Welfare Reform
More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies to Increase Parents' Incomes Gao ID: GAO-06-108 December 2, 2005Following major welfare reform in 1996, the number of families receiving cash assistance was cut in half to 2 million. While many former recipients now rely more on their earnings, they often work at low-wage jobs with limited benefits and advancement opportunities. To better understand how to help these individuals and their families attain economic self-sufficiency, GAO is reporting on (1) strategies designed to increase income for TANF recipients through employment; (2) the key factors related to implementing and operating such strategies; and (3) actions the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has taken to facilitate the use of these strategies. GAO consulted experts to gather information about promising strategies and visited 26 programs.
Based on interviews with experts and site visits, we identified four strategies that aimed to increase incomes for recipients of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)--training, post-secondary education, self-employment, and financial asset building. Training strategies often targeted services to particular groups or job market needs. Other programs used post-secondary education to position clients for higher-wage jobs. Some programs we visited gave participants the tools to run their own businesses as a way out of poverty. Finally, asset building strategies aim to help clients save and invest money to pursue career goals and support their families. The 26 programs we visited used one or more of these strategies. A broad network of local non-profits, state and local TANF offices, employers, and community colleges is key to operating these strategies. Some of the programs we visited were non-profits under contract with the TANF office. Others relied on a mix of public and private funds, some because of concerns that TANF's emphasis on work was a barrier to providing education and training options. State and local TANF offices, for their part, sometimes set policies and provide additional funding to encourage the strategies discussed in this report. Local non-profits and TANF agencies either directly provided or helped link clients to supplemental services such as child care, housing, on-the-job support, and transportation. As part of the broader network, local non-profits and TANF offices often forged links with employers and community colleges to leverage additional resources for their clients, including training curricula, career ladders, and work opportunities. HHS is supporting these strategies through research, targeted grants, and technical assistance. Efforts by other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Education and Labor, also support some of the strategies discussed in this report. HHS has several research projects focused on helping low-income individuals find higher-wage employment and build their assets. While these efforts are important, more needs to be known about the effectiveness of specific strategies, such as those identified in this report, in increasing TANF recipients' earnings capacity. In addition to the TANF block grant, HHS has two small grant programs that support employment and asset-building strategies. While HHS has provided some technical assistance to facilitate the use of these strategies, it is not clear whether service providers understand ways they can incorporate education and training in a work-focused welfare system. Furthermore, HHS faces some challenges disseminating information on new research or promising strategies to all of the organizations providing services to TANF clients in the more decentralized welfare environment.
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-06-108, Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies to Increase Parents' Incomes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-108
entitled 'Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising
Strategies to Increase Parents' Incomes' which was released on January
3, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2005:
Welfare Reform:
More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies to Increase
Parents' Incomes:
GAO-06-108:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-108, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Following major welfare reform in 1996, the number of families
receiving cash assistance was cut in half to 2 million. While many
former recipients now rely more on their earnings, they often work at
low-wage jobs with limited benefits and advancement opportunities. To
better understand how to help these individuals and their families
attain economic self-sufficiency, GAO is reporting on (1) strategies
designed to increase income for TANF recipients through employment; (2)
the key factors related to implementing and operating such strategies;
and (3) actions the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has
taken to facilitate the use of these strategies. GAO consulted experts
to gather information about promising strategies and visited
26 programs.
What GAO Found:
Based on interviews with experts and site visits, we identified four
strategies that aimed to increase incomes for recipients of Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)”training, post-secondary
education, self-employment, and financial asset building. Training
strategies often targeted services to particular groups or job market
needs. Other programs used post-secondary education to position clients
for higher-wage jobs. Some programs we visited gave participants the
tools to run their own businesses as a way out of poverty. Finally,
asset building strategies aim to help clients save and invest money to
pursue career goals and support their families. The 26 programs we
visited used one or more of these strategies.
A broad network of local non-profits, state and local TANF offices,
employers, and community colleges is key to operating these strategies.
Some of the programs we visited were non-profits under contract with
the TANF office. Others relied on a mix of public and private funds,
some because of concerns that TANF‘s emphasis on work was a barrier to
providing education and training options. State and local TANF offices,
for their part, sometimes set policies and provide additional funding
to encourage the strategies discussed in this report. Local non-profits
and TANF agencies either directly provided or helped link clients to
supplemental services such as child care, housing, on-the-job support,
and transportation. As part of the broader network, local non-profits
and TANF offices often forged links with employers and community
colleges to leverage additional resources for their clients, including
training curricula, career ladders, and work opportunities.
HHS is supporting these strategies through research, targeted grants,
and technical assistance. Efforts by other federal agencies, such as
the Departments of Education and Labor, also support some of the
strategies discussed in this report. HHS has several research projects
focused on helping low-income individuals find higher-wage employment
and build their assets. While these efforts are important, more needs
to be known about the effectiveness of specific strategies, such as
those identified in this report, in increasing TANF recipients‘
earnings capacity. In addition to the TANF block grant, HHS has two
small grant programs that support employment and asset-building
strategies. While HHS has provided some technical assistance to
facilitate the use of these strategies, it is not clear whether service
providers understand ways they can incorporate education and training
in a work-focused welfare system. Furthermore, HHS faces some
challenges disseminating information on new research or promising
strategies to all of the organizations providing services to TANF
clients in the more decentralized welfare environment.
What GAO Recommends:
[End of section]
GAO recommends that HHS (1) identify opportunities for additional
research on increasing TANF recipients‘ earnings, (2) review its
existing efforts to better ensure information and implementation
assistance reaches the wide range of program administrators and service
providers involved in welfare reform, and (3) seek out new
opportunities to collaborate with Education and Labor on research and
technical assistance. In response, HHS said that its efforts in these
areas are sufficient and do not warrant additional attention.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-108.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact David Bellis at (415) 904-
2272 or bellisd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Programs Used Four Strategies Designed to Help TANF Clients Move into
Higher Wage Employment or Build Financial Assets:
A Network of Non-Profits, TANF Agencies, Employers, and Community
Colleges Is Key to Operating Programs:
HHS Is Supporting Research, Providing Technical Assistance, and
Sponsoring Targeted Grant Funding, but Additional Research and
Technical Assistance Are Needed:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: List of Experts Interviewed:
Appendix II: Program Contact Information:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Table:
Table 1: Selected Programs and Strategies Used:
Figures:
Figure 1: A Student in the Kentucky River Foothills R.O.U.T.E. Training
Program in Richmond, Kentucky Trains for a Commercial Truck Drivers'
License:
Figure 2: Participants in the District 1199C Training and Upgrading
Fund Career Ladder Program Demonstrate Features of the Program's
Nurse's Aide Training Facility:
Figure 3: Vendors Sell Produce and Other Goods in the Career
Transitions Farmers' Market in Belgrade, Montana, Where Microenterprise
Students Can Test Their Business Ideas:
Figure 4: Ways in Which TANF Clients Were Connected to Programs:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
AFI: Assets for Independence:
CET: Center for Employment Training:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EITC: Earned Income Tax Credit:
ESL: English as a second language:
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development:
IDA: Individual Development Accounts:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
JOLI: Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
of 1996:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
WORC: Women's Opportunities Resource Center:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 2, 2005:
The Honorable Max Baucus:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Finance:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edward Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable James McDermott:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Human Resources:
Committee on Ways and Means:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Benjamin Cardin:
House of Representatives:
Welfare reform legislation of 1996 shifted the focus of the nation's
welfare program from issuing benefit checks to moving families to
economic independence. The centerpiece of this legislation is the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, under which
states receive federal funds to design and operate their own welfare
programs within federal guidelines. Since states have implemented
welfare reforms, they have spent almost $200 billion in federal and
state TANF funds to meet the broad goals of the law, including ending
the dependence of low-income parents on government benefits through job
preparation, work, and marriage. In addition to TANF funds, state
welfare agencies draw on a vast array of federal, state, and community
programs and services to assist TANF recipients' work efforts,
including employment, training, and education programs overseen by the
Departments of Labor and Education. While many entities at all levels
of government are involved in providing support and services to TANF
recipients, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
responsible for overseeing welfare reform at the federal level.
Since 1996, the number of families receiving cash assistance declined
from 4.4 million to about 2 million in 2004, as the number of low-
income parents working increased. While many former welfare recipients
now rely more on their own earnings than on welfare, they often work at
low-wage jobs, sometimes with limited benefits and few opportunities
for advancement. Some former recipients return to the welfare rolls
when they leave or lose jobs or struggle to keep child care,
transportation, health, and other work supports in place.
As Congress considers reauthorization of welfare reform, much attention
has focused on helping welfare families transition to more stable and
higher-paying employment and ending welfare dependence.[Footnote 1]
Many policymakers are concerned that TANF programs nationwide place too
much emphasis on moving needy parents quickly into any available
employment rather than developing strategies for helping them find
stable and higher-paying jobs. As agreed with your offices, we are
providing information on: (1) examples of strategies being used to help
TANF recipients increase their incomes through employment; (2) the key
factors related to implementing and operating such strategies; and (3)
the actions HHS has taken to facilitate the use of these strategies.
Current federal and state welfare reforms are built upon a considerable
research base showing that welfare-to-work programs can succeed in
moving welfare recipients into jobs and reduce their reliance on public
assistance. Much less is known, however, about how welfare-to-work
programs can increase participants' earnings, and ultimately household
incomes. To address the first two questions, we identified through
research and referrals officials with expertise in welfare-to-work
strategies and who represented diverse perspectives. For a complete
list of officials interviewed, see appendix I. Once identified, we
interviewed these experts to elicit their suggestions about promising
strategies for increasing income for TANF recipients and examples of
these strategies in operation. Based on these interviews, we identified
a list of 127 programs operating these strategies for TANF recipients.
These programs were typically administered by non-or for-profit
organizations or other entities such as community colleges or unions
and operated separately from the TANF agencies. Generally, TANF
agencies administer core TANF program activities, such as determining
eligibility for and providing income support; assessing client needs
and employability; referring clients to services; and monitoring client
activities; in some cases the TANF agency also directly provides
employment-related services.
Of the 127 programs identified by experts, we selected 26 for site
visits, based on several criteria, including coverage of strategies
that could address diverse client skill levels and local economic
conditions; geographic coverage; and coverage of diverse state TANF
policies. During these site visits, we interviewed program
administrators about how their programs operated, including the factors
that facilitated and hindered their respective missions. We typically
toured facilities and in some cases, we attended training sessions and
spoke with program participants. We also collected relevant documents
and any program evaluations that were available.
We also conducted interviews with the welfare agency in the local area,
as well as pertinent state TANF officials. To address our third
objective, we collected and reviewed relevant documents and interviewed
HHS officials in headquarters and regional offices to identify relevant
technical assistance, information sharing, and other research
activities. We also spoke with officials at the Departments of Labor
and Education where appropriate. We conducted our work in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards from September
2004 to November 2005.
Results in Brief:
Based on our interviews with experts and visits to programs, we
identified four strategies that aimed to increase incomes for TANF
recipients--training, post-secondary education, self-employment, and
financial asset building. Training strategies varied considerably in
terms of time commitment, target population, and needs of the local job
market. For instance, some programs featured short-term commitments,
such as 5-week certified nurse's assistant training, designed to give
participants a set of skills to move quickly into jobs yet earn above
minimum wages. Other training programs prepared clients for longer-term
commitments, such as 2-year apprenticeship programs in the trades.
Often, these programs targeted a specific industry or skill relevant to
the local economy, and sometimes delineated career paths with formal
milestones, making it possible for a client to gain skills and advance
at intervals, for example, from certified nurse's aid to licensed
practicing nurse to registered nurse. Some programs incorporated a post-
secondary education strategy, using a 2-year or 4-year college degree
to position clients for higher-wage, often professional jobs. We found
microenterprise or self-employment strategies generally in sparsely
populated areas lacking a strong business presence or sufficient entry-
level job opportunities. These programs usually included financial
literacy and business plan development components and sometimes
provided clients with seed money to start a business. Finally, asset
building strategies helped clients save and invest money through
vehicles like individual development accounts, assuming that personal
savings play an important role in helping TANF clients pursue career
goals and support their families. Overall, the programs we visited
often employed a combination of strategies to help clients increase
income and personal savings, although we observed great variation in
program structure and design. This variation made it possible for
programs to accommodate client and situational realities involving
diverse skill backgrounds, work histories, and economic conditions.
We found that a broad network of support--involving local non-profits,
state and local TANF agencies, employers, and community colleges--is
key to operating these strategies to help TANF recipients find jobs and
improve their financial security. Most of the programs we visited were
run by non-profit organizations that provided services to TANF clients
either under contract with the state or local welfare agency or using a
mix of public and private funding sources. Some programs told us they
chose to use other funding sources because of concerns that the work
focus of the current welfare system was a barrier to offering education
and training options. State and local TANF offices, for their part,
sometimes established policies to encourage certain strategies, even
though those priorities are not emphasized in the federal legislation.
For example, one state implemented policy provisions and provided
additional funding to allow post-secondary education as a component of
its TANF program. In addition to core services, providing a range of
supplemental and support services for TANF clients is critical to
operating these strategies. Local nonprofits and TANF agencies either
directly provided or helped link clients to services such as child
care, housing, on-the-job support, and transportation. As part of the
broader network, local nonprofits and TANF offices sometimes forged
links with employers and community colleges to leverage additional
expertise and support for their clients, including training curricula,
career ladders, and work opportunities.
HHS is supporting these strategies through research, technical
assistance, and targeted grant funding, but more efforts are needed to
determine the effectiveness of such strategies and to assist states and
localities in incorporating them into their TANF programs. HHS
currently has several major research projects underway, such as the
Employment Retention and Advancement project, that address issues
related to helping TANF clients raise their incomes. HHS has also taken
several steps, including hosting an annual welfare research conference,
to share research-related information. The agency also provides
technical assistance through the Welfare Peer Technical Assistance
Network and HHS's 10 regional offices. The agency also provides
targeted grants such as Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals.
Efforts by other federal agencies, such as the Departments of Labor and
Education, also support some of the strategies discussed in this
report. While HHS has research efforts under way that will provide
important information, more needs to be known about what specific
strategies are most effective in raising TANF recipients' earnings. In
addition, while several units and offices within HHS have taken steps
to disseminate research findings and help TANF programs implement
promising strategies, there may be more opportunities to reach the wide
range of state and local welfare agencies and programs involved in
welfare reform. We also identified some confusion about whether and how
to incorporate strategies such as education and training for TANF
recipients within a work-focused welfare system.
To help ensure that the federal government considers research on these
promising strategies and better informs welfare agencies and programs
about how they might incorporate such strategies for TANF recipients,
we recommend that the Secretary of HHS:
1. Review its current research agenda and identify opportunities to
conduct and promote additional research on increasing earnings capacity
among low-income parents.
2. Review existing research dissemination and technical assistance
efforts across the relevant units and agencies to better ensure a
comprehensive process for distributing information and implementation
assistance to the wide range of program administrators and programs
involved in welfare reform.
3. Seek out additional opportunities to work with the Secretaries of
Labor and Education to jointly conduct and promote research and
distribute information and implementation assistance related to
enhancing skills and earnings capacity among low-income parents.
In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS said that the
recommendations were not warranted given its existing efforts. While we
acknowledge HHS' ongoing efforts, we continue to think additional
efforts are warranted.
Background:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) represented a significant departure from previous welfare
policies in place for more than 60 years. Previously, state and local
welfare agencies focused mainly on issuing monthly welfare checks to
eligible families. In contrast, the revised welfare legislation
establishes broad goals for state TANF programs that go beyond income
support payments, including ending the dependence of needy parents on
government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;
preventing and reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and encouraging the
formation and maintenance of two-parent families. To receive its TANF
block grant funds, each state must contribute its own funds up to a
specified level. The amount of TANF funds available to states each year
is capped, unlike the previous welfare program under which federal and
state welfare payments increased each year as welfare rolls increased.
Along with new goals and funding structure, the law established work
requirements and time limits considered key to changing the nature of
welfare. States are to involve increasing percentages of their adult
TANF recipients in certain activities for a required number of hours
each week or face financial penalties. These work requirements limited
some types of education and training from counting toward the work
requirement. To emphasize the temporary nature of assistance, states
must restrict most families to a lifetime limit of 60 months of cash
assistance.
Within this federal framework, TANF provides states considerable
latitude to design and implement programs to meet TANF goals while
responding to states' unique economic conditions, client needs, and
policy priorities. Each state determines what aid and services to
provide, sets eligibility requirements for these services, and
determines what service delivery approaches to use, including reliance
on contractors. Even within the federal work requirements and time
limits, some provisions exist that allow states some flexibility or
adjustments to stated federal requirements. More specifically:
4. States may allow and support TANF recipients in any activity of the
state's choosing, although they can only count federally-specified
activities toward the federal work requirement. States have some
additional flexibility because they have significant discretion in
defining what activities fit within these federally-specified
categories, as we found in our recent report.[Footnote 2]
5. A provision in the law, called the caseload reduction credit, lowers
the work requirement standard a state must meet if its TANF cash
assistance caseload declines. While the work participation rate
standard rose as high as 50 percent in the law, in practice states have
faced much lower standards due to this credit.
6. A state may exclude a family from work requirements and time limits
by providing cash assistance with the state's own funds rather than
federal TANF funds.
7. Work requirements and time limits only apply to families receiving
ongoing monthly cash assistance, allowing states to provide other
services to non-welfare families, such as providing low-income working
families with child care assistance.
Due to the importance of state flexibility under TANF, the welfare
legislation limited HHS' authority to regulate state TANF programs.
Also, HHS staff available to implement TANF was substantially reduced.
However, HHS retains central oversight authority over certain aspects
of state TANF programs, such as oversight of federal work requirements
and time limits among other program elements. In addition, it has
authority to conduct research and provide technical assistance to
states, although its research role has changed significantly under
TANF. Under the previous welfare program, HHS required states that
applied for and received waivers to federal program rules to have an
independent organization evaluate its program change, supported by HHS
funding. While some of these waiver evaluations were continued under
TANF, HHS no longer has authority to require evaluations of state
programs, although it still has some resources available for research.
In implementing TANF, states focused more than ever before on helping
welfare recipients and other low-income parents find jobs. Many states
implemented work-focused programs that stressed moving parents quickly
into jobs; restructured benefit payments to allow more parents to
combine welfare and work; expanded support services, particularly child
care subsidies; and took some steps to identify and address barriers to
employment. To provide services, TANF programs often turned to the
workforce development and educational systems that have traditionally
provided employment, training, and educational services and to other
for-and non-profit providers. As a result of this decentralized service
model and variation in the type and package of services that
individuals are provided through TANF and other programs, the per-
person cost can vary widely.
Cash welfare caseloads declined dramatically in the years immediately
following welfare reform and have continued to hold at about half their
pre-reform levels despite the recession of 2001. Experts attribute this
decline to several factors, including welfare reform, the economy, and
other policy changes, including expansion of the earned income tax
credit (EITC) that provides subsidies to low-income workers, as well as
increased federal spending for child care subsidies for low-income
parents. Changes in welfare spending over time reflect this shift away
from cash assistance to other services. Of the total federal and state
TANF dollars spent in fiscal year 1995, about 70 percent was for cash
assistance payments, in contrast to about 38 percent in fiscal year
2004. With the funds freed up from reduced cash assistance caseloads,
states have invested in work preparation and other support services for
welfare recipients and other low-income families.[Footnote 3]
This dramatic decline in cash assistance caseloads and other changes
under welfare reform have spurred interest in how former welfare
recipients are faring. Our work and other research shows that most of
the parents leaving welfare have found employment and some are now
better off than they were on welfare. However, many work in unstable,
low-wage jobs with few benefits and advancement opportunities. In these
cases, even a common occurrence such as a parent's need to stay home
with a sick child can lead to job loss and a return to welfare. While
key government supports such as the EITC, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and
others can help these parents support their families and lift them out
of poverty, most parents are not earning enough to be self supporting.
This raises important questions about whether welfare reform programs
can achieve better outcomes for their participants. The welfare reform
outcomes seen so far are in keeping with what is known about the
effectiveness of welfare-to-work programs. A considerable body of
research, much of it sponsored by HHS, suggests that welfare-to-work
programs can increase employment and reduce welfare receipt. This
research also shows that welfare-to-work programs that rely on a mixed
approach--with a strong work focus and some education and training as
needed--show the greatest earnings gains. Moreover, a mixed strategy
appears more effective than approaches that focused solely on education
and training or solely on job search, although an emphasis on job
search only was less costly.[Footnote 4] At the same time, research
shows that even the most effective welfare-to-work programs tested so
far increase employment and earnings but do not typically increase
household incomes. This is because the increased income from earnings
is offset by the loss of cash welfare, food stamps, and other support
services.
Considerable questions still exist on how best to improve outcomes
under welfare reform. The existing research base does not yet provide
answers regarding how best to help parents successfully transition to
more stable and economically-sustaining employment. Some believe that
incorporating more in-depth or quality education and training into
state TANF programs could yield greater results, expressing concerns
that states currently do not sufficiently emphasize education and
training in their TANF programs, in part due to the current structure
of TANF work requirements. To address this, a Senate Finance Committee
reauthorization proposal includes provisions to allow and encourage
states to provide additional education and training opportunities in
their TANF programs.
Programs Used Four Strategies Designed to Help TANF Clients Move into
Higher Wage Employment or Build Financial Assets:
Based on our interviews with experts and our site visits, we identified
four strategies used to help TANF clients find well-paying jobs and
improve their financial condition: training, post-secondary education,
self-employment, and financial asset building. Within the training
strategies, some programs aim to help TANF clients find jobs quickly,
while others take a more long-term approach to prepare clients for
highly technical fields like nursing. Training programs also target
specific subgroups of clients, such as women or non-English speakers,
or jobs in high demand in the local economy. Programs using post-
secondary education strategies help clients get 2-or 4-year college
degrees to position them to compete for higher-wage, often professional
jobs. Microenterprise, or self-employment strategies, emphasize
financial literacy and business plan development and sometimes provide
clients capital to start a business. In contrast to the first three
categories, asset building strategies focus on building clients'
financial reserves through savings accounts or homeownership, relying
on the assumption that personal savings play an important role in
helping TANF clients pursue career goals and support their families.
Many programs we visited used a combination of one or more of the four
strategies. While several programs served only TANF clients, most
programs served a broader population of low-income individuals in
general. Table 1 shows each program by the strategy used, population
targeted, and federal funding sources.
Table 1: Selected Programs and Strategies Used:
Location: California;
Program: Californians for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HUD.
Program: Center for Employment Training;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor, Education.
Program: LIFETIME;
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: TANF Only;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: [C].
Program: San Francisco Works;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor.
Program: Street Tech;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor.
Program: Women's Initiative for Self Employment;
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Women;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HUD.
Location: Illinois;
Program: Bethel Employment and Training Center;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor.
Program: Chicago Women in Trades;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Women;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS.
Program: Project Match;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: [C].
Program: The Cara Program;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, USDA.
Location: Kentucky;
Program: Bowling Green Housing Authority Women in Construction;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Women;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, HUD.
Program: Bowling Green Technical College Ready to Work Program;
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Education.
Program: Brighton Center's Center for Employment Training;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor, Education.
Program: Kentucky River Foothills R.O.U.T.E. Training Program;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Labor.
Location: Maryland;
Program: Community College of Baltimore County Continuing Education
Program;
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: TANF Only;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor.
Program: The Johns Hopkins Skills Enhancement Program;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor, Education.
Location: Montana;
Program: Career Training Institute;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Women;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Labor, Education, HUD, USDA.
Program: Career Transitions;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: Labor, Education, USDA.
Program: Montana PEAKS, Inc;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Education, HUD.
Program: Women's Opportunity and Resource Development, Inc;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Women;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HUD.
Location: Pennsylvania;
Program: AchieveAbility;
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Families;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HUD.
Program: Campaign for Working Families;
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Families;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: [C].
Program: District 1199C Training and Upgrading Fund;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Individuals;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Labor, Education.
Program: PathWaysPA;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Families;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Labor.
Program: Transitional Work Corporation;
Strategies: Training: Yes;
Strategies: Post secondary education: Yes;
Strategies: Financial asset building: No;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: No;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: TANF Only;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS, Labor.
Program: Women's Opportunities Resource Center (WORC);
Strategies: Training: No;
Strategies: Post secondary education: No;
Strategies: Financial asset building: Yes;
Strategies: Microenterprise development: Yes;
Low-Income Population Targeted[A]: Women, Minorities;
Sources of Federal Funding[B]: HHS.
Source: GAO.
Note: For programs' contact information, see appendix II.
[A] Low-income individuals include TANF clients.
[B] While some programs did not directly receive federal funding from
HHS, often the participants in their programs were receiving cash
assistance and support services from TANF such as child care subsidies
and transportation assistance among others.
[C] No federal funding cited by program officials.
[End of table]
Training Strategies Fit Unique Client Needs and Local Economic
Conditions:
Programs using training strategies to help TANF clients find jobs often
vary their services to meet clients' needs, whether by providing short-
or long-term training courses, targeting specific subgroups of TANF
participants, or focusing training to prepare participants for jobs in
high demand in the local economy. Specifically, we observed that
training strategies vary considerably in terms of:
* time commitment,
* target population, and:
* job market relevance.
Training Programs Vary in Terms of Time Commitment:
At least two programs offer clients short-term (12 weeks or less)
training courses designed to give them the skills to move quickly into
jobs paying more than the minimum wage. For example, the Kentucky River
Foothills R.O.U.T.E. (Road Ready Operators Understanding Transportation
Excellence) Training Program in Richmond, Kentucky, trains low-income
individuals for a Class B Commercial Drivers License. Once clients
complete the 8-week truck drivers' program, they are eligible to obtain
jobs driving small trucks and buses at wages starting at $9 per hour.
The Montana PEAKS program, operated by a nonprofit organization in
Flathead County, Montana, is another example of a short-term, results
oriented program. It serves as one of two job services providers under
contract to the county TANF agency. In a minimum of 12 weeks, the
Montana PEAKS program trains its clients for entry-level jobs in
construction. Many Montana PEAKS graduates obtain jobs as construction
site flaggers. Graduates of the program have earned wages of up to $20
per hour.
Figure 1: A Student in the Kentucky River Foothills R.O.U.T.E. Training
Program in Richmond, Kentucky Trains for a Commercial Truck Drivers'
License:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While short-term training allows participants to move into higher-
paying jobs more quickly, program officials found that many clients
also required scheduling flexibility in order to successfully complete
the training. To accommodate this need, the Kentucky truck drivers'
program conducts training for participants in 1-week modules to allow
the admission of students on a rolling basis. Because modules were
designed as "stand alone" components, participants can start and stop
the program at any time without having to repeat the entire course.
Other training programs offer longer-term training (roughly 6 months or
more) to prepare clients for entry-level jobs in highly technical
fields with the potential for career advancement. Jobs in this category
can provide an entry point to a career ladder that could lead to jobs
with even higher wages. One example of this kind of incremental
advancement approach is the District 1199C Training and Upgrading
Fund[Footnote 5] career ladder program in Philadelphia, which trains
TANF clients, union members, and individuals from the community-at-
large for careers in health care. TANF clients referred by caseworkers
and other students may come to the 1199C career ladder program to
participate in the organization's 4-month long nurse's aide training
program. Graduates of this program are often placed into nurse's aide
jobs paying wages that nationally had a median beginning wage of $9.59
per hour in 2002. Another important aspect of the 1199C career ladder
program is its ability to accommodate clients who do not immediately
have the skills necessary to be successful in a nurse's aide program.
The program also admits participants who enroll first in an adult basic
education course, then graduate to the nurse's aide training and
finally matriculate into the Licensed Practical Nurse certificate
program. Participants also have the opportunity to apply for funding to
complete the Registered Nursing program with a school of nursing in the
Philadelphia area. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
average wages for registered nurses range from $17.93 to $35.94 an
hour.
Figure 2: Participants in the District 1199C Training and Upgrading
Fund Career Ladder Program Demonstrate Features of the Program's
Nurse's Aide Training Facility:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Over the course of our site visits, we found that a number of
individual employers had structured their own internal career ladder
programs. In Baltimore, the Johns Hopkins Skills Enhancement Program,
supported with a grant from the Department of Labor,[Footnote 6] was
designed to serve TANF clients and other low-income individuals in the
Baltimore area. The Skills Enhancement Program places new employees,
some of which are former TANF clients referred from the Baltimore
Department of Social Services, into janitorial positions while being
trained by the hospital to obtain entry-level healthcare positions.
According to one program official, one participant in the Skills
Enhancement Program entered the program in a janitorial position
earning $8.50 per hour. After completing phlebotomy [Footnote 7]
training sponsored by the hospital, the participant was promoted to a
clinical associate earning $12 per hour. The participant plans to
enroll in another program to become a registered nurse. Career ladders
were also evident in fields other than healthcare. In San Pablo,
California, located not far from the technology corridor of the San
Francisco Bay area, the Street Tech non-profit program provides
training for clients to attain entry level jobs as computer technicians
earning $15 to $20 per hour. Their Computer Apprenticeship
Training/Microsoft Office User Specialist program provides participants
an introduction to the field and teaches some general, basic computer
skills. Graduates of this program may choose to complete 6 months of
additional training at Street Tech in order to receive an A+
certification,[Footnote 8] and some have chosen to complete the
organization's Field Tech training to further enhance their skills and
increase their earning potential.
Training Programs Cater to the Needs of Differing Target Populations:
In recognition of their target population's diverse needs and
capabilities, programs often provide more than one type of employment-
related service either directly or through some type of referral
arrangement. For example, the Bethel Employment and Training Center, a
faith-based non-profit in Chicago, offers its TANF and other low-income
clients a diverse array of in-house and collegiate training
opportunities, such as helping clients pursue interests with a variety
of employers or seek self-employment. However, their offerings are not
limited to training alone. The organization also has teamed up with an
area bank to establish an individual development account (IDA) program
that matches client contributions 2-to-1 up to $1800. Likewise, the
Career Training Institute, a non-profit program that serves TANF and
other low-income clients in a 3-county area in Helena, Montana,
delivers a diverse roster of services. The program offers clients a
multitude of training opportunities, from construction and commercial
driving to clerical and accounting occupations. In addition, the
Institute will also refer clients to an IDA program for women
interested in starting their own businesses. An official from at least
one program site suggested that offering a variety of services may
provide a natural incentive for clients to stay in contact, making it
easier for programs to track their progress. For example, once a client
completes job training and obtains work, he or she may return later to
open an IDA account or pursue other post-employment services.
Some of the programs we visited help individuals with academic barriers
or other skill deficiencies by providing them with adult basic
education and life-skills training to prepare them for vocational
coursework. For example, the San Francisco Works program, a mostly
privately-funded non-profit in San Francisco, prepares TANF and other
low-income clients with sixth grade skill levels to participate in
training for entry level positions in biotechnology (e.g., lab
technicians, media assistants, etc.) Its On Ramp to Biotech program
provides clients training in language, lab science terminology, lab
procedures, and documentation to prepare them to complete a 24-month
biotech certification program at a community college.
The Brighton Center's Center for Employment Training program in
Kentucky works with applicants to help to remove a number of barriers
to employment. Through intensive case management, Center staff help
clients find services to address issues such as low self-esteem and
provide clients with skills and support systems to help them find and
retain employment. Likewise, the Transitional Work Corporation, a TANF
service provider under contact to the Philadelphia County Assistance
Office, also provides advisors to prepare clients who have limited
education and have been on TANF for more than 24 months.
To help clients with limited work experience successfully make the
transition to permanent employment, a number of programs help
participants understand what would be expected of them at the job site.
For example, The Cara Program requires participants to wear
professional attire each day and has mounted a time clock in the
building's entryway, where participants punch in and out each day.
Similarly, the program site for Street Tech in San Pablo, California
resembles a corporate office, and staff conduct their relationships
according to corporate norms and expectations. For instance,
participants can be released from the program or "fired" for not
meeting expectations for good attendance. Street Tech also places
particular emphasis on the skills required for writing resumes, setting
up interviews, and writing follow up thank you notes. At the Community
College of Baltimore County, a TANF contractor with the Baltimore
Department of Social Services, staff prepare TANF clients for their job
search by providing coaching and conducting mock interviews.
While many of the programs we visited assisted individuals with limited
work experience, others require that individuals have more education or
better work habits. The Chicago Women in Trades program, a non-profit
which prepares TANF clients and other low-income women for various
apprenticeships in the construction field, such as pipefitting or
bricklaying, requires its participants to have a high school diploma or
GED, knowing that they would not be accepted into apprenticeship
programs without this credential. While the Street Tech training
program accepts individuals with limited work experience, it screens
candidates to ensure that they are well-suited to handle the challenges
of the various computer certification exams.
Some programs target specific subsets of the welfare or low-income
population, such as people who speak English as a second language (ESL)
or those with learning disabilities. The Center for Employment Training
(CET), a non-profit in San Jose, California, assesses all of its
students to determine if they require general training in English or
English language training in the context of the job function or
vocation. For example, certified nursing students at the San Jose CET
are taught English using medical terminology. Other programs focus on
clients with learning disabilities. For example, Career Transitions, a
non-profit in Belgrade, Montana, employs an instructor with a
background in teaching with learning disabilities to provide
microenterprise training and other short-term employment training. In
addition, the ROUTE Training Program has designed its commercial truck
driving program to involve both experiential and classroom learning in
an effort to accommodate some participants' learning disabilities.
Program staff explained that this hands-on approach is particularly
effective for students with learning disabilities and others who have
not been successful in a traditional classroom environment.
Several programs target women, encouraging them to pursue
nontraditional employment in the trades or highway construction,
although officials from some programs noted the initial reluctance of
TANF job-seekers to pursue more lucrative careers in the trades outside
of the often low wage service professions. Officials from the Bowling
Green Housing Authority in Kentucky reported that clients who graduated
from their Women in Construction program earned starting wages of $10
to $12 per hour. Flathead County, Montana, benefited from the growth of
the building and construction industry. The Montana PEAKS program
capitalizes on the growing building and construction industry, placing
many women clients at project sites in Glacier National Park, the
recipient of $100 million in recent construction contracts. To maximize
wages in the trades, Chicago Women in Trades encourages its TANF
clients to pursue union apprenticeship programs, which they believe
provide more benefits and stability than non-union jobs. For example,
staff estimated that women who completed their gateway program and,
subsequently, a formal apprenticeship program were able to earn as much
as $30 per hour.
Programs Use Training Approaches Relevant to Local Job Markets:
Many programs aim to provide clients with the training necessary to
fill jobs in high demand in the local job market, such as health care,
technology, and financial services. A number of programs direct clients
to pursue occupations where shortages exist. For example, the District
1199C Training and Upgrading Fund program in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, and the Johns Hopkins Skills Enhancement Program in
Baltimore, Maryland, provide career paths for clients with health care
professions, where there is a shortage in long-term care and other
related high-demand health care occupations. In the San Francisco Bay
area, two programs we visited prepare clients to fill vacancies in the
biotechnology and computer technology fields. According to San
Francisco Works' executive director, San Francisco is home to
approximately 100,000 biotechnology jobs and that number is expected to
grow by 50 percent. Graduates of San Francisco Works' biotechnology
program fill positions that do not require a 4-year degree, such as lab
technicians or media assistants. The Street Tech program also responds
to the demand for technology positions in San Francisco and helps low-
income individuals gain skills with the potential to move them toward
higher wages. According to program administrators, students who
complete the Street Tech program secure entry level jobs that range
from $15 to $20 an hour and fill the demand for computer technical
personnel, one of the fastest growing fields in their county.
A number of programs we visited consider the amount required for
individuals in their localities to be self-sufficient before placing
clients into employment. The state of Pennsylvania and counties in
California encourages service providers and caseworkers to use the Self-
Sufficiency Standard developed by Family Economic Self- Sufficiency
Project[Footnote 9] as a target when developing client employment
plans. According to the Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Project, the
standard calculates how much money working adults need to meet their
basic needs without subsidies like welfare or food stamps. Unlike the
federal poverty standard, the Self-Sufficiency Standard accounts for
the costs of living and working as they vary by family size and
composition and by geographic location. Both the PathWaysPA non-profit
program in Philadelphia and local government officials of San Francisco
County in California worked together with other local government
officials and non-profit agencies in their respective regions to
establish a local self-sufficiency standard for their TANF clients.
Post-Secondary Education Strategies Aim to Leverage College Degrees to
Move Participants into Better-paying Jobs:
Some programs we visited help motivated, qualified, low-income clients
pursue education beyond high school, with the belief that higher
education is key to moving individuals into higher wage jobs. For
example, the goal of the LIFETIME program in Oakland, California, is to
help low-income, TANF mothers earn 2-or 4-year college degrees in order
to increase their earning potential. The LIFETIME program employs peer
counselors who have already successfully completed a post-secondary
degree under TANF to serve as models for clients in order to
demonstrate that combining education and welfare is possible and
permissible under current law. Staff will also help clients select a
career path that matches their personal interest and aptitude.
Likewise, the AchieveAbility program, a nonprofit located in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania that serves TANF and other low-income
clients, operates on the premise that clients should earn at least an
associate's degree in order to earn incomes that would allow them to be
self-sufficient. In exchange for continuing in housing partially funded
by HUD, AchieveAbility clients must pursue education and to complete a
GED and 2-year degree. Participants are also given the opportunity to
participate in cultural and other educational activities.
Microenterprise Strategies Can Give TANF Recipients Tools to Run Small
Businesses:
We encountered several programs using microenterprise strategies that
encourage participants to run their own small businesses to either
supplement or provide their sole source of income. These programs
generally target low-income individuals who are highly motivated, but
live in a region with few employment opportunities. Two programs in
rural Montana featured self-employment training: Career Transitions and
the Career Training Institute. While the Career Training Institute in
Montana, provides a variety of employment training services to its
clients, it actively markets microenterprise development to their TANF
clients. While the Institute staff acknowledged the low success rate of
these start-ups, they argue that microenterprise training does help
clients build a variety of important skills.
In Belgrade, Montana, the Career Transitions program provides its
microenterprise clients with 50 hours of self-employment and business
training. The program will often receive TANF clients who require
longer term training and more intensive case management than what is
considered available through the county TANF office. Individuals who
successfully complete the training and produce a feasible business plan
are eligible for low interest loans to implement their plan. A unique
feature of the Career Transitions program was the ability for clients
to sell and test market their business ideas at the organization's
weekend farmer's market. One official from the Career Transitions
program said that, for many low-income job-seekers, self-employment is
the best way to become self-supporting. This is particularly true for
custodial parents of young children, for whom, staff explained, self-
employment provides a means to work out of the home and also fulfill
care giving responsibilities. Those clients who have been successful
have gone on to develop enterprises ranging in scale from part-time
home-based businesses to retail operations with multiple locations.
Figure 3: Vendors Sell Produce and Other Goods in the Career
Transitions Farmers' Market in Belgrade, Montana, Where Microenterprise
Students Can Test Their Business Ideas:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
One program we visited provided microenterprise assistance to low-
income women in an urban environment. The Women's Initiative for Self
Employment is a nonprofit that offers training and technical and
financial assistance for prospective women small business owners in the
urban San Francisco and East Bay area. While the Women's Initiative
does serve TANF clients, sometimes through referral by TANF
caseworkers, and other low-income workers, some participants in the
program have strong skill sets and work histories and may be only
temporarily low-income. The program's Executive Director attributed the
success of the program to the use of a model that is tailored to
clients' needs and argued that the fundamentals of their program model
are equally applicable in urban and rural environments. She also
reported that participants who make the transition off of welfare are
more likely to approach self-employment as a full-time venture, rather
than part-time.
Asset-building Strategies Emphasize Savings and Financial Education:
While the training, education, and microenterprise strategies primarily
focus on employment, asset building strategies emphasize savings and
financial education and literacy as important stepping stones to
greater economic security for TANF clients. Programs we visited were
using financial asset-building strategies on the premise that families
must accumulate assets, through savings accounts and homeownership, and
acquire financial management skills in order to move toward self-
sufficiency. Among the tools used by programs are IDAs and the EITC.
The 1998 Assets for Independence Act authorized federal funding for a
series of state and local IDA programs. IDAs are personal savings
accounts that enable low-income persons to combine their own savings
with matching public or private funds to purchase homes, start or
expand businesses, advance their education, or purchase other assets
that will promote economic self-sufficiency[Footnote 10]. The act
authorizes grants to qualified non-profit organizations (including low-
income credit unions and designated community development financial
institutions), as well as state, local and tribal government agencies,
to conduct 5-year demonstration projects under which non-federal
sources contribute at least one-half of the project funds up to $1
million. Proponents of the IDA program often educate low-income
individuals about the use of the EITC, a federal tax credit for low-
income families, in order to facilitate asset accumulation.
In Philadelphia, the Campaign for Working Families, sponsored by
several public and private funding sources to help low-income families
move into the middle class, partners with several other organizations
including the Women's Opportunities Resource Center to help families
build assets and establish IDAs. The Campaign for Working Families
encourages clients who use the organization's free tax preparation
services to roll their EITC savings into an IDA. The IDA program,
funded in part through an HHS Assets for Independence grant, requires
clients to participate in financial management classes and save a
minimum of $10 per week in order to receive up to $2,000 in matching
funds over a 2-year period. Savings may go toward home purchase or
repair, higher education, or self-employment. In Chicago, the Bethel
Employment and Training Center partners with the First Bank of Oak Park
to provide clients with a 2-to-1 match for up to $1,800. In order to be
eligible to receive matching funds, participants must attend 10 classes
on budgeting and other financial topics. Like the Philadelphia program,
clients can use the IDA money for education, housing, or to start a
business. One official reported that most participants in the Chicago
program use the funding for education.
In addition to savings, we visited programs that promote financial
literacy. Through its "Building Blocks to Financial Success" course,
the Women's Opportunities Resource Center teaches money management
skills including savings, debt management, financial planning, and
banking. The "Building Blocks" program is available both online and in
a classroom setting. All participants in the Women's Resource Center
IDA program must complete the "Building Blocks" curriculum.
A Network of Non-Profits, TANF Agencies, Employers, and Community
Colleges Is Key to Operating Programs:
The programs we visited relied on a network of support to help TANF
clients prepare for and attain well-paying jobs. Typically, the
programs we visited were run by non-profit organizations providing
services to TANF clients either under contract with a TANF agency or
using a mix of public and private funding sources. Some state and local
welfare agencies, through adopting specific policy provisions such as
allowances for post-secondary education, also played a key role in
fostering the strategies in this report. In addition to core services,
local non-profits and TANF agencies either directly provided or helped
link clients to services such as child care, housing, and on-the-job
support. As part of the wider network, local non-profits and TANF
agencies established partnerships with employers and community colleges
to develop curricula and create career ladders and work opportunities
for TANF clients.
Collaboration Between Local Nonprofits and TANF Agencies Is Key to
Implementing These Strategies:
The vast majority of programs experts identified as using one or more
of the four strategies were private, non-profit organizations, rather
than the local welfare office, although in some cases employers,
unions, or community colleges provided the actual services. As a
result, the programs we visited were predominantly non-profits,
although we also made an effort to connect with the TANF office in each
locality. TANF recipients were connected to these programs through a
variety of methods, including formal referrals through the TANF agency
or other programs and word-of-mouth recommendations from friends and
family. (See fig. 4.)
Figure 4: Ways in Which TANF Clients Were Connected to Programs:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Many of the programs served TANF clients along with other low-income
people. Welfare recipients generally made up between 10 and 60 percent
or more of the clientele of the programs we visited. The officials we
met with cited some advantages to this approach. Namely, interaction
between TANF and non-TANF clients provides role model opportunities,
allowing clients to learn from the example set by low-income job
seekers with more established work histories. Furthermore, officials
posited that welfare recipients may be more attractive to employers if
they are viewed simply as out-of-work job seekers rather than branded
as TANF clients.
Some of the programs we visited provided services to TANF clients
through a contract with the state or local TANF office, while others
received funding from a variety of public and private sources.
Officials from two programs said this approach gave them an advantage
over government agencies and other entities with a single-source
funding mechanism and protected them to some degree from shifting state
and federal budget priorities. In addition, administrators from two
different programs said that there are psychological benefits to being
distinct from the TANF program, as many needy clients who perceive a
stigma around public assistance may be more likely to seek help from a
group that is not explicitly linked to the welfare office. Moreover,
some programs told us they chose to use other funding sources because
they believed the work focus of the current welfare system was a
barrier to offering strategies like education and training. Some of the
experts we consulted and other researchers shared similar concerns that
the system's focus on "work first" may discourage the development of
education and training approaches that delay a client's entry into the
workforce. Specifically, program officials we interviewed cited the
eligibility restrictions, work and reporting requirements of some
federal funding sources, including TANF and the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA), as deterrents. Other officials told us that pursuing certain
government grants and contracts would have forced them to set aside
their mission or would have placed an undue administrative burden upon
their organization.
State and local TANF policies can play an important role in
facilitating the use of employment support strategies. States can
provide support to local programs by crafting TANF policies with a
focus on specific priorities or in response to the unique needs of
their TANF population, even if those priorities are not reflected in
federal welfare legislation. For example, in a recent legislative
session, representatives from the state of Montana, following Maine's
lead, passed legislation that will allow some of its TANF clients to
count pursuing a 4-year degree toward meeting state TANF work
requirements. Until 2004, Montana's TANF program was able to do this
because the state had in place--prior to welfare reform--a waiver from
certain federal TANF requirements, including those that would not allow
this type of educational activity to count as a permissible federal
work activity unless it was combined with another activity, such as
part-time work. In another effort focused on increasing education
levels among TANF clients, the governor of Kentucky launched an
initiative in the late 1980s to centralize oversight for the state's
community and technical colleges, believing that a more centralized
approach might make it easier for low-income families to pursue higher
education. This development served as the cornerstone of more recent
efforts to better integrate the education and workforce systems. In our
site visits in Kentucky, we saw links between community colleges and
TANF agencies.
In addition to core employment-related services, providing pre-and post-
employment support services was a key factor in facilitating TANF
recipients' involvement in these programs. Local nonprofits and TANF
agencies either directly provided or helped link clients to services
such as child care, housing, on-the-job support, transportation, and
other assistance. For example, in Chicago, the Project Match program
allows clients to return again and again over a period of years until
they are permanently employed. Also in Chicago, The Cara Program
delivers on-the-job support to participants for their first 9 months of
employment. Other programs we visited offer a host of other supports
like housing, child care, or referrals to other programs to help
clients engaging in training and other work preparation activities. For
example, the District 1199C Training and Upgrading Fund program in
Philadelphia helps participants locate assistance for child care and
transportation subsidies. Some programs focus on specific populations
of at-risk job seekers, such as the Bethel Employment and Training
Center program in Chicago that specializes in providing employment
assistance to former felons. State and local TANF offices also help
facilitate the necessary support services, such as child care and
transportation, that make it possible for clients to participate in
these programs. Typically, the TANF agency has flexibility to fund and
support services to a given TANF client regardless of whether that
client is participating in a program that receives TANF funds.
Some of the organizations we visited do not directly provide services,
but could be characterized as service brokers, referring or linking
participants with other programs in the community. For instance,
Women's Opportunity and Resource Development, Inc., in Missoula,
Montana, operates as a clearinghouse for services for TANF clients. SF
Works operates on a similar model. Although it provides a handful of
services directly, it generally operates as an intermediary to ease the
way for TANF clients to take advantage of the biotech prep coursework
available to them. Another California program, LIFETIME, lends support
and guidance to single mothers on welfare to help them complete post-
secondary education. Again, although it does not directly provide
training or other services, it assists its constituency by connecting
them to the necessary support services delivered by other providers in
the community.
Partnerships with Local Employers and Community Colleges Yield
Additional Resources for TANF Clients:
As part of the broader network, local non-profit programs and TANF
offices often forged partnerships with local employers to open up job
opportunities for their clients. For example, The Cara Program in
Chicago has developed relationships with employers in the financial
services industry, such as JP Morgan, to place clients in entry level
positions with the potential for advancement, such as mailroom check
processors. Program officials told us they turned applicants away based
on active substance abuse problems or criminal backgrounds, out of
concern about compromising their relationships with potential
employers. In San Francisco, one of the nation's highest-paying markets
in the legal services industry, one group developed a program to train
TANF clients to serve as paralegals.
Other programs consulted with employers to develop training curricula
and gather other information related to employer needs. Input from
employers is an essential component to ensure effective training that
addresses labor market needs. The San Jose CET worked directly with
employers to develop curricula tailored to local labor market needs.
Some non-profits, such as the San Francisco Works program in San
Francisco, were founded by a group of enterprising businesspeople who
saw an opportunity to connect job-seeking welfare recipients in the
work-focused system of the 1990s with open positions created by San
Francisco's booming economy.
In addition to employers, some programs also partnered with or
originated within unions to assist TANF clients in finding work. For
example, the Montana PEAKS program is housed in a building owned by the
local steelworkers union, and the head of the program reported that she
had established relationships with unions for the logging, construction
and aluminum refinery industries to expand the job opportunities
available to her clients.
In addition to employers, program officials cited their partnerships
with community colleges as important sources of additional resources
and expertise. For example, the Brighton Center's Center for Employment
Training program in Lexington, Kentucky, negotiated an agreement with
the Central Kentucky Technical College to allow CET students to
transfer their CET credits to the college. In other cases, the
community colleges directly provided training and post-secondary
education services to TANF clients. For example, students in the San
Francisco Works program took classes on-site with the partner community
college.
HHS Is Supporting Research, Providing Technical Assistance, and
Sponsoring Targeted Grant Funding, but Additional Research and
Technical Assistance Are Needed:
Through research, technical assistance, and grant-making activities,
HHS plays an important role in fostering the four strategies identified
in this report that are designed to help TANF participants raise their
incomes. Although HHS has several efforts underway, more needs to be
known about the effectiveness of strategies for building individuals'
skills and earnings capacity and how to incorporate them as options
within state and local TANF programs. Within HHS, the Administration
for Children and Families (ACF) has primary oversight responsibilities
for TANF and for these efforts, most of which have focused on promoting
financial asset building and training strategies. HHS' Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) also plays a key
role in research efforts.
HHS Conducts and Shares Research on Employment and Asset-building
Strategies:
HHS is engaging in several research projects focused on helping TANF
clients and other low-income individuals find higher-wage employment
and build their assets. One such effort, the Employment Retention and
Advancement project, will identify and test program models designed to
promote employment stability and increased earnings for TANF recipients
and other low-income individuals. Started in 1998, this evaluation will
test the effectiveness of 15 programs in eight states. The program
models under review are designed to help participants retain jobs or
advance in their careers, or both.
Each program provides a package of services that will be compared. For
example, participants in one career advancement program meet with
"career and income advisors" to develop a career and income advancement
plan that takes into account the client's current job, career goals and
specific barriers. Evaluations of this and the other program models
will focus on the impact of receiving this package of services. TANF
and other low-income individuals participating in the programs will be
tracked for up to 5 years. While some preliminary results are
available, final results from this 10-year evaluation are not expected
until 2008. Evaluation results from this study can provide important
information about the various combinations of services that might lead
to positive outcomes for low-income individuals.
To complement these efforts, HHS has also made contributions to the New
Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning Project currently
underway in California. A partnership between the local community
college and the Department of Social Services, the project focuses on
earnings gains as a primary measure of improvement in employment
prospects of working parents who also receive TANF.
In addition to the Employment Retention and Advancement project, in
2010, the agency expects final results from a second research effort--
the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project--a 10-year
study to identify effective strategies for improving employment
outcomes for current or former TANF recipients and other low-income
individuals who have had difficulty finding and holding down jobs.
While both the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and Evaluation Project and
the Employment Retention and Advancement project are designed and
managed by HHS, Labor also provides some funding.
HHS also recently supported research comparing the job requirements of
high demand positions in the long-term care industry to the skill
profiles of TANF clients. This study explored the possibility of
training TANF clients to fill these needs and identified challenges
programs face in designing and implementing a long-term care training
program for TANF clients. On the demand side, HHS is also about to
undertake a nationally representative survey of employers in an attempt
to understand more about the factors that ensure a TANF job-seeker
success in the workplace. In addition, the agency is reviewing current
research to better understand the role that asset building plays in
addressing poverty. More specifically, they are looking at the factors
influencing low-income families' asset accumulation, as well as
possible effects. The agency also plans to examine how means-tested
program rules may affect low-income families' ability to build assets.
Finally, in recognition of employment barriers facing TANF job seekers
in rural areas, HHS has also launched a demonstration project to
evaluate the effectiveness of welfare-to-work strategies being used in
rural areas, with final results due in 2007.[Footnote 11]
These research efforts are a part of HHS' broader research and
evaluation efforts that include analysis of healthy marriage and
responsible fatherhood initiatives, evaluations of other related
welfare-to-work grants programs as well as research designed to address
the needs of special populations such as low-income individuals with
additional barriers.
The agency also has taken steps to share research findings with local
TANF programs, welfare researchers, and policymakers. Since 1998, HHS'
Administration for Children and Families has sponsored an annual
Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference to share evaluations of
welfare reform and formulate ways to incorporate these findings in the
design and implementation of programs. In addition, ACF and ASPE make
research results available through presentations at other conferences
related to welfare and low-income issues, their agency websites, and
online announcements sent to subscribers. For example, officials noted
that ASPE and ACF work together to send "TANFnet" announcements to
state program administrators; currently TANFnet goes to 300 state
administrators.
Another source of research on these types of strategies could be the
programs using them, although this was not the case among those we
visited. Few of the programs reported plans for rigorous research and
evaluation. A number of the officials we met with cited a lack of
dedicated funding as the reason for not doing more in the way of
evaluation and outcome measurement. Some individual programs had
undertaken efforts to measure participant outcomes and two mentioned
plans for a rigorous experimental design evaluation that could result
in an assessment of its effectiveness.[Footnote 12] Often, when a
program did collect data on participant outcomes, the indicators of
interest were directly related to employment--program wide job
placement rate, individual wage gain, length of tenure in a given job
or access to benefits. However, some programs were interested in a
broader spectrum of progress indicators. For example, the Project Match
program in Chicago oversees a central database that tracks a variety of
individual performance indicators for a number of area programs. These
may include progress on work preparation activities, family or personal
activities (e.g., going to medical appointments), and housing and
financial activities (e.g., eliminating a debt).
This forthcoming research will expand existing knowledge about welfare-
to-work strategies in important ways, but more remains to be known
about designing and implementing programs that can increase low-income
parents' earnings capacity and move them into higher-wage jobs. For
example, research could help identify (1) more information on specific
education and training strategies that work and what the key program
elements are that lead to success and that can be replicated; (2) ways
to incorporate education and training strategies into the lives of low-
income individuals, whether as part of a welfare-to work program or in
combination with part-or full-time work; (3) which strategies work best
for those with varying skill levels, including how best to target
educational and training skills to specific job needs, particularly for
those who may not succeed in a classroom setting; and (4) which service
delivery approaches are the most effective and cost-efficient,
including understanding more about the most appropriate provider or
access point, such as the welfare, educational, or employment and
training systems or some combination of these.
A new initiative HHS has recently launched, called the Innovative
Employment Strategies Project, could help to identify additional
research opportunities within existing resource constraints. This
project is designed to document promising practices to help TANF and
other at-risk families achieve self-sufficiency through employment and
to make recommendations for further research.
HHS has a strong tradition of leading and supporting rigorous welfare
research and is well-positioned to continue to promote and support
additional research, although it faces considerable challenges in doing
so. In 2003, we recognized ACF as an agency with an evaluation culture
based on its efforts to plan, execute and use information from
evaluations[Footnote 13] and highlighted it as a model for other
agencies. As part of this culture, it has played a role in working with
methodological experts and partnering with state and local welfare
agencies to promote and support the importance of evaluation to state
and local welfare agencies. At the same time, HHS faces considerable
challenges to support research in the new and evolving welfare
environment. These include:
* limited authority to oversee states and reduced resources under TANF;
* fewer incentives for states to evaluate their programs than existed
under the previous welfare program with its waiver, evaluation, and
funding provisions;
* the increasingly decentralized welfare environment with a multitude
of players involved in delivering services and operating programs; and:
* the broadened population of interest under welfare reform, including
current and former welfare recipients and other low-income parents.
Still, HHS has a track record of successfully working with research
experts and state and local governments, as well as its federal
partners Labor and Education, to make important contributions. In
addition, it has already broadened its research agenda to conduct and
promote research beyond TANF recipients. The types of strategies we
identified form a critical area to explore as welfare reform evolves.
HHS Provides Targeted Grants That Encourage Use of Strategies:
HHS also supports strategies designed to help TANF clients raise their
incomes through targeted grants. In addition to the TANF grant--one of
the most significant and likely sources of funding for welfare
programs--the agency also offers two smaller grant programs that
directly support the employment and asset-building strategies discussed
in this report. The Job Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals (JOLI)
and Assets for Independence (AFI) programs, both administered by ACF's
Office of Community Services, are designed to help TANF clients move
into higher-wage employment or build financial assets through use of
strategies such as training, asset building and microenterprise
development.
The JOLI grants, created in 1988, provide funding to organizations
interested in creating job opportunities for TANF recipients and other
low-income individuals with the goal of economic self-sufficiency.
Nonprofit organizations receiving JOLI grants are required to use
specific types of strategies such as training women and minorities for
nontraditional jobs and supporting the development of microenterprises.
In addition, HHS requires these organizations to establish a
cooperative relationship with the state TANF agency, in an effort to
ensure that TANF clients benefit from services funded by JOLI grants.
In fiscal year 2004, about $5 million in grant funding was awarded. The
agency is currently developing evaluation tools to assess the
effectiveness of programs funded by JOLI grants.
HHS' AFI grants support asset accumulation among TANF recipients and
other low-income families by funding financial education and economic
support services. In addition to providing services such as financial
education and assistance accessing tax credits, organizations receiving
AFI grants help low-income individuals and families open special
purpose savings accounts called IDAs that are matched with grant funds.
Participants can use the money they save for postsecondary education to
purchase a first home or start a small business. According to HHS,
there are currently more than 315 AFI projects active across the
country, and more than 21,000 families have opened IDAs through the AFI
project . The average AFI grant award is $350,000 across a 5-year grant
period. In 2007 ACF will publish a final evaluation of the
effectiveness of the AFI grant projects.
Use of Strategies Facilitated through Technical Assistance Provided by
the PeerTA Network and HHS Regional Offices:
HHS supports the use of strategies identified in this report by
providing technical support to TANF programs through the Welfare Peer
Technical Assistance Network. The Network is comprised of states,
counties, localities, and community based organizations and provides
opportunities for members to learn from each other via round tables,
site visits, teleconferences and a Web Site. Upon request, the Network
provides opportunities for members to share experiences and solve
common problems. For example, in 2005, the Network sponsored a 3-day
event focused on innovative strategies to increase self-sufficiency
outcomes in rural areas and in 2004 and 2005 co-sponsored with the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) two roundtable discussions about the use
of the EITC. In 2002, the Network joined forces with Labor to focus on
promoting IDAs.
HHS also supports these strategies by disseminating information to
state and local TANF programs through ACF's 10 regional offices. Most
often, regional offices sponsor regional conferences or workgroups to
share effective strategies for meeting the needs of TANF recipients.
For example, one regional office publicized a state post-secondary
educational program that regional officials believed to be a promising
practice. Information about this program was shared within the region
and nationally. A second regional office organized a meeting in 2002
for several states to gather and discuss the administration of IDA
programs. In 2004, this same regional office hosted a teleconference to
discuss strategies and ways to develop successful work experiences for
TANF clients in rural settings.
Regional offices sometimes collaborate with other federal agencies in
these efforts. For example, one ACF regional office worked with Labor
to sponsor a conference designed to provide technical assistance to a
state level TANF office on how to help move TANF recipients into health
care jobs. Another regional office collaborated with the IRS to
disseminate information about the EITC to states with the goal of
helping TANF programs develop organized efforts to increase the number
of low-income families who claim the credit. Some regional offices, in
collaboration with federal agencies such as Labor and the Department of
Transportation (DOT), have organized multi-state meetings on the
specific challenges facing rural areas, as well as promising
strategies. Regional offices have also shared information with TANF
program administrators through the use of newsletters, electronic
listservs and site visits.
While HHS has provided some technical assistance to facilitate use of
these strategies, the overall emphasis of welfare reform on work rather
than education and training is sometimes perceived by programs as a
barrier to implementing these strategies for TANF recipients. As we
noted previously, some programs we visited believed they would have to
change their program design and mission in order to get TANF funding or
did not want to meet what they believed to be onerous program
requirements while other providers made adjustments to meet their own
mission goals and TANF work requirements. Some of the education focused
providers were supported by state TANF programs that were specifically
designed to include such options. It is not clear whether all program
administrators, programs, and policymakers understand ways they can
include education and training components as a part of their TANF
programs. HHS headquarters and regional offices that work with program
officials to share concrete information on what others have done to
incorporate such strategies can help administrators understand the full
range of program strategies that they may use at their option. While
some program design decisions are made at the state level, often it is
up to local TANF administrators to choose program strategies. As a
result, it is important for HHS to provide assistance to both state and
local administrators. Moreover, because many of the strategies we
identified may involve efforts under the purview of Labor and
Education, some of the cross-agency efforts identified by some of the
regional offices may be particularly useful in providing technical
assistance. While some regional offices noted such cross-agency
efforts, others did not.
Other Federal Agencies also Play a Role Encouraging Use of Strategies:
Beyond HHS, a number of other federal agencies also provided research,
technical assistance and targeted grants in support of grants designed
to help TANF clients and other low-income individuals achieve higher-
wage employment and build financial assets, sometimes in conjunction
with HHS. For instance, HHS is a contributing partner to Labor's
National Work Advancement and Support Center Demonstration. In
addition, Labor's High Growth Job Training Initiative, while not
specifically targeted to low-income individuals, seeks to train
participants with training for high growth jobs such as those in the
health care industry. As mentioned earlier, HHS is in the process of
evaluating this practice as a possible approach for pairing TANF
clients with opportunities in the burgeoning long-term care industry.
In addition, from 1994 through 2003, Labor's Women in Apprenticeship
and Nontraditional Occupations program has funded community based
organizations to provide technical assistance to employer and labor
union efforts to place and retain women in apprenticeship and
nontraditional occupations.
Several other agencies have promoted the use of these strategies. For
example, the Department of Education--in addition to collaborating with
HHS and Labor on welfare-to-work research efforts--has sponsored its
own research on community colleges' role in welfare-to-work training.
The agency has also provided technical assistance to state TANF
administrators about post-secondary education as it pertains TANF.
Additionally, the IRS has supported asset-building strategies by
partnering with HHS in the Delta Initiative--an effort whereby both
agencies are working to increase the number of TANF and other low-
income families in the seven state Mississippi Delta region who apply
for the EITC.[Footnote 14] The Department of Transportation also has
several efforts designed to help low-income individuals, as well as
efforts to train and support women and minorities for entry into
highway construction and maintenance jobs. In addition, DOT permits
states to reserve some On-the-Job Training program positions for TANF
clients. In addition to DOT's efforts, HUD has launched the Jobs-Plus
demonstration to increase labor force attachment among public housing
residents (many of whom are also TANF clients) by issuing grants to
local housing authorities to provide residents with employment-related
services and incentives to improve their employment prospects.[Footnote
15]
Conclusions:
Our review focuses on promising strategies for increasing welfare
clients' incomes and the role that HHS can play in supporting these
strategies. The sweeping welfare reforms of the last decade shifted the
focus of the federal welfare program from issuing benefit checks to a
broader mission of moving families into economic independence. Under
the TANF block grant, states are funding a variety of programs designed
to help clients make a successful transition into the workforce. This
has carved out an important role for the broader workforce development
and educational network--local non-profit programs, employers,
community colleges, and other organizations. As a result, welfare
recipients now prepare for work in a more decentralized environment
where service providers may rely on a combination of public and private
funding sources beyond TANF funding streams. The Departments of
Education and Labor and other federal agencies have also expanded their
roles in providing work-related services for TANF clients and other low-
income people.
While all of the strategies and programs we visited may show promise
and help some welfare recipients find better jobs, research does not
yet exist to isolate which strategies work best, for whom, and under
which conditions, not to mention how to deliver services in the most
cost-effective manner. However, the significant federal dollars spent
on TANF warrants continued federal research efforts and attention from
HHS, as well as Education, Labor, and other relevant agencies. Many of
the strategies covered in this report represent new, or at least
untested, approaches in the realm of welfare-to-work services. They
deserve an opportunity for the kind of validation that only rigorous
research can provide.
Finally, in a time of scarce budgetary resources, it is appropriate
that HHS and state TANF programs make full use of the vast array of
strategies and programs available at the local level to help welfare
recipients achieve the goal of self-sufficiency. According to experts,
many state and local organizations have developed new and promising
approaches with the potential to improve clients' economic stability
and career prospects. These practices hold value for the individuals
and agencies directly involved and can provide important lessons for
others. As the federal agency charged with helping low-income parents
avoid dependence on welfare, HHS has several mechanisms to share
research and information on effective and promising practices with
programs providing services to TANF clients, such as its regional
offices or partnerships with other agencies. However, some innovative
programs serving welfare clients operate at the local level--not linked
to HHS--and others may not receive direct funding from TANF and
therefore may not be known to local, state, or federal officials.
Because of these factors, HHS officials may find it increasingly
challenging to gather and disseminate information on promising
practices or to provide technical assistance for local programs wishing
to implement these promising strategies. It is more difficult, but
important, to reach all of the parties now involved in delivering
welfare-to-work services in this more decentralized environment.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To help ensure that the federal government considers research on these
promising strategies and better informs welfare agencies and programs
about how they might incorporate such strategies for TANF recipients,
we recommend that the Secretary of HHS:
8. Review its current research agenda and identify opportunities to
conduct and promote additional research on increasing earnings capacity
among low-income parents.
9. Review existing research dissemination and technical assistance
efforts across its relevant units to better ensure a comprehensive
process for distributing information and implementation assistance to
the wide range of program administrators and programs involved in
welfare reform.
10. Seek out additional opportunities to work with the Secretaries of
Labor and Education to jointly conduct and promote research and
distribute information and implementation assistance related to
enhancing skills and earnings capacity among low-income parents.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its comments; these
appear in appendix III. In its comments, HHS said that the
recommendations were not necessary or warranted given that it is
already carrying out a strong portfolio of research, evaluation,
technical assistance and dissemination. It also stated that our
conclusions and recommendations about promising strategies do not
reflect existing research evidence. We disagree. While acknowledging
HHS' past and ongoing efforts, already discussed in the report, we
continue to think additional efforts are warranted. In addition, our
conclusions and recommendations are firmly based in existing research.
More specifically, as the report introduction and background discuss
and as HHS notes, welfare reform is built upon a considerable research
base. This research shows that welfare-to-work interventions can
increase employment and reduce welfare use and that a mixed approach--
with a strong work focus and some education and training as needed--
shows the greatest earnings gains. This research also shows that the
most successful approaches tested generally do not lead to stable,
higher-paying employment. As a result, many former welfare recipients
rely on other forms of government aid to help make ends meet and some
return to the welfare rolls. We have added to our discussion of this
research in the background section. A key unanswered question--and the
focus of this report--is about identifying and testing additional ways
to help low-income parents support their families through employment
rather than reliance on government supports. We acknowledge that HHS
has several important research efforts under way to shed light on these
issues. Our recommendation asks HHS to review its research agenda and
seek out additional opportunities, given the importance of improving
outcomes for low-income parents.
We maintain that while not yet proven effective, the practices we
identified hold promise and warrant additional attention in HHS'
portfolio. We acknowledge that some strategies, such as
microenterprises, will probably always be of limited scale. We also
clearly understand that, as HHS said, Congress created work
requirements that emphasized some core activities and deemphasized
others, such as post-secondary education. At the same time, Congress
gave states flexibility to include other approaches deemed to address
state and local needs and some administrators we spoke with believe
post-secondary education can play a role in moving families permanently
off welfare. We also identified promising short-term, work-focused
training strategies that would fit within existing TANF work
requirements. HHS stated that we recommend that it do more to encourage
states to shift their focus toward activities not emphasized by
Congress. What we found, and what we do recommend, is that the wide
range of program administrators involved in helping low-income parents
avoid welfare dependence would benefit from an even greater effort by
HHS to provide information and practical technical assistance about
promising practices. We think further collaboration among HHS, Labor,
and Education in providing technical assistance warrants attention.
As we already discuss in the report, HHS has several relevant and very
important research efforts under way that will provide valuable
information to policymakers. We understand that choices about where to
focus limited research resources must be made and that its ongoing
efforts are just one part of a larger portfolio of research related to
TANF goals, including research on promoting safe and healthy marriages
and fatherhood initiatives. We added language to the report to
acknowledge these resource constraints. However, within these
constraints, we still think it important that HHS explore opportunities
to conduct and promote research on ways to increase low-income parents'
incomes through employment. We also think it particularly important
that it expand its collaborations with Labor and Education in
addressing these issues. Much remains to be explored about whether and
how best to incorporate education and training into the lives of low-
income parents to improve employment outcomes. Potential benefits
include improved household incomes, reductions in government benefit
programs, and increased contributions to the nation's workforce. We
note that HHS cited the President's proposal for TANF reauthorization
as an opportunity that would give HHS additional funds to explore
promising practices.
In some cases, HHS' comments included information on research,
dissemination, or technical assistance activities that it had not
shared with us earlier; these have been added to the report. We also
made revisions in some of our summary statements and other areas to
better ensure HHS' existing efforts were acknowledged and to add
clarification. HHS also provided technical comments that we
incorporated as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services,
appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of Labor and
Education, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (415) 904-2272 or bellisd@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: List of Experts Interviewed:
Officials with expertise in welfare-to-work strategies were interviewed
from the following organizations.
Goodwill Industries of Southwestern Michigan:
Jobs For the Future:
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.:
MDRC:
National Conference of State Legislatures:
National Network of Sector Partners:
Professor Harry Holzer, Georgetown University:
Public Private Ventures:
The Annie E. Casey Foundation:
The Aspen Institute:
The National Governors Association:
The Upjohn Institute:
The Urban Institute:
Wider Opportunities for Women:
[End of section]
Appendix II: Program Contact Information:
Following is contact information for programs mentioned in this report.
California:
Californians for Family Economic Self-Sufficiency (CFESS):
National Economic Development and Law Center:
2201 Broadway, Suite 815:
Oakland, CA 94612:
aimee@nedlc.org:
(510)251-2600:
Center for Employment Training:
701 Vine Street:
San Jose, CA 95110:
hsapien@cet2000.org:
(408)534-5230:
LIFETIME:
132 East 12th Street:
Oakland, CA 94606:
contact@geds-to-phds.org:
(510)452-5192:
San Francisco Works:
235 Montgomery Street, 12th Floor:
San Francisco, CA 94104:
tfeeley@sfworks.org:
(415)217-5183:
Street Tech:
2300 El Portal Drive, Suites F & G:
San Pablo, CA 94806:
(510)234-1300:
Women's Initiative for Self Employment:
San Francisco, CA:
(510)287-3114 or (415)641-3460:
Illinois:
Bethel Employment and Training Center:
4006 W. Lake Street:
Chicago, IL 60624:
hfoshee@bethelnew.org:
(773)826-8430:
Chicago Women in Trades:
jvellinga@cwit2.org:
(312)942-1444:
Project Match:
420 North Wabash Avenue, 6th Floor:
Chicago, IL 60611:
(312)893-7243:
The Cara Program:
703 W. Monroe:
Chicago, IL 60661:
swernet@thecaraprogram.org:
(312)798-3302:
Kentucky:
Bowling Green Housing Authority:
Women in Construction:
247 Double Springs Road:
Bowling Green, KY 42101:
(270)843-6071:
Bowling Green Technical College:
Ready to Work Program:
1845 Loop Drive:
Bowling Green, KY 42101:
(270)901-1000:
Brighton Center, Inc. Center for Employment Training (CET):
601 Washington Avenue, Suite 140:
Newport, KY 41071:
TNolan@brightoncenter.com:
(859)491-8303:
R.O.U.T.E. Training Program:
Foothills Community Action Partnership:
309 Spangler Drive:
Richmond, KY 40475:
acox@foothillscap.org:
(859)624-2046:
Maryland:
Community College of Baltimore County:
Continuing Education:
800 South Rolling Road:
Catonsville, MD:
21228-5317:
mwalsh@ccbcmd.edu or jedwards@ccbcmd.edu:
(410)455-4920 or 410-455-6922:
The Johns Hopkins Skills Enhancement Program:
Office of Community and Education Projects:
Human Resources Department:
The Johns Hopkins Hospital:
600 N. Wolfe Street, Phipps 352:
Baltimore, MD 21287:
bedward@jhmi.edu:
(410)614-0273:
Montana:
Career Training Institute:
347 N. Last Chance Gulch:
Helena, MT 59601:
sheilah@ctibrc.org:
(406)443-0800:
Career Transitions:
20900 E. Frontage Road, B-Mezz:
P.O. Box 145:
Belgrade, MT 59714:
info@careertransitions.com:
(406)388-6701:
Montana PEAKS Inc.:
Montana Women in the Trades:
P.O. Box 2209:
Columbia Falls, MT 59912:
mtpeaks@digisys.net:
(406)892-5767:
WORD (Women's Opportunity and Resource Development, Inc.):
127 N. Higgins, Suite 307:
Missoula, MT 59802:
kgough@wordinc.org:
(406)543-3550:
Pennsylvania:
AchieveAbility:
21 South 61ST Street:
Philadelphia, PA 19139-3008:
info@achieve-ability.org:
(215)748-8750:
Campaign for Working Families:
1207 Chestnut Street, 6th Floor:
Philadelphia, PA 19107:
jhunt@gpuac.org:
(215)851-1819:
District 1199C Training and Upgrading Fund:
1319 Locust Street:
Philadelphia, PA 19107:
cfeldman@1199ctraining.org:
(215)568-2220:
PathWaysPA:
310 Amosland Road:
Holmes, PA 19043:
(610)543-5022:
Transitional Work Corporation:
Land Title Building:
100 S. Broad Street, Suite 700:
Philadelphia, PA 19110:
rcg@transitionalwork.org:
(215)965-3000:
WORC (Women's Opportunities Resource Center):
2010 Chestnut Street:
Philadelphia, PA 19103:
(215)564-5500:
[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. 2005:
NOV 9 2005:
Mr. David D. Bellis:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Bellis:
Enclosed are the Department's comments on the U.S. Government
Accountability Office's (GAO's) draft report entitled, "WELFARE REFORM:
HHS Could Do More to Promote Research and Support Promising Strategies
to Increase Parents' Incomes." (GAO-06-108). These comments represent
the tentative position of the Department and are subject to
reevaluation when the final version of this report is received.
The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft
report before its publication.
Sincerely,
Signed by Larry J. Goldberg for:
Daniel R. Levinson:
Inspector General:
Enclosure:
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's
designated focal point and coordinator for U.S. Government
Accountability Office reports. OIG has not conducted an independent
assessment of these comments and therefore expresses no opinion on
them.
COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON THE U.S.
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE'S DRAFT REPORT ENTITLED. "WELFARE
REFORM: HHS COULD DO MORE TO PROMOTE RESEARCH AND SUPPORT PROMISING
STRATEGIES TO INCREASE PARENTS' INCOMES" (GAO-06-108):
General Comments:
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report.
The draft GAO report recommends that HHS retarget its evaluation
resources to focus on four strategies designed to increase income for
parents receiving cash assistance from the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) program--training, post-secondary education, self-
employment, and financial asset building. The report argues that HHS
has not done enough to evaluate "the effectiveness of such strategies
and to assist States and localities in incorporating them into their
TANF programs."
GAO's recommendations, however, do not reflect what we believe to be
strong research evidence that contradicts many of the conclusions
reached and recommendations presented. Further, the recommendations are
not well aligned with stated Congressional intent with regard m
approaches to increase self-sufficiency and decrease welfare
dependency. They also do not reflect a thorough understanding of the
challenges involved in undertaking rigorous evaluation, as indicated
below:
* GAO's identification of "promising strategies" is based on
"interviews with experts and visits to programs." HHS's current
research agenda involving evaluations of multiple strategies to
increase income and sustain attachment in the labor force is based on a
large body of prior research and consultation with a wide range of
researchers, interest groups, program practitioners, and other
stakeholders.
* In creating TANF, Congress specifically emphasized certain core
activities and de-emphasized others. Tbis focus was in contrast to the
activities Congress emphasized in the predecessor Job Opportunities and
Basic Skills (JOBS) training program. In particular, TANF legislation
focuses on work and work-like activities. GAO's recommendation that HHS
do more to encourage States m shift their focus toward other
activities, especially post-secondary education, could be seen as
inconsistent with Congressional intent.
* GAO notes that HHS has "no plans to promote or support research on
what specific strategies are most effective in raising TANF recipients'
earnings." This statement does not accurately reflect past and current
work that HHS has undertaken to address this issue. As has been the
case for many years, HHS continues to invest a major portion of
research funds to support multiple research projects to assess the
effectiveness of alternative approaches to help low-income workers and
TANF recipients enter and sustain their attachment to the labor market
and increase their earnings. One of these early studies was the
National Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies (NEW WS) evaluation
in which "education first" strategies were directly compared to "work
first" strategies. The findings from this study support the work focus
within the TANF legislation. HHS is currently investing substantial
resources in two additional large scale research projects that
specifically focus on approaches to help low-income workers and TANF
recipients retain employment and increase their earnings by advancing
in the labor market. The first of these is the Employment Retention and
Advancement Demonstration Evaluation (ERA) and the second is the Hard-
to-Employ Demonstration Evaluation (HtE). The ERA study is evaluating
fifteen different tests/models in eight States. The HtE study currently
includes four tests. These research projects were designed based on the
evidence and lessons from earlier research by HHS and others regarding
strategies to be tested with different segments of the TANF caseload.
* HHS supported a recent meta-analysis of welfare-to-work programs that
identified those programs with impacts on average earnings. An earlier
study of "What Works Best for Whom" took a similar approach. Except for
direct experimental comparisons, the ability to determine which of the
approaches to increasing earnings are "most effective" is hampered by
the fact that different interventions deal with different population
groups and vary in other ways. This limitation is particularly salient
for programs like micro-enterprise, financial asset building, and post-
secondary education, wherein participants are likely to be a small,
self-selected group. Under these circumstances, even with impact
findings, it would he difficult to make judgments about which
approaches are most effective for a broader population.
* The draft GAO report does appropriately recognize the range of
research studies HHS has supported. While HHS has not invested in
rigorous evaluation of some of the strategies identified as promising
by GAO, these topic areas have been addressed within the research
agenda (more information is provided below). Research used to inform
public policy and investments of resources at the Federal, State, and
local level should be sound and provide evidence of the long-term as
well as short- term benefits of alternative strategies. HHS's research
budget is not sufficiently large to allow for major investments to
produce sound research on all areas of interest; HITS must choose
priorities among competing topics of interest. As a result, HITS has
chosen to focus on those strategies for increasing earnings that
involve large segments of the TANF caseload, rather than programmatic
approaches that are not widely used by State or local agencies or that
involve relatively small numbers of TANF recipients, e.g., micro-
enterprise.
* In addition, while the body of the report acknowledges HHS's long
commitment to research and evaluation and mentions some of its recent
and ongoing projects in this area, the title of the report appears
unnecessarily critical. HHS strongly requests that GAO rename this
report. A suggestion would be "HHS Should Continue to Promote Research
and Support Promising Strategies to Increase Parents' Incomes."
Finally, we do not agree that the recommendations are necessary or
warranted, as HHS is already carrying out a strong portfolio of
research, evaluation, technical assistance, and dissemination. Specific
comments on recommendations are provided below.
The President's Proposal for TANF reauthorization would give HHS
additional funds to explore promising practices and to disseminate
information on those practices. We look forward to Congressional action
that will move the President's proposal toward enactment.
GAO Recommendation #1:
To help ensure that the Federal Government considers research on these
promising strategies and better informs welfare agencies and programs
about how they might incorporate such strategies for TANF recipients,
we recommend the Secretary of HHS:
(I) Review its current research agenda and identify opportunities lo
conduct and promote additional research on increasing earnings capacity
among low-income parents.
HHS Response:
HHS is already making significant investments in this area such as:
* Employment Retention and Advancement Demonstration Evaluation--This
project is funded by ACE and builds on earlier research findings
indicating that many TANF recipients who find jobs do not keep them for
very long periods and many do not advance to higher paying jobs. The
goal of this multiyear demonstration and evaluation project is to gain
knowledge about how best to help low-income workers and TANF recipients
sustain attachment to, and advancement in, the labor market. The
project is evaluating fifteen different intervention strategies in
eight States (California, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Oregon,
South Carolina, and Texas).
* Hard-to-Employ Demonstration Evaluation-This project, funded by ACF
and the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE), with
additional support from the Department of Labor (Labor), also builds on
lessons from earlier work that found that some TANF recipients may
benefit from different strategies to help them find appropriate
employment and advance in the labor market to increase their earnings.
The evaluation is testing four different strategies using state-of-the-
art approaches working with different population groups.
* Poor Finances: Assets and Low-Income Households-This project, funded
by ASPE, is designed to build the knowledge base about asset building
and provide a foundation for further research and policy development
with regard to strategies to increase asset building among the poor.
This fall, ASPE will be issuing a series of six reports that provide an
assessment of the nascent state of knowledge and policy development
regarding asset building in the context of social policy, with
particular attention to assets and the poor. The various reports offer
overviews of asset definitions and measurements, distributions of
assets and liabilities, possible effects of asset accumulation,
determinants of asset accumulation, and an overview of data sources
that may be used for further research. In the next phase, the study
will examine the effects of means-tested program rules on asset
building, focusing on the TANF program.
Moreover, HHS is currently supporting a number of studies that will
help focus future research on promising practices to help TANF
recipients increase their earnings-and increase family self-
sufficiency. One of these is the new Innovative Employment Strategies
project being conducted by the Urban Institute. This project will
document approaches and lessons learned from existing innovative and
promising strategies to help families receiving, or at risk of
receiving, TANF assistance to achieve and maintain self-sufficiency
through employment. A focus of the project will be to examine the
opportunities and challenges for the further development and rigorous
evaluation of such approaches, and to make recommendations for further
research.
GAO Recommendation #2:
Review existing research dissemination and technical assistance efforts
across its relevant units to better ensure a comprehensive process for
distributing information and implementation assistance to the wide
range of program administrators and programs involved in welfare
reform:
NHS Response:
To help in disseminating research results, ACF sponsors an annual
Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference and uses its resources to
ensure that Stale and local TANF officials can attend. For the past
seven years, this conference has been a forum for welfare
administrators and program officials, researchers, and policy makers to
leam about the latest findings in evaluations of welfare reform, to
formulate ways to incorporate evaluation results into the design and
implementation of programs and policies, and to develop effective
strategies to ensure sound evaluations of welfare reform.
ACF's Welfare Peer TA (Technical Assistance) Network (Network) provides
support to allow peer-to-peer technical assistance to public agencies
and private organizations operating the TANF program. Technical
assistance is provided through a variety of mechanisms: peer-to-peer
site visits, workshops, moderated teleconferences, and interactive
question and answer sessions. The Network also highlights policy-
relevant research, innovative programs, related links and upcoming
events. The objective of the Network is to facilitate the sharing of
information between and among States and to establish linkages between
organizations serving the needs of welfare recipients. It is notable
that the Network is designed to be responsive to the expressed
interests and priorities of State officials.
HHS staff and contractors often give presentations at professional
conferences such as those of the Association for Public Policy Analysis
and Management (APPAM) and the National Association for Welfare
Research and Statistics (NAWRS) attended by State and local TANF
officials to share our results with the larger research community and
program administrators.
In addition, HHS is working to make our research and evaluation
products accessible to a broader audience. ASPE is developing short
research briefs and summaries for all of our reports in order to make
our research findings more useful for busy program administrators and
policy makers who often do not have the time to read a lengthy report.
We have an e-mail listserv that announces when new products are
available http://aspehhs.gov/info/maillist.shtml. All of our reports
are provided online in order to make them available to individuals and
organizations that are not already on our mailing lists. The Web site
has been recording approximately 100,000 hits per month over the past
year. Over 160,000 individuals visited ASPE's Web site during a single
month this spring, and the Web site of ACF's Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation received over 30,000 hits in August 2005.
GAO Recommendation #3:
Seek out additional opportunities to work with the Secretaries of Labor
and Education to jointly conduct and promote research and distribute
information and implementation assistance related to enhancing skills
and earnings capacity among low-income parents.
HHS Response:
We regularly seek out opportunities to work with other departments in
common research efforts. In the past year, we have contributed to
Labor's National Work Advancement and Support Center Demonstration.
Also, as the draft GAO report notes, Labor collaborates on the HtE
project and has participated in the ERA project. The Department of
Education contributed funds to the NE W WS evaluation. HHS and Labor
worked closely together in ASPE's evaluation of the Labor-funded
Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants. Currently, we are results into the design
and implementation of programs and policies, and to develop effective
strategies to ensure sound evaluations of welfare reform.
ACF's Welfare Peer TA (Technical Assistance) Network (Network) provides
support to allow peer-to-peer technical assistance to public agencies
and private organizations operating the TANF program. Technical
assistance is provided through a variety of mechanisms: peer-to-peer
site visits, workshops, moderated teleconferences, and interactive
question and answer sessions. The Network also highlights policy-
relevant research, innovative programs, related links and upcoming
events. The objective of the Network is to facilitate the sharing of
information between and among States and to establish linkages between
organizations serving the needs of welfare recipients. It is notable
that the Network is designed to be responsive to the expressed
interests and priorities of State officials.
HHS staff and contractors often give presentations at professional
conferences such as those of the Association for Public Policy Analysis
and Management (APPAM) and the National Association for Welfare
Research and Statistics (NAWRS) attended by State and local TANF
officials to share our results with the larger research community and
program administrators.
In addition, HHS is working to make our research and evaluation
products accessible to a broader audience. ASPE is developing short
research briefs and summaries for all of our reports in order to make
our research findings more useful for busy program administrators and
policy makers who often do not have the time to read a lengthy report.
We have an e-mail listserv that announces when new products are
available http://aspe.hhs.gov/info/maillist.shtml. All of our reports
are provided online in order to make them available to individuals and
organizations that are not already on our mailing lists. The Web site
has been recording approximately 100,000 hits per month over the past
year. Over 160,000 individuals visited ASPE's Web site during a single
month this spring, and the Web site of ACF's Office of Planning,
Research and Evaluation received over 30,000 hits in August 2005.
GAO Recommendation #3:
Seek out additional opportunities to work with the Secretaries of Labor
and Education to jointly conduct and promote research and distribute
information and implementation assistance related to enhancing skills
and earnings capacity among low-income parents.
HHS Response:
We regularly seek out opportunities to work with other departments in
common research efforts. In the past year, we have contributed to
Labor's National Work Advancement and Support Center Demonstration.
Also, as the draft GAO report notes, Labor collaborates on the ME
project and has participated in the ERA project. The Department of
Education contributed funds to the NEWWS evaluation. HHS and Labor
worked closely together in ASPE's evaluation of the Labor-funded
Welfare-to-Work (WtW) grants. Currently, we are collaborating on
projects to identify what job characteristics are most associated with
TANF leavers moving out of low-earnings status and to examine the role
of unemployment insurance in providing a safety net for low-income
workers.
Further, the draft GAO report mentions (page 31) four specific areas
where additional research could help us know more about "designing and
implementing programs that can increase law-income parents' earnings
capacity and move them into higher-wage jobs." While more research is
always desirable, the report does not consider the necessity for
selecting priorities among research topics, in light of resource
constraints, nor does it adequately reflect the research already
underway in these areas.
With regard to the first two areas, "more information on specific
education and training strategies" and "ways to incorporate education
and training strategies into the lives of low-income individuals," we
have supported a large body of rigorous research on which strategies
are most effective for increasing employment and earnings. This
research, most notably NEWWS, has consistently shown that education and
training are less effective than work-first approaches. The results for
the Portland NEWWS site, along with earlier results from the Riverside
site in the California Greater Avenues to Independence (GAIN)
evaluation, suggest that a mixed approach in which short-term training
precedes job searching for some individuals is the most effective
strategy for increasing earnings. In both Portland NEW WS and Riverside
GAIN, however, the emphasis was very clearly on getting people to work,
with training of secondary importance.
We are currently supporting research into the effects of education and
training in the ERA project, which is cited in the draft GAO report, as
well as in the New Visions Self-Sufficiency and Lifelong Learning
Project in Riverside, California. New Visions is a joint venture of the
Riverside Community College (RCC) in California and the Riverside
County Department of Public Social Services. The purpose of the
demonstration is to improve the employment prospects of working TANF
recipients, and a major research focus is on gains in earnings. The
program consists of 10 months of classes at RCC, the first 6 of which
are devoted to basic and higher education. The last 4 months consist of
activities that are more specifically tailored to the individual and
can range from entry-level community college coursework to work
experience and job placement.
The third area, "which strategies work best for those with varying
skill levels," has been addressed in the project "What Works Best for
Whom," in which the results of 26 experimental studies of WtW programs
were reanalyzed to examine the effects on subgroups defined by their
level of disadvantage. This study found that for the most disadvantaged
subgroups, mixed-approach programs that were employment focused were
the most successful in increasing earnings, while mixed-approach
programs that emphasized education and training were generally
unsuccessful. A recent meta-analysis of welfare-to-work programs
provides an expanded synthesis.
The fourth area seeks to discover "which service delivery approaches
are the most effective and cost-efficient" We have included impact and
cost-benefit analyses in ERA and the HtE projects and other major
evaluation projects. We agree that it is of critical importance to
measure the effectiveness and cost efficiency of programs, and we will
continue to do so.
Moreover, we take issue with the draft GAO report's assertion (page 5)
that HHS "has no plans to promote or support research on what specific
strategies are most effective in raising TANF recipients' earnings." In
fact, we have recently initiated two research projects designed to
address these issues:
The Innovative Employment Strategies project will identify and discuss
innovative and promising approaches currently being used to help
families receiving, or at risk of receiving, TANF assistance to achieve
and maintain self-sufficiency through employment; and (2) opportunities
and challenges for the further development and rigorous evaluation of
such approaches, with recommendations for further research.
The Understanding the Demand Side of the TANF Labor Market project will
develop and conduct a nationally representative survey of employers of
entry-level workers, with a view to describing and analyzing those
factors likely to make TANF recipients more successful earners.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
David Bellis, Director (415) 904-2272, bellisd@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
Gale Harris, Assistant Director, and Tiffany Boiman, Analyst in Charge,
managed this assignment and made significant contributions to all
aspects of this report. Michelle Bracy, Rachael Chamberlin, Lise Levie,
Jean McSween, Angela Miles, Susan Pachikara, Nyree Ryder, and Daniel
Schwimer also made significant contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
TANF: State Approaches to Screening for Domestic Violence Could Benefit
from HHS Guidance. GAO-05-701. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 2005.
Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to
Address Rural Challenges. GAO-04-921. Washington, D.C.: September 10,
2004.
Supports for Low-Income Families: States Serve a Broad Range of
Families through a Complex and Changing System. GAO-04-256. Washington,
D.C.: January 26, 2004.
Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative
Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington, D.C.:
May 2, 2003.
Welfare Reform: With TANF Flexibility, States Vary in How They
Implement Work Requirements and Time Limits. GAO-02-770. Washington,
D.C.: July 5, 2002.
Welfare Reform: States Are Using TANF Flexibility to Adapt Work
Requirements and Time Limits to Meet State and Local Needs. GAO-02-
501T. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2002.
Welfare Reform: More Coordinated Federal Effort Could Help States and
Localities Move TANF Recipients with Impairments toward Employment. GAO-
02-37. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients into the Workforce.
GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important Role
in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare-to-Work
Approaches. HEHS-99-179. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 1999.
Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients' Status. HEHS-99-48.
Washington, D.C.: April 28, 1999.
Welfare Reform: States' Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance
to TANF Clients. HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 1999.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The funding authority for the TANF block grant was originally due
to expire in September 2002. Since that time, Congress has granted
several temporary extensions as it has continued to consider
reauthorization proposals.
[2] GAO, Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure
TANF Work Participation Is Measured Consistently across States, GAO-05-
821 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 19, 2005).
[3] It is important to note that cash assistance caseload data do not
reflect the many families who receive TANF-funded services.
[4] For more information, see Lessons from the National Evaluation of
Welfare-to-Work Strategies. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC; Gayle Hamilton,
MDRC, 2002. Also see Report on a Meta-Analysis of Welfare-to-Work
Programs, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, DC; David
Greenberg and Andreas Cebulla with Stacey Bouchet, June 2005.
[5] The District 1199C Training and Upgrading Fund was established in
1974 by the National Union of Hospital and Healthcare employees, an
affiliate of the American State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFL-
CIO).
[6] The Department of Labor administered the federal Welfare-to-Work
program, a short-term 2-year program, that provided funding to help
states and localities meet their welfare reform objectives and the
goals set forth under PRWORA by providing federal resources above and
beyond the TANF block grant to move the least-employable TANF
recipients and noncustodial parents of TANF children into long-term
unsubsidized employment.
[7] Phlebotomy is the practice of drawing blood.
[8] According to the Computing Technology Industry Association, A+ is
an international industry credential that validates the knowledge of
computer service technicians with the equivalent of 500 hours of hands-
on experience. Major hardware and software vendors, distributors, and
resellers accept A+ as the standard in foundation-level, vendor-neutral
certification for service technicians.
[9] The Family Economic Self-Sufficiency Project is an effort initiated
in 1996 by Wider Opportunities for Women and three national partner
organizations--the Corporation for Enterprise Development, the Ms.
Foundation for Women, and the National Economic Development and Law
Center--to provide resources and technical assistance to community-
based advocates and states on human resource investment policies, and
to gain support for strategies that can improve the chances for self-
sufficiency for low-income families. The project is funded partially
through the support of the Ford Foundation, the Annie E. Casey
Foundation, the Norman Foundation and the Rockefeller Family Fund.
[10] The IDAs authorized by the Assets for Independence Act are more
limited in terms of the types of expenditures allowed.
[11] For more information, see GAO, Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs
Have Developed Many Strategies to Address Rural Challenges, GAO-04-921
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2004).
[12] The two experimental design evaluations are funded by a variety of
federal and foundation sources.
[13] GAO, Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative
Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity, GAO-03-454 (Washington, D.C.:
May 2, 2003).
[14] The National Organization of Black County Officials is also a
partner in this effort.
[15] The Jobs-Plus demonstration is funded through HUD's Moving-To-Work
initiative, and matched by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation,
with additional support from other public agencies and philanthropies.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text 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
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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: 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
