While Rhode Island’s Welfare to Work program got another infusion of $4.1 million last month, it has yet to spend even close to the $4.4 million it received a year ago, basically because it is having difficulty finding people who are eligible to be helped. Officials aren’t saying that there aren’t people who need help, but that the criteria established federally for the program is so strict that nationwide agencies are reporting that they have only spent about 8 percent of their original grants.
Richard Beneduce, administrative chief of the state Department of Labor and Training said he didn’t know exactly what Rhode Island had spent, but said it was in line with national figures.
Beyond Cash Donations: How New Forms of Giving Are Transforming Not-for-Profit Accounting
Evolving Funding Landscape for Not-for-Profits Not-for-profit organizations are being asked to do more with less,…
Learn More
”Nationally, agencies have only spent 8 percent of the funding from the first year,” he said. “They are having a difficult time finding participants.”
The program which began in the 1998 fiscal year requires that 70 percent of the money be spent on clients who have been on welfare 30 months or more, have significant barriers to employment such as a poor work history, minimal reading and math skills, or who is a substance abuser, Beneduce said. The other 30 percent is spent on clients who have predictors of long term dependency, such as a teen parent, or a non-custodial parent.
”The program is very, very restrictive,” he said. “The strict guidelines make it that way.”
That could change depending on the result of an on-going debate in Washington. Lawmakers have before them proposed amendments that would make eligibility requirements less restrictive.
For example: one of the proposed amendments would allow for a wider range of employment barriers. Beyond lacking a high school diploma or GED, having writing or computing skills below the eighth grade level, and having a poor work history, applicants who are homeless, have a disability, or are the victim of domestic violence would now also qualify.
Lawmakers said the changes are necessary because the original eligibility criteria did not accurately reflect the characteristics of the hardest to employ. For example, many individuals who have a poor work history and who have low math or reading skills have been socially promoted and have a high school diploma and therefore can’t be served under the current program.
Jane Nugent, senior vice president of the United Way of Southeastern New England agreed. The organization has had great success during the first year of its “Making it Work II” program, placing nearly 75 percent of individuals with substantive employment obstacles into job training programs. But Nugent said the Welfare-to-Work portion has been “slow going” compared to other aspects of the “Making it Work II” program.
“Our experience has been consistent with what’s happening across the state,” she said. “The eligibility criteria is a very difficult set of conditions to deal with. I think that no matter whom you talk with, this portion of the legislation has almost no maneuvering room.”
Beneduce said the organizations have three years to spend each installment, but he said even that could be difficult. And because future funding is dependent upon the success of the first two waves, Beneduce said he is hopeful that the amendments will pass.
“This is kind of a one shot deal,” he said. “If it works, Congress will institutionalize the program to keep it going.”
Beneduce said 85 percent of Rhode Island’s current funding goes to serve delivery areas, a consortium of municipalities, including Northern Rhode Island, Providence/Cranston, and Greater Rhode Island, which have the staff to run individual programs.
”These groups in turn contact vendors, put out requests for proposals,” he said. “Their goal is to provide necessary service to welfare clients to assist them in job preparation, search and development.”
The remaining 15 percent of the funding remains at the state level, Beneduce said, to be spent on similar statewide programming, or in conjunction with the service delivery areas.
”For example, if we found that transportation was an issue, we could use that 15 percent to enhance transportation to some of the regional programs,” he said. “We can work hand-in-hand with the regional programs, or we can use the money towards our own programs.”
Nugent said, the legislation is a good idea, that she would hate to see it ruined because of one poorly written section.
”One section of the legislation is fatally flawed,” she said. “Without change the entire thing could be doomed to failure. Any re-examining of the policy could help.”
