SHARE:                                              

[Interim Report]

Preface
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 is a hybrid block grant. It allows considerable discretion to states and local entities while at the same time setting overall policy goals and establishing structural and oversight mechanisms. In point of fact, there is no such thing as a pure block grant ("Here's the money -- just do it your way"). The nature of the federalism bargain for all such large intergovernmental subventions is shaped horizontally at the center where different goals are enunciated in a mix of purposes, and vertically in the execution of the policy by states and local service deliverers.

The Workforce Investment Act, moreover, was not born out of whole cloth. It continues a process of pulling together labor market services to produce the right strokes for the right folks, in the case of this law because of the way it focuses on the creation and operations of One-Stop Centers.

The United States is a vast territory with varied needs, conditions, political cultures, and traditions. The way such federalism policy bargains play out in the country requires close analysis of what happens after a new law is passed. These comments, of necessity, gloss over important details about funding streams, program components, and regulatory oversight. To get beneath the surface in situations like this, the Rockefeller Institute of Government, the public policy research arm of the State University of New York located in Albany, has conducted a number of studies using field data about what happens to public policies after they are made. These studies have been carried out by a network of indigenous social scientists. They have as their units of analysis -- institutions.

Understanding how state and local governments and service deliverers behave in carrying out a public policy is an essential component of policy analysis. Unless we know what the agents are doing, it is difficult to assess program effects. We need to know about the nature and variation of service providers and the pace and character of change in order to wisely interpret program data. Administrative processes for workforce development involve environments in which many types of service deliverers (public, nonprofit, private, faith-based) provide diverse and sometimes overlapping services to people who qualify and often need and receive multiple forms of assistance to help them navigate in the economy.

This study of the Workforce Investment Act takes a close look at the goals, structure, finances, and implementation of the law in eight states as a basis for providing feedback to the U.S. Department of Labor and other interested organizations and experts on what is happening now in the provision of publicly funded employment and training services. This initial report by Burt S. Barnow and Christopher T. King summarizes the field data across the eight study states -- Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Oregon, Texas, and Utah. The study, in addition, analyzes and will provide in-depth reports on how this public policy is carried out on a state-by-state basis.

Barnow and King are experienced and respected experts in this policy area. Working with associates at Johns Hopkins University, Amy Buck, and the University of Texas at Austin, Daniel O'Shea, they conducted the field research in five of the eight study states. The field research on one state (Indiana) was conducted by Patricia Billen, who serves as the Rockefeller Institute project manager for this study. The field research on Missouri was conducted by Peter Mueser and Deanna Sharpe, and on Oregon by Laura Leete and Neil Bania. The case studies were reviewed by state and local officials, many of whom were involved and cooperated helpfully in gathering field data, and by officials of the U.S. Department of Labor. They will be published at a later date along with a full crosscutting comparative analysis. This interim report is being circulated now to provide information for the legislative reauthorization process.

Richard P. Nathan
May 12, 2003

[Interim Report]