
experience or specialized job skills. To serve these Work First participants,
counties partnered with employment agencies and local businesses to provide on-the-
job training for Work First participants. Employers involved with these programs
agreed to hire participants for a specified period—ranging from six weeks to six
months—and to provide participants with job-specific knowledge and skills training.
In return, Work First reimburses the employer for wages and other training costs,
and employers are also eligible for federal tax exemptions. At the end of the training
period, the employers are asked to permanently hire successful participants. Coun-ties
used funds provided through the WFDG to create or expand on-the-job training
programs. WFDG funds were used to pay training expenses for workers and, in some
cases, salaries for job developers. County Work First officials supported on-the-job
training programs as promising because the programs benefit both parties. The par-ticipant
gets a job, learns new skills, and gains experience and confidence, while the
employer gets a low-cost employee and a potential permanent hire.
A social worker comes on-site to provide participants with needed support services, such as providing
transportation to court or doctor’s appointments. This high level of support is matched by high expecta-tions.
Participants are required to dress professionally when attending class and to conduct themselves as
if they were on the job. Participants are also treated with the utmost respect and considered temporary
employees by Work First program staff. Program outcomes have exceeded expectations. Although the Or-ange
County program set a goal of placing 70 participants in jobs within the first year, during the first five
months of SFY 2008, the Orange County successfully placed 103 participants into jobs.
Promising County Example
Cleveland County partnered with a local home health agency to train participants as in-home health aides.
Cleveland County focused on the healthcare field because jobs in this sector typically pay better than jobs
in the retail and fast-food industries and there is a high demand for these employees. Participants are hired
for a three-month training period during which they receive training and supervision in addition to assis-tance
with meeting the requirements to become a certified nursing assistant (CNA). Work First pays the
local home health agency a specified rate for each hour the participant works, and pays a one-time hire fee
if the agency hires the participant at the end of his or her training period. A total of nine participants were
hired in the program’s first year. Cleveland County DSS had an established relationship with this home
health agency as a provider of home health services to Adult Services clients, but the WFDG funds allowed
them to establish an on-the-job training program. Cleveland County Work First officials believe this long-standing
relationship has been an important contributor to the success of the on-the-job training program.
(continued from previous page)
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 15
Job Search
According to the Web survey, 26 counties, nearly half of all WFDG counties, imple-mented
an effort toward improving or promoting job search activities for Work First
participants. Job search activities include developing a resume; conducting a job
search using job listings in newspapers, at unemployment offices, and on the Internet;
completing job applications; and preparing and practicing job interviews. Participants
may complete these activities independently or as part of a formal job search group,
but all activities must be documented daily and verified by Work First staff.
Supervised job search computer labs
Because many job search activities require the use of computers and access to the Inter-net,
seven county Work First offices chose to expand, upgrade, or create on-site com-puter
labs for Work First participants. WFDG funding was used to purchase computers,
software, Internet connections, and furniture. The computer labs are supervised either
by Work First staff or by contracted employees from the Employment Security Commis-sion
(ESC) or other community organizations to comply with the Deficit Reduction Act
of 2005, which mandates that all job search activities be supervised. The computer labs
are primarily used for job search activities, including developing resumes, searching em-ployment
Web sites, and submitting on-line job applications. However, some counties,
such as Person County, have expanded the use the computer labs to assist participants in
obtaining a GED through on-line programs with the local community college. County
Work First officials have consistently reported positive participant outcomes associated
with access to the computer labs, and have specifically noting increased numbers of
people participating in supervised job search activities and improved success with par-ticipants
finding employment. In addition, locating computer labs at Work First offices
appears to be a critical part of this promising strategy because the central location allows
Work First participants to access multiple services during a single trip and allows social
workers to provide services in a timely and efficient manner.
Promising County Example
Forsyth County used WFDG funds to open an eight-station computer lab on-site in the Work First offices,
where Work First applicants can access the Internet to search and apply for jobs. The lab is open seven
hours every weekday and is staffed by three ESC employees whose salaries are paid with WFDG funds.
ESC provides job search software, general resource materials, and gives Work First participants access to
job leads. Demand for the computer lab has been so high that participants had to be divided into morning
and afternoon shifts, and an additional six workstations have been added to supplement those bought with
WFDG funds. The lab has been highly successful. In its first year, 165 of the lab’s 550 users (30%) found
full-time, unsubsidized employment. Many people have found employment before even being approved for
Work First benefits. According to Forsyth County officials, the main reason the computer lab has been
successful is because participants have used the lab. Before the on-site Work First computer lab was built,
Work First participants were referred to a local sheltered workshop to do job search activities; however,
only half of the participants ever followed through and used the off-site computer facility. The physical
layout of the computer lab has also contributed to its success. Participants can either choose to work
independently at computer stations and receive individual instruction or to work with one another to help
each other and share successes, which fosters camaraderie and a sense of purpose.
16 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Providing Up front Services
The processing of a Work First application for approval takes between two and six
weeks. During this application period, regular Work First funds generally are not used
to provide services to applicants. To prevent applicants from losing their momentum
and motivation during this time, counties used WFDG funding to offer up front
services, such as job readiness programs, human resource development classes, job
search services, transportation vouchers, and childcare assistance.
Transportation
Transportation strategies were the most frequently used WFDG strategy. According
to the survey, lack of transportation is one of the most common barriers for obtaining
and maintaining employment, and 33 counties (62%) implemented a form of trans-portation
strategy as part of their WFDG proposal.
Van and driver programs
According to the review of county proposals, 17 of the 53 counties used WFDG funds
to create or expand a van and driver program. For some counties, this meant purchas-ing
a van, whereas, other counties took advantage of existing services and contracted
with a local transportation provider. Some county programs included hiring drivers to
provide participants with transportation to job readiness classes, job interviews, and
other work-related activities. In some cases, Work First participants were hired as the
drivers. These van and driver programs have led to numerous positive outcomes, such
as helping participants keep appointments and find and retain employment.
Promising County Example
The Work First program in Haywood County, a large rural county west of Asheville, provides services
immediately upon application. Applicants are invited to join Work First participants at the local JobLink
center, where they can take job readiness classes and complete supervised job searches. In addition, ap-plicants
can earn community service hours by working at the on-site thrift shop, or can receive group or
individual mentoring offered by a local faith-based agency. An on-site daycare center provides free childcare
to parents who are receiving Work First services.
Promising County Examples
Because of limited Work First funding, officials in rural Northampton County used WFDG funds to extend
transportation van service that is outsourced through a contract with Choanoke Public Transportation Au-thority
for the exclusive use of two vans—one to cover each half of this sprawling county, which can span
up to 40 miles. The vans are used to transport Work First participants to job readiness classes, job search
activities, and appointments with social workers. This van service is crucial because Northampton County
lacks major retailers and many services, and, therefore, residents typically have to travel outside the county
for most jobs and support services.
Wake County used WFDG funds to purchase a van for its newly expanded Job Search Club as well as to
pay a Work First participant to drive.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 17
Transportation vouchers and reimbursements
According to the WFDG county proposals, 10 counties offer transportation vouchers
(for public buses or private van or taxi service) or offer mileage reimbursements to
enable participants to travel to a job or other countable activity. Many counties offered
a modest mileage reimbursement before the WFDG, but the WFDG funds allowed
counties to increase the reimbursement rate.
Vehicle purchase programs
According to the review of proposals, six counties used WFDG funds for vehicle
purchase programs. Work First officials with these counties reported that vehicle
purchase programs help participants overcome transportation barriers and enable
participants to obtain and retain employment, as well as to gain independence and
a higher quality of life. Counties varied in the specific requirements of the vehicle
purchase programs. However, each program offered financial assistance to partici-pants,
ranging from $2,500 to $4,500, to help with the purchase of a vehicle. Some
programs required the participant to contribute $500 of their own money, while oth-ers
did not require participants to provide their own money as a co-payment. Several
programs included an educational element, such as including financial counseling
and car maintenance instruction. In addition, these programs differed in the extent
to which they helped participants select a vehicle. Some programs required that a
county Work First staff member accompany the participant to the dealership to assist
the participant with selecting a vehicle, whereas other programs expected the par-ticipant
to select the vehicle independently. Several of the vehicle purchase programs
have partnered with car dealerships and local mechanics to help identify reasonable
and reliable vehicles as well as inspect the vehicles before purchase. Some programs
even provide 3 to 6 months of liability insurance for participants to assist with the
costs of owning a vehicle. Vehicle purchase programs are promising for all counties
facing transportation barriers; however, vehicle purchase programs are particularly
beneficial for counties that have limited or no public transportation service, which
prohibits participants from finding employment.
Promising County Example
Before receiving WFDG funds, New Hanover County provided a reimbursement of 21 cents per mile.
With WFDG funds, the Work First program was able to increase the reimbursement for participants to
the state rate of 48.5 cents per mile.
Promising County Examples
Work First participants living in rural, industry-poor Anson County often must travel to adjacent Union
County or to urban Charlotte to find work. Traveling across county lines for employment creates an aver-age
daily commute of 50 miles roundtrip, but can reach nearly 100 miles for some. For many individuals,
a quality, reliable vehicle is the only way to find and retain a job. The Anson County program, Wheels that
(continued on next page)
18 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Participant Incentives
According to the survey, 27 counties (51%) used the WFDG to provide participant
incentives—typically gift cards or cash payments—to motivate and reward partici-pants.
Many counties reported using the incentives to encourage participants who
were working toward accomplishing significant goals (e.g., completing a training
program or finding a job) and to reward those who completed monthly requirements
and submitted required paperwork. Although incentives were a commonly used and
supported practice, WFDG county officials reported divergent views on the appropri-ateness
of participant incentive programs, particularly those that reward participants
for meeting monthly participation requirements. Counties that support incentive
programs assert that incentives are an effective method of encouraging participants
to complete their required hours and submit their paperwork on time, which in turn
reduces staff follow-up time and increases monthly participation rates. Supporters
further argue that the incentives provide extra motivation to participants who might
otherwise give up, and that the good habits developed while working toward an incen-tive
will remain long after the participant has transitioned off of Work First. However,
other staff reported they oppose monthly incentives, stating that participants should
not be rewarded for simply complying with requirements because the practice might
foster dependence and a false sense of entitlement. These opponents also argued that
the incentives do not reflect real world practices, although others claimed employer
incentives are commonly used in the work place. Despite this divergence of opinion,
there was much support for participant incentives and evidence that they contribute
to of positive outcomes for participants.
Gift cards
According to the review of the WFDG proposals, 11 counties have used WFDG funds
to purchase gift cards for participants who achieved milestones or completed monthly
participation requirements. Gift cards to Wal-Mart, usually in $25 or $50 increments,
are most common, because that retailer offers a wide variety of competitively priced
groceries and nonfood items such as toiletries, clothing and shoes. Gas cards are also
provided by some county programs. County Work First staff instruct participants that
the gift cards are to be used only toward the purchase of food, necessities, or work-related
items needed for employment, such as uniforms or work boots.
Work, offers Work First participants $4,500 toward the purchase of a vehicle providing the participant is
in good standing and he or she has received a job offer. The participant must also contribute $500 in cash
or trade-in value. The program has been extremely successful as evidenced by the 16 participants who
received vehicle purchase assistance in the first 8 months of the WFDG program.
Henderson County has many retirees, which has greatly increased the demand for nurses and other health
care providers, so the county Work First program paired the vehicle purchase assistance program with
training and employment in the health care field. As part of a WFDG initiative, Henderson Work First
participants who earn certification as a nursing assistant or other health-related certification and obtain
employment are eligible for $3,000 toward a vehicle purchase.
(continued from previous page)
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 19
Cash incentives and employment bonuses
According to the review of the WFDG proposals, 13 counties have used WFDG funds
to provide cash incentives or employment bonuses for participants, usually for meet-ing
significant milestones.
Case Management Strategies
Based on data gathered through the Web survey, a third (34%) of WFDG counties
implemented a form of case management as part of their strategy. However, these case
management strategies included several efforts that went beyond standard practice,
such as the implementation of specialized case management for incapacitated partici-pants
and the use of family team meetings.
Specialized case management for incapacitated participants
Six counties used the WFDG funding to hire a social worker or case manager to work
exclusively with incapacitated participants. These professionals assist incapacitated
participants in applying for Social Security disability benefits or help the participants
determine their abilities, discover interests, and find a job that they can perform
and enjoy. Some of the case managers have a regular caseload and carry the author-ity
and responsibility of a typical Work First social worker. Other case managers are
contracted staff from partner agencies that work with incapacitated participants to
help determine the participants’ strengths, identify their abilities and activity levels,
and remove barriers to success. Although helping incapacitated participants apply for
Social Security is a primary task for these specialized case managers, they also assist
with resolving other barriers, such as finding daycare, arranging transportation, and
scheduling medical appointments.
Promising County Example
In Robeson County, Work First participants who are engaged in work activities (e.g., employment, work
experience, or community service) receive a $50 gift card each month they complete their required hours.
County Work First officials say that the program has boosted morale, both for participants and for Work
First staff. In addition, the incentive program has an added benefit of regular communication, because par-ticipants
often call to make sure they are on track to receive the gift card.
Promising County Example
In Wake County, participants receive $100 for completing a vocational or other approved training program,
$150 for getting a job, and $300 for keeping a job for six months. Program officials reported that providing
small incentives each step along the way motivates participants without overwhelming them. One Work
First official stated, “[The Work First participants] see that these goals are achievable.”
20 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Family team meetings
Although only one WFDG county implemented family team meetings as part of their
WFDG, six other WFDG counties that were interviewed reported that they are en-gaged
in some form of family team meeting and expressed support for this practice as
a promising strategy to help Work First families. Family team meetings, which are also
known as child and family teams that are used in child welfare cases, serve as a family-centered,
strength-based way to engage family and community resources when devel-oping
case plans and making case decisions. Work First participants identify family
members, friends, neighbors, religious leaders, service providers and others who can
provide support and guidance that can help the participants overcome barriers to ful-fill
their Work First requirements and obtain self-sufficiency. Previously, success team
meetings were used in Work First to achieve a similar objective. However, many staff
favor the family team model, which places increased emphasis on the family and their
role in constructing the team. Although family teams can be used with any types of
Work First cases, this approach is most commonly used in cases that are also involved
with child welfare.
Promising County Examples
Henderson County hired a part-time “runner” to work with participants, many of whom were inca-pacitated
and needed closer attention than their social worker was able to provide. Henderson officials
noted that many participants have said they feel more comfortable and speak more freely with the runner
because that person cannot impose sanctions. This openness is helpful to both parties because participants
are more willing to ask for help and the runner is able to work quickly and intensively to provide or locate
the needed services.
Buncombe County hired a specialized case manager to serve its incapacitated participants. A key part of
that position is monitoring applications for Social Security disability benefits and ensuring that participants
keep up with required medical visits and file appropriate paperwork. Thus far the strategy has yielded
promising results: seven incapacitated participants from Buncombe County’s caseload were approved for
Social Security disability during the first eight months of SFY 2008.
Promising County Example
As part of the WFDG, Buncombe County adopted the use of family teams in September 2007 and held
eight family team meetings during the first nine months of SFY 2008. Buncombe County Work First staff
noted that even though family teams are typically used with those families that are also involved with child
welfare services, the staff were confident that family teams can be equally effective for all types of Work
First families. Buncombe County staff report that the use of family teams is a promising strategy because
the approach uses the participant’s natural support system in conjunction with the more formal support
services from agency providers. Bringing everyone to the table during a family team meeting also ensures
that all those involved have received accurate information and prevents workers from setting conflicting or
competing goals.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 21
Assessments
According to the Web survey, 22 counties (42%) have used the WFDG funds to support
assessments of Work First participants. Work First officials emphasized that assess-ments,
such as functional capacity assessments or vocational evaluations, have been
useful tools that have increased their understanding of participants’ needs and strengths.
Functional capacity assessments
Some Work First participants are classified as incapacitated (F-code) participants,
meaning they have a documented disability that may limit their ability to fulfill work
requirements. Although these participants are incapacitated, they are included in the
calculation of the county’s participation rate. Because few incapacitated participants
can meet monthly work requirements, they negatively impact the county’s partici-pation
rates. Individuals with a severe and permanent disability who are eligible to
receive disability benefits from the federal Social Security Administration are removed
from the Work First caseload. However, the application process is complex and often
requires numerous appeals. In addition, a shortage of trial judges in North Carolina
has created a backlog of disability application appeals, and it can take up to 3 years to
be approved for disability benefits, and another three to six months to receive pay-ment.
Several WFDG counties have improved their efforts to serve incapacitated
clients by using functional capacity assessments to fully evaluate the strengths of the
individual and determine what work activities they can and cannot perform. These
assessments, which take 20 hours or more and are conducted over the span of several
days, systematically evaluate a participant’s abilities, skills, and interests. Assessments
may be conducted by a sheltered workshop, a doctor, or another provider.
Promising County Examples
Cumberland County has begun conducting functional capacity assessments of all incapacitated clients as part
of the WFDG. The assessments are conducted under a contract established between the Cumberland County
Work First program and a local nonprofit organization that provides rehabilitation and employment services
for people with disabilities. The assessment consists of several components: a 90 minute intake; eight hours of
testing, including a detailed inventory of aptitude and interests, academic achievement, manual dexterity, and
transferrable skills; a 10-hour situational assessment and 20 hours of community-based, on-the-job assessment.
Officials from the contracted nonprofit organization also work to inform employers of federal tax credits
available to those who hire a person with a disability and to provide information about making simple, low-cost
accommodations for disabled workers. As a result of this contractual partnership to provide assessments
for incapacitated participants, several Cumberland County Work First participants have gotten jobs in the local
area, including at a café operated by a local college.
In Wilson County, the functional capacity assessment is just one part of its Vocational Incentive Participation
(VIP) Program for incapacitated participants. This 12-week program, administered by a sheltered workshop and
supported entirely by the WFDG, offers a variety of assessments and work experiences in addition to provid-ing
instruction and guidance about good work habits and workplace safety. The program is offered each week-day
for five hours, and participants are provided $50 per week as an incentive. Many participants have found
they are able to successfully perform specific work tasks, and those who are truly unable to work come away
with documentation to support an application for Social Security disability. Program participants have boosted
Wilson’s participation rates—monthly participation among those in the VIP Program is 100% most months.
22 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Vocational evaluations
Vocational evaluations, also called job skills evaluations, are systematic evaluations of
an individual’s abilities, skills, and interests. Participants take a battery of tests that assess
phone skills, writing ability, accounting skills, and the individual’s capacity for light indus-trial
work. Unlike functional capacity assessments, which are generally targeted toward
incapacitated participants, vocational evaluations are designed for work-ready individuals.
Serving Other Hard-to-Serve Populations
Although the overall number of Work First participants has declined in recent years, many
of the hardest to serve participants continue to remain on Work First. The comments of
one Work First social worker summarized the viewpoint of many Work First staff:
Most everyone who can get a job has a job now. Those who are left (in Work First)
are the ones with multiple barriers. It’s getting harder and harder to help these
participants find success.
To meet this challenge, some WFDG counties used targeted strategies to address spe-cific
barriers to employment.
Mental health and substance abuse treatment providers
A few counties used WFDG funds to hire mental health and substance abuse treatment
service providers to work exclusively with Work First participants. Frequently, Work First
participants who have mental health or substance abuse issues are required to receive
treatment services as specified in their Mutual Responsibility Agreement (MRA). The
MRA defines the obligations participants must uphold to receive Work First assistance.
However, WFDG officials reported that providing mental health and substance abuse
treatment services on-site at the local Work First office removed a critical barrier to par-ticipants’
success.
Promising County Example
New Hanover County contracts with a sheltered workshop and community rehabilitation program to
conduct vocational evaluations of Work First participants. The tests measure the participant’s general
learning ability, vocational interest, general aptitude, and tolerance for various work conditions such as
extreme heat or cold. The assessment also includes a behavioral observation. The vocational evaluator
interprets the data and provides a summary and analysis in layman’s terms, which greatly enhances the
usefulness of the process. Following the evaluation, participants receive additional services that have been
tailored to fit their needs (e.g., work adjustment, job search, and job placement).
Promising County Examples
Cumberland County hired a substance abuse counselor who performs drug tests and, if needed, provides
counseling and gets participants into treatment.
Mecklenburg County hired a substance abuse counselor and a mental health provider to serve Work First
participants in need of treatment services who are not covered by Medicaid.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 23
Childcare assistance
Work First participants are eligible to receive financial assistance for childcare of
their children younger than six years old; however, demand for this assistance greatly
exceeds available funding in most counties, and results in waiting lists that can be
months or even years long. Participants are eligible for benefits while on the waiting
list and cannot be sanctioned if lack of childcare prevents them from completing fed-eral
activities requirements—a policy that is family-friendly but detrimental to coun-ties’
participation rates. To address this problem, 11 counties that responded to the
Web survey reported having used WFDG funding to assist with participants’ childcare
expenses. The expanded funding for childcare allowed Work First participants to
obtain childcare and begin work activities.
Criminal background
It is challenging for an individual with a criminal background to find employment
because of employer mistrust and the sensitive nature of some jobs that automatically
excludes anyone with a criminal conviction in their past. As such, those with crimi-nal
backgrounds are often among the hardest Work First participants to place in a
job, and a few WFDG counties developed efforts focused on finding employment for
participants with criminal records.
Swift Sanctions
Swift sanctioning is a specific strategy to provide up front monthly notice to all Work
First participants regarding their work-related requirements listed in their MRA. Be-cause
notice is provided at the beginning of each month, non-compliant participants
can be placed into sanction more quickly, making participants ineligible to receive
further Work First payments. Only Catawba County was approved to implement swift
sanctions as part of their WFDG efforts. However, several counties reported in our
Promising County Examples
Wilson County used WFDG funds to offer three months of childcare assistance to Work First participants.
New Hanover County used WFDG funds to expand childcare assistance to Work First participants whose
children were three months old, instead of six months, as mandated by state policy. In the first eight
months of this expanded assistance program, 87 participants were served, which helped to improve New
Hanover County’s participation rates.
Promising County Example
Cleveland County hired two Job Placement Specialists whose duties include searching for job opportuni-ties
specifically for individuals with felony records. These specialists cultivated a relationship with two em-ployers,
including a large retail store, and these employers agreed to place Work First participants in work
experience placements. The specialists work one-on-one with these participants to provide job search tips
as well as information about how to interact with employers during interviews and while on the job.
24 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
survey that they implemented efforts to quickly sanction Work First participant who
do not meet their MRA requirements, which is consistent with current policy and
practice but is not specifically the swift sanction strategy.
Typically, Work First participants who failed to meet their participation require-ments
for the month are provided notice they will be sanctioned early the following
month. Work First participants who do not meet requirements for the second month
are placed in sanction and payments are halted until they comply with their MRA
requirements. Because payment is provided at the beginning of the month for activi-ties
to be completed during the month, there is usually a two- to three-month delay
from when the participant fails to meet requirements until payments actually stop. In
contrast, a swift sanctions policy shortens this delay between when the person fails to
complete MRA requirements and when they can be placed into a sanction. Swift sanc-tioning
is implemented by providing participants with notice regarding the sanction
policy up front, as part of their monthly MRA agreement, so that the time needed to
implement a sanction is not delayed by additional time needed to provide notice after
they fail to comply. In addition, swift sanctioning can help to raise county participa-tion
rates. Because sanctioned participants are not included in the estimation of the
participation rate, swift sanctioning can help to exclude the non-compliant participant
from the estimate of the participation rate more quickly. The county that employed
swift sanctions said this strategy promotes responsibility among participants and
reflects real world experience because, as one Work First official said, “from a pure
behavioral standpoint, you need immediate consequences—not consequences three
months later.”
Pay After Performance
Pay After Performance is another strategy implemented to promote participant
responsibility and reflect real-world work experience. Typically, Work First payments
have been distributed at the beginning of the month for work requirements expected
to be completed in that month; in other words, pay before performance. In contrast,
Pay After Performance (also known as pay for performance) enables counties to
distribute Work First payments after the participant has satisfied their work require-ments
for the month. Therefore, participants who fail to meet work requirements do
not receive a Work First check that month. Work First staff have discretionary power
to make exceptions, such as in cases of good cause or for applicants who are victims of
domestic violence. Although North Carolina law permits all counties to use Pay After
Performance for two parent families, current statutes do not allow standard counties
to implement Pay After Performance for all families. However, electing counties, those
Promising County Example
Catawba County implemented swift sanctions as part of their WFDG efforts by inserting a clause into
participants’ MRAs, which participants review and re-sign each month. Therefore, the monthly MRA also
provides notice and states that failure to meet work-related activity requirements will result in a sanction.
Because the provision of notice is carried out at the beginning of each month, sanctions can be imposed
much more quickly—usually within a month of when the person became noncompliant with their MRA
requirements.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 25
with additional flexibility in implementing the Work First program, may choose to
implement Pay After Performance. As part of the WFDG, Cumberland County was
the only county approved to implement Pay After Performance to evaluate whether
and to what extent the strategy was effective in improving Work First outcomes.
Implementation of Pay After Performance has contributed to increased participation
rates because Work First participants are more likely to complete their work require-ments,
knowing they will not receive their monthly payments until they complete
their required hours of work-related activities. Although only one county imple-mented
Pay After Performance as part of the WFDG, a number of counties have
expressed interest and support for this strategy and claim it would boost participation
rates. Furthermore, several county officials noted that if Pay After Performance was
adopted, the Work First caseload would likely be reduced in two ways. First, county
officials thought that with Pay after Performance in place some potential Work First
applicants might decide not to proceed with the application, given the stringent
requirements they would have to meet to receive a payment. Second, under the Pay
after Performance policy, other potential applicants might be more inclined to obtain
a job on their own, because they could earn more income working the same number
of hours than they would on Work First. Although county officials were generally very
supportive of Pay After Performance, several county officials cautioned that the policy
might not be family friendly because it requires work-related activity hours to be com-pleted
before payment is received. Other counties recommended that Pay After Per-formance
should only be implemented with the ability for Work First workers to make
exceptions based on good cause, such as for participants that cannot complete their
required hours due to substance abuse treatment or involvement with child welfare.
Promising County Example
Cumberland County was the only is the one county that implemented Pay After Performance as part of
the WFDG. WFDG funding was used to provide each participant with a one-time additional paycheck—
a “transitional check”—when the program was instituted. This transitional check was needed since the
first month Pay After Performance was implemented, the participants would still need a payment at the
beginning of that month, so there would not be a month when a payment would be missed. When Cum-berland
County Work First officials announced they would convert to a Pay After Performance policy, they
received some resistance from participants, attorneys, and even elected county officials, who complained
that the policy was punitive and would be harmful to participants and their families. Cumberland County
Work First officials responded by explaining that Pay After Performance would not take benefits away
from participants and they would allow for exceptions for families with children younger than 1 year old
and for cases with good cause. Local Work First staff have discretionary power to release payments when
extenuating circumstances prevent the participant from completing required work hours. Cumberland
County officials praised the practice as both modeling real world experience and being family friendly.
County Work First officials noted that employees typically receive a paycheck after they complete a job,
not beforehand, and immediate consequences for failure to comply with work requirements are better for
families than delayed consequences.
26 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Collaboration with Agencies and Community Partners
WFDG counties commonly used collaboration with local government agencies and
community partners to implement WFDG efforts. According to the proposal review,
27 of the WFDG counties implemented efforts to create partnerships with another
agency or community resource to create or expand a program or intervention. These
partnerships tapped into a rich supply of existing knowledge and resources to better
serve Work First participants. The partnerships ranged from sharing information and
space to contracting and hiring staff.
Employer-Focused Strategies
Most WFDG strategies focused on Work First participants; however, a few coun-ties
chose to focus their efforts on businesses that they hoped would employ Work
First participants. These employer-focused strategies ranged from job development
to subsidized employment. In all, 11 counties (21%) were engaged in some form of
employer-focused strategy.
Promising County Example
Wake County collaborated with its sheltered workshop to develop a project specifically for individuals
with limited work experience. The project partnered with a local grocery store and an instructor from
the sheltered workshop. The grocery store hired Work First participants and the workshop instructor
provided participants with training and support specific to the job. The partnership program has been
embraced by participants as well as grocery store employees and customers. Although successful, the pro-gram
is limited by its small scale. Wake County officials hope to expand the program to additional grocery
store locations and eventually to other types of employers.
Promising County Example
Richmond County requested one of the smallest awarded WFDG amounts, about $6,300, to design a
Work First logo and to develop promotional materials, such as brochures, pens, and multi-functioning mea-suring
tapes. Work First officials distributed these materials at Chamber of Commerce meetings and other
business networking events. In addition, Work First officials have gone door-to-door in the business com-munity
to tell employers about the Work First Program. The comment of one Richmond County Work
First official summarized the rationale for this effort: “You have to reach out to businesses. Otherwise, you
have a missing link and your work [in helping participants build skills and look for jobs] is for naught.” The
Work First officials speak to employers from a business perspective and emphasize the financial advan-tages
for employers. For example, program officials tell business owners that they are getting a “two-fer”
when they hire a Work First participant: they get the employee plus the Work First social worker who
provides supportive services to help the new employee succeed on the job.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 27
Outcomes
The purpose of the WFDG was to assist counties in identifying creative and innovative
strategies that would promote better outcomes for Work First participants by helping
participants obtain and retain employment. This study examined a variety of outcomes for
Work First participants, including the federally mandated participation rates, the percent-age
of Work First applicants that are diverted prior to being enrolled in Work First, and
the percentage of first time applicants to Work First.
Given that the majority of counties implemented multiple strategies as part of the WFDG,
it was not possible to associate any particular WFDG strategy with performance on out-come
measures. Furthermore, it would be inaccurate to assume that any single WFDG
strategy independently led to changes in outcomes, because Work First outcomes are
influenced by many factors, including local and national economic conditions, character-istics
of Work First participants, and access to supportive services. Therefore, caution is
warranted when interpreting the reported outcomes.
The analysis of outcomes for this report incorporated information available through April
2008. Given that many counties were in the early stages of implementing WFDG strate-gies,
especially those that started with the WFDG in the second year of the program, more
time may be required before the benefits of these programs come to full fruition and can
be accurately assessed. Although these early outcomes provide insight into the whether
the WFDG efforts are promising strategies, both additional time and further research are
needed to provide a full understanding of the impact of the WFDG strategies.
Participation Rates
The WFDG emphasized the importance of improved participation rates, meaning greater per-centages
of work-eligible Work First participants who complete their requirements for count-able
work hours each month. Further, this measure is considered an indicator of the number
of Work First recipients who are actively engaged in employment-related activities; therefore,
high participation rates are perceived as successful outcomes. North Carolina is held to the
federal requirement that at least 50% of all family Work First participants and at least 90% of
two parent Work First participants meet countable work requirements each month.
Given there are federal requirements for state performance on participation rates, it is
important to have valid data to estimate these measures. However, DSS has identified a few
challenges that impact the validity of the participation rate data, which they are diligently
working to resolve. Specifically, a computer programming error incorrectly counts I-code
participants (those providing care for disabled family members) against the county par-ticipation
rate. In addition, data validity has been compromised by several Medicad related
issues, including a recent conversion of data so that the Medicaid ID can comply with the
Identity Theft Protection Act as well as issues related to the transfer to transitional Medicaid.
According to the Web survey, 86% of WFDG counties expected their WFDG strategies
would positively affect the county’s participation rates. However, in several counties the
WFDG efforts may have contributed to a decrease in participation rates—despite the fact
that the implemented strategies were providing services and achieving better outcomes for
28 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
participants. Several county officials explained that participation rates may decrease be-cause
their WFDG efforts were successful at getting participants employed and off of the
Work First program, which left the caseload populated by the hardest to serve Work First
participants, such as those with multiple barriers to employment. That shift in caseload
demographics was seen as the primary factor that contributed to lower participation rates.
In addition, some counties used WFDG funds to provide up front services while appli-cants
waited for Work First approval. County officials reported that these up front services
negatively affected the counties participation rates because many applicants found em-ployment
before they were included in the Work First caseload. Although these applicants
received services from Work First, they are not counted in the participation rate since they
achieved employment before coming onto the Work First program. Although it is impor-tant
to improve participation rates to comply with the federal mandate, it is also necessary
to consider the broader context in which WFDG strategies have achieved success, even
though such efforts are not always reflected positively by the participation rate measures.
For this study, an analysis was conducted of both the all family and two parent Work First
participation rates to assess changes that corresponded with the implementation of the
WFDG. Because counties reported delays in implementation of the WFDG strategies, the
analysis segregated average participation rate estimates based on the year in which the
county started with the WFDG. Thus, the participation rate analysis often separated WFDG
counties that started in Year 1 of the WFDG (SFY 07) versus counties that started in Year 2
of the WFDG (SFY08). For purposes of our analyses, project staff estimated the time frame
for involvement with the WFDG as starting during the month in which counties were pro-vided
notification of their WFDG award from NC-DSS. Counties that started in Year 1 were
notified by October 2006. Most counties that started in Year 2 received approval for all of
the WFDG strategies submitted in their proposals and were notified in July 2007. However,
several counties that started in Year 2 received approval for some, but not all, of the strategies
included in their WFDG proposals and were notified of their WFDG award in August 2007.
For comparison purposes, August 2007 was used as the start of the WFDG time frame for
all counties starting in Year 2 because all of the counties had received their award notifica-tion
by that time. The final month included for all participation rate analyses is April 2008.
Therefore, WFDG counties starting in Year 1 will have a WFDG time frame for participation
rate analysis from October 2006 through April 2008, and WFDG counties starting in Year 2
will have a WFDG time frame from August 2007 through April 2008.
As shown in Table 1, the overall average monthly all family participation rate for the 53
WFDG counties during the time they have been involved with the WFDG was 39.05%. To
put this participation rate in context, the average monthly all family participation rate was
38.31% for WFDG counties during the 12 months prior to the start of the WFDG (Octo-ber
2005 through September 2006 for Year 1 counties and August 2006 through July 2007
for Year 2 counties). Year 1 WFDG counties had an average monthly all family participa-tion
rate of 36.83% during the demonstration grant period, which was a slight increase
from the 35.91% average participation rate during the 12 months prior to the WFDG. In
addition, Year 2 WFDG counties had an average monthly all family participation rate of
39.63% during their WFDG time frame, which was similar to the 39.68% average partici-pation
rate of the 12 months prior to the WFDG. In addition, 30 of the 53 WFDG coun-ties
showed improvement in their average all family participation rates during the WFDG
time frame as compared to the average during the 12 months prior to the WFDG.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 29
Table 1
Average Monthly All Family Participation Rates 12 Months Prior to WFDG and During
WFDG Time Frame
Average monthly all family participation rate
WFDG counties 12 months prior During WFDG time frame
WFDG counties starting in
Year 1
35.91% 36.83%
WFDG counties starting in
Year 2
39.68% 39.63%
All WFDG counties 38.31% 39.05%
Figure 4 depicts the monthly average all family participation rate for WFDG counties and
compares them with the overall statewide average. For the Year 1 WFDG counties, their all family
participation rate paralleled the statewide average until almost a year into the implementation of
their WFDG strategies, at which point the average for the WFDG Year 1 counties consistently
rose above the statewide average. The Year 2 WFDG counties demonstrated a similar pattern,
except that an increase in the participation rates occurred more quickly; after only about five
months of implementing WFDG strategies, the average all family participation rates for the
WFDG Year 2 counties steadily increased, and they remained above the statewide average.
Figure 4
Average monthly all family participation rates for WFDG counties and statewide
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
All family participation rate
All counties statewide WFDG Year 1 counties WFDG Year 2 counties
30 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
During their respective WFDG time frames, an average of 21% of the Year 1 WFDG
counties and 32% of the Year 2 WFDG counties met the federal threshold of 50% or above
for their all family participation rate each month. As shown in Figure 5, although there
are periodic increases and decreases in the all family participation rate over time, there
was an overall increase in the number of WFDG counties meeting the federal requirement
of 50% or above.
Figure 5
Percentage of WFDG counties meeting federal threshold of 50% for all family participation rate
The second type of participation rate is the two parent participation rate. There are gener-ally
fewer two parent families on Work First that can be used to calculate the two parent
participation rate than there are families considered for the all family participation rate.
Because of this small sample size, there are frequent fluctuations in the two parent par-ticipation
rate. As shown in Table 2, the overall average monthly two parent participation
rate for all WFDG counties during their WFDG time frames was 57.12%, whereas the
average participation rate during the 12 months prior to the WFDG was 49.25%. Specifi-cally
for the Year 1 WFDG counties, the average monthly two parent participation rate
was 46.45% during the 12 months prior to the WFDG, but increased to an average of
51.62% during the WFDG time frame. In addition, for WFDG counties that started in
Year 2, the average two parent participation rate was 53.67% during the 12 months before
the WFDG, and increased to 68.36% during the WFDG. In addition, 34 of the 53 WFDG
counties remained stable or showed improvement in their average two parent partici-pation
rates during their WFDG time frame as compared to the average during the 12
months prior to the WFDG.
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
% of WFDG counties
WFDG Year 1 counties WFDG Year 2 counties
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 31
Table 2
Average monthly two parent participation rates 12 months prior to WFDG and during
WFDG time frame
Average monthly two parent participation rate
WFDG counties 12 months prior During WFDG time frame
WFDG counties starting in
Year 1
46.45% 51.62%
WFDG counties starting in
Year 2
53.67% 68.36%
All WFDG counties 49.25% 57.12%
As shown in Figure 6, we compared the monthly average two parent participation rate for
WFDG counties to the overall statewide two parent average. The Year 1 WFDG counties had
two parent participation rate averages that were similar to the statewide averages for the first
five months of the WFDG. Afterwards, the two parent participation rate for WFDG Year 1
counties seemed to vary slightly from the statewide average, given that when the state aver-age
increased, the average for the WFDG Year 1 counties decreased and vice versa. The Year
2 WFDG counties were consistently higher than the statewide average on measures of two
parent participation rates. After an initial decline of the two parent average for the WFDG
Year 2 counties, there was an overall increase over the last several months. Despite consider-able
fluctuation in the average two parent rates, both the WFDG Year 1 counties and WFDG
Year 2 counties showed a general increase over the last four months.
Figure 6
Average monthly two parent participation rates for WFDG counties and statewide
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Two parent participation rate
All counties statewide WFDG Year 1 counties WFDG Year 2 counties
32 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
Throughout the WFDG, an average of 37% of Year 1 counties and an average of 51% of
Year 2 counties have met the 90% federal threshold for two parent participation rates each
month. Figure 7 shows that an oscillating percentage of WFDG Year 1 counties have met
the 90% threshold for two parent participation rates, but the percentage of WFDG Year 2
counties meeting this threshold was generally higher despite a few declines.
Figure 7
Percentage of WFDG counties meeting federal threshold of 90% for two parent participation rate
As stated earlier, the majority of WFDG efforts focused on addressing barriers to employ-ment,
and counties expected their WFDG strategies would increase participation rates.
County officials also reported that many factors unrelated to their WFDG efforts affect
the fluctuation of participation rates. Specifically, these officials reported that when Work
First participants are performing well and meeting work requirements, their efforts are
reflected in improved participation rates for a few months; however, when these partici-pants
succeed in obtaining employment and leave the Work First program, the county
participation rates decline. Moreover, the time required for sanctioning and removing
a noncompliant participant from the Work First caseload the means that participants
who are not meeting the work requirements will hurt the participation rates for several
months. Furthermore, counties noted that participation rates are greatly impacted by
including incapacitated participants in the calculation of the measure. Although incapaci-tated
participants are required to meet some level of work-related activities, most cannot
meet the required hours each month, which negatively impacts the county’s participation
rates. Participation rates are also negatively affected by administrative procedures that add
new participants to the caseload near the end of the month. New participants added to
the Work First caseload late in the month do not have enough time to meet their monthly
requirements for work hours, yet they are included in the calculation of the county’s par-
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
% of WFDG counties
WFDG Year 1 counties WFDG Year 2 counties
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 33
ticipation rates. County officials also acknowledged the positive influence of smaller case-loads
on the participation rates. Several noted the recent declines in Work First caseloads
have contributed to increases in participation rates because lower caseloads allow Work
First staff to spend more time with participants and provide higher-quality assistance in
helping individuals find employment.
Diversion of Work First Applicants
A secondary outcome of some WFDG strategies may be that some Work First appli-cants
might be diverted prior to being approved and becoming official participants in the
Work First Program. Diversion of applicants can occur for a variety of reasons, including
obtaining employment prior to Work First approval, self-selecting out of the program by
withdrawing their application for Work First, or receiving a one-time diversion benefit
payment to assist them in staying off of Work First. Of the counties that participated in the
Web survey, 17 WFDG counties (32%) reported their WFDG strategies had contributed
to the diversion of WFDG applicants.
A few county officials reported that holding orientation sessions and providing up front
services (e.g., connecting applicants with support services and engaging them in job
search activities while waiting for application approval) was likely to divert some poten-tial
Work First participants. The officials reported that providing up front services helped
some applicants obtain employment, eliminating their need to receive assistance from
Work First. Others mentioned that when they provided applicants with up front informa-tion
regarding the strict work-related requirements of Work First, some applicants chose
to withdraw their applications. Most WFDG officials noted that they considered diversion
a positive outcome because either the potential applicants had found employment or those
who had opted out of Work First would be motivated to find other employment, which
might provide greater income than employment obtained with Work First assistance.
First-Time Work First Applicants
Given that a primary objective of the Work First program is to help people retain employ-ment
and remain off of the Work First program, it is important to assess how many Work
First applicants are first-time applicants versus returning Work First participants. We
found considerable variation across counties for the reported rates of first-time applicants.
Many counties reported that the majority of their applicants were first-time Work First
applicants, ranging from 50% to up to 95%. Yet several counties reported the opposite
experience and noted that very few of their applicants (10% to 30%) were first-time appli-cants.
It is worth noting that Work First staff reported that participants who return to the
Work First program tend to find employment and leave the program relatively quickly as
compared to returning participants in previous years.
Other Outcomes
In addition to helping Work First participants obtain and retain employment, county
officials reported numerous positive outcomes that they attributed to their WFDG strate-gies.
Among these positive outcomes, Work First workers reported a shift in participants’
attitudes toward their participation in Work First, since many WFDG strategies aimed
at increasing participants’ self-esteem and desire to be self-sufficient. One county official
stated that as a result of the WFDG strategies, the Work First participants “acquired a
34 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
greater sense of empowerment” to achieve their own success. In addition, WFDG efforts
targeted at assisting incapacitated participants resulted in better customer service for
these participants. Moreover, counties noted that the WFDG efforts helped participants
locate alternative means of financial support such as obtaining child support payments,
obtaining approval for Social Security disability, and obtaining employment. Last, county
officials reported positive outcomes that went beyond the individual level. These officials
highlighted WFDG efforts that created positive community awareness toward Work First
and Work First participants. County officials also noted that WFDG efforts contributed to
strengthening relationships with other agencies and community partners, including de-veloping
partnerships with local businesses, which play an essential role in helping Work
First participants find opportunities for employment.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 35
Continuation of Strategies
In accordance with state legislation, WFDG funds are available to counties for a maximum
of three years. Given that additional financial support was required for the majority of the
WFDG strategies, the issue of whether counties will be able to continue their efforts with-out
the designated funds is important to discuss. According to survey responses, many
counties have not yet developed sustainability plans for their WFDG strategies. At least 12
counties reported their services would either be significantly reduced or eliminated when
the WFDG funding ended. Other counties hope to obtain funding from other sources,
such as other county departments or grants. Survey and site visit participants questioned
whether strategies implemented under the WFDG could be supported by existing Work
First funds. A few officials noted that policy changes may be needed to allow Work First
funding to support some of these strategies. Several respondents mentioned that col-laboration
with other agencies may enable their WFDG practices to continue. In addi-tion,
counties noted that their departments absorb the costs for strategies that involved a
considerable up front investment (covered by WFDG funds) but do not require significant
funds to maintain. For instance, Person County will be able to maintain its computer lab
for Work First participants as ongoing costs are limited to supplies (e.g., paper and ink for
printing). Other strategies, such as family teams, can be pursued with minimal additional
cost and are likely to continue after WFDG funding expires.
36 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
County Recommendations
The Web survey and interviews gave WFDG county officials the opportunity to make
suggestions for potential changes to policy and practice that could assist them in better
serving Work First participants. Although some of the suggested changes may address
federal policy as opposed to state-level policy or practice and are thus beyond the control
of NC-DSS, they are nonetheless listed here to provide WFDG county officials and com-munity
partners the opportunity to communicate their concerns and recommendations.
NC-DSS Training and Support
County Work First officials emphasized the importance o ▶▶ f the Work First Learning
Institute, and said the Institute provides excellent training opportunities as well as a
venue for networking with colleagues from across the state. Staff suggested continu-ing
the Work First Learning Institute as an annual event.
▶▶ Many individuals said there is not enough training for Work First workers, espe-cially
new workers. Respondents said state-sponsored trainings should be offered
throughout the year, and suggested several topics, including training for all new
Work First workers as well as trainings on conducting assessments, case planning,
and identifying substance abuse and mental health resources.
▶▶ County WFDG officials also recommended offering more opportunities to network
and share information with state staff and with peers from other counties, such as
holding quarterly county meetings or resuming the Tuesday advisory meetings.
▶▶ Many officials also noted that they found the assistance of their Work First repre-sentatives
very helpful and wanted to maintain consistent communication with state
staff.
Participation Rates
▶▶ WFDG officials also suggested several changes to the calculation of the participa-tion
rate. The most common suggestion was to remove participants who are inca-pacitated
(classified as an F-code) and to include this category of participants in a
separate program.
▶▶ In addition, officials recommended that participants with “good cause” exemp-tions
(e.g., inability to complete required hours of work activity due to child welfare
involvement or substance abuse treatment) either be included in the numerator or
excluded from the denominator of the participation rate, so these cases do not nega-tively
influence the overall county participation rate.
▶▶ Other county officials recommended that participants not be included in the cal-culation
of participation rates for the first month they are approved for Work First
because these new approvals typically cannot meet their requirement for countable
hours before the end of that first month.
▶▶ To make sure data used for the participation rates are as accurate as possible, a few
WFDG county officials requested that they be allowed to make corrections to their
Work First data entry for a longer period than what is currently allowed.
▶▶ Officials further recommended that Work First program effectiveness be evaluated
using a federal benchmark other than participation rates because there are numer-ous
concerns about the way the measure is currently estimated.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 37
Countable Hours
▶▶ County WFDG officials recommended several policy changes that would bet-ter
support Work First participants in achieving their requirements for countable
hours of work-related activities. Specifically, many officials suggested that more time
should be allowed for educational activities so that individuals could attain better,
higher-paying jobs.
▶▶ Several Work First workers recommended that time frames for countable hours for
certain activities be extended, such as allowing job search to be extended from 12
weeks to 24 weeks, allowing job search and job readiness to extend for more than
four consecutive weeks, and allowing more than three hours per day of countable
hours for work experience.
▶▶ One county official suggested that the definition of community service be revised
so that these hours can be counted when Work First participants are working for
organizations that have paid employees.
▶▶ County officials recommended that waivers be available to allow participants to
count hours that they are involved in family violence counseling and substance
abuse residential treatment, as work-related activity hours.
Funding
▶▶ WFDG officials made several recommendation regarding changes to current fund-ing
structures for Work First and related support services. In particular, officials
suggested moving childcare funding under the same funding umbrella as Work
First, to create separate funding for individuals with disabilities, and to unlink Work
First from Medicaid to allow for extended job bonuses.
▶▶ Many Work First officials stated that more funding is needed to increase Work First
payments for participants because the current benefit level is not sufficient as a liv-ing
wage.
▶▶ Several officials also recommended increased funding for childcare assistance
because the lack of available childcare funds remains a common barrier to employ-ment.
▶▶ Some county officials requested that the savings of Work First funds generated by
the reduction of caseloads and sanctioning participants for noncompliance should
be reinvested to allow continuation of successful WFDG strategies.
▶▶ WFDG officials requested that funding be made available to help sustain participant
incentives and vehicle purchase programs after the WFDG ends.
▶▶ Several WFDG officials suggested that extended job bonuses should be reinstated
for participants who obtain employment.
Pay After Performance and Swift Sanctions
▶▶ The majority of WFDG counties recommended that all counties be allowed to
implement the Pay After Performance policy. Most county officials stated that their
participation rates would increase if they provided Work First benefits only after
obtaining proof of participants’ countable hours, while allowing for appropriate ex-ceptions.
Many counties support a policy change that would allow all counties, and
not only electing counties, to implement Pay After Performance practices.
▶▶ Several county officials also recommended practice changes to promote swift
38 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
sanctioning, because efforts to provide participants with up front notice of non-compliance
will shorten the length of time required to implement sanctions for
those who do not comply with Work First requirements.
Job Retention
Several WFDG officials recommended that increased s ▶▶ upport should be given to job
retention because these efforts prevent participants from returning to the Work First
program. Specifically, several respondents suggested instituting post-employment
incentives and increasing the job bonus period from three months to six months.
▶▶ A few WFDG officials recommended that data be collected to track Work First par-ticipants
who have successfully obtained and retained jobs. The aim of this follow-up
data collection would be to assess the characteristics of successful participants,
which could then be used to inform Work First program policy and practice.
Case Management and Services for Work First Participants
▶▶ Several WFDG county officials recommended the use of family team meetings to
help Work First participants use natural resources and build a supportive network
to assist them in achieving self-sufficiency.
▶▶ A few WFDG county officials suggested local policies change to provide funding for
up front services, so that job search activities can begin and MRAs can be signed at
the time of application.
▶▶ Some county officials would like to get credit for providing successful up front ser-vices
that help people obtain employment prior to their approval for Work First.
▶▶ A few WFDG counties recommended that Work First programs should conduct
criminal history checks and drug tests to better identify and address participants’
needs and help participants overcome barriers to employment.
▶▶ Another WFDG county official recommended that the state should increase support
for rural communities with few services, because these communities incur higher
program costs due to the expenses associated with transporting participants long
distances to obtain services.
State-Level Efforts
▶▶ Many WFDG county officials recommended several steps NC-DSS could take to
better support Work First participants in obtaining employment. In particular, a
county official suggested that NC-DSS work closely with the NC Department of
Commerce and the NC Department of Labor to develop partnerships with employ-ers
and business organizations in communities across the state.
▶▶ A WFDG county official recommended that NC-DSS increase its marketing efforts
to promote Work First to communities and businesses. Increasing the public aware-ness
of the program is a low-cost investment that can not only educate the public
but also engage potential employers.
▶▶ The final recommendation was that the NC-DSS examine successful practices and
outcomes from other states’ TANF programs, and use this knowledge to inform
policy and practice in North Carolina.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 39
Conclusion
The WFDG provided 53 North Carolina counties with an opportunity to implement
innovative strategies aimed at increasing employment and job retention of Work First
participants. Many of these county WFDG efforts are can be considered promising
strategies because they address barriers to employment, they are new or expanded ini-tiatives,
they are recommended as promising by those implementing the effort, they
demonstrate or show the potential for positive results, and they are efforts that can be
replicated in other counties.
The promising strategies identified by this study addressed many aspects of the Work
First program. Specifically, promising efforts focused on enhancing job preparation
and job search activities for Work First participants. In addition, promising strate-gies
provided participants with up front services, transportation, or services that
addressed the needs of hard-to-serve populations with multiple barriers to employ-ment.
Other promising strategies achieved positive results by implementing inno-vative
changes to case management practice and conducting assessments to better
understand participants’ strengths and abilities. In addition, several promising strate-gies
implemented participant incentives, swift sanctions, or a Pay After Performance
policy as creative ways to motivate participants and increase Work First participa-tion
rates. Last, collaborations among agencies, community partners, and employers
emerged as a promising strategy for local Work First staff to develop relationships and
community resources to better serve Work First families.
Although the WFDG strategies have been implemented for only a short period, they
have already demonstrated a positive contribution to Work First outcomes. Specifically,
the WFDG efforts have helped participants achieve a variety of desired outcomes such
as obtaining and retaining employment, being diverted from Work First, and identifying
alternate means of financial support. In general, the WFDG strategies have contributed
to increased county participation rates. However, some strategies that are considered
“good practice” may have resulted in a decline in participation rates, such as up front
services that help individuals obtain employment yet are not included in the participa-tion
rate. Furthermore, WFDG strategies appear to support other positive outcomes for
participants, such as improved self-esteem and increased motivation to become self-sufficient,
as well as for community partners and employers, who are more engaged in
providing services and jobs for Work First participants.
The promising strategies implemented under the WFDG have the potential to be con-tinued
and can be replicated in other counties across North Carolina. Whereas a few of
the strategies required little additional funding, such as relationship-building with com-munity
partners, using family team meetings, and marketing the Work First program
to employers, most required additional funding and some required changes in policy or
practice. Many counties may have to reduce or stop these promising strategies once the
WFDG funding ends, causing much concern for county WFDG officials who would like
to sustain these efforts. Based on what they have already learned from these promising
strategies, WFDG officials have provided several recommendations for changes to Work
First policy and practice that would help them to better serve Work First families.
40 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
In conclusion, the WFDG has enabled counties to reflect on the needs of their Work First
populations and to develop innovative strategies that help achieve positive outcomes
for Work First participants. These promising strategies and the lessons learned from the
WFDG can be beneficial for informing Work First policy and practice.
North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study 41
Appendix
Counties according to the year they were approved and began the WFDG
WFDG Year 1: SFY 2007
Alamance
Bladen
Buncombe
Burke
Cabarrus
Catawba
Chatham
Cleveland
Cumberland
Durham
Forsyth
Franklin
Gaston
Guilford
Halifax
Harnett
Haywood
Johnston
Mecklenburg
Nash
New Hanover
Northampton
Onslow2
Orange
Person
Robeson
Rutherford
Sampson
Scotland
Stokes
Union
Vance
Wake
Warren
Wayne
Wilson
WFDG Year 2: SFY 2008
Anson
Caldwell
Carteret
Chowan
Davidson
Duplin
Edgecombe
Henderson
Hertford
Jackson
Lenoir
Lincoln
McDowell
Richmond
Rockingham
Stanly
Surry
2Onslow only participated in Year 1.
42 North Carolina Work First Demonstration Grant Study
References
Duncan, D. F., Kum, H. C., Flair, K. A., & Lanier, III, P. J. (2008). Management assistance
for the Work First Program. Retrieved June 6, 2008, from
http://ssw.unc.edu/workfirst/
North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Social Services.
(2007). North Carolina’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families state plan, P.L.
104-193, The Work First Program. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from
http://www.dhhs.state.nc.us/dss/workfirst/docs/TANF_StatePlan_1007.pdf
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Fami-lies,
Office of Family Assistance. (2007). Temporary Assistance for Needy Fami-lies
Program information memorandum (Memorandum Number TANF-ACF-IM-
2007-5). Retrieved June 5, 2008, from
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/particip/2006/IM06RATE_REV_
CN20070814.htm