ter Two
Chapter Five
Chapter Eight
   Table S.3—Continued
Subsection of
Section 122 Issue
Large-Hub Airports
(d)(1) Analyze the current and
future capacity constraints
of large-hub airports
(d)(2) Quantify large- hub airports’
infrastructure requirem


be available over this five-year period.
Chapter in Report
Chapter Eight
Chapter Two
Chapter Eight
Chapter Five
Chapter Five
Summary xxv
    Acknowledgments
 As a part of Section 122 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, the RAND research team was


hone interviews. These include, in alpha- betical order, representatives from Airlines for America, Airports Council International–North America, Airports Council International–World, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport, Frasca & Assoc


n Statistics
CAB Civil Aeronautics Board
CATS Certification Activity Tracking System
CFC customer facility charge
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CLT Charlotte Douglas International Airport
CPI Consumer Price Index
DB1B Airline Origin and Destination


ncluded in the price of an airline ticket that is now sold separately, such as checked baggage, advance seat assignments, and priority boarding.
Aircraft that are operational, airworthy, and based at an airport for a majority of the year.
An arrangem


service airports and to provide improved general aviation access to the overall community. These may be publicly or privately owned.
An agreement between an airport and airlines in which signatory airlines agree to cover an airport’s operating expens


adding fees or taxes that increase fares, subsidizing overly ambitious local airport expansion plans, supporting plans that might open the way toward more competition, or enabling jurisdictions to divert airport-generated revenue for nonaviation publ


ggests congressional interest in this study is closely tied to under- standing impacts of potential changes in the PFC program on airports, airlines, and passengers before commencing further legislative action. In Chapter Six of this report, we discu


aircraft, and role within the national airport system.
Table 1.1 presents the various airport categories and subcategories, along with their defi- nitions and relevant statistics. The FAA aggregates airports as either commercial service air- ports or


cluding runways, taxiways, aprons, and aircraft gates and the land adjacent to these facilities required by current FAA standards” (FAA Order 5100.38D, 2019). Landside refers to “[t]he portion of an airport that provides the facilities necessary for


n links connecting from outside the airport to the airport, enabling passengers to access the airport’s services. This exclusion can be problematic for funding and finance at some airports and jurisdictions, as will be discussed further in Chapter Th


ted in the latest edition of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Infrastructure Report Card, which states,
The FAA’s set performance goal is that no less than 93% of runways at NPIAS airports are in excellent, good or fair condition. In 20


 of airport opera- tions, including aeronautical and non-aeronautical expenditures and revenue, federal and state grants, and other sources of capital.
In Chapters Five and Six, we take a closer look at two important funding mechanisms administered b


e last increase in 2000 to the year of enactment of this Act
(c)(7) Impact to passengers and airports of indexing the PFC for inflation
(c)(8) How long airports are constrained with current PFC collections
(c)(9) Impact of PFCs on promoting competiti


ot off the ground in the 1910s when the U.S. Post Office began encouraging mail delivery via air.1 The main legislation regulating commercial flight passed in 1938 and was patterned on trucking regulation, which in turn had grown from concerns rooted


irlines that ceased to operate (Goetz and Vowles, 2009). Since 2008, another six major airlines have been acquired by other airlines:
• Midwest, acquired by Republic Airlines, 2009
• Northwest, acquired by Delta Air Lines, 2009
• Continental, acquire


n, Pan Am, Northwest, TWA, and USAir, all of which have merged with other airlines or ceased operating as of 2018. The “LCCs” category includes AirTran, Alaska, ATA, Hawaiian, JetBlue, Midway, Sun Country, Vanguard, and Virgin America. The “ULCCs” ca


rated markets have higher HHI. The Department of Justice considers a market or industry HHI of 1,500 to 2,500 to be moderately concentrated and anything above 2,500 to be highly concentrated (U.S. Department of Justice, 2018). The HHI is a widely acc


ta do not include ASM or revenue passenger miles, so we could not recalculate the HHI for ASM and rev- enue passenger miles to include operating carriers as part of the marketing carriers.
 Figure 2.2
Herfindahl-Hirschman Index for Three Airline Indu


rcent of its enplanements were for Alaska Air and 11 percent were under its own name in 2018.
 14 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
Table 2.1
Proportion of Enplanements, by Airline Category, 2018
Carrier Type
Percentage of Enplanement


i-hub markets are less concentrated, meaning that passengers in those markets have a greater choice of ticketing carriers to choose from. Three of the four most highly concentrated airports (Midway, Hobby, and Love) are in multi-hub markets. The
11 A


ts,12 accounting for direct flights as well as flights with one or two layovers. We looked at round-trip itineraries between two markets, and each market pair is included twice, once with one city being the origin and a second time with that city as


fees are exempted from reporting (GAO, 2014a). Bag fee collections increased substantially beginning in 2008, when they grew by almost 150 percent (BTS, 2019e).
Historical Context and Trends in Air Travel 17
 1,501–2,500 2,501–5,000 5,001–7,500 7,501


ncillary fees.
Figure 2.7
Total U.S. Enplanements and Enplanements per Capita, 1990–2018
800 4
700
600 3
500
Enplanements (millions) 400 2 Enplanements per capita 300
200 1
100
00 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2018
Year
SOURCE: BTS, 2019b.
• changes


aft as a way to compete more on price than quality. LCCs continue to seek out airports that enable quick turnaround times at gates, since using aircraft efficiently continues to be an important element of their business model (Graham, 2013).
As the d


ndicator. The evidence shows that, as enplanements have risen over the past three decades, the number of operations rose at a slower pace and has declined over the past 15 years.
Forecasting airport trends too far into the future is risky because ind


ports in the United States are publicly owned, and our focus in this chapter is on commercial service airports. Among large- and medium-hub airports, almost all are owned by cities, counties, or independent authorities established by a city or county


pter Six.
Not all revenues, however, can be used to cover all expenses. The color of money matters. Revenue use is governed by a system of statutory-based “grant assurances,” which are admin- istered by the FAA and restrict airports’ abilities to rai


s choose to use an individual airport (for example, in either an origin- destination or hub mode) can affect the finances of the airport, its access to certain types of revenue sources, and its leverage in negotiations with incumbent airlines and new


 simply refer to these as agreements. Although not every airport signs such agreements with its incumbent air- lines, the large majority do (Faulhaber et al., 2010). Agreements are discussed in more detail later in this chapter.
The Business of Airpo


hod
Landside: shared, with residual protection
Hybrid compensatory
Airfield: any method
Terminal: any method
Landside: shared, without residual protection
Compensatory
Airfield: any method
Terminal: compensatory
Landside: kept by airport


capital projects.
8 Comparable data on medium hubs were not provided.
9 Wu notes that his categorizations differ slightly from the FAA; however, he also notes that “there are no consistent defi-
nitions of the types of rate methodologies” (Wu, 2015a,


takeholders and to obtain FAA approval, but they do not require airline approval. These issues are discussed in greater detail in Chap- ter Six.
Gate Control and New Market Entrants
One common point of contention between airports and airlines is the


irline uses an airport as a hub does not mean it has a majority of passengers and operations at that airport; an airport might serve as a hub for more than one airline.16
Another issue is that hub airports might have a higher proportion of passengers


ultiple hub airlines. All but one of the large-hub airports serve as a hub or focus city for at least one airline. Specifics are shown in Table 3.2.
Market Size and Demand
Larger airports with high demand should be in a better position to negotiate w


revenues and expenditures to the FAA using its CATS database, which contains a standard categorization of revenues and other funding sources as well as individual items in each category. CATS distinguishes between two types of operating revenues: aer


l contributions by airport sponsors and others,18 as well as federal and state grant programs and the PFC program. Generally, these non-operating revenues might not be used for operating expenses of the air- port, and as a result, are especially impo


 were consolidated into the AIP in the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA). See FAA, 2017c.
20 The appropriation limitation also includes four other funding categories: Small Community Fund, Administrative Expenses, Airport Technology R


debt activities, which occur primarily through the municipal bond market. Bond proceeds are inflows of capital. Repayment of borrowed capital and interest payments associated with the debt incurred, col- lectively called debt service, is counted as


 be made only with certain types of funds. The following section on federal regulations touches on some of these restric- tions, and the results of these and revenue-specific restrictions are shown in Tables 3.5 and 3.6 at the end of that section.
Fe


ot exceed the costs allocated to that user or user group under a cost allocation method- ology adopted by the airport proprietor that is consistent with this guidance” (FAA, 2013, Sec- tion 3.1). This policy allows for fees to vary between signatory


an airport, the airport must use those revenues for airport purposes (FAA Order 5190.6B, 2009, Chap- ter 3). Although airports can raise revenue by selling airport property, the FAA must approve any sales. Approval requires that the airport establis


u and the Texarkana Airport Authority have expired (FAA, 2018c). San Diego’s grandfathering authority was eliminated when the airport was transferred to a new and independent authority. The cap was set independently for each airport and increases ann


n an existing expressway to make the project eligible (Gos- ling, Wei, and Freeman, 2012). The project was not approved by the FAA until after a seven- year legal case clarified the interpretation of “exclusive use” (Karaskiewicz, 2018).36 In a more


ting, and administrative costs
• Airside development and planning
• Select projects in non–revenue- generating areas
• All AIP eligible projects
• Projects in revenue- generating areas, with certain limitations
• Debt service
• Capital expenditures
•


g
AIP PFC
Bonds
Private Investment
                                                                                Operating
        SOURCES: Operating (aeronautical and non-aeronautical) and non-operating funds: FAA Order


be approved by the FAA before airports can receive AIP grants or PFC approvals (FAA Order 5100.38D, 2019, Appendix W).
AIP grant assurances—conditions that airport sponsors must meet as a condition for having accepted past AIP grants—also include sev


te the minimum usage of slots at Level 3 airports. At DCA and LGA, which serve primarily domestic flights, slots are distributed to carriers on a rolling basis, largely based on the number of slots a car- rier has historically owned and operated. At


necessary restriction.42 Because no clear verdict has been reached, the perimeter rules remain in place at the time of this writing.
Environmental, Noise, Safety, and Security Regulations
Airports are subject to many federal regulations in four areas


regard to safety regulations, commercial service airports must maintain a current FAA-approved Airport Certification Manual to show that current and planned infrastructure meet safety requirements under 14 CFR Part 139. These requirements are mainly


rcial service airports would not be sold to private investors (Poole, 2018).46
43 The pilot program allows for up to ten airports to be privatized, and applications have been staggered over several years.
44 Stewart International Airport in Newburgh,


ope’s 500 airports that are fully public fell from 78 percent to 59 percent between 2010 and 2016. Mixed- ownership airports, which encompass various types of public-private partnerships, have dou- bled over the same period, from 13 percent to 25 per


However, airport planning cycles are much longer, with many long-term master plans looking out 20 years or more. Changes to the physical infrastructure at airports tend to require many years to plan, permit, and build. Airports are also subject to a


airports are governed by FAA regulations and adhere to the terms of use-and-lease agreements with airlines, other stakeholders (shown in Figure 3.2) can affect an airport’s abil- ity to embark on major capital projects or change its operations. Such


d businesses
FIxed-base operators, concession holders, ground transport, janitorial, and other service providers
The Business of Airports 47
         Airlines
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
            SOURCES: RAND design with Noun Pro


rport size. Although the FAA has allowed a limited number of airports to pursue privatization, this option has not proven as popular in the United States as it has in other countries.
The FAA imposes some specific restrictions on airports and their r


nt) was from aeronau- tical operating revenue, $10.1 billion (35.1 percent) was from non-aeronautical operating rev- enue, and $1.4 billion (4.9 percent) was from non-operating revenue, as shown in Figure 4.1.
1 Airports report data to CATS aggregate


rom all other types of debt. To avoid double-counting the interest, we have subtracted non-operating expenses from debt service. Because we cannot subtract only the long-term bond debt, the value we report as debt service might undercount the princip


aeronautical operating
Non-operating PFC
AIP and other grants
Bond proceeds
Total 27,015
SOURCE: CATS (FAA, undated c).
Large-Hub Medium-Hub Small-Hub Non-Hub
Primary Primary Primary Primary Nonprimary Total
Source (30 Airports) (31 Airports) (72 Air


imary Primary Primary Primary Nonprimary Total Category Source (30 Airports) (31 Airports) (72 Airports) (194 Airports) (76 Airports) (403 Airports)
 Operating Expense 9,377
Non-operating Expense 2,725
Capital Expense 8,749 expenditures
Principal Deb


Figure 4.5
Proportion of Expenses for Rural and Urban Commercial Service Airports, 2017
     Percentage
100 90
  80
  70
  60
  50
  40
  30
  20
  10
0
 SOURCE: CATS (FAA, undated c).
Rural
Urban
Trends in Funding and Expenses from 2009 to 2017
Idea


.0%
4.7%
11.7% 10.4%
2012 2013
23.224 24.603 40.8% 40.7% 33.9% 33.5%
3.4% 4.7%
11.9% 11.4% 10.0% 9.8%
  Figure 4.7
Commercial Service Airport Revenue, by Airport Size, 2009–2017
    Billions of dollars (nominal)
Billions of dollars (nominal)
Year
Non


l revenue increased, whereas the proportions of other sources decreased.
Trends in Expenses, by Airport Size
As shown in Figure 4.8 and Table 4.6, operating expenses were the largest category of expenses from 2009 to 2017 and have shown consistent gr


ds for urban airports and rural airports have developed differently over time. As shown in Figure 4.10, the two largest sources of revenue, aeronautical and non-aeronautical operating revenues, have been steadily increasing for urban airports. Rural


 (nominal)
Billions of dollars (nominal)
Billions of dollars (nominal)
10 8 6 4 2
Large-hub primary airports
2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
Medium-hub primary airports
2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4
Small-hub primary airports
      2.0 1.6 1.2 0.8 0.4
Billions of dollars


rating revenues across airports of all sizes steadily increased. However, the rate of increase declines with the size of the air- port. Also, the proportion of AIP and other grants compared with other sources of revenue decreased during this period f


nding for the AIP and for FAA programs more generally. It was established by the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-258) and sub- sequently reactivated by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (Pub. L. 97-248).1 Appendix E i


 general aviation jet fuel surtax on fractional ownership
Rate for Calendar Year 2019
7.5% of fare
$4.20 (indexed annually to CPI)
$18.60 (indexed annually to CPI)
$9.30 (indexed annually to CPI)
7.5% of fare
6.25% of amount paid for the transportati


tional Airport that was shared with us, the median large-hub airport was responsible for about $14 of AATF excise tax contributions for each $1 in AIP grants received over the period from FY 2009 to FY 2016, the median medium hub was responsible for


et fuel could substitute for diesel fuel when facing a lower tax rate, depriving the High- way Trust Fund of revenue. The 2005 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Pub. L. 109-59) equalized the tax rat


n trust fund revenues over expenditures can be seen as an offset in federal deficit computations. In some cases, however, the balance may be seen as having been spent on non-aviation programs or purposes. Because the balance is invested in short-term


lion at the end of FY 2024 and $47.7 bil- lion at the end of FY 2029 (JCT, 2019, Table 2). Figure 5.6 plots the projections for the uncom- mitted balance along with the projections for AATF revenues (including interest, because inter- est earnings co


rs intervened; the uncommitted balance ended up being about $5.7 billion at the end of FY 2016 (Tang and Elias, 2017, p. 8). Five years later, in 2011, the CBO projected that the cash balance (which includes amounts that have been obligated but not y


 of the FAA budget but also be designed to guard against the possibility of draining down the balance, should revenues fail to materialize. As GAO, 2012a, p. 22, notes,
According to an industry expert, the effects of certain exogenous events—events c


origins in the years after World War II, when policymakers established the Federal-Aid Airport Program in the Federal Airport Act of 1946 (Pub. L. 79-377) to support building airfields, terminals, and access roads. This funding came from the General


ng, developing an environ- mental management system, and developing a plan for recycling and minimizing the generation of airport solid waste (49 U.S.C. § 47102).
• Airport development: a wide-ranging term that includes (but is not limited to) con- s


tly, the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-254) authorized annual AIP spending of $3.35 billion from FY 2019 to FY 2023. However, Congress also imposes a separate, sometimes lower limitation on obliga- tions that can be made in a particula


 limitation to less than $3 billion in tandem with other changes to both the AIP and the PFC program.9 This proposal, which was not adopted by Congress, would have raised
Figure 5.7
Airport Improvement Program Funding Authorized and Airport Improveme


more money through the PFC program than they forgo in AIP grants.
The overwhelming majority of AIP dollars support airside infrastructure, consistent with the NPR system, which prioritizes these projects as part and parcel of prioritizing safety. In


rded at the airport in calendar year 2017 is used. Table 5.2 lists the fund- ing amounts per passenger, depending on the number of enplanements. The table lists the amounts specified in statute that are apportioned when the AIP obligation limitation


s received funding through the cargo enti- tlement program, with Memphis International receiving the most funding ($16.9 million) because it accounted for about 15 percent of total landed weight among eligible airports (FAA, undated a). In general, t


ing as the “protected entitlements” category in Figure 5.8.
Small Airport Fund
The Small Airport Fund receives 87.5 percent of forgone primary entitlements at large- and medium-hub airports that impose a PFC, as described above. The amounts are reapp


) are added to the discretionary pot and are not subject to set-asides, with the exception that at least half of these funds are to go to airports other than large and medium hubs.
State Block Grant Program
The State Block Grant Program provides stat


r- ances that reflect federal priorities incorporated into statute over time.15 Details are provided in Appendix G.
Distribution of Airport Improvement Program Grants by Airport Size
Figure 5.9 shows the distribution of the dollars of AIP grants over


smaller airports, and airports outside metropolitan areas in particular, received priority consideration for $1 billion in supplemental AIP funds appropriated in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 (Pub. L. 115-141). No supplemental discretiona


rom passengers. Passengers pay a flight segment fee that is indexed to the CPI, along with a ticket tax of 7.5 percent of the fare. Other excise taxes are based on inter- national travel, cargo, and fuel use.
Under current law, the authorized amount


 be increased above $4.50, the amount it has been since April 2001, when the cap increase included in the 2000 FAA reauthorization took effect.
In this chapter, we begin by providing background on the PFC program, a description of eligibility criteri


time of the PFC program’s creation shine a light on one of the motivating factors for the PFC: promoting competition. GAO, 1990, pp. 2–3, states,
A PFC gives airports a source of revenue for financing airport expansion projects indepen- dent of airli


irports forgo 50 percent of their AIP primary entitlements if they impose a PFC of $3 or less, and they forgo 75 percent of these AIP funds if they impose a PFC of more than $3.
After receiving a PFC application from an airport, the FAA first reviews


e eligible at hub airports, but concession areas, such as food courts, are not).
• PFC revenues can be leveraged to incur debt, and airports can use PFCs to pay principal and interest on this debt. In most cases, bonds backed by PFC revenues must be


n to destination, including stops or layovers along the way.
Table 6.1
PFCs by Airport Category
Airport Category
Large hub
Medium hub
Small hub
Non-hub primary
Nonprimary commercial service
Total 506
Federal Role in Airport Infrastructure Funding: Pa


19f. Boise charged a PFC from 1994 to 2015, while Greenville has never charged a PFC. See Day, 2019, and Greenville-Spartanburg Airport Commission, 2019.
 90 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
Figure 6.2
Percentage of All Hub Airports


s not double apportionment amounts.
    Percentage charging a PFC
Percentage charging $4.50 PFC
 Percentage of hub airports
 Federal Role in Airport Infrastructure Funding: Passenger Facility Charge Program 91
Figure 6.3
PFC Collections Versus AIP Gr


ual PFC projects are approved at non-hub primary airports, more than 75 percent of the dollars are for projects at large-hub airports. Figure 6.5 displays the distribution of PFC dollars by airport hub size over the duration of the PFC program (throu


6 percent at large hubs to 95 percent at nonprimary airports.
Inflation and the Purchasing Power of the PFC over Time
Prices rise over time because of inflation. Therefore, the amount of infrastructure that can be purchased with each dollar declines


three construction- related inflation indexes, which used construction materials, average hourly wages, and the price of asphalt, respectively. Using these indexes, a PFC of $4.50 in the year 2000 would purchase $2.72 of construction materials, $2.6


at construction cost inflation varies across several major U.S. cities. This source also finds that airport terminal construction costs vary between certain major U.S. cities and by type of terminal being built (Turner & Townsend, 2019, pp. 98–103).


c.19 The only way to fund additional projects (other than those already approved) using a PFC would be by using revenues received after 2030 or, in the case of the small number of airports collecting a PFC at less than the maximum rate of $4.50, by s


port reaches its authorized PFC collection amount prior to the anticipated PFC expiration date (i.e., if enplanements are higher than expected at the time of PFC approval), the authorization to collect would lapse unless the airport submits an additi


jects without borrowing until 2023 at all but one large-hub airport, with the existing $4.50 cap (again, with the exception of the one that does not charge a $4.50 PFC).
It is important to note that our analysis is unable to incorporate projects that


o collect essentially the maximum potential PFC revenue in future years as well.
For the 2020s, we estimate that 86 percent of large-hub PFC revenues are tied up, while about $4.2 billion could be earned over that period to fund as-yet-unapproved pro


nd charts in this chapter can inform the discussion surround- ing the adequacy of the existing maximum allowable PFC, there are limitations to this analy- sis. In addition to an inability to account for projects in early planning stages, this analysi


ices to deter the entry of competitors. Although this strategy reduces profits in the short term, it enables the incumbent to charge prices that are higher than competitive market rates in the future, once the threat of competition is gone. In some c


hat potentially enhance competition provide the baseline data for this analysis.
Interviews with stakeholders yielded differing points of view on whether airlines some- times press airports to use up their PFC funds on projects not related to competi


could build up to a larger aggregate effect. Relatively rapid increases or decreases in competition at airports are usually associated with consolidation and changes in airline hubbing decisions. For example, the steep decline in the HHI in Pittsbur


 cap means more potential PFC revenues avail- able to be used for infrastructure projects, greater potential for airport-level variation in PFC levels, and larger possible impacts on passengers.
Policymaker Decisions
The effects of raising the PFC ca


um hubs) or eliminating AIP eligibility entirely for these airports (entitlement or discretionary), that would affect airports differently than PFC cap increases that do not alter AIP eligibility standards. For example, airports might increase their


ently does not cap the levels at which airports may set their airport improvement fees, which are broadly similar to the U.S. PFC. In Canada, though, these charges are typically limited to
Federal Role in Airport Infrastructure Funding: Passenger Fac


in terms of a decrease in demand for travel. Passengers with connections also would be hit harder by a PFC increase than travelers with nonstop flights, since the charge is imposed on each leg of a two-flight trip. These larger effects on connecting


the country’s airports” (Whitman Insight Strategies, 2019). As with all surveys, the way in which the same questions are framed and anchored can have a large effect on the response.
Another possibility is that a higher PFC cap could allow airports to


ects on nonstop and connecting pas- sengers, with connecting passengers paying multiple PFCs, but it is important for modeling the demand response. Specifically, applying a demand elasticity of −0.8 (the baseline value used by GAO, 2014c)36 means tha


to substitute other forms of travel). We use demand elasticities that do not distinguish between these categories for this analysis for two reasons. First, the elasticity estimates from InterVISTAS Consulting Inc., 2007, and those included in the GA


n nominal dollars and adjusted for inflation using the CPI. A combination of factors contributed to this growth over time: an increase in airports charging a PFC, an increase in the share charging at $4.50, and an increase in enplanements at these ai


so might use a cap increase to pay down existing debt faster, and thus reduce their interest costs. Specifi- cally, we estimate that raising the PFC cap by $1 would increase potential PFC revenue avail- able to hub airports over the next five years (


. Note that nearly all airports are operating in the municipal (tax-exempt) bond market, although there are a few exceptions of airports using taxable bonds instead.
Bond Issuers
The issuer of an airport bond depends on the oversight structure of the


t infrastructure projects, GARBs are issued with maturity dates in increments of 10, 20, and 30 years.
Similar to the usage of the proceeds, the covenants of the GARBs specify the sources of revenue that can be used for repayment of the debt.1 Revenu


onds are issued by airport operators for projects that require less consultation from the airlines. For either single- or double-barrel bonds, airports must track the components of the bond proceeds to the specific projects that have been approved fo


 operators’ balance sheets because they are the issuers of the bonds.
 116 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
Such facilities include rental car centers, terminals, and other leased infrastructure outside the normal fee structures of a


y AAA-grade corporate bonds and tax-exempt bonds of comparable grade from 2006 to 2016 is 0.65 percentage points (Maguire and Hughes, 2018). Even though tax-exempt bonds offer lower interest rates than taxable bonds, they can be attractive to many in


nplanements compared with the amount of indebtedness, the ratio of annual revenue gen- erated to total indebtedness, and the quality of the airlines that operate in the airport. Other factors include the issuing airport’s debt structure and its infra


y to borrow helps an airport pay for projects whose costs exceed what the airport could pay for with a single year’s revenue. Throughout this report, we do not consider bond proceeds to be revenue because this would double-count revenue (today’s bond


d to the two airports when reporting its financials to the FAA. Therefore, the bond proceeds and debt services in this report exclude such airports.
 Figure 7.1
Bond Proceeds and Revenue, by Airport Size, 2009–2017
      Billions of dollars
Billions


vice airports and is likely to remain so, barring changes in the tax code or major market disruptions. Airports that participate in the municipal bond market are considered by the rating agencies to offer investment-grade opportunities with a low ris


air transportation services at affordable fares and reasonable levels of qual- ity to travelers, businesses, and aviators that are anticipated to use these services in the future. As complements or alternatives to supply-side measures, demand-side ma


ssengers in 2018 as in 1990. For comparison, the U.S. popula- tion grew by only 30 percent over this same period. The FAA’s TAF suggests this growth will continue. Medium-, small-, and non-hub airports are all expected to see enplanements grow by 20–


ng toward use of larger planes to meet demand without a comparable increase in operations, and this trend is anticipated to continue. However, the relatively mild growth in the number of operations does not necessar- ily translate to diminished infra


 trying to optimize in response to their own expectations of the future. Under these circumstances, forecasting demand many years into the future at an individual airport is challenging.
There are two main sources of demand forecasts for airport plan


essing Future Demand and Capacity Constraints 127
  Historical
  Forecast
  Baseline
Optimistic scenario Pessimistic scenario
  4
3
  2020 2025 2030 2035
2040 2045
Fiscal year
  Historical
  Forecast
    Baseline
Optimistic scenario Pessimistic scena


capacity constraints, forecast aircraft fleet mixes, and capacity profiles of individual airports. The FACT reports thus give insight into the evolution of airside capacity constraints as well as the inputs determining these constraints over time.
Th


ped because of lack of evidence (McLaughlin and Sasso, 2017).
The changes in projected airside capacity constraints over the past two decades contain lessons for the future of airside capacity planning. For one, external factors, such as demand for a


y, deter- mine when it will become constrained, and identify projects to expand.5 We emphasize that this analysis is specific to the airport in question and is not collected on a systemwide basis. Without systemwide, empirical data on landside infras


structure needs, as well as the revenue that pays for those investments, can change quickly. Flexibility of funding sources is of paramount concern to airports because they want and need the agility to alter plans if conditions suddenly change.
Impac


delay data by cause, from June 2003 to the present, for most nonstop commercial flights, as submitted by reporting carriers.7 As shown in Figure 8.5, there are five categories of delay causes within the ASQP database: air carrier, extreme weather, n


ntify the party best able to reduce the delay. Because late-arriving aircraft delays occur when a previous flight delayed the aircraft, causing the current flight to be delayed, the party best suited to reduce the delay depends on the cause of the in


ort individually.10
National Aviation System (OPSNET) Delays
NAS delays, as described above, are delays for which the FAA, airport operators, and state or local governments are in the best position to take corrective action to prevent or mitigate the


er challenges, however. San Francisco, for instance, must often deal with low ceilings because of the frequent presence of fog, whereas Denver might face snowy conditions more frequently. There are several airports where weather is not the pre- domin


at least at those airports able to expand, can reduce the probability that volume delays will occur when airlines schedule many flights at the same time, but it is unlikely to eliminate all congestion at peak times. Likewise, improved infra- structu


LGA–ORD
Bad weather causes a 12-minute delay. Arrives 12 minutes late.
Flight 2, ORD–LGA
Flight leaves 12 minutes late but is able to make up 2 minutes in the air. Arrives 10 minutes late.
Flight 3, LGA–ORD
Flight leaves 10 minutes late but is able t


.12 Consequently, this measure of total NAS delay cannot be attributed to an individual airport. As an example of how total delay is calculated, Table 8.4 provides the top 13 O&D pairs that produce the most total NAS delay. These 13 O&D pairs represe


r Most NAS Delays
100
90
        2,621 pairs (41%) make up 90% of NAS delay 1,426 pairs (22%) make up 75% of NAS delay
572 pairs (9%) make up 50% of NAS delay 142 pairs (2.2%) make up 25% of NAS delay
13 pairs (<1%) make up 5% of NAS delay
     Cumul


ebt service an airport’s reserves should be able to cover; this metric is commonly referred to as “days of cash on hand.” The recommended amount varies depending on whether the airport or airline bears the risk of paying costs if revenues fall short.


e metric for measuring the airport’s current financial status. Large- and medium- hub airports have seen their days of cash on hand slowly increase in recent years, although as noted above, these airports might also be saving for additional infrastru


 depreciation) + Debt Service (excluding coverage)
Table 8.6 shows that a holistic view of airports with the most OPSNET delays per opera- tion in 2018 reveals variation and nuance in airports’ status. For example CLT has relatively normal delays per


in effects of exter- nal factors (e.g., economic conditions and airline decisions) make airport planning difficult. This is one reason why airports find flexibility in funding desirable.
Capacity constraints can manifest themselves in several ways th


sure that there is coherence in its overall strategy, either with the vision above or an alternative vision, and a willingness to adapt federal programs and resources to align with that overall strategy.
We begin this chapter by presenting our findin


on the “color of money,” airports might be required to line up approvals from the appropriate combination of federal regulators, local governments, state governments, and airlines before making investments in airport infrastructure. Decisions made b


ated excellent, good, or fair. This reflects the priority given to airside infrastructure in federal grants provided under the AIP and the effectiveness of funding from all sources to meet airside needs. However, terminals and control towers are wide


e cap on PFCs has been set at $4.50 per passenger since the 2000 FAA Reautho-
Key Findings and Recommendations 151
152 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
rization Act. Since that time, the purchasing power of a dollar of PFC revenues h


thorized exclusively for use by commercial service airports, nor do GA airports have sufficient passenger volume to support such a user fee. Instead, GA and nonprimary commercial service airports rely on AIP funding, which is redistributive by design


ue diversion practices in 1982. Airports operated by these air- port sponsors are legally allowed to divert airport operating revenue, up to a statutory limit. The second form encompasses revenue diversion by any other airport sponsor, which most fre


o of complementary changes to the PFC program, the AIP, the AATF, and to policies and procedures regarding revenue diversion, as indicated in Figure 9.1. The interrelated nature of these funding programs and policies makes it important to consider
Fi


create delays for passengers that propagate throughout the NAS.
Separately, the average inflation-adjusted domestic ticket price fell from $630 in 1993 to $432 in 2018. Competition and market conditions are the primary determinants of ticket prices.


unattractive to local governments and would increase the cost of local goods and services unrelated to air travel. Privatization is possible but rarely pursued; the Airport Investment Partnership Program, established in 1997, allows airports to explo


e-hub airports
(d)(2) Quantify large- hub airports’
infrastructure requirements, including terminal, landside,
and airside infrastructure
(d)(3) Quantify the percentage
growth in infrastructure requirements
of the large- hub airports relative to othe


8 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
these recommendations as a whole rather than in isolation. Taken together, these changes have the potential to help airports of all sizes maintain safe, efficient, and sustainable operations.
The vi


 operations will likely lead to increased infrastructure requirements.
Under current policy, larger airports are generally able to raise funds for critical projects and are meeting their debt obligations. Some airports, such as CLT, appear to be fina


ary entitlements entirely. The largest airports, with more than about 26 million enplanements, would be more than made whole by the ability to keep collecting at the higher PFC level after forgoing their primary entitlements.
Option C: Increase the C


ise their PFC above $4.50, indexed to inflation, should forgo their AIP primary entitlements dollar-for-dollar for each dollar of PFCs they collect, up to 100 percent of these entitlements. Instead, that money could more efficiently achieve the redis


not be allowed to charge layover passengers a PFC of less than 50 per- cent of the origin PFC. This would prevent airports from lowering their layover PFC to $0 to attract layover traffic and only charge origin passengers for infrastructure use.
Key


ver time, but the timing and magnitude of annual grants would be better aligned with the timing and magnitude of needs. Airports could compete to receive more funds in the form of larger grants from the pool of discretionary funding, when needed, but


elps fund the AATF. This policy favors airlines that separate ancillary fees from their base ticket price over those that do not. Airlines should be free to separate ancillary fees if they wish, but the Domestic Passenger Ticket Tax should not incent


provide conclusive evidence as to whether individual PFC projects have had an effect on competition. Facilities funded with PFCs may not be leased on an exclusive- use basis, and that policy element of the PFC program might support competition. In pr


ric planes using the same infrastructure untaxed. A comparable situation applies to the gas tax supporting the Highway Trust Fund. To ensure stability and equity of funding, Congress should authorize the FAA to conduct a study that considers transiti


AIP funding over time, but the timing and magnitude of annual grants
Key Findings and Recommendations 165
166 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
would be better aligned with the timing and magnitude of needs. Second, although airport r


ploads/2017/01/Aviation-Final.pdf
ASCE—See American Society of Civil Engineers.
Beckman, Howard, “Ability of Local Jurisdictions to Regulate Airport Noise,” webpage, August 2, 2012. As of June 26, 2019:
http://www.airportnoiselaw.org/abate.html
Belko


s-t-100-and-t-100f-traffic-reporting
———, “Rural Airports,” webpage, December 18, 2018. As of May 1, 2019: https://www.bts.gov/modes/aviation/rural-airports
———, “On-Time Performance: Flight Delays at a Glance,” 2019a. As of October 18, 2019: https:/


Subpart C, Collection, Handling, I, Part 158, Subpart C, Section 158.53,
I, Part 158, Subpart D, Reporting, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, Part 1542, Airport Security, October 1, 2018.
Coogan, Matthew A., MarketSense Consulting LLC, and Jacob


eparing Attachments for PFC Application Form: Section 6 of FAA Form 5500-1,” undated e. As of November 22, 2019: https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/forms/media/pfc_5500_1_instruct_attach_0810.pdf
———, “The Operations Network (OPSNET),” database,


9, 2019:
https://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation/taf/media/taf_summary_fy_2018-2045.pdf
———, “Grandfathered Airports,” fact sheet, May 1, 2018c. As of September 9, 2019: https://cats.airports.faa.gov/GrandfatheredAirports.pdf
———, “FY 2018-2020 Ai


cular 150/5070-6B, Change 2, Change 2 to Airport Master Plans, Washington, D.C.: Federal Aviation Administration, January 27, 2015. As of October 10, 2019: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_150_5070-6B_with_chg_1&2.pdf
Fe


hority, Airport Revenue Bonds, Series 2009, Bozeman, Mont., October 7, 2009. As of November 22, 2019:
https://emma.msrb.org/EP332996-EP37912-EP659937.pdf
GAO—See Government Accountability Office.
Gentry, Jennifer, Kent Duffy, and William J. Swedish,


anged Little in Recent Years, but Stakeholders Voice Concerns About Competition, Washington, D.C., GAO 14-515, June 2014a. As of June 25, 2019:
https://w w w.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-515
———, Airport Privatization: Limited Interest Despite FAA’s Pilot


dicators, Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, ACRP Report 19A, 2011.
H.R. 1265—See Investing in America: Rebuilding America’s Airport Infrastructure Act, 2017. H.R. 3791—See Investing in America: Rebuilding America’s Airport Infrastructu


D.C.: Transportation Research Board, ACRP Legal Research Digest 35, September 2018.
Kasper, Daniel M., and Darin Lee, An Assessment of Competition and Consumer Choice in Today’s U.S. Airline Industry, presentation prepared for Airlines for America, J


://web.mit.edu/airlinedata/www/Aircraft&Related.html
Mathews, J. Scott, “A Counterpoint Assessment of Vancouver International Airport as a Gateway to North America,” Thunderbird International Business Review, Vol. 41, No. 3, May/June 1999, pp. 265–27


, D.C.: National Academies Press, 2007. As of November 11, 2019: https://www.nap.edu/catalog/14041/innovative-finance-and-alternative-sources-of-revenue-for-airports
Nunes, Ashley, “Is Trump’s Plan to Privatize Air-Traffic Control a Good Idea?” The A


/default/files/2018-05/ Final%20Official%20Statement%20-%202010%20PFC%20bonds.pdf
Public Law 79-377, Federal Airport Act of 1946, May 13, 1946.
Public Law 91-258, Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970, May 21, 1970.
Public Law 93-44, Airport Dev


Chana R., “Airport Munis,” Forbes, June 9, 2003. As of August 5, 2019: h t t p s : / / w w w . f o r b e s . c o m / f o r b e s / 2 0 0 3 / 0 6 0 9 / 1 3 4 . h t m l # 6 9 d c 7 b 6 0 4 15 7
SFO—See San Francisco International Airport.
Sharkey, Joe,


.pdf
United Airlines, Inc. v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey – Complaint and Exhibits A to NN (16-14-13), FAA-2015-0026, posted January 8, 2015. As of June 25, 2019: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FAA-2015-0026-0001
U.S. Code,


gister_notices/media/pfc_69fr6366.pdf
References 179
180 U.S. Airport Infrastructure Funding and Financing
———, “Revisions to Passenger Facility Charge Rule for Compensation to Air Carriers,” Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 69, No. 53, March 18, 2


inance/articles/airport-rate-methodology
———, “United States Airport Rates and Charges Regulations,” webpage, March 15, 2015b. As of June 25, 2019:
https://www.dwuconsulting.com/airport-finance/articles/airport-rate-regulation
———, “Air Ticket Taxes


   CORPORATION
BENJAMIN M. MILLER, DEBRA KNOPMAN, LIISA ECOLA, BRIAN PHILLIPS, MOON KIM, NATHANIEL EDENFIELD, DANIEL SCHWAM, DIOGO PROSDOCIMI
U.S. Airport
Infrastructure Funding
and Financing
Issues and Policy Options Pursuant to Section 122 of the 2


s related concerns, and to “make recommendations on the actions needed to upgrade the national aviation infrastructure system to meet the growing and shifting demands of the 21st century.” RAND, a nonprofit and nonpartisan policy research organizatio


ynamics, transportation, energy, and climate and the environment, as well as other policy concerns that are influenced by the natural and built environment, technology, and commu- nity organizations and institutions that affect well-being. For more i


ane Downey, Vice President of Government Relations, Global Business Travel Associa- tion
• Bryant Francis, Director of Aviation at the Port of Oakland
• Trish Gilbert, Executive Vice President of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association
• Ada


ank Camm and Lauri Rohn, for their timely and constructive reviews of our work throughout the study period as part of the RAND quality assurance process. We thank John Strong for wearing a second hat as an exter- nal reviewer in addition to being a m


ions regarding which entities must approve the spending. As a consequence, airport operators consider more than whether sufficient dollars are available to fund an infrastructure project. They also carefully consider whether and how much funding can


000 annual enplanements
Nonprimary commercial service
 At least 2,500 and no more than 10,000
0.10
126
Noncommercial service: Less than 2,500 annual enplanements
General aviation
 Less than 2,500
0.05
378,858
 2,549
Reliever
 Designated to relieve co


n the Passenger Facility Charge Would Reduce Airports’ Borrowing Costs but Likely Would Increase Ticket Prices
Airports will need to make significant investments in the coming years to sustain existing capacity and services and to accommodate growth


y generate in excise tax revenues to the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF), which funds the AIP and many other FAA programs. Airports must be included in the NPIAS to be eligible to receive AIP funds.
There are two general types of AIP grants: ent


e or local governments diverting revenue from aviation fuel taxes to nonaviation purposes.
The argument for grandfathering was that accounting and spending practices at these air- ports made a clean separation of revenue between airport and nonairpor


policy options in Chapter Nine: (1) index the current cap to inflation, (2) increase the flexibility of airport revenue but do not increase cumulative revenue other than indexing the cap to inflation, (3) raise but do not remove the PFC cap and index


m airlines and other stakeholders when requesting a PFC increase.
To ensure that airports have sufficient and stable sources of revenue commensurate with present and future capital needs, the PFC cap should be indexed to inflation, regardless of whet


their own capital needs do not impose costs on other airports in the process. Origin passengers represent the majority of passengers at most airports, with the notable exception of three large hubs, and layover passengers could still be charged PFCs


d to ensure excise tax revenues are spent on aviation system priorities. In practice, the enforcement mechanism is weak and is regularly ignored by Congress. Under excise tax levels set in current law, a large uncommitted bal- ance is projected to ma


authority to withhold other USDOT grants from airport sponsors (as opposed to withholding FAA grants from airport management) that remain out of compliance with revenue diversion rules. This withholding rarely occurs, but the FAA should pursue this p


 Fuel Taxes Will Eventually Be Needed
Fuel taxes are not the largest portion of AATF revenue. Nonetheless, progress on developing and deploying electric planes could eventually lead to declines in fuel-based tax revenues while leaving the electric pl


propriate infrastructure investments.
Airports of all sizes draw on multiple sources of funding. Larger airports tend to generate most of their revenues from their operations and take advantage of the municipal bond market. In contrast, smaller airpo


ions to fund terminal construction projects
Resources eligible for use toward noise reduction and emission reduction projects
Gap between the cost of projects eligible for the AIP and the annual federal funding provided
Impact of regulatory requireme


e. Markets with fewer passengers are likely to be served by fewer airlines.
Some airlines have separated ancillary fees, such as fees for baggage and reserved seats, from their base fares. Ancillary fees that have been separated from base fares are e


by 17 percent, small hubs by 10 percent, and non-hubs by
6 percent. This growth will likely lead to increased infrastructure requirements, but local circumstances will determine whether changes are required and, if so, their associated costs.
In tota


serve at least 2,500 passenger boardings (enplanements) per year and that receive scheduled passenger service, handle 99.9 percent of those enplanements. These airports provide the physical infrastructure—runways, terminals, gates, and other faciliti


  Research Report
STEPHANIE BROOKS HOLLIDAY, NICHOLAS M. PACE, NEIL GOWENSMITH, IRA PACKER, DANIEL MURRIE, ALICIA VIRANI, BING HAN, SARAH B. HUNTER
Estimating the Size of the Los Angeles County Jail Mental Health Population Appropriate for Release in


tate Hospitals FIST felony incompetent to stand trial
LASD Los Angeles County Sheriff Department MIST misdemeanor incompetent to stand trial ODR Office of Diversion and Reentry
SMI serious mental illness
This increase in the mental health population


o provide these services, and may save costs without compromising public safety.
 2
 Box 1. Current ODR Diversion Programs
• Supportive housing program for individuals experiencing homelessness (i.e., ODR Housing program): Initiated in August 2016, t


incarceration, with a particular focus on the population with mental illness. In August 2018, the BOS directed a study of the existing jail mental health population to determine who may be eligible for diversion programs (which resulted in this repo


th providers. On August 5, 2019,
DHS, DMH, and the Department of Public Health delivered a report to the County Chief Executive Office outlining the need for services to be developed along a continuum of care, with significant options for unlocked co


cal eligibility for diversion. We started this phase by holding discussions with ODR clinicians to better understand ODR programs and processes, including the factors they consider when determining if they will put someone forward as a candidate for


chart review of a stratified random sample of individuals from the jail mental health population to identify an estimate of the number
of individuals that are potentially divertible. LASD provided a data set that included all individuals in
its jail


 coded the charts, they flagged any charts that were especially challenging or inconclusive. All flagged charts were reviewed by another clinician to make a final determination.27
After completion of the clinical review, the legal and clinical decisi


n by gender. A larger percentage of women were determined to be appropriate candidates for diversion than men.
Additional analyses by race/ethnicity are reported in Appendix D.
TABLE 2
Appropriateness for Diversion of the Jail Mental Health Populatio


she could have been diverted at some point during pretrial proceedings or at the time the court’s judgment was rendered. That said, it is also worthwhile to consider effective community-based treatment options that can be provided along the entire c


al needs
over competency services.31 Bexar County in Texas provides police officers with a dedicated short-term treatment facility for individuals with mental illness who have minor charges; outcomes are promising in that numbers of diversions have i


 receive individualized consideration, the number of cases
in any given “mental health” courtroom should be
 Even with increased diversion, however, there
will continue to be a large number of individuals with mental health needs who remain in jail—


all number of courtrooms that are currently in play. Legal stakeholders in other courts may have differing views regarding the factors that shape legal suitability and clinical eligibility. If it is assumed
that the judges assigned to courtrooms curr


ed, if relevant) during our review period. But we acknowledge that any review of this sort—just like any clinical diagnosis in jail—cannot infallibly distinguish all symptoms of mental illness from all effects of substances.
Fifth, it is important to


 real-time
 11
way to track outcomes.39 Therefore, this might also include new data-collection infrastructure or efforts. An increased capacity for ongoing data collection is particularly important because there are numerous systemic changes and evol


subset would decline to participate in a diversion program.
Finally, although ODR is responsible for developing diversionary programming, there are other local and state agencies that have a stake and
a role in providing solutions. Therefore, future


including information from the jail medical record
as well as information regarding use of public mental health services in Los Angeles County. Based on both the legal and clinical review, they then made a determination about each person’s overall po


issue; those considered potentially appropriate are those in which there are certain charges or statuses that raise some question of suitability but the issue is not one that appears to be an obvious bar for diversion. All cases categorized as approp


(DDES) online system, which was one of several sources used in the ODR preliminary study. Because we were not granted access to DDES, we relied on ODR to use the system on our behalf and to provide us with current charge and recent conviction informa


priate
 NOTES: All other cases were considered appropriate for purposes of our review. PC = California Penal Code; HS = California Health and Safety Code. a There is no specific penal code associated with this criterion.
 15
Appendix C. Clinical Crit


er
Unspecified schizophrenia spectrum and other psychotic disorder
Bipolar I disorder
Current/most recent episode manic
Current/most recent episode depressed
F31.31 F31.32 F31.4 F31.5 F31.75 F31.76
Intellectual disability
Schizophrenia
Mild F31.11 Mo


anor Charges and Recent Felony Convictions Rated as Not Appropriate for Diversion
Cite Description
    PC 32
PC 182.5
PC 186.28 PC 187
PC 187(a)
PC 187(a)(1) PC 189
PC 190.05 PC 192(a)
PC 192(b)
PC 207(b)
PC 209(b)
PC 209(b)(1) PC 209.5
PC 209.5(a) P


omy of minor under eighteen
Sodomy—victim under 18
Sodomy—victim under 16, defendant over 21 Sodomy—victim under 14, defendant 10 years older Oral copulation—victim under 18
Oral copulation—victim under 16
Oral copulation—victim under 14
Lewd act on


g minor to assist in distribution of obscene matter; posing or modeling involving sexual conduct Brandishing a firearm
   22
  Cite
PC 417(b)
PC 417(c)
PC 417.3
PC 417.4
PC 647.6(a)(1) PC 647.6
PC 653f(b)
PC 664/187(a) PC 664/187(a)(1) PC 664/187
PC


dwelling, vehicle, or aircraft
Discharging firearm from vehicle with GBI or death
Explosion or attempt to explode destructive device with intent to murder
Carrying a loaded firearm with intent to commit felony
Allowing another to discharge firearm fr


ony conviction, stolen firearm or by gang member
Delivering concealable firearm to person within any of the classes prohibited by California Penal Code 12021 or 12021.1
Delivering concealable firearm to person within any of the classes prohibited by


gram Countywide to Safely Divert More Individuals with Serious Clinical Needs, 2019.
18 Motion by Supervisors Sheila Kuehl and Mark Ridley-Thomas: Expanding Countywide Diversion for Justice Involved Adults, 2019; Garcia, 2019.
19 LAC + USC Restorativ


oups by two sex levels). However, this study’s sampling frame contained 29 strata because the remaining three strata had no individuals. In each stratum, a simple random sample was drawn where the sample size was proportional to
the size of the strat


 Mental Health Treatment Center (Item No. 25, Agenda of February 12, 2019), August 7, 2019. As of November 8, 2019: http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/139802.pdf
Cowell, Alexander J., Arnie Aldridge, Nahama Broner, and Jesse M. Hinde, A Co


. As of December 4, 2019: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1754.html
Hunter, Sarah B., and Adam Scherling, Los Angeles County Office of Diversion and Reentry’s Supportive Housing Program: A Study of Participants’ Housing Stability and New


de to Safely Divert More Individuals with Serious Clinical Needs, May 14, 2019. As of November 8, 2019: http://file.lacounty.gov/SDSInter/bos/supdocs/135516.pdf
Motion by Supervisors Hilda L. Solis and Sheila Kuehl: Cancellation of Design-Build Contr


dated. As of November 12, 2019: https://ctsi.ucla.edu/patients-community/pages/whole-person- care
Warren, Janet I., Daniel C. Murrie, William Stejskal, Lori
H. Colwell, James Morris, Preeti Chauhan, and Park Dietz, “Opinion Formation in Evaluating th


ND Corporation is a research organization that develops solutions to public policy challenges to help make communities throughout
the world safer and more secure, healthier and more prosperous. RAND is nonprofit, nonpartisan, and committed to the pub


 Evaluation of the SB 1041 Reforms to California’s CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Program
Updated Findings Regarding Policy Implementation and Outcomes
RAND AUTHORS Lois M. Davis, Lynn A. Karoly, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Beverly A. Weidmer, Praise O. Iyiewuare


on. Following a competitive bidding process, the California Department of Social Services (CDSS) awarded the evaluation contract to the RAND Corporation, in partnership with the American Institutes for Research (AIR).
As described in the evaluation b


California’s CalWORKs Welfare-to-Work Program: Findings Regarding the Initial Policy Implementation and Outcomes, by RAND authors Lois M. Davis, Lynn A. Karoly, Robert Bozick, Diana Catherine Lavery, Dionne Barnes-Proby, Beverly A. Weidmer, Praise I


........................................ 170
Figure 6.14. Percentage of CalWORKs WTW Clients Who Were Employed for
at Least One Quarter in the Subsequent Three Years After Entry: Tracked Entry
Cohorts 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013...........................


57 Table 4.7. How Long It Currently Takes a CalWORKs Participant to Start to Receive
the Services to Which He or She Was Referred (All Counties) ........................................... 58 Table 4.8. In the Last Year, Have More CalWORKs Clients Do


ll Counties and by County Caseload Size) ......................... 74
Table 4.23. Write-In Responses Regarding Services Offered to Children Through
Counties’ FS Programs (By County Caseload Size).......................................................


........... 282
Table D.10. Percentage of CalWORKs Clients in a County Who Have Used Their
Full 24-Month Time Clock and . . . (All Counties and by County Caseload Size) ........... 283
Table D.11. Supervisors’ Assessment of How Well WTW Caseworkers
U


 of Months Counted on the 48-Month Time-on-Aid
Clock and Counted on the 24-Month Time Clock Two Years After Entry:
Tracked Entry Cohorts 2007, 2009, 2011, 2013, 2014....................................................... 297
Table E.5.b. Average Numb


............................................ 303
Table E.13. CalWORKs WTW Client Status Among Those with the Short-Term WTW Exemption for Young Children in December 2012: February 2013, February 2014, February 2015, February 2016.....................


ime exemption from WTW requirements to care for a child from birth to age 23 months, replacing the prior temporary young child exemption— which excused one adult per family from WTW work participation requirements while caring for one child below the


links to a set of outputs and finally an array of desired impacts on child and family well-being. The evaluation framework serves to illustrate that whether the reforms achieve their intended effect will depend on a number of factors. First, as part


pproached the policy and process changes adopted under SB 1041, and the opportunities for addressing any challenges encountered to date.
In addition, this report includes analyses based on several other sources of data that contribute to other study


d that the core components of SB 1041 had been implemented as of mid-2016, although issues remained with the execution of some components, particularly the WTW 24-month time clock. From the perspective of the CDSS staff and other state stakeholders w


ies to which he or she had been assigned or scheduled. In terms of receiving services, more than 90 percent of counties reported that it takes WTW clients less than one month to receive child care, transportation, and domestic abuse services. Still,


has required counties to revamp their business processes and, in some cases, develop or strengthen partnerships with service providers. It has also extended the time needed to complete a WTW plan. The time required to administer the OCAT, the sensit


y services and to serve a smaller share of eligible families (73 percent versus 84 percent for large counties). State- and county-level stakeholders largely viewed the FS program as a success because of the flexibility it offers to address the unique


he part of the community colleges following budget cuts in the wake of the Great Recession, a growing economy making work more attractive than further education, the expectation on the part of recipients that pursuing a degree would likely extend bey


ticipant Indicators in the Post–SB 1041 Period
As with the first evaluation report, the status and tracking study components covered in this second report are based on the analysis of state administrative data covering the CalWORKs WTW population. Th


 WTW clients meeting federal work participation requirements, causing their 24-month time clock not to advance; and WTW clients with exemptions or sanctions that caused both clocks to stop.
• Comparing the rate of ever receiving an exemption before a


ORKs WTW in the post–SB 1041 period relative to the pre–SB 1041 period. A larger percentage of the February 2014 entry cohort was employed for at least one quarter in the cohort’s first two years after entry compared with the February 2007 entry coho


covering the period from the first quarter of 2007 through the first quarter of 2016, were employed in a multicohort interrupted time series design that aims to isolate changes in outcomes that can be associated with SB 1041. Outcomes are measured f


erly earnings among new CalWORKs WTW clients two years after enrollment was no different than predicted.
Although these analyses are based on the early cohorts to experience SB 1041 and during a period when implementation was still underway, the find


en these issues, we will continue to focus on this aspect of implementation of SB 1041 in the final round of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis.
The degree of take-up of the 24 months of WTW services and how the flexibility is


he legislation, such as connecting CalWORKs clients to needed services. In our final round of data collection, we will be particularly interested in novel approaches that counties have taken that may prove to be useful models for other counties and h


nk the several individuals who served as key points of contact for and greatly facilitated our second wave of data collection in the six focal counties. These individuals include Sadaf Pirzada, program specialist for Alameda County; Roselinda Torres


 Number
CPI Consumer Price Index
CWD county welfare department
CWDA County Welfare Directors Association
DHHS U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
EDD Employment Development Department
ESE Expanded Subsidized Employment
FS Family Stabilizatio


identified situation or crisis that would interfere with participation in WTW activities and services; and (3) the Expanded Subsidized Employment (ESE) program, which added funds for CWDs to expand the number of subsidized employment placements for


tus study and a WTW client tracking study to examine point-in-time and dynamic indicators for the CalWORKs WTW population both before and after the SB 1041 changes; a county welfare operations impact study to assess the consequences of SB 1041 for va


ystems that were not yet available for analysis but will be examined in the final study report.) We also employ the state administrative data, now with an additional year of data relative to the first report (through 2016), to update our assessment o


ths to 48 months as of 2011), exemptions from work requirements for adults with a young child in the assistance unit3 (with a more generous allowance as of 2009), and the financial incentives to work (made less generous in 2011).
SB 1041 Policy Chang


B 1041 time-clock structure.
• Those in the program prior to January 1, 2013, with fewer than 24 months accumulated are subject to the 24-month CalWORKs WTW time clock, followed by the CalWORKs federal standards until the 48-month lifetime limit is r


vices component if they were no longer eligible for the young child exemption.
• Other provisions. SB 1041 included a number of other changes, including (1) restoring the earned income disregard (the income excluded when calculating the benefit level


rough the implementation stage in the second column, to the outputs from the policy change, and finally to the desired impacts on child and family well-being. The top row indicates the sequence of activities, starting with the passage of SB 1041, con


ertaken to satisfy SB 1041; to examine the understanding of the reforms from the perspective of CalWORKs clients, caseworkers, and other county welfare office staff; and to identify any other factors that may affect SB 1041 implementation and its imp


ot constant. To address this challenge, as discussed in Karoly et al. (2015), the evaluation components concerned with measuring the impact of the legislation use relevant analytic and statistical techniques to control for such confounding factors. T


WTW clients?
Has SB 1041 helped remove barriers to WTW clients’ employment?
Has SB 1041 affected WTW clients’ transitions at the 25-month mark?
Has SB 1041 accelerated WTW clients’ paths to self-sufficiency?
Has SB 1041 affected California’s TANF ann


 of the OCAT, which had a longer development phase, lagged relative to these other components. A majority of the counties indicated they had formed new or enhanced partnerships with community-based service providers as they implemented SB 1041.
• The


verage, a 10-percent increase over the March 2013 cross-section.
• The descriptive analysis for the tracking study, which followed pre– and post–
SB 1041 cohorts up to two years after CalWORKs entry, showed small to moderate increases in the prevalen


s. Most relevant for this second evaluation report are the following results from the telephone interviews:
• At the time of the survey, about half of the sample was currently enrolled in the CalWORKs program. Employment issues was the most common re


he Child Supplement surveys and assessments include the following:
• Twenty-five percent of parents reported that their children were in parental care only (as opposed to Head Start, other centers, relative care, or non-relative home care). Among tho


tive data to address questions specific to the status and tracking studies. Although deeper analysis will occur in the final report when county-level administrative data can also be examined, the state data cover key indicators for CalWORKs WTW clien


ducted using state administrative data.
In the remainder of this chapter, we discuss each of the data components and corresponding methods in turn, with additional technical details provided in Appendix B and Appendix C. The processes for collecting


ferrals to, coordination of, and use of supportive services • Coordination and communication with community colleges • Status of implementation of AB 74 early engagement
• Impact of SB 1041 on CalWORKs WTW clients
• Successes, challenges, and next st


examined responses to individual questions across the set of state-level key informant interviews. This allowed us to identify key themes that emerged from the interviews and where there were similarities or differences in views regarding the goals o


he 2016 ACS questionnaire to minimize measurement error. The final questionnaire contains the following sections (see Appendix B):
• Barriers to the Implementation of SB 1041 Reforms and Related Mandates in Your County
• Implementation and Effect of


y percent of counties completed the survey within the scheduled four-week time frame. We provided additional time for several counties and then closed the survey on July 12, 2016. All 58 counties participated, resulting in a 100-percent response rate


ate, degree of urbanicity, demographic makeup of the population, measures of socioeconomic status, and the state of the economy. Counties were also selected such that, together, they would capture a sizable share of the CalWORKs caseload.
22
Figure 2


iew Topics
• Informant’s perception of how implementation of SB 1041 is going
• Implementation and perspective on OCAT
• Current processes for calculating clients’ WTW 24-month time clock • Views on the work participation rate
• Clients’ engagement i


WTW clients
            a Includes directors of CalWORKs, WTW, and FS, ESE, OCAT, and child care programs.
b Includes mental health providers, domestic violence services, alcohol and drug programs, educational providers and vocational training provi


cts their work and experience with CalWORKs WTW clients. Specifically, the caseworker focus group protocol covered the following topics (see Appendix B):
• OCAT implementation
• conducting appraisals using OCAT
• the OCAT appraisal summary
• views on


 22 15 17 25 25 23 38 21 30 17 68
110 28
        Each caseworker focus group session followed a written protocol, and the sessions ran approximately 90 minutes. A researcher with experience in conducting focus groups facilitated the caseworker focus


ews was drawn from a subset of the CalWORKs clients from the 2013 and 2014 cohorts who participated in CalSES and who reported that they had received assistance from the CalWORKs program to further their education or participate in a training program


discussions with clients in 2015, we anticipated that we may find some differences by language in their experiences with referrals to and accessing of educational services. We were unable to sample based on language for the OCAT appraisal group since


ntion. This approach allowed for a systematic process of categorizing the data through reduction, organization, and connection. The method supports exploration and the discovery of categorical relationships derived directly from the data and encourag


her system—LEADER [Los Angeles Eligiblity, Automated Determination, Evaluation and Reporting] Replacement System [LRS]—is for Los Angeles County.) These data will add such information as participants’ use of services, enrollment in education programs


tural workers, and the informal sector (i.e., individuals working for cash). Estimates suggest that unemployment insurance administrative data underreport self-reported employment among welfare leavers by 10 to 20 percent (Isaacs and Lyon, 2000). Oth


 identified these sanctioned participants in the exception file as having exception reason codes 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, or 205, and no record in the program participation file within the same month.
10 CalWORKs WTW clients are members of cases. A C


ntry includes 891,047 WTW clients.
The impact analysis of two-year outcomes includes 28 cohorts of clients who were first-time CalWORKs WTW clients from January 2007 through December 2014. The cohorts are defined the same as in the analysis of one-ye


associated with SB 1041. This analysis assesses the association between SB 1041 and CalWORKs WTW clients’ employment, CalWORKs WTW status, and other measures of economic status. We assess these associations by comparing the outcomes of individuals w


s the cohort that entered in the fourth quarter of 2014 and the last entry cohort for whom we could observe two-year outcomes was the cohort that entered in the fourth quarter of 2013.
We conducted analyses on three sets of outcomes, measured one yea


ure); (2) state-level stakeholders external to CDSS (e.g., welfare advocates, representatives from community college groups, legislative staff) acknowledged the hard work of all parties, but they continued to highlight the challenges that county work


d the release of guidance to explain the methodology for the 20-percent target for extensions beyond the 24-month time clock (CDSS, 2015b).
Three of the state stakeholders interviewed—staff not employed by CDSS—offered a somewhat more mixed picture o


te-level respondents reported that the OCAT had been implemented by the counties, training had been being provided on the system, and the long-term plan was to integrate it with the Statewide Automated Welfare System (SAWS). A CDSS administrator high


pathways. Echoing a theme identified in our 2015 study, community college representatives were concerned that they had not observed an uptick in referrals in this area. State respondents suggested a variety of factors may be contributing to this pict


mployment is growing, it’s growing slowly. But it is really an avenue that we continue to push counties on.
FS. Designed to provide intensive case management and services to high-need clients (and their children, if needed), the FS program was charac


ounty findings). One CDSS administrator, reflecting on the state’s recent success in meeting WPR, hoped that, with time, concerns at the county level in this area would slowly alleviate. However, another CDSS administrator emphasized that counties ma


small and medium-sized counties. In terms of the complexity of SB 1041 reforms, 72 percent of counties reported it was a moderate to major hindrance to implementation in the last year (mid-2015 to mid-2016); large counties were more likely to report


on). Overall, 77 percent of counties’ supervisors reported that WTW caseworkers understood moderately well to very well how to determine a client’s 24- month time clock. Yet, supervisors in 72 percent of counties reported that they were only somewhat


the 24-month time clock far lower, with only one-third assessing that clients understood the process moderately to very well.
• What have been counties’ experiences with the ESE program in the last year? Similar to the 2015 ACS results, 45 counties (


rcent of eligible families over the same period. For those counties with FS programs, 89 percent reported that the FS program was doing moderately well to very well in helping to stabilize families in crisis and in helping to address clients’ barrier


.
• What are counties’ assessments of the effects of SB 1041 on key outcomes, and how well are SB 1041 reforms and related mandates working at the county level? Between
41 percent and 65 percent of counties estimated that the implementation of SB 104


back on their information needs and suggestions for improving SB 1041. Appendix D presents additional survey results regarding the provision of and capacity to provide services related to employment, education and training, and supportive services.
F


ation (All Counties and by County Caseload Size)
Group and Indicator
All counties
Number
Percentage distribution
Small counties
Number
Percentage distribution
Medium-sized counties Number
Percentage distribution
Large counties
Number
Percentage distr


e
job opportunities for CalWORKs clients educational opportunities for CalWORKs
Number of Responding Counties in Total
58
58
County Rated Issue as a Moderate or Major Hindrance
All Small Medium Large Counties Counties Counties Counties
34 15136 59% 7


unty size.
53
19 7 11 3 5
12% 55% 15% 28%
In addition, similar to the 2015 ACS results, 41 percent of counties reported that competition with other state and federal mandates (e.g., Medi-Cal expansion) was a hindrance to implementation. Small and med


abuse service providers, many counties indicated that this was not needed including 40 percent of small counties, 65 percent of medium-sized counties, and 50 percent of large counties; and (3) with respect to developing new or enhanced partnerships w


for clients to begin engaging in job skills training, on-the-job training, subsidized employment, or community service. Although the results by county are not shown here, Table D.3 in Appendix D presents the detailed results for Table 4.5. Table D.3


ities. Although the results by county are not shown here, Table D.4 in Appendix D presents the detailed results for Table 4.6. Table D.4 indicates that, for GED preparation, community college/postsecondary education, and other types of education, lar


istribution
Domestic abuse
Number
Percentage distribution
Translation
Number
Percentage distribution
Housing assistance Number
Percentage distribution
Other services
Number
Percentage distribution
More Than Two
Months Total
1 58 2% 100%
1 58 2% 100%


s (20 counties), and 5,000 or more for large counties (18 counties). Counties were instructed to mark one answer per row. Percentages are calculated using the number of counties responding to the question as the denominator. Appendix D provides resul


 calculation of the 24-month time clock.
60
       Table 4.9. Who Is Responsible for Calculating How Much Time CalWORKs Clients Have Left on Their WTW 24-Month Time Clock (All Counties and by County Caseload Size)
      A Special Group of Staff Have


ppendix D presents the detailed results for Table 4.11. Table D.7 indicates
Table 4.11. Of the Counties That Provided Additional Training on How to Calculate the 24-Month Time Clock, Type of Training Provided in the Last Year (All Counties)
    Type


l Counties)
     24-Month Time Clock Activity
Accurately explain the 24-month time clock to CalWORKs clients
Number
Percentage distribution
Accurately calculate CalWORKs clients’ 24- month time clock
Number
Percentage distribution
Accurately reconcil


degree of confidence they had that staff could carry out the different activities associated with the 24-month time clock. In Table 4.13, we focus more narrowly on the caseworkers who are often the initial staff to do the determinations of the 24-mon


add up to 100 or may exceed 100 because of rounding.
Understanding of Other Components of SB 1041
Supervisors were asked to assess the understanding of other components of SB 1041 for both caseworkers and CalWORKs clients. In the tables that follow,


4,999 for medium-sized counties (20 counties), and 5,000 or more for large counties (18 counties). Counties were instructed to mark one answer on the Likert scale per policy change. Percentages are calculated using the number of counties responding


lock. Only 40 percent of supervisors rated CalWORKs clients’ understanding of the change to CalWORKs federal participation standards after the 24-month time clock has been exhausted as moderately well to very well. Also, only 60 percent of supervisor


o, but No, Planning
Yes Opted Out to Join Total
457658 78% 12% 10% 100%
Group and Indicator
All counties
Number
Percentage distribution
Small counties
Number
Percentage distribution
Medium-sized counties Number
Percentage distribution
Large counties


m as doing moderately well than were small counties on all of the categories listed in Table 4.17, except for the category of keeping clients from returning to CalWORKs. Fifty percent of large counties rated the ESE program as doing only slightly wel


e counties
(18 counties). Counties were instructed to mark one answer per row. Percentages are calculated using the number of counties responding to the question as the denominator.
Family Stabilization Program
Overall, 57 of the 58 counties (98 perc


all counties, 39 percent reassigned caseworkers to the FS program,
28 percent hired additional caseworkers, and 17 percent created a new unit to manage the FS program (Table 4.22). Forty-four percent of counties reported expanding the services offere


m to handle the more complex cases where children are at greater risk for entering the child welfare system; and revising program policy and service delivery in the area of temporary shelter and subsidies under the housing support component to serve


t camp or other after school/summer youth programs, as well as extended mental health meetings and support groups and services in ten domains of their lives.
• Mental health counseling.
• Mental health counseling and behavioral health services.
• Men


th a housing resource center to provide homeless and imminent risk housing services directly to FS families. The housing specialists and case managers attend FS meetings to discuss the housing needs and progress of FS customers. Domestic violence and


ing to stabilize families in crisis and in helping to address clients’ barriers to self-sufficiency. With respect to addressing housing issues, 75 percent of counties rated the FS program as doing
76
          moderately well to very well with respec


 of intensive case management. Small counties indicated that intensive case management was essential to
• helping families in need
• assisting customers in stopping their WTW 24-month time clock and looking at the
whole family addressing the removal


gram was, in their view, helping program participants create the conditions needed to successfully engage in the WTW program; only one county disagreed with the statement, and three counties did not answer this question.
Online CalWORKs Appraisal Too


 in completing the OCAT.
Table 4.26 summarizes counties’ responses with respect to how the OCAT has affected the different issues listed. The two areas for which counties reported that the OCAT has had a positive effect were with respect to identifyi


cent of counties reported that it had increased the number of referrals, whereas 43 percent of counties reported no effect (results not shown). Counties were also asked to explain how, if at all, the OCAT has changed the referral process in their cou


the OCAT in the client’s preferred language
Number
Percentage distribution
SOURCE: Authors’ analysis of 2016 ACS data.
Neither
Very Somewhat Dissatisfied Somewhat Very
Dissatisfied Dissatisfied or Satisfied Satisfied Satisfied Total
8 31 9 7 3 58


nties (20 counties), and 5,000 or more for large counties (18 counties). Counties were instructed to mark one rating for each type of need listed. Percentages are calculated using the number of counties responding to the question as the denominator.


Enrollment in GED programs Number
Percent
Worse Worse
17 2% 12%
05 0% 9%
Same Better
28 20 48% 35%
24 28 41% 48%
Much Somewhat Aboutthe Somewhat
Much Not
Better Applicable Total
2 058 3% 0% 100%
1 058 2% 0% 100%
        03418
0% 5% 73% 14% 5% 2% 100%


c abuse assistance, housing assistance) Number
Percentage distribution
Provision of mental health and/or substance abuse counseling or treatment
Number
Percentage distribution
Coordination with community colleges Number
Percentage distribution
Coordi


ell, and 81 percent rated the implementation of the FS program in the last year as working moderately well to very well (Table 4.30).
Two areas that counties flagged as working less well were tracking WTW participation of CalWORKs clients and improvi


 the 24-month time clock, FS, and OCAT.
• Remove the WTW 24-month time clock. The time clock is time intensive, and time would be better spent focusing on client outcomes.
88
    Table 4.31—Continued
Medium-Sized Counties
• 24-month time clock. Post–


 remove-from-aid process.*
• It would be helpful to have all of the 24-month time clock mandates, tables, forms, and other materials consolidated into one resource booklet.*
• More information on the automation and tracking of WTW 24-month time clock


urces and energy toward the six-month period for those families who really need additional time and attention. The 24-month time clock impacts our ability to meet WPR, since the state and federal regulations do not align.
• To provide our clients wit


aging the difficulties associated with the 24-month time clock and provide our workers with more time to focus on WTW engagement.
90
        Table 4.32—Continued Medium-Sized Counties
• Improve the WTW 2 so that it is less confusing to a client. For


mplement until the consortia have effectively created tracking tools in the software programs. It’s very cumbersome to track FS and Housing Stability Plan (HSP) separately because our consortium has no tracking mechanisms in the system. HSP 14 and FS


ently, the counties have NO WAY to track and see if the customers’ needs were met by the CalWORKs Employment Services case managers. Additionally, 183 learning needs screenings; 344 emotional and mental health concerns identified; 56 customers with p


hat stop, exempt, and/or extend the 24-month time clock render the policy somewhat ineffectual and certainly inefficient in terms of resources and workload, including time and resources dedicated to continuous policy development, training/retraining,


 to meet the state’s WPR affected implementation of SB 1041, if at all? As they did as of 2015, most focal county staff continued to express significant concerns
  Chapter Five Methods
• Based on analysis of qualitative data collected for six focal c


nt, for example, reported that she did not want her young daughter to hear that she had been depressed. Another client stated that she did not want her eight-year old son to hear her talking about the abuse she had suffered from his father. In genera


iscussion regarding interviewee results about the WPR, including calculation of weekly participation hours, consequences of not meeting the federal WPR, perceived impact of SB 1041 on the WPR, and the tension perceived by interviewees about meeting W


he six focal counties and a completely manual process in the last county. Although the automated system ticks the 24-month time clock automatically after the initial input of information, the individual managing the clock is still responsible for ent


24-month time clock was first implemented, CDSS released multiple directives for calculating and managing the clock (e.g., CDSS, 2012c). On-site trainings occurred in counties to reinforce the instructions relayed through these directives and to cla


lients of the months unticked from their WTW 24-month time clocks, and if appropriate, engage them in WTW activities (CDSS, 2015i).
Application of Extenders to the WTW 24-Month Time Clock
In January 2015, CDSS released further guidance on extensions


ers received on the 24-month time clock happened during the induction period. Updated trainings on the 24-month time clock were delivered by staff development and through briefings.
Caseworkers’ Understanding and Perceptions of the WTW 24-month Time


rvisors had to develop some guidelines, and they were not formal. Individual supervisors have a grasp on teaching their staff. When you go to another unit, it’s hit or miss. Some supervisors don’t have a good grasp on [the WTW 24-month time clock], s


it to a customer.”
Furthermore, respondents noted that several factors hindered caseworkers from providing clients with a comprehensive explanation of the WTW 24-month time clock. First, the complexity of and inconsistent instructions regarding the W


h long plan. One county leader said,
[Clients] want to know, “How many hours do I have to do?” They want concrete things. Nothing with this clock is really concrete . . . I think we try to explain the options, but I just think sometimes clients have


late the clock, and caseworkers do not have always access to the data they could use to correctly calculate the clock according to their county’s standards. This further complicated management of the WTW 24-month time clock. One caseworker noted, “We


 the [federal requirements] . . .
104
If the feds say, ‘This is what you have to do,’ and we were on board and aligned with that at the state level, I think that we could really . . . be able to hone in on what we do to align with the feds and be abl


TW Requirements (for 24 Months)
20 non-core 30 non-core 35 non-core No
         The weekly work participation hours required for the WTW program are aligned with federal requirements; however, the methodology for calculating participation hours diffe


nistrator from another county explained, “Best practice is to get the client to meet WPR from the get go, because in doing so, you’re acclimating them to the most ‘difficult’ requirement. The 24-month time clock is then icing on the cake. If they get


using their 24-month time clock.
 107
own activities. As one respondent explained, “I think our clients feel like they have that flexibility [to choose their activities]; they have more options now than they used to and I don’t know that WPR goes aga


Ks federal WPR. One county administrator shared that the state was facing a potential sanction for not meeting the state WPR, adding, “And that’s the biggest conflict that we’re feeling. We can’t afford not to do the WPR, so it’s a balancing act righ


In this county, caseworkers explained that, at the policy level, the approach was “no longer work first” and that “engagement has been emphasized over WPR.” Yet, in that same focus group, caseworkers noted that while the county’s policy focused on cl


d similar thoughts, noting, “There [are] also cases where the customer is meeting WPR week after week, but they aren’t really trying to get off aid. They have the numbers, so WPR looks good, but they aren’t reaching self-sufficiency. It’s a Catch-22.


   Demographics General Information, Household Composition, Finances/Benefits, Client Index Numbera, Assistance Unit Case Numberb, First Name,
Last Name, Date of Birth, Gender
   Employment Current Activities, Reasons for Not Working, Job History, Wo


ient. Most clients complete the orientation and OCAT in one day. However, one county indicated that the orientation—a one-on-one or group review of the WTW program—and associated requirements are lengthy procedures (e.g., clients complete various for


ion from these conversations to answer the questions in the OCAT. This helps save time and makes the interaction more conversational. Specifically, one worker said, “I don’t ask the questions verbatim. I tell the customer, tell me if you have concern


“I do the main questions—I don’t go in depth unless it’s really necessary. I can get most done in 30 minutes—I tell them I’ll call them back if I have any further questions. . . . I don’t do every detail—just enough to have it complete.”
At the time


y, there were mixed views on the impact of the OCAT on caseloads. Administrators indicated that the caseload had remained stable or declined, while caseworkers lamented that their caseloads are double the maximum allowed. One worker said, “We fall be


ok, just in case they had no- shows. If they had [a no-show], they would just get another customer then and just continue moving along. But with the OCAT, it is so lengthy that they can’t do that, so when the folks don’t appear, that messes their rou


m the primary data system to enter into OCAT, and after the OCAT is complete, they enter data from the OCAT into the primary data system. An administrator in one county commented, “The worker has to input information into two separate systems (which


nterview is problematic. One county administrator said, “Many times, our clients bring their children, even though the letter says not to bring them. It can be difficult to administer the OCAT with kids in the room because of the kinds of questions a


ne, you could see all their information.” Another major concern involved the process of transferring cases between caseworkers. Two county administrators explained,
Another major problem is that there isn’t a system in the computer to transfer the in


15 percent of people who were referred to Job Club were not appropriate. Now with OCAT, we’re seeing a lot less of that. We’re getting a lot less referrals for Job Club. OCAT really opens up an opportunity to ask questions that we never would have as


ining emotionally for [the workers], because they were really getting in deep with our families, which is great, we want that because we want to be able to identify the issues up front so we can guide our families into the right path, or at least off


t cover all of the needs identified. A lot of the questions are intimidating for clients and even for us workers.”
In addition to emphasizing that the OCAT questions would be best asked by clinical professionals, caseworkers commented that they belie


nother worker from the same county said, “I’ve condensed the questions ‘Do you have any DV [domestic violence], MH [mental health], or substance abuse issues?’” Workers in the other two counties made very similar comments. Administrators from two of


praisal as well as how it is used to make referrals.
Perceived Strengths and Weaknesses of the OCAT Appraisal Summary
Across the focal counties, administrators were generally supportive of the OCAT appraisal summary, describing it as a comprehensive


or example, in one county, the WTW plan is created before an OCAT appraisal is completed with the client and revised only rarely following the OCAT. Caseworkers in another county explained that the WTW activities are designed based on caseworker judg


Welfare Staff and Caseworker Suggestions for Improving the OCAT
Administrators and caseworkers offered the following recommendations for improving the OCAT tool:
1. Make OCAT available in other languages in addition to English.
2. Enhance the report


, others reported that they had not been notified or had simply been told they would have to come back to meet with another caseworker. Some clients reported that they were not surprised that the appraisal took as long as it did “because everything t


formation on domestic violence could be used against them in child custody cases or could be reported to the Department of Children’s Services. Clients were also asked whether it had been difficult to talk about these topics with the caseworker. Whil


 doing the appraisal.
Finally, clients were asked whether they had felt any pressure to complete the appraisal or to answer any questions in order to receive the benefits. While clients did not state that they had been pressured, most reported that t


et an appointment at a convenient time or that the counseling provider they had been referred to was in a clinic that was
128
run down or that was located in an area they considered unsafe. Some of the clients also reported that they had been referre


eported that implementation of the FS program has proceeded smoothly. Some challenges were identified:
23 The program can provide a range of services, such as mental health treatment for families, domestic violence or substance abuse counseling, and


m participation to ensure that clients have the necessary skills to succeed in the placement. Further eligibility criteria noted by county leadership include completion of Job Club, a specified amount of time left on WTW aid, and satisfactory experie


m participants and (2) sending qualified résumés of ESE
131
participants out to employers. Once a match is made and the employer is interested in a potential candidate, the employer reaches out to the participant (either directly or through the wor


rge and disparate; things are very spread out . . . there are many pockets that are difficult to reach, and this makes implementation challenging.
132
Participants are supposed to receive an ESE placement within a specified time frame. In one county,


that over there.” Caseworkers in four of the six focal counties mentioned inadequate transportation as a barrier to participant readiness for the ESE program. Lack of participant motivation also impeded readiness to work and posed a challenge to the


the program, any breakdown in communication can lead to delays and poor outcomes for clients.
• Increase diversity of employment opportunities. Respondents in three of the six focal counties also recommended increasing the diversity of employment opp


 payment while they waited to get approved.
• Other clients reported that getting help with transportation expenses was very helpful but that reimbursements for cash expenses were sometimes delayed.
In addition, clients interviewed had a number of co


tional education or training, or other services. For example:
• One client reported that she had applied for child care assistance but that she had had to find an eligible provider and then submit paperwork in order for that provider to get paid. It


chool at the moment (e.g., one client reported that his girlfriend was going to school, and, that once she finished, it would be his turn to do so; while another reported that she did not have child care during evening hours, which is when some of th


lenges. According to leaders in three of the focal counties, community college opportunities are available in each county, however, these programs can be difficult to access for a variety of reasons, including limited class availability and transport


clients. Community college staff stated in both 2015 and 2016 that the flexibility under SB 1041 is helpful for clients who wished to pursue their education. As one community college representative explained, “Students can dedicate more time to their