Funding Opportunity for Employment and Training in Your Community

Transcription

1 FSET: Funding Opportunity for Employment and Training in Your Community Presented by: Laura Rowley, Deputy Director, Seattle Jobs Initiative Keith Marler,, Workforce Development Director, South Seattle Community College Aimee Chitayat, Program Director, Insight Center for Community Economic Development (formerly known as NEDLC) Daniel B. Kobayashi, Director, The Workforce Solutions Group

2 FSET Successes In 2 years, WA s s FSET pilot has brought in $2 million new dollars to local nonprofits and colleges for services WA s s FSET program has provided a new tuition funding source for low-income students, recruited many more low-income students to colleges and expanded colleges continuum of services MA s FSET program is in its first year and involves 7 pilot programs, totaling $1,578,761 in reimbursable expenses. In California, the FSET Expansion Initiative is in its first year r and provides TA and advocacy to Bay Area counties. In January, one of the counties (Alameda) will initiate a $4 million program expected to bring in $2 million in federal match funding.

3 What is FSET? A federal program administered by FNS Funds employment and training for food stamp recipients Allows organizations to increase access to, improve and diversify employment and training services FSET provides three streams of funding 100% federal funds for program administration 100% federal funds to serve ABAWDS Uncapped 50/50 federal match program to assist food stamp recipients

4 FSET 50/50 Federal Match Available to both state programs and third- party programs Federal government will reimburse fifty cents of every non-federal dollar spent on allowable employment and training activities Non-federal matching funds may include state and local funds, foundation grants, employer- paid costs and private tuition payments

5 Who is eligible for FSET? Clients must have incomes below 130% FPL to be eligible for food stamps Food stamp recipients must not be receiving TANF Food stamp recipients must not be engaged in more than 120 hours/month of FSET activities, including employment Participation in FSET programs is mandatory for an estimated 9% of food stamps recipients nationwide, and is optional for many others Nationwide, about 35% of those eligible for food stamps are not enrolled

6 Allowable Costs Educational programs to improve employability (e.g., ESL, GED, basic literacy and math) Job search, training and case management Vocational training Work experience Intake, assessment and evaluation Community service Employment related supports for clients (childcare, transportation, uniforms, etc.) Administrative costs

7 FSET National Landscape All states have FSET programs A few states now have or are planning third-party match models The FSET program is underutilized originally conceived as a work requirement to remain on food stamps, it has proven its potential to be much more

8 FSET Program Options Who provides services? Government Community providers (e.g., community colleges, adult schools, community-based organizations) Some combination of the above How can community providers be included? Referral relationship (community providers receive no FSET dollars) Contract model (MA, Alameda County) Third-party match model (WA)

9 WA Program Overview King County pilot began Oct. 05 as first FSET third- party match program in US Administered by WA DSHS, which contracts with nonprofits and colleges to provide services 5 contractors in first year of pilot 17 contractors anticipated for current year 1 contractor dropped out due to poor ROI Nonprofits/colleges match with their own non-federal funding Providers invoice DSHS showing total allowable costs spent, FSET components, roster of eligible clients DSHS reimburses providers 50% of total allowable costs

10 WA Program Results In the two years of the King County pilot: More than 1,800 clients served More than 700 currently active clients More than 350 clients placed Average starting wage of $12.33/hour More than $2,000,000 in new federal dollars for low-income job seekers

11 WA Prog: : Challenges General Challenges Ambiguity on how the regulations are interpreted Confusion on what are allowable, matchable expenses High amount of administrative work Monthly food stamp roster fluctuations Specific Third-Party Match Program Challenges There has been no roadmap Cost reimbursement organization must have sufficient cash Match funds are locked up serving FSET clients

12 WA Prog: : Opportunities DSHS is responding to providers requests to improve reporting/invoicing system, which should ease administrative burden DSHS and WA State Board for Community & Technical Colleges adding FSET staffing, creating infrastructure for continued expansion Opportunity for further collaboration between training providers (colleges) and case management providers (CBOs)

13 WA Prog: : How Colleges Benefit 10 community colleges now in WA FSET program Third-party match program draws in lower-income residents to colleges (60% of FSET students come through outreach/referral) WA uses match to cover tuition, books, etc. Many FSET students are formerly incarcerated persons, or eligible but not enrolled in food stamps About 1.3% of student body ( ) 150) at SSCC enroll in FSET-funded programs each quarter FSET students can be co-enrolled with CBO(s) ) for case management and support services (often on-site) to ensure training retention and placement

14 MA Program: Overview Enabled by the Economic Stimulus Act of 2005 Authorized Dept. of Transitional Assistance to draw down funds and pass them on to service providers Run by UMass Medical School Using intermediary avoids burdensome procurement processes Keeps 5% administrative fee Forms Provider Service Agreements (PSAs( PSAs) ) with service entities Started pilot with 6 orgs., then expanded

15 MA Program: Overview Any org. providing services to eligible populations can draw down funds Community colleges Community-based organizations State agencies Eligible funds include State dollars not already matching federal funds State sectoral initiatives Some scholarship programs Foundation funds Some employer dollars (if not of direct benefit to the employer)

16 MA Prog.. Reporting Reqs. Name and SSN Name of reimbursable component Hours per component and/or per participant Unit cost per component and/or participant If applicable, enrollment and placement rates Total cost per participant on a monthly basis Certification of expenditures Records and accounts of all costs (direct and indirect) associated with initiative

17 MA Program: Results 7 pilot programs drawing down funds for FY 2007 (first year of pilot) Largest has submitted $1.3 million in reimbursable expenses Total of $1,578,761 reimbursable expenses 20 organizations have approached the state about signing up for FY 2008

18 MA Program: Challenges Program is perceived as complicated Some funders are applying for reimbursement = disincentive to service providers to track clients well Because it is complicated, spreading info on the program is time intensive

19 MA Prog: : Opportunities Leverages funder dollars One community college got funding for a new program targeting food stamp population because funders knew they could leverage an additional 50% Incents providers to enroll clients in Food Stamps Presents workforce advocates as problem solvers, not just people looking for money

20 CA Program: Overview CA food stamps and FSET programs are administered by individual counties Few counties are taking advantage of FSET FSET Expansion Initiative, formed in February 2007, provides TA to counties and state/federal advocacy to improve FSET Initiative is a partnership with Insight Center for Community Economic Development and California Association of Food Banks, funded primarily by BAWFC For more state and national FSET resources, go to

21 CA Program: Results CDSS and USDA on board with third- party match model Alameda County decided to use the contract model and expand FSET from a small program to a $4 million program that partners with the PIC, adult schools, community colleges, and CBOs on sector strategies such as trucking and home health care

22 CA Program: Challenges Income projections are a basis for a decision to expand FSET, but are difficult to develop. Data is being analyzed for better financial forecasting. CA s county-based FSET approach limits economies of scale. Models for regional or statewide administrative entities or shared MIS are being evaluated. Many counties lack momentum to move forward.

23 CA Program: Opportunities The FSET Expansion Initiative team will: Bring advocates for employment and training, especially community colleges, to the table at local and statewide levels to encourage innovation and expansion of FSET. Seek and help implement pilot projects that build confidence in the third-party match model. Provide updates and information through an ongoing education campaign. Provide TA to interested organizations.

24 Starting an FSET Third-Party Program: Considerations Do you have a champion? Cash flow what is the financial picture of your agency? FSET-only program or integration of FSET into existing programs? Does your agency have client tracking system needed to maintain roster? Demographics do you serve many food stamp recipients and/or can you target them? Are your employment and training services intensive?

25 Potential Political Hurdles Lack of political will for government to put up the match in a contract or government-run run model Government fears about giving up control to community partners for program quality, continuity, and accountability Return on investment concerns Lack of awareness of or interest in FSET s s potential For community partners, concern about difficulty in serving food stamp population or putting up the match Possible need for enabling legislation and/or revision of state s s Food Stamp Plan

26 Advocacy Options Get state DSS/Governor to champion FSET expansion Pilot model to build confidence, then spread the word Bring advocates and community partners to the table. Community colleges have been very influential in many states. Identify incentives for the state, such as grant funds for program planning or a provider tax that funds government administration of the third-party match model, e.g., a 55/45 match program Develop a report that evaluates your state s s FSET program and start a media campaign Work with advocates throughout US to improve FSET regulations

27 Political Developments Workforce advocates, led by The Workforce Alliance, are pushing for improvements to FSET in current fed l Farm Bill Reauthorization legislation Repeal of 120-Hour Rule Allowing FSET to fund 90 days retention Good news: Senate has included changes in draft discussion of Farm Bill

28 Questions?????????