Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
HHS Needs to Improve Guidance and Monitoring of Tribal Programs Gao ID: GAO-11-758 September 15, 2011The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) gives American Indian tribes the option to administer their own Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant programs. GAO first reported on the use of this flexibility by tribes in 2002 (GAO-02-768), and given the upcoming expected reauthorization of TANF, GAO was asked to examine (1) how tribal TANF programs have changed since 2002, especially in light of changing economic conditions; (2) the challenges tribes face in administering their own TANF programs and what tribes have done to address them; and (3) the extent to which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided guidance and oversight to promote the integrity and effectiveness of tribal TANF programs. GAO analyzed federal TANF data; interviewed federal officials; surveyed all tribal TANF administrators; and conducted site visits at 11 tribal TANF programs in four states.
Since GAO first reported on tribal TANF programs in 2002, the number of programs has increased--from 36 in 2002 to 64 in 2010. In addition, more tribes use program flexibilities to both tailor services to meet the needs of their TANF families and cope with changing economic conditions. GAO also found that some tribes have increased their work participation rate goals over time. For example, more than half of the 36 tribes that have been administering a TANF program since 2002 have raised these goals over time. Many tribes also allow a wide range of activities families can use to meet work participation rates, such as cultural activities or commuting time. Tribes also reported in GAO's survey that changing economic conditions have adversely affected their caseloads, funding, and services provided. For example, some tribes reported that since the beginning of the economic recession in 2007, they have larger average monthly caseloads, use other federal funding to fill budget gaps, and cut back supportive services to provide more cash grants. According to GAO's survey results, tribal TANF programs face challenges with initial program implementation, staff development and retention, and the development of adequate data systems. Moreover, all 11 tribes GAO visited talked about the various barriers to self-sufficiency facing their TANF participants, such as a lack of transportation and limited employment opportunities. To address these challenges, many tribes reach out to HHS regional office staff, other tribal and federal programs, and private consultants. For example, to address challenges related to developing adequate data systems, GAO learned that the majority of tribes use consultants to develop their systems and provide training. In addition, to enhance employment opportunities, some tribes have placed participants at their Head Start offices, while another tribe has partnered with its modular housing plant. HHS provides oversight and guidance for tribal TANF programs, but does not always do so in a timely or consistent manner. HHS officials told GAO that they use tribal TANF single audit report findings to target training and technical assistance to tribes. However, the systems that HHS uses to track these reports are fragmented, and as a result, tribal TANF officials may not consistently be aware of all the single audit findings related to tribal TANF programs, or be in a position to promptly identify and address recurring problems and mitigate risk. Other oversight tools, such as quarterly data reports used to calculate work participation rates, are not consistently updated by HHS in a timely manner, which, according to GAO's survey, is a challenge to tribes' administration of their TANF programs. HHS headquarters and regional offices provide guidance such as basic policy manuals, training at yearly conferences, and one-on-one assistance over the phone. However, some tribes expressed difficulty in finding and receiving clear, consistent, and timely guidance from HHS, which hinders their ability to successfully manage tribal TANF programs and finances. GAO recommends that HHS review its process for tracking related single audit reports, improve processes for maintaining tribal TANF data that can be shared in a timely manner, and provide timely, accessible and consistent guidance that is clearly communicated to its tribal TANF programs. HHS commented it will be mindful of these recommendations as it examines ways to improve its efforts.
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: Kay E. Brown Team: Government Accountability Office: Education, Workforce, and Income Security Phone: (202) 512-3674GAO-11-758, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: HHS Needs to Improve Guidance and Monitoring of Tribal Programs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-758
entitled 'Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: HHS Needs to
Improve Guidance and Monitoring of Tribal Programs' which was released
on October 17, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to the Ranking Member, Committee on Natural Resources, House of
Representatives:
September 2011:
Temporary Assistance For Needy Families:
HHS Needs to Improve Guidance and Monitoring of Tribal Programs:
GAO-11-758:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-758, a report to the Ranking Member, Committee on
Natural Resources, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996 (PRWORA) gives American Indian tribes the option to administer
their own Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant
programs. GAO first reported on the use of this flexibility by tribes
in 2002 (GAO-02-768), and given the upcoming expected reauthorization
of TANF, GAO was asked to examine (1) how tribal TANF programs have
changed since 2002, especially in light of changing economic
conditions; (2) the challenges tribes face in administering their own
TANF programs and what tribes have done to address them; and (3) the
extent to which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
has provided guidance and oversight to promote the integrity and
effectiveness of tribal TANF programs. GAO analyzed federal TANF data;
interviewed federal officials; surveyed all tribal TANF
administrators; and conducted site visits at 11 tribal TANF programs
in four states.
What GAO Found:
Since GAO first reported on tribal TANF programs in 2002, the number
of programs has increased-”from 36 in 2002 to 64 in 2010. In addition,
more tribes use program flexibilities to both tailor services to meet
the needs of their TANF families and cope with changing economic
conditions. GAO also found that some tribes have increased their work
participation rate goals over time. For example, more than half of the
36 tribes that have been administering a TANF program since 2002 have
raised these goals over time. Many tribes also allow a wide range of
activities families can use to meet work participation rates, such as
cultural activities or commuting time. Tribes also reported in GAO‘s
survey that changing economic conditions have adversely affected their
caseloads, funding, and services provided. For example, some tribes
reported that since the beginning of the economic recession in 2007,
they have larger average monthly caseloads, use other federal funding
to fill budget gaps, and cut back supportive services to provide more
cash grants.
According to GAO‘s survey results, tribal TANF programs face
challenges with initial program implementation, staff development and
retention, and the development of adequate data systems. Moreover, all
11 tribes GAO visited talked about the various barriers to self-
sufficiency facing their TANF participants, such as a lack of
transportation and limited employment opportunities. To address these
challenges, many tribes reach out to HHS regional office staff, other
tribal and federal programs, and private consultants. For example, to
address challenges related to developing adequate data systems, GAO
learned that the majority of tribes use consultants to develop their
systems and provide training. In addition, to enhance employment
opportunities, some tribes have placed participants at their Head
Start offices, while another tribe has partnered with its modular
housing plant.
HHS provides oversight and guidance for tribal TANF programs, but does
not always do so in a timely or consistent manner. HHS officials told
GAO that they use tribal TANF single audit report findings to target
training and technical assistance to tribes. However, the systems that
HHS uses to track these reports are fragmented, and as a result,
tribal TANF officials may not consistently be aware of all the single
audit findings related to tribal TANF programs, or be in a position to
promptly identify and address recurring problems and mitigate risk.
Other oversight tools, such as quarterly data reports used to
calculate work participation rates, are not consistently updated by
HHS in a timely manner, which, according to GAO‘s survey, is a
challenge to tribes‘ administration of their TANF programs. HHS
headquarters and regional offices provide guidance such as basic
policy manuals, training at yearly conferences, and one-on-one
assistance over the phone. However, some tribes expressed difficulty
in finding and receiving clear, consistent, and timely guidance from
HHS, which hinders their ability to successfully manage tribal TANF
programs and finances.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that HHS review its process for tracking related single
audit reports, improve processes for maintaining tribal TANF data that
can be shared in a timely manner, and provide timely, accessible and
consistent guidance that is clearly communicated to its tribal TANF
programs. HHS commented it will be mindful of these recommendations as
it examines ways to improve its efforts.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-758] or key
components. For more information, contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-
7215 or brownke@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Since 2002, More Tribes Have Used Program Flexibilities to Tailor
Services and Cope With Changing Economic Conditions:
Tribal TANF Programs Face Various Administrative and Other Challenges,
and Many Partner with Other Entities to Address Them:
HHS Oversight of and Guidance for Tribal TANF Programs Lacks
Consistency and Timeliness:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Approved Tribal TANF Programs (Fiscal Years 2002-2010):
Appendix III: Additional Examples of Tribal TANF Work Activities:
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services:
Appendix VGAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Key Differences Between State and Tribal TANF Programs:
Table 2: HHS Monitoring Activities for Tribal TANF Programs:
Table 3: Eleven Tribal TANF Programs Selected for Site Visits in Four
States:
Figures:
Figure 1: Location and Number of Tribal TANF Programs in Fiscal Year
2002 and Fiscal Years 2003-2010:
Figure 2: Changes in the Average Monthly Number of Families Receiving
Tribal TANF Cash Assistance Since 2002:
Figure 3: Benefits of Administering Tribal TANF Programs Reported by
Tribes:
Figure 4: Percent of Tribal TANF Adults Who Met Minimum Work
Requirements, 2002-2009:
Figure 5: Forest County Potawatomi Family-Oriented Classes That Can
Count as TANF Work Activities:
Figure 6: Challenges to Administering Tribal TANF Programs Reported by
Tribes:
Figure 7: Entities Contacted by Tribes When They Experience Challenges
Administering Their TANF programs:
Figure 8: Examples of Coordination Between Tribal TANF and Other
Tribal Programs:
Figure 9: HHS Process for Reviewing and Finalizing Tribal TANF Work
Participation Data:
Figure 10: HHS Methods for Providing Tribal TANF Guidance:
Figure 11: Usefulness of HHS Regional Office and Headquarters
Assistance:
Figure 12: Speed of HHS Regional Office and Headquarters Assistance:
Figure 13: Examples from Tribes in California:
Figure 14: Examples from Tribes in Arizona and New Mexico:
Figure 15: Examples from Tribes in Wisconsin:
Abbreviations:
ACF: Administration for Children and Families:
AFDC: Aid to Families with Dependent Children:
BIA: Bureau of Indian Affairs:
DOI: U.S. Department of the Interior:
DRA: Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:
HHS: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:
JOBS: Job Opportunities and Basic Skills:
MOE: maintenance-of-effort:
NEW: Native Employment Works:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PRWORA: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation
Act of 1996:
Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 15, 2011:
The Honorable Edward J. Markey:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Natural Resources:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Markey:
The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of
1996[Footnote 1] (PRWORA) brought about significant reforms to the
country's welfare system when it replaced the Aid to Families with
Dependent Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) block grant. As part of these reforms, federally
recognized American Indian tribes[Footnote 2] were given the option to
administer their own tribal TANF programs either individually or as
part of a consortium, providing benefits and services to American
Indian families, who previously were served by state AFDC programs.
[Footnote 3] Overall, the TANF block grant program provides
approximately $17 billion annually to assist low-income families and
improve employment and other outcomes, of which it provides about $182
million specifically to tribal TANF programs.
In the United States, American Indians disproportionately experience
socioeconomic challenges, including high rates of poverty and
unemployment. In 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that American
Indians throughout the nation were almost twice as likely to live in
poverty as the rest of the population--27 percent compared to 15
percent. Those living on or near reservations often face additional
challenges because many of these communities are isolated. PRWORA
gives tribal TANF programs broad flexibility in designing their
programs and tailoring them to meet TANF requirements and address
their families' needs.
Since 2002, when we first reported on the status of tribal TANF
programs,[Footnote 4] changes in economic conditions and recent
legislation have affected these programs. An economic recession
started in December 2007, and while the reauthorization of TANF
through the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) did not make
legislative changes to tribal TANF,[Footnote 5] the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) established the Emergency
Contingency Fund that tribes as well as states could access for
additional funding.[Footnote 6] These changes have raised questions
about how tribal TANF programs have evolved over time and what the
role of federal agencies is in assisting and overseeing them.
As Congress looks toward potentially reauthorizing the TANF program in
2012, you asked us to address (1) how tribal TANF programs have
changed since 2002, especially in light of changing economic
conditions; (2) the challenges tribes face in administering their own
TANF programs and what tribes have done to address them; and (3) the
extent to which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
has provided guidance and oversight to promote the integrity and
effectiveness of tribal TANF programs.
To address these issues, we analyzed HHS tribal TANF work
participation, expenditure,[Footnote 7] and caseload data for fiscal
years 2002 to 2009.[Footnote 8] We also reviewed tribes' applications
for the Recovery Act's Emergency Contingency Fund, and data on tribes'
expenditures of these funds. Our review also included all 64 tribal
TANF plans approved by HHS as of October 2010.[Footnote 9] In
addition, we reviewed all tribal TANF Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular No. A-133 single audit data collection reports from
fiscal years 2002 to 2010 that had TANF-related audit
findings.[Footnote 10] We conducted a Web-based survey of all 64
approved tribal TANF programs in fiscal year 2010. Fifty of these
administrators (78 percent) responded to the survey, and represent a
mix of different-sized tribal TANF programs and regions.[Footnote 11]
We also conducted site visits to 11 selected tribal TANF programs in
Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arizona, and California. We selected these
programs because they varied in geographic location, size of their
service population, number of years in operation, program structure,
and amount of TANF and TANF-related program funding received.
Information and findings from our site visits cannot be generalized
beyond the tribes we visited. Additionally, we conducted interviews
with tribal TANF consultants, U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI)
officials, and HHS officials in headquarters and all regional offices
serving areas where tribal TANF programs were located.[Footnote 12] We
also attended HHS regional tribal TANF conferences in California and
Washington. Finally, we reviewed relevant information from past GAO,
HHS, DOI, nonprofit, academic and research institutions' reports, as
well as relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. A detailed
description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through September
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence we obtained provides a reasonable basis
for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
According to 2009 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau,
about 3.2 million U.S. residents identify themselves as solely of
American Indian or Alaska Native origin. Furthermore, the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) in DOI reported that for 2005--the most recent
year for which data are available--the total number of enrolled
members in federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native
tribes and villages was nearly 2 million.[Footnote 13] American
Indians have high rates of poverty, unemployment, single-parent
families,[Footnote 14] and substance abuse relative to the population
as a whole. BIA reported that the unemployment rate for American
Indians living on or near a reservation was 49 percent in 2005, the
most recent year for which data are available,[Footnote 15] while the
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported a national unemployment rate of 5
percent for the same year.[Footnote 16] A recent study by the Economic
Policy Institute noted that from the first half of 2007 to the first
half of 2010, the national American Indian unemployment rate--which
includes individuals living in both urban areas and on tribal lands--
increased 7.7 percentage points to 15.2 percent, while it increased
4.9 percentage points to 9.1 percent among Caucasians.[Footnote 17]
Additionally, in 2009, 53 percent of American Indian children lived in
single-parent families, compared with 34 percent of all children
nationwide.[Footnote 18] HHS data estimates for 2004 through 2008
indicate that the percentage of American Indians or Alaska Native
adults who needed treatment for alcohol or illicit drug use problems
in the past year was higher than the national average (18 percent and
10 percent, respectively).[Footnote 19]
As of October 2010, there were 565 federally recognized tribes--340 in
the continental United States and 225 in Alaska.[Footnote 20]
Federally recognized Indian tribes are Native American groups eligible
for the special programs and services provided by the United States to
Indians because of their status as Indians.[Footnote 21] Under the
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended,
federally recognized Indian tribes can enter into self-determination
contracts or self-governance compacts with the federal government to
take over administration of certain federal programs for Indians
previously administered by the federal government on their behalf.
[Footnote 22]
Tribal lands vary dramatically in size, demographics, and location.
The largest reservation, that of the Navajo Nation, is about 24,000
square miles in size and is inhabited by more than 176,000 American
Indians. In comparison, some of the smallest tribal lands, held by
California tribes, take up less than 1 square mile and some tribal
lands have fewer than 50 Indian residents. Some Indian reservations
have a mixture of Indian and non-Indian residents. In addition, most
tribal lands are rural or remote, although some are near metropolitan
areas.
Legislation Authorizing Tribal TANF:
Although tribal members were previously served through state AFDC
programs, under PRWORA, they can be served through tribal or state
TANF programs.[Footnote 23] Tribal and state TANF programs may use
TANF funds in any manner reasonably calculated to accomplish the
purposes of TANF.[Footnote 24] These purposes are to (1) provide
assistance to needy families so that children can be cared for in
their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end needy parents'
dependence on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work,
and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock
pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-
parent families.[Footnote 25] Like states, tribes generally have the
flexibility to set their own TANF eligibility requirements, to
determine what policies will govern mandatory sanctions for
noncompliance with program rules, and to determine what types of work
supports they will provide to recipients, such as child care,
transportation, and job training. However, some of the federal
requirements for state TANF programs differ from those for tribal TANF
programs (see table 1).
Table 1: Key Differences Between State and Tribal TANF Programs:
Program areas: Program approval;
State TANF programs: HHS does not approve state plans, but deems them
complete. To be eligible for a fiscal year, a state must have
submitted a complete plan at some point within the prior 27-month
period ending no later than the first quarter of the fiscal year;
Tribal TANF programs: HHS approval: Tribes must submit a 3-year plan
to HHS for review and approval, which in part, identifies a tribe's
service area and population.
Program areas: Grant amounts;
State TANF programs: Fixed grant amount based on an amount the state
received under the previous AFDC program;
Tribal TANF programs: Fixed grant amount based on certain amounts the
state spent in fiscal year 1994 for all American Indians residing in
the tribes' designated service area.
Program areas: Eligibility for certain types of additional TANF
funding;
State TANF programs: Eligible for the Supplemental Grant or the
Contingency Fund, and were eligible to apply for TANF Emergency
Contingency Funds under the Recovery Act;
Tribal TANF programs: Not eligible for the Supplemental Grant or the
Contingency Fund. However, tribes were eligible to apply for TANF
Emergency Contingency Funds under the Recovery Act.
Program areas: Administrative costs;
State TANF programs: Generally no more than 15 percent of the total
grant award;
Tribal TANF programs: Ceiling of 25 percent of the total grant award
after first 3 years of administering the program (35 percent in the
first year, 30 percent in the second year, and 25 percent in the third
year and beyond).
Program areas: Work activities;
State TANF programs: Twelve allowable work activities;
Tribal TANF programs: May include additional work activities beyond
the 12 allowed for states, subject to HHS approval.
Program areas: Work participation rates;
State TANF programs: Generally at least 50 percent of all TANF
families receiving cash assistance are required to work an average of
30 hours per week[A];
Tribal TANF programs: Can set their own rate and work hour
requirements, subject to HHS approval.
Program areas: Time limits (the maximum time period in which
participants can receive benefits);
State TANF programs: 60 months;
Tribal TANF programs: Can set their own time limits on welfare-related
services, including cash benefits, subject to HHS approval.
Program areas: Caseload reduction credit[A];
State TANF programs: Eligible;
Tribal TANF programs: Not eligible.
Program areas: Hardship exemption;
State TANF programs: No more than 20 percent of a state's caseload can
be exempt from time limits;
Tribal TANF programs: Tribes can determine, subject to HHS approval.
Sources: HHS, GAO analysis of relevant federal laws and regulations.
[A] Under federal law, states are allowed to apply for a caseload
reduction credit, which generally reduces work participation rate
requirements for TANF programs when caseloads decrease. This credit is
calculated annually by determining the change in caseload--or, the
average number of families receiving cash assistance--in the state
between fiscal year 2005 and the fiscal year preceding the current one.
[End of table]
Before the 1996 welfare reforms, some tribes were operating their own
Tribal Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) programs that
provided work and training activities. These tribes remained eligible
to provide these services through the Native Employment Works (NEW)
program when PRWORA repealed the JOBS program. As of January 2011, 31
tribes and tribal organizations operate both a tribal TANF program and
a NEW Program.
More recently, in 2006, DRA made several modifications to state TANF
programs, none of which applied to tribes.[Footnote 26] DRA also
reauthorized TANF through fiscal year 2010,[Footnote 27] and the
Claims Resolution Act of 2010 extended it through fiscal year 2011.
[Footnote 28]
State Matching MOE Funds:
TANF has a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) provision that requires states
to maintain a significant portion of their historic financial
commitment to their welfare programs.[Footnote 29] States are not
required to provide funding to tribal TANF programs, but many do so.
As of July 2010, HHS data indicate that 54 of 64 tribal TANF programs
received state funding. Contributions made by states to tribal TANF
programs generally count toward a state's MOE requirement.
Agencies Overseeing Tribal TANF Programs:
The Office of Family Assistance within the Administration for Children
and Families (ACF) in HHS is the main federal agency responsible for
overseeing tribal TANF programs. Both HHS's headquarters office and 6
out of 10 regional offices have staff that work directly with tribes
to help them implement and maintain their tribal TANF programs. Tribal
TANF is a block grant, and we have previously found that building
accountability into block grants is an important, but difficult, task
requiring trade-offs between federal and state--or in this case,
tribal--control over program finances, activities, and administration
[Footnote 30]. HHS holds tribes accountable, in part, through the
tribes' reporting requirements, which are similar to those for state
TANF programs. For example, tribes have to submit quarterly reports
that include caseload data, data used to calculate work participation
rates, and financial information.[Footnote 31] In addition, per the
Single Audit Act, as amended, all states--including tribal
governments--local governments, and nonprofit organizations expending
$500,000 or more in federal awards during one fiscal year are required
to obtain an audit in accordance with the requirements set forth in
the Single Audit Act.[Footnote 32]
In addition to the TANF block grant that tribes receive from HHS, the
Recovery Act's TANF Emergency Contingency Fund provided up to $5
billion to help states and tribes in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that
had an increase in caseloads or in certain types of expenditures. HHS
provides these funds to tribes as a reimbursement for expenses
incurred no later than September 30, 2010. According to HHS, the funds
a jurisdiction receives as reimbursement are available without fiscal
year limitation and can be spent in any way permissible under TANF.
[Footnote 33] According to HHS, 24 tribes have received Emergency
Contingency Fund grants totaling approximately $14 million as of June
2011.
The Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration Act
of 1992[Footnote 34] provides tribes with additional program and
funding flexibilities. Specifically, it allows DOI to authorize
federally recognized Indian tribes to combine funds they receive from
various federal agencies and programs for employment, training, and
related services, such as TANF, into one program, called a "477 plan."
[Footnote 35] These plans help tribes streamline funding from as many
as 11 different federal sources by utilizing a single budget and a
single reporting system. According to a DOI official, eligible grant
funds include formula-funded programs in HHS, DOI, and the Department
of Labor. DOI oversees these plans at the federal level. As of July
2011, 15 tribes incorporate their tribal TANF programs into these
plans.
Since 2002, More Tribes Have Used Program Flexibilities to Tailor
Services and Cope with Changing Economic Conditions:
More Tribes Administer Their Own TANF Programs and Serve Native
Families Outside of Their Tribes:
The number of tribal TANF programs has increased from 36 in 2002 to 64
in 2010 (see figure 1),[Footnote 36] and several additional tribes are
actively pursuing administering their own programs. Most of the tribes
that have begun administering their own program since 2002 had no
previous experience managing a TANF program; however, according to
information provided by HHS, at least two tribes that were previously
served as part of a larger tribal TANF consortium of tribes have
decided to administer their own programs. For a list of all tribes
administering a TANF program, including those tribes who were
previously served as part of a larger tribal TANF consortium, see
appendix II. In addition to the 64 tribal TANF programs in operation
in 2010, [Footnote 37] HHS officials stated that as of April 2011, 11
more tribes were actively pursuing starting their own program.
Figure 1: Location and Number of Tribal TANF Programs in Fiscal Year
2002 and Fiscal Years 2003-2010:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
State: Alaska;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 3;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 4.
State: Arizona;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 5;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 1.
State: California;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 3;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 11.
State: Idaho;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 3;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 0.
State: Minnesota;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 1;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 0.
State: Montana;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 2;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 2.
State: Nebraska;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 1;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 0.
State: Nevada;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 0;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 1.
State: New Mexico;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 1;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 0.
State: Oklahoma;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 1;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 1.
State: Oregon;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 2;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 0.
State: South Dakota;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 1;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 1.
State: Washington;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 5;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 6.
State: Wisconsin;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 6;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 2.
State: Wyoming;
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36): 2;
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28): 0.
Sources: GAO analysis of HHS data; Art Explosion (map).
Note: For tribes that are located in multiple states, we indicated
their location on the map according to the state where their main
tribal TANF office is located.
[End of figure]
The number of tribes served by tribal TANF programs has also increased
from 174 in 2002 to at least 272 in 2010,[Footnote 38] and more of the
tribes administering their own programs are serving Native families
outside of their own tribe. Tribes have the flexibility to determine
whom their program will serve as well as their service area--the
geographic area that their TANF program will cover.[Footnote 39] In
2002, we reported that 16 out of 36 tribes (44 percent) served only
their own enrolled tribal members. According to our review of tribes'
TANF plans,[Footnote 40] 16 out of 64 tribes (25 percent)
administering a program serve only members of their tribe whereas 48
tribal TANF programs (75 percent) extend their services and benefits
to families who are not enrolled members of their tribe. For example,
according to their most recently approved TANF plan, the Oneida Tribe
of Indians of Wisconsin serves both enrolled tribal members as well as
other Indians who are members of federally recognized tribes residing
on its reservation who are eligible for TANF, whereas the Hopi tribe
serves only its own enrolled tribal members. We also found that
according to HHS data, 11 of the 64 tribal TANF programs have expanded
in order to serve more Native families in nearby or surrounding areas.
For example, the California Tribal TANF Partnership began
administering TANF in 2003 and has expanded its program at least three
times since then to include more tribes. As of May 2011, this
partnership was associated with 35 tribes and other organizations, and
its TANF program service area spanned 14 different counties in
California.
Nationwide, the total number of families receiving tribal TANF cash
assistance has increased since 2002, primarily because the number of
programs has grown, but also because of varied caseload increases
among existing programs.[Footnote 41] Figure 2 below shows the changes
in the nationwide average monthly number of families receiving tribal
TANF cash assistance since 2002. As shown, the total nationwide
average monthly caseload increased almost every year between 2002 and
2009; in some years, increases were driven primarily by the addition
of new programs. However, aggregate changes from year to year hide
significant variation in caseload trends among programs. For example,
between 2008 and 2009, the majority of tribal TANF programs
experienced increases in their average monthly caseloads, but some saw
their caseloads decline. And even where increases occurred, they
varied widely. A couple of smaller programs--which serve a dozen or
fewer families on average per month--saw their average monthly
caseloads increase by as few as four families, which represents
caseload increases of about 33 and 67 percent, respectively. In
comparison, a couple of the larger programs saw their average monthly
caseloads increase by more than a hundred families, representing
caseload increases of about 16 percent and 21 percent, respectively.
While tribal TANF programs range in size, the majority of these
programs are relatively small, and according to preliminary fiscal
year 2009 caseload data provided by HHS, 41 out of 63 tribes reporting
caseload data had an average monthly caseload of less than 200
families.
Figure 2: Changes in the Average Monthly Number of Families Receiving
Tribal TANF Cash Assistance Since 2002:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Nationwide average monthly caseload for families:
Year: 2002;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 36;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
9094.
Year: 2003;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 36.
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
9,535;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 2;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 350
Year: 2004;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 38;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
10,377;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 3;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 88
Year: 2005;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 41;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
10,543;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 5;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 812
Year: 2006;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 46;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
11,289;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 5;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 1,462
Year: 2007;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 51;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
11,592;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 2;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 130
Year: 2008;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 53;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
12,393;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 4;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 305
Year: 2009;
Baseline number of tribes reporting: 57;
Approximate average caseload for baseline number of tribes reporting:
13,372;
Additional number of tribes reporting: 4;
Approximate average caseload for additional number of tribes
reporting: 831
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
Note: The nationwide average monthly caseload for fiscal year 2002
includes family caseload data for seven new tribal TANF programs that
started either in fiscal year 2001 or 2002 and reported less than 12
months of caseload data. For subsequent years, the average monthly
caseloads for the additional programs reporting each year were
generally calculated using less than 12 months of data. For new TANF
programs, the tribe does not have to submit data to HHS during the
first 6 months of operation so that tribes can focus their time and
efforts on program implementation. For those programs that may have
started in one fiscal year, but did not report caseload data until the
following fiscal year because of the 6-month lag in data reporting,
the program was only considered a new program for the year in which
data were actually reported and for which the program contributed to
the nationwide average monthly caseload. We used preliminary fiscal
year 2009 family caseload data that HHS provided to us before its
public release for this analysis.
[End of figure]
Tribes Have Increasingly Used Program Flexibilities and See Many
Benefits to Administering Their Own TANF Programs:
Tribes report that the flexibility they are given to tailor their
tribal TANF programs allows them to address the specific needs of
their TANF families. All 50 of the tribes responding to our survey
reported that the flexibility to provide employment-focused and
education-related services to families was a very major or major
benefit to administering their own TANF program (see figure
3).[Footnote 42] In addition, 49 out of 50 tribes reported that the
ability to administer and deliver TANF services in a culturally
sensitive manner and the ability to tailor the program to the needs of
their community were very major or major benefits to administering
TANF. One tribe responding to our survey reported that administering
TANF encourages nation-building by strengthening the tribe's social
fabric and by helping to develop their tribal workforce. Similarly, a
study conducted by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. notes that tribal
control of TANF affords tribes the opportunity to improve services for
program participants and expand program coordination.[Footnote 43]
Figure 3: Benefits of Administering Tribal TANF Programs Reported by
Tribes:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of survey answers to benefits: Ability to tailor program to
community needs;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 1;
Major: 10;
Very major: 39.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Ability to administer TANF
services in a culturally sensitive manner;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 1;
Major: 8;
Very major: 41.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Ability to provide more one-on-
one attention to tribal TANF recipients;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 1;
Major: 15;
Very major: 34.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Flexibility to provide
employment-focused services;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 0;
Major: 17;
Very major: 33.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Flexibility to provide education-
related services;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 0;
Major: 19;
Very major: 31.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Flexibility to provide noncash
work support services;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 2;
Major: 12;
Very major: 36.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Ability to collaborate with HHS
to define program characteristics;
Not a benefit: 2;
Minor: 2;
Somewhat major: 7;
Major: 14;
Very major: 24.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Opportunity to coordinate with
other state-provided support services;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 2;
Somewhat major: 6;
Major: 23;
Very major: 18.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Opportunity to coordinate with
other tribal-provided support services;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 2;
Major: 21;
Very major: 26.
Number of survey answers to benefits: Opportunity to network with
other tribal TANF programs;
Not a benefit: 0;
Minor: 0;
Somewhat major: 12;
Major: 11;
Very major: 26.
Source: GAO survey of tribal TANF administrators.
Note: All 50 respondents were eligible to answer this question, but
the numbers presented do not include those who selected "not
applicable" or "don't know" or did not answer the question. While some
respondents did not answer the question, the number of those who did
still represents a mix of different-sized tribal TANF programs and
regions. Also, we included the "somewhat" category with the "very
major" and "major" categories because it is still an indication that
these areas were benefits to tribal TANF administrators, albeit to a
lesser degree.
[End of figure]
In addition, we found that tribes continue to use the flexibility to
set their own work participation requirements. According to tribes'
fiscal year 2009 work participation data provided by HHS,
participation rate requirements for both newer and more-established
programs combined ranged from 20 to 50 percent. In 2002, we reported
that most of the tribes' work participation rates generally ranged
from 15 to 30 percent over the first few years of the tribal TANF
program. We also found that some tribes have increased their rates
over time.[Footnote 44] For example, more than half of the 36 tribes
that have been administering a TANF program since 2002 have raised
their work participation rate goals over time.[Footnote 45] One tribe
gradually raised its work participation rate goal for all families
more than 10 percentage points over the course of 8 years, from 35
percent to 48 percent. According to tribes' TANF plans, minimum work
requirements vary among tribes, and while one newly established
program required 22 percent of all tribal TANF families to participate
in 16 hours of work each week in fiscal year 2010, another more-
established program required 35 percent of all families to participate
in a minimum of 40 hours of work each week.[Footnote 46] According to
HHS data, of those tribal TANF adults required to participate in work
activities, a higher percentage were participating and meeting minimum
requirements in 2009 than in 2002 (see figure 4).[Footnote 47]
Figure 4: Percent of Tribal TANF Adults Who Met Minimum Work
Requirements, 2002-2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Year: 2002;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 37.7%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 20.5%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 2.6%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 39.1%.
Year: 2003;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 41.9%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 20.4%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 1.2%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 36.5%.
Year: 2004;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 43.1%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 22.6%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 1.6%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 32.7%.
Year: 2005;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 54%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 20.7%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 2.4%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 22.9%.
Year: 2006;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 63.1%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 19%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 2.2%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 15.8%.
Year: 2007;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 62%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 19.5%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 3.1%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 15.4%.
Year: 2008;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 62.8%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 16%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 3.4%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 17.9%.
Year: 2009;
Participating and met minimum requirement: 64.8%;
Participating and did not meet minimum requirement: 13.6%;
Not participating and sanctioned for the reporting month: 3.1%;
Not participating and not sanctioned for the reporting month[A]: 18.5%.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
[A] According to HHS officials, individuals new to TANF who have not
yet been assigned to a work activity, or who are assigned and are
waiting for their activity to start (e.g. a job preparation class) may
fall into the last category of not participating and not sanctioned
for the reporting month.
[End of figure]
Our review of tribes' TANF plans shows that the majority of tribes
administering TANF programs count work activities beyond the 12
identified in PRWORA[Footnote 48] toward meeting work participation
requirements, and over time tribes have increased the number and types
of activities they count as work activities.[Footnote 49] PRWORA
provides tribes the flexibility to count a wide spectrum of activities
as work activities,[Footnote 50] which helps them accommodate the
training needs and cultural traditions of their recipients.[Footnote
51] Some tribes count cultural activities (including beading and
participating in tribal ceremonies), NEW participation (including
educational activities and training and job readiness activities), and
commuting time toward meeting work participation rate requirements.
For example, the California Tribal TANF Partnership allows tribal TANF
recipients to participate in cultural activities, such as basket
weaving, to help meet work participation requirements (for a related
photo of the basket weaving activity, see appendix III). Furthermore,
in 2002, we reported that 1 out of 36 tribal TANF programs (3 percent)
counted commuting time toward meeting work participation requirements.
[Footnote 52] In 2010, according to our analysis of tribes' TANF
plans, we found that 35 out of 64 tribes (55 percent) counted
commuting time toward meeting work participation requirements.
Some of the activities tribes count as work activities, including
receiving counseling, substance abuse treatment, and participating in
life skills and parenting classes, are used by tribes to support the
more family-oriented goals of the TANF program, such as preventing and
reducing out-of-wedlock pregnancies, promoting marriage, and
encouraging the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. For
example, the Forest County Potawatomi tribe offers classes such as
Positive Indian Parenting, Healthy Relationships, and Nurturing
Fathers, and counts time spent in these classes toward work
participation requirements (see figure 5). These types of activities
may benefit TANF families, even when they do not lead directly to paid
employment. For more examples of work activities that tribes use to
meet their work participation rate requirements, see photos from our
site visits in appendix III.
Figure 5: Forest County Potawatomi Family-Oriented Classes That Can
Count as TANF Work Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Illustration of three descriptive materials for family-oriented
classes.
Source: Forest County Potawatomi Family Resource Center.
[End of figure]
Tribes Reported That Changing Economic Conditions Have Affected
Caseloads, Funding and Services Provided:
Both in our survey and during our site visits, tribes reported that
the recent economic downturn has contributed to an increase in the
size of their TANF caseloads, in part because it has exacerbated the
scarcity of job opportunities within and near their service areas. In
all, 30 of the 50 tribes that responded to our survey question
reported that as of September 2010, their average monthly caseload was
larger than when their tribal TANF program first began providing
services; and of those, 12 reported that the increase was due to
economic conditions or high unemployment. One tribe in particular said
that its caseload was higher in September 2010 because there had been
job layoffs and because companies in their area had been consolidating
positions or not hiring. According to preliminary data provided by
HHS, seven out of 55 tribes were serving at or above their program
capacity in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 53]
An Oneida tribal TANF staff member told us that because there are
fewer jobs available in their area, there could be over 100 people to
apply for an entry-level position at a fast food restaurant. Another
tribe we met with, the Hopi tribe, said that, despite the lack of
employment opportunities on the reservation, many tribal members have
moved back to the reservation after the economic recession caused them
to lose their jobs, which has further strained the tribes' resources
and contributed to an increase in their average monthly caseload.
Changing economic conditions have in some instances led to reductions
in state contributions to tribal TANF programs. Most states with
tribal TANF programs have in the past provided tribes with state
funding, but some are revisiting this commitment in light of tight
fiscal conditions. In an effort to address a growing shortfall in its
budget for TANF, the state of Washington, for example, reduced funding
for tribal TANF programs effective January 2011, reducing funding that
tribes in the state have relied on to help administer their TANF
programs.[Footnote 54] Similarly, in the state of Arizona, a tribe we
spoke with said that the state has had to cut back on funding for TANF-
related programs. For example, the tribe said that its parenting
program used to be funded by five different grants from the state, but
because the state faces budget deficits, it has cut both the number of
grants and the amount of funding for the program.
In response to the economic recession that began in 2007, the Recovery
Act created the $5 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund for states
and tribal TANF programs. Tribes can qualify for these funds based on
increases in the number of families receiving cash assistance or in
TANF expenditures for nonrecurrent, short-term benefits or subsidized
employment.[Footnote 55] As of June 2011, 24 tribes had received
Emergency Contingency Fund grants totaling approximately $14 million.
According to our review of tribes' HHS-approved Emergency Contingency
Fund applications,[Footnote 56] 21 out of the 24 tribes demonstrated
an increase in the number of families receiving basic assistance.
Fifteen tribes showed increased expenditures for funding for
nonrecurrent, short-term benefits, and 9 tribes requested funds due to
increased expenditures for subsidized employment needs.[Footnote 57]
Once a tribe received the Emergency Contingency Fund grant, the funds
could be spent on any TANF-related purpose for TANF-eligible families.
For example, 22 of the tribes responding to our survey applied for and
received Emergency Contingency Fund grants,[Footnote 58] and of these
22 tribes, 17 reported using these grants to expand existing tribal
TANF services and programs. Furthermore, more than half of these 22
respondents reported using Emergency Contingency Fund grant funding to
issue more cash grants or to fill TANF budget gaps caused by the
recession. While two of the tribes we visited said that they used
Emergency Contingency Fund grants to fund cash grants for families,
another tribe said they used the funds for supportive services, such
as providing approximately 700 children with school clothes.
According to our survey and site visits, the recent economic downturn
has also affected the types of TANF services some tribes are providing
to participants. Of the 49 tribes that responded to our survey
question, 39 (80 percent) reported that since the beginning of the
economic recession in 2007, they have increased their provision of
nonrecurrent, short-term benefits--emergency payments to families to
cover housing, utilities, transportation, or other expenses.[Footnote
59] For example, the Forest County Potawatomi stated in their
application to HHS for Recovery Act funds that as a result of current
economic conditions, they have been providing more assistance to help
families with car repairs and utilities. Other tribes have had to cut
back on supportive services so that they could provide more TANF
families with basic cash assistance. The Lac du Flambeau tribal TANF
staff reported having to reduce spending on alcohol and other drug
abuse programs as a result of economic conditions.
Tribal TANF Programs Face Various Administrative and Other Challenges,
and Many Partner with Other Entities to Address Them:
Tribes Reported Challenges with Initial Program Implementation,
Staffing, Data Systems, and Overcoming Barriers to Participants' Self-
Sufficiency:
The majority of tribal TANF programs that responded to our survey
reported that they have faced administrative challenges related to
initial program implementation, staff development and retention, and
development of adequate data systems (see figure 6). In addition, all
11 tribes we visited talked about other challenges related to
overcoming the various barriers to self-sufficiency that their TANF
participants face, such as a lack of transportation and limited
employment opportunities.
Figure 6: Challenges to Administering Tribal TANF Programs Reported by
Tribes:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of survey answers to challenges:
Staffing: Developing staff expertise;
Not a challenge: 7;
Minor: 4;
Somewhat of a challenge: 22;
Major: 12;
Very major:4.
Staffing: Staff retention;
Not a challenge: 10;
Minor: 12;
Somewhat of a challenge: 18;
Major: 7;
Very major: 2.
Program implementation and Infrastructure: Initial program
implementation, including planning and design;
Not a challenge: 1;
Minor: 7;
Somewhat of a challenge: 21;
Major: 11;
Very major: 6.
Program implementation and Infrastructure: Obtaining infrastructure
resources (e.g. staff, office space, etc.);
Not a challenge: 4;
Minor: 7;
Somewhat of a challenge: 15;
Major: 13;
Very major: 10.
Data: Developing adequate information/data systems;
Not a challenge: 9;
Minor: 8;
Somewhat of a challenge: 11;
Major: 11;
Very major: 10.
Data: Receiving data reports from HHS in a timely manner[A];
Not a challenge: 12;
Minor: 6;
Somewhat of a challenge: 9;
Major: 6;
Very major: 16.
Funding: Obtaining sufficient funding;
Not a challenge: 12;
Minor: 3;
Somewhat of a challenge: 10;
Major: 9;
Very major: 14.
Funding: Receiving state MOE funding;
Not a challenge: 6;
Minor: 8;
Somewhat of a challenge: 8;
Major: 8;
Very major: 11.
Funding: Receiving federal start-up funding in a timely manner;
Not a challenge: 12;
Minor: 6;
Somewhat of a challenge: 8;
Major: 1;
Very major: 7.
Working relationships with other programs: Operating as a separate and
distinct entity from other tribal programs;
Not a challenge: 14;
Minor: 9;
Somewhat of a challenge: 10;
Major: 6;
Very major: 8.
Working relationships with other programs: Coordinating with other
state-provided support services for low-income families;
Not a challenge: 13;
Minor: 14;
Somewhat of a challenge: 11;
Major: 6;
Very major: 5.
Working relationships with other programs: Coordinating with other
tribal-provided support services for low-income families;
Not a challenge: 23;
Minor: 11;
Somewhat of a challenge: 14;
Major: 1;
Very major: 0.
Working relationships with other programs: Opportunity to network with
other tribal TANF programs;
Not a challenge: 32;
Minor: 9;
Somewhat of a challenge: 0;
Major: 6;
Very major: 1.
Source: GAO survey of tribal TANF administrators.
Note: Fifty respondents were eligible to answer this question but the
numbers presented do not include those who selected "not applicable"
or "don't know" or did not answer the question. While some respondents
did not answer the question, the number of those who did still
represent a mix of different-sized tribal TANF programs and regions.
Also, we included the "somewhat" category with the "very major" and
"major" categories because it is still an indication that these areas
were challenges to tribal TANF administrators, albeit to a lesser
degree.
[A] HHS provides a review of data reports used to calculate tribes'
work participation rates, which are used to measure the degree to
which TANF families are engaged in work activities that lead to self-
sufficiency.
[End of figure]
According to survey respondents, some of the top challenges[Footnote
60] were:
* Staff development and retention. Many tribes face challenges in
finding, developing, and retaining their TANF staff. One tribe we
visited said that it has been difficult for them to hire knowledgeable
staff, such as a TANF program manager that is familiar with the
program's goals. According to HHS officials, another tribe lost their
tribal TANF director 3 years ago and has struggled to find someone to
permanently fill that position. Our survey results also indicate that
38 out of 49 tribes (78 percent) responding to the question have had
difficulty in developing expertise in the staff they do employ. For
example, one tribe said that while it was important for them to hire
locally based staff for its TANF program, it was difficult to do so
because not only were there very few qualified applicants, but also
because there was a lack of training opportunities for new staff not
familiar with the administration of TANF. Another tribe noted that
they had to train and develop their own staff, as state TANF
caseworkers often had Master's degrees in Social Services, while most
of their own caseworkers did not. Furthermore, once tribes have hired
and developed their staff, it is increasingly difficult for them to
retain that staff. One tribal TANF administrator we spoke with said
she had about three to four different supervisors during the last 4
years. An HHS official also told us that, in his opinion, staff
turnover can affect tribal TANF programs more dramatically than state
TANF programs since tribes may lack the institutional knowledge and
experience necessary to administer the program and provide training to
staff.
* Initial implementation of tribal TANF program. In our survey, 38 out
of 46 tribes (83 percent) responding to the question reported that
they had difficulty with the initial implementation of their tribal
TANF program, including planning and design. HHS regional officials
told us that tribes often have limited experience and resources in
administering federal programs like TANF. In addition, these officials
told us that since tribes may lack knowledge and a framework for
administering such a program, they often have to create completely new
systems. For example, one tribe told us that they did not start
serving tribal TANF clients until 9 months after they received their
TANF grant, as they wanted to take the time to make sure that they had
put all of the appropriate staff training and financial systems in
place. Another tribe reported that as part of its initial planning, it
faced challenges developing internal protocols, policies, and
procedures for its tribal TANF program, and the tribe's TANF program
staff had a difficult time understanding the data collection
requirements. According to HHS officials, sometimes the cost and
resources needed to implement a new tribal TANF program can be so high
that some tribes eventually decide to forgo their plans to start one.
* Development of adequate data systems. Overall, 32 out of 49 tribes
(65 percent) reported in our survey that they have had difficulty in
developing data and information systems.[Footnote 61] Tribes starting
TANF programs do not necessarily have systems in place to collect data
and meet TANF reporting requirements, so they must establish and learn
new systems. For example, TANF administrators for a tribal program
that took over the data collection and analysis process from the state
told us that implementing a new data system was like starting their
program all over again. In addition, tribes must submit quarterly
financial data reports to HHS,[Footnote 62] and we found that the
agency did not have financial data for over one-quarter of approved
tribal TANF programs for fiscal year 2008. Tribes have improved their
reporting of the required financial data in more recent years, but HHS
officials told us that these reports are sometimes delayed or not
submitted, in part because of challenges tribes face in developing
adequate data and information reporting systems for their programs.
Unlike states, tribes did not receive initial funding specifically to
develop information systems that can support their TANF programs.
[Footnote 63] While tribes can use a percentage of their TANF grant
for developing a new information system, this would decrease the
amount of funding available for direct services to TANF families.
[Side bar: Navajo Nation‘s Pathway to Self-Reliance:
[Illustration of Pathway to Self-Reliance poster]
Source: Đ January 2011 Navajo Nation.
With a reservation spanning about 24,000 miles and three states-”
Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah”-the Navajo Nation refers to its TANF
program as the Program for Self-Reliance, in order to reflect its
mission to empower families to become self-sufficient. A tribal TANF
administrator said that having the flexibility to design a program that
incorporates the Navajo teaching of Taa‘ hwo ajit eego laid the
groundwork to ’break the cycle“ of dependence and instill self-
confidence. End of side bar]
In addition to the challenges outlined above, tribes we visited
identified several barriers to self-sufficiency faced by their TANF
participants that present challenges to their programs. These barriers
include limited public transportation, employment opportunities, child
care options, and educational attainment, among others. All 11 tribes
we visited mentioned the availability of transportation as a
challenge, with tribal TANF officials noting that many of their
program participants lack a valid driver's license or have limited or
no public transit options. Many tribes also said that their TANF
participants have limited job opportunities. The Forest County
Potawatomi tribe, for instance, told us that few jobs exist for TANF
participants because of recent closures of logging mills and because
seasonal jobs are only available during the summer months. This same
tribe said that due to its rural setting and recent child care
facility closures, TANF participants have limited options for child
care, hampering their ability to work. A lack of education among
participants also affects their ability to secure employment. One
tribe told us that its TANF participants, some of whom have only
earned their General Equivalency Diploma, have had a harder time
competing for jobs during the economic recession.[Footnote 64]
Furthermore, of the 11 tribes we visited, 6 mentioned substance abuse,
[Footnote 65] domestic violence, or both as barriers to their TANF
participants' self-sufficiency.[Footnote 66]
Many Tribes Reach Out to HHS, Other Tribal and Federal Programs, and
Consultants to Address Challenges:
When tribes experience challenges administering their TANF programs,
they often turn to other entities for assistance, such as HHS, other
tribal and federal programs, and consultants, among others. In
particular, those responding to our survey reported that they most
commonly contact HHS regional office staff, other tribes, and private
consultants (see figure 7). In addition, 9 out of the 11 tribes we
visited indicated that they also work with other federal programs to
help address challenges.
Figure 7: Entities Contacted by Tribes When They Experience Challenges
Administering Their TANF Programs:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Entities that tribes contact when they face challenges:
HHS regional office staff:
Yes: 48;
No: 0.
Other tribes:
Yes: 46;
No: 1.
Private consultants:
Yes: 37;
No: 9.
State TANF officials:
Yes: 36;
No: 12.
State tribal relations officials:
Yes: 33;
No: 12.
HHS headquarters staff located in Washington, D.C.
Yes: 30;
No: 12.
Nonprofit organizations or university groups:
Yes: 23;
No: 22.
HHS contractors, such as those involved with Welfare Peer TA:
Yes: 13;
No: 36.
Other entities:
Yes: 8;
No: 7.
Source: GAO survey of tribal TANF administrators.
Note: Fifty respondents were eligible to answer this question, but the
numbers presented do not include those who selected "not applicable"
or "don't know" or did not answer the question.
[End of figure]
HHS Regional Offices:
[Side bar:
Tribal TANF and HHS‘s Rural Communities Initiative:
From 2008 to 2010, the Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network
implemented HHS‘s Rural Communities Initiative to share information and
innovative strategies on critical rural issues and barriers to
employment, such as education, job skills, transportation, and child
care. Four tribal TANF programs took part in this initiative and
participated in workshops and met with representatives from other
rural organizations that provided insight into strategies being used
in rural areas with TANF participants. For example, the Hoopa Valley
Tribe described how this initiative gave its staff the opportunity to
learn what other tribes were doing to provide access to education or
work experience to participants in remote areas. They learned how
one tribe was providing laptops to their participants so they could
access classes online, while another tribe had given some of its
members headsets so they could take orders for fast food restaurants
remotely from their own home and transmit them back to the restaurant.
End of side bar]
According to our survey, tribes most commonly contacted HHS regional
office staff for assistance. All 48 tribes responding to this question
(100 percent) selected "yes" for this question in our survey.
According to HHS officials, tribes often reach out to their regional
offices for guidance and technical assistance to address challenges
that can occur during the initial implementation of their TANF
programs. Regional offices provide most of HHS's training and
technical assistance to tribes, and the majority of their assistance
focuses on the development and oversight of tribal TANF plans.
Regional offices also inform tribes about policy and procedural
updates and provide clarification if needed. For example, when the
Recovery Act's TANF Emergency Contingency Fund became available, HHS
provided technical assistance and outreach through its regional
offices. HHS regional offices also provide regional tribal TANF
conferences, typically held once per year.[Footnote 67] In addition,
one senior HHS official said that their regional staff can also
conduct in-person site visits to provide direct one-on-one assistance
to tribes, but generally they lack the resources to do any extensive
travel.
Other Tribal Programs:
To enhance employment and training opportunities for program
participants, tribal TANF programs reach out to other programs within
their tribe (see figure 8), and many also contact other tribes when
they experience challenges administering their program. The Menominee
Tribe has worked with its local tribal college to provide different
education and training opportunities to its tribal TANF participants,
such as degree and trades programs (for a related photo of the
Menominee tribal college, see appendix III). In our survey, 46 out of
47 tribes (98 percent) responding to the question indicated that they
contact other tribes when they experience challenges administering
their own TANF programs. For example, tribal TANF administrators from
one program we spoke with participated in meetings with other tribal
TANF programs in their state, which they found more valuable than HHS
regional meetings for coordinating with other tribal TANF programs on
particular issues and sharing information about such topics as data,
tribal TANF plans, and HHS guidance.
Figure 8: Examples of Coordination Between Tribal TANF and Other
Tribal Programs:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs with accompanying information]
1) The Hoopa Valley Tribe started a modular construction enterprise in
2003, which serves as a worksite for its TANF participants. The
enterprise, Xontah Builders, has a dual goal of increasing
homeownership rates and providing job training for tribal members.
According to a company representative, Xontah Builders can employ up
to 80 people. Tribal TANF administrators told us that because the
tribe is very rural and remote, this enterprise is the tribe‘s hope to
becoming self-sufficient, and tribal members see this business as
their children‘s future.
2) The TANF program administered by the Zuni Tribe has a memorandum of
understanding with the tribe‘s Department of Corrections, which serves
as a worksite for TANF participants. The facility currently has a
total of 29 staff and operates both day and night shifts, since it
requires staffing 24 hours a day. As of January 2011, the facility had
about 5-7 permanent employees who started with the tribe‘s Workforce
Investment Act work experience program and no longer receive TANF
benefits.
Source: GAO (photos).
[End of figure]
Other Federal Programs:
To enhance employment opportunities for tribal TANF participants and
address some of their barriers to self-sufficiency, tribes also
collaborate with other federal programs. Tribes seek out these
partnerships, in part, because their TANF programs are typically
serving areas with high unemployment rates. Some tribes we visited
told us they collaborated with such programs to create opportunities
for individuals to help meet their work participation requirements.
For example, at least three tribes we visited--the Lac du Flambeau,
Zuni, and Hopi tribes--placed participants at their Head Start offices
to gain work experience (for a related photo of the Lac du Flambeau
Head Start program, see appendix III). The Hopi tribe has also sent
some participants to an orientation for the Job Corps program, an
education and training program that helps young people learn a career,
earn a high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma, and find
and retain employment.
To facilitate further coordination with federal programs and address
challenges related to program implementation and staffing, tribal TANF
programs can also participate in a "477 plan" administered by DOI.
[Footnote 68] According to DOI, when TANF is integrated into a
comprehensive "477 plan," participants may receive additional support
services, such as longer-term job preparedness, and "477 plan" case
managers can receive additional training from DOI to better assist
unemployed tribal members with finding jobs. DOI also noted that
consolidating resources into a single plan helps to minimize overhead
costs, maximize client participation, and integrate services. Of the
11 tribes responding to our survey that include their TANF program in
such a plan, nearly all indicated that doing so improved service
delivery coordination (10 out of 11), increased continuity of service
provision (10 out of 11), and improved administrative and staff
coordination (9 out of 11). For example, one tribe we visited said
their participation in a "477 plan" allowed them to reduce paperwork
and duplication among their various federal programs, including TANF,
and to provide a one-stop service location as well.
Tribal TANF programs also coordinate with other federal grant programs
under HHS, such as the Native Employment Works (NEW) program. Of the
tribes we surveyed, 18 out of 22 (82 percent) that operate both NEW
and TANF programs reported improved service delivery coordination as a
benefit of operating both programs. In addition, 16 out of the 22
tribes indicated that they had benefited from increased continuity of
service provision and improved administrative and staff coordination
as a result of administering both programs.
Private Consultants:
In our survey, 37 out of 46 tribes (80 percent) reported that they
contact private consultants when they experience challenges
administering their TANF programs. During our site visits, we learned
that tribes reach out to consultants to address some of the top
challenges reported in our survey, such as developing data systems and
staff expertise. For example, to address challenges related to
developing adequate data systems, we learned that the majority of
tribes use data systems and receive training on these systems from
consultants, according to HHS. Another tribe we visited consulted with
the University of California, Davis to help facilitate the development
of goals for their tribal TANF plan, which included clarifying the
tribe's definitions for performance and results. In addition, the
Center for Human Services at the University of California, Davis
annually presents a National Tribal TANF Institute to provide
information, tools, and networking opportunities to support the
development and operation of tribal TANF programs that meet the needs
of Native people.
HHS Oversight of and Guidance for Tribal TANF Programs Lacks
Consistency and Timeliness:
HHS Uses Tribal TANF Single Audit Reports to Target Training and
Technical Assistance, but Fragmented Systems Track and Monitor These
Reports:
According to HHS officials, the single audit is the primary oversight
mechanism for tribal TANF programs, and single audit findings are used
to target technical assistance to tribes.[Footnote 69] At least 19
tribes have had repeat single audit findings since 2002, most often in
the areas of allowable costs/cost principles, reporting, eligibility,
cash management, and equipment and property management. One official
from an HHS regional office explained that a lack of infrastructure
and the inability to retain qualified staff in tribal TANF programs
are often the main causes of repeat audit findings such as these. HHS
officials described how record keeping can be a challenge for tribal
TANF programs as a result of inadequate computer systems. More
specifically, one senior HHS official stated that one of the most
common findings from tribes' audits is weaknesses in procurement
systems, where documents supporting procurement purchases are missing
and incomplete, or inventory lists are missing. One HHS regional
official added that tribes are especially susceptible to financial
audit findings because of staff turnover--a tribe could be making
progress with addressing their audit findings, but then a key staff
member may leave, and the tribe is "back to square one." To help
tribes prevent financial audit findings resulting from new or
inexperienced staff, one regional official stated that they invite new
tribal TANF financial officers to come to their offices for basic
training on the TANF program and fiscal issues. Another HHS official
described how they have also used single audit report findings to
target their training and technical assistance by holding sessions on
common audit findings and resolutions at some of their annual tribal
TANF conferences. HHS has also included guidance on single audits in
some of its policy manuals available on its tribal TANF Web site, such
as an audit supplement guide that outlines common tribal TANF audit
findings and program activities that can ensure compliance with
government regulations. Additionally, HHS has the authority to impose
financial penalties if it decides they are warranted.[Footnote 70]
However, we found that HHS's tracking of single audit reports was
fragmented, with multiple systems tracking different sets of reports
with tribal TANF findings. An HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG)
official explained that audits are tracked in an agencywide single
audit database that HHS's OIG oversees, and some program offices,
including ACF, have their own database for tracking audits they are
responsible for resolving.[Footnote 71] However, audits with tribal
TANF findings may not always be tracked in ACF's database, because
depending on the nature of the finding, another HHS program office or
even another federal agency may be responsible for resolving it. For
example, HHS officials explained that audit reports with crosscutting
findings affecting multiple programs usually do not show up in ACF's
database, as they are assigned to and tracked by HHS's Office of
Finance, Division of Systems Policy, Program Integrity and Audit
Resolution, which is responsible for handling or resolving these
specific types of findings. However, a summary of all audit findings
are sent to the HHS tribal TANF program office for their review.
One senior HHS tribal TANF official confirmed that due to workload
priorities, they are behind in reviewing these summaries of audit
findings for both state and tribal TANF programs. One HHS OIG official
explained that these summary reports contain all audit findings for
tribal TANF programs, including those that the tribal TANF office is
not responsible for resolving. If these summary reports are not
reviewed in a timely manner, tribal TANF officials may not be aware of
all recurring audit findings related to tribal TANF programs. For
example, one tribe was found to have not met compliance requirements
for allowable costs or cost principles for each of the five
consecutive years it submitted single audit reports. According to
information provided by the OIG, ACF was responsible for resolving
some but not all of the findings, and thus may not have known that
these findings had occurred every year if they did not review the
summary reports in a timely manner. Our Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government provide that internal control monitoring
should ensure that findings of audits and other reviews are promptly
resolved.[Footnote 72] Due to the delays in reviewing the summaries
and the fragmented systems for reporting and tracking single audit
findings, HHS tribal TANF officials may not consistently be aware of
all the single audit findings related to tribal TANF programs, or be
in a position to promptly identify and address recurring problems and
mitigate risk.
HHS Collects Tribal TANF Data, but Does Not Consistently Update and
Review It in a Timely Manner:
In addition to HHS officials' use of the single audit as the primary
oversight mechanism for tribal TANF programs, quarterly data reports
used to calculate work participation rates and financial reports, as
well as other program reporting requirements, also help HHS oversee
program performance and ensure program integrity (see table 2).
Table 2: HHS Monitoring Activities for Tribal TANF Programs:
Activity: Single audit (primary monitoring activity);
Frequency: Annually;
Description: An audit conducted by an independent entity that tribes
submit to HHS.
Activity: Tribal TANF family assistance plan;
Frequency: Every 3 years;
Description: A 3-year plan submitted by tribes to HHS for review and
approval that contains specific elements as required by law and
regulations, such as how tribes will promote;
* work;
* the stability and health of families;
* work activities and support services;
* time-limited assistance;
* sanctions for noncompliance with work requirements, and;
* personal responsibility.
Activity: Tribal TANF data report;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Description: A report submitted by tribes to HHS that contains data,
such as work participation data and demographic information on tribal
TANF programs' entire caseload.
Activity: Tribal TANF financial report;
Frequency: Quarterly;
Description: A report submitted by tribes to HHS that provides
financial information, such as the portion of funds used for
administrative purposes and unobligated balances.
Activity: Annual report;
Frequency: Annually;
Description: A report submitted by tribes to HHS that includes
information about their eligible work activities and a description of
certain benefits and services provided, among other information.
Activity: Site visits;
Frequency: Periodically;
Description: HHS Regional Office staff conduct site visits to tribal
TANF programs, as funding allows.
Source: GAO review of federal regulations, HHS documents, and
interviews with HHS officials.
[End of table]
Through quarterly data reports, HHS reviews tribes' data used to
calculate work participation rates and follows up with tribes to make
updates and changes to the data as necessary (see figure 9). One tribe
we visited mentioned that it is helpful to have HHS review their data
to make sure that both HHS and the tribe itself are calculating the
work participation rates correctly and arriving at the same numbers.
Figure 9: HHS Process for Reviewing and Finalizing Tribal TANF Work
Participation Data:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
1) Tribes submit quarterly reports to HHS, which include work
participation data that HHS uses to calculate the tribes‘ work
participation rates.
2) HHS reviews work participation data from tribes following the
receipt of all quarterly reports for a fiscal year, and sends
preliminary work participation rate data back to tribes.
3) Tribes revise and update work participation data as necessary.
4) HHS receives updated data from tribes and makes changes as
necessary.
5) HHS sends tribes revised work participation rate data for the year.
6) HHS considers data ’final“ when penalty/congratulatory letters (for
meeting or not meeting work participation rates) are sent for that
fiscal year.
Source: GAO analysis of HHS data.
[End of figure]
While one of the tribes we visited noted that it was helpful to have
HHS review their data, HHS does not consistently update and review
tribal TANF quarterly work participation data submitted by tribes in a
timely manner. We found that in some cases, it has taken HHS several
years to review, update, and share the results of its work
participation rate data review with tribes, even though these rates
help tribes measure the degree to which TANF families are engaged in
work activities that can lead to self-sufficiency. According to our
survey, 22 out of 49 tribes (45 percent) indicated that failing to
receive data reports from HHS in a timely manner has been a very major
or major challenge to administering their tribal TANF program. One
tribe in particular stated that they received an official response
from HHS regarding their fiscal year 2009 participation rates two
years later, in fiscal year 2011. The tribal official noted in our
survey that "tribes have deadlines to meet and we have to wait years
for a response." Another tribe responding to our survey stated that
while they submit their data reports to HHS each quarter, they are
waiting up to three years to receive their reports back from HHS.
Because HHS does not review and share work participation rate data
with tribes in a timely manner, tribes may not know of any errors in
their data reporting until years later, which could impact not only
the data reporting for that year, but also for subsequent years.
An HHS contractor primarily responsible for working with tribes on
their TANF work participation data said that, in his opinion, tribal
TANF data present different challenges for HHS than state TANF data.
For example, updating information on tribes' work participation rates
requires keeping track of 64 different TANF plans, where the work
participation rates or work hours often change every year, which,
according to the HHS contractor, is not as common with state TANF
programs. In addition, the number of plans will continue to grow as
more tribes have expressed interest in starting their own programs.
The same HHS contractor noted that while it would be useful for tribes
to see their work participation calculations or to access information
for a specific month or year, access to that type of information would
require additional programming. Furthermore, he said it would take a
more sophisticated program than what HHS is currently using--such as a
program flexible enough to define the different tribal TANF variables--
to help make updating the data to share with tribes a little easier.
Tribes Provided Mixed Responses on Timeliness, Clarity, and
Consistency of HHS Guidance:
HHS uses different methods to provide guidance to tribes on their TANF
programs (see figure 10).
Figure 10: HHS Methods for Providing Tribal TANF Guidance:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Basic policy and instruction manuals: Provide guidance on financial
management, audits, and data coding.
Web site:
Provides links to policy documents, agency policy announcements,
relevant program instructions, tribal TANF plan guides, data reporting
information, questions and answers, and background information.
E-mail Listserv:
Automatically sends e-mails to subscribers on most new TANF and NEW
program information.
Training and technical assistance from HHS headquarters and regional
offices:
Regional training at yearly conferences, one-on-one assistance
over the phone or via e-mail, some site visits.
Sources: HHS and Art Explosion (clip art).
[End of figure]
Tribal TANF programs are generally satisfied with the assistance they
receive from HHS, but some cited deficiencies. When asked to rate
different types of assistance received from HHS headquarters and
regional offices, the majority of the tribal TANF respondents in our
survey indicated that they found guidance and policy documents,
technical assistance, training and conferences provided to them by HHS
to be somewhat to very useful (see figure 11). However, many tribes
noted that the assistance that HHS headquarters and regional offices
provided to them for data reporting and data system development was
only slightly or not useful, with some tribes also indicating that
they had not received these types of assistance from HHS at all (see
figure 11). For example, 13 out of 40 tribes (33 percent) indicated
that data system development assistance from HHS headquarters was only
slightly or not useful, while 14 (35 percent) indicated that they had
not received any assistance in this area.
Figure 11: Usefulness of HHS Regional Office and Headquarters
Assistance:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of survey responses to HHS headquarters (HQ) and regional
office (R) assistance:
Guidance and/or policy documents:
Have not received:
HQ: 1;
R: 0;
Not useful:
HQ: 1;
R: 0;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 4;
R: 4;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 5;
R: 5;
Useful:
HQ: 15;
R: 14;
Very useful:
HQ: 15;
R: 25.
Technical assistance (e.g., phone, e-mail, in-person consultation,
needs assessments):
HQ: 0;
R: 0;
Not useful:
HQ: 4;
R: 1;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 2;
R: 5;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 7;
R: 3;
Useful:
HQ: 13;
R: 17;
Very useful:
HQ: 14;
R: 22.
Training:
HQ: 6;
R: 4;
Not useful:
HQ: 3;
R: 4;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 4;
R: 3;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 9;
R: 6;
Useful:
HQ: 10;
R: 15;
Very useful:
HQ: 9;
R: 16.
Data system development assistance:
HQ: 14;
R: 19;
Not useful:
HQ: 7;
R: 6;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 6;
R: 4;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 5;
R: 6;
Useful:
HQ: 3;
R: 6;
Very useful:
HQ: 5;
R: 5.
Data reporting assistance:
HQ: 7;
R: 13;
Not useful:
HQ: 5;
R: 6;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 9;
R: 2;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 3;
R: 3;
Useful:
HQ: 9;
R: 11;
Very useful:
HQ: 7;
R: 13.
Conferences or meetings to discuss issues, lessons learned, or
promising practices:
HQ: 5;
R: 0;
Not useful:
HQ: 2;
R: 3;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 7;
R: 6;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 0;
R: 2;
Useful:
HQ: 12;
R: 12;
Very useful:
HQ: 15;
R: 24.
Other methods used (i.e., Web site, reports, etc.) to discuss issues,
lessons learned, or promising practices:
HQ: 6;
R: 9 ;
Not useful:
HQ: 3;
R: 2;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 5;
R: 7;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 5;
R: 4;
Useful:
HQ: 13;
R: 11;
Very useful:
HQ: 8;
R: 13.
Other assistance from HHS headquarters and regional office:
HQ: 8;
R: 4;
Not useful:
HQ: 1;
R: 0;
Slightly useful:
HQ: 1;
R: 4;
Somewhat useful:
HQ: 1;
R: 1;
Useful:
HQ: 4;
R: 4;
Very useful:
HQ: 9;
R: 11.
Source: GAO survey of tribal TANF administrators.
Note: Fifty respondents were eligible to answer these questions, but
the numbers do not include those who selected "don't know" or did not
answer the question. While some respondents did not answer the
question, the number of those who did still represents a mix of
different-sized tribal TANF programs and regions. Also, we included
the "somewhat" category with the "very useful" and "useful" categories
because it is still an indication that these types of assistance were
useful to tribal TANF administrators, albeit to a lesser degree.
[End of figure]
Tribes also reported that HHS regional and headquarters offices'
timeliness varied in responding to requests for assistance.
Specifically, tribal TANF survey respondents indicated greater
satisfaction with the speed of HHS regional offices compared to
headquarters (see figure 12). For example, 33 out of 48 tribes (69
percent) responding to our survey said that they were very satisfied
with the speed of HHS regional office staff, while only 18 of 46
tribes (38 percent) were very satisfied with the speed at which HHS
headquarters office staff respond to their requests.
Figure 12: Speed of HHS Regional Office and Headquarters Assistance:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Number of survey responses:
HHS headquarters staff located in Washington, D.C.
Very dissatisfied: 6;
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2;
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied: 7;
Somewhat satisfied: 13;
Very satisfied: 18.
HHS regional office staff:
Very dissatisfied: 4;
Somewhat dissatisfied: 2;
Neither satisfied or dissatisfied: 1;
Somewhat satisfied: 8;
Very satisfied: 33.
Source: GAO survey of tribal TANF administrators.
Note: All 50 respondents were eligible to answer this question but the
numbers presented do not include those who selected "don't know/no
opinion" or did not answer the question. While some respondents did
not answer the question, the number of those who did still represents
a mix of different-sized tribal TANF programs and regions.
[End of figure]
However, some of the survey respondents and tribes we interviewed
described situations where HHS regional and headquarters assistance
was not timely. For example, some tribes we interviewed described how
they had repeatedly sent emails to their regional office asking for
information, but the region was unresponsive. Some tribes we
interviewed at regional conferences and who responded to our survey
also indicated that delayed responses from HHS were particularly
frustrating when they were trying to figure out new policies or when
they had a limited time in which they could act--such as implementing
the new financial form[Footnote 73] or submitting their Emergency
Contingency Fund applications. One senior HHS official explained that
even those questions that seem simple on the surface may have greater
implications, so all questions must be reviewed and vetted to provide
an accurate response, which takes time. However, one tribe stated that
HHS made a general announcement about the new financial reporting form
in 2007, and then they never heard anything else about the development
or implementation of the form until 2 years later, when they were
required to start using it. This tribe also noted that HHS held a
training meeting with tribes to discuss its requirements after tribes
were already required to begin reporting program data using the new
financial form. As a result, they did not have an opportunity to
include in the reports what they learned in the training. In our
survey, another tribe described how they do not receive notifications
about program changes from HHS in a timely manner, stating that "we
are expected to implement ... federal requirements immediately,
without immediate guidance or training if needed."
Tribes also indicated in our survey that tribal TANF guidance provided
by HHS regional and headquarters offices via phone, email, and
training conferences was not always clear or consistent. In our
survey, 18 out of 50 tribal TANF respondents (36 percent) indicated
that HHS policy on subsidized employment was not clear.[Footnote 74]
HHS officials stated that the timeframes for implementing the Recovery
Act did not allow for the issuance of proposed and final rules. HHS
posted questions and answers on subsidized employment on their website
and sought to provide guidance when they could. However, some tribes
explained that in general, they receive mixed messages from HHS's
regional offices and headquarters, and sometimes even from different
staff members within the same regional office. Tribes told us that
there seems to be some confusion at HHS over how and what information
is communicated to tribes, with HHS staff sending tribes incorrect or
inconsistent information on tribal TANF policies. For example, one
tribe responding to our survey noted that their regional office
contact does not always provide direct answers to tribal leaders,
which can lead to misinterpretation, while another tribe we visited
noted that different HHS regional offices had different
interpretations of what types of activities count as cultural
activities. HHS officials stated that because tribes are very diverse,
it is difficult to have a "one size fits all' approach to developing
some of the policies that tribes want guidance on, such as cultural
activities allowed to meet work participation requirements. Federal
officials would prefer to give tribes broad flexibility to determine
themselves what constitutes an appropriate activity. However, some
tribes expressed frustration with this approach, citing how the
cultural activities they choose to include in their tribal TANF plans
are still subject to review by HHS, and some are not always approved.
In addition, tribes have received different kinds of guidance in
different formats, and not all tribes were satisfied with the way in
which HHS provided it. One tribe described how all of the guidance
they received on subsidized employment was shared informally via phone
calls and emails--there was no official policy memo from HHS that
detailed this guidance. This tribe also acknowledged that it can be
difficult to provide policy information to all of the tribal TANF
programs at one time, and suggested that HHS leverage its Web site to
provide relevant guidance and ensure that all tribes have access to
the same information. For example, documents related to past regional
tribal conferences, Web casts, and information on tribal TANF
technical assistance services are posted on a different HHS Web site,
and are not linked to the tribal TANF Web page. As a result, tribes
may not know that this information is related to tribal TANF and
available to them online.[Footnote 75] Further, some tribes cannot
always attend HHS's annual regional training conferences, and as a
result they miss out on training opportunities and access to key
information or guidance. One HHS regional office added that regional
offices are not universally consulted or pulled in by HHS headquarters
to strategize on technical assistance efforts, or to come up with
collective objectives and goals. As a result, the types and amount of
technical assistance provided to tribes by each of the different
regions varies. The majority of the HHS regional offices we
interviewed said that they would like to be able to visit tribes in
person to provide more one-on-one training and guidance when tribes
need or want it, but recognized that there are limited resources for
travel. HHS headquarters officials also described how limited travel
funds impacted their ability to visit tribal TANF programs in person
as well. Additionally, tribes indicated in our survey that they would
like to receive more assistance from HHS--33 out of 44 respondents (75
percent) wanted additional assistance from HHS regional offices, while
30 out of 38 respondents (79 percent) wanted more assistance from HHS
headquarters.
Regional offices do not always receive clear and consistent guidance
from HHS headquarters on new policies, either. HHS officials told us
that tribal TANF policies are primarily created in their headquarters
office, and then it is up to the regional offices to provide much of
the training and technical assistance to tribes related to these
policies. One regional official stated that they do not have written
policies or guidance on what they should do if tribes are having
difficulties administering their tribal TANF program, but that this is
the same for state TANF programs, too. Another regional official said
they had asked the HHS headquarters office for guidance for the new
financial reporting form for a year before they received it. As one
tribe indicated, this resulted in the regional office being unable to
answer questions from tribes about the new form.
Further, because HHS and DOI did not always agree on how to coordinate
oversight of tribal TANF programs incorporated in "477 plans," tribes
with "477 plans" were sometimes confused over which agency's rules and
regulations they are required to follow. For example, one tribe
responding to our survey described how HHS and DOI still needed to
provide them a definitive answer as to whether or not the Emergency
Contingency Fund grant which was transferred to their "447 plan"
program could be expended until the end of fiscal year 2011.[Footnote
76] One HHS official described how in the past, DOI did not provide
HHS with written regulations or terms and conditions for "477 plans"
in general, and this made it difficult for them to know how to
implement tribal TANF as part of the "477 plan." In response, a DOI
official explained that DOI purposely did not develop any regulations
because adding more rules would diminish the flexibility of the plans,
which is contrary to their principal goals. However, both DOI and HHS
officials told us that they have been coordinating more to share
information with each other and develop policies together, such as
recent joint consultations with tribes with "477 plans" on using one
funding instrument.[Footnote 77]
Conclusions:
While the tribal TANF program as a whole is relatively small in
comparison to the TANF program for states, Congress designed tribal
TANF in recognition that tribes, like states, would be better equipped
to understand and meet the needs of their own communities. However,
since the creation of tribal TANF, HHS's administration of the program
has not kept pace with the growth of tribal TANF or with tribes'
changing needs. Improved access to information on how to implement
parts of their TANF program or policy changes that could affect their
programs can facilitate tribes' achieving program goals. Further, more
prompt, consistent collection and review of all tribal TANF-related
single audit report findings and work participation rate, caseload,
and financial data, could help HHS to more effectively monitor tribal
TANF programs and determine how it could better target its technical
assistance and guidance to address areas where tribes may be having
difficulty. In addition, more timely HHS data analysis could improve
both the accuracy of tribes' data reporting and the ability of HHS and
tribal administrators to determine if tribal TANF programs are
effectively maintaining program integrity and meeting their goals.
Given the fiscal pressures facing the federal government and the
continued demands placed on assistance programs, it is critical that
programs designed to serve those most in need are in a position to
provide benefits and services as effectively and efficiently as
possible while maintaining program integrity. Unless HHS makes
improvements in the consistency and availability of single audit
report findings, tribal TANF policy guidance, and program data, tribal
TANF program administrators will not have the complete information
they need to improve the effectiveness and integrity of their programs.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To improve guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we
recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services take the
following three actions:
* Review and revise, as appropriate, HHS's process for monitoring,
tracking, and promptly resolving tribal TANF single audit findings so
that it can more systematically target training and technical
assistance to better address recurring problems and mitigate risk.
* Improve processes for maintaining and monitoring tribal TANF data--
such as work participation rate, caseload, and financial data--that
can be shared with tribes in a timely manner.
* Create procedures to provide more timely, accessible, and consistent
guidance on tribal TANF policies that is clearly communicated to
tribal TANF programs, and ensure that all tribal TANF policy
developments and procedures are readily and easily accessible on HHS's
Web site. For example, HHS could consider more effective ways to
provide training to tribes on how new guidance or policy decisions
will affect the administration of their programs, and consistently
update its Web site to provide information on related tribal TANF
technical assistance and training.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Interior
and the Secretary of Health and Human Services for review and comment.
HHS provided us with written comments on a draft of our report which
are reprinted in appendix IV. Both DOI and HHS also provided us with
technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.
HHS agreed that effective monitoring and continuous improvement of its
guidance and technical assistance to tribes as well as to states and
other grantees is important, and stated their appreciation for our
findings on areas where monitoring, guidance and technical assistance
could be improved to tribal TANF programs. HHS also stated that it
would be mindful of our overall recommendations and specific examples
of ways to improve its efforts, and it is already outlining actions
they plan to take to address our recommendations.
Specifically, with regard to our first recommendation, HHS commented
it would review and seek to identify opportunities for improvement at
each step of its process for monitoring, tracking and resolving tribal
TANF audit findings, including the identification of recurring
problems and risks, and the identification of technical assistance
needs identified through the audit resolution process. During the
course of our audit work, HHS officials could not find some single
audit reports, but they were recently able to provide them, so we
removed our finding related to this from the report. HHS also stated
that it will take follow-up steps to ensure that all audits with
tribal TANF findings will be promptly addressed, and has committed
additional staff to working on audit issues.
In response to our second recommendation, HHS recognized the need for
more timely sharing of data with tribal TANF programs, and cited
efforts it is undertaking to address this, including the hiring of an
additional tribal TANF data specialist and its continuing work on
improving reporting and publishing of preliminary and final caseload
and work participation data for recent years.
With regard to our third recommendation, HHS stated it would
strengthen its efforts to be attentive to opportunities for
improvement in training and technical assistance, but it also
commented on how we presented findings on its guidance to tribal TANF
programs. First, HHS noted that while our report title and text
highlight the need to improve guidance, the data provided in the
report generally indicate a high level of satisfaction with the
guidance and technical assistance currently being provided. We state
in our report that tribal TANF programs responding to our survey were
generally satisfied with the assistance they received from HHS, but
some respondents did cite specific weaknesses in areas such as data
system development and reporting. Additionally, in multiple survey
open-ended responses and interviews with us, tribal TANF staff cited
instances where the timeliness, clarity, and consistency of guidance
could be improved, and our title reflects the need for HHS to examine
these areas further. In regard to the specific survey findings on data
system development and reporting, HHS clarified that the need for
additional data system development assistance reflects a need to
increase capacity across a broad range of HHS programs, but it is
training new employees to assist with data reporting.
In addition, HHS noted that the regional and headquarters offices work
together, and that a tribe may be unaware that the headquarters office
contributed to assistance received through a regional office. HHS also
stated that a question raising complex issues would typically be
reviewed by both the regional and headquarters offices, and would
likely take longer to resolve. We point out in our report that tribes
often cited frustration with not receiving consistent and timely
information from both regional and headquarters offices, especially on
policy changes that had a limited time in which they could act. Thus,
it is important that if both offices are indeed collaborating to
provide assistance to tribal TANF programs, that their information be
consistent and timely for all tribes in all regions. It can be
challenging to work with multiple tribes who each have their own
unique tribal TANF programs, but if it is taking the regional and
headquarters HHS offices longer to resolve a particular question, if
would be helpful if they communicated this to the tribes, especially
if it is related to a policy change with a specific timeframe or
deadline.
Finally, HHS described how ACF has committed to undertake additional
research initiatives to better understand the needs of tribal members,
operations of tribal TANF programs and effective practices. These
studies could be helpful in providing HHS with more information on
better ways to support the tribes.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Health and
Human Services, the Secretary of the Interior, and other interested
parties. The report will also be available at no charge on the GAO Web
site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@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 V.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Kay E. Brown:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To obtain information on how tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF) programs have changed since 2002 (when we last
reviewed the program), the challenges tribes face in administering
their own programs and what tribes have done to address them, and
federal agencies' guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we
analyzed federal TANF data, documents and tribal TANF single audit
data collection reports for selected years; surveyed all tribal TANF
administrators; conducted site visits at 11 tribal TANF programs in
four states, and interviewed federal officials.
We conducted our work from June 2010 to September 2011 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Review and Analysis of Tribal TANF Data and Documents from HHS and DOI:
Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is
responsible for collecting tribal TANF data and reporting on tribal
TANF programs nationally, we reviewed relevant TANF data compiled by
that agency. Specifically, we reviewed both published and unpublished
data for fiscal years 2002 to 2009 on (1) the work participation
status of all tribal TANF adults, (2) work activity data for those
TANF adult recipients with activities, (3) tribes that met and did not
meet work participation rates, (4) tribes' caseloads, and (5) tribes'
expenditure data. The expenditure data analysis also includes tribal
TANF expenditure data provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior
(DOI) for those 15 tribes that include TANF in a "477 plan" for fiscal
years 2002 to 2009. We also reviewed fiscal year 2009 and 2010
expenditure data from HHS for the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) Emergency Contingency Fund and tribes'
applications for these funds.
We interviewed HHS officials to gather information on the processes
they use to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the tribal TANF
work participation, work activity, caseload, and expenditure data, but
we did not independently verify these data with tribes. However, we
did follow up with HHS during the course of our analysis whenever we
found any inconsistencies or errors with the data in order to ensure
that the data were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for
the purposes of this report. In some cases, we received revised
information from the agency. We also reviewed DOI documentation
related to expenditure data reporting. We found these data to be
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
In addition, we reviewed selected documents submitted by tribes to
HHS, which the agency does not publish. For example, we reviewed all
24 tribes' HHS-approved applications for the Emergency Contingency
Fund as of June 2011, mentioned above, and all 64 tribal TANF plans
approved by HHS as of October 2010. In addition, we reviewed published
and unpublished documents from HHS and DOI, such as all seven of the
Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network needs assessments for tribal
TANF and Native Employment Works (NEW) programs and a sample of four
"477 plan" assessments selected and provided by DOI officials.
Review of Single Audit Data Collection Reports:
HHS does not regularly perform on-site reviews of tribes' TANF data,
but auditors periodically review tribal TANF programs to comply with
the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended.[Footnote 78] To determine if
there were any significant tribal TANF or "477 plan" single audit
compliance findings, we reviewed all 398 Office of Management and
Budget Circular No. A-133 single audit data collection reports for
fiscal years publicly available as of May 2011 that included tribal
TANF or "477 plan" programs for fiscal years 2002 through 2010. Then
we reviewed the specific types of compliance findings in all 114
available single audit data collection reports for tribal TANF
programs in existence for 2 years or longer with significant
compliance findings for the majority of years that their program was
in existence for fiscal years 2002 through 2010.
Survey of Tribes Administering a Tribal TANF Program:
To better understand tribal TANF programs, we conducted a Web-based
survey of all tribal TANF administrators for all 64 tribal
organizations that administer their own TANF program. The survey
included questions about the benefits and challenges of administering
a tribal TANF program, changes to TANF service delivery related to the
economic recession, and HHS assistance to tribes after the Recovery
Act. The survey was conducted from October to December 2010 with 50
out of the 64 tribal TANF administrators (78 percent) responding. We
obtained contact information for surveyed tribal TANF administrators
from HHS. Beginning on October 25, 2010, we sent e-mail notifications
to these officials, and we sent two follow-up e-mails over a period of
about 2 weeks to encourage tribes to respond to our survey. We also
made follow-up phone calls to encourage nonrespondents to complete our
questionnaire.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce nonsampling errors, such as variation in how respondents
interpret questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses.
We took steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting
draft instruments and using a Web-based administration system.
Specifically, during survey development, we pretested draft
instruments with three tribal TANF administrators from three states
(Alaska, California, and Washington) in September and October 2010. We
selected the pretest tribes to provide variation in selected program
characteristics and geographic location. In the pretest, we were
generally interested in the clarity, precision, and objectivity of the
questions, as well as the flow and layout of the survey. For example,
we wanted to ensure that definitions used in the survey were clear and
known to the respondents, categories provided in closed-ended
questions were complete and exclusive, and the ordering of survey
sections and the questions within each section was appropriate. We
revised the final survey based on pretest results. Another step we
took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a Web-based survey.
Allowing respondents to enter their responses directly into an
electronic instrument created a record for each respondent in a data
file and eliminated the need for and the errors associated with a
manual data entry process. To further minimize errors, programs used
to analyze the survey data and make estimations were independently
verified to ensure the accuracy of this work.
While we did not validate specific information that tribal TANF
administrators reported through our survey, we reviewed their
responses, and we conducted follow-up, as necessary, to determine that
their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable
for the purposes of this report. For example, we reviewed responses
and identified those that required further clarification and,
subsequently, followed-up with those tribes to ensure the information
they provided was reasonable and reliable. In our review of the data,
we also identified and logically fixed skip pattern errors for
questions that respondents should have skipped but did not. On the
basis of these checks, we believe our survey data are sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of our work.
Site Visits to Tribes in Selected States:
To gather additional information on how tribal TANF programs have
changed since 2002, the challenges tribes face in administering their
own program and what tribes have done to address them, and federal
agencies' guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we conducted
site visits to 11 selected tribes administering TANF programs in
Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to interview tribal
TANF administrators and their staff about their programs (see table
3). We visited these tribes from November 2010 to January 2011. We
selected these tribes because they varied in geographic location and
selected tribal TANF program characteristics, including the size of
the tribal service population, the number of years operating their
tribal TANF program, program structure (e.g., tribes with "477
plans"), and type and amount of TANF and TANF-related program funding
received (e.g., NEW grants, the Recovery Act's Emergency Contingency
Fund, and state funding). We also selected tribes that were located in
both urban and rural areas to ensure that we captured any related
differences in TANF program implementation as well as the types of
challenges tribes may face.
During the site visits, we interviewed tribal TANF officials and staff
as well as TANF participants. Through these interviews, we collected
information on tribes' TANF services and work activities, the benefits
and challenges of administering a TANF program, the impacts of the
economic recession, and tribes' working relationship with federal
agencies as well as with other tribes administering a TANF program. We
cannot generalize our findings beyond the tribes we visited.
Table 3: Eleven Tribal TANF Programs Selected for Site Visits in Four
States:
State: California;
Tribe: Robinson Rancheria (administers program under the name,
California Tribal TANF Partnership);
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 7;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Empty];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Check];
Funding sources: State funds: [Check];
TANF grant amount: $6.3 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 1,578.
State: California;
Tribe: Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 2;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Empty];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Empty];
Funding sources: State funds: [Check];
TANF grant amount: $1.6 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 385.
State: California;
Tribe: Hoopa Valley Tribe;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 6;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Empty];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Check];
Funding sources: State funds: [Check];
TANF grant amount: $1.2 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 297.
State: California;
Tribe: Arizona: Shingle Springs Rancheria;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): Arizona:
Less than a year;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" Arizona: [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: Arizona: [Empty];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: Arizona:
[Empty];
Funding sources: State funds: Arizona: [Check];
TANF grant amount: Arizona: $4.6 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: Arizona: 1,130.
State: Arizona;
Tribe: Navajo Nation;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 9-10;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Check];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Empty];
Funding sources: State funds: [Check];
TANF grant amount: $31.2 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 8,937.
State: Arizona;
Tribe: New Mexico: Hopi Tribe;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): New
Mexico: 9;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" New Mexico: [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: New Mexico: [Empty];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: New Mexico:
[Empty];
Funding sources: State funds: New Mexico: [Check];
TANF grant amount: New Mexico: $0.7 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: New Mexico: 206.
State: New Mexico;
Tribe: Pueblo of Zuni;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 9;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Check];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Check];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Empty];
Funding sources: State funds: [Check];
TANF grant amount: $0.8 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 234.
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 10;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Empty];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Check];
Funding sources: State funds: [Empty];
TANF grant amount: $0.6 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 20.
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Oneida Tribe;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 7;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Check];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Check];
Funding sources: State funds: [Empty];
TANF grant amount: $0.8 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 196.
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Forest County Potawatomi Community;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 13;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: [Check];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: [Check];
Funding sources: State funds: [Empty];
TANF grant amount: $0.1 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 20.
State: Wisconsin;
Tribe: Tribe: Menominee Indian Tribe;
Number of years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): Number of
years operating tribal TANF program (as of 2010): 6;
TANF is included in tribe's "477 plan:" TANF is included in tribe's
"477 plan:" [Empty];
Funding sources: NEW program: NEW program: [Check];
Funding sources: Recovery Act Emergency Contingency Fund: Recovery Act
Emergency Contingency Fund: [Empty];
Funding sources: State funds: State funds: [Empty];
TANF grant amount: TANF grant amount: $1.3 million;
Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: Estimated caseload (FY 1994)[A]: 549.
Source: GAO review of HHS data.
[A] According to HHS, fiscal year 1994 state-reported caseloads are
the number of assistance units used as a basis for establishing the
annual amount (federal funds) for the Tribal Family Assistance Grants.
[End of table]
Interviews with Federal Officials:
To learn more about federal agencies' oversight and guidance of tribal
TANF, we conducted interviews with DOI officials and HHS officials in
headquarters and all regional offices serving areas where tribal TANF
programs were located. These six regional offices are located in
Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; San Francisco,
CA; and Seattle, WA. We also attended HHS regional tribal TANF
conferences in California and Washington. In addition, we interviewed
tribal TANF consultants and reviewed relevant information from past
GAO, HHS, DOI, nonprofit, academic, and research institutions' reports
on tribal TANF, and reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and
guidance related to tribal TANF.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Approved Tribal TANF Programs (Fiscal Years 2002-2010):
Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36):
Alaska:
Association of Village Council Presidents, Inc. (serves 56 Alaska
Native villages);
Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska (serves 20
Indian and Alaska Native villages);
Tanana Chiefs Conference (serves 37 Alaska Native villages).
Arizona:
Pascua Yaqui Tribe;
Navajo Nation (also in New Mexico and Utah);
White Mountain Apache Tribe;
Hopi Tribe;
Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.
California:
Owens Valley Career Development Center (serves 8 tribes);
Southern California Tribal Chairmen's Association, Inc. (serves 18
tribes);
Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians (serves 6 tribes).
Idaho:
Coeur d‘Alene Tribe;
Nez Perce Tribe;
Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.
Minnesota:
Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe Indians.
Montana:
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes;
Fort Belknap Indian Community Council.
Nebraska:
Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska.
New Mexico:
Pueblo of Zuni.
Oklahoma:
Osage Nation of Oklahoma.
Oregon:
Klamath Tribes;
Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians.
South Dakota:
Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation.
Washington:
Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe;
Quinault Indian Nation;
Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation;
Port Gamble S‘Klallam Tribe;
Quileute Tribe.
Wisconsin:
Bad River Band of Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians;
Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians;
Stockbridge Munsee Community;
Sokaogon Chippewa Community;
Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians;
Forest County Potawatomi Community.
Wyoming:
Northern Arapaho Tribe of the Wind River Indian Reservation;
Eastern Shoshone Tribe.
Additional tribal TANF programs that started from FY 2003 through 2010
(28):
Alaska:
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. (serves all members of federally
recognized tribes in the Municipality of Anchorage);
Bristol Bay Native Association (serves 29 Alaska Native villages);
Kodiak Area Native Association (serves 10 Alaska Native villages);
Maniilaq Association (serves 11 Alaska Native villages).
Arizona:
San Carlos Apache Tribe.
California:
Robinson Rancheria/California Tribal TANF Partnership (serves 16
tribes).
North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians.
Hoopa Valley Tribe.
Morongo Band of Mission Indians.
Soboba Band of Luiseņo Indians.
Yurok Tribe.
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians.
Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (serves 4 tribes).
Karuk Tribe[A].
Round Valley Indian Tribes.
Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians[A].
Montana:
Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy‘s Reservation;
Blackfeet Nation.
Nevada:
Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (serves 2 tribes).
Oklahoma:
Muscogee (Creek) Nation.
Washington:
Spokane Tribe of Indians;
South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency (serves 4 tribes);
Tulalip Tribes;
Nooksack Indian Tribe;
Upper Skagit Indian Tribe;
Lummi Nation.
Wisconsin:
Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin;
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
Source: HHS data.
[A] These tribes were previously served by programs administered by a
consortium of tribes and have since separated from these consortia in
order to start their own tribal TANF programs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Additional Examples of Tribal TANF Work Activities:
Figure 13: Examples from Tribes in California:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs]
General Equivalency Diploma and computer skills classes at the Career
Development Center–-Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.
Source: GAO (photo).
Volunteer trail maintenance for the Bureau of Land Management and
American River Conservancy – Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.
Source: Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians.
Traditional cultural activity of basket weaving – California
Tribal TANF Partnership.
Source: California Tribal TANF Partnership (CTTP).
[End of figure]
Figure 14: Examples from Tribes in Arizona and New Mexico:
[Refer to PDF for image: 3 photographs]
Volunteer maintenance work for tribal housing management – Hopi Tribe.
Source: GAO (photo).
Adult education and General Equivalency Diploma classes at the
University of New Mexico Zuni Campus – Pueblo of Zuni.
Source: GAO (photo).
Child care training and certification – Navajo Nation.
Source: GAO (photo).
[End of figure]
Figure 15: Examples from Tribes in Wisconsin:
[Refer to PDF for image: 4 photographs]
Secondary and technical education at the College of Menominee Nation –
Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.
Source: GAO (photo).
Basic education classes for High School Equivalency Diploma - Forest
County Potawatomi Community.
Source: GAO (photo).
Job search center – Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin.
Source: GAO (photo).
On-the-job training at tribe‘s Head Start office – Lac du Flambeau
Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.
Source: GAO (photo).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Washington, DC 20201:
August 16, 2011:
Kay Brown, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Brown:
Attached are comments on the U.S. Government Accountability Office's
(GAO) draft report entitled, "Temporary Assistance For Needy Families:
HHS Needs to Improve Guidance and Monitoring of Tribal Programs" (GA0-
11-758).
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review this report
before its publication.
Sincerely,
[Signed by]
Jim R. Esquea:
Assistant Secretary for Legislation:
Attachment:
[End of letter]
General Comments Of The Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS)
On The Government Accountability Office's (GAO) Draft Report Entitled,
"Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: HHS Needs To Improve
Guidance And Monitoring Of Tribal Programs" (GAO-11-758):
The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on
this draft report.
GAO Recommendations:
To improve guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we
recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services take the
following three actions:
* Review and revise, as appropriate, its process for monitoring,
tracking and promptly resolving tribal TANF single audit findings so
that it can more systematically target training and technical
assistance to better address recurring problems and mitigate risk.
* Improve processes for maintaining and monitoring tribal TANF data”
such as work participation rate, caseload, and financial data”that can
be shared with tribes in a timely manner.
* Create procedures to provide more timely, accessible, and consistent
guidance on tribal TANF policies that is clearly communicated to
tribal TANF programs, and ensure that all tribal TANF policy
developments and procedures are readily and easily accessible on their
web site. For example, HHS could consider more effective ways to
provide training to tribes on how new guidance or policy decisions
will affect the administration of their programs, and consistently
update its Web site to provide information on related tribal TANF
technical assistance and training.
Administration for Children and Families (ACF) Response:
ACF is committed to the importance of effective monitoring and to
continuously improving its guidance and technical assistance to
tribes, as well as to States and other grantees. Accordingly, we
appreciate GAO's observations and findings concerning areas in which
monitoring, guidance and technical assistance can be improved, and
will be mindful of both overall recommendations and specific examples
as the agency examines ways to improve its efforts.
We have reviewed the report's findings to identify areas for
improvement in technical assistance and the provision of guidance. In
light of the concerns and questions raised by the GAO relating to
audits, ACF will review its process for monitoring, tracking and
resolving tribal TANF audit findings, including the identification of
recurring problems and risks, and the identification of technical
assistance needs identified through the audit resolution process. We
will seek to identify opportunities for improvement at each step of
the process.
We note that while the report's title and text highlight the need to
improve guidance, the data provided in the report generally indicates
a high level of satisfaction with the guidance and technical
assistance currently being provided, with the great majority of tribes
categorizing ACF guidance and technical assistance as useful or very
useful. Tribal guidance and technical assistance are principally
provided through our Office of Family Assistance's (OFA) regional
offices. The great majority of respondents (39 of 49) rated the
guidance they received from regional offices as useful or very useful.
Similarly, the great majority (39 of 49) rated the technical
assistance that they received from regions as useful or very useful,
and 36 of 49 rated conferences or meetings as useful or very useful.
Only one tribe rated guidance and technical assistance as not useful.
The report summarizes its findings by saying "Tribal TANF programs are
generally satisfied with the assistance they receive from ACF, but
some cited deficiencies." (page 38). Accordingly, we will strengthen
its efforts and be attentive to deficiencies, but does note that
Tribal grantees have been generally satisfied with assistance provided.
The report sometimes draws distinctions between satisfaction with
guidance or TA and other dimensions of assistance between Regional
Offices and the Central Office, and the data shows that Tribes are
more likely to be satisfied with the speed of responses from Regional
Offices than the Central Office. It is important to understand that
the Regions and Central Office are not alternative sources of
guidance ” they work together. A routine question or one that has been
previously resolved would typically be answered by the Region, and can
often be answered quickly. A question of first impression or one
raising complex issues would typically be reviewed jointly by both the
Regional and Central offices for resolution, and will likely take a
longer period to resolve. Once a response has been developed, it is
routinely shared with all OFA regional staff to keep them informed of
new or amended positions which they in turn can use if similar issues
arise in their areas. Items that are applicable to all Tribal TANF
grantees are posted to the OFA website or issued as formal Program
Instructions (PI). Moreover, assistance the Regional Offices provide
to the Tribes is often created in collaboration with Central Office;
however, a Tribe may be unaware that Central Office contributed to the
assistance as all of the Tribes' communication is generally with the
Regional Offices.
In the provision of assistance, the report indicates (Figure 11 on
page 39) that the two biggest areas of concern were data system
development assistance and data reporting assistance. Regarding data
reporting assistance, the report highlights the need for additional
assistance, and we are currently training new employees to assist in
carrying out this role. However the need for data system development
assistance is not a TANF-specific issue but a capacity issue that cuts
across a broad range of programs.
The report highlights a concern that ACF may not be receiving all
audits with Tribal issues needing resolution. Page 33 of the report
states, "Specifically, out of 38 Single Audit Reports we identified
with tribal TANF findings for resolution, ACF was only able to find 26
in their database ..." Of the 38 reports at issue, the ACF database
contained all reports ” 27 had Tribal TANF findings, of which 26 were
initially provided to GAO. During a manual recount, it was discovered
that one additional audit report contained Tribal TANF findings. It
was subsequently provided to GAO, as were the 11 reports that do not
contain Tribal TANF findings. ACF is confident that its database
contains all audits with Tribal TANF findings for resolution, but will
take follow-up steps to ensure that all audits with Tribal TANF
findings are received and promptly addressed. While it is true that in
the past, due to workload priorities, ACF has been behind in reviewing
audits for both State and Tribal programs, ACF has now committed
additional staff to working to address audit issues, and has a number
of staff being trained and engaged in audit resolution for both the
States and Tribes.
The report also highlights the need for more prompt provision of
feedback to Tribes concerning data reporting. Recognizing this need,
we hired an additional Tribal TANF data specialist in 2010 and has
been making substantial progress on work participation reports since
then. Preliminary work participation reports for FY 2009 were
distributed to Tribal TANF grantees for their review in October 2010;
preliminary reports for FY 2010 were distributed to Tribal TANF
grantees in May 2011. Efforts are also underway to distribute mid-year
work participation reports for FY 2011, with expected release in
September 2011. This is an effort to keep Tribes informed of potential
errors in their data in a timely manner as possible in order to
minimize the amount of time they must spend correcting any ongoing
errors. Continuing efforts are also being made to publish final
caseload and work participation data for recent years.
In addition, during the last year, ACF has committed to undertake
three research initiatives in order to develop a better understanding
of the needs of Tribal members, the operations of Tribal TANF
programs, and effective practices. The studies are:
* A Descriptive Study of Tribal TANF Programs: This study will produce
a descriptive analysis on the implementation of Tribal TANF programs.
The main objective of the study is to provide documentation and
lessons learned about diverse programmatic approaches to the
implementation of Tribal TANF programs. It will also identify and
recommend potential approaches for further study.
* The Experiences of Urban Indians: This project will produce a
descriptive analysis of the challenges and context for family self-
sufficiency for low-income Alaska Natives and American Indians living
in urban areas and their interactions with social services systems
that support self-sufficiency.
* Study of Coordination of Tribal TANF and Child Welfare Services
Cooperative Agreements: This project will document the way in which
tribal grantees are creating and adapting culturally relevant and
appropriate approaches, systems and programs to increase coordination
and enhance service delivery to address child abuse and neglect. The
study will also document challenges faced and lessons learned.
These projects will gather information and conduct analyses over a 24-
month period beginning in the fall of 2011, yielding reports by the
fall of 2013.
ACF appreciates the importance of effective monitoring, guidance and
technical assistance, and will actively seek to identify opportunities
for further improvement. While in some cases, the specific concerns
identified in the report do not appear wholly justified, we appreciate
that GAO has highlighted the need to strengthen monitoring, guidance,
and technical assistance, and we will take active steps to do so.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Kay E. Brown (202) 512-7215, or brownke@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Kathy Larin (Assistant
Director), Rachel Frisk, Kristy Kennedy, Meredith Moore, Brenda Muņoz,
and Heddi Nieuwsma made significant contributions to this report.
Joanna Chan, Lorraine Ettaro, and Stuart Kaufman also made important
contributions to this report. David Chrisinger and Mimi Nguyen
provided writing and graphics assistance, and Alex Galuten provided
legal assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Indian Issues: Observations on Some Unique Factors that May Affect
Economic Activity on Tribal Lands. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-543T]. Washington, D.C.: April 7,
2011:
Human Services Programs: Opportunities to Reduce Inefficiencies.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-531T]. Washington,
D.C.: April 5, 2011.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Caseload and
Program Changes for Families and Program Monitoring. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-815T]. Washington, D.C.: September
21, 2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent
Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work
Participation Rates. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-525]. Washington, D.C.: May 28,
2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Changes in
Participation Rates. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-495T]. Washington, D.C.: March 11,
2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have
Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession's Impact
on Caseloads Varies by State. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-164]. Washington, D.C.: February
23, 2010.
Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in
States' Uses of the TANF Block Grant. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-414]. Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2006.
Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies
to Increase Parents' Incomes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-108]. Washington, D.C.: December 2,
2005.
Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF Work
Participation Is Measured Consistently across States. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-821]. Washington, D.C.: August 19,
2005.
Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation
Issues Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-290]. Washington, D.C.:
April 4, 2005.
Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies to
Address Rural Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-921]. Washington, D.C.: September
10, 2004.
Indian Economic Development: Relationship to EDA Grants and Self-
determination Contracting Is Mixed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-847]. Washington, D.C.: September
8, 2004.
TANF And Child Care Programs: HHS Lacks Adequate Information to Assess
Risk and Assist States in Managing Improper Payments. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-723]. June 18, 2004.
Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor Programs, but
Conditions on Reservations Make it Difficult to Move Recipients into
Jobs. GAO-02-768. Washington, D.C.: July 5, 2002.
Welfare Reform: Tribes Are Using TANF Flexibility To Establish Their
Own Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-695T].
Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2002.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105.
[2] In this report, the term "American Indians" refers to both
American Indians and Alaska Natives. We use the word "tribe" in this
report to refer to all American Indian and Alaska Native villages,
nations, bands, rancherias, pueblos, communities, consortiums,
partnerships, and regional nonprofit corporations who administer
tribal TANF programs.
[3] Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(a), 110 Stat. 2105, 2150.
[4] GAO, Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor
Programs, but Conditions on Reservations Make it Difficult to Move
Recipients into Jobs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-768] (Washington, D.C.: July 5,
2002).
[5] Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 7101 et seq., 120 Stat. 4, 135.
[6] Pub. L. No. 111-5, § 2101, 123 Stat. 115, 446.
[7] Expenditure data for tribes with demonstration plans ("477 plans")
under Public Law 102-477, the Indian Employment, Training and Related
Services Demonstration Act of 1992, were provided by the U.S.
Department of the Interior (DOI). This law allows DOI to authorize
federally recognized Indian tribes to combine funds they receive from
various federal agencies and programs for employment, training, and
related services, such as TANF, into one program with a single budget.
Pub. L. No. 102-477, § 4, 106 Stat. 2302.
[8] HHS caseload data for fiscal year 2009 is preliminary and has not
been published, and work participation rate data have not been
published for fiscal years 2007 to 2009.
[9] Tribal TANF programs must submit a plan to HHS once every 3 years.
42 U.S.C. § 612(b).
[10] Per the Single Audit Act, as amended, all states --including
tribal governments--local governments, and nonprofit organizations
expending $500,000 or more in federal awards during a fiscal year are
required to obtain an audit in accordance with the requirements set
forth in the act. 31 U.S.C. § 7502 et seq.; OMB Circular No. A-133.
Entities that expend federal awards under only one federal program and
that are not subject to laws, regulations, or federal award agreements
requiring a financial statement audit are not required to obtain a
single audit but may elect to have a program specific audit focused on
financial expenditures, internal control, and compliance under that
program. 31 U.S.C. § 7502(a)(1)(C).
[11] While we did not validate specific information that tribal TANF
administrators reported through our survey, we reviewed their
responses, and we conducted follow-up as necessary to determine that
responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report.
[12] Six out of 10 HHS regional offices serve areas in which tribal
TANF programs are located. These regional offices are located in
Chicago, IL; Dallas, TX; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; San Francisco,
CA; and Seattle, WA. See appendix I for more information.
[13] U.S. Census data includes individuals self-reporting as being of
American Indian or Alaska Native origin in both rural and urban areas,
whereas BIA data on tribal enrollment represents the total reported
number of tribal enrollees residing on or near a reservation who meet
certain enrollment criteria.
[14] According to HHS, children in married, two-parent families are
more than one-fifth less likely to be poor as children in female-
headed, single-parent families (6.4 percent versus 36.5 percent,
respectively). For more information, see HHS, Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families Program (TANF): Eighth Annual Report to Congress (June
2009).
[15] BIA, 2005 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. BIA
calculates the number of unemployed Indians for each reservation by
subtracting the number of adults employed from the tribe's service
population who were available for work. BIA defines a tribe's service
population as the tribe's estimate of all American Indians and Alaska
Natives, members and nonmembers, who are living on or near the tribe's
reservation during the 2005 calendar year and who are eligible to use
BIA-funded services. BIA's American Indian Population and Labor Force
Report is the only regularly collected source of poverty and
unemployment data on all U.S. reservations. Only tribes who respond to
BIA's request for data are included in the report.
[16] U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Current
Population Survey, Employment status of the civilian noninstitutional
population, 1940 to date,
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt] (accessed March 2,
2011). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, persons are
classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively
looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for
work. Persons who were not working and were waiting to be recalled to
a job from which they had been temporarily laid off are also included
as unemployed. The unemployment rate represents the number unemployed
as a percent of the labor force.
[17] Algernon Austin, Different Race, Different Recession: American
Indian Unemployment in 2010, EPI, Issue Brief #289 (November 18,
2010). The author notes that the statistics used to determine the
unemployment rates in this Economic Policy Institute report are
different from those that BIA uses in its Labor Force Report, and
should therefore not be compared. The institute's report used the
total American Indian and Alaska Native population, including bi-
racial individuals, to generate the statistics for the analysis, while
as explained above, the BIA Labor Force Report includes only those
individuals who the tribes identify as part of their service
population. As of July 2011, these two reports provided some of the
most recent information on American Indian unemployment rates.
[18] The Annie E. Casey Foundation, National Kids Count Program,
Children in single-parent families by race - 2009 (Baltimore, MD:
December 2010). [hyperlink,
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/Rankings.aspx?ind=107]
(accessed March 31, 2011).
[19] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Office
of Applied Studies, The NSDUH Report: Substance Use among American
Indian or Alaska Native Adults (Rockville, MD: June 24, 2010).
[20] 75 Fed. Reg. 60,810 (Oct. 1, 2010); 75 Fed. Reg. 66,124 (Oct. 27,
2010).
[21] The federal government recognizes Indian tribes as distinct,
independent political communities that possess certain powers of self-
government. Federal recognition confers specific legal status on a
particular Native American group, establishes a government-to-
government relationship between the United States and the tribe,
imposes on the federal government a fiduciary trust relationship to
the tribe and its members, and imposes specific obligations on the
federal government to provide benefits and services to the tribe and
its members.
[22] Pub. L. No. 93-638 (1972).
[23] 42 U.S.C. § 612.
[24] 42 U.S.C. § 604 (a)(1); 45 C.F.R. § 286.35.
[25] 42 U.S.C. § 601(a).
[26] These modifications were generally expected to strengthen state
TANF programs' work requirements and improve the reliability of state
work participation data. In addition, DRA modified the credit provided
to states for reducing the number of families receiving TANF.
[27] Pub. L. No. 109-171, § 7101(a), 120 Stat. 4, 135.
[28] Pub. L. No. 111-291, § 811, 124 Stat. 3064, 3158.
[29] 42 U.S.C. § 609(a)(7). To meet the MOE requirement, each state
must generally spend 75 or 80 percent of what it was spending in
fiscal year 1994 on welfare-related programs, including: AFDC, JOBS
training, Emergency Assistance, and AFDC-related child care programs.
[30] GAO, Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions,
GAO/AIMD-95-226 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 1, 1995).
[31] 42 U.S.C. §§ 612(h), 611(a); 45 C.F.R. § 286.255.
[32] Congress passed the Single Audit Act, as amended, 31 U.S.C. Ch.
75, to promote, among other things, sound financial management,
including effective internal controls, with respect to federal awards
administered by nonfederal entities. A single audit consists of (1) an
audit and opinions on the fair presentation of the financial
statements and the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards; (2)
gaining an understanding of and testing internal control over
financial reporting and the entity's compliance with laws,
regulations, and contract or grant provisions that have a direct and
material effect on certain federal programs (i.e., the program
requirements); and (3) an audit and an opinion on compliance with
applicable program requirements for certain federal programs.
[33] Regular TANF funds are also available without fiscal year
limitation and may be spent in any way permissible under TANF.
[34] Pub. L. No. 102-477, 106 Stat. 2302.
[35] According to DOI, any tribe or tribal organization wishing to
participate in a "477 plan" must demonstrate that they have had clean
audits for at least the previous three years, have a history of
successfully operating programs, and have an approved management
system in place prior to requesting participation in a "477 plan."
Each tribal "477 plan" is audited annually in accordance with the
Single Audit Act.
[36] Individual tribes may administer their tribal TANF programs as
part of a consortium and serve more than one tribe (see appendix II).
Eleven of the 64 tribal TANF programs are administered by nonprofits,
tribal organizations, or partnerships rather than by tribes
themselves. For purposes of our analysis, we consider these to be
tribally administered programs.
[37] In June 2011, HHS approved an additional tribal TANF program,
bringing the total number of tribal TANF programs to 65.
[38] Some tribal TANF programs serve more than one tribe; therefore,
the number of tribes served by tribal TANF programs is higher than the
number of tribal TANF programs (64 as of 2010). For example, tribes
may administer a TANF program as part of an intertribal consortium or
certain Alaskan nonprofit corporations. See appendix II for more
information.
[39] 42 U.S.C. § 612(b)(1)(C). Typically, American Indians included in
a tribe's service population live within a reasonable distance of the
reservation or the administering tribe's TANF office.
[40] We reviewed all 64 tribal TANF plans approved by HHS as of
October 2010.
[41] We refer to families receiving TANF cash assistance, for ease of
reporting. However, this is a simplification of PRWORA, which actually
refers to families receiving "assistance." Federal regulations define
"assistance" as including cash, payments, vouchers, and other forms of
benefits designed to meet a family's ongoing basic needs.
[42] Of the 64 total tribes nationwide administering a tribal TANF
program that we surveyed in the fall of 2010, 50 tribes responded to
our survey. For more detailed information on this survey, see appendix
I.
[43] Walter Hillabrant, Mack B. Rhoades, Jr., and Nancy Pindus,
Operating TANF: Opportunities and Challenges for Tribes and Tribal
Consortia, Reference No. 8550-921 (Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy
Research, Inc., August 26, 2003).
[44] PRWORA established separate annual work participation rates for
all families and all two-parent families receiving TANF cash
assistance in each state. Although the required rates increased in the
immediate years following TANF implementation, when they reached their
maximums, the rates were set at 50 percent for all TANF families and
90 percent for two-parent families. Unlike states, tribes may set
their own rate requirements, subject to HHS approval. However, states
have some flexibility with respect to work participation rates that
tribes do not. For example, a state may receive a caseload reduction
credit, which reduces its rate requirement when its caseload falls,
whereas tribes are not eligible to receive these credits.
[45] This analysis was based on incomplete data provided to us by HHS.
[46] Cases in which only the child or children receive TANF benefits
are excluded from these work participation requirements.
[47] Minimum work requirements and the number of hours per week
individuals must participate in work activities vary and are
established separately for each tribe through negotiation with HHS.
Single-parent and two-parent families may be required to participate
in work activities for different amounts of hours each week depending
on what the tribe negotiated with HHS.
[48] The 12 work activities are (1) unsubsidized employment; (2)
subsidized private sector employment; (3) subsidized public sector
employment; (4) work experience (if sufficient private sector
employment is not available); (5) on-the-job training; (6) job search
and job readiness assistance; (7) community service programs; (8)
vocational educational training; (9) job skills training directly
related to employment; (10) education directly related to employment
(for recipients who have not received a high school diploma or
certificate of high school equivalency); (11) satisfactory attendance
at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a certificate
of general equivalence (for recipients who have not completed
secondary school or received such a certificate); (12) the provision
of child care services to an individual who is participating in a
community service program.
[49] These tribes allow TANF participants to engage in work activities
that are not included in PRWORA; however, this does not necessarily
mean that participants are engaging in these activities, only that
tribes are allowing for these activities.
[50] 42 U.S.C. § 612(c); 45 C.F.R. § 286.100.
[51] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-768].
[52] Data reported on tribes' work activities in 2002 were based on
information from tribes' TANF plans provided to us by HHS.
[53] To determine whether tribes were serving at or above capacity, we
compared tribes' 2009 caseload data provided by HHS to the tribes'
1994 caseload numbers, which according to HHS, serve as the basis for
their annual Tribal Family Assistance Grant. Because 2009 caseload
data provided by HHS were preliminary, only those 55 tribes with
complete caseload data for 2009 were included in our analysis.
[54] Policy announcement on the Web site for Washington's Department
of Social and Health Services: [hyperlink,
http://www.dshs.wa.gov/tanfimpacts.shtml] (accessed December 30, 2010).
[55] States and tribes could request funding for more than one of the
three categories, but were limited in the total amount they could
receive.
[56] We reviewed the HHS-approved applications for those tribes that
had been awarded funds as of January 2011.
[57] To qualify for Emergency Contingency Fund grants for increased
basic cash assistance, tribes had to demonstrate increased caseloads
in fiscal year 2009 or 2010 over the lesser of caseloads in fiscal
year 2007 or 2008; to qualify for Emergency Contingency Fund grants
for nonrecurrent, short-term benefits or subsidized employment, tribes
had to demonstrate increased expenditures in fiscal year 2009 or 2010
over the lesser of those in fiscal year 2007 or 2008. The numbers
presented from our analysis include tribes' 2009 and 2010 requests for
funding.
[58] Of the 50 tribes that completed our survey, 22 tribes applied for
and received TANF Emergency Contingency Fund grants; two more tribes
applied for funds, but had not received funds at the time of our
survey.
[59] Nonrecurrent, short-term benefits consist of funding for or the
provision of emergency housing, utilities, transportation, work
clothing, and educational supplies and costs, among other things. They
are designed to deal with a specific crisis situation or episode of
need and they are not intended to meet recurrent or ongoing needs. As
described above, an increase in expenditures on nonrecurrent, short-
term benefits is one of the areas a tribe can use to qualify for the
Emergency Contingency Fund.
[60] When describing tribal TANF programs that cited challenges, we
included those programs that indicated very major, major, or somewhat
of a challenge.
[61] For tribal TANF caseload data, HHS offers an online reporting
system for state TANF programs that can also be used by tribes.
However, according to an HHS official, no states currently use this
online system, and states and most tribal TANF programs have developed
their own data systems to fulfill federal reporting requirements. For
quarterly tribal TANF financial reports, HHS also offers an online
reporting system that has built-in error checks to help ensure that
tribes submit more accurate data. HHS does not require tribes to use
this electronic system, although HHS officials said about 60 percent
of tribes use this system and that the department is currently trying
to encourage all tribes to use it.
[62] HHS and DOI have not always required tribes to submit the same
tribal TANF data. HHS officials described how up until 6 years ago,
DOI did not require tribes with "477 plans" to submit any financial
data specifically broken out for TANF, but since then, tribes with
such plans have been submitting this data (albeit annually, rather
than quarterly, as HHS generally requires).
[63] The funding states received for this purpose was provided under
the old AFDC program. Under self-determination contracts and self-
governance compacts, tribes can negotiate with the federal agency to
obtain funding for contract support costs. In contrast, the statute
granting Indian tribes direct funding and administration of TANF
programs (42 U.S.C. § 612) does not authorize the tribe to receive
funding for contract support costs. Tribal TANF programs must instead
use a portion of their total grant award--without exceeding required
maximum percentages--to fund administrative costs.
[64] In 2010, we found that a lack of higher education was also a
significant barrier to work for participants in state TANF programs,
too. For more information, see GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for
State Programs and Work Participation Rates, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-525] (Washington, D.C.: May 28,
2010).
[65] Based on our review of tribal TANF plans, requirements for
substance abuse testing varies among tribes, but the majority of
tribes require some form of substance abuse testing, and in some
cases, failure to comply with this requirement can result in
individuals losing these benefits.
[66] According to a 2004 report conducted for the U.S. Department of
Justice, the rate of violent victimization among American Indian women
was more than double that among all women. Further, in past GAO
reports we found that domestic violence affects a substantial
percentage of low-income women in general, and it can, in some cases,
provide a barrier to work and financial independence. For further
information, see Steven W. Perry, A BJS Statistical Profile, 1992-
2002: American Indians and Crime (Washington, D.C.: December 2004);
GAO, TANF: State Approaches to Screening for Domestic Violence Could
Benefit from HHS Guidance, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-701] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 16,
2005); and Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for
Employment Among Welfare Recipients, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-12] (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
24, 1998).
[67] Two HHS regional offices hold quarterly meetings with some of
their tribes in addition to holding annual tribal TANF conferences for
all tribes in their region; all of the other four regional offices
hold annual tribal TANF conferences.
[68] These plans allow tribes to combine formula-funded federal grants
related to employment and training into one plan with a single budget
and reporting system.
[69] These audits are conducted by an independent certified public
accountant, who issues an opinion on how fairly the tribe's financial
statements represent its financial position and whether they comply
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.
[70] HHS can issue financial penalties if it determines through a
single audit that TANF funds were misused.
[71] As described earlier in the report, The Office of Family
Assistance within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
in HHS is the main federal agency responsible for overseeing tribal
TANF programs.
[72] For more information, see GAO, Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1] (Washington, D.C.:
November 1999).
[73] In 2008, HHS required tribal TANF programs to start using the new
Form ACF-196T to report TANF expenditures quarterly.
[74] In 2010, we found that states administering TANF programs were
also challenged by a lack of guidance in certain areas, including
subsidized employment. Some states also expressed frustration with the
amount of time it had taken HHS to provide guidance and responses to
questions. For more information, see GAO-10-525.
[75] HHS officials stated that they have recently provided a link to
the Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network Web site on the main
tribal TANF homepage, which has links to these documents, Web casts,
and information on technical assistance services.
[76] HHS officials stated that they issued a program announcement in
2009 and posted an online TANF Emergency Contingency Fund "Q and A"
that addressed this question, but at least one tribe felt it needed
additional clarification that it did not receive.
[77] Under a proposed policy announced by HHS and DOI in February
2011, tribes with "477 plans" would be allowed to draw down "477 plan"
program funds as a nonrecurring lump sum advance payment, which they
would then retain earned interest on.
[78] 31 U.S.C. § 7501 et seq.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
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 GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
