Workforce Investment Act
Coordination Between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain Gao ID: GAO-02-500T March 12, 2002The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) brought most federally funded employment and training services into a single, one-stop center system. Coordination between Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs and one-stop centers has increased since the act was implemented in 2000. Nearly all states reported some coordination at either the state or the local level. Most often, coordination took one of two forms: colocation, in which a client accesses TANF programs at the local one-stop, or referrals and electronic links to off-site programs. Despite progress, states and localities continue to report problems because of infrastructure limitations and varying program definitions and reporting requirements. Some of these challenges could be overcome through state and local innovation, but others will be resolved only through federal intervention. Early evidence suggests that states and localities are increasing their efforts to bring services together to fit local needs. As states and localities have begun to recognize the shared goals of the workforce and welfare systems, they have developed ways to coordinate services.
GAO-02-500T, Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-500T
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs
and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain' which was
released on March 12, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, Committee on Education
and the Workforce, House of Representatives.
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m.
March 12, 2002:
Workforce Investment Act:
Coordination between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing,
but Challenges Remain:
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-02-500T:
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the coordination of
services for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program
through one-stop centers established under the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (WIA). Welfare reform legislation, which created TANF, directed
welfare agencies to focus on helping needy adults find and maintain
employment, a goal that has long been the province of the workforce
development system. Congress passed WIA to unify a fragmented
employment and training system”creating a new, comprehensive workforce
investment system. Despite TANF‘s similar focus, TANF was not mandated
to participate in the one-stop system; however, as we have previously
testified,[Footnote 1] many states and localities are coordinating
their TANF programs with one-stop centers. With the emphasis on work
intensifying in the current TANF reauthorization debate, the
coordination of TANF and WIA programs may become increasingly
important.
You asked us to assess the extent to which states were coordinating
their TANF services with their one-stop centers. As you requested, my
remarks today focus on (1) the status of state and local efforts to
coordinate TANF-related programs”including TANF work programs, TANF
cash assistance, and other support services”with one-stop centers and
how this status has changed since 2000, when WIA was implemented, and
(2) the challenges that states and localities have faced in
coordinating their TANF work programs with their one-stop centers and
the approaches that they have taken to address these challenges. My
testimony is based on a survey that we conducted from September through
December 2001 of workforce development agency officials in all 50
states and a similar survey that we conducted in the spring of 2000;
visits to four states and nine localities from October 2001 to January
2002;[Footnote 2] and phone interviews with state TANF and workforce
officials in 12 states during January and February 2002.
In summary, coordination between TANF-related programs and one-stop
centers has increased since the spring of 2000, when WIA was first
implemented. Nearly all states reported some coordination between the
programs at either the state or the local level. Most often,
coordination took one of two forms: through colocation whereby a client
accessed TANF-related programs at the local one-stop, or through
referrals and electronic linkages to off-site programs.[Footnote 3] How
services were delivered also depended on state and local preferences
and conditions. However, as we testified earlier, despite progress,
states and localities continued to report a variety of challenges
stemming from infrastructure limitations”such as inadequate facilities
or antiquated computer systems that do not communicate with each
other”and different program definitions and reporting requirements.
These challenges complicated efforts to coordinate TANF work programs
with one-stop centers. We found that some of the challenges”such as
facilities limitations”could be overcome through state and local
innovation, but others”such as multiple, sometimes conflicting, program
requirements”will be resolved only though federal intervention. We saw
some early evidence that states and localities were increasing their
efforts to bring services together to fit local needs. As states and
localities have begun to recognize the shared goals of the workforce
and welfare systems, they have developed ways to coordinate services.
However, these changes, like all culture changes, will take time.
Background:
In recent years, Congress passed two pieces of legislation intended, in
part, to foster greater coordination among education, welfare, and
employment and training programs. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
was passed in 1998 to consolidate services for many employment and
training programs, requiring states and localities to use a centralized
service delivery structure”the one-stop center system”to provide most
federally funded employment and training assistance. States and
localities had been developing one-stop centers prior to WIA, helped in
part by One-Stop grants from the Department of Labor (Labor), but they
were not required to do so until the passage of WIA. The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, created two years
earlier by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), allowed states and localities greater
flexibility than ever before in designing employment and training
services for clients receiving cash assistance.[Footnote 4] While TANF
is not one of 17 federal programs mandated to provide services through
the one-stop system, states and localities have the option to include
TANF as a partner. GAO‘s prior work on pre-WIA programs found that
states varied in the degree to which employment and training services
for TANF clients were being coordinated through the one-stop system.
For well over a decade, states and localities have engaged in efforts
to integrate services for their employment and training programs. In
fiscal year 1994, Labor helped them in their efforts when it began
awarding One-Stop Planning and Implementation grants, requiring states
to include most Labor-funded programs in the new one-stop centers in
order to receive the grants.[Footnote 5] The key objectives of Labor‘s
one-stop initiative, aside from integration, were to create a system
that was customer-driven and accountable for its outcomes and that made
its core services available to all job seekers. By 1998, all 50 states
had received at least some one-stop planning or implementation grant
funds.
When WIA was enacted, it expanded the use of the one-stop system,
requiring states and localities to use this once optional service
delivery structure to provide many other employment and training
services. In implementing WIA, Labor continued to promote the key
objectives of the earlier one-stop initiative while emphasizing state
and local flexibility and a strong role for the private sector on new,
local boards that oversee the program. WIA also extended the one-stop
concept beyond Labor programs, requiring states and localities to form
partnerships with other agencies offering employment and training
services. About 17 categories of programs, funded through four federal
agencies”the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human
Services, and Housing and Urban Development”must provide services
through the one-stop center system under WIA. WIA does not require that
all program services be provided on site (or colocated)”they may be
provided through electronic linkages with partner agencies or by
referral”but WIA does require that the relationships and services be
spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding between the partners.
While several programs are required by WIA to provide services through
the one-stop centers, others have been left to the discretion of state
and local officials, including the TANF block grant program. State and
local flexibility is also a key feature of the TANF program, which was
passed by Congress two years before WIA. Under TANF, states have more
flexibility than under its predecessor programs to determine the nature
of financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of
the program, and how services are to be delivered. At the same time,
TANF established new accountability measures for states”focused in part
on meeting work requirements[Footnote 6]”and a 5-year lifetime limit on
federal TANF assistance. These measures heighten the importance of
helping TANF recipients find work quickly and retain employment. As
states have used the new flexibility under TANF and have focused more
on employment, the importance of coordinating services for TANF clients
has received increased attention. To help clients get and retain jobs,
states need to address problems that may interfere with employment,
such as child care and transportation issues and mental and physical
health problems. Frequently, solving these problems requires those who
work directly with clients to draw on other federal and state programs,
often administered by other agencies, to provide a wide array of
services. While local welfare agencies have typically administered
TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, other programs that provide key
services to TANF clients are administered by housing authorities,
education agencies, and state employment services offices. TANF‘s focus
on employment means that welfare agencies may need to work more closely
than before with state and local workforce development systems. In the
past, under the Work Incentive program, welfare agencies and workforce
development systems collaborated at some level, but our previous work
on pre-WIA programs found wide variation in the degree to which the
welfare and nonwelfare programs worked together to provide employment
and training services.[Footnote 7]
State and Local Coordination of TANF-Related Programs with One-Stop
Centers Increased in 2001:
State and local efforts to coordinate their TANF and WIA programs
increased in 2001, at least one year after all states implemented WIA.
Nearly all states reported some coordination at the state or local
level, achieved with methods ranging from informal linkages (such as
information sharing or periodic program referrals) to formal linkages
(such as memoranda of understanding), shared intake, or integrated case
management. Coordination of TANF-related services with one-stop centers
increased from 2000 to 2001, and the form of coordination”colocation of
services, electronic linkages or client referral”was based, in part, on
the type of services provided”TANF work, TANF cash assistance, or
support services”as well as state and local preferences and conditions.
Coordination between the TANF and WIA Agencies Increased at Both the
State and Local Levels:
Modest increases in states‘ efforts to coordinate the management of
TANF and WIA programs occurred between 2000 and 2001. Twenty-eight
states reported that in 2001 they made extensive use of formal
linkages, such as memoranda of understanding and state-level formal
agreements, between the agencies administering TANF and WIA, compared
with 27 states in 2000. Similarly, states increased their use of
coordinated planning in 2001, with 19 states reporting that they used
it to a great extent compared with 18 states in 2000 (see figure 1).
When we looked at states individually, we saw that many were using
additional coordination methods in 2001. Seventeen states indicated
that the number of the state-level coordination methods they used to a
great extent increased in 2001. In fact, in 2001, nine states used all
five of the coordination methods that we analyzed”formal linkages,
shared performance measurement and reporting, interagency and intra-
agency workgroups, coordinated planning, and informal linkages and
interagency communication (such as sharing program information)” up
from 7 states in 2000.[Figure 8]
Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent,
2000 and 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent, 2000 and
2001:
Coordination method: Formal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 27;
Number of states, 2001: 28.
Coordination method: Informal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 29;
Number of states, 2001: 27.
Coordination method: Interagency;
Number of states, 2000: 22;
Number of states, 2001: 23.
Coordination method: Coordinated planning;
Number of states, 2000: 18;
Number of states, 2001: 19.
Coordination method: Shared performance;
Number of states, 2000: 7;
Number of states, 2001: 9.
[End of figure]
Increased coordination between TANF and WIA programs was also seen in
the use of TANF funds to support one-stop center infrastructure or
operations or both. The number of states using TANF funds to support
one-stop centers increased to 36 in 2001 from 33 in 2000. In addition,
the number of states ranking TANF as one of the three largest funding
sources for their one-stop centers rose to 15 from 12.
Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001
were seen at the local level, with the most dramatic changes occurring
in informal linkages, such as periodic program referrals or information
services. Forty-four states reported that most of their one-stop
centers had informal linkages with their TANF programs in 2001,
compared with 35 states in 2000 (see figure 2). Similarly, 16 states
reported that most of their one-stop centers had shared intake or
enrollment systems in 2001”up from 13 in 2000; and 15 states reported
in 2001 that they used an integrated case management system in most of
their one-stop centers”an increase of 1 state from our 2000 results.
Also, our analysis suggests that more coordination methods are in use
at the local level. The number of states that reported that most of
their one-stop centers used all seven methods of local-level
coordination increased in 2001 to 10 states from 7 in 2000.[Footnote 9]
Some of these coordination methods have the potential to reduce the
administrative burden on both clients and staff by decreasing the
number of applications that clients must complete and eliminating the
need for staff to enter similar client information into several
systems. For example, one locality in Connecticut cross-trained staff
to provide both TANF and WIA services and developed an integrated case
management system so that one case manager could track clients across
both TANF and WIA programs, in an effort to reduce the amount of time
that staff needed to spend on administrative tasks like data entry.
Figure 2: Coordination Methods That States Reported Most of Their One-
Stop Centers‘ Using, 2000 and 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Coordination Methods That States Reported Most of Their One-Stop
Centers‘ Using, 2000 and 2001:
Coordination method: Informal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 35;
Number of states, 2001: 44.
Coordination method: Formal linkages;
Number of states, 2000: 28;
Number of states, 2001: 28.
Coordination method: Coordinated planning;
Number of states, 2000: 22;
Number of states, 2001: 21.
Coordination method: Shared intake, enrollment;
Number of states, 2000: 13;
Number of states, 2001: 16.
Coordination method: Integrated case management;
Number of states, 2000: 14;
Number of states, 2001: 15.
Coordination method: Shared client tracking;
Number of states, 2000: 13;
Number of states, 2001: 14.
Coordination method: Shared performance;
Number of states, 2000: 11;
Number of states, 2001: 12.
[End of figure]
Coordination of Services through One-Stops Increased, and the Form It
Took Varied According to Services Provided:
Increases in coordination between the TANF program and one-stop centers
were also seen in the use of the one-stop center system to provide
services to TANF clients. While the same number of states”24”reported
in both 2000 and 2001 that services for the TANF work program were
colocated at the majority of their one-stops, the use of electronic
linkages or referrals increased. Fifteen states reported in 2001 that
services for the TANF work program were either electronically linked to
the majority of their one-stop centers or provided by referral between
the two programs. In 2000, 11 states reported these types of linkages.
About half of the states coordinated their TANF cash assistance or Food
Stamps or Medicaid programs with the one-stop centers, electronically
or by referral in 2000 and 2001. State officials in both Connecticut
and New Jersey reported that even though one-stop staff did not
determine eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the one-stops,
the staff were expected to refer clients to appropriate support
services outside one-stop centers. While not as prevalent as electronic
linkages or referrals, colocation of cash assistance appeared to
increase in 2001: 16 states reported that they provided cash assistance
services at least part time at the majority of their one-stop centers,
compared with 9 states in 2000. Colocation of Food Stamps and Medicaid
remained the same: seven states reported in both years that they
provided those services at least part time at the majority of one-
stops.
In general, the form of coordination between TANF and one-stops was
different depending on the particular program services that were
provided. For example, when the TANF work programs were being
coordinated through the one-stop centers, services were more likely to
be colocated. TANF cash assistance and the Food Stamps and Medicaid
programs were more likely to be connected electronically or by
referrals (see figure 3). Sometimes states instituted policies to
further strengthen the relationships between the programs and ensure
that clients were connected to one-stop services. In Michigan, for
example, TANF clients were required to attend an orientation session at
the one-stop before they could receive cash assistance. Similarly, in
Connecticut, where there were low participation rates for TANF clients
at one-stop centers, the legislature enacted a law requiring TANF
clients to use one-stop centers as a condition of receiving cash
assistance.
Figure 3: Forms of Coordination That States Reported the Majority of
Their One-Stops‘ Using in 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Forms of Coordination That States Reported the Majority of Their One-
Stops‘ Using in 2001:
Service provided: TANF work;
Electronic linkage/referrals: 15 states;
Colocation: 24 states.
Service provided: TANF cash;
Electronic linkage/referrals: 26 states;
Colocation: 16 states.
Service provided: Support Programs;
Electronic linkage/referrals: 25 states;
Colocation: 7 states.
[End of figure]
In our site visits, we saw wide variation in the degree to which other
support services, such as child care and transportation, were provided
through the one-stop system. For child care assistance, the forms of
coordination ranged from the colocation of child care programs at the
one-stop to providing information on services available elsewhere. In
New Jersey, for example, representatives from child care assistance
programs were colocated at some of the one-stop centers, whereas in
Arizona, coordination was limited to brochures supplied to one-stop
centers. Many of the one-stops that we visited provided some kind of
transportation assistance, although the nature of the services and
whether or not the services were reserved for TANF clients varied from
locality to locality. For example, in one location in New Jersey that
we visited, the one-stop center reimbursed transportation expenses to
any low-income client attending training, whether or not the client was
covered under TANF. Another New Jersey one-stop provided van services
to transport former TANF clients to and from job interviews and, once
clients were employed, to and from their jobs, even during evening and
night shifts. Similarly, a one-stop in Connecticut provided mileage
reimbursement to current and former TANF clients for their expenses
associated with going to and from their jobs. And in Louisiana, a one-
stop we visited contracted with a nonprofit agency to provide van
services to transport Welfare-to-Work grant recipients to and from work-
related activities.
How Services Were Delivered Depended on State and Local Preferences and
Conditions:
Little is known about the relative success of TANF clients who use one-
stop centers compared with those receiving services elsewhere, and
state and local officials told us that decisions about how services
were delivered were based on state and local preferences and
conditions. Some state and local officials expressed a preference for
colocating TANF programs at one-stop centers. For example, officials in
a local area in Louisiana believed that colocation of TANF programs at
the one-stop center would benefit TANF clients by exposing them to the
one-stop center‘s employer focus. These officials also said that
colocation would result in a more seamless service delivery approach,
giving clients easier access to the services. Other state and local
officials preferred not to colocate all TANF-related programs. While
they supported the colocation of TANF work programs, they thought that
cash assistance, Food Stamps, or Medicaid should be provided elsewhere.
For example, Michigan officials told us that keeping eligibility
functions for TANF cash, Food Stamps and Medicaid separate was
beneficial, because welfare staff had more expertise in the provision
of social services while labor staff were better equipped to provide
work-related services. Still other state and local officials were
concerned about the colocation of any TANF-related programs, because
TANF clients required special attention and were best served by staff
trained to address their unique barriers. For example, in Arizona, TANF
work programs were provided to TANF clients through a system that was
not connected to one-stop centers. Rather than colocating or
systematically referring welfare clients to one-stop centers, officials
there said that one-stop staff should refer TANF clients to one-stop
centers on a case-by-case basis. State officials in Washington reported
that TANF clients need a higher level of supervision and more
structured assistance than they believed one-stop centers could
provide. Officials saw the one-stop centers as better structured to
serve those clients whose participation was voluntary, whereas TANF
clients are generally required to engage in work.
Local conditions, such as geographically dispersed one-stop centers and
low population density of TANF clients, also influenced state and local
decisions about how to coordinate TANF-related programs with one-stop
centers. For example, officials in Alabama reported that although
welfare agencies were located in every county, one-stop centers were
less prevalent in their state. They felt it was impractical to have
TANF-related services colocated at one-stop centers, because one-stop
centers would be inaccessible to many TANF clients. In addition,
officials in Illinois said that they were hesitant to coordinate the
provision of work-related services for TANF clients at one-stop centers
in areas where the TANF population had recently declined. Because of
declining TANF caseloads in Illinois, state officials stressed the
importance of allowing local areas the flexibility to determine how to
coordinate TANF-related services with one-stop centers. Conversely,
other states were working to make one-stop centers more accessible to
TANF clients. For example, both New Jersey and Louisiana established
plans to create satellite one-stop centers in public housing areas.
Because of the variation in local conditions, several state officials
stressed the importance of local flexibility in determining the nature
of coordination of TANF-related programs with one-stop centers.
Coordinating TANF Services with One-Stop Centers Has Continued to
Present Challenges to States and Localities:
Despite increases in coordination between the TANF program and one-
stops from 2000 to 2001, states and localities have continued to face
challenges in coordinating their TANF work programs with one-stop
centers. For some of the challenges, the existing flexibility under
both TANF and WIA allowed states and localities to find solutions; and
we found that some areas developed ways to resolve them. However, other
challenges cannot be easily resolved at the local level. Most
challenges are similar to those we reported in 2000 when WIA was first
implemented. In general, the challenges result from state and local
efforts to (1) develop the one-stop infrastructure that allows staff to
readily provide needed services to TANF clients and (2) develop more
compatible program definitions and requirements.
Developing One-Stop Infrastructure to Provide Services to TANF Clients:
Infrastructure limitations”in terms of both facilities and computer
systems”continued to challenge states and localities in their efforts
to coordinate TANF-related programs with one-stop centers.
Limited Facilities:
Colocation of TANF services within the one-stop was not a viable option
in many of the locations that we visited. Officials in several states
reported that available space at one-stop centers was limited and that
the centers could not house additional programs or service providers.
In addition, state officials explained that long-term leases or the use
of state-owned buildings often prevented TANF work programs from
relocating to one-stop centers. States developed ways to overcome these
challenges to colocation in order to meet the needs of TANF clients.
For example, Louisiana‘s Department of Labor placed a Welfare-to-Work
staff member in all local welfare offices. These staff members provided
TANF clients with information about the services available at one-stop
centers. In addition, one state assigned TANF staff to one-stop centers
to serve TANF clients.
Incompatible Information Systems:
The states that we visited reported that the inability to link the
information systems of TANF work programs and one-stop centers
complicated efforts to coordinate programs. A recent conference that we
cosponsored also highlighted this issue,[Footnote 10] specifically
identifying the age of information systems as inhibiting coordination
efforts. The need to modernize the systems stemmed from the shift in
objectives under TANF”focusing more on preparing TANF clients for work
than had previous welfare programs” which created new demands on
information systems; from the fact that systems used by agencies
providing services to TANF clients did not share data on these clients,
thus hindering the case management of clients; and from the antiquated
information systems that made it difficult for agencies to take
advantage of new technologies, such as Web-based technologies. Some of
these concerns were also raised during our site visits and phone
interviews. Some local officials said that they could not merge or
share data and were not equipped to collect information on clients in
different programs. TANF clients are often tracked separately from
clients of other programs, and even Labor‘s system, the One-Stop
Operating System (OSOS), does not allow one-stop centers to include
TANF programs. In addition, other officials expressed concerns that
sharing data across programs would violate confidentiality
restrictions. The issues of incompatible computer systems are not
easily resolved. Officials from two states we visited said that their
states‘ WIA and TANF agencies were exploring the development of a
shared system but that cost estimates were too high for it to be
implemented at this time.
Developing More Compatible Program Definitions and Requirements:
As states and localities attempted to coordinate services for TANF
clients through the one-stop, they encountered challenges to
harmonizing program definitions and meeting reporting requirements.
Incompatible Program Definitions:
State officials noted that although the focuses of TANF work and WIA
programs were related, differences in program definitions”such as what
constitutes work or what income level constitutes self-sufficiency”made
coordination difficult. While many program definitions are established
by legislation and cannot be changed at the state or local level, a few
can be locally determined, and two states found ways to harmonize their
locally determined definitions. For example, Connecticut developed a
self-sufficiency standard that could be uniformly applied across TANF
and WIA, so that both programs would place clients in jobs with similar
wage levels. One local one-stop center we visited in Arizona also
worked to accommodate differences in program definitions. At this
center, TANF and WIA officials worked together to develop training for
both programs that enabled TANF clients to meet the requirement of a
TANF work activity.
Incompatible Reporting Requirements:
As is the case with other programs in the one-stop centers, states and
localities continue to struggle with the different reporting
requirements attached to the various funding streams. Each program has
restrictions on how its money can be used and what type of indicators
it can use to measure success. Because the federal measures evaluate
very different things, tracking performance for the TANF and WIA
programs together was difficult. Despite the flexibility in TANF, state
officials felt constrained by the need to meet federally required work
participation rates, and they told us that they used these federal
requirements to gauge how well their TANF work programs were
performing. For example, one state official was concerned that the
state TANF agency was focused more on meeting work participation rates
than on designing programs that might help their TANF clients become
self-sufficient. WIA, on the other hand, has a different set of
performance measures geared toward client outcomes, including the
degree to which clients‘ earnings change over time and whether or not
the clients stay employed.[Footnote 11] Many states and localities are
organizing their WIA programs to maximize their ability to achieve
these and other key client outcomes. These differences in program
indicators often lead to very different program services for clients.
Because of these differences, coordinating TANF work programs with the
one-stop centers was difficult. These different reporting requirements
may need either state or federal action to resolve.
Concluding Observations:
Even though TANF was not made a mandatory partner under WIA, we see
some early evidence that states and localities are increasing their
efforts to bring services together to fit local needs. These changes,
like all culture changes, will take time. It appears, however, that as
the systems have matured and their shared purposes and goals have
become evident, many states and localities have found it advantageous
to coordinate TANF and WIA programs. This move toward integrating
services is not happening everywhere”it has been left to state and
local discretion. Many state and local officials hailed this
flexibility in the programs as an important step in helping them to
design their service delivery systems and to integrate services where
appropriate. But their efforts to bring services together continue to
be hampered by the same obstacles that we reported nearly two years
ago: limited capacity to develop the needed infrastructure” both in
terms of facilities and information systems”and the need to respond to
the multiple, sometimes incompatible, federal requirements of the
separate programs. As Congress moves toward reauthorizing both WIA and
TANF, consideration should be given to finding ways to remove these
obstacles to service integration.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
respond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee
may have.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgements:
If you or other members of the subcommittee have questions regarding
this testimony, please contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7215 or
Dianne Blank at (202) 512-5654. Suzanne Lofhjelm, Mikki Holmes, Natalya
Bolshun, and Kara Finnegan Irving made key contributions to this
testimony.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-00-145] (Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2000).
[2] We conducted fieldwork in Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, and New
Jersey.
[3] Colocation refers to TANF clients‘ being served directly at the one-
stop either by TANF staff or by other staff cross-trained to provide
TANF-related services. Electronic linkages refers to the use of
computers, telephones, or other electronic connections between the one-
stop and a separate office where services are provided to TANF clients.
[4] TANF also gave states more flexibility in determining the nature of
financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of
the program, and the ways in which services were provided.
[5] Integration is characterized by features such as common intake and
’seamless“ service delivery. The customer may receive a range of
services from different programs without repeated registration
procedures, waiting periods, or other administrative procedures.
Integrated services are sometimes, but not always, physically
collocated.
[6] Work requirements under PRWORA include countable work activities,
such as unsubsidized employment; subsidized private or public sector
employment; work experience; on-the-job training; job search and job
readiness assistance; community service programs; vocational
educational training and job skills training directly related to
employment; education directly related to employment; satisfactory
attendance at a secondary school or a course of study leading to a
certificate of general equivalence; or the provision of child care
services to an individual who is participating in a community service
program. For more information on work activities that states and
localities are using as part of their TANF programs, see U.S. General
Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play
an Important Role in TANF Programs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-00-122] (Washington, D.C.: July
28, 2000).
[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-00-145] (Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2000); Welfare Reform: States‘ Experiences in Providing Employment
Assistance to TANF Clients, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-99-22] (Washington, D.C.: February
26, 1999).
[8] Our survey asked states to report the extent to which different
types of coordination were occurring at the state level between WIA and
TANF programs. We analyzed five types formal linkages (such as
memoranda of understanding, state-level agreements, or mutual referral
agreements); informal linkages and interagency communication (such as
sharing information about programs or changes in programs as they
occur); interagency and intra-agency workgroups and consolidated
advisory boards; coordinated planning; and shared performance
measurement and reporting.
[9] Our survey asked states to tell us whether most of the centers
coordinated TANF and WIA programs. We analyzed seven methods” informal
linkages (such as periodic program referrals or information services)
and interagency communication (such as phone calls, memos, or flyers
announcing program services); formal linkages (such as memoranda of
understanding or mutual referral agreements); coordinated planning;
shared intake and enrollment; integrated case management; shared client
tracking; and shared performance measures.
[10] For more information on integration of information systems for
human services programs, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Human
Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on
Modernizing Information Systems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-121] (Washington, D.C.: January 31,
2002).
[11] For more information on performances measures for WIA-funded
programs, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate
Picture of WIA‘s Effectiveness, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-275] (Washington, D.C.: February 1,
2002).
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
