Welcome to JOBS THAT WORK, a policy and business newsletter about how everything is workforce, and how we can make everything better.

Whether someone gets or keeps a job often comes down to very human needs, such as access to childcare, transportation, or housing. America’s main source of workforce dollars is widely seen as limited in its ability to cover these costs.

But what if there were more options available than many people think?

There’s a big problem within federal workforce funding. And a problem within that, too.

The big problem is something I have written about quite a bit in this space: human needs like childcare and transportation can be as much a barrier to whether someone gets a job as their skills, if not more so. If you can’t get to training, or you have no one to care for the ones you love the most, you’re probably not going to get through the training or a job afterward.

The problem within the problem is that it’s very hard to actually address these needs through America’s most consistent source of workforce dollars, the funding distributed to states via formula under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA. WIOA does allow the spiderweb of workforce providers called the “federal workforce system” to spend on things like childcare and transportation because they are what the statute calls “supportive services,” also known as “wraparound services,” or the services people need to get to and through training. But “allows” isn’t “actually allows.” While political leaders frequently point workers and employers to WIOA-supported workforce providers for help with supportive services, those workforce providers often think they are prohibited from helping, either due to the law or limited funds.

Last year, in partnership with the Annie E. Casey Foundation, I looked into this batch of issues. What I found is that the law can be read much more permissively than many workforce providers believe, and there are options for addressing these needs that are more economical than what’s been pursued to this point.

I break down my findings and the challenges that remain below. Over at my new Resources page, you also can now access my full research as a free guide for improving access to supportive services with federal dollars, including templates for doing this in line with my read of the law. (As always, I caution that you get DOL’s approval for trying any of this.)

Let me be clear: this isn’t a magic bullet for what ails the federal workforce system when it comes to supportive or wraparound services. Nor is what I identify in this post or my guide a perfect fit for every provider. However, the goal here is less about trying to develop a universal fix than about opening the door for more creative solution-finding at the state and local level to get more results for America’s jobseekers and employers.

Here is the story I heard a lot during my time at the Department of Labor: a worker comes to the federal workforce system for help finding a job. They meet with a case manager who tells them they are eligible for a WIOA-funded workforce program, but they need childcare, transportation, or other help to get to and through the training. Under the most common reading of WIOA, what happens next is a scavenger hunt that may result in the person never getting the help—or training—they need at all.

For programs for adults, WIOA says that a worker must be “unable to obtain such supportive services through other programs providing such services.” 29 U.S.C. 3174(d)(2)(B). Just to spell out a little more plainly: what that typically means is that before WIOA will cover these costs, the worker needs to go to Head Start—the federally subsidized childcare program—or a similar local resource for childcare. Or, if they need transportation, they get referred to an organization that gives people free or discounted rides, or something like that.

And what this really means is workers are deposited into other bureaucracies and waitlists for services, for which they may or may not be eligible, to get access to the help that is literally the barrier between them and job training. Workforce providers usually don’t (or feel like they can’t) help all that much beyond a referral. For example, a 2016 New Jersey report found “managers and staff at many [workforce providers’] centers [in the state] reported being so understaffed that they can barely accomplish mandatory requirements” under the law.

That highlights another aspect of the problem: resources. I often say that WIOA prioritizes moving bodies and paper through the federal workforce system over actual results, something seen through its expensive performance measures, which have limited utility in measuring actual performance. For the purposes of this conversation, what that means is WIOA’s dollars have to go a lot of different directions for workforce providers.

Accordingly, workforce providers (and historically, DOL) tend to aggressively default against WIOA covering these costs to preserve available funding. Regulations require that workforce providers set up policies for when and how they will provide supportive services. Many add conditions not required by the law. For example, one local policy I read directs case managers to inquire if workers really can’t tap into other sources for supportive services, such as family. That’s awkward—interpersonally—on its face, but it also doesn’t make a ton of sense bureaucratically or legally. To be considered for supportive services, the worker generally must have already been determined to be low income. They’ve most likely exhausted their personal options before they’ve stepped into the workforce provider’s offices.

If workers make it through this bureaucratic gauntlet, they may end up on another scavenger hunt: finding companies or organizations that will provide them the services they need for the small vouchers that workforce providers give out for supportive services. One workforce provider’s supportive services policy caps supportive service funding for workers at $3,000 per year per worker, explicitly couching this policy based on the various demands made on its funds. When I added up the average costs of childcare and rent in the provider’s area, it was around $2,000. Per month.

All too frequently, the story ends somewhere at one of these chokepoints with workers not getting the help they need and not completing a training program. This costs employers skilled talent and helps contribute to one of WIOA’s overriding problems, which is that it tends to route workers toward lower-paying jobs, a result that may bring the worker back to the federal workforce system in the future.

Thing is? My research of dozens of supportive services policies found that many providers are applying the wrong standard to some programs. There also are more proactive options allowable under the law that spare workers the scavenger hunt and could improve the return on investment from WIOA spending.

So, a quick step back: WIOA formula dollars aren’t one program, but usually four. One stream is made of dollars appropriated under the New Deal-era Wagner-Peyser Act, which funds the infrastructure through which DOL administers unemployment insurance and its workforce programs. The other three are “programmatic” dollars:

The supportive services language from WIOA I quote above—saying workers must be “unable to obtain [help] . . . through other programs providing such services”—actually applies to only two of the programs: adult and dislocated workers. As I read the law, workforce providers don’t have to force workers through the scavenger hunt for youth programs. Many do, though, based on the dozens of supportive services policies I read for my research. My explanation for this phenomenon is what I’ll call “administrative convenience”: the law doesn’t say this policy can’t be applied to youth programs, too, and it’s easier for providers to just work off one standard instead of two.

And where the “unable to obtain” standard applies, the law doesn’t require the scavenger hunt approach I describe in the previous section. In my research, I wasn’t able to get a good origin for how this standard came to be, but I did hear quite a bit about why it persists. Many providers are afraid to try something new in fear of DOL finding them in violation of the law. Providers also told me that DOL has at least tacitly directed the scavenger hunt approach. I don’t have any documentation of that, but it’s a big bureaucracy. Little folkways pop up and get calcified and become scripture, even if they’re really not the law.

So, if the law doesn’t require the prevailing practices for supportive services under WIOA, what options are available within the boundaries of the law? I worked out a two-part option for the services providers say they get asked for the most: childcare and transportation.

The first part is devoting some staff time to proactively address the “unable to obtain” step to avoid sending workers hunting for services that most likely don’t exist. The second is buying those services “in bulk”: contracting or spending federal resources in ways that create immediate, cost-controlled answers for how to give workers the help they need.

In my experience, it’s usually not a surprise to workforce providers that a supportive service scavenger hunt doesn’t work out for a worker. In many communities, there are limited options for serving lower-income workers’ needs—and limited availability for help within the options there are.

WIOA doesn’t specify how providers must show that workers were “unable to obtain” services through other means. Just because most workforce providers (and DOL) have settled into the scavenger hunt approach doesn’t mean that’s the only option. Accordingly, my recommendation is for workforce providers to proactively coordinate with supportive service providers in the area to document availability on a regular basis. This step more efficiently touches WIOA’s “unable to obtain” base to let workforce providers know with a fair amount of certainty what services WIOA will cover for a worker when they walk in the door.

Or put another way: workforce providers should build a record to show when sending a worker hunting for services on their own would be a waste of time that’s not required by the law.

Yes, it’s very awkward to note that the workforce system is struggling to satisfy all its needs in one digital breath and recommend devoting staff time for something proactive beyond immediate needs in another. But I do so here because I think that this could ultimately save workforce providers time and produce better results from their training programs, including goosing their performance under WIOA’s quite-imperfect performance metrics.

Separately, WIOA rules require workforce providers to coordinate with supportive service providers. Acknowledging the resource crunch facing many local workforce providers, I think it’s fair to say many do not do this under the scavenger hunt approach. This approach allows workforce providers to cover that legal vulnerability and more effectively connect workers to the non-WIOA supportive services in their community.

I also think that there are options available to do this without an insurmountable amount of new work (and possibly save time, too). For example, there are web platforms that allow providers to look into which childcare centers have availability and for what age groups. Where such a platform is unavailable, workforce providers also can coordinate with supportive service providers in slightly lower-tech ways of documenting the availability of services. For example, supportive services providers could update a shared spreadsheet or send an email once a week to notify a workforce provider if they have space.

Over in the Resources section, I offer some templates for doing this. The big idea, though, is to save time and get better results by not wasting the time of participants looking for resources that providers can determine—with a good degree of certainty—aren’t there.

The legal step is only half the battle. Remember that WIOA resources are too little for the size of the challenges facing American workers and employers, and workforce providers’ supportive service policies frequently note that they tightly cap wraparound spending to avoid exhausting their cash reserves. It is reasonable to expect the process I describe above to result in workforce providers determining that more workers are eligible for WIOA-covered supportive services. That could be a significant resource drain if providers are using the voucher-based approach common now.

The second part of my approach, then, is to control costs and deliver more effective supportive services by “buying in bulk,” or contracting for or buying the means of delivering supportive services to avoid costs ballooning through vouchers.

For childcare, this likely means paying a childcare center a flat rate to preserve a certain number of drop-in slots at each age range. The goal, again, is to have as immediate an answer as possible to a worker’s supportive services needs when they walk in the door. Because training is short term, and WIOA only covers supportive services while a worker is in training, this is probably the best answer with the tools at hand.²

As I stress-tested this idea with many different audiences, there was perpetual worry about whether a childcare provider would go along with this. My understanding from that industry is that there is a better chance than not. The childcare industry’s margins are notoriously thin. Guaranteed income—for slots that may or may not be used—will help with that. This funding also could help expand childcare access in the community or raise the quality of care by allowing providers to hire more staff to prepare for the teacher-to-student ratios when a worker in training needs drop-in care for their children.

For transportation, the solution I settled upon was much more direct: buy a van. Current DOL workforce guidance generally OKs vehicle purchases (with prior approval requirements specified by the guidance) if needed “to reach people [with training] . . . particularly in more rural areas” and “conduct outreach as well as provide employment and training services.” Setting up a van pool that helps workers get to and from training removes the guesswork of whether another service will actually fit their needs.

This strategy admittedly comes with new budget line items, and it should be carefully deployed to minimize liability risk and meet all regulatory requirements. Yet, I have heard encouraging results from providers who use things akin to the ideas here. A community college noted to me last year that the van is a powerful recruitment tool—both in terms of word of mouth that the college gives people rides and that the vans can be branded.

First, this is only a portion of my research. You can read everything in the full guide at the link below and find resources for trying this stuff out.

Second, if you are worried about this driving up WIOA spending on supportive services, that might not actually happen through the strategy above. The scavenger hunt approach doesn’t usually involve a ton of coordination among workforce providers and supportive service providers as to whether a service is actually available for workers. Accordingly, the coordination strategy I describe above reasonably could improve the placement of workers in supportive services that WIOA resources don’t need to cover at all.

Third, I’ll caution that my read of the law may not be DOL’s read of the law. That said, while the Trump II DOL has rolled back a lot of administrative flexibilities for WIOA, it’s also inviting states to seek waivers of WIOA’s requirements to try something new. If a state wanted to play with these options, it could seek a waiver from DOL to apply the strategies I have developed juuuust to be safe that this is allowable.

Finally, what I discuss above isn’t a silver bullet, and I don’t like policy arguments that pretend they are or can be. I do think we need a better, more thoughtful replacement for WIOA, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t tricks we can coax out of the statute in the meantime. Based on the feedback I got in my research, there’s just a lot of reluctance among providers (especially states) to try new things or even ask about them.

My goal here is to give folks a roadmap for trying new stuff with supportive services. If you’re in this business, I hope you’ll consider using it to go somewhere new.

One, you can find more awesome free workforce resources on The Casey Foundation's website.

Two, I’ll be back here on Thursday for what should be a loaded version of THE MONEY. This Friday marks the closure of DOL’s competition to run apprenticeship incentive funds. We also had the surprise return of a workforce-adjacent grant from Homeland Security late last week, and I’ll have more on the uncertainty around WIOA waivers offered by DOL.