Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF Programs and 
One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain (12-MAR-02,
GAO-02-500T).							 
								 
Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) in 1998 to	 
bring most federally funded employment and training services into
a single, one one-stop center system. Coordination between	 
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)-related programs  
and one-stop centers has increased since the implementation of	 
the act in spring of 2000. Nearly all states reported some	 
coordination 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.  
Despite progress, states and localities continue to report	 
challenges due to infrastructure limitations and different	 
program definitions and reporting requirements. GAO found that	 
some of the challenges could be overcome through state and local 
innovation, but others will be resolved only through federal	 
intervention. GAO 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.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-500T					        
    ACCNO:   A02890						        
  TITLE:     Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF      
Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges	 
Remain								 
     DATE:   03/12/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Disadvantaged persons				 
	     Employment or training programs			 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     State-administered programs			 
	     State/local relations				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Food Stamp Program 				 
	     HHS Temporary Assistance for Needy 		 
	     Families Program					 
								 
	     DOL One-Stop Operating System			 
	     Medicaid Program					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-02-500T
     
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., WORKFORCE
March 12, 2002

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,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 20022; 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

1U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Implementation
Status and the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington,
D.C.: June 29, 2000).

2We conducted fieldwork in Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, and New Jersey.

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.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

3Colocation 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.

cash assistance.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.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

4TANF 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.

5Integration 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.

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
requirements6-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

6Work 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, GAO/HEHS-00-122 (Washington, D.C.:
July 28, 2000).

variation in the degree  to which the welfare and nonwelfare programs worked
together to provide employment and training services.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

7U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Implementation
Status and the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington,
D.C.: June 29, 2000); Welfare Reform: States' Experiences in Providing
Employment Assistance to TANF Clients, GAO/HEHS-99-22 (Washington, D.C.:
February 26, 1999).

and interagency communication (such as sharing program information)- up from
7 states in 2000.8

Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent, 2000
and 2001

Number of states

30 29 28

24 

18

12

6

0

Formal Informal Interagency Coordinated Shared linkages linkages planning
performance

Coordination methods

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.

8Our 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.

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 2000.9 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.

9Our 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.

Figure 2:  Coordination Methods That States Reported  Most of Their One-Stop
Centers' Using, 2000 and 2001

50 Number of states

                                     44

                                     40

                                     30

                                     20

                                    10 0

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

                                  28 28 22

16 1415 1314

linkages linkages  planning enrollment management tracking performanceFormal
Coordinated Shared intake, Integrated case Shared client

haredS

Coordination methods

Coordination of Services through One-Stops Increased, and the Form It Took
Varied According to Services Provided

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

50 Number of states

TANFwork TANFcash programs Service provided

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.

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.

Coordinating TANF Services with One-Stop Centers Has Continued to Present
Challenges to States and Localities

Developing One-Stop Infrastructure to Provide Services to TANF Clients

Limited Facilities

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.

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,

Incompatible Information Systems

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.

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,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 As states and localities attempted to coordinate services
for TANF clients Compatible Program through the one-stop, they encountered
challenges to harmonizing Definitions and program definitions and meeting
reporting requirements.

Requirements

10For 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, GAO-02-121 (Washington, D.C.: January 31, 2002).

Incompatible Program Definitions

Incompatible Reporting Requirements

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.

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.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.

11For 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, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002).

Concluding Observations

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgements

(130063)

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.

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 document. ***