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 Act1

 (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 Families2

 (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 systems6

 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 requirements10—

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) grants13 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 résumé

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

employment18 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 data26—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 standard29 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 warehouses32 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