Community College Participation in Welfare Programs: Do State Policies Matter? Edwin Meléndez Luis Falcón Josh Bivens Revised July 30, 2002 Running Head Title: Community College Participation in Welfare Programs Address correspondence to: Professor Edwin Meléndez Milano Graduate School of Management and Urban Policy New School University 72 Fifth Avenue, Room 706 New York, NY 10011. E-mail: melendee@newschool.edu Abstract: This paper examines how, to what extent, and why community colleges have responded to welfare-to- work initiatives. A national survey shows that eighty percent of community colleges have implemented programs targeting welfare recipients. TANF programs share key characteristics that are important for state legislators and practitioners to consider when designing new programs. These include short-term training linked to degree programs --so that academic work sponsored by TANF is potentially transferable to a degree-granting educational program-- on-the-job internships with employers, and job readiness and soft skill courses. Also, colleges offer social and academic support services that often include individualized case management, provision of child-care and other social services, remedial courses in basic academic skills, and college preparatory courses. We used information from the survey and other sources to create statistical models that measure the factors that contribute to the colleges’ involvement with welfare-to-work initiatives, particularly the relative importance of state policies. The analysis of the statistical models indicates that both the number of hours that TANF recipients are required to work per week and the degree that states allow TANF recipients to substitute education for other work activities are important policies affecting community college participation. We conclude that welfare reform has strengthened community colleges’ position as regional labor force intermediaries. This study was possible because of the generous assistance of many people in the participating colleges, funding from the United States Department of Labor and the Ford Foundation, and the support provided by the Gastón Institute at UMass-Boston and the Community Development Research Center at the New School University. We are especially indebted to the research team that conducted important parts of the study: Carlos Suárez, Alexandra de Montrichard, Lynn McCormick, Kimberly Gester, Megan Holden, and Jessica Kanty. New York: The New School University, Community Development Research Center, Working Paper #2003-001