Workforce Investment Act: Coordination of TANF Services Through  
One-Stops Has Increased Despite Challenges (16-MAY-02,		 
GAO-02-739T).							 
                                                                 
A central focus of welfare reform has been to help needy adults  
with children find and keep jobs. The Workforce Investment Act of
1998 (WIA) unifies a fragmented employment and training system.  
Despite its similar fundamental focus, the Temporary Assistance  
for Needy Families (TANF) program was not required to participate
in the one-stop system, although many states are coordinating	 
their TANF services through one-stop centers. GAO found that	 
coordination between TANF programs and WIA's one-stop centers has
risen since WIA was first implemented in the spring of 2000. WIA 
funds may not be readily used to serve TANF clients in the	 
one-stops because WIA's performance measures may be discourage	 
serving clients who may not be successful. Moreover, when TANF	 
clients need training to achieve self sufficiency, WIA funds may 
be unavailable because the amount of training provided under WIA 
has been reduced. Some local areas have found innovative ways to 
provide TANF services in the one-stops, often focusing on	 
resolving the issues that had plagued the fragmented employee	 
training system.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-739T					        
    ACCNO:   A03358						        
  TITLE:     Workforce Investment Act: Coordination of TANF Services  
Through One-Stops Has Increased Despite Challenges		 
     DATE:   05/16/2002 
  SUBJECT:   Public assistance programs 			 
	     Workfare						 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Employment 					 
	     Disadvantaged persons				 
	     Welfare recipients 				 
	     Intergovernmental relations			 
	     Performance measures				 
	     DOL One-Stop Operating System			 
	     DOL One-Stop Planning and Implementation		 
	     Grant Program					 
                                                                 
	     Food Stamp Program 				 
	     Medicaid Program					 
	     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families		 
	     Block Grant					 
                                                                 
	     Temporary Assistance for Needy Families		 
	     Program						 
                                                                 
	     AFDC Work Incentive 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-02-739T
     
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and Training,
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U. S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. Thursday, May 16, 2002
WORKFORCE

INVESTMENT ACT Coordination of TANF Services Through OneStops Has Increased
Despite Challenges

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director Education, Workforce, and Income
Security Issues

GAO- 02- 739T

Page 1 GAO- 02- 739T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss the coordination of services for Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families (TANF) clients 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 with children 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- one that provides for a
fundamental shift in the way services are designed and delivered. Despite
TANF?s similar focus, TANF was not mandated to participate in the onestop
system; however, as we have previously testified, 1 many states and
localities are coordinating their TANF services through 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 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 TANFrelated
services- including TANF work services, TANF cash assistance, and other
support services- with one- stop centers and how this status has changed
since 2000, when WIA was implemented; (2) the challenges that states and
localities have faced in coordinating their TANF work services with their
one- stop centers; and (3) the innovative approaches that they have taken to
coordinate TANF services through the one- stop system. My testimony is based
on our ongoing work on the coordination of TANF and WIA services and
includes results from: a survey 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 4 states
and 9 localities from October 2001 to January 2002 2 ; and telephone
interviews with state TANF and workforce

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

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

Page 2 GAO- 02- 739T

officials in 12 states during January and February 2002. In addition,
results were drawn from our recently completed work on WIA youth and
dislocated worker programs, WIA performance measures, and early WIA
implementation issues.

In summary, coordination between TANF- related programs and WIA?s onestop
centers has increased since the spring of 2000, when WIA was first
implemented. Nearly all states reported some coordination between the
programs at either the state or the local level. Most often, coordination
took one of two forms: through colocation whereby a client accessed TANF-
related programs at the local one- stop, or through referrals and electronic
linkages to off- site programs. 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. WIA funds may not be readily used to serve TANF
clients in the one- stops because WIA?s performance measures may discourage
serving clients who may not be successful. Moreover, when TANF clients need
training to achieve self- sufficiency, WIA funds may not be available
because the amount of training provided under WIA has been reduced. In
addition, even when officials choose to use the one- stop system to provide
TANF- funded services, other challenges remain, largely 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. Despite these challenges,
some local areas have found innovative ways to provide TANF services in the
one- stops, often focusing their efforts on resolving the issues that had
been found in the fragmented employment training system. In our work, 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.

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 was

3 Colocation refers to TANF clients? being served directly at the one- stop
either by TANF staff or by other staff cross- trained to provide TANF-
related services. Electronic linkages

refers to the use of computers, telephones, or other electronic connections
between the one- stop and a separate office where services are provided to
TANF clients. Background

Page 3 GAO- 02- 739T

passed in 1998 and fundamentally changed the nature of federally funded
employment and training services. WIA replaced the former program with a new
one that focused more on providing services to the general public. WIA also
provides for greater consolidation in service delivery, 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. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, created
2 years earlier by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), allowed states greater flexibility than ever
before in designing employment and training services for clients receiving
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. Our prior work on pre- WIA one-
stops found that states varied in the degree to which employment and
training services for TANF clients were being coordinated through the one-
stop system.

WIA replaced the four Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for
economically disadvantaged adults and youth, and dislocated workers, with
three new ones- adult, dislocated worker, and youth- that deemphasize the
categorical nature of JTPA 5 and allow for a broader range of services to be
given to the general public. Services provided under WIA are markedly
different from those provided under JTPA, no longer focusing exclusively on
training. Instead, the adult and dislocated worker programs provide for
three tiers, or levels, of service: core (basic services such as job search
assistance); intensive (staff- intensive services such as assessment and
case management); and training for eligible individuals. 6 To gauge the
success of WIA- funded programs, states and localities are held accountable
through the use of 17 different performance measures

4 TANF also gave states more flexibility in determining the nature of
financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of the
program, and the ways in which services were provided.

5 In contrast to JTPA, WIA adult and dislocated worker programs no longer
use income to determine eligibility for all program services. The youth
program, however, uses lowincome as an eligibility requirement.

6 Services are provided sequentially. That is, in order to receive intensive
services, clients must first receive core services; to receive training
services, a client must first receive core and then intensive services.
Localities may establish certain activities as prerequisites for moving from
core to intensive and training services. Key to moving from core to a higher
level of services is the determination that the services are needed to help
job seekers become self- sufficient.

Page 4 GAO- 02- 739T

that focus on outcomes such as getting and keeping a job. States negotiate
with the Department of Labor to determine the level of performance they are
expected to achieve for each of the measures; localities, in turn, negotiate
with the states to determine their expected levels of performance.

In addition, to establishing the three new programs, WIA requires that
states and localities use the one- stop center system to provide services
for these and many other employment and training programs. This one- stop
system was developed by states prior to WIA, largely through One- Stop
Planning and Implementation Grants from Labor. 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. 7 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 partners?
relationships and services be spelled out in a memorandum of understanding.

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. Flexibility is also
a key feature of the TANF program. 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

7 In addition, three other categories of programs are required to provide
services through the one- stop center: Youth Opportunity Grants;
demonstration, pilot, multiservice, research, and multistate projects; and
national emergency grants. Because they are of limited scope, we did not
include them in our total.

Page 5 GAO- 02- 739T

meeting work requirements 8 -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 keep 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
part, to help reduce the burden on employers who might need to respond to
requests from multiple government agencies. In the past, under the Work
Incentive Program, welfare agencies and workforce development systems
collaborated at some level, but our previous work on pre- WIA programs found
wide variation in the degree to which the welfare and non- welfare programs
worked together to provide employment and training services. 9

8 Work requirements under PRWORA include countable work activities as well
as work participation requirements. 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. 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. 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).

9 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);

Welfare Reform: States? Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to
TANF Clients, GAO/ HEHS- 99- 22 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 26, 1999).

Page 6 GAO- 02- 739T

State and local efforts to coordinate their TANF and WIA programs increased
in 2001, at least 1 year after all states implemented WIA. Nearly all states
reported some coordination at the state or local level, achieved by means
ranging from informal linkages (such as information sharing or periodic
program referrals) to formal linkages (such as memorandums 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 services, TANF cash assistance, or support services- as
well as state and local preferences and conditions.

Nearly all states reported some linkages at the state level between their
TANF and WIA agencies, and we saw modest increases in states? efforts to
coordinate the programs between 2000 and 2001. Twenty- eight states reported
that in 2001 they made extensive use of formal linkages, such as memorandums
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 fig. 1). When we looked at states individually, we saw that many
used 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, 9 states used all five of
the coordination methods that we analyzed, up from 7 states in 2000. 10

10 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 coordination methods: formal linkages
(such as memorandums 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 Are

Coordinating Their TANF and WIA Services at Some Level and Increased Some of
Their Coordination Efforts Since 2001

Coordination Occurred between TANF and WIA Agencies at the State Level in
Most States and Increased Slightly from 2000 to 2001

Page 7 GAO- 02- 739T

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 from 12.

Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001 were
seen at the local level. Forty- four states reported that most of their one-
stop centers had informal linkages, such as periodic program referrals or
information sharing, 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 system in most of their one- stop centers- an increase of 1
state from our 2000 results. Also, our analysis suggests that more Local-
Level Coordination

of TANF and WIA Services Also Increased, and the Form It Took Varied
According to Services Provided

Number of states 0 6

12 18

24 30

Formal linkages Informal linkages Interagency/

Intra- agency workgroups

Coordinated planning Shared

performance Coordination methods 27 28 29

27 22 23

18 19 7

9

2000 2001

Page 8 GAO- 02- 739T

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. 11

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

Source: GAO survey data.

11 Our survey asked states to tell us whether most of the centers
coordinated TANF and WIA programs. We analyzed seven types of coordination
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
memorandums of understanding or mutual referral agreements); coordinated
planning; shared intake and enrollment; integrated case management; shared
client tracking; and shared performance measures.

Number of states 0 10

20 30

40 50

Informal Formal

Coordinated Shared intake,

Integrated case Shared client

Shared Coordination methods

35 44

28 28 22 21

13 16

14 15 13 14

11 12

2000 2001

linkages linkages

planning enrollment

management tracking

performance

Page 9 GAO- 02- 739T

Increases in coordination between the TANF programs and one- stop centers
were also seen in the use of the one- stop 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.
In 2001, 15 states reported 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, compared with 11 states in
2000.

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- stop centers, the staff
were expected to refer clients to appropriate support services outside the
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: 7 states
reported in both years that they provided those services at least part time
at the majority of the one- stop centers.

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 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 fig. 3). Sometimes states
instituted policies to further strengthen the relationships between the
programs and to ensure that clients were connected to one- stop services. In
Michigan, for example, TANF clients are required to attend an orientation
session at the one- stop before they can 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.

Page 10 GAO- 02- 739T

Figure 3: Forms of Coordination That States Reported the Majority of Their
OneStop Centers Were Using in 2001

Source: GAO survey data.

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 officials preferred not to colocate all TANFrelated
programs. While they supported the colocation of TANF work programs, they
believed 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 Department of Labor staff were better

Number of states 0 5

10 15

20 25

30 35

40 45

programs Service provided

Colocation Electronic linkage/ referrals

TANF work TANF cash

assistance Supportprograms

Page 11 GAO- 02- 739T

equipped to provide work- related services. Still other officials were
concerned about the colocation of any TANF- related programs, sharing a view
that TANF clients required special attention and were best served by staff
trained to address the barriers they may face in obtaining employment. Some
officials saw the one- stop centers as better structured to serve clients
whose participation was voluntary, whereas TANF clients are generally
required to engage in work activities. Officials in Washington state, for
example, reported that TANF clients need a higher level of supervision and
more structured assistance to maintain participation in the program and
achieve desired outcomes than they believed one- stop centers could provide.

Despite apparent increases in coordination between the TANF programs 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.
WIA funds may not be readily used to serve TANF clients in the one- stops
because WIA?s performance measurement system discourages serving those
clients who may not be successful. In addition, when TANF clients need
training to achieve self- sufficiency, the amount of training available
under WIA is generally less than what was historically provided under JTPA.
Even when TANF funds were used in the one- stops, states and localities
encountered challenges in coordinating services. Most of these challenges
are similar to those we reported in 2000 when WIA was first implemented.

When TANF clients are served in the one- stop, they may be eligible to
receive services funded by a range of programs in the one- stop in addition
to TANF- the primary one being WIA- but WIA funds may not always be made
available to serve TANF clients. WIA?s performance measurement system, with
its focus on achieving successful outcomes, such as getting and keeping a
job, may actually discourage the one- stop from providing WIA- funded
services to those that are less likely to be successful or those that are
considered to be hard- to- serve. In addition, states and localities have
reduced the amount of training they provide using WIA funds.

WIA?s performance measurement system- one based on client outcomes, such as
getting and keeping a job and increasing wages- may actually discourage
localities from serving those clients who are less likely to be successful
or those considered hard- to- serve. Under the new system, states and
localities are expected to achieve levels of performance that have been
negotiated in advance; not achieving these levels may mean Serving TANF
Clients

through the One- Stop Centers Has Presented Challenges to States and
Localities

WIA Funds May Not Always Be Made Available to Serve TANF Clients

WIA?s Performance Measurement System May Discourage Spending WIA Funds on
Hard- to- Serve Clients

Page 12 GAO- 02- 739T

financial sanctions for states and localities. In a recent study we reported
that all the states we visited believed that the negotiated levels for some
of their measures were set too high for them to meet. 12 States reported
that limitations in available baseline, or historic data, made it difficult
to set fair, realistic performance levels. Some measures had no prior data
available on which to set performance levels. Where baseline data were
available, such as for the wage- related measures, the data were collected
under JTPA, a program whose population focus was different from that of WIA.
13 In addition, some states believe that the performance levels did not
account for variations in economic conditions or for the many economically
disadvantaged or hard- to- serve individuals seeking services in some local
areas. As a result, state officials told us that, in order to meet their
performance levels, local areas may not be registering or serving all
clients eligible for services under WIA. One state official described how
local areas were carefully screening potential WIA participants and holding
meetings to decide whether to register them. TANF clients with little or no
work histories may be particularly vulnerable to being screened out of WIA-
funded services because of concerns over meeting job retention goals.

Even without concerns over their ability to meet performance measures, the
amount of training that states and localities are providing has been reduced
under WIA. Because of PRWORA?s work participation rate requirements and some
states? work first approach- one that emphasizes obtaining employment
quickly- few TANF clients may be considered eligible for training. Even when
TANF clients are eligible for training, few training funds may be available
under WIA. Training options for job seekers appear to be decreasing rather
than increasing, as training providers reduce the number of course offerings
they make available to WIA job seekers. As we reported previously, 14
training providers say that the data collection burden resulting from
participation in WIA can be significant and may discourage them from
participating. For example, the

12 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate
Picture of WIA?s Effectiveness, GAO02- 275 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 1,
2002).

13 While JTPA focused on providing training to the economically
disadvantaged, including the hard- to- serve, WIA provides a broader range
of services to all individuals, regardless of their eligibility for other
services.

14 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Better
Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO- 02- 72
(Washington, D. C.: Oct. 4, 2001). The Amount of Training States

and Localities Provide Has Declined Under WIA

Page 13 GAO- 02- 739T

requirement that training providers collect outcome data on all students in
a class may mean calling hundreds of students to obtain placement and wage
information, even if there is only one WIA- funded student in class. Even if
they used other methods that may be less resource- intensive, training
providers say that privacy limitations might limit their ability to collect
or report student outcome data. As a result, training providers, including
local community colleges, are frequently opting out of providing services
funded by WIA.

Training providers find the reporting requirements particularly burdensome
given the relatively small number of individuals who have been sent for
training. Given a new emphasis under WIA on focusing intensive services or
training on those clients who are not successful getting a job, local
workforce areas are often designing programs that use a work first approach.
As a result, the amount of training they provide is often reduced from what
was provided under JTPA. We recently reported that this work first approach
often means that localities require job seekers to dedicate a set amount of
time or a specific number of tasks to finding employment before receiving
additional services, including training. 15 For example, a counselor from a
local area in Massachusetts told us that clients with marketable skills are
expected to seek employment rather than additional training. As a result of
these changes under WIA, the amount of training provided using WIA funds may
be declining from the levels observed under JTPA.

Even when officials chose to use the one- stop to provide most TANFfunded
services, they told us they encountered challenges to coordination. Limited
facilities, unavailability of one- stop centers in some areas, and few TANF
clients in other areas, as well as incompatible computer systems sometimes
mean that services cannot readily be colocated or coordinated in other ways,
even when officials would otherwise choose to do so. In addition,
incompatible program reporting requirements sometimes limit efforts to
coordinate services. These challenges are the same ones we reported nearly 2
years ago when WIA was first implemented.

15 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Better
Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker
Program, GAO- 02- 274 (Washington, D. C. Feb. 11, 2002). Even When State and

Local Officials Chose to Use The One- Stop Centers to Provide TANF- Funded
Services, Other Challenges Remain

Page 14 GAO- 02- 739T

Facilities. Limited facilities have hampered state and local efforts to
bring services together through the one- stop system. Colocation of TANF
services within the one- stop was not a viable option in many of the
locations that we visited for a recent study. 16 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
stateowned buildings often prevented TANF work programs from relocating to
one- stop centers.

Local conditions, such as unavailability of one- stop centers in some areas
and few TANF clients in other areas, may also mean that all TANF work
programs are not easily colocated at 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
believed 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.

Information Systems. The states that we visited reported that the inability
to link the information systems of TANF work programs and one- stop centers
complicated efforts to coordinate programs. A recent conference that we
cosponsored also highlighted this issue, 17 specifically identifying the age
of information systems as inhibiting coordination efforts. The pressing need
to modernize the systems stemmed from the shift in objectives under TANF-
focusing more on preparing TANF clients for work than under previous welfare
programs. This shift created new demands on information systems- systems
that were often antiquated and limited in the ability to use new
technologies, such as Web- based

16 U. S. General Accounting Office, 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).

17 For more information on integration of information systems for human
services programs, see U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Services
Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing
Information Systems, GAO- 02- 121 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 31, 2002).
Limited Facilities and

Incompatible Information Systems Hamper State and Local Efforts

Page 15 GAO- 02- 739T

technologies. In addition, the systems used by agencies providing services
to TANF clients did not provide for sharing client data, thus hindering the
case management of clients. Some of these concerns were also raised during
site visits and telephone interviews for our recent study. 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 any programs outside of Labor?s programs, including TANF.
In addition, other officials expressed concerns that sharing data across
programs would violate confidentiality restrictions.

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- and the
different reporting requirements attached to the various funding streams
made coordination difficult. 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 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 clients stay employed. 18

The difficulty in coordinating services while tracking separate performance
measures for multiple programs in the one- stop extends beyond TANF. We
recently reported that separate performance measures impede cooperation of
the one- stop program partners, as expressed by over one- third of the
states surveyed. Some states even believed that

18 For more information on performances measures for WIA- funded programs,
see U. S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements
Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA?s
Effectiveness,

GAO- 02- 275 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 1, 2002). Incompatible Program

Requirements Sometimes Hold Back Efforts to Coordinate Services

Page 16 GAO- 02- 739T

separate measures caused competition among programs. In addition, there are
currently no measures to gauge the overall success of the one- stop system
in coordinating services and in meeting the needs of employers and job
seekers. The Department of Labor has convened a working group to develop
additional indicators of one- stop performance that states and localities
could use, but these measures are not yet available. We have recommended to
the Department of Labor that it ensure the development of these measures in
enough time for states to implement them at the beginning of program year
2002.

Despite these challenges, states and localities are designing and developing
coordinated service delivery approaches at the one- stop centers, finding
strategies to serve TANF clients and other job seekers by focusing their
efforts on resolving some of the longstanding issues inherent in a
fragmented system. In so doing, they have looked to the new requirements of
WIA and focused on a broader range of services to meet the employment-
related needs of the general public. In addition, they have begun to
emphasize simultaneous services to both employers and job seekers. While no
outcome data are yet available on the success of their work, some of their
early efforts show promise for implementing an integrated workforce
investment system.

In designing services at one- stop centers, states and localities have
sought to combine WIA?s emphasis on services to the general public with
efforts to solve the problems that have existed in a fragmented employment
and training system. For example, in earlier work, we identified some key
problems that exist in a fragmented system, including (1) frustration for
employers because of wasted time responding to multiple job inquiries for
the same openings from several different government entities; (2) confusion
on the part of job seekers and service providers because there was not a
clear entry point or clear path from one program to another, nor was there
ready access to program information; and (3) frustration for job seekers
because programs were not tailored to meet their needs and because
navigating the various programs to get needed assistance meant completing
multiple intake and assessment procedures. 19 To effectively coordinate
their programs, states and localities needed to address these

19 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment Training
Programs: Major Overhaul Is Needed, GAO/ T- HEHS- 94- 109 (Washington, D.
C.: Mar. 3, 1994). Some Local Areas

Have Found Innovative Ways to Coordinate Services Through the One- Stop
Centers

Innovative Approaches Use Flexibility and Aim to Reduce Problems Inherent in
a Fragmented System

Page 17 GAO- 02- 739T

issues, while meeting the enhanced client focus of WIA. We identified the
following key areas as critical to successfully integrating services under
WIA:

 Attracting and serving employers in ways that minimize wasted time and
reduce their frustration.

 Bringing job seekers to the one- stop centers to help them obtain ready
access to employment and program information.

 Creating a customer friendly environment for job- seekers by reducing
confusion, providing them with a clear entry point and clear path from one
program to another.

 Providing services to job seekers that are tailored and seamless, and
helping them identify and obtain needed program services without the burden
of completing multiple intake and assessment procedures.

 Helping job seekers become self- sufficient by providing post- employment
services that assist with job retention and advancement.

Figure 4 charts the processes followed by customers passing through the
system and each of the key areas in which we identified promising
approaches.

Figure 4: One- Stop Process, Key Areas of Promising Approaches

Source: GAO?s analysis.

Follow- up and retention

services Core/ Universal Intensive/

Specialized Training Attracting and serving employers

Helping job seekers become self- sufficient Providing job seeker services
that are tailored and seamless

Employers Employer

services One- stop

Job seekers

Information/ Referral

Creating a customer friendly environment for job seekers

Pre- employment services Bringing in

job seekers

Page 18 GAO- 02- 739T

To effectively attract and better serve employers, many one- stop centers
market their services, minimize the burden on employers who use the centers,
and provide employer- focused services. Employers may be confused when
multiple government agencies- such as the local welfare agency and the one-
stop operator- both contact them to seek employment opportunities for their
clients. To bring in employers and to reduce the frustration and confusion
that they experienced when receiving contacts from multiple agencies, the
centers we visited in an earlier study in Titusville and Melbourne, Florida,
designated an individual or a team to serve as the center?s representative
for an employer or employment sector, covering issues related to job
listings and placements. In providing services to employers, centers in
Dayton, Ohio, Janesville, Wisconsin, and in Utah allowed employers to use
the one- stop facilities to recruit, interview, and test job candidates. One
center in Florence, Kentucky, provided video- teleconferencing facilities so
that candidates could be interviewed by employers who were located outside
the local area. In a small center in Portland, Oregon, where facility space
was limited, a desk was dedicated for employer use, allowing them to have a
presence at the one- stop center and to recruit, screen, and interview
candidates. To help bring in and serve small businesses, centers in New
Orleans, Louisiana; Killeen, Texas; and Eugene, Oregon, were creating a
business- only resource center within the one- stop center with a range of
special resources that included Internet services, business- related
reference material, and assistance with business tax questions.

At the same time one- stop centers are attracting employers, they also need
to attract job seekers, including those receiving TANF assistance, and make
them aware of the centers? resources. In our work on multiple employment
programs, we found that job seekers were confused and frustrated by the
limited information readily available on government programs that could help
them and on where they could access this information. 20 The centers we
visited in another study found several ways to address these problems and
bring in job seekers. For example, sites in New Jersey and Louisiana
established satellite one- stop centers in public housing areas to bring in
low- income job- seekers, including TANF clients, for services. In the
Denver, Colorado, area, one- stop centers are specialized, each providing
services to certain populations. Clients

20 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment Programs, GAO/
HRD- 93- 26R, (Washington, D. C.: June 15, 1993). Attracting and Serving

Employers Bringing in Job Seekers

Page 19 GAO- 02- 739T

receiving TANF cash assistance are served by a one- stop that occupies the
lower floor of a professional- looking new facility that house all
welfarerelated services. Other centers bring in customers by targeting
services to younger members of the community, such as high school students.
For example, the center in Racine, Wisconsin, established a youth resource
area with computers and programs dedicated to career exploration. The center
worked with the school system and has become a site for school field trips
throughout the primary and secondary school years. And in Lafayette,
Louisiana, officials created a separate youth- only one- stop center in the
same building that contains a library and a substance abuse program. They
also plan to locate information kiosks for youth services in the shopping
malls.

Once job seekers are inside the door of the one- stop center, the next step
is to create a customer friendly environment- one that reduces confusion and
provides a clear entry point to services. One- stop center operators told us
that they try to find ways to avoid the atmosphere of a government office
and the long waiting lines that have symbolized government transactions,
like applying for welfare benefits or unemployment insurance. Almost without
exception, one- stop centers we visited had an information desk directly
inside the front door that was continually staffed by a receptionist or
greeter. Some centers considered this position key to providing high-
quality services to their clients. One center in Texas assigned only top
performers to the information desk and regarded that assignment as an honor.

Many centers, such as Dayton, Ohio, and Killeen, Texas, minimized the
waiting time for services by performing a quick assessment at the
information desk and then referred clients to service areas. One- stop
centers in Utah featured an express desk to serve customers needing quick
services. Instead of having to sit down with a job counselor or case
manager, customers using the express desk could, for instance, obtain bus
passes or electronic benefit transfer cards, or drop off required documents,
such as what might be needed to support a claim for TANF or food stamp
benefits. Some centers, such as the one in Janesville, Wisconsin, also used
their resource rooms- where they maintain job listings, computers with
Internet access, telephones, and fax machines- as the waiting area for
specialized services, thus allowing the customers to use their wait time to
accomplish necessary job search tasks. Creating a Customer

Friendly Environment for Job Seekers

Page 20 GAO- 02- 739T

Many job seekers can meet all their needs in the self- service resource
room. In fact, Labor officials expect that the majority of customers under
WIA will receive needed services through self- service or with very limited
assistance from staff. However, some clients, like many TANF recipients, may
need more intensive case management and training services to help them get
and keep a job. Trying to obtain just this type of intensive service has
historically frustrated clients who were left on their own to navigate the
array of federal programs, each with its own intake and assessment
procedures. One- stop centers we visited often found ways to coordinate the
services provided by multiple programs, creating a seamless approach to
delivering services. One locality in Connecticut, for example, crosstrains
case management staff to provide both TANF and WIA services. A new youth-
only one- stop in Milwaukee cross- trains staff in all partner programs so
that services are always available and delivered seamlessly. And in Killeen,
Texas, where more than one case manager could be involved in a case, the
center assigned a primary case manager who took the lead to coordinate most
activities and assist the client in navigating the system. In many locations
we visited, the case managers were aware of all the program services
available to serve a client- including support services to enable a client
to attend training or to get or keep a job- and tailored the services to
meet the client?s needs. In our earlier work, we found tailoring of services
to be a key feature in successful employment training programs. 21

The efforts of the one- stop centers do not end once a client gets a job.
The focus of post- employment services changes to one of helping the client
retain the job or get a better job. Localities sometimes focused most of
their post- employment efforts on TANF clients, often providing
transportation services- helping clients get to and from a job. For example,
a 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.

21 See U. S. General Accounting Office, Employment Training: Successful
Projects Share Common Strategy, GAO/ HEHS- 96- 108, (Washington, D. C.: May
7, 1996). Providing Job Seekers with

Services That Are Tailored and Seamless

Helping Job Seekers Become Self- Sufficient

Page 21 GAO- 02- 739T

Even though TANF was not made a mandatory partner under WIA, we see
continuing evidence that many 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 more
evident, many states and localities have found it advantageous to more
formally coordinate their TANF and WIA services, although it is not
happening everywhere. Many state and local officials hailed the flexibility
in both the WIA and TANF programs as an important step in helping them to
design their service delivery systems and to coordinate services where
appropriate. But their efforts to bring services together continue to be
hampered by the same obstacles that we reported nearly 2 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. Despite the
obstacles, some local areas have creatively found ways to coordinate
services for their TANF clients through the one- stop system. However, as
Congress moves toward reauthorizing TANF this year and WIA in 2003,
consideration should be given to finding ways to remove remaining obstacles
to coordinating services and focusing on client outcomes.

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. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony
included Kara Finnegan Irving, Rachel Weber, and Natalya Bolshun. Concluding

Observations GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

Page 22 GAO- 02- 739T

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: 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: 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.

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.
Related GAO Products

(130157)

Page 23 GAO- 02- 739T
*** End of document. ***