soconirrvlson ED 185 327 CE 024 782 AUTHOP Mitchell, John J.: And Others TITLE Implementing Welfare-EmploymentPrograms: An Institutienal Analysis of the Work Incentive(WIN) Program. .INST/TUTIoN Urban Inst., Washington, D.C. -SPONS AGENCY Employment ard mrainiro Administration(DOL), was4ngton, D.C. Office of.Pesearch and Development. REPORT NO DOL-PSD-Monogr-,9 PUB DATE' 90 NOTE' 369p.: Small tyre it figurss will not reproduce -well. AVAILABLE PROM Superintendent cf Documents, U.S. Government Printing. Office, Washington, DC 20402. EDPS PRICE MF01/PC15 Pill, Postage. DESCRIPTORS Adm4nistrative Organization: DeliverySystems; Demography: *Fmployment Programs: Ervircnmental Tnfluences: Institutimal ChFaracteristics; Tnsttutional Environment: Institutional Evaluation: Institutienal research: Labor Market; Organizational Cl4mate: Organize44onal Effectiveness:*Performance Factors: *Procram.Administration; *Program Effectiveness: Program Improvement: Socioeconomic Influences: *Welfare Services IDENTIFIEPS State Local relationship: *Work IncentiveProgram' 'ABSTRACT Factors that 4.nfluence the effectiveness ofstate and local units of the federal Work Incentive(WIN) prog;am were examined to suggest ways to improve theprogram, which is designed to move rectpients of Aid to Famtlies with DependentChildren (AFDC) into productiie jobs. Factors atudied*ere organizational, managerial, anA service delivery character4stics andalso environmertal factors, such As demographic and labor market conditions. Data collectedover a two-year period from field ,-esearch in forty-threelocal aites and teTstates were analyzed to compare high and low performingprograms. The main performance measures 44entifiedwere number cf job entries per staff, average lob entry brae, retention rate, andaverage monthly welfare grant reductior. Soc4.oeconomicenvironment was found to significantly influence performance levels while political-bureaucratic environment was not shownto be associated with variations in performarce. Highperforming state programswere manaaed differently than low performers, and 'highperforming local units differ systematically from low performingunits in the way they were managed and del4vered services tc clients. Organizational structure of sate programa appearedless importantthan other factors, but local character4s4.4.cswere extensively shaped by those a' 'he state level on such 4asuea asprogram priorities, management behavior, and att4tudes toward cr"A. recommendationsare rresented under the following topica: differentiating high from.Low pezforming programs, managerial recommendations, changem in service delivery methods or emphases, and elements cfa structured performance improvement program. (JT1 Implementing WelfaresEmploiment Programs: An Institutional Analysis oftthe Work Incentive (WIN) Program R&D Monograph 78 U S Department of Labor Ray Marshall, Secretary Employment and Training, Administration Ernest G Green .ASsistant Secretary for Employment and Training 1986 This report was prepared by Mr JohnJ. Mitchell, Dr. Mark !. Chadwin and Ms Demetra S. Mightingale of the Urban Institute tor the Employment and Training Administration,U.S. Department 'of Labor, under research and development' grant No 51-1177-01 Researchers undertaking such prolects are encouraged to express their oWn judgment Theirinterpretations or viewpoints do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the Department of Labor. The authors are solely responsible forthe contents of this report NJ 3ia uS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH EDUCATION I. WELERE NATIONAL INSTITUTE Of EDUCATION 'i-I DOC tMI NTHA', BEE NRE PRO. Ou( ED AA( Tl AS RUE ,vE ; ROm T b-I EVER SON OR ORGAN.ZATIONOR.G.N A'NGT PO,NTS0) v,EA OR OP.NIONS S,A,E DO NO1 NEC' REPRF 0 cf NT OiIC.AL NAT.ONAL .NSTINTE Oi E Du( AT,ON POS''.ON OR POL v J10 thy Siiiivrinimidim) "1 Dm.unimit,. P 8 timrilnirtit Printing Otnee Waiiittglmtt. ( '21)41)2 &t a The Office of Research.andDevelopment of the Office of Policy, Evaluation and Research,Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Departmentof Labor, was authorized. first under the MAnpowerDevelopment and TrainingAct (MDTA) of 1962, and then underthe Comprehensive Employ- ment and Training Act (CETA) of1973, to conduct research, experimentation, and demonstrationto solve social and economic problems relativeto the employment and training of unemployed and underemployedworkers. Research also includes national longitudinalsurveys of age cohorts of the population at criticaltransition stages in working. life which examine thelabor market experience of these cohorts. Studies are conductedon labor market structures and operations, obstaclesto employment, mobility, how individuals do job searches,and various problems that pertain particularlyo disadvantaged persons. Experi- mental or demonstration projectsmay test a neW technique of intervention,a different,institutional arrangement for delivery, or innovativeways to combine resources. Analyses of the results of themost.significant of these studies, descriptions ofprocess, handbooxs of procedures, or other products designed specificallyfor planners, administrators, and operators inthe CETA system are issued as- monographs ina continuing series. Information concerning all projects inprocess or completed during the previous 3 years is containedin an annual catalog of activities, Research andDevelopment Projects. This publication and those in themonograph series may be obtained, upon request, from: Inquiries Unit Employment and Training Administration U.S. Department of Labor Room 10225 Patrick Henry Building 601 D Street, N.W. Washincton, D. C. 20213 FOREWCMD This monograph is an account of the organizational structure, management, and operation of the Work Incentive (WIN) Program from the Federal to the local level.. The study vas undertaken at the request of the Office of Work Incentive Programsa program designed to help welfare recipients okstain erployment. WIN is administered jointly by the Deoartment of Labor and the Departrent of Health, Education, and Welfare at ea,:h governmental level. The program faces significant management questions which evolve from the need to unite two agencies in the provision oftwo types of servicessocial services'and empldyment services. The study looks inside the "black box" of pregram implementation and service delivery at those factors which characterize top performing WIN programs. It answers the traditional management question: Why do some programs outperform others, even after their labor market and client environments are taken into account?Pfter systematically identifying and controlling for those environmental factors which affect program performance, the researchers ranked State and local WIN programs on four standardized WIN perforrance reasures. A sample of high and low performers were selected for more indepth research on management issues, such as goal awareness, type and extent of staff training, reporting accuracy, monitoring frequency and type, and styles of lateral and horizontal communication.This comparisonbf high and low performers indicated that systeratic,differences existed which explained why some programs were high performers and:others loW perforrers. lIbe study concludes by recommending ccncrete steps which Federal, State, and local WIN programs could undertake to improve their performance. 1 In addition to clearly addressin4 the needs of WIN program operators at all levels of the system, the study should be of interest to a wide range of human resource program planners, managers, trainers, and evaluators. It contains invaluable lessons for the welfare reformer seeking to combine the delivery 6f both social services and employment and training opportunities. Lastly, the organizational theorist will find that the monograph provides a unique case study of the strategies required for managing a system which must unite the services of two agencies. HOWARD RCSEN Director Office of Research iii ACKNOWLEDGMENT This study benefited fromthe advice and assistance ofMany indi- viduals. Diane L. Ferry of theUniversity of Delaware andLawrence M. Mead of New York' University were integral members of our researchteam in the early stages. Harold Guthrie of The UrbanInstitute and Charles C. Holt of the University of Texas reviewed and contributedto our methodology for quantifying WIN performance indicators and examining theimpact of socio- economic environment on state and local WINprograms. Similarly, our con- versations with Andrew H. Van de Ven of the WhartonSchool and David Roberts, a west coast organizational consultant, stimulatedour thinking about which organizational characteristics to study and how to investigatethem. Timothy.Y. Ling of JWK International, Inc. contributedto our design for a longitudinal analysis of environmental and organizationaldeterminants of program performance. A number of colleagues reviewedparts of this report at various stages of preparation. They included Robert Sadacca,Mary Jane Huneycutt, Frank Levy and Charles Thorpe of the The UrbanInstitute; Michael Wiseman of the University of California; Leonard Goodwin ofWorcester Polytechnical Institute; Leonard Hausman ofBrandeis University; and ErwinHargrove of Vanderbilt University. Many people associated withWIN made essential contributions. Gordon Berlin, our project officer in the Office ofResearch and Development of the Employment and Training Administration,was exceptioAal in his dili- gence, understanding and efforton behalf of the project.MIrwin Hans, the national WIN Director, and