Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly
Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information
Needed on Effective Approaches (03-JUL-02, GAO-02-696).
The 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) required states to
provide most federally funded employment-related services through
one-stop centers. Two years earlier, welfare reform legislation
created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant which provided flexibility to states to focus on helping
needy adults with children find and maintain employment. Nearly
all states reported some coordination of their TANF and WIA
services at the state or local level, and the use of some of
these coordination methods increased between 2000 and 2001.
Historical relationships, geographic considerations, adequacy of
facilities, and different perspectives on how best to serve TANF
clients influenced how states and localities choose to coordinate
services with one-stop centers. Several challenges, including
program differences between TANF and WIA and different
information systems used by welfare and workforce agencies,
inhibit state and local coordination efforts. Though some states
and localities have found creative ways to work around these
issues, the differences remain barriers to coordination for many
others.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-696
ACCNO: A03839
TITLE: Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities
Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better
Information Needed on Effective Approaches
DATE: 07/03/2002
SUBJECT: Welfare benefits
Workfare
Welfare recipients
Disadvantaged persons
Employment or training programs
Program evaluation
Public assistance programs
Intergovernmental relations
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Program
DOL One-Stop Operating System
Earned Income Tax Credit
Food Stamp Program
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Block Grant
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training Program
Medicaid Program
Work Incentive Program
DOL Welfare-to-Work Program
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly
Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information
Needed on Effective Approaches (03-JUL-02, GAO-02-696).
The 1998 Workforce Investment Act (WIA) required states to
provide most federally funded employment-related services through
one-stop centers. Two years earlier, welfare reform legislation
created the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block
grant which provided flexibility to states to focus on helping
needy adults with children find and maintain employment. Nearly
all states reported some coordination of their TANF and WIA
services at the state or local level, and the use of some of
these coordination methods increased between 2000 and 2001.
Historical relationships, geographic considerations, adequacy of
facilities, and different perspectives on how best to serve TANF
clients influenced how states and localities choose to coordinate
services with one-stop centers. Several challenges, including
program differences between TANF and WIA and different
information systems used by welfare and workforce agencies,
inhibit state and local coordination efforts. Though some states
and localities have found creative ways to work around these
issues, the differences remain barriers to coordination for many
others.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-02-696
ACCNO: A03839
TITLE: Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities
Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but Better
Information Needed on Effective Approaches
DATE: 07/03/2002
SUBJECT: Welfare benefits
Workfare
Welfare recipients
Disadvantaged persons
Employment or training programs
Program evaluation
Public assistance programs
Intergovernmental relations
Aid to Families with Dependent Children
Program
DOL One-Stop Operating System
Earned Income Tax Credit
Food Stamp Program
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Block Grant
Job Opportunities and Basic Skills
Training Program
Medicaid Program
Work Incentive Program
DOL Welfare-to-Work 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-02-696
Report to Congressional Requesters
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
July 2002 WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT
States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF Clients, but
Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches
GAO- 02- 696
Page i GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act Letter 1
Results in Brief 2 Background 4 Most States and Localities Coordinated TANF
and WIA Services
and Some Coordination Efforts Increased between 2000 and 2001 8 A Variety of
Conditions Influence State and Local Coordination
Efforts, but Little Is Known about the Effectiveness of Coordinated Service
Delivery on TANF Clients? Outcomes 18 Challenges Inhibit State and Local
Coordination Efforts 24 Conclusions 28 Recommendations for Executive Action
28 Agency Comments 29
Appendix I Annotated Bibliography of Reviewed Studies 31
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Labor 33
Appendix III Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services 35
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 39 GAO Contacts 39 Staff
Acknowledgments 39
Related GAO Products 40
Figures
Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent, 2000
and 2001 9 Figure 2: Coordination Methods that States Reported Most of Their
One- Stop Centers Were Using, 2000 and 2001 11 Contents
Page ii GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Figure 3: Number of States with Services Colocated in at Least Some One-
Stops, 2000 and 2001 14 Figure 4: Forms of Coordination that States Reported
the Majority
of Their Local One- Stops Used, 2001 15
Abbreviations
AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children HHS Department of Health and
Human Services JTPA Job Training Partnership Act MOU Memorandum of
Understanding OSOS One- Stop Operating System PRWORA Personal Responsibility
and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families WIA
Workforce Investment Act WIN Work Incentive WtW Welfare- to- Work
Page 1 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
July 3, 2002 The Honorable John Boehner Chairman, Committee on Education and
the Workforce House of Representatives
The Honorable Howard P. (Buck) McKeon Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century
Competitiveness Committee on Education and the Workforce House of
Representatives
The Honorable Wally Herger Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources
Committee on Ways and Means House of Representatives
In 1998, the Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act 1 (WIA) to unify a
fragmented employment and training system, requiring states to provide most
federally funded employment- related services through onestop centers. Two
years earlier, welfare reform legislation created the Temporary Assistance
for Needy Families 2 (TANF) block grant which provided flexibility to states
to focus on helping needy adults with children find and maintain employment.
Despite the similar focus, TANF was not required to be part of WIA?s new
workforce investment system; however, as we have previously testified, 3
many states and localities are working to bring together their TANF and WIA
services. With the reauthorization of TANF this year and WIA next year, and
the emphasis on work intensifying, the ability of states and localities to
coordinate their TANF and WIA services is of increasing interest.
1 WIA is administered and funded at the federal level through the Department
of Labor and traditionally administered through a state?s workforce
structure. 2 TANF is administered and funded at the federal level through
the Department of Health and Human Services and generally part of a state?s
social service structure. 3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Workforce
Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services,
GAO/ T- HEHS- 00- 145 (Washington, D. C.: June 29, 2000) and Workforce
Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and One- Stop Centers Is
Increasing, but Challenges Remain, GAO- 02- 500T (Washington, D. C.: Mar.
12, 2002).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
In an effort to assess the extent of current efforts to coordinate TANF and
WIA services and to understand the role that the federal government could
play in assisting these efforts, you asked us to examine (1) the extent to
which states and localities are currently coordinating TANF and WIA services
for TANF clients, and how this had changed since 2000- when many states
first implemented WIA; (2) what is known about the conditions that influence
how states and localities coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers
and the effectiveness of service coordination through one- stops on TANF
client outcomes; and (3) what challenges hinder state and local coordination
efforts.
To respond to your request, we analyzed a survey that we conducted from
September through December 2001 of WIA agency officials in all 50 states and
the results of a similar survey that we conducted in the spring of 2000. In
addition, we visited 9 localities in 4 states from October 2001 to January
2002. 4 To further understand these issues, we conducted telephone
interviews with state TANF and workforce officials in 12 states; conducted
telephone interviews with Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
regional officials in 9 of the 10 regions; 5 and reviewed relevant research.
We performed our work between September 2001 and April 2002 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Nearly all states reported some coordination of their TANF and WIA services
at the state or local level, and the use of some of these coordination
methods increased between 2000 and 2001. At the state level, coordination
between TANF and WIA agencies increased slightly and was accomplished
through a variety of methods, ranging from formal, such as memorandums of
understanding, to informal, such as information sharing. In addition to
these coordination methods, the majority of states used TANF funds to
support the operations or the infrastructure of the one- stop system- 36
states used TANF funds to support the one- stop system in 2001, up from 33
in 2000. Some of the largest gains in coordination were seen at the local
level. For example, in 2001 the majority of local one- stops in 44 states
had established informal linkages with their TANF programs,
4 We conducted fieldwork in Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, and New Jersey.
These states were chosen based on a range of factors, including the
structure of states? TANF and WIA programs and geographic location.
5 One regional office said that it would not be able to provide us with
information on coordination. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
compared with 35 states in 2000. Additionally, TANF- related services were
provided through local one- stops in a greater number of states in 2001 than
in 2000, either by providing services on site (colocation) or through
electronic linkages and client referrals. In 2001, for example, TANF work
programs were colocated in at least some of the one- stops in 39 states, up
from 32 states in 2000. Although many states and localities coordinate TANF
services with one- stop centers to some extent, some continue to provide
services for TANF clients outside of one- stop centers. In 2001, 4 states
reported that they do not provide TANF work services through any one- stop
center. This number has declined since 2000, when 12 states were not
providing services through any of their one- stop centers.
A variety of conditions- including historical relationships, geographic
considerations, adequacy of facilities, and different perspectives on how
best to serve TANF clients- influence how states and localities choose to
coordinate services with one- stop centers. States are affected differently
by these conditions. For example, in some states, welfare and workforce
agencies faced with facility limitations used creative means, such as
outstationing workforce staff in welfare agencies, to coordinate services
for TANF clients. In other states, however, welfare and workforce agencies
faced with similar space constraints were unable to find ways to coordinate
services. Currently, there is no clear way for states and localities to
easily access information on successful approaches to overcome obstacles in
coordinating services. Although research has shown that a variety of
conditions influence coordination efforts, it has not clearly examined how
coordinated service delivery through one- stops affects TANF clients?
outcomes.
Several challenges, including program differences between TANF and WIA and
different information systems 6 used by welfare and workforce agencies,
inhibit state and local coordination efforts. 7 For example, different
program definitions, such as what constitutes work, as well as complex
reporting requirements under TANF and WIA hamper state and local
coordination efforts. Though some states and localities have found
6 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration: Results
of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information Systems, GAO- 02-
121 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002).
7 These findings are similar to those we reported in, Means Tested Programs:
Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified, GAO-
02- 58 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 2001).
Page 4 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
creative ways to work around these issues, the differences remain barriers
to coordination for many others. For example, antiquated welfare and
workforce information systems are often not equipped to share data with each
other, and as a result, sometimes one- stop center staff members have to
enter the same client data into two separate systems. Although HHS and the
Department of Labor (Labor) have each provided some assistance to the states
on how to coordinate services, available guidance has not specifically
addressed the challenges that many continue to face. Moreover, HHS and Labor
have not addressed differences in program definitions and reporting
requirements under TANF and WIA.
To address some of these obstacles to coordination, we are recommending that
HHS and Labor work together to develop ways to jointly disseminate
information on how some states and localities have taken advantage of the
flexibility afforded to them under TANF and WIA to pursue coordination
strategies. We are also recommending that HHS and Labor, either individually
or jointly, promote research that would examine the role of coordinated
service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients.
In recent years, the Congress passed two pieces of legislation intended, in
part, to foster greater coordination between education, welfare, and
employment and training programs. The Workforce Investment Act was passed in
1998 to consolidate services of many employment and training programs,
mandating that states and localities use a centralized service delivery
structure- the one- stop center system- to provide most federally funded
employment and training assistance. The Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families block grant, which was created 2 years earlier by the 1996 Personal
Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) and replaced
the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) Program, gave states
greater flexibility to design employment and training services for clients
receiving cash assistance. 8 While TANF is not one of the federal programs
mandated to provide services through the onestop system, states and
localities have the option to include TANF as a partner.
8 TANF also gave states more flexibility in determining the nature of
financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of the
program, and the ways in which services are provided. Background
Page 5 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
For over 30 years prior to TANF and WIA implementation, states? welfare and
workforce development systems collaborated at some level to provide
employment and training services to welfare clients. These efforts began in
1967 with the Work Incentive (WIN) Program?s requirement that states
administer employment and training programs for their welfare clients. WIN?s
successes were limited, according to critics, largely because the program
lacked coordination between welfare agencies and local employment and
training agencies. WIN was replaced in 1988 when the Family Support Act
created the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) Program to provide
welfare clients with a broad range of services, including education and
training services. Unlike WIN, which had a clear and formal role for the
workforce development system, JOBS was to be administered or supervised by
the welfare agency, but could be coordinated with existing employment,
training, and education programs within each state. Our previous work shows
that workforce development programs like the one created by the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) played a key role in providing services to welfare
recipients. 9 In fact, welfare agencies could contract with these existing
programs to provide JOBS services, which some state welfare agencies did.
Collaboration efforts continued between 1987 and 1996, a period during which
states were allowed to further experiment with their AFDC and JOBS programs
as HHS began allowing waivers to provide states with more flexibility.
States often used these waivers to strengthen work requirements for welfare
clients and to try new ways of delivering services to welfare clients,
sometimes using the workforce development system.
With the enactment of PRWORA and the creation of the TANF block grant in
1996, states were given more flexibility than they had under predecessor
programs to determine the nature of financial assistance, the structure of
their cash assistance programs, the types of client services provided, and
how services are delivered. TANF also established new accountability
9 See for example, U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare to Work:
Participants? Characteristics and Services Provided in JOBS, GAO/ HEHS- 95-
93 (Washington, D. C.: May 1995) and Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training
Programs not Emphasizing Job Placement, GAO/ HEHS- 95- 113 (Washington, D.
C.: May 1995).
Page 6 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
measures for states- focused in part on meeting work requirements 10 -
and a 5- year lifetime limit on federally funded TANF cash assistance. These
measures heighten the importance of helping TANF clients find work quickly
and retain employment. As states have focused more on this goal of helping
TANF clients obtain employment, the importance of coordinating services has
received increased attention. To help clients get and retain jobs, states
need to address clients? work- related needs through services such as job
search and job readiness, as well as child care and transportation
assistance. Frequently, addressing these issues requires those who work
directly with welfare clients to draw on other programs to provide a wide
array of services. While local welfare agencies administer cash assistance
and sometimes Food Stamps and Medicaid, housing authorities, education
agencies, and state Employment Services offices often administer other
programs that provide key services to TANF clients. In addition, PRWORA
broadened both the types of TANF services that could be contracted and the
types of organizations that could serve as TANF contractors, and therefore
nongovernmental agencies are often involved in the provision of services to
TANF clients. 11
During welfare reform, states were also experimenting with better ways to
coordinate employment and training services, often using one- stop centers.
Labor?s efforts to coordinate service delivery began in fiscal year 1994,
when they awarded One- Stop Planning and Implementation grants to some
states. These grants required that most Labor- funded programs be included
in one- stop centers, which were intended to integrate services in
10 Work requirements under PRWORA include countable work activities as well
as work participation requirements. PRWORA?s work participation rates
require that a specified proportion of the state?s TANF assistance caseload
be engaged in countable work activities each month. The required work
participation rate for all families was 25 percent for fiscal year 1997 and
50 percent for fiscal year 2002 and thereafter. Work activities include
unsubsidized employment; subsidized private or public sector employment;
work experience; on- the- job training; job search and job readiness
assistance; community service programs; vocational educational training and
job skills training directly related to employment; education directly
related to employment; satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or a
course of study leading to a certificate of general equivalence; or the
provision of child care services to an individual who is participating in a
community service program. For more information on work activities that
states and localities are using as part of their TANF programs, see U. S.
General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: WorkSite- Based Activities Can
Play an Important Role in TANF Programs, GAO/ HEHS- 00- 122 (Washington, D.
C.: July 28, 2000).
11 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Interim Report on
Potential Ways to Strengthen Federal Oversight of State and Local
Contracting, GAO- 02- 245 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 2002).
Page 7 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
order to create a customer- driven system that was accountable for outcomes
and available to all job seekers. When WIA was enacted, all local areas
nationwide were required to use the one- stop system to provide the majority
of federally funded employment and training services. 12 WIA extended the
one- stop concept beyond Labor programs, requiring states and localities to
form partnerships with other agencies offering employment and training
services. Seventeen categories of programs, funded through four federal
agencies- the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services,
and Housing and Urban Development- must provide services through the one-
stop center system under WIA. While TANF is not one of 17 federal programs
mandated to provide services through the one- stop system, states and
localities have the option to include TANF as a partner. WIA emphasizes
state and local flexibility and does not require that all program services
be provided on site, as they may be provided through electronic linkages
with partner agencies or by referral, but WIA does require that the
relationships and services be spelled out in a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU).
Other recent legislation has also attempted to strengthen the relationship
between welfare and workforce development agencies. For example, in the
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, the Congress authorized welfare- to- work (WtW)
grants 13 to be administered through the workforce development system. These
grants were awarded by Labor to states and were intended to help hard- to-
employ persons receiving TANF cash assistance and noncustodial parents of
minor children in families receiving TANF cash assistance obtain employment.
Forty- four states have received formula grants and 191 competitive grants
have been awarded to 189 entities. States have until fiscal year 2004 to
spend these funds. WtW?s inclusion as one of the mandatory partners in one-
stop centers under WIA encourages welfare and workforce agencies to
coordinate.
12 WIA provided for more local control than JTPA. Under WIA states were
required to establish local workforce investment areas with their own local
workforce investment boards to oversee the new system.
13 The WtW grants total $3 billion- about 75 percent of the funds were for
formula grants to states and nearly 25 percent were for competitive grants
to local organizations for innovative approaches in moving welfare
recipients into permanent work.
Page 8 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Nearly all states reported coordinating TANF and WIA services at the state
or local level, and some of these coordination efforts increased between
2000 and 2001. Coordination between state TANF and WIA agencies increased
slightly in 2001 and ranged from formal methods, such as MOUs, to informal
methods, such as information sharing. In addition to these methods, states
increasingly used TANF funds to support the operations or the infrastructure
of their one- stop systems. Some of the largest gains in coordination
occurred at the local level, particularly in the use of informal linkages,
such as periodic program referrals. Other methods used by local areas
included both formal linkages, such as financial agreements between a local
TANF agency and the one- stop center, and coordinated planning. In addition,
many localities coordinated the provision of services for TANF clients
through one- stop centers, either by colocation or electronic linkages and
client referrals, and these efforts increased in 2001. Although many states
and localities coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers to some
extent, some still provide services for TANF clients outside of one- stop
centers.
Most states reported some level of coordination between state agencies
administering TANF and WIA, and coordination efforts increased slightly
between 2000 and 2001. Coordination methods used by the states ranged from
formal linkages, such as MOUs, to informal methods, such as information
sharing. Twenty- eight states reported that they made extensive use of
formal linkages, such as MOUs and state- level formal agreements, between
the agencies administering TANF and WIA in 2001, compared with 27 states in
2000. Similarly, there was a slight increase in the states? use of
coordinated planning in 2001, with 19 states reporting that they used it to
a great extent, compared with 18 states in 2000 (see fig. 1). In addition,
17 states reported using more coordination methods to a great extent in
2001. Moreover, 9 states used all five of the coordination methods that we
analyzed- up from 7 states in 2000. 14
14 Our survey asked states to report the extent to which different types of
coordination were occurring at the state level between WIA and TANF
programs. We analyzed five types of state- level coordination: formal
linkages (such as memorandum of understanding, statelevel 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. Most States and
Localities Coordinated TANF and WIA Services and Some Coordination Efforts
Increased between 2000 and 2001
Coordination between State TANF and WIA Agencies Occurred in Most States and
Increased Slightly in 2001
Page 9 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent, 2000
and 2001
Source: GAO survey data.
Increased coordination between TANF and WIA programs was also seen in the
use of TANF funds to support one- stop center infrastructure or operations.
The number of states using TANF funds to support one- stop centers increased
to 36 in 2001 from 33 in 2000. In addition, the number of states ranking
TANF as one of the three largest funding sources for their one- stop centers
rose to 15 in 2001 from 12 in 2000. Sometimes TANF employment and training
funds were completely transferred to the state workforce agency to provide
all employment and training services to TANF clients in the state. For
example, in both Michigan and Connecticut, all TANF employment and training
funds were allocated to the state workforce agencies, which took
responsibility for providing all employment and training services to TANF
clients through the one- stops. In other states, the state TANF agency
retained responsibility for TANF employment and training funds, transferring
only a portion to the workforce agency, sometimes on a contractual basis.
For example, in New Jersey, the state TANF and WIA agencies established a
contract that directed a portion of TANF funds to the state Department of
Labor to be
Number of states 0 6
12 18
24 30
Formal linkages Informal
linkages Interagency/
intra- agency workgroups
Coordinated planning
Shared performance measurement
Coordination methods 27 28 29
27 22 23
18 19 7
9
2000 2001
Page 10 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
used for providing employment- related services to TANF clients at the one-
stops; the remaining funds were retained by the TANF agency and distributed
to local areas at the TANF agency?s discretion.
In addition, states sometimes established other formal or informal
relationships to further strengthen the coordination between TANF and WIA
agencies. For example, in Texas, the Texas Workforce Commission and the
Health and Human Services Commission are required to jointly develop and
adopt a formal MOU, providing for coordinated case management of hardest-
to- serve TANF clients. In California, the relationship between the two
agencies often took more informal forms, with TANF and WIA agencies
participating in joint planning efforts, workgroups that focused on service
duplication, and policy groups that addressed pertinent operational issues
affecting both agencies.
Local- level coordination of TANF- related services with one- stop centers
also increased between 2000 and 2001, with some of the most dramatic changes
occurring in the use of informal linkages between local TANF agencies and
one- stop centers. In addition to these methods, local onestops were
increasingly providing services to TANF clients by colocation or electronic
linkages and referrals. Besides TANF- and WIA- funded services, many local
areas also provided WtW services to TANF clients through the one- stop
system.
Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001 were
seen at the local level, with the most dramatic changes occurring between
local TANF agencies and one- stop centers in informal linkages, such as
periodic program referrals or information services. 15 Forty- four states
reported that most of their one- stop centers had informal linkages with
their TANF programs in 2001, compared with 35 states in 2000 (see fig. 2).
Similarly, 16 states reported that most of their one- stop centers had
shared intake or enrollment systems in 2001- up from 13 in 2000, and 15
states reported in 2001 that they used an integrated case management
15 Our survey asked states whether most of the centers coordinated TANF and
WIA programs. We analyzed seven methods of local level coordination:
informal linkages (such as periodic program referrals or information
services) and interagency communication (such as telephone calls,
memorandums, or flyers announcing program services); formal linkages (such
as memoranda of understanding or mutual referral agreements); coordinated
planning; shared intake and enrollment; integrated case management; shared
client tracking; and shared performance measures. Localities Increasingly
Coordinated TANF Services with One- Stop Centers
Program Coordination between TANF and WIA Agencies Increased at the Local
Level
Page 11 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
system in most of their one- stop centers- an increase of 1 state from our
2000 results. Also, more coordination methods were in use at local onestops.
The number of states that reported that most of their one- stop centers used
all seven methods of local- level coordination increased to 10 states in
2001 from 7 in 2000.
Figure 2: Coordination Methods that States Reported Most of Their One- Stop
Centers Were Using, 2000 and 2001
Source: GAO survey data.
Increases in coordination between TANF services and one- stop centers were
also seen in the use of the one- stop system to provide services to TANF
clients. Localities increasingly coordinated the provision of services to
TANF clients through local one- stop centers- either through colocation of
services at the one- stop or through electronic linkages and client
referrals to providers outside the one- stop. Moreover, the number of states
with services colocated in at least some of their local one- stop centers
increased between 2000 and 2001 (see fig. 3). For example, the number of
Local One- Stops Increasingly
Provided Services to TANF Clients
Number of states 0 10
20 30
40 50
Informal Formal
Coordinated Shared intake,
Integrated case Shared client
Shared performance Coordination methods
35 44
28 28 22 21
13 16
14 15 13 14
11 12
2000 2001
linkages linkages
planning enrollment
management tracking
measurment
Page 12 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
states with TANF work services colocated in at least some of their onestops
increased to 39 in 2001 up from 32 in 2000. Moreover, of the 18 states in
2000 that did not have TANF work services colocated in any of their one-
stops, 8 had colocated TANF work services at some or all of their onestops
by 2001. While the same number of states- 24- reported in both 2000 and 2001
that TANF work services were colocated at the majority of their one- stops,
the use of electronic linkages or referrals increased. Fifteen states
reported in 2001 that work- related services for TANF clients were either
electronically linked to the majority of their one- stop centers or provided
by referring clients from the one- stop to services located outside the one-
stop, while 11 states reported these types of linkages in 2000.
A variety of TANF work services were available at the one- stops. These
services included job search and registration, skills enhancement,
vocational training, assistance in developing individual employability
plans, and case management geared toward addressing barriers to employment.
For example, in local areas that we visited in New Jersey, clients came to
the one- stop to participate in job readiness courses and self- paced adult
education curricula, or to receive assistance with r�sum� writing and job
interviewing skills. A local area in Connecticut provided TANF clients at
the one- stops with an opportunity to take part in on- site recruitment by
local employers.
Sometimes states instituted policies to further strengthen the relationships
between the programs and ensure that clients were connected to work services
at the one- stop centers. In Michigan and Texas, for example, TANF clients
were required to attend an orientation session at the onestop before they
could receive cash assistance. Similarly, in Connecticut, because of low
participation rates for TANF clients at one- stop centers, the legislature
enacted a law requiring TANF clients to use one- stop centers as a condition
of receiving cash assistance.
In addition to TANF work services, states also increasingly coordinated TANF
cash assistance, Food Stamps, and Medicaid programs with the onestop
centers. Colocation of cash assistance increased in 2001- 16 states reported
that they provided cash assistance services at least part time at the
majority of their one- stop centers, compared with 9 states in 2000.
Colocation of Food Stamps and Medicaid also increased. For example, although
7 states in both years reported that they conducted Medicaid eligibility at
the majority of their one- stops, the number of states reporting that
Medicaid eligibility was conducted in at least some of their one- stops
increased to 20 in 2001 from 14 in 2000. For Food Stamp eligibility, 10
Page 13 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
states reported providing this service at the majority of their one- stops
in 2001, up from 7 states in 2000. Moreover, the number of states with Food
Stamp eligibility conducted in at least some of their one- stops was 26 in
2001, up from 16 states in 2000.
When states did not colocate services, they sometimes coordinated them by
using electronic linkages or by referral. About half of the states
coordinated their TANF cash assistance or Food Stamps or Medicaid programs
with the one- stop centers, electronically or by referral, in 2000 and 2001.
In 2001, Food Stamp eligibility was available electronically or by referral
at the majority of one- stops in 29 states, and Medicaid eligibility was
available in the same manner at the majority of one- stops in 27 states- up
from 26 and 24 states, respectively, in 2000. For example, state officials
in both Connecticut and New Jersey reported that even though one- stop staff
did not determine eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the one-
stops, the staff were expected to refer clients to appropriate support
services outside of one- stop centers.
Page 14 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Figure 3: Number of States with Services Colocated in at Least Some One-
Stops, 2000 and 2001
Source: GAO survey data.
Although colocation, electronic linkages, and referrals were all used to
serve TANF clients through the one- stops, in general, the form of
coordination between TANF programs and one- stop centers varied depending on
particular services provided. For example, when TANF work services were
coordinated through the one- stop centers, they were more likely to be
colocated. TANF cash assistance and the Food Stamps and Medicaid programs
were more likely to be connected with one- stop centers electronically or by
referral (see fig. 4).
Number of states 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 TANF work TANF cash Food Stamps Medicaid Service provided 32
39 21
33 16
26 14
20
2000 2001
Page 15 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Figure 4: Forms of Coordination that States Reported the Majority of Their
Local One- Stops Used, 2001
Source: GAO survey data.
We also saw wide variation in the degree to which other support services,
such as child care and transportation, were provided through the one- stop
system. For child care assistance, the forms of coordination included
colocation of child care programs at the one- stop as well as the provision
of information on child care services available elsewhere. In New Jersey,
for example, representatives from child care assistance programs were
colocated at some of the one- stop centers, whereas in Arizona, coordination
was limited to childcare information brochures on display at one- stop
centers. Officials reported that in one county in New York, WIA funds were
used to provide daycare vouchers to TANF clients. Many of the one- stops
that we visited provided some kind of transportation assistance, although
the nature of the services and whether or not the services were reserved for
TANF clients varied from locality to locality. For example, in one location
in New Jersey that we visited, the one- stop center reimbursed any low-
income client attending training for transportation expenses,
Number of states 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
Food Stamps Medicaid
Service provided
Electronic linkage/ referrals Colocation
TANF work TANF cash
Page 16 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
whether or not the client was covered under TANF. Another New Jersey one-
stop provided van services to transport former TANF clients to and from job
interviews and, once clients were employed, to and from their jobs, even
during evening and night shifts. Similarly, in a one- stop in Connecticut,
current and former TANF clients could receive mileage reimbursement for
their expenses associated with going to and from their jobs. And in
Louisiana, a one- stop we visited contracted with a nonprofit agency to
provide van services to transport TANF clients to and from work- related
activities.
Other support services were sometimes provided through the one- stop as
well. For example, under an agreement between human service and WIA
officials in one local area of Tennessee, TANF clients are referred to the
workforce agency where caseworkers work with them to identify needed support
services, such as dental care and auto repair, and connect the TANF clients
with providers of those services.
In some states, TANF clients were served at the one- stops through the use
of Labor?s WtW grant program- a mandatory partner at the one- stops under
WIA. Some state and local officials said that the WtW program helped promote
local- level coordination between welfare and workforce agencies, a finding
that we reported in our earlier work. 16 Although workrelated services for
TANF clients were available both through the one- stop centers and outside
of them- sometimes using a variety of funding streams- the hardest- to-
employ TANF clients were increasingly accessing services at the one- stops
through the WtW program. In 2001, 42 states had WtW services colocated in at
least some of their local one- stops, compared with 34 states in 2000. In
addition, states reported that WtW services were physically located at the
majority of one- stop centers in 31 states in 2001, up from 27 states in
2000. Some WtW services included assistance given to clients in developing
Personal Responsibility Plans, helping the hardest- toserve clients prepare
for job interviews, or following up with TANF clients who recently entered
the workforce. Through the WtW program, local areas in Louisiana placed
state Labor staff administering the program in social services offices
across the state to assess TANF clients? eligibility for WtW and refer
eligible clients to the one- stops for appropriate services.
16 U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and
Selected States? Use of Welfare- to- Work Grants, GAO/ HEHS- 99- 40
(Washington, D. C.: Feb. 1999). Welfare- to- Work Services Were
Available to TANF Clients at the One- Stops
Page 17 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Sometimes WtW grants were also used to provide support services to current
or former TANF clients at the one- stops, including child care,
transportation, and other assistance. For example, a local one- stop that we
visited in Arizona used the WtW grants for a Sick Child Care Program, an
initiative that, under a contract with a local nonprofit organization,
provides for nurses to be sent to the homes of TANF clients with sick
children, thus enabling them to participate in work- related or training
activities. A local one- stop that we visited in New Jersey used WtW funds
to establish an Individual Development Account Program whereby clients
transitioning into the workforce could save money matched by the onestop for
a work- related purpose, such as purchasing a car to get to the workplace.
The same one- stop also used WtW funds in employing an outside financial
services company to help those who recently left TANF for employment apply
for their Earned Income Tax Credit. 17
Some officials expressed concerns about the ability of local one- stops to
continue providing work- related services to TANF clients once all states?
WtW funds expire. For example, officials reported that in one state, where
local TANF offices previously referred TANF clients to the one- stops as
part of the state?s WtW program, few referrals have been done since the
depletion of WtW funds. In California, where WtW funds are sometimes the
only funding source available to serve TANF clients at the one- stops, one
county is currently developing a formal transition plan to provide services
to TANF clients at the one- stops using WIA funds after WtW funds expire. A
California state official told us, however, that the expectation in other
areas is that no other funding sources will be available to serve this
population and that clients will have to be sent back to be served by
separate TANF agencies.
Despite increased coordination of TANF work services through the onestops,
many states and localities still provided services to TANF clients outside
of one- stop centers at separate TANF offices. However, the number of states
not coordinating any work services to TANF clients through the one- stops-
either by colocation or electronic linkages and referrals- declined between
2000 and 2001. While 12 states in 2000 reported that they were not providing
TANF work services through any of their one- stop centers, the number had
declined to only 4 states in 2001.
17 The Earned Income Tax Credit is a refundable tax credit available to low-
income working taxpayers. TANF- Related Services Are
Also Provided Outside of the One- Stop Centers
Page 18 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Some states- Indiana, Maryland, and Mississippi, for example- offered a full
range of employment and training services to clients through their local
TANF agencies, which were located in every local area. In other states,
separate TANF agencies were maintained even though some work services were
still coordinated through the one- stops. For example, in Alabama, where
work services were available through the one- stops by means of electronic
linkages or referrals, clients received all employment and training programs
at county welfare offices where they could also access all needed support
services. Similarly in Louisiana, each parish had an Office of Family
Support where TANF clients received employment and training assessments,
counseling, and referrals.
A variety of conditions- including historical relationships, geographic
considerations, adequate facilities, and different perspectives on how best
to serve TANF clients- influence how states and localities choose to
coordinate services with one- stop centers. States are affected differently
by these conditions. While these conditions sometimes facilitated states?
coordination efforts, other states faced with similar conditions found
coordination difficult. Although research has shown that a variety of
conditions influence coordination efforts, it has not clearly examined how
coordinated service delivery through one- stops affects TANF clients?
outcomes.
A variety of conditions continue to affect how states and localities
coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers. The nature of historical
relationships between welfare and workforce agencies at the state and local
level, specifically agencies? experience in working with each other in the
past, often sets the stage for the level of present coordination. Geographic
considerations, such as variations in layout of agency service districts,
physical distance between one- stop centers and welfare offices, and the
number of TANF clients in a given area, can also affect how states and
localities coordinate services. The availability of adequate facilities can
also influence state and local coordination efforts. In addition, welfare
and workforce agencies often have different perspectives on how to best
serve TANF clients. While some states and localities have had success in
using the flexibility afforded them under WIA and TANF to coordinate in
spite of these conditions, others lack information on the coordination A
Variety of
Conditions Influence State and Local Coordination Efforts, but Little Is
Known about the Effectiveness of Coordinated Service Delivery on TANF
Clients? Outcomes
A Variety of Conditions Influence How States and Localities Coordinate TANF
Services with OneStop Centers
Page 19 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
efforts of other states and localities. Although there is some ?promising
practices? information currently available on selected websites, it is not
generally organized in a way that allows readers to readily obtain
information on coordinating services.
The existing level of coordination between TANF services and one- stop
centers is often a reflection of how state and local agencies have worked
with each other in the past. Some officials said that their efforts to
coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers have been complicated by
state and local agencies? lack of experience working together, which
sometimes resulted in a lack of trust between agencies. For example, some
officials reported that coordination was difficult because, historically,
there has been little cooperation between workforce and welfare agencies in
their state.
Some states that had previously coordinated other employment and training
programs among multiple agencies, noted that this experience made
coordination of TANF services with one- stop centers easier. For example, in
Idaho, the state Department of Labor invited the state?s welfare agency to
join a focus group on coordination as early as 1992, and a TANF
representative has served on the state management team for workforce
development since their earliest one- stop implementation efforts. Also,
officials in Illinois reported that TANF staff regularly attended JTPA
meetings in the past and have been involved with WIA since it was
implemented, laying the framework for coordinating TANF services with one-
stop centers.
Local areas sometimes have found ways to creatively coordinate services even
in states where state agencies had little experience working together. For
example, although TANF clients in Louisiana access TANF services outside of
one- stop centers, staff at a local one- stop we visited reported that they
work closely with parish welfare staff to ensure that TANF clients were
aware of the full range of services available at the one- stop. According to
local officials, the mutual commitment between welfare and workforce
officials enabled them to work together to meet the needs of all clients. In
Arizona, where state welfare and workforce agencies operate services for
TANF clients outside the one- stops, a local one- stop has regularly
organized job fairs in conjunction with welfare staff since the
implementation of WIA. Historical Relationships
Page 20 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Various geographical considerations can affect how TANF services are
coordinated with one- stop centers. In some states, the layout of agency
service districts, physical distance between one- stop centers and welfare
offices, and the number of TANF clients in a given area have affected the
extent of coordination. For example, HHS regional office personnel reported
that West Virginia social service agencies were reluctant to coordinate with
one- stop centers because service districts for TANF and WIA were not the
same, and TANF officials did not always know what local workforce investment
areas encompassed their agency.
Other states? efforts to coordinate services were limited by the lack of
onestop centers within the state. For example, officials in Alabama reported
that, although welfare agencies were located in every county, one- stop
centers were not. For this reason, they believed that the existing one-
stops could not accommodate all TANF clients in the state. In addition,
other state efforts to coordinate services were limited due to the decline
of the TANF population that resulted in a small number of TANF clients in
some areas. For example, in Illinois, where caseload declines had left few
TANF recipients in some areas, state officials stressed the importance of
allowing local areas the flexibility to determine when and how to coordinate
TANF- related services with one- stop centers.
These geographic considerations can also encourage state and local
coordination efforts. HHS regional office personnel reported that smaller
states with only one local workforce investment area believed that the small
size of the state encouraged the coordination of services. Existing research
has confirmed that locating one- stop centers near facilities where other
TANF services are offered to clients facilitated coordination. In addition,
officials at a local one- stop in Connecticut reported that having a social
service office and the one- stop center located on different floors in the
same facility made it easier for agencies to communicate with each other and
for clients to get services. Other states have located one- stop centers in
areas that are more accessible to TANF clients in order to make coordination
beneficial for them. Both New Jersey and Louisiana have established plans to
create satellite one- stop centers in public housing areas. The New Jersey
Department of Labor has a contract with a local housing authority to
establish an on- site employment center for serving WtW- eligible TANF
clients residing on the premises of the housing authority. The New Orleans
workforce investment board is also in the process of locating seven
satellite one- stop centers in housing projects within the city limits. Both
efforts were undertaken to improve TANF clients? access to one- stop
centers, which in turn encourages greater coordination between the local
workforce and welfare agencies. Geographical Considerations
Page 21 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Availability of adequate facilities can shape how states and localities
coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers. Officials in several states
reported that coordination efforts were hampered because available space at
one- stop centers was limited and the centers could not house additional
programs or service providers. For example, in a local Louisiana one- stop,
staff were unable to colocate more partners because they did not have space
to accommodate additional providers. In addition, state officials explained
that long- term leases often prevented relocation of TANF services to one-
stop centers because agencies administering those services could not afford
to incur the cost of breaking those leases in order to move to one- stops.
Other states facing similar limitations in facilities have developed
alternatives, such as rotating welfare staff to one- stop centers or
locating workforce staff in welfare offices. For example, in order to help
TANF clients access employment and training and to link them to one- stop
centers, the Louisiana Department of Labor located a WtW representative in
most local welfare offices. WtW staff provided key information to TANF
clients about services available at one- stop centers.
Officials? perspectives on how best to serve TANF clients can affect whether
TANF services will be offered in one- stop centers. While some believe TANF
clients are best served in separate social service facilities, others
consider that coordination through the one- stop is more beneficial. Some
officials argued that TANF clients who have multiple barriers to employment
18 might not receive priority of service in a one- stop center environment.
As a result officials in some states were hesitant to coordinate services
for TANF clients with one- stop centers because they believe that the needs
of TANF clients were better served in social service facilities by staff
trained to meet their specific needs. For example, HHS regional
representatives reported that Rhode Island social service officials believe
TANF clients often need exposure to pre- employment experiences such as
English language services- not always available at one- stop centers- before
they can fully benefit from the work- related programs at the one- stops.
Also, state officials in Washington reported that TANF clients need a higher
level of supervision and more structured assistance than they believe one-
stops can provide in order to help clients maintain participation in the
program and achieve desired outcomes. According to
18 For example, some TANF clients have characteristics such as poor health
or disability, limited work experience, no high school diploma, exposure to
domestic violence, and substance abuse issues that make finding and keeping
a job more difficult. See, U. S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform:
Moving Hard- to- Employ Recipients Into the Workforce, GAO- 01- 368
(Washington, D. C.: Mar. 2001). Availability of Adequate
Facilities Different Perspectives on How to Best Serve TANF Clients
Page 22 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
several HHS regional officials, some states are concerned that it may be
difficult for TANF clients to access all support services (especially child
care, substance abuse counseling, and transportation) through the onestops.
Other states told the HHS regional officials that they were hesitant to
coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers as long as other needed
support services continued to be provided outside that structure.
HHS regional officials said that in other states, state officials reported
that coordinating TANF services with one- stop centers was beneficial to
TANF clients, and services were structured accordingly. HHS regional
officials reported that some state officials believe that, because workforce
staff have more experience in getting people into jobs, exposing TANF
clients to one- stops would better prepare them for work. For example,
welfare officials in Georgia supported the coordination of TANF services
with onestop centers because they believed that TANF clients would benefit
from the workforce expertise of one- stop staff. HHS officials said that
other states also agree that TANF clients have access to a greater array of
employment and training services at one- stop centers and that early contact
with these services can help ensure continued access to services once TANF
clients no longer receive cash assistance. Other officials reported that
provision of services for TANF clients through one- stop centers encourages
program staff to be more aware of other services available in both welfare
and workforce systems.
While research shows that a variety of conditions influence if, and how,
states and localities choose to coordinate TANF services, limited research
is available on the effectiveness of coordinated service delivery on TANF
clients? outcomes. In our analysis of the literature, 19 we did not find a
national study that compared the effectiveness of coordinated service
delivery to that of other service delivery methods in supporting successful
outcomes for welfare clients. Without research on the effectiveness of
coordinated service delivery, states and localities must make decisions
without the benefit of thorough evaluation and analysis.
In general, we found few recent research studies on the coordination of
welfare and workforce development services. Although the research is
limited, findings from existing research address conditions that promote
19 We focused our review on large- scale studies that examined welfare and
workforce coordination efforts. See appendix I for a bibliography of
reviewed studies. Research Shows a Variety
of Conditions Influence Coordination Efforts, but Little is Known about the
Effectiveness of Coordinated Service Delivery on TANF Clients? Outcomes
Page 23 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
or inhibit coordination between agencies. Some of the conditions identified
in the research as promoting coordination included a history of working
together and good working relationships between agency officials. Conditions
identified as inhibiting coordination included agency space limitations and
different geographic boundaries. All of these conditions are similar to
those we found and previously mentioned in this report. Research has not
shown that there is any one method or model of coordination that works best
or that could be consistently applied in all settings. (See appendix I for a
listing of reviewed research studies and their relevant findings.)
Although limited research focused on welfare and workforce coordination
efforts, no study compared the effectiveness of coordinated service delivery
to that of other service delivery structures for welfare clients. 20 One
study examined outcomes for welfare clients who received services at five
one- stop centers in five states, but the study did not compare outcomes of
welfare clients receiving services in one- stop centers to those who
received them through different delivery structures. 21
Both HHS and Labor have research authority and, since the enactment of TANF
and WIA, both have used this authority to encourage various evaluations of
policy changes influenced by the legislation. However, federal research
efforts on the effectiveness of coordinated service delivery on welfare
recipients? outcomes have been limited. 22 To examine the effectiveness of
various employment and training strategies, HHS and Labor are currently co-
sponsoring a 5- year experimental study on employment retention and
advancement to identify how to best provide post- employment services to the
welfare population and which interventions work best in promoting retention
and advancement of welfare recipients. 23 Though this study will focus on
local areas where
20 Other service delivery structures include local welfare agencies and
other employment and training service providers. 21 See James L. McIntire
and Amy F. Robins, Fixing to Change: A Best Practices Assessment of One-
Stop Job Centers Working With Welfare Recipients (Washington: Fiscal Policy
Center, University of Washington, 1999).
22 Most of the literature on welfare and workforce coordination efforts
examined in this review was funded in part by HHS. 23 HHS and Labor are also
working together on a project whose main goal is to enhance employment
outcome for current and former TANF recipients and other low- income parents
who face serious obstacles to steady work.
Page 24 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
services are delivered through one- stops and local areas where services are
delivered through other structures, the current study design does not focus
on how the different service delivery structures- one- stop centers and
welfare agencies- affect the outcomes of welfare recipients. 24 In addition,
little evaluation of the effects of different service delivery structures on
welfare clients? outcomes has occurred, although Labor?s 2000- 2005 research
plan identifies research on interventions to assist welfare clients as a
high- priority research area. 25
Several challenges- including different program definitions, complex
reporting requirements between TANF and WIA, and different information
systems that do not share data 26 -inhibit state and local coordination
efforts. 27 Although HHS and Labor have each provided some assistance to the
states on how to coordinate services, the available guidance has not
specifically addressed the challenges that many continue to face. Moreover,
HHS and Labor have not addressed differences in program definitions and
reporting requirements under TANF and WIA. However, a recent legislative
proposal has called for Labor and HHS to jointly address the commonalities
or differences in data elements, definitions,
24 To the extent that clients are involved in one- stops, their outcomes
will be investigated through program records and interviews. 25 WIA mandates
that the Secretary of Labor prepare a 5- year research plan that is updated
every 2 years to address areas in need of future research. The 2000- 2005
research plan included interventions to assist the hardest- to- serve
clients, including welfare clients, as a high- priority research area.
Additionally, Labor issued a Federal Register notice on February 28, 2002,
to solicit comments on the reauthorization of WIA and linkages with TANF
that included a request for comments on the enhancement of service delivery
through the one- stops to improve welfare recipients? outcomes.
26 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration: Results
of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information Systems, GAO- 02-
121 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002).
27 These findings are similar to those we reported in, Means Tested
Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome and Can Be
Simplified, GAO- 02- 58 (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 2001). Challenges Inhibit
State and Local Coordination Efforts
Page 25 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
performance measures, and reporting requirements between TANF and WIA. 28
Different program definitions and reporting requirements in TANF and WIA
constrain the flexibility that states and localities have to coordinate TANF
services through one- stop centers. The overall difference in how the
success of TANF and WIA is measured, as defined by program definitions and
reporting requirements challenges states and localities in their efforts to
coordinate services.
As states and localities attempt to coordinate services for TANF clients
with one- stop centers, they encounter challenges to harmonizing different
program definitions within TANF and WIA. Although both TANF and WIA focus on
work, different program definitions- such as what constitutes work or what
income level constitutes self- sufficiency- make coordination between the
programs difficult. While many definitions are established by legislation
and cannot be readily changed, a few can be locally determined, and two
states we contacted found ways to harmonize their locally determined
definitions. For example, Connecticut developed a self- sufficiency standard
29 that could be uniformly applied across TANF and WIA so that both programs
could place clients in jobs with similar wage levels. Having one self-
sufficiency standard enables welfare and workforce staff to use one process
to determine suitable job training programs and identify appropriate jobs.
Similarly, one local one- stop center we visited in Arizona worked to
accommodate what qualifies as a work activity for TANF clients. At this
center, welfare and one- stop officials worked together to develop training
for both programs that enabled TANF clients to meet the requirement of a
TANF work activity. However, officials in other states reported that
definition differences
28 HR 4737 (which passed the House on May 16, 2002) requires that, not later
than 6 months after the date of enactment, the Secretary of Health and Human
Services and the Secretary of Labor jointly submit a report to the Congress
describing common or conflicting data elements, definitions, performance
measures, and reporting requirements in WIA of 1998 and part A of Title IV
of the Social Security Act, and, to the degree each Secretary deems
appropriate, at the discretion of either Secretary, any other program
administered by the respective Secretary, to allow greater coordination
between the welfare and workforce development systems.
29 Connecticut?s self- sufficiency standard is calculated by considering
income and local costs of living. Different Program
Definitions and Reporting Requirements Complicate Coordination
Page 26 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
between TANF and WIA programs, including dissimilar self- sufficiency
standards, made coordination efforts more difficult.
In addition, differences in reporting requirements, resulting from how the
success of each program is measured, also hinder coordination efforts. Each
program has its own separate measures of success that subsequently drive
program design and use of funds. While WIA?s performance measures focus on
participant outcomes, such as increases in average earnings change and
employment retention rate, TANF measures focus on the overall caseload, such
as work participation rates and caseload reductions. States can also measure
the success of TANF through the use of indicators required for high
performance bonus reporting, similar to WIA?s performance measures. But data
for the measures are not tracked uniformly across states, the measures are
not defined in the same way, and participation in the TANF high performance
bonus is voluntary. Because the mandatory federal measures for both programs
evaluate very different things, officials found that tracking performance
for the TANF and WIA programs together was difficult. Subsequently, these
differences lead to different program designs and hamper state and local
ability to coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers. In addition,
similar to a finding in our prior report on WIA performance measures, 30
several state officials expressed concern that, when WIA funds were used to
serve TANF clients, the reporting requirements could lead one- stop staff to
only serve those TANF clients they believed stood a better chance of meeting
WIA?s outcome- based performance measures.
Welfare and workforce agencies often use different information systems,
complicating efforts to coordinate TANF services with one- stop centers.
Efforts to increase coordination require greater data sharing across
organizations. However, as we reported in the past, some of the systems used
by agencies providing services to TANF clients do not readily share data
with other systems, hampering the case manager?s ability to deliver services
to the client in a timely manner. 31 In some cases, this may mean
30 In our report Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in
Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA?s
Effectiveness, GAO- 01- 275 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 2002) states reported
that performance levels may determine who receives WIA- funded services.
31 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration: Results
of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information Systems, GAO- 02-
121 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 2002). Different Information
Systems Used by Welfare and Workforce Agencies Complicate Coordination
Page 27 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
that data needed to determine what services should be provided to a client
are not readily available to the case manager. In other cases, having
multiple systems may mean that agency workers have to enter the same data
multiple times. In addition, antiquated information systems of both welfare
and workforce agencies have made it difficult for agencies to take advantage
of new technologies, such as Web- based systems. During our site visits and
telephone interviews, some local officials said that they could not merge or
share data and were not equipped to collect information on clients in
different programs. TANF clients are often tracked separately from clients
of other programs, and even the One- Stop Operating System (OSOS), funded by
Labor, does not allow one- stop centers to include TANF programs. In
addition, other officials expressed concerns that sharing data across
programs would violate client confidentiality protections.
Some states have been able to overcome this challenge to coordination by
developing ways to merge data across multiple information systems. As
reported in our previous work, we found that many states are extracting and
consolidating data from multiple systems in data warehouses 32 and other
specialized databases. 33 For example, the agency that administers TANF in
Kansas developed a data warehouse to allow one- stop partners to access the
data they needed on TANF clients without having to breach clients?
confidentiality. Other localities have created their own information
management systems. To compensate for the limitations of OSOS, a New Jersey
one- stop opted to use its own system, which allows the center?s staff to
manually input all information on any client that is served through any
program- including dates, work activities, and outcomes. Though some states
have been able to merge information systems, the issues of incompatible
computer systems are not easily resolved. Officials from two states we
visited said that their states? TANF and WIA agencies were exploring the
development of a shared information system but that cost estimates were too
high for it to be implemented at this time.
32 A data warehouse is a massive database that integrates information
collected from disparate sources. 33 See U. S. General Accounting Office,
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated
Federal Effort, GAO/ HEHS- 00- 48 (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 2000).
Page 28 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Although TANF is not a mandatory partner in the one- stops under WIA, it is
clear that TANF and WIA coordination is increasing, especially at the point
of service delivery- the local level. It appears that, as the systems have
matured and their shared purposes and goals have become evident, many states
and localities have found it advantageous to coordinate their TANF and WIA
services- linking TANF clients with one- stop centers that are positioned to
help them throughout their lifetime, long after they leave time- limited,
cash assistance. This move toward service coordination is not happening
everywhere- it has been left to state and local discretion. Many officials
use the flexibility in the programs to coordinate services for TANF clients,
but their efforts continue to be hampered by lack of accessible information
on state and local coordination efforts and lack of clear research on the
effectiveness of coordinated service delivery on TANF clients? outcomes.
Labor and HHS have made efforts to work together to address some of the
obstacles that states and localities have faced, but their efforts have not
produced clear information on ways to improve coordination for states
wishing to do so. And, while some states have been successful at developing
strategies to overcome obstacles to coordination, others have not been.
Without a mechanism to share successful approaches, states and localities
that have met with success in their coordination efforts will remain an
untapped resource. The information they could share may help other states
and localities struggling in their efforts to design more coordinated
service delivery approaches.
In addition, though many states and localities have chosen to coordinate
welfare and workforce services, research has yet to help state and local
decision makers determine whether and how coordinated service delivery can
be an effective method for improving TANF clients? employment success. It is
unknown whether promoting coordinated service delivery will result in
improved outcomes for TANF clients because limited research exists on this
topic. Clear research findings would help guide federal, state, and local
officials in developing service delivery approaches that work best for TANF
clients and make the best use of available resources.
To help states more effectively address some of the obstacles to
coordination, we recommend that Labor and HHS work together to jointly
develop and distribute information on promising approaches for coordinating
services for TANF clients through one- stops. Conclusions
Recommendations for Executive Action
Page 29 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
To enable states and localities to determine whether coordinated service
delivery is the most effective method for improving TANF clients? employment
success, we recommend that Labor and HHS promote research that would examine
the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients.
We provided a draft of this report to Labor and HHS for their review and
comment. Formal comments from Labor and HHS appear in appendix II and III
respectively. In addition to the comments discussed below, HHS provided
technical comments that we incorporated where appropriate.
Labor and HHS generally agreed with our findings and recommendations and
Labor noted that the report, in their opinion, contained an accurate
portrayal of the extent of current collaboration between TANF and WIA
services. Labor and HHS stated that they support efforts to share promising
practices. Labor noted that they have awarded a contract to develop a
comprehensive website for this purpose. We are hopeful that once fully
developed it will be a ready source of information on many promising
practices including the coordination of TANF and WIA services. HHS noted
that ongoing research, in which they have both informal and formal linkages
with Labor, would likely provide information on successful service delivery
models.
HHS commented that our recommendation to promote research that would examine
the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients could
require an experimental research design, which is not compatible with the
delivery of human service programs in the real world. We recognize the
difficulty in setting up a rigorous comparison, and do not suggest that
experimental research design is the only type of research that would fulfill
our recommendation. Our recommendation is to have Labor and HHS encourage
and support research that focuses a portion of the analysis on how the
service delivery structure of services affects outcomes for TANF clients.
HHS studies have provided some information on the success of different
service models in serving TANF clients and we are hopeful that future
research will focus on how service delivery structures affect outcomes for
TANF clients.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of HHS and Labor,
relevant congressional committees, and others who are interested. Copies
will also be made available to others upon request. This report is also
available at no charge on GAO?s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. Agency
Comments
Page 30 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Please contact me on (202) 512- 7215 if you or your staff have any questions
about this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.
Sigurd R. Nilsen Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Annotated Bibliography of Reviewed Studies
Page 31 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Grubb, W. Norton, et al. Toward Order from Chaos: State Efforts to Reform
Workforce Development Systems. Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in
Vocational Education, 1999.
This study began in 1997 and analyzed data obtained from officials
interviewed in 10 states and in 2 localities within each of the states.
Though findings from this study primarily focused on workforce development
reform efforts, the study also addressed factors that promote service
coordination and challenges to service coordination. Researchers found that
good personal relationships among administrators and consistency of efforts
over time promoted workforce development reform and service coordination,
and conflicts between the welfare work first philosophy and the workforce
development education and training philosophy presented a challenge to
service coordination.
Martinson, Karin. Literature Review on Service Coordination and Integration
in the Welfare and Workforce Development Systems.
Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute, 1999. This literature review, written by
the Urban Institute and released by the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, summarized 16 studies released between 1989 and 1998 that
addressed service coordination between welfare and workforce systems. The
review summarized both barriers to coordination and factors that promoted
coordination efforts between welfare and workforce agencies. Barriers to
coordination included incompatible management information systems and
different program performance measures; factors that promoted coordination
included the federal strategy of providing information on successful
examples of coordination and the local strategy of documenting and
evaluating coordination efforts. The review concluded that studies do not
suggest that one method of coordination was consistently successful in
bringing together welfare and workforce systems.
McIntire, James L. and Amy F. Robins. Fixing to Change: A Best Practices
Assessment of One- Stop Job Centers Working With Welfare Recipients.
Washington: Fiscal Policy Center, University of Washington, 1999. This
study, released by HHS?s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, examined outcomes for TANF clients who received services at five
one- stop centers in five states. Data collection occurred in 1997, and data
analyzed included administrative data and focus group discussions with one-
stop management and staff, employers Appendix I: Annotated Bibliography of
Reviewed Studies
Appendix I: Annotated Bibliography of Reviewed Studies
Page 32 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
of welfare clients, and both current and former welfare clients. Welfare
clients examined were both AFDC clients and TANF clients- depending on the
one- stop examined- because data collection occurred during the period of
initial TANF implementation. This study found that these five one- stop
centers produced partially successful outcomes for welfare clients, as
evidenced by employment rates, wage rates, and hours worked. This study did
not compare outcomes of welfare clients receiving services at the one- stop
centers to outcomes of welfare clients receiving services provided through
different delivery structures, such as local welfare agencies or other
service providers.
Pindus, Nancy, et al. Coordination and Integration of Welfare and Workforce
Development Systems. Washington, D. C.: Urban Institute, 2000.
This study, released by HHS?s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning
and Evaluation in 2000 and written by the Urban Institute, examined recent
state and local coordination efforts of welfare and workforce agencies. Data
analyzed included interviews with officials from TANF and workforce agencies
in 12 localities within 6 states that occurred in the summer of 1999.
Findings included factors that generally promoted coordination between
welfare and workforce agencies and those that created barriers to
coordination. In the study, a prior history of coordination between
agencies, the availability of flexible funding sources, and other factors
were found to promote coordination between welfare and workforce agencies.
In contrast, agency space limitations that hindered collocation and
different program goals were identified as some of the challenges to
coordination. This study concluded that there is not one ideal model,
schedule, or set of guidelines that will result in successful service
delivery coordination.
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
Page 33 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Labor
Page 34 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services Page
35 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services Page
36 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services Page
37 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services Page
38 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 39 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Dianne Blank (202) 512- 5654 Mikki Holmes (202) 512- 3283
Suzanne Lofhjelm, Natalya Bolshun, Kara Finnegan Irving, and Rachel Weber
made significant contributions to this report. In addition, Jessica Botsford
and Richard Burkard provided legal support and Corinna Nicolaou provided
writing assistance. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Staff Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products Page 40 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service Strategies,
but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development. GAO- 02- 413.
Washington, D. C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and One- Stop
Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain. GAO- 02- 500T. Washington, D.
C.: March 12, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Services Through One-
Stops Has Increased Despite Challenges. GAO- 02- 739T. Washington, D. C.:
May 16, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would
Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO- 02- 274. Washington, D. C.: February
11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to
Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA?s Effectiveness.
GAO- 02- 275. Washington, D. C.: February 1, 2002.
Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on
Modernizing Information Systems. GAO- 02- 121. Washington, D. C.: January
31, 2002.
Means- Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is Cumbersome and
Can Be Simplified. GAO- 02- 58. Washington, D. C.: November 2, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More Guidance.
GAO- 02- 94T. Washington, D. C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over
New Requirements. GAO- 02- 72. Washington, D. C.: October 4, 2001.
Welfare Reform: Moving Hard- to- Employ Recipients Into the Workforce.
GAO- 01- 368. Washington, D. C.: March 15, 2001.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Indicate Need
for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO- 01- 71. Washington, D. C.: October
13, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Work- Site Based Activities Can Play an Important Role in
TANF Programs. GAO/ HEHS- 00- 122. Washington, D. C.: July 28, 2000. Related
GAO Products
Related GAO Products Page 41 GAO- 02- 696 Workforce Investment Act
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).
(130135)
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.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO?s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts and
fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of
older products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ?Today?s Reports,? on its Web
site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files. To
have GAO e- mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and
select ?Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products? under
the GAO Reports heading.
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
Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail: fraudnet@
gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470
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 GAO?s Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***