Workforce Investment Act
States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches Gao ID: GAO-02-696 July 3, 2002The 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) required states to provide most federally funded employment-related services through one-stop centers. Two years earlier, welfare reform legislation created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant which provided flexibility to states to focus on helping needy adults with children find and maintain employment. Nearly all states reported some coordination of their TANF and WIA services at the state or local level, and the use of some of these coordination methods increased between 2000 and 2001. Historical relationships, geographic considerations, adequacy of facilities, and different perspectives on how best to serve TANF clients influenced how states and localities choose to coordinate services with one-stop centers. Several challenges, including program differences between TANF and WIA and different information systems used by welfare and workforce agencies, inhibit state and local coordination efforts. Though some states and localities have found creative ways to work around these issues, the differences remain barriers to coordination for many others.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-696, Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-696
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly
Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on
Effective Approaches' which was released on July 3, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters
July 2002:
Workforce Investment Act:
States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF
Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches:
GAO-02-696:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most States and Localities Coordinated TANF and WIA Services and Some
Coordination Efforts Increased between 2000 and 2001:
A Variety of Conditions Influence State and Local Coordination Efforts,
but Little Is Known about the Effectiveness of Coordinated Service
Delivery on TANF Clients‘ Outcomes:
Challenges Inhibit State and Local Coordination Efforts:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Annotated Bibliography of Reviewed Studies:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Figures:
Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent,
2000 and 2001:
Figure 2: Coordination Methods that States Reported Most of Their One-
Stop Centers Were Using, 2000 and 2001:
Figure 3: Number of States with Services Colocated in at Least Some One-
Stops, 2000 and 2001:
Figure 4: Forms of Coordination that States Reported the Majority of
Their Local One-Stops Used, 2001:
Abbreviations:
AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding:
OSOS: One-Stop Operating System:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIN: Work Incentive:
WtW: Welfare-to-Work:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 3, 2002:
The Honorable John Boehner:
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Howard P. (Buck) McKeon:
Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness:
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Wally Herger:
Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
In 1998, the Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act [Footnote 1]
(WIA) to unify a fragmented employment and training system, requiring
states to provide most federally funded employment-related services
through one-stop centers. Two years earlier, welfare reform legislation
created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [Footnote 2] (TANF)
block grant which provided flexibility to states to focus on helping
needy adults with children find and maintain employment. Despite the
similar focus, TANF was not required to be part of WIA‘s new workforce
investment system; however, as we have previously testified, [Footnote
3] many states and localities are working to bring together their TANF
and WIA services. With the reauthorization of TANF this year and WIA
next year, and the emphasis on work intensifying, the ability of states
and localities to coordinate their TANF and WIA services is of
increasing interest.
In an effort to assess the extent of current efforts to coordinate TANF
and WIA services and to understand the role that the federal government
could play in assisting these efforts, you asked us to examine (1) the
extent to which states and localities are currently coordinating TANF
and WIA services for TANF clients, and how this had changed since
2000”when many states first implemented WIA; (2) what is known about the
conditions that influence how states and localities coordinate TANF
services with one-stop centers and the effectiveness of service
coordination through one-stops on TANF client outcomes; and (3) what
challenges hinder state and local coordination efforts.
To respond to your request, we analyzed a survey that we conducted from
September through December 2001 of WIA agency officials in all 50 states
and the results of a similar survey that we conducted in the spring of
2000. In addition, we visited 9 localities in 4 states from October
2001 to January 2002. [Footnote 4] To further understand these issues,
we conducted telephone interviews with state TANF and workforce
officials in 12 states; conducted telephone interviews with Department
of Health and Human Services (HHS) regional officials in 9 of the 10
regions; [Footnote 5] and reviewed relevant research. We performed our
work between September 2001 and April 2002 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Nearly all states reported some coordination of their TANF and WIA
services at the state or local level, and the use of some of these
coordination methods increased between 2000 and 2001. At the state
level, coordination between TANF and WIA agencies increased slightly
and was accomplished through a variety of methods, ranging from formal,
such as memorandums of understanding, to informal, such as information
sharing. In addition to these coordination methods, the majority of
states used TANF funds to support the operations or the infrastructure
of the one-stop system” 36 states used TANF funds to support the one-
stop system in 2001, up from 33 in 2000. Some of the largest gains in
coordination were seen at the local level. For example, in 2001 the
majority of local one-stops in 44 states had established informal
linkages with their TANF programs, compared with 35 states in 2000.
Additionally, TANF-related services were provided through local one-
stops in a greater number of states in 2001 than in 2000, either by
providing services on site (colocation) or through electronic linkages
and client referrals. In 2001, for example, TANF work programs were
colocated in at least some of the one-stops in 39 states, up from 32
states in 2000. Although many states and localities coordinate TANF
services with one-stop centers to some extent, some continue to provide
services for TANF clients outside of one-stop centers. In 2001, 4
states reported that they do not provide TANF work services through any
one-stop center. This number has declined since 2000, when 12 states
were not providing services through any of their one-stop centers.
A variety of conditions”including historical relationships, geographic
considerations, adequacy of facilities, and different perspectives on
how best to serve TANF clients”influence how states and localities
choose to coordinate services with one-stop centers. States are
affected differently by these conditions. For example, in some states,
welfare and workforce agencies faced with facility limitations used
creative means, such as outstationing workforce staff in welfare
agencies, to coordinate services for TANF clients. In other states,
however, welfare and workforce agencies faced with similar space
constraints were unable to find ways to coordinate services. Currently,
there is no clear way for states and localities to easily access
information on successful approaches to overcome obstacles in
coordinating services. Although research has shown that a variety of
conditions influence coordination efforts, it has not clearly examined
how coordinated service delivery through one-stops affects TANF
clients‘ outcomes.
Several challenges, including program differences between TANF and WIA
and different information systems [Footnote 6] used by welfare and
workforce agencies, inhibit state and local coordination efforts.
[Footnote 7] For example, different program definitions, such as what
constitutes work, as well as complex reporting requirements under TANF
and WIA hamper state and local coordination efforts. Though some states
and localities have found creative ways to work around these issues,
the differences remain barriers to coordination for many others. For
example, antiquated welfare and workforce information systems are often
not equipped to share data with each other, and as a result, sometimes
one-stop center staff members have to enter the same client data into
two separate systems. Although HHS and the Department of Labor (Labor)
have each provided some assistance to the states on how to coordinate
services, available guidance has not specifically addressed the
challenges that many continue to face. Moreover, HHS and Labor have not
addressed differences in program definitions and reporting requirements
under TANF and WIA.
To address some of these obstacles to coordination, we are recommending
that HHS and Labor work together to develop ways to jointly disseminate
information on how some states and localities have taken advantage of
the flexibility afforded to them under TANF and WIA to pursue
coordination strategies. We are also recommending that HHS and Labor,
either individually or jointly, promote research that would examine the
role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients.
Background:
In recent years, the Congress passed two pieces of legislation
intended, in part, to foster greater coordination between education,
welfare, and employment and training programs. The Workforce Investment
Act was passed in 1998 to consolidate services of many employment and
training programs, mandating that states and localities use a
centralized service delivery structure”the one-stop center system”to
provide most federally funded employment and training assistance. The
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, which was created
2 years earlier by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and replaced the Aid to
Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, gave states greater
flexibility to design employment and training services for clients
receiving cash assistance. [Footnote 8] While TANF is not one of the
federal programs mandated to provide services through the one-stop
system, states and localities have the option to include TANF as a
partner.
For over 30 years prior to TANF and WIA implementation, states‘ welfare
and workforce development systems collaborated at some level to provide
employment and training services to welfare clients. These efforts began
in 1967 with the Work Incentive (WIN) Program‘s requirement that states
administer employment and training programs for their welfare clients.
WIN‘s successes were limited, according to critics, largely because the
program lacked coordination between welfare agencies and local
employment and training agencies. WIN was replaced in 1988 when the
Family Support Act created the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS)
Program to provide welfare clients with a broad range of services,
including education and training services. Unlike WIN, which had a clear
and formal role for the workforce development system, JOBS was to be
administered or supervised by the welfare agency, but could be
coordinated with existing employment, training, and education programs
within each state. Our previous work shows that workforce development
programs like the one created by the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA)
played a key role in providing services to welfare recipients.
[Footnote 9] In fact, welfare agencies could contract with these
existing programs to provide JOBS services, which some state welfare
agencies did. Collaboration efforts continued between 1987 and 1996, a
period during which states were allowed to further experiment with
their AFDC and JOBS programs as HHS began allowing waivers to provide
states with more flexibility. States often used these waivers to
strengthen work requirements for welfare clients and to try new ways of
delivering services to welfare clients, sometimes using the workforce
development system.
With the enactment of PRWORA and the creation of the TANF block grant
in 1996, states were given more flexibility than they had under
predecessor programs to determine the nature of financial assistance,
the structure of their cash assistance programs, the types of client
services provided, and how services are delivered. TANF also
established new accountability measures for states”focused in part on
meeting work requirements[Footnote 10]” and a 5-year lifetime limit on
federally funded TANF cash assistance. These measures heighten the
importance of helping TANF clients find work quickly and retain
employment. As states have focused more on this goal of helping TANF
clients obtain employment, the importance of coordinating services has
received increased attention. To help clients get and retain jobs,
states need to address clients‘ work-related needs through services
such as job search and job readiness, as well as child care and
transportation assistance. Frequently, addressing these issues requires
those who work directly with welfare clients to draw on other programs
to provide a wide array of services. While local welfare agencies
administer cash assistance and sometimes Food Stamps and Medicaid,
housing authorities, education agencies, and state Employment Services
offices often administer other programs that provide key services to
TANF clients. In addition, PRWORA broadened both the types of TANF
services that could be contracted and the types of organizations that
could serve as TANF contractors, and therefore nongovernmental agencies
are often involved in the provision of services to TANF clients.
[Footnote 11]
During welfare reform, states were also experimenting with better ways
to coordinate employment and training services, often using one-stop
centers. Labor‘s efforts to coordinate service delivery began in fiscal
year 1994, when they awarded One-Stop Planning and Implementation
grants to some states. These grants required that most Labor-funded
programs be included in one-stop centers, which were intended to
integrate services in order to create a customer-driven system that was
accountable for outcomes and available to all job seekers. When WIA was
enacted, all local areas nationwide were required to use the one-stop
system to provide the majority of federally funded employment and
training services. [Footnote 12] WIA extended the one-stop concept
beyond Labor programs, requiring states and localities to form
partnerships with other agencies offering employment and training
services. Seventeen categories of programs, funded through four federal
agencies”the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human
Services, and Housing and Urban Development”must provide services
through the one-stop center system under WIA. While TANF is not one of
17 federal programs mandated to provide services through the one-stop
system, states and localities have the option to include TANF as a
partner. WIA emphasizes state and local flexibility and does not
require that all program services be provided on site, as they may be
provided through electronic linkages with partner agencies or by
referral, but WIA does require that the relationships and services be
spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
Other recent legislation has also attempted to strengthen the
relationship between welfare and workforce development agencies. For
example, in the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Congress authorized
welfare-to-work (WtW) grants [Footnote 13] to be administered through
the workforce development system. These grants were awarded by Labor to
states and were intended to help hard-to-employ persons receiving TANF
cash assistance and noncustodial parents of minor children in families
receiving TANF cash assistance obtain employment. Forty-four states
have received formula grants and 191 competitive grants have been
awarded to 189 entities. States have until fiscal year 2004 to spend
these funds. WtW‘s inclusion as one of the mandatory partners in one-
stop centers under WIA encourages welfare and workforce agencies to
coordinate.
Most States and Localities Coordinated TANF and WIA Services and Some
Coordination Efforts Increased between 2000 and 2001:
Nearly all states reported coordinating TANF and WIA services at the
state or local level, and some of these coordination efforts increased
between 2000 and 2001. Coordination between state TANF and WIA agencies
increased slightly in 2001 and ranged from formal methods, such as MOUs,
to informal methods, such as information sharing. In addition to these
methods, states increasingly used TANF funds to support the operations
or the infrastructure of their one-stop systems. Some of the largest
gains in coordination occurred at the local level, particularly in the
use of informal linkages, such as periodic program referrals. Other
methods used by local areas included both formal linkages, such as
financial agreements between a local TANF agency and the one-stop
center, and coordinated planning. In addition, many localities
coordinated the provision of services for TANF clients through one-stop
centers, either by colocation or electronic linkages and client
referrals, and these efforts increased in 2001. Although many states
and localities coordinate TANF services with one-stop centers to some
extent, some still provide services for TANF clients outside of one-
stop centers.
Coordination between State TANF and WIA Agencies Occurred in Most
States and Increased Slightly in 2001:
Most states reported some level of coordination between state agencies
administering TANF and WIA, and coordination efforts increased slightly
between 2000 and 2001. Coordination methods used by the states ranged
from formal linkages, such as MOUs, to informal methods, such as
information sharing. Twenty-eight states reported that they made
extensive use of formal linkages, such as MOUs and state-level formal
agreements, between the agencies administering TANF and WIA in 2001,
compared with 27 states in 2000. Similarly, there was a slight increase
in the states‘ use of coordinated planning in 2001, with 19 states
reporting that they used it to a great extent, compared with 18 states
in 2000 (see fig. 1). In addition, 17 states reported using more
coordination methods to a great extent in 2001. Moreover, 9 states used
all five of the coordination methods that we analyzed”up from 7 states
in 2000. [Footnote 14]
Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent,
2000 and 2001:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Coordination methods: Formal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 27;
Number of states, 2001: 28.
Coordination methods: Informal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 29;
Number of states, 2001: 27;
Coordination methods: Interagency/intra-agency workgroups;
Number of states, 2000: 22;
Number of states, 2001: 23.
Coordination methods: Coordinated planning;
Number of states, 2000: 18;
Number of states, 2001: 19.
Coordination methods: Shared performance measures;
Number of states, 2000: 7;
Number of states, 2001: 9.
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of figure]
Increased coordination between TANF and WIA programs was also seen
in the use of TANF funds to support one-stop center infrastructure or
operations. The number of states using TANF funds to support one-stop
centers increased to 36 in 2001 from 33 in 2000. In addition, the
number of states ranking TANF as one of the three largest funding
sources for their one-stop centers rose to 15 in 2001 from 12 in 2000.
Sometimes TANF employment and training funds were completely
transferred to the state workforce agency to provide all employment and
training services to TANF clients in the state. For example, in both
Michigan and Connecticut, all TANF employment and training funds were
allocated to the state workforce agencies, which took responsibility
for providing all employment and training services to TANF clients
through the one-stops. In other states, the state TANF agency retained
responsibility for TANF employment and training funds, transferring
only a portion to the workforce agency, sometimes on a contractual
basis. For example, in New Jersey, the state TANF and WIA agencies
established a contract that directed a portion of TANF funds to the
state Department of Labor to be used for providing employment-related
services to TANF clients at the one-stops; the remaining funds were
retained by the TANF agency and distributed to local areas at the TANF
agency‘s discretion.
In addition, states sometimes established other formal or informal
relationships to further strengthen the coordination between TANF and
WIA agencies. For example, in Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission
and the Health and Human Services Commission are required to jointly
develop and adopt a formal MOU, providing for coordinated case
management of hardest-to-serve TANF clients. In California, the
relationship between the two agencies often took more informal forms,
with TANF and WIA agencies participating in joint planning efforts,
workgroups that focused on service duplication, and policy groups that
addressed pertinent operational issues affecting both agencies.
Localities Increasingly Coordinated TANF Services with One-Stop
Centers:
Local-level coordination of TANF-related services with one-stop centers
also increased between 2000 and 2001, with some of the most dramatic
changes occurring in the use of informal linkages between local TANF
agencies and one-stop centers. In addition to these methods, local one-
stops were increasingly providing services to TANF clients by
colocation or electronic linkages and referrals. Besides TANF- and WIA-
funded services, many local areas also provided WtW services to TANF
clients through the one-stop system.
Program Coordination between TANF and WIA Agencies Increased at the
Local Level:
Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001
were seen at the local level, with the most dramatic changes occurring
between local TANF agencies and one-stop centers in informal linkages,
such as periodic program referrals or information services. [Footnote
15] Forty-four states reported that most of their one-stop centers had
informal linkages with their TANF programs in 2001, compared with 35
states in 2000 (see fig. 2). Similarly, 16 states reported that most of
their one-stop centers had shared intake or enrollment systems in
2001”up from 13 in 2000, and 15 states reported in 2001 that they used
an integrated case management system in most of their one-stop
centers”an increase of 1 state from our 2000 results. Also, more
coordination methods were in use at local one-stops. The number of
states that reported that most of their one-stop centers used all seven
methods of local-level coordination increased to 10 states in 2001 from
7 in 2000.
Figure 2: Coordination Methods that States Reported Most of Their One-
Stop Centers Were Using, 2000 and 2001:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Coordination method: Informal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 35;
Number of states, 2001: 44.
Coordination method: Formal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 26;
Number of states, 2001: 28.
Coordination method: Coordinated planning;
Number of states, 2000: 22;
Number of states, 2001: 21.
Coordination method: Shared intake, enrollment;
Number of states, 2000: 13;
Number of states, 2001: 16.
Coordination method: Integrated case management;
Number of states, 2000: 14;
Number of states, 2001: 15.
Coordination method: Shared client tracking;
Number of states, 2000: 13;
Number of states, 2001: 14.
Coordination method: Shared performance measurement;
Number of states, 2000: 11;
Number of states, 2001: 12.
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of figure]
Local One-Stops Increasingly Provided Services to TANF Clients:
Increases in coordination between TANF services and one-stop centers
were also seen in the use of the one-stop system to provide services to
TANF clients. Localities increasingly coordinated the provision of
services to TANF clients through local one-stop centers”either through
colocation of services at the one-stop or through electronic linkages
and client referrals to providers outside the one-stop. Moreover, the
number of states with services colocated in at least some of their
local one-stop centers increased between 2000 and 2001 (see fig. 3).
For example, the number of states with TANF work services colocated in
at least some of their one-stops increased to 39 in 2001 up from 32 in
2000. Moreover, of the 18 states in 2000 that did not have TANF work
services colocated in any of their one-stops, 8 had colocated TANF work
services at some or all of their one[stops by 2001. While the same
number of states”24”reported in both 2000 and 2001 that TANF work
services were colocated at the majority of their one-stops, the use of
electronic linkages or referrals increased. Fifteen states reported in
2001 that work-related services for TANF clients were either
electronically linked to the majority of their one-stop centers or
provided by referring clients from the one-stop to services located
outside the one-stop, while 11 states reported these types of linkages
in 2000.
A variety of TANF work services were available at the one-stops. These
services included job search and registration, skills enhancement,
vocational training, assistance in developing individual employability
plans, and case management geared toward addressing barriers to
employment. For example, in local areas that we visited in New Jersey,
clients came to the one-stop to participate in job readiness courses and
self-paced adult education curricula, or to receive assistance with
résumé writing and job interviewing skills. A local area in Connecticut
provided TANF clients at the one-stops with an opportunity to take part
in on-site recruitment by local employers.
Sometimes states instituted policies to further strengthen the
relationships between the programs and ensure that clients were
connected to work services at the one-stop centers. In Michigan and
Texas, for example, TANF clients were required to attend an orientation
session at the one-stop before they could receive cash assistance.
Similarly, in Connecticut, because of low participation rates for TANF
clients at one-stop centers, the legislature enacted a law requiring
TANF clients to use one-stop centers as a condition of receiving cash
assistance.
In addition to TANF work services, states also increasingly coordinated
TANF cash assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid programs with the one-
stop centers. Colocation of cash assistance increased in 2001”16 states
reported that they provided cash assistance services at least part time
at the majority of their one-stop centers, compared with 9 states in
2000. Colocation of Food Stamps and Medicaid also increased. For
example, although 7 states in both years reported that they conducted
Medicaid eligibility at the majority of their one-stops, the number of
states reporting that Medicaid eligibility was conducted in at least
some of their one-stops increased to 20 in 2001 from 14 in 2000. For
Food Stamp eligibility, 10 states reported providing this service at
the majority of their one-stops in 2001, up from 7 states in 2000.
Moreover, the number of states with Food Stamp eligibility conducted in
at least some of their one-stops was 26 in 2001, up from 16 states in
2000.
When states did not colocate services, they sometimes coordinated them
by using electronic linkages or by referral. About half of the states
coordinated their TANF cash assistance or Food Stamps or Medicaid
programs with the one-stop centers, electronically or by referral, in
2000 and 2001. In 2001, Food Stamp eligibility was available
electronically or by referral at the majority of one-stops in 29
states, and Medicaid eligibility was available in the same manner at
the majority of one-stops in 27 states”up from 26 and 24 states,
respectively, in 2000. For example, state officials in both Connecticut
and New Jersey reported that even though one-stop staff did not
determine eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the one-stops,
the staff were expected to refer clients to appropriate support
services outside of one-stop centers.
Figure 3: Number of States with Services Colocated in at Least Some One-
Stops, 2000 and 2001:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Service provided: TANF work;
Number of states, 2000: 32;
Number of states, 2001: 39.
Service provided: TANF cash;
Number of states, 2000: 21;
Number of states, 2001: 33.
Service provided: Food stamps;
Number of states, 2000: 16;
Number of states, 2001: 26.
Service provided: Medicaid;
Number of states, 2000: 14;
Number of states, 2001: 20.
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of figure]
Although colocation, electronic linkages, and referrals were all used to
serve TANF clients through the one-stops, in general, the form of
coordination between TANF programs and one-stop centers varied
depending on particular services provided. For example, when TANF work
services were coordinated through the one-stop centers, they were more
likely to be colocated. TANF cash assistance and the Food Stamps and
Medicaid programs were more likely to be connected with one-stop
centers electronically or by referral (see fig. 4).
Figure 4: Forms of Coordination that States Reported the Majority of
Their Local One-Stops Used, 2001:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Service provided: TANF work;
Number of states, electronic linkage/referrals: 15;
Number of states, colocation: 25.
Service provided: TANF cash;
Number of states, electronic linkage/referrals: 26;
Number of states, colocation: 16.
Service provided: Food stamps;
Number of states, electronic linkage/referrals: 30;
Number of states, colocation: 10.
Service provided: Medicaid;
Number of states, electronic linkage/referrals: 27;
Number of states, colocation: 7.
Source: GAO survey data.
[End of figure]
We also saw wide variation in the degree to which other support
services, such as child care and transportation, were provided through
the one-stop system. For child care assistance, the forms of
coordination included colocation of child care programs at the one-stop
as well as the provision of information on child care services
available elsewhere. In New Jersey, for example, representatives from
child care assistance programs were colocated at some of the one-stop
centers, whereas in Arizona, coordination was limited to childcare
information brochures on display at one-stop centers. Officials
reported that in one county in New York, WIA funds were used to provide
daycare vouchers to TANF clients. Many of the one-stops that we visited
provided some kind of transportation assistance, although the nature of
the services and whether or not the services were reserved for TANF
clients varied from locality to locality. For example, in one location
in New Jersey that we visited, the one-stop center reimbursed any low-
income client attending training for transportation expenses, whether
or not the client was covered under TANF. Another New Jersey one-stop
provided van services to transport former TANF clients to and from job
interviews and, once clients were employed, to and from their jobs,
even during evening and night shifts. Similarly, in a one-stop in
Connecticut, current and former TANF clients could receive mileage
reimbursement for their expenses associated with going to and from their
jobs. And in Louisiana, a one-stop we visited contracted with a
nonprofit agency to provide van services to transport TANF clients to
and from work-related activities.
Other support services were sometimes provided through the one-stop as
well. For example, under an agreement between human service and WIA
officials in one local area of Tennessee, TANF clients are referred to
the workforce agency where caseworkers work with them to identify needed
support services, such as dental care and auto repair, and connect the
TANF clients with providers of those services.
Welfare-to-Work Services Were Available to TANF Clients at the One-
Stops:
In some states, TANF clients were served at the one-stops through the
use of Labor‘s WtW grant program”a mandatory partner at the one-stops
under WIA. Some state and local officials said that the WtW program
helped promote local-level coordination between welfare and workforce
agencies, a finding that we reported in our earlier work. [Footnote 16]
Although work-related services for TANF clients were available both
through the one-stop centers and outside of them”sometimes using a
variety of funding streams”the hardest-to-employ TANF clients were
increasingly accessing services at the one-stops through the WtW
program. In 2001, 42 states had WtW services colocated in at least some
of their local one-stops, compared with 34 states in 2000. In addition,
states reported that WtW services were physically located at the
majority of one-stop centers in 31 states in 2001, up from 27 states in
2000. Some WtW services included assistance given to clients in
developing Personal Responsibility Plans, helping the hardest-to-serve
clients prepare for job interviews, or following up with TANF clients
who recently entered the workforce. Through the WtW program, local
areas in Louisiana placed state Labor staff administering the program
in social services offices across the state to assess TANF clients‘
eligibility for WtW and refer eligible clients to the one-stops for
appropriate services.
Sometimes WtW grants were also used to provide support services to
current or former TANF clients at the one-stops, including child care,
transportation, and other assistance. For example, a local one-stop
that we visited in Arizona used the WtW grants for a Sick Child Care
Program, an initiative that, under a contract with a local nonprofit
organization, provides for nurses to be sent to the homes of TANF
clients with sick children, thus enabling them to participate in work-
related or training activities. A local one-stop that we visited in New
Jersey used WtW funds to establish an Individual Development Account
Program whereby clients transitioning into the workforce could save
money matched by the one-stop for a work-related purpose, such as
purchasing a car to get to the workplace. The same one-stop also used
WtW funds in employing an outside financial services company to help
those who recently left TANF for employment apply for their Earned
Income Tax Credit. [Footnote 17]
Some officials expressed concerns about the ability of local one-stops
to continue providing work-related services to TANF clients once all
states‘ WtW funds expire. For example, officials reported that in one
state, where local TANF offices previously referred TANF clients to the
one-stops as part of the state‘s WtW program, few referrals have been
done since the depletion of WtW funds. In California, where WtW funds
are sometimes the only funding source available to serve TANF clients
at the one-stops, one county is currently developing a formal
transition plan to provide services to TANF clients at the one-stops
using WIA funds after WtW funds expire. A California state official
told us, however, that the expectation in other areas is that no other
funding sources will be available to serve this population and that
clients will have to be sent back to be served by separate TANF
agencies.
TANF-Related Services Are Also Provided Outside of the One-Stop
Centers:
Despite increased coordination of TANF work services through the one-
stops, many states and localities still provided services to TANF
clients outside of one-stop centers at separate TANF offices. However,
the number of states not coordinating any work services to TANF clients
through the one-stops”either by colocation or electronic linkages and
referrals”declined between 2000 and 2001. While 12 states in 2000
reported that they were not providing TANF work services through any of
their one-stop centers, the number had declined to only 4 states in
2001.
Some states” Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi, for example”offered a
full range of employment and training services to clients through their
local TANF agencies, which were located in every local area. In other
states, separate TANF agencies were maintained even though some work
services were still coordinated through the one-stops. For example, in
Alabama, where work services were available through the one-stops by
means of electronic linkages or referrals, clients received all
employment and training programs at county welfare offices where they
could also access all needed support services. Similarly in Louisiana,
each parish had an Office of Family Support where TANF clients received
employment and training assessments, counseling, and referrals.
A Variety of Conditions Influence State and Local Coordination Efforts,
but Little Is Known about the Effectiveness of Coordinated Service
Delivery on TANF Clients‘ Outcomes:
A variety of conditions”including historical relationships, geographic
considerations, adequate facilities, and different perspectives on how
best to serve TANF clients”influence how states and localities choose to
coordinate services with one-stop centers. States are affected
differently by these conditions. While these conditions sometimes
facilitated states‘ coordination efforts, other states faced with
similar conditions found coordination difficult. Although research has
shown that a variety of conditions influence coordination efforts, it
has not clearly examined how coordinated service delivery through one-
stops affects TANF clients‘ outcomes.
A Variety of Conditions Influence How States and Localities Coordinate
TANF Services with One-Stop Centers:
A variety of conditions continue to affect how states and localities
coordinate TANF services with one-stop centers. The nature of historical
relationships between welfare and workforce agencies at the state and
local level, specifically agencies‘ experience in working with each
other in the past, often sets the stage for the level of present
coordination. Geographic considerations, such as variations in layout
of agency service districts, physical distance between one-stop centers
and welfare offices, and the number of TANF clients in a given area,
can also affect how states and localities coordinate services. The
availability of adequate facilities can also influence state and local
coordination efforts. In addition, welfare and workforce agencies often
have different perspectives on how to best serve TANF clients. While
some states and localities have had success in using the flexibility
afforded them under WIA and TANF to coordinate in spite of these
conditions, others lack information on the coordination efforts of
other states and localities. Although there is some ’promising
practices“ information currently available on selected websites, it is
not generally organized in a way that allows readers to readily obtain
information on coordinating services.
Historical Relationships:
The existing level of coordination between TANF services and one-stop
centers is often a reflection of how state and local agencies have
worked with each other in the past. Some officials said that their
efforts to coordinate TANF services with one-stop centers have been
complicated by state and local agencies‘ lack of experience working
together, which sometimes resulted in a lack of trust between agencies.
For example, some officials reported that coordination was difficult
because, historically, there has been little cooperation between
workforce and welfare agencies in their state.
Some states that had previously coordinated other employment and
training programs among multiple agencies, noted that this experience
made coordination of TANF services with one-stop centers easier. For
example, in Idaho, the state Department of Labor invited the state‘s
welfare agency to join a focus group on coordination as early as 1992,
and a TANF representative has served on the state management team for
workforce development since their earliest one-stop implementation
efforts. Also, officials in Illinois reported that TANF staff regularly
attended JTPA meetings in the past and have been involved with WIA
since it was implemented, laying the framework for coordinating TANF
services with one-stop centers.
Local areas sometimes have found ways to creatively coordinate services
even in states where state agencies had little experience working
together. For example, although TANF clients in Louisiana access TANF
services outside of one-stop centers, staff at a local one-stop we
visited reported that they work closely with parish welfare staff to
ensure that TANF clients were aware of the full range of services
available at the one-stop. According to local officials, the mutual
commitment between welfare and workforce officials enabled them to work
together to meet the needs of all clients. In Arizona, where state
welfare and workforce agencies operate services for TANF clients
outside the one-stops, a local one-stop has regularly organized job
fairs in conjunction with welfare staff since the implementation of
WIA.
Geographical Considerations:
Various geographical considerations can affect how TANF services are
coordinated with one-stop centers. In some states, the layout of agency
service districts, physical distance between one-stop centers and
welfare offices, and the number of TANF clients in a given area have
affected the extent of coordination. For example, HHS regional office
personnel reported that West Virginia social service agencies were
reluctant to coordinate with one-stop centers because service districts
for TANF and WIA were not the same, and TANF officials did not always
know what local workforce investment areas encompassed their agency.
Other states‘ efforts to coordinate services were limited by the lack
of one-stop centers within the state. For example, officials in Alabama
reported that, although welfare agencies were located in every county,
one-stop centers were not. For this reason, they believed that the
existing one-stops could not accommodate all TANF clients in the state.
In addition, other state efforts to coordinate services were limited
due to the decline of the TANF population that resulted in a small
number of TANF clients in some areas. For example, in Illinois, where
caseload declines had left few TANF recipients in some areas, state
officials stressed the importance of allowing local areas the
flexibility to determine when and how to coordinate TANF-related
services with one-stop centers.
These geographic considerations can also encourage state and local
coordination efforts. HHS regional office personnel reported that
smaller states with only one local workforce investment area believed
that the small size of the state encouraged the coordination of
services. Existing research has confirmed that locating one-stop
centers near facilities where other TANF services are offered to
clients facilitated coordination. In addition, officials at a local one-
stop in Connecticut reported that having a social service office and
the one-stop center located on different floors in the same facility
made it easier for agencies to communicate with each other and for
clients to get services. Other states have located one-stop centers in
areas that are more accessible to TANF clients in order to make
coordination beneficial for them. Both New Jersey and Louisiana have
established plans to create satellite one-stop centers in public housing
areas. The New Jersey Department of Labor has a contract with a local
housing authority to establish an on-site employment center for serving
WtW-eligible TANF clients residing on the premises of the housing
authority. The New Orleans workforce investment board is also in the
process of locating seven satellite one-stop centers in housing projects
within the city limits. Both efforts were undertaken to improve TANF
clients‘ access to one-stop centers, which in turn encourages greater
coordination between the local workforce and welfare agencies.
Availability of Adequate Facilities:
Availability of adequate facilities can shape how states and localities
coordinate TANF services with one-stop centers. Officials in several
states reported that coordination efforts were hampered because
available space at one-stop centers was limited and the centers could
not house additional programs or service providers. For example, in a
local Louisiana one-stop, staff were unable to colocate more partners
because they did not have space to accommodate additional providers. In
addition, state officials explained that long-term leases often
prevented relocation of TANF services to one-stop centers because
agencies administering those services could not afford to incur the
cost of breaking those leases in order to move to one-stops. Other
states facing similar limitations in facilities have developed
alternatives, such as rotating welfare staff to one-stop centers or
locating workforce staff in welfare offices. For example, in order to
help TANF clients access employment and training and to link them to
one-stop centers, the Louisiana Department of Labor located a WtW
representative in most local welfare offices. WtW staff provided key
information to TANF clients about services available at one-stop
centers.
Different Perspectives on How to Best Serve TANF Clients:
Officials‘ perspectives on how best to serve TANF clients can affect
whether TANF services will be offered in one-stop centers. While some
believe TANF clients are best served in separate social service
facilities, others consider that coordination through the one-stop is
more beneficial. Some officials argued that TANF clients who have
multiple barriers to employment [Footnote 18] might not receive
priority of service in a one-stop center environment. As a result
officials in some states were hesitant to coordinate services for TANF
clients with one-stop centers because they believe that the needs of
TANF clients were better served in social service facilities by staff
trained to meet their specific needs. For example, HHS regional
representatives reported that Rhode Island social service officials
believe TANF clients often need exposure to pre-employment experiences
such as English language services”not always available at one-stop
centers”before they can fully benefit from the work-related programs at
the one-stops. Also, state officials in Washington reported that TANF
clients need a higher level of supervision and more structured
assistance than they believe one-stops can provide in order to help
clients maintain participation in the program and achieve desired
outcomes. According to several HHS regional officials, some states are
concerned that it may be difficult for TANF clients to access all
support services (especially child care, substance abuse counseling,
and transportation) through the one-stops. Other states told the HHS
regional officials that they were hesitant to coordinate TANF services
with one-stop centers as long as other needed support services
continued to be provided outside that structure.
HHS regional officials said that in other states, state officials
reported that coordinating TANF services with one-stop centers was
beneficial to TANF clients, and services were structured accordingly.
HHS regional officials reported that some state officials believe that,
because workforce staff have more experience in getting people into
jobs, exposing TANF clients to one-stops would better prepare them for
work. For example, welfare officials in Georgia supported the
coordination of TANF services with one-stop centers because they
believed that TANF clients would benefit from the workforce expertise
of one-stop staff. HHS officials said that other states also agree that
TANF clients have access to a greater array of employment and training
services at one-stop centers and that early contact with these services
can help ensure continued access to services once TANF clients no
longer receive cash assistance. Other officials reported that provision
of services for TANF clients through one-stop centers encourages
program staff to be more aware of other services available in both
welfare and workforce systems.
Research Shows a Variety of Conditions Influence Coordination Efforts,
but Little is Known about the Effectiveness of Coordinated Service
Delivery on TANF Clients‘ Outcomes:
While research shows that a variety of conditions influence if, and how,
states and localities choose to coordinate TANF services, limited
research is available on the effectiveness of coordinated service
delivery on TANF clients‘ outcomes. In our analysis of the literature,
[Footnote 19] we did not find a national study that compared the
effectiveness of coordinated service delivery to that of other service
delivery methods in supporting successful outcomes for welfare clients.
Without research on the effectiveness of coordinated service delivery,
states and localities must make decisions without the benefit of
thorough evaluation and analysis.
In general, we found few recent research studies on the coordination of
welfare and workforce development services. Although the research is
limited, findings from existing research address conditions that
promote or inhibit coordination between agencies. Some of the conditions
identified in the research as promoting coordination included a history
of working together and good working relationships between agency
officials. Conditions identified as inhibiting coordination included
agency space limitations and different geographic boundaries. All of
these conditions are similar to those we found and previously mentioned
in this report. Research has not shown that there is any one method or
model of coordination that works best or that could be consistently
applied in all settings. (See appendix I for a listing of reviewed
research studies and their relevant findings.)
Although limited research focused on welfare and workforce coordination
efforts, no study compared the effectiveness of coordinated service
delivery to that of other service delivery structures for welfare
clients. [Footnote 20] One study examined outcomes for welfare clients
who received services at five one-stop centers in five states, but the
study did not compare outcomes of welfare clients receiving services in
one-stop centers to those who received them through different delivery
structures. [Footnote 21]
Both HHS and Labor have research authority and, since the enactment of
TANF and WIA, both have used this authority to encourage various
evaluations of policy changes influenced by the legislation. However,
federal research efforts on the effectiveness of coordinated service
delivery on welfare recipients‘ outcomes have been limited. [Footnote
22] To examine the effectiveness of various employment and training
strategies, HHS and Labor are currently co-sponsoring a 5-year
experimental study on employment retention and advancement to identify
how to best provide post-employment services to the welfare population
and which interventions work best in promoting retention and
advancement of welfare recipients. [Footnote 23] Though this study will
focus on local areas where services are delivered through one-stops and
local areas where services are delivered through other structures, the
current study design does not focus on how the different service
delivery structures”one-stop centers and welfare agencies”affect the
outcomes of welfare recipients. [Footnote 24] In addition, little
evaluation of the effects of different service delivery structures on
welfare clients‘ outcomes has occurred, although Labor‘s 2000-2005
research plan identifies research on interventions to assist welfare
clients as a high-priority research area. [Footnote 25]
Challenges Inhibit State and Local Coordination Efforts:
Several challenges” including different program definitions, complex
reporting requirements between TANF and WIA, and different information
systems that do not share data [Footnote 26]”inhibit state and local
coordination efforts. [Footnote 27] Although HHS and Labor have each
provided some assistance to the states on how to coordinate services,
the available guidance has not specifically addressed the challenges
that many continue to face. Moreover, HHS and Labor have not addressed
differences in program definitions and reporting requirements under
TANF and WIA. However, a recent legislative proposal has called for
Labor and HHS to jointly address the commonalities or differences in
data elements, definitions, performance measures, and reporting
requirements between TANF and WIA. [Footnote 28]
Different Program Definitions and Reporting Requirements Complicate
Coordination:
Different program definitions and reporting requirements in TANF and
WIA constrain the flexibility that states and localities have to
coordinate TANF services through one-stop centers. The overall
difference in how the success of TANF and WIA is measured, as defined
by program definitions and reporting requirements challenges states and
localities in their efforts to coordinate services.
As states and localities attempt to coordinate services for TANF clients
with one-stop centers, they encounter challenges to harmonizing
different program definitions within TANF and WIA. Although both TANF
and WIA focus on work, different program definitions”such as what
constitutes work or what income level constitutes self-sufficiency”make
coordination between the programs difficult. While many definitions are
established by legislation and cannot be readily changed, a few can be
locally determined, and two states we contacted found ways to harmonize
their locally determined definitions. For example, Connecticut developed
a self-sufficiency standard [Footnote 29] that could be uniformly
applied across TANF and WIA so that both programs could place clients
in jobs with similar wage levels. Having one self-sufficiency standard
enables welfare and workforce staff to use one process to determine
suitable job training programs and identify appropriate jobs.
Similarly, one local one-stop center we visited in Arizona worked to
accommodate what qualifies as a work activity for TANF clients. At this
center, welfare and one-stop officials worked together to develop
training for both programs that enabled TANF clients to meet the
requirement of a TANF work activity. However, officials in other states
reported that definition differences between TANF and WIA programs,
including dissimilar self-sufficiency standards, made coordination
efforts more difficult.
In addition, differences in reporting requirements, resulting from how
the success of each program is measured, also hinder coordination
efforts. Each program has its own separate measures of success that
subsequently drive program design and use of funds. While WIA‘s
performance measures focus on participant outcomes, such as increases
in average earnings change and employment retention rate, TANF measures
focus on the overall caseload, such as work participation rates and
caseload reductions. States can also measure the success of TANF
through the use of indicators required for high performance bonus
reporting, similar to WIA‘s performance measures. But data for the
measures are not tracked uniformly across states, the measures are not
defined in the same way, and participation in the TANF high performance
bonus is voluntary. Because the mandatory federal measures for both
programs evaluate very different things, officials found that tracking
performance for the TANF and WIA programs together was difficult.
Subsequently, these differences lead to different program designs and
hamper state and local ability to coordinate TANF services with one-
stop centers. In addition, similar to a finding in our prior report on
WIA performance measures, [Footnote 30] several state officials
expressed concern that, when WIA funds were used to serve TANF clients,
the reporting requirements could lead one-stop staff to only serve
those TANF clients they believed stood a better chance of meeting WIA‘s
outcome-based performance measures.
Different Information Systems Used by Welfare and Workforce Agencies
Complicate Coordination:
Welfare and workforce agencies often use different information systems,
complicating efforts to coordinate TANF services with one-stop centers.
Efforts to increase coordination require greater data sharing across
organizations. However, as we reported in the past, some of the systems
used by agencies providing services to TANF clients do not readily share
data with other systems, hampering the case manager‘s ability to deliver
services to the client in a timely manner. [Footnote 31] In some cases,
this may mean that data needed to determine what services should be
provided to a client are not readily available to the case manager. In
other cases, having multiple systems may mean that agency workers have
to enter the same data multiple times. In addition, antiquated
information systems of both welfare and workforce agencies have made it
difficult for agencies to take advantage of new technologies, such as
Web-based systems. During our site visits and telephone interviews,
some local officials said that they could not merge or share data and
were not equipped to collect information on clients in different
programs. TANF clients are often tracked separately from clients of
other programs, and even the One-Stop Operating System (OSOS), funded
by Labor, does not allow one-stop centers to include TANF programs. In
addition, other officials expressed concerns that sharing data across
programs would violate client confidentiality protections.
Some states have been able to overcome this challenge to coordination by
developing ways to merge data across multiple information systems. As
reported in our previous work, we found that many states are extracting
and consolidating data from multiple systems in data warehouses
[Footnote 32] and other specialized databases. [Footnote 33] For
example, the agency that administers TANF in Kansas developed a data
warehouse to allow one-stop partners to access the data they needed on
TANF clients without having to breach clients‘ confidentiality. Other
localities have created their own information management systems. To
compensate for the limitations of OSOS, a New Jersey one-stop opted to
use its own system, which allows the center‘s staff to manually input
all information on any client that is served through any
program”including dates, work activities, and outcomes. Though some
states have been able to merge information systems, the issues of
incompatible computer systems are not easily resolved. Officials from
two states we visited said that their states‘ TANF and WIA agencies were
exploring the development of a shared information system but that cost
estimates were too high for it to be implemented at this time.
Conclusions:
Although TANF is not a mandatory partner in the one-stops under WIA, it
is clear that TANF and WIA coordination is increasing, especially at the
point of service delivery”the local level. It appears that, as the
systems have matured and their shared purposes and goals have become
evident, many states and localities have found it advantageous to
coordinate their TANF and WIA services”linking TANF clients with one-
stop centers that are positioned to help them throughout their
lifetime, long after they leave time-limited, cash assistance. This
move toward service coordination is not happening everywhere”it has
been left to state and local discretion. Many officials use the
flexibility in the programs to coordinate services for TANF clients,
but their efforts continue to be hampered by lack of accessible
information on state and local coordination efforts and lack of clear
research on the effectiveness of coordinated service delivery on TANF
clients‘ outcomes.
Labor and HHS have made efforts to work together to address some of the
obstacles that states and localities have faced, but their efforts have
not produced clear information on ways to improve coordination for
states wishing to do so. And, while some states have been successful at
developing strategies to overcome obstacles to coordination, others have
not been. Without a mechanism to share successful approaches, states and
localities that have met with success in their coordination efforts will
remain an untapped resource. The information they could share may help
other states and localities struggling in their efforts to design more
coordinated service delivery approaches.
In addition, though many states and localities have chosen to coordinate
welfare and workforce services, research has yet to help state and local
decision makers determine whether and how coordinated service delivery
can be an effective method for improving TANF clients‘ employment
success. It is unknown whether promoting coordinated service delivery
will result in improved outcomes for TANF clients because limited
research exists on this topic. Clear research findings would help guide
federal, state, and local officials in developing service delivery
approaches that work best for TANF clients and make the best use of
available resources.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help states more effectively address some of the obstacles to
coordination, we recommend that Labor and HHS work together to jointly
develop and distribute information on promising approaches for
coordinating services for TANF clients through one-stops.
To enable states and localities to determine whether coordinated service
delivery is the most effective method for improving TANF clients‘
employment success, we recommend that Labor and HHS promote research
that would examine the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes
of TANF clients.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor and HHS for their review and
comment. Formal comments from Labor and HHS appear in appendix II
and III respectively. In addition to the comments discussed below, HHS
provided technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate.
Labor and HHS generally agreed with our findings and recommendations
and Labor noted that the report, in their opinion, contained an accurate
portrayal of the extent of current collaboration between TANF and WIA
services. Labor and HHS stated that they support efforts to share
promising practices. Labor noted that they have awarded a contract to
develop a comprehensive website for this purpose. We are hopeful that
once fully developed it will be a ready source of information on many
promising practices including the coordination of TANF and WIA services.
HHS noted that ongoing research, in which they have both informal and
formal linkages with Labor, would likely provide information on
successful service delivery models.
HHS commented that our recommendation to promote research that would
examine the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF
clients could require an experimental research design, which is not
compatible with the delivery of human service programs in the real
world. We recognize the difficulty in setting up a rigorous comparison,
and do not suggest that experimental research design is the only type
of research that would fulfill our recommendation. Our recommendation
is to have Labor and HHS encourage and support research that focuses a
portion of the analysis on how the service delivery structure of
services affects outcomes for TANF clients. HHS studies have provided
some information on the success of different service models in serving
TANF clients and we are hopeful that future research will focus on how
service delivery structures affect outcomes for TANF clients.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of HHS and
Labor, relevant congressional committees, and others who are
interested. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.
This report is also available at no charge on GAO‘s Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Annotated Bibliography of Reviewed Studies:
Grubb, W. Norton, et al. Toward Order from Chaos: State Efforts to
Reform Workforce Development Systems. Berkeley, CA: National Center
for Research in Vocational Education, 1999.
This study began in 1997 and analyzed data obtained from officials
interviewed in 10 states and in 2 localities within each of the states.
Though findings from this study primarily focused on workforce
development reform efforts, the study also addressed factors that
promote service coordination and challenges to service coordination.
Researchers found that good personal relationships among administrators
and consistency of efforts over time promoted workforce development
reform and service coordination, and conflicts between the welfare work
first philosophy and the workforce development education and training
philosophy presented a challenge to service coordination.
Martinson, Karin. Literature Review on Service Coordination and
Integration in the Welfare and Workforce Development Systems.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 1999.
This literature review, written by the Urban Institute and released by
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, summarized 16 studies
released between 1989 and 1998 that addressed service coordination
between welfare and workforce systems. The review summarized both
barriers to coordination and factors that promoted coordination efforts
between welfare and workforce agencies. Barriers to coordination
included incompatible management information systems and different
program performance measures; factors that promoted coordination
included the federal strategy of providing information on successful
examples of coordination and the local strategy of documenting and
evaluating coordination efforts. The review concluded that studies do
not suggest that one method of coordination was consistently successful
in bringing together welfare and workforce systems.
McIntire, James L. and Amy F. Robins. Fixing to Change: A Best Practices
Assessment of One-Stop Job Centers Working With Welfare Recipients.
Washington: Fiscal Policy Center, University of Washington, 1999.
This study, released by HHS‘s Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation, examined outcomes for TANF clients who
received services at five one-stop centers in five states. Data
collection occurred in 1997, and data analyzed included administrative
data and focus group discussions with one-stop management and staff,
employers of welfare clients, and both current and former welfare
clients. Welfare clients examined were both AFDC clients and TANF
clients”depending on the one-stop examined”because data collection
occurred during the period of initial TANF implementation. This study
found that these five one-stop centers produced partially successful
outcomes for welfare clients, as evidenced by employment rates, wage
rates, and hours worked. This study did not compare outcomes of welfare
clients receiving services at the one-stop centers to outcomes of
welfare clients receiving services provided through different delivery
structures, such as local welfare agencies or other service providers.
Pindus, Nancy, et al. Coordination and Integration of Welfare and
Workforce Development Systems. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2000.
This study, released by HHS‘s Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Planning and Evaluation in 2000 and written by the Urban Institute,
examined recent state and local coordination efforts of welfare and
workforce agencies. Data analyzed included interviews with officials
from TANF and workforce agencies in 12 localities within 6 states that
occurred in the summer of 1999. Findings included factors that
generally promoted coordination between welfare and workforce agencies
and those that created barriers to coordination. In the study, a prior
history of coordination between agencies, the availability of flexible
funding sources, and other factors were found to promote coordination
between welfare and workforce agencies. In contrast, agency space
limitations that hindered collocation and different program goals were
identified as some of the challenges to coordination. This study
concluded that there is not one ideal model, schedule, or set of
guidelines that will result in successful service delivery
coordination.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
A Proud Member of America's Workforce Network:
Employment and Training Administration:
200 Constitution Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20210:
June 21, 2002:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, And Income Security Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on the draft GAO
report, Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly
Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on
Effective Coordination Approaches (GAO-02-696). We appreciate the
extent to which GAO coordinated with Department of Labor (DOL) staff
throughout the development of the report. It is our opinion that the
report contains a very accurate portrayal of the extent of current
collaboration between the two systems.
We believe that strong linkages between the Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs are
vitally important, and better coordination is a core principle upon
which we are making recommendations for changes to both pieces of
legislation during their respective reauthorizations. It is our belief
that stronger linkages, especially the provision of TANF services in
One-Stop Career Centers, will result in benefits for program
participants in terms of access to a wider array of services as well as
for program operators who would see reduced burden and duplication of
effort at the state and local levels.
Currently, approximately 50 percent of the states (examples include
Wisconsin, Utah, and Michigan) have exercised the option to include
TANF as a partner in their One-Stop system statewide. While this is
notable progress, there are still a number of states in which the TANF
employment and WIA programs are administered through parallel and
duplicative systems.
As a One-Stop partner, TANF core services are available at a minimum of
one comprehensive One-Stop Career Center in each local workforce
investment area, thus expanding access to services for low-income
families. Core services include such activities as outreach, intake,
initial assessment, and job search and placement assistance.
In addition, continued integration also means that existing local
welfare offices are part of a state's One-Stop system as partners in a
network of affiliated sites.
WIA does not require that partners provide core services exclusively at
a One-Stop Career Center, and partners are not required to route all of
their participants through a comprehensive One-Stop Career Center.
However, this advanced level of communication and coordination furthers
the ideal of good governance, less duplication and better service to
customers.
An important incentive to furthering linkages is developing a common
performance system upon which programs can be evaluated and for which
reporting burdens are reduced. There should be a common core of
performance measures (such as entered employment and earnings gain)
across all federal workforce programs. We have begun policy-level
discussions with the Department of Health and Human Services'
Administration for Children and Families (ACF), as well as Department
of Education officials, on this key issue.
We also agree that the sharing of promising practices is an area in
which our system needs to improve. To that end, we have awarded a grant
to the State of Illinois to develop a comprehensive website [hyperlink,
http://promising-practices.org]. It will be designed as a comprehensive
internet-based digital library of promising practices in workforce
development from throughout the nation. When fully developed, it will
be a powerful research and reference tool for public and private sector
workforce professionals who want to improve organizational performance
and enhance their ability to meet customer needs. In addition, we will
work with our partners at ACF to identify additional ways to
disseminate this information.
I would like to clarify the reference made to the America's One-Stop
Operating System (AOSOS) on page 27 of the draft report. It is
incorrect to characterize this system as "Labor's" system. While
developed with DOL funds, the system was designed by states for states.
And, it was developed with multi-agency functionality, which allows
numerous partner agencies to use the system. The fact that AOSOS is
browser-based and can be accessed over the Internet further enhances
this feature, as it allows partners who are not co-located to still be
able to use the system. While it may be true that the TANF program is
not using AOSOS in any of the states that have implemented the system,
we do not believe it is a system limitation issue.
We will provide a formal response to GAO's recommendations for
executive action when the report is final.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Department Of Health & Human Services:
Office of Inspector General:
Washington, D.C. 20201:
June 24, 2002:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report entitled,
"Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly
Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on
Effective Coordination Approaches." The comments represent the
tentative position of the Department and are subject to reevaluation
when the final version of this report is received.
The Department also provided several technical comments directly to
your staff.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Janet Rehnquist:
Inspector General:
The Office of Inspector General (01G) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office
reports. The OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them.
Enclosure:
Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services On The General
Accounting Office's Draft Report, "Workforce Investment Act: States And
Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services For TANF Clients, But
Better Information Needed On Effective Coordination Approaches" (GAO-02-
696):
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on this draft report, which provides useful
information about the coordination of services between the Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
programs.
General Comments:
As your report chronicles, the link between State welfare agencies and
State workforce development agencies stretches back to 1967 when the
welfare program was Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and
the relevant employment program was the Work Incentive program (WIN).
Succeeding legislation has caused both agencies to evolve and grow. The
welfare reform legislation of 1996, the Personal Responsibility and
Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), abolished the AFDC
program, created the TANF program and changed the paradigm in welfare
offices from income maintenance to moving families to work and self-
sufficiency. Another dramatic change occurred in the workforce
development system in 1998 when the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
required States to bring together an array of Federally funded,
employment-related services and offer those services through one-stop
centers. The WIA statute delineated a list of mandatory partners for
each one-stop center, but TANF was listed among the optional partners.
From the beginning, both HHS and the Department of Labor (DOL) strongly
encouraged State TANF and WIA agencies to partner and coordinate
services. The TANF's strong work requirements and time-limited
assistance coupled with recipients' need for tailored, often multiple
services, strengthen the importance of coordinating TANF and WIA
services to maximize their shared purpose of moving individuals to
work.
Within HHS, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
are working cooperatively with Federal partners, including the DOL, to
identify strategies to help low-income families succeed in the labor
market while blending work with family responsibilities. The ACF and
its partners have begun a multi-phased initiative to increase capacity
at the State and local levels to support work among low-income
families. Of necessity, this effort involves a consideration of how the
two Departments' various programs interface in the delivery of
services. A contract was awarded to the National Governors Association
to identify promising practices and convene senior State officials to
stimulate information exchange, focus attention on supports for working
families, and develop plans for improving their capacity to provide
supports for working, low-income families. Future work may include the
provision of technical assistance and evaluation of varied approaches.
In the course of gathering data for this project, it will become more
apparent what sorts of strategies, in combination and across
departments, contribute to the well-being of the working poor.
GAO Recommendation:
To help States more effectively address some of the obstacles to
coordination, GAO recommends that the Departments of Labor and HHS work
together to jointly develop and distribute information on promising
approaches for coordinating services for TANF clients through one-
stops.
Department Comment:
We concur that providing information on promising approaches to
improved coordination could help; however, administrative and program
differences between TANF and WIA will continue to substantially limit
the ability of States to use these programs to their full potential.
Because of this, the Administration has proposed waiver authority,
under the President's welfare reform reauthorization proposal, that
would enable State TANF programs and WIA partners to propose reforms
enabling them to coordinate, even integrate, various aspects of their
workforce and public assistance efforts in order to provide better
service for clients.
In addition, as part of its research agenda, ASPE plans to study TANF
and WIA coordination issues. This project likely will include the
identification of promising approaches to service coordination, in-
depth examination of some of those approaches, and the sharing of that
information with TANF offices and one-stop agencies nationally. This
project will build on the work already done by GAO and others on
service coordination issues and ASPE will keep GAO informed of study
progress. Other ongoing HHS studies (see below) will also likely be a
source of information on successful service delivery models. The HHS
has both formal and informal partnerships with DOL on most of these
studies and we will continue to work with our DOL colleagues to
formulate a strategy for the identification of "best practices" and the
sharing of information.
GAO Recommendation:
To enable States and localities to determine whether coordinated
service delivery is the most effective method for improving TANF
clients' employment success, we recommend that the Departments of Labor
and HHS promote research that would examine the role of coordinated
service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients.
Department Comment:
Understanding the effect of coordinated service delivery on client
outcomes would require an experimental comparison of integrated versus
separate service-delivery mechanisms. We are concerned that this would
be very difficult to do in a rigorous manner. Localities are likely to
be very reluctant to operate different systems side-by-side to allow
for a direct comparison of outcomes. There are several HHS studies,
such as the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and
Evaluation, Employment Retention and Advancement Study and Supports for
Working Families, underway that will provide some information on the
success of different service models in serving TANF clients. While
these projects will not provide experimental data on randomized
treatment and control groups receiving services under different service-
delivery approaches, they will be a source of useful information on
successful program designs.
Human service programs take place in the real world, and therefore,
present obstacles to clean evaluation. The ACF is committed to
evaluating programs as rigorously as possible given the state of the
current evaluation methodology. We have learned some useful
methodological and strategic information from our experience with the
Employment Retention and Advancement Project that has already proved
valuable for the formation of other projects currently being planned.
Other Department Comments:
There should be a statement at the beginning of this document that TANF
is HHS-funded and generally part of a State's social service structure
and that WIA is Labor-funded and traditionally in a State's Department
of Labor or workforce structure. The U.S. Departments of HHS and Labor
are not mentioned until page 4. The report also should acknowledge the
differences between the welfare and workforce investment systems, as
reflected by the States' flexibility in TANF design and cross-program
coordination issues.
The report seems to presume that coordination between TANF and
workforce systems through one-stop centers is the preferred approach to
the delivery of services to the TANF population. It would be helpful if
the report clearly articulated the rationale for this position. In
addition, we suggest the report state the advantages for State TANF
agencies and the TANF population to link with the one-stop system as
well as the drawbacks to participation.
In addition, the summary of the Welfare to Work (WtW) grant history is
incomplete. We suggest additional language that explains the current
status of the WtW grants program, i.e., explain that Congress has not
taken action to reauthorize this program and provide information on the
number of States and competitive grantees that participated.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Dianne Blank (202) 512-5654:
Mikki Holmes (202) 512-3283:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Suzanne Lofhjelm, Natalya Bolshun, Kara Finnegan Irving, and Rachel
Weber made significant contributions to this report. In addition,
Jessica Botsford and Richard Burkard provided legal support and Corinna
Nicolaou provided writing assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development.
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and One-
Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain. GAO-02-500T.
Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Services Through
One-Stops Has Increased Despite Challenges. GAO-02-739T. Washington,
D.C.: May 16, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA‘s Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on
Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.: January
31, 2002.
Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome
and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More
Guidance. GAO-02-94T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce.
GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Indicate
Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71. Washington, D.C.:
October 13, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Work-Site Based Activities Can Play an Important Role
in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
Welfare Reform: States‘ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance
to TANF Clients. GAO/HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1999).
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] WIA is administered and funded at the federal level through the
Department of Labor and traditionally administered through a state‘s
workforce structure.
[2] TANF is administered and funded at the federal level through the
Department of Health and Human Services and generally part of a state‘s
social service structure.
[3] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-
00-145 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000) and Workforce Investment Act:
Coordination between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing,
but Challenges Remain, GAO-02-500T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2002.
[4] We conducted fieldwork in Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, and New
Jersey. These states were chosen based on a range of factors, including
the structure of states‘ TANF and WIA programs and geographic location.
[5] One regional office said that it would not be able to provide us
with information on coordination.
[6] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration:
Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information
Systems, GAO-02-121 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002).
[7] These findings are similar to those we reported in, Means Tested
Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome and Can Be
Simplified, GAO-02-58 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2001).
[8] TANF also gave states more flexibility in determining the nature of
financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of
the program, and the ways in which services are provided.
[9] See for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare to Work:
Participants‘ Characteristics and Services Provided in JOBS, GAO/HEHS-
95-93 (Washington, D.C.: May 1995) and Welfare to Work: Most AFDC
Training Programs not Emphasizing Job Placement, GAO/HEHS-95-113
(Washington, D.C.: May 1995).
[10] Work requirements under PRWORA include countable work activities
as well as work participation requirements. PRWORA‘s work participation
rates require that a specified proportion of the state‘s TANF
assistance caseload be engaged in countable work activities each month.
The required work participation rate for all families was 25 percent
for fiscal year 1997 and 50 percent for fiscal year 2002 and
thereafter. Work activities include unsubsidized employment; subsidized
private or public sector employment; work experience; on-the-job
training; job search and job readiness assistance; community service
programs; vocational educational training and job skills training
directly related to employment; education directly related to
employment; satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or a course
of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence; or the
provision of child care services to an individual who is participating
in a community service program. For more information on work activities
that states and localities are using as part of their TANF programs,
see U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based
Activities Can Play an Important Role in TANF Programs, GAO/HEHS-00-122
(Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000).
[11] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Interim Report
on Potential Ways to Strengthen Federal Oversight of State and Local
Contracting, GAO-02-245 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2002).
[12] WIA provided for more local control than JTPA. Under WIA states
were required to establish local workforce investment areas with their
own local workforce investment boards to oversee the new system.
[13] The WtW grants total $3 billion”about 75 percent of the funds were
for formula grants to states and nearly 25 percent were for competitive
grants to local organizations for innovative approaches in moving
welfare recipients into permanent work.
[14] Our survey asked states to report the extent to which different
types of coordination were occurring at the state level between WIA and
TANF programs. We analyzed five types of state-level coordination:
formal linkages (such as memorandum of understanding, state-level
agreements, or mutual referral agreements); informal linkages and
interagency communication (such as sharing information about programs
or changes in programs as they occur); interagency and intra-agency
workgroups and consolidated advisory boards; coordinated planning; and
shared performance measurement and reporting.
[15] Our survey asked states whether most of the centers coordinated
TANF and WIA programs. We analyzed seven methods of local level
coordination: informal linkages (such as periodic program referrals or
information services) and interagency communication (such as telephone
calls, memorandums, or flyers announcing program services); formal
linkages (such as memoranda of understanding or mutual referral
agreements); coordinated planning; shared intake and enrollment;
integrated case management; shared client tracking; and shared
performance measures.
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Status of Awards
and Selected States‘ Use of Welfare-to-Work Grants, GAO/HEHS-99-40
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1999).
[17] The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit available
to low-income working taxpayers.
[18] For example, some TANF clients have characteristics such as poor
health or disability, limited work experience, no high school diploma,
exposure to domestic violence, and substance abuse issues that make
finding and keeping a job more difficult. See, U.S. General Accounting
Office, Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the
Workforce, GAO-01-368 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 2001).
[19] We focused our review on large-scale studies that examined welfare
and workforce coordination efforts. See appendix I for a bibliography
of reviewed studies.
[20] Other service delivery structures include local welfare agencies
and other employment and training service providers.
[21] See James L. McIntire and Amy F. Robins, Fixing to Change: A Best
Practices Assessment of One-Stop Job Centers Working With Welfare
Recipients (Washington: Fiscal Policy Center, University of Washington,
1999).
[22] Most of the literature on welfare and workforce coordination
efforts examined in this review was funded in part by HHS.
[23] HHS and Labor are also working together on a project whose main
goal is to enhance employment outcome for current and former TANF
recipients and other low-income parents who face serious obstacles to
steady work.
[24] To the extent that clients are involved in one-stops, their
outcomes will be investigated through program records and interviews.
[25] WIA mandates that the Secretary of Labor prepare a 5-year research
plan that is updated every 2 years to address areas in need of future
research. The 2000-2005 research plan included interventions to assist
the hardest-to-serve clients, including welfare clients, as a high-
priority research area. Additionally, Labor issued a Federal Register
notice on February 28, 2002, to solicit comments on the reauthorization
of WIA and linkages with TANF that included a request for comments on
the enhancement of service delivery through the one-stops to improve
welfare recipients‘ outcomes.
[26] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration:
Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information
Systems, GAO-02-121 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002).
[27] These findings are similar to those we reported in, Means Tested
Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome and Can Be
Simplified, GAO-02-58 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2001).
[28] HR 4737 (which passed the House on May 16, 2002) requires that,
not later than 6 months after the date of enactment, the Secretary of
Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor jointly submit a
report to the Congress describing common or conflicting data elements,
definitions, performance measures, and reporting requirements in WIA of
1998 and part A of Title IV of the Social Security Act, and, to the
degree each Secretary deems appropriate, at the discretion of either
Secretary, any other program administered by the respective Secretary,
to allow greater coordination between the welfare and workforce
development systems.
[29] Connecticut‘s self-sufficiency standard is calculated by
considering income and local costs of living.
[30] In our report Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in
Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA‘s
Effectiveness, GAO-01-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2002) states reported
that performance levels may determine who receives WIA-funded services.
[31] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration:
Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information
Systems, GAO-02-121 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2002).
[32] A data warehouse is a massive database that integrates information
collected from disparate sources.
[33] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Improving
State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort, GAO/HEHS-
00-48 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2000).
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and fulltext files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
