GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Committees

April 2000 WELFARE REFORM

Improving State

Automated Systems

Requires Coordinated

Federal Effort

GAO/HEHS-00-48

Page 1 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Contents

Letter 5

Executive Summary 8

Chapter 1

Introduction

16

Federal Funding and Oversight Have Played Key Roles in Developing

States’ Automated Welfare Systems 18

Welfare Reform Legislation Established Numerous Requirements for

Those Receiving TANF and for States 21

New and Evolving Welfare Environment Is Transforming States’

Automated Systems Needs 24

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 27

Chapter 2

Current Automated

Systems Do Not

Always Fully Support

State and Local Efforts

to Help TANF

Recipients Move to

Employment

31

Insufficient Links Among Automated Systems Constrain Case

Managers’ Ability to Coordinate Services and Monitor Recipients’

Progress 31

Difficulties in Querying Automated Systems to Obtain Needed

Information Limit Capabilities for Service Planning 37

Automated Systems Vary in Capabilities to Support Program

Oversight 41

Chapter 3

State Automated

Systems Projects Seek

to Expand the Ability

to Obtain and Analyze

Data From Multiple

Sources

47

States Seek to Improve Capabilities for Coordinated Service

Delivery by Expanding Automated System Links 47

States Are Developing Databases and Query Tools to Improve

Managers’ Capabilities to Analyze Data Across Programs 50
Contents

Page 2 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Chapter 4

Federal Action Could

Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face

in Improving

Automated Systems

53

States Face a Range of Obstacles to Improving Their Automated

Systems 53

Federal Actions Could Help States Improve Automated Systems 60

Conclusions 63

Recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services 63

Agency Comments and Our Response 64

Appendixes Appendix I: The GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working Seminar on

Social Program Information Systems: Objectives, History, and

Membership 66

Appendix II: Links Among Automated Systems for Different Social

Programs 69

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Health and

Human Services 71

Appendix IV: Comments From the Department of Agriculture 76

Appendix V: Comments From the Department of Labor 78

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 79

Glossary 80

Bibliography 82

Related GAO Products 85

Tables Table 1: Increasing Participation Requirements for One-Parent and

Two-Parent Families Under Federal Law 22

Table 2: Information That States Need to Meet Federal Reporting

Requirements and to Participate in the Optional High-Performance

Bonus Program 23

Table 3: Key Information Users and Functions They Perform to Help

Low-Income Families Become Employed 26

Table 4: Case Study States and Local Sites 29

Table 5: Respondents to the Automated Systems Questionnaire 30
Contents

Page 3 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 6: Capabilities of Automated Systems in Six States to Support

Selected TANF Case Management Activities 36

Table 7: Capabilities of Automated Systems in Six States to Provide

Program Managers With Information on Selected Caseload

Characteristics 40

Table 8: Automated Systems Projects Being Designed to Help

Frontline Workers Coordinate Service Delivery 48

Table 9: Automated Systems Projects Being Designed to Enhance

Analytical Capabilities of Program Managers 51

Figures Figure 1: Broad Array of Programs and Services That Case Managers

Can Draw Upon to Serve Their Clients 25

Figure 2: Proportion of Information Needed for Case Management

That Is Provided by Automated Systems 32

Figure 3: Automated Systems That TANF Case Managers Can Access

From Their Desktop Computers 35

Figure 4: Proportion of Information Needed for Service Planning

That Is Provided by Automated Systems 38

Figure 5: Proportion of Information Needed for Monitoring Program

Performance With Respect to Employment Progress of TANF

Recipients That Is Provided by Automated Systems 42

Figure 6: Programs With an Automated System That Either Is the

Same as, or Shares Data With, the System Used for Determining

TANF Eligibility 70
Contents

Page 4 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Abbreviations

ACF Administration for Children and Families

AFDC Aid to Families With Dependent Children

APD advanced planning document

APHSA American Public Human Services Association

FAMIS Family Assistance Management Information System

FNS Food and Nutrition Service

HCFA Health Care Financing Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

JOBS Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training

JTPA Job Training and Partnership Act

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation

Act of 1996

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

UI unemployment insurance

USDA Department of Agriculture
United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 5 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Health, Education, and

Human Services Division

B-282551 Letr

April 27, 2000

Congressional Committees

The sweeping welfare reforms enacted by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) have profound implications for the information needs of

states and the automated systems designed to meet these needs. This report, Welfare Reform:

Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort (GAO/HEHS-00-48), based

on a research and development effort by GAO, examines the capabilities of states’ automated systems

to provide information needed for state and local officials to help low-income individuals with

children obtain employment and become economically independent. In addition, the report provides

information on approaches states are using to improve their automated systems, obstacles they have

encountered in this process, and the potential role of the federal government in helping overcome

these obstacles. We are making a recommendation to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

(The complete list of committees to which this report is addressed appears at the end of this letter.)

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Donna E. Shalala, Secretary of Health and

Human Services; the Honorable Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture; the Honorable Alexis M.

Herman, Secretary of Labor; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others

on request.

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please call me at (202) 512-7215 or Gale

C. Harris at (202) 512-7235. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments for this report are listed

in appendix VI.

Cynthia M. Fagnoni

Director, Education, Workforce, and

Income Security Issues
B-282551

Page 6 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Richard G. Lugar, Chairman

The Honorable Tom Harkin, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry

United States Senate

The Honorable William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman

The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable James M. Jeffords, Chairman

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions

United States Senate

The Honorable Larry Combest, Chairman

The Honorable Charles W. Stenholm, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Agriculture

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Bliley, Chairman

The Honorable John D. Dingell, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable William F. Goodling, Chairman

The Honorable William L. Clay, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Education and the Workforce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton, Chairman

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives
B-282551

Page 7 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

The Honorable Bill Archer, Chairman

The Honorable Charles B. Rangel, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives
Page 8 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Executive Summary

Purpose In the wake of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), states’ assistance programs for

needy families with children have undergone dramatic shifts in objectives,

policies, and operations. PRWORA replaced the Aid to Families With

Dependent Children (AFDC) program with a block grant to states to

provide Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). PRWORA gave

states greater flexibility in designing their programs under TANF but also

established new accountability measures for states and a 5-year lifetime

limit on TANF assistance. These measures heighten the importance of

helping TANF recipients find work quickly and retain employment.

Moreover, as welfare agencies focus on moving needy families toward

economic independence, these agencies are drawing on numerous federal

and state programs—often administered by separate agencies—to provide

a wide array of services, such as child care, food stamps, and employment

and training services.1 These sweeping changes have profound implications

for the information needs of states and the automated systems designed to

meet those needs.

1

The Department of Health and Human Services oversees programs such as TANF, Medicaid,

child care, and child support enforcement; the Department of Agriculture oversees food

stamps; and the Department of Labor oversees employment and training programs.
Executive Summary

Page 9 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

To provide information for congressional oversight, GAO reviewed states’

efforts to meet the information needs associated with welfare reform, with

a focus on TANF. GAO (1) assessed the extent to which current automated

systems in selected states meet key information needs of programs that

help low-income individuals with children obtain employment and become

economically independent, (2) identified the approaches states are using to

develop or modify their automated systems to better meet these

information needs, and (3) identified the major obstacles states have

encountered in working to improve their automated systems as well as the

potential role of the federal government in helping overcome these

obstacles. In collaboration with field researchers from the Nelson A.

Rockefeller Institute of Government’s State Capacity Project, GAO

conducted case studies at the state and local levels in six states and

collected supplemental information through a survey of these six and nine

additional states and some of their localities. In addition, GAO jointly

established the GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working Seminar on Social

Program Information Systems to provide an ongoing source of expertise in

this area.2

Results in Brief Although automated systems in the states GAO examined support welfare

reform in many ways, a number of these systems have major limitations in

one or more of three key areas. With respect to information needs for case

management, the major shortcoming—which exists to varying degrees

across the states—is an inability to obtain data on individual TANF

recipients from some of the agencies serving them, including job assistance

agencies. This situation makes it difficult for TANF case managers to

arrange needed services; ensure that the services are provided; and

respond quickly when problems arise, such as when a recipient does not

attend a scheduled work activity. Second, officials in the states, especially

those at the local level, said that it is sometimes difficult or impossible to

query automated systems to obtain information for planning service

strategies for their overall TANF caseloads, such as information on the

number of adults with no prior work experience. Finally, automated

systems have shortcomings for program oversight purposes; specifically,

they do not provide enough information to support enforcement of the 5-

2

The working seminar has about 30 members, including congressional staff, federal and

state managers of information technology for social programs, and welfare researchers. See

app. I for a list of members and an overview of working seminar activities.
Executive Summary

Page 10 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

year TANF time limit and to monitor the employment progress of TANF

recipients overall in some instances.

States’ automated systems projects embody a range of approaches to

expanding the ability of system users to obtain and analyze data from

multiple sources. Some projects are designed primarily to support TANF

case managers and other frontline workers in providing more coordinated

delivery of services. Ohio and Texas, for example, are developing “common

front ends,” which are intended to provide a single point of access to

multiple systems for frontline workers and reduce duplicate data entry by

automatically transferring data across systems. These common front ends

can reduce data entry errors and free up workers to spend more time

working directly with families. Other projects, geared more to improving

the ability of program managers to collect and analyze data from different

programs, involve developing new query tools and databases that are

expected to help program managers with key tasks, such as determining

program results and assessing the performance of service providers.

Modifying and developing automated systems that better support welfare

reform is a long-term and evolving process.

States face a number of obstacles to improving their automated systems,

such as the magnitude of changes in the mission and operations of welfare

agencies due to welfare reform, the inherent difficulties associated with

successfully managing information technology projects, competition with

the private sector to recruit and retain information technology staff, and

the complexity of obtaining federal funding for systems projects that

involve multiple agencies. The federal government could take various

actions to help overcome such obstacles, such as providing more

information on best practices for managing information technology. In this

way, the federal government could serve a facilitative role, in addition to its

regulatory role, in helping states improve automated systems for social

programs. However, no group or organization that brings together key

federal agencies involved in welfare reform has been formally charged with

devising solutions to the range of obstacles confronting states. GAO is thus

recommending that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS)

establish an interagency group that would play such a role.
Executive Summary

Page 11 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Principal Findings

Current Automated Systems

Do Not Always Fully

Support State and Local

Efforts to Help TANF

Recipients Become

Employed

Of the 15 localities responding to GAO’s survey on the extent to which

automated systems support case management, 5 indicated that their

systems provide all or most of the information that TANF case managers

need, whereas 10 said that systems provide about half or less of the

information needed. A major shortcoming cited by officials in GAO’s case

study states is that some of the automated systems used by agencies

providing services to TANF recipients do not share information about these

recipients. For example, local officials in New Jersey told us that some

TANF recipients had received sanctions in error because data on their

attendance at work activities are not shared between the automated

systems used by the welfare and labor departments.3

Automated systems in some cases also have shortcomings that limit the

ability of program managers to obtain information needed for service

planning. While state officials from 8 of the 15 states surveyed indicated

that automated systems provide all or most of the caseload information

that program managers need for service planning, local officials from 6 of

the 15 localities responded similarly. For example, local officials at one site

commented that data on the characteristics of TANF recipients contained

in the state’s automated systems are often not available in a format that

can be easily manipulated, and, as a result, accessing data depends on the

technical expertise of the user. Difficulties in accessing such data can limit

the ability of managers to identify and meet the service needs of their

caseloads.

GAO also identified a gap in the ability of automated systems to support

enforcement of the 5-year TANF time limit and to provide program

managers with information to monitor TANF recipients’ employment

progress. Officials in five of the six case study states said that their

automated systems provide data on the number of months countable

toward a TANF recipient’s time limit in their state. However, these states

generally reported that they do not collect data on recipients’ prior receipt

of TANF in other states or that they rely on TANF recipients to disclose this

information, which is an unreliable method that could lead to payments to

3

TANF recipients who do not comply with work requirements are subject to reductions in or

terminations of their TANF grants.
Executive Summary

Page 12 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

ineligible individuals. In addition, local officials in GAO’s case study states

generally reported that they can obtain information on the number of TANF

recipients that enter employment. However, local officials vary in their

capabilities to obtain aggregate information on the job retention rates of

these recipients and generally cannot obtain information on the extent to

which recipients have increased their wage levels.

State Automated Systems

Projects Seek to Expand the

Ability to Obtain and

Analyze Data From Multiple

Sources

States’ automated systems projects are using various approaches to

support more coordinated delivery of services to low-income families,

including developing new links among separate automated systems,

replacing existing systems with new integrated systems, and constructing

electronic networks to link agencies and service providers. New Jersey’s

One Ease-E Link project aims to establish local electronic networks that

both expand access to client data among agencies serving TANF recipients

and provide such capabilities as automated appointment scheduling for

recipients. In addition, states have projects under way to expand program

managers’ abilities to obtain and analyze information that covers a broader

range of programs and is more comprehensive than that contained in

preprogrammed reports. Several states are developing large databases that

are designed to extract data from different programs’ automated systems

and enable users to generate customized reports to meet their information

needs, such as determining the extent to which former TANF recipients are

receiving food stamps or Medicaid.

Federal Action Could Help

Overcome Obstacles States

Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Some of the obstacles cited by states pertain to the large-scale changes in

the mission and operations of welfare agencies that complicate states’

efforts to manage information technology projects, including states’ need

to define the functions a system must support, translate these functions

into specific requirements, and then identify the applications and hardware

that will be used to meet these needs. In addition, the need to collaborate

with new partners in carrying out these tasks and to obtain cross-state

information to enforce the 5-year TANF time limit has compounded the

difficulties involved. Other obstacles involve obtaining sufficient staff

resources, such as difficulties in competing with the private sector to

recruit and retain qualified information technology staff. In addition, states

maintained that the federal review process for systems procurement is too

cumbersome when a project requires approvals from multiple federal

agencies.
Executive Summary

Page 13 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

While some of these obstacles may be best addressed at the state level,

GAO identified four key areas in which federal actions could better

facilitate states’ efforts to improve their automated systems:

• Disseminate information on best practices for managing information

technology generally as well as best practices specific to automated

systems that support welfare reform.

• Review and modify as needed the federal process for systems

procurement to ensure that it meets federal needs for state

accountability without unnecessarily hindering state development

efforts.

• Facilitate links among the automated systems used by different state

and local agencies through such means as supporting demonstrations

designed to promote better partnerships between state and local

agencies and coordinating data reporting requirements for different

federal programs.

• Address the need for states to have access to cross-state information on

individuals’ TANF receipt to enable enforcement of the 5-year TANF

time limit.

The issues cross various federal programs and agencies. HHS could play a

pivotal role in orchestrating a collaborative approach among the agencies

by bringing representatives from each of them together to work on these

issues. Increased federal attention to the ongoing and evolving process of

improving states’ automated systems for social programs could ultimately

help bring about more effective and efficient service delivery for lowincome families.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of Health

and Human Services

GAO recommends that the Secretary of HHS establish an interagency

group to identify, and develop implementation plans for, federal actions

that would facilitate states’ efforts to improve their automated systems for

federal programs that serve low-income families. The group should include

high-level federal officials from HHS, the Department of Agriculture

(USDA), the Department of Labor, and other federal agencies as

appropriate. The interagency group should obtain input from state and

local social program and information technology managers; the group

could also seek input from others, such as state organizations, professional

organizations of social program officials, and welfare researchers. In

addition to any actions that the interagency group identifies on its own, the

group should consider actions in the four key areas GAO identified for a

federal facilitative role.
Executive Summary

Page 14 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Agency Comments GAO obtained comments on a draft of this report from HHS, USDA, and

Labor (these comments are included in apps. III, IV, and V). USDA and

Labor agreed with GAO’s recommendation. HHS said that it would review,

along with other involved federal agencies, the federal process for

approving state systems acquisitions. However, HHS did not say that it

would take responsibility for establishing an interagency group to conduct

such a review. GAO believes that HHS is the appropriate agency to

establish the group because HHS oversees many of the affected programs.

Furthermore, GAO’s recommendation envisioned more than just a review

of systems procurement requirements. Identifying, and developing

implementation plans for, needed actions in the other recommended areas

would further assist states in improving the effectiveness of their

automated systems.
Page 15 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform
Page 16 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Chapter 1

Introduction Chapte1r

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of

1996 (PRWORA) significantly changed federal policy for aiding low-income

families with children. It ended the 61-year-old Aid to Families With

Dependent Children (AFDC) program, under which eligible families were

entitled to ongoing monthly cash assistance, and replaced it with the

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant for states.

The TANF block grant, administered by the Department of Health and

Human Services (HHS), provides a total of up to $16.5 billion to the states

each year through 2002. As specified in PRWORA, the goals of TANF

include ending the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by

promoting job preparation and work. Under TANF, states have increased

flexibility to design their programs and are therefore able to build upon

initiatives they had begun experimenting with before federal reform.

However, among other provisions, the law also requires that, to avoid

financial penalties, states impose work requirements for adults, meet

steadily rising requirements for the percentage of adults who participate in

work activities, and enforce a 5-year lifetime limit on receiving TANF. To

ensure they meet these and other requirements, states must also meet new

federal program and fiscal reporting requirements.

The new emphasis on work, job placement, and the temporary nature of aid

requires a fundamental shift in how welfare offices do business and has

implications beyond the TANF program and its workers. The goal of

welfare workers and program managers is to help families become selfsupporting. This new work-focused welfare affects other key programs that

can help needy families in their transition to employment, most

prominently the Food Stamp program, Medicaid, and the employment and

training programs that are a part of each state’s workforce development

system.1 Work-focused welfare also has an effect on the multitude of

service providers—public, nonprofit, and private—that are involved in

helping low-income families move toward economic independence.

1

For this report “workforce development system” refers to the state or local entity

responsible for administering employment and training programs that originate through the

Department of Labor, such as the state Employment Service or Job Training Partnership Act

programs.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 17 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Because of the new ways of doing business, the increased number of

agencies and service providers involved, and the expanded federal

reporting requirements, welfare reform has placed increased demands on

state information systems that have traditionally been critical to the

successful operation of states’ welfare programs. Under the AFDC

program, information systems were primarily used to determine eligibility

and to provide some data for oversight, typically aggregate data on

caseloads and expenditures, to state and federal program managers.2 In the

new welfare environment, however, information systems must support an

expanded set of functions in three key areas: case management, including

eligibility determination; service planning; and program oversight, with a

new emphasis on outcomes and results. In addition, the increased

devolution of responsibility for program operation and performance to

states and localities increases the need for systems that can respond to the

multiple needs of users at all levels of government. State and local

information systems used in operating and overseeing welfare programs

will be important to the effective implementation of the new welfare

program.

2

Under the Job Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program, many states did

have JOBS automated systems that included some capacity for managing cases, such as

tracking attendance in education, training, and work-related activities. However, these

systems did not cover the entire AFDC caseload because most AFDC recipients did not

participate in JOBS.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 18 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Federal Funding and

Oversight Have Played

Key Roles in

Developing States’

Automated Welfare

Systems

Three of the federal government’s major programs for needy families—

AFDC/TANF, Medicaid, and the Food Stamp program—have historically

relied heavily on state-run automated computer systems to help determine

applicants’ eligibility and the amount of assistance each participant should

receive. Recognizing the importance of automated systems in efficiently

and accurately determining eligibility, over the years the Congress has

acted to encourage states to develop automated systems for these

programs. Specifically, the Congress authorized HHS’ Administration for

Children and Families (ACF), which oversaw the AFDC program, and HHS’

Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA), which oversees Medicaid,

to reimburse states for a significant proportion of their total costs to

develop and operate automated eligibility determination systems.3 In 1980

the Congress also authorized the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Food

and Nutrition Service (FNS), which oversees the Food Stamp program, to

reimburse states for 75 percent of their costs for planning, designing,

developing, and installing automated eligibility systems and 50 percent of

the costs to operate these systems.4 The goals of these automated eligibility

systems were to minimize mistakes and the amount of time needed to

determine eligibility, and to lower administrative costs.

3

For more detailed information on the proportion of total costs paid by the federal

government for AFDC and Medicaid automated eligibility systems, see Automated Welfare

Systems: Historical Costs and Projections (GAO/AIMD-94-52-FS, Feb. 25, 1994). Subsequent

revisions led to the 1989 reduction of HHS’ funding rate for Medicaid eligibility

determination systems to 50 percent of states’ development costs. The Social Security Act

and related amendments had authorized states to operate two types of automated systems

to help manage their Medicaid programs: Medicaid eligibility systems and Medicaid

management information systems. The management information systems, as required by

HCFA, are basically claims processing and payment delivery systems and are not intended

to perform eligibility determination functions. All states operate their management

information systems separately from their eligibility systems.

4

Legislation in 1993 reduced the food stamp funding rate to 50 percent of states’

development costs, effective April 1, 1994.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 19 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

To obtain federal funding for a portion of the cost of automated welfare

systems development and implementation for AFDC, Medicaid, and food

stamps, states have been required to follow the advanced planning

document (APD) process. Under this process, states submit APDs to the

specific oversight agencies detailing state plans to develop and implement

automated systems. The federal agencies then make funding decisions on

the basis of these APD submissions. If a system is to be used for more than

one program, APDs that meet the separate requirements of each program

must be submitted and approved, and development costs are allocated to

the various programs. After approving funding to states, the federal

agencies monitor development and operation of the state systems to ensure

all federal requirements are met. To obtain enhanced funding for AFDC

automated systems, states had to meet the requirements for a Family

Assistance Management Information System (FAMIS), a general system

design developed by HHS to improve state administration of the AFDC

program. Because eligibility for Medicaid and food stamps was linked to

eligibility for AFDC, most of the AFDC systems also covered Medicaid and

food stamps. To the extent that Medicaid and food stamp eligibility systems

were integrated with AFDC systems, ACF, HCFA, and FNS used a cost

allocation method to determine the portion of the system costs to be borne

by each agency. At the time PRWORA was enacted in August 1996, 38 states

operated state systems that complied with FAMIS requirements.5

The APD process remains in place for Medicaid and food stamps. However,

under TANF, states are no longer required to submit APDs, and ACF is no

longer required to play a role in establishing system requirements or in

monitoring system development. States may use whatever portion of their

capped federal TANF block grant funds they wish for developing and

operating systems. However, no legislatively mandated ceilings exist to

specifically limit federal funds for states’ development and operation of

automated systems costs related to Medicaid and food stamps. According

to data reported by states to HHS, states had expended a total of about

$456 million, or about 2 percent, of federal TANF funds on systems from

fiscal year 1997 through the second quarter of fiscal year 1999.6

5

After this time, HHS no longer certified systems for compliance with FAMIS requirements.

6

States expended an additional $291 million of state funds for their TANF programs on

systems during the same period.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 20 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

HHS also provides states with a proportion of the costs of automated

systems for other federal welfare-related programs, including the child

support enforcement program, child care subsidy program, child welfare

services, and foster care/adoption assistance. We reported in 19947 that 52

of the 54 states and territories were operating multiple systems—ranging

from 2 to 12 systems each—to provide welfare program support for AFDC,

Medicaid, food stamps, child support enforcement, child care, child welfare

services, foster care/adoption assistance, and the now-repealed Job

Opportunities and Basic Skills Training (JOBS) program.8 We also reported

that HHS and USDA had contributed over $6.8 billion from 1984 to 1992,

and over $1.8 billion prior to 1984, to help fund development and operation

of these automated systems.9 The 1994 report also asserted that the federal

government might pay the largest share of an estimated $10.7 billion in

additional automated systems costs from fiscal year 1993 through the end

of 1999. These cost figures do not include federal funding for other

automated systems used by programs involved in helping welfare

recipients move toward economic independence, such as systems related

to state workforce development systems.

7

GAO/AIMD-94-52FS, Feb. 25, 1994.

8

JOBS was created in 1988 to ensure that AFDC families obtained the education, training,

and employment that would help them avoid long-term welfare dependence. PRWORA

ended the JOBS program along with the AFDC program in 1996.

9

All figures are expressed in 1993 constant dollars. About two-thirds of these costs were for

Medicaid systems, including Medicaid management information systems and Medicaid

eligibility systems.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 21 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Recognizing the importance of information systems in implementing key

aspects of welfare reform, the Congress in PRWORA directed HHS to

prepare a report that addressed (1) the status of the automated systems

operated by states to help program managers administer their TANF

programs and (2) what would be required to establish a system capable of

tracking participants in public programs over time and checking case

records of the states to determine whether individuals were participating

illegally in public programs in two or more states at a time. In collecting

information intended for use in this report, HHS worked with several

organizations representing states, information technology specialists, and

welfare administrators to survey states on the likely effects on information

systems of legislatively mandated changes to welfare programs. The 1997

report projected on the basis of state estimates that adapting current

information systems to meet the demands of welfare reform would require

spending about $1 billion.10

Welfare Reform

Legislation Established

Numerous

Requirements for

Those Receiving TANF

and for States

While PRWORA limited the federal government’s role in approving and

overseeing states’ development of TANF automated information systems

and provided states much greater flexibility than before to design and

implement their own programs, it also emphasized states’ accountability

for meeting program requirements and for program performance. This

accountability focus is in keeping with the increased emphasis

governmentwide on program performance fostered by the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993. Under TANF, to avoid financial

penalties, states must ensure that a certain minimum percentage of their

caseloads are participating in work or work-related activities each year.

These percentages are referred to as “minimum mandated participation

rates.” To count toward states’ mandated rates, adult recipients in families

must participate a certain minimum number of hours in work or a workrelated activity as prescribed in the law, such as job readiness workshops;

on-the-job training; and, under certain circumstances, education. The

required number of hours of participation and the percentage of a state’s

caseload that must participate to meet mandated rates generally increase

over time, as shown in table 1.

10HHS, ACF, Office of State Systems, Report to Congress on Data Processing and Case

Tracking in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Program (Washington, D.C.: HHS,

Dec. 1997).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 22 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 1: Increasing Participation Requirements for One-Parent and Two-Parent Families Under Federal Law

Source: 42 U.S.C. sec. 607.

States must also track the length of time that individuals receive TANF to

implement the new time limits. States must enforce the PRWORA

prohibition on provision of TANF funds to families with adults who have

received TANF for a total of 5 years over their lifetime. Families with no

adult receiving assistance (commonly referred to as “child-only” cases) are

not subject to this limit, and up to 20 percent of a state’s average monthly

caseload may be exempt on the basis of hardship or having been subjected

to domestic violence.11 Also, states may opt to continue to provide

assistance beyond the 5-year limit using state funds.

In addition to holding states accountable for tracking and enforcing

participation requirements and time limits, PRWORA authorized HHS to

award federal dollars to states with exceptional performance in achieving

the goals of TANF. PRWORA established the broad parameters of a highperformance bonus system and required that HHS work with organizations

representing states and welfare administrators to determine the details of

the system. For the first year that the bonus was to be awarded—fiscal year

1999—states were to compete in the areas of TANF recipients’ rates of job

entry, earnings gains, and job retention as well as increases in these rates

over time.

Fiscal year

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Minimum weekly average hours of participation

One-parent families 20 20 25 30 30 30

Two-parent families 35 35 35 35 35 35

Minimum mandated participation rates (percentages)

All families 25 30 35 40 45 50

Two-parent families 75 75 90 90 90 90

11PRWORA allows states to exempt a family from the time limit because of hardship, or if

the family includes an individual who has been battered or subjected to extreme cruelty, and

to use the average monthly caseload for either the current fiscal year or the preceding fiscal

year as the basis for determining the 20-percent limit.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 23 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

The new focus on work as well as the new high-performance bonus system

resulted in an expanded set of reporting requirements and options for

states, as shown in table 2. HHS issued final regulations on data collection

and reporting requirements in April 1999 and published information on the

first year of the high-performance bonus system in March 1998.12

Table 2: Information That States Need to Meet Federal Reporting Requirements and

to Participate in the Optional High-Performance Bonus Program

a

PRWORA requires that states maintain a specified level of their historical spending for welfare and

welfare-related programs to receive federal TANF funds. The state funds used to meet this

maintenance-of-effort requirement may be used in the TANF program or in separate state programs.

b

This report is required only if a state wishes to compete for a TANF high-performance bonus or to

have its participation rate standards reduced because of reductions in its caseload, as authorized by

PRWORA.

c

This report is required only if a state wishes to be considered for a TANF high-performance bonus.

12States were to meet emergency data reporting requirements, issued in July 1997, until the

finalized data collection and reporting requirements, published in the TANF final rule issued

on April 12, 1999, became effective on October 1, 1999.

Reports to HHS Information contained in the reports

TANF Data Report • Case-level data on the characteristics and

circumstances of families receiving TANF

• Case-level data on families at the time

their case is closed

• Aggregate information on families at

application for TANF, while receiving it,

and at case closure

TANF Financial Report • Data on expenditures of federal TANF

funds and state maintenance-of-effort

funds used for TANF or separate state

programsa

Report on TANF and state maintenance-ofeffort programs• Descriptive information on TANF program

and data on child care subsidies

• Descriptive information and expenditure

data for programs and services funded

with state funds

Separate state program maintenance-ofeffort data reportb

• Information on families receiving

assistance under separate state programs

and at case closure

TANF high-performance bonus reportc • Information on job entries, job retention,

and earnings gains of TANF recipients and

former recipients
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 24 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Source: TANF Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 64, No. 69, Apr. 12, 1999, and HHS Memorandum No.

TANF-ACF-PI-98-05, Aug. 13, 1998.

New and Evolving

Welfare Environment

Is Transforming States’

Automated Systems

Needs

Our work and other studies show that states and localities have made

progress in implementing key aspects of TANF. States are refocusing their

programs on moving people into employment rather than signing them up

for monthly cash assistance. To better support this new work focus, many

states are changing how their welfare offices and workers do business;

converting their offices into job placement centers; and helping clients

address and solve problems that interfere with employment, such as lack of

child care or transportation as well as more complex mental and physical

health problems.

As welfare agencies focus on moving needy families toward economic

independence, frontline workers are drawing on other federal and state

programs, often administered by separate agencies, to provide a wide array

of services. These programs range from those designed to meet families’

basic needs for food and shelter to those that provide employment and

training services and support services, such as subsidies for child care.

While local welfare agencies typically administer eligibility determination

for TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid, other programs that provide key

services to TANF clients may be administered by separate entities, such as

housing authorities or education agencies. Most notably, because TANF has

focused welfare agencies on employment, a focus that has long been the

province of state and local workforce development systems, welfare

agencies need to work more closely than before with workforce

development systems, particularly to administer services funded by the

new welfare-to-work grants created by the Congress in 1997 and

administered by the Department of Labor.13

In addition, some states now rely on state unemployment insurance (UI)

systems to obtain data on the employment and earnings of former welfare

recipients to help monitor both clients’ progress and the performance of

various state programs. Figure 1 shows many of the programs and services

that frontline workers may be responsible for arranging and monitoring to

help clients move toward economic independence through employment.

13Through these grants, the Department of Labor is authorized to provide states and

grantees up to $3 billion over 2 years to help the welfare clients who are considered to be

the hardest to employ to find jobs.
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 25 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Figure 1: Broad Array of Programs and Services That Case Managers Can Draw

Upon to Serve Their Clients
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 26 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

The new environment in which state and local agencies provide services to

low-income families has profound implications for the information needs

of states and the automated systems designed to meet those needs.

Typically, the programs to which welfare workers and managers turn to

provide services have automated information systems that were designed

to meet the particular needs of each program rather than the cross-program

needs of the clients they serve. Yet, successful implementation of welfare

reform calls for information from a range of programs in three key areas:

case management, service planning, and program oversight. As shown in

table 3, these key functions are performed at different levels of program

administration.

Table 3: Key Information Users and Functions They Perform to Help Low-Income Families Become Employed

Source: GAO analysis of relevant literature.

Key areas of

information needs Users of the information Functions performed by information users

Case management Case managers,

employment service

specialists, and other

frontline workers serving

individual TANF clients

• Helping TANF clients obtain jobs

• Providing training and support services as needed

• Monitoring clients’ progress toward economic independence

Service planning Local and state program

managers administering

programs

• Collecting aggregate information on the characteristics and service needs of the

caseload to determine appropriate services

Program oversight Local and state program

managers overseeing

programs

• Monitoring program performance using information on

 local or state performance measures

 clients diverted from receipt of monthly cash assistance

 families returning to welfare

 families’ use of other programs, such as food stamps, Medicaid, and child care

subsidies

 job entry, job retention, and wage progression

• Meeting federal reporting requirements
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 27 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

While the information needs of the users differ, these needs also share

some key characteristics that distinguish them from the information needs

of the previous welfare environment. First, information is now needed that

allows workers and managers to monitor people’s activities and progress

over time toward employment and economic independence. Second, more

than ever before, case and program managers must focus on ensuring the

delivery of an integrated package of services for families seeking aid. While

the importance of service integration—creating methods to unite or link

the services provided by different programs and agencies to serve the same

population—has been acknowledged as a critical need of human services

programs, including welfare, for at least 2 decades,14 the need for providing

integrated services has heightened with the new emphasis on moving

welfare recipients into employment and placing a time limit on the receipt

of aid. The goal of service integration has been reinforced by the Workforce

Investment Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-220), which requires that all states and

localities use one-stop career centers to deliver most employment and

training services (except TANF-related services). These centers seek to

bring together all workforce development programs—each with its own

target population—in a single system that serves all individuals, regardless

of their eligibility for any specific program. In developing one-stop systems,

Labor has encouraged states to involve human services agencies in the

planning and delivery of services.

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

To better understand and assess the role of information systems in states’

welfare reforms, we collaborated with the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute

of Government to establish the GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working Seminar

on Social Program Information Systems. The working seminar has about 30

members, including congressional staff, federal and state managers of

information technology, and welfare researchers and has met six times

over a period of almost 2 years. (See app. I for a list of members and

summary of working seminar activities.) The working seminar has been

meeting regularly to determine what changes are needed to facilitate states’

efforts to improve their automated systems to meet the information needs

for welfare reform. To provide information for congressional oversight, we

undertook a review of states’ efforts to meet the information needs for

welfare reform, with a focus on the TANF program.

14See Integrating Human Services: Linking At-Risk Families With Services More Successful

Than System Reform Efforts (GAO/HRD-92-108, Sept. 24, 1992).
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 28 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

For this study, we (1) assessed the extent to which current automated

systems in selected states meet key information needs of programs that

help low-income individuals with children obtain employment and become

economically independent, (2) identified the approaches states are using to

develop or modify their automated systems to better meet these

information needs, and (3) identified the major obstacles states have

encountered in working to improve their automated systems and the

potential role of the federal government in helping overcome these

obstacles. With respect to the first objective, we focused on three broad

types of information needs: those for case management, service planning,

and program oversight. In collaboration with field researchers from the

Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute’s State Capacity Project, we conducted case

studies at the state and local levels in 6 states and collected supplemental

information from a survey of these 6 and 9 additional states and some of

their localities, so that some comparable information was available for a

total of 15 states.

In-Depth Data Collection in

Six States

In selecting the six states for our in-depth fieldwork, we sought to include

states (1) in varying stages of revamping their automated systems, (2) with

both state- and locally administered TANF programs, and (3) that were

geographically diverse. We interviewed officials in state welfare and labor

departments, including program and information technology managers. In

addition, we interviewed officials at two local sites in each state. Officials

interviewed at local sites included welfare and labor program managers,

information technology managers, TANF case managers, and supervisors

of TANF case managers. At state and local site visits, we observed

demonstrations of automated systems and obtained relevant documents,

such as systems printouts and manuals. (See table 4.)
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 29 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 4: Case Study States and Local Sites

a

We visited local site offices located in the cities enclosed in parentheses.

b

These are regions of the Washington Department of Social and Health Services.

The state and local interviews were administered using a semistructured

interview guide that we developed through a review of relevant literature

and discussions with members of the GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working

Seminar on Social Program Information Systems. We conducted the

interviews in five of the six states and were accompanied at some

interviews by field researchers from the Rockefeller Institute’s State

Capacity Project. The interviews in Georgia were conducted entirely by the

Rockefeller Institute’s field researcher for Georgia, an associate professor

of political science at Emory University.

Data Collection on Selected

Topics in 15 States

On the basis of our fieldwork in the six states, we identified several key

topics for follow-up work on a larger geographic scale. We developed a

questionnaire to obtain information on four topics: (1) the extent to which

automated systems for different programs share data; (2) the accessibility

of data from different automated systems using the desktop computers of

TANF case managers; (3) the overall extent to which information needs for

case management, service planning, and monitoring program performance

are met by current automated systems; and (4) the most helpful actions

that the federal government could take to help resolve the major obstacles

encountered by states and localities in developing or modifying automated

systems. The questionnaires were administered by our evaluators and field

researchers from the Rockefeller Institute’s State Capacity Project. (See

table 5.)

States Local sitesa

Georgia Fulton County (Atlanta) and Cherokee County (Canton)

New Jersey Essex County (Newark) and Middlesex County (New Brunswick)

Ohio Franklin County (Columbus) and Hamilton County (Cincinnati)

Texas Travis County (Austin) and Harris County (Houston)

Washington Region 4 (Seattle) and Region 5 (Tacoma)b

Wisconsin Milwaukee County (Milwaukee) and Dane County (Madison)
Chapter 1

Introduction

Page 30 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 5: Respondents to the Automated Systems Questionnaire

a

We did not obtain local responses.

b

We did not obtain a response to the questions about the extent of automated capabilities to support

case management, service planning, and monitoring program performance.

c

These are regions of the Washington Department of Social and Health Services.

We provided a draft of this report to HHS, USDA, Labor, and the six case

study states. We conducted our work from April 1999 to March 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

State respondents Local respondents

Arizona Phoenix

Georgia Fulton County

Kansas Kansas City

Minnesota Itasca County

Mississippi a

Missouri Kansas City

New Jersey Essex County

New York a

Ohio Athens County,b Franklin County,b and Hamilton County

Texas Travis County and Harris County

Utah Salt Lake City

Washington Region 4 and Region 6c

West Virginia Mercer County

Wisconsin Milwaukee County and Dane County

Wyoming a
Page 31 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment Chapte2r

Current automated systems in the states we studied provide support for

implementing and overseeing welfare reform in many critical areas.

However, a number of these systems have shortcomings that limit their

usefulness in helping to move TANF recipients toward employment and

economic independence. One shortcoming is that these automated systems

sometimes do not share information about TANF recipients that is needed

by the different agencies that serve them. This constrains the ability of case

managers to coordinate services and monitor recipients’ progress. A

second shortcoming is that the systems’ limited capabilities to query and

manipulate data sometimes prevent users from readily obtaining aggregate

information on caseload characteristics. This shortcoming limits

capabilities for service planning and was reported to be especially

pervasive at the local level. With regard to program oversight, we identified

some system limitations that negatively affected the ability of program

managers to monitor TANF recipients’ employment progress and enforce

the 5-year time limit on federal TANF assistance.

Insufficient Links

Among Automated

Systems Constrain

Case Managers’ Ability

to Coordinate Services

and Monitor

Recipients’ Progress

Automated systems do not always fully meet the information needs of

TANF case managers—the frontline workers with primary responsibility

for managing services for TANF clients and monitoring their progress

toward employment. Figure 2 presents the assessments of officials from 15

localities of the overall extent to which current automated systems support

case management. While 5 of the localities indicated that automated

systems provide all or most of the information that TANF case managers

need to support their clients’ movement to employment and economic

independence, the other 10 localities said that automated systems provide

about half or less of the information needed.
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 32 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Figure 2: Proportion of Information Needed for Case Management That Is Provided

by Automated Systems

Source: Responses to GAO’s questionnaire on automated systems from officials at local sites.

0

1

2

3

4

5

Number of Localities Responding in Each Category

All or

Almost All

Most About Half Some Little,

If Any

Proportion of Needs Met

Number of Localities=15
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 33 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

A major shortcoming of current automated systems, cited to varying

degrees in the six states in which we did in-depth fieldwork, is that some of

the systems used by the agencies providing services to TANF recipients do

not share data on these recipients. This shortcoming constrains the ability

of case managers to arrange needed services; ensure that these services are

provided; and respond quickly when problems arise, such as when a

recipient does not attend a scheduled work activity. For example, local

officials in New Jersey told us that some TANF clients have received

sanctions in error because data are not transferred electronically between

the automated system used by staff at the labor department, who receive

data on recipients’ attendance at work activities, and the system used by

staff at the welfare department, who issue sanctions for failure to meet

work requirements. Local officials in Ohio and New Jersey said that TANF

case managers are unable to determine which of the children receiving

TANF are also involved with the child welfare system, a situation that can

hinder the ability of case managers to devise appropriate service strategies

for such families.1 Appendix II provides more detailed information from

our survey of 15 states on the extent to which the automated systems for

different programs share data.

In the absence of links between automated systems, local officials in our

study states generally said that paper forms or telephone contacts are used

to refer recipients to, or obtain information on their use of, vocational

education, secondary education, substance abuse services, and mental

health services. The reliance on paper forms was cited as a major burden

for case managers because of the substantial amount of time involved in

collecting all the needed forms from service providers and keying data

from these forms into automated systems. At many local sites, the problem

was reported to be compounded by the need for double or even triple data

entry for some items: case managers or other frontline workers must

separately input the same data, such as a recipient’s entry into employment,

into different automated systems because the data are not automatically

transferred and updated from one system to the other. Local officials told

us that multiple entry of the same data not only reduces the time available

to work directly with TANF clients but also increases the risk of

introducing errors into the data contained in automated systems.

1

The need to address data security and confidentiality issues can complicate interagency

efforts to share data, especially in areas such as child welfare.
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 34 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

An important dimension of automated support for case management is the

extent to which TANF case managers are able to access data from the

automated systems for different programs from their desktop computers.

As shown in figure 3, case managers in the localities we surveyed generally

have desktop access to data in the automated systems for food stamps,

TANF work activities, child support enforcement, Medicaid eligibility

determination, and transportation subsidies for TANF recipients. However,

case managers in most localities do not have desktop access to data from

automated systems for welfare-to-work grants, the Job Training

Partnership Act (JTPA), job listings, child welfare programs, vocational

rehabilitation, and subsidized housing. Over half the localities said that

case managers have desktop access to data from automated systems for

child care subsidies and UI. As a result, case managers do not always have

ready access to information that could help them coordinate services for

TANF recipients and monitor their use of these services. In such cases, the

relevant information either is not available to case managers or it takes

longer to obtain it (for example, from hard copy reports from a specific

program).
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 35 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Figure 3: Automated Systems That TANF Case Managers Can Access From Their Desktop Computers

Notes: We asked respondents whether TANF case managers had access to any of the data in the

automated systems for each of these programs from their desktop computers. In a few instances,

respondents indicated that access varies within the locality; we categorized each of these responses

as a “no” because at least some case managers in the locality do not have desktop access to data for

a particular program.

Source: Responses to GAO’s questionnaire on automated systems from officials at local sites. In four

states, we obtained responses from more than one locality: only the responses from the locality in the

most populated city in each of these states are presented here.

Our work in the six case study states also uncovered some specific case

management tasks that are not always well supported by automated

systems, as shown in table 6.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

Food Stamps

TANF Work Activities

Medicaid Eligibility Determination

Child Support Enforcement

Transportation Subsidies

Child Care Subsidies

Unemployment Insurance

Child Welfare Programs

JTPA

Welfare-to-Work Grants

Job Listings

Vocational Rehabilitation

Housing Subsidies

Number of Localities Responding in Each Category

Number of Localities=12

Program/Service
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 36 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 6: Capabilities of Automated Systems in Six States to Support Selected TANF

Case Management Activities

a

“Generally do” means that at least 70 percent (but less than 100 percent) of respondents said that the

activity can be performed using their current automated systems. “Vary” means that from 31 to 69

percent of respondents said that the activity can be performed using their current automated systems.

In calculating percentages, we excluded the small number of instances in which either we did not

obtain a response or respondents said that they did not know.

b

An individual responsibility plan specifies the employment goal and required activities for a TANF

recipient, as well as the services to be provided to help the recipient achieve the employment goal.

Source: Interviews with officials at local sites in Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and

Wisconsin.

Activity

Do automated

systems support the

activity?a

Identifying suitable jobs for TANF clients

Help TANF clients identify job openings (or provide them tools to

do this themselves)

Yes

Help TANF clients identify job openings located near public

transportation routes (or provide them tools to do this themselves)

Vary

Calculate the change in a TANF client’s total income (including

TANF grant and food stamps) under different scenarios of wage

levels and hours worked, to show that “work pays”

Generally do

Monitoring the activities and progress of TANF clients

Determine the number of active TANF cases in the case

manager’s caseload

Yes

Determine the number of active cases assigned to different types

of activities, such as education, training, or subsidized

employment

Generally do

Determine which activities in a client’s individual responsibility

plan have been completedb

Vary

Identify clients in the caseload who are within some specified

number of months of reaching their lifetime limit for TANF

assistance

Vary
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 37 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

As a result of separating cash assistance from Medicaid,2 local officials in

five of the six states cited automated system glitches that sometimes occur

in enrolling families in Medicaid or ensuring their continued enrollment.

For example, local officials said that frontline workers on occasion have to

intentionally enter inaccurate data to enable a Medicaid case to be opened

correctly. Local officials also told us that automated systems sometimes

close Medicaid cases that should not be closed or fail to correctly process

cases for transitional Medicaid,3 which requires frontline workers to do

“workarounds” to correct these problems. 4 PRWORA authorized $500

million to aid states in maintaining Medicaid coverage for individuals

affected by welfare reform, some of which may be used to pay the costs of

modifying Medicaid eligibility systems. However, as of June 1999, states

had submitted claims for only 10 percent of the available funds.5

Difficulties in Querying

Automated Systems to

Obtain Needed

Information Limit

Capabilities for Service

Planning

In addition to supporting the activities of TANF case managers, automated

systems can provide aggregate information on the characteristics and

service needs of TANF recipients to help program managers determine the

appropriate services to provide for their TANF caseloads. However, as

shown in figure 4, the 15 states we surveyed vary considerably in their

assessments of the level of automated support available for service

planning, and local officials tended to assess the level of support lower

than state officials did. While state officials from 8 of the 15 states indicated

that automated systems provide all or most of the information on the TANF

2

Before welfare reform, families were automatically enrolled in Medicaid if they were

eligible for cash assistance under AFDC. PRWORA eliminated the link between eligibility

standards for cash assistance and Medicaid, allowing states to set their own eligibility

standards for Medicaid within certain parameters. To ensure continued Medicaid coverage

for low-income families, PRWORA generally required state Medicaid eligibility standards to

be no more restrictive than the AFDC levels in effect on July 16, 1996.

3

The transitional Medicaid program entitles certain families leaving welfare as a result of

employment or increased earnings to remain eligible for an additional year of Medicaid.

4

For more information on the effects of welfare reform on Medicaid, see Medicaid: Early

Implications of Welfare Reform for Beneficiaries and States (GAO/HEHS-98-62, Feb. 24,

1998); Medicaid Enrollment: Amid Declines, State Efforts to Ensure Coverage After Welfare

Reform Vary (GAO/HEHS-99-163, Sept. 10, 1999); and Marilyn Ellwood, The Medicaid

Eligibility Maze: Coverage Expands, Enrollment Problems Persist: Findings From a FiveState Study (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, Dec. 1999).

5

See Julie Darnell and others, Medicaid and Welfare Reform: States’ Use of the $500 Million

Federal Fund (Washington, D.C.: The Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the Uninsured,

Oct. 1999).
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 38 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

caseload that state program managers need for service planning, officials

from 6 of the 15 localities responded that systems provide all or most of the

information needed by local program managers.

Figure 4: Proportion of Information Needed for Service Planning That Is Provided by

Automated Systems

Source: Responses to GAO’s questionnaire on automated systems.

Some gaps in information on caseload characteristics occur because the

desired data are not contained in automated systems. Other gaps arise

because even though the data are contained in automated systems, these

data are difficult or impossible to extract in a way that answers the

particular question of concern to the program manager. For example, local

officials at one site said that the locality does not have adequate access to

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Number of States and Localities Responding in Each Category

All or

Almost All

Most About Half Some Little,

If Any

State Level (N=15)

Local Level (N=15)

Proportion of Needs Met
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 39 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

data it enters into the state welfare system and that writing the computer

program needed to extract data generally takes an entire day. Officials at a

locality in another state said that data on the characteristics of TANF

recipients contained in the state’s automated systems are often not

available in a format that can be easily manipulated, so obtaining data

depends on the technical expertise of the user.

As shown in table 7, automated systems in our case study states can

provide information on some characteristics of TANF caseloads but not

others. The ability to identify long-term welfare recipients can be useful

because they may possess characteristics that make them harder to serve.

When we asked whether officials could identify their current “hard-toserve” TANF cases by identifying cases that include adults who either are

long-term welfare recipients or have multiple barriers to employment,

states and localities generally said that their automated systems provide

this capability. For example, state officials in Georgia and Washington told

us that their automated systems had been programmed to identify

recipients who have received cash assistance for 30 months or more. In

comparison with long-term welfare recipients, adults who have repeatedly

cycled on and off welfare may differ somewhat in their service needs.6

Local officials generally said that they are unable to identify such cases in

their caseloads. Responses from state officials varied: while some said that

they cannot identify such cases, others said that they can do so with some

difficulty.7

6

For example, while those who have cycled on and off welfare may be able to obtain a job

fairly easily, they may need assistance to help facilitate job retention and advancement.

7

For information on the capabilities of state automated systems to provide information on

other characteristics of TANF caseloads, see Richard P. Nathan and Thomas L. Gais,

Implementing the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996: A First Look (Albany, N.Y.: Nelson A.

Rockefeller Institute of Government, 1999).
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 40 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 7: Capabilities of Automated Systems in Six States to Provide Program Managers With Information on Selected Caseload

Characteristics

a

“Generally can” means that at least 70 percent (but less than 100 percent) of respondents said that

the activity can be performed using their current automated systems, whereas “generally cannot”

means that 30 percent or less (but more than 0 percent) responded in this way. “Vary” means that from

31 to 69 percent of respondents said that the activity can be performed using their current automated

systems. In calculating percentages, we excluded the small number of instances in which either we did

not obtain a response or respondents said that they did not know.

Source: Interviews with state and local officials in Georgia, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Washington, and

Wisconsin.

Officials at some localities cited examples of other information gaps they

had encountered with respect to characteristics of their TANF caseloads.

For example, officials at one site explained that while the state’s automated

welfare system contains data on whether individual TANF clients have

received high school diplomas, it does not contain data on the highest

grade completed.8 Officials explained that the lack of such information

constrains their ability to purchase appropriate education and training

services for the local TANF caseload.

Caseload characteristic

Can state program managers

obtain this information from

automated systems?a

Can local program managers

obtain this information from

automated systems?a

Number of adults in the state/local TANF caseload...

With no prior work experience Generally can Generally cannot

Assessed as having substance abuse problems Cannot Generally cannot

Assessed as having mental health problems Cannot Generally cannot

Current state/local TANF cases that...

Include adults who are long-term welfare recipients or have

multiple barriers to employment

Generally can Generally can

Have cycled on and off AFDC/TANF in the state in the last 5

years

Vary Generally cannot

8

The average education level of adults receiving welfare in the locality is about the seventh

or eighth grade, according to local officials.
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 41 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Automated Systems

Vary in Capabilities to

Support Program

Oversight

Another way in which automated systems can support welfare reform is by

providing information for program oversight and, in particular, information

for monitoring measures of program performance and meeting federal

TANF reporting requirements. As shown in figure 5, the 15 states and

localities we surveyed varied considerably in their assessments of the level

of automated support available for monitoring performance measures

related to helping TANF recipients find jobs and become economically

independent. Local officials tended to assess the level of automated

support lower than state officials did. State officials from 10 of the 15 states

indicated that automated systems provide all or most of the information

needed by state program managers, and officials from 6 of the 15 localities

responded that systems provide all or most of the information needed by

local program managers.
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 42 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Figure 5: Proportion of Information Needed for Monitoring Program Performance

With Respect to Employment Progress of TANF Recipients That Is Provided by

Automated Systems

Source: Responses to GAO’s questionnaire on automated systems.

Capabilities to Monitor

Recipients’ Employment

Progress Are More Limited

at the Local Than the State

Level

With regard to monitoring measures of the employment progress of TANF

clients, state officials in all six of our case study states said that their states

have data on job entries, job retention, and wage progression and have

used these data to apply for the TANF high-performance bonus. The states

vary in the source(s) they use to obtain these state-level data: state UI data,

TANF administrative data, or both.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Number of States and Localities Responding in Each Category

All or

Almost All

Most About Half Some Little,

If Any

State Level (N=15)

Local Level (N=15)

Proportion of Needs Met
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 43 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

In contrast, local officials in the six states reported having more limited

capabilities to monitor the employment progress of TANF clients. Local

officials generally can obtain data from automated systems on the number

of TANF clients in a locality who have entered employment in some

specified time period. However, local officials vary in their automated

capabilities to obtain aggregate information on the job retention of these

recipients and generally cannot obtain aggregate information on recipients’

wage progression. Local officials in one state cited the need to have more

detailed information on the employment progress of TANF clients than is

available from state UI records. For example, they noted that while UI

records can provide information on the amount of a person’s total earnings

for a quarter, these records cannot provide information on the person’s

hourly wage and number of hours worked per week. These officials said

that having access to such information could help localities better target

the appropriate job retention and advancement services for current or

former TANF clients.9

Officials at several local sites also reported problems obtaining information

on the TANF work participation rates for their caseloads. The problems

cited by local officials in this area included not being able to obtain timely

data on work participation rates for their area from the state, receiving

state-calculated rates that do not match the locality’s own calculated

figures, and not being able to interpret the state-provided reports on local

participation rates. If local program managers and contracted service

providers are held accountable for meeting specified target levels for work

participation rates and other performance measures, it becomes critical

that automated systems be able to provide data that are timely, accurate,

and clearly presented so that program managers and service providers can

make needed adjustments in their service strategies.

Automated Systems Provide

Information on Diversion of

Potential TANF Recipients

Diversion is a central component of many states’ welfare reform programs.

The objective of diversion strategies is to meet the needs of potential TANF

recipients in ways other than through monthly cash assistance, such as by

having them engage in immediate job search to obtain employment quickly;

providing one-time cash payments; or providing support services, such as

child care and medical assistance. The ability to obtain aggregate

9

Officials explained that the services appropriate for assisting a client working full-time at a

low wage level would likely be different from those for assisting a client earning a

substantially higher wage but working only part-time.
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 44 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

information in this area can facilitate program oversight by highlighting the

frequency with which potential recipients are diverted for various reasons.

State officials in the case study states generally said that they have

automated capabilities to determine the number of families that have

received one-time cash diversion payments. Officials in some of these

states reported that their automated systems also provide information on

other types of diversions. For example, Texas’ system tracks both the

number of people who leave welfare offices without applying for TANF and

the number who obtain employment through the state’s welfare-to-work

program but do not receive cash assistance. While Wisconsin does not have

a one-time cash payment diversion program, the state’s automated welfare

system tracks the number of people diverted from TANF for a range of

reasons and uses separate codes to track people who have been screened

for TANF eligibility and those who have not.

Capabilities to Track

Recipients’ Use of Other

Programs After Leaving

TANF Are Limited in Some

Cases

Information on the use of social service programs by families after they exit

TANF can help program managers determine whether families are

receiving services such as Medicaid and food stamps, which can facilitate

families’ efforts to retain employment and increase their wages. The recent

declines in the size of the national Medicaid and food stamp caseloads have

generated concerns that some families who leave TANF are not receiving

the Medicaid and food stamps for which they are eligible and that this, in

turn, may jeopardize their employment progress.10 Conversely, information

on the use of social service programs by families after they exit TANF can

also help program managers determine whether families are reducing their

dependence on government-provided benefits over time.

State officials in the case study states generally said that they have

automated capabilities to determine what percentage of families that have

left TANF within some time period are receiving Medicaid or food stamps

some specified number of months after leaving TANF. Capabilities vary at

the local level: some officials said that their automated systems can

perform this task, whereas others said that their systems lack this

capability. In contrast, both state and local officials generally said that they

do not have the capability to determine how many children are placed in

foster care within some specified time period after their families leave

10See GAO/HEHS-99-163, Sept. 10, 1999, and Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led

to Declining Participation (GAO/RCED-99-185, July 2, 1999).
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 45 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

TANF. This information gap limits the ability of program managers to

monitor the extent to which TANF case closures are associated with

subsequent financial hardship that leads to child abuse and neglect.

Information Gaps on Status

of TANF Recipients’ Time

Limits Affect Ability to Meet

Federal TANF Reporting

Requirements

At the time of our interviews, our case study states were in the process of

modifying their automated systems to generate data for some of the

required elements in the quarterly TANF Data Report. Data on recipients’

education levels, reasons for case closure, and noncustodial parents were

among the elements cited by states as especially challenging to obtain.

Some state officials commented that a major source of the problem in

meeting the reporting requirements is that considerably more information

on individuals is now needed than was collected under AFDC.

One of the required data elements in the quarterly TANF Data Report, the

number of months countable toward a TANF adult’s federal 5-year time

limit, is a primary source of data for enforcing PRWORA’s limit on federal

TANF assistance for individuals. We identified some limitations of

automated systems that affect the states’ ability to enforce the federal time

limit. State officials in five of the six case study states said that their

automated systems provide data on the number of months countable

toward a TANF recipient’s time limit in the state.11 However, when we

asked about the mechanisms states are using to obtain data on prior receipt

of TANF in other states by their TANF recipients, we learned that our states

generally either do not collect such data or rely on TANF clients to disclose

this information. Data that rely on client self-reporting are not likely to be

as reliable as those derived from a database of TANF recipients and could

result in payments to ineligible individuals.

11The sixth state, Georgia, was still in the process of modifying its automated systems to

track the time limit.
Chapter 2

Current Automated Systems Do Not Always

Fully Support State and Local Efforts to Help

TANF Recipients Move to Employment

Page 46 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

As discussed earlier, PRWORA directed HHS to prepare a report that would

identify requirements for a system capable of tracking participants in

public assistance programs over time and checking case records of the

states to determine whether individuals are participating in the public

assistance programs of more than one state. In its December 1997 report to

the Congress, HHS noted that the tracking provisions present interstate

issues and would require extensive coordination and interstate

agreements. HHS identified five alternative system architectures for

meeting the participant tracking requirements of the law. HHS analyzed

these alternatives and concluded that while some clear distinctions existed

in the functional capabilities of these system architectures, no system was

clearly the best because of uncertainty regarding how some provisions of

the law would be implemented.12 HHS included three options for

congressional consideration in its report.13

USDA has recently completed a study of the feasibility of a national system

for tracking participation in public assistance programs. In August 1998, we

issued a report in which we recommended the development of a national

client database to reduce improper food stamp payments resulting from

including individuals as members of recipient households in more than one

state during the same period.14 In a federally mandated report issued in

November 1999,15 USDA concluded that two of the five alternatives

identified by HHS in its 1997 report would provide feasible models for a

database of public assistance recipients that could be used for the Food

Stamp program and to track TANF time limits. Nonetheless, the issue of

how best to establish such a database remains unresolved.

12See HHS, ACF, Report to the Congress on Data Processing (Washington, D.C.: HHS, Dec.

1997).

13One option is for the Congress to review the information in HHS’ report and select a

specific system architecture. Another option is to specify that an evolutionary approach be

used to develop a system, whereby progressively more sophisticated systems could be built

in phases using the alternative system architectures identified by HHS. A third option is to

authorize and appropriate funds for a steering committee that would be responsible for

determining the approach to system development and implementation.

14This report focused on food stamp participation in California, Florida, New York, and

Texas. See Food Stamp Overpayments: Households in Different States Collect Benefits for

the Same Individuals (GAO/RCED-98-228, Aug. 6, 1998).

15See Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., Options for a National Database to Track

Participation in Federal Means-Tested Public Assistance Programs: Report to Congress

(Washington, D.C.: USDA, Nov. 1999).
Page 47 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Chapter 3

State Automated Systems Projects Seek to

Expand the Ability to Obtain and Analyze Data

From Multiple Sources Chapte3r

The states we visited are planning or implementing a variety of automated

systems projects to better provide the information needed by frontline

workers and program managers in the new welfare environment. Because

links among a range of program data systems are key to meeting these

information needs, some projects focus on increasing frontline workers’

access on their desktop computers to data on individual recipients across

programs. Other projects, geared more to improving the capabilities of

program managers to obtain and analyze data from different programs,

involve developing new databases and query tools. Modifying and

developing automated systems that better support welfare reform is a longterm and evolving process.

States Seek to Improve

Capabilities for

Coordinated Service

Delivery by Expanding

Automated System

Links

States are using various approaches to make data on individual recipients

stored in multiple systems more readily available to frontline workers to

help them coordinate service delivery. These approaches include

developing links among separate systems, replacing existing systems with

new integrated systems, and constructing electronic networks to link

agencies and service providers. In some states we reviewed, such projects

represent the first time that data previously stored in separate automated

systems operated by different agencies, such as human services and

employment services, are being shared by the agencies and their affiliated

service providers. Table 8 provides an overview of the objectives, scope,

and implementation status of the case study states’ projects.
Chapter 3

State Automated Systems Projects Seek to

Expand the Ability to Obtain and Analyze

Data From Multiple Sources

Page 48 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 8: Automated Systems Projects Being Designed to Help Frontline Workers Coordinate Service Delivery

Project Objectives Scope of program data Implementation status

Georgia

System for the Uniform

Calculation and

Consolidation of

Economic Support

Services

• Create an on-line, real-time, desktop system

for case and program management.

• Provide automated support for determining

eligibility, issuing benefits, determining

claims, and generating management reports.

• Support caseworker follow-up of former TANF

recipients.

TANF, JOBS, food

stamps, and Medicaid

Planning began in 1992 and

implementation, in 1998. Project

staff are currently working to

achieve full reporting capability.

Employer Information

System

• Create an Internet-based employer database

that provides information on jobs, wage

levels, benefits, and so on.

• Provide automated support for coordinating

services for TANF and welfare-to-work

recipients.

Employer and job

information

Being piloted in five offices

New Jersey

One Ease-E Link • Create local, Internet-based electronic

communication and data-sharing networks to

help coordinate services delivered to TANF

recipients by public, private, and not-for-profit

providers.

• Provide automated capability for determining

eligibility, identifying potential service

providers, and scheduling recipients’

appointments on a real-time basis.

• Reduce duplicate collection of data.

Access to, and linking of,

multiple statewide

systems in support of

TANF, food stamps, and

child support

Being used in 2 counties; 15

other counties are in various

stages of implementation.

Universal Application

Process

• Provide a single, on-line, simultaneous “frontend” application for multiple state systems

that provides eligibility, calculation, and

benefit delivery functions.

TANF, AFDC, Medicaid,

food stamps, and child

support

Automated application software

installed statewide in support of

TANF, child support, and food

stamps. Additional program

support and enhancements are

being developed.

Ohio

Integrated Client

Management System

• Provide frontline workers with a single entry

point (a “common front end”) to data on TANF

clients in various automated systems.

• Through Internet link allow matching of

clients’ qualifications to on-line job banks and

employment services.

• Eliminate redundant data entry and provide

on-line reporting capabilities.

• Provide tools to support case management,

such as a directory of service providers and a

geographic information system to provide

mapping capability.

TANF, food stamps,

Medicaid, state general

assistance, child support,

and child care

Directory of service providers

being piloted in four counties;

other components of project are

being developed.

Continued
Chapter 3

State Automated Systems Projects Seek to

Expand the Ability to Obtain and Analyze

Data From Multiple Sources

Page 49 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Source: GAO interviews in case study states and analysis of written materials about the projects.

These projects are intended to enhance the capabilities of frontline

workers in such ways as the following.

• Ohio’s Integrated Client Management System is expected to enable

frontline workers in the state to use their desktop computers to obtain a

holistic view of TANF recipients’ and their families’ use of social

services, their service needs, and their strengths. The project is also

expected to enable frontline workers to input data only once in a system

and then have them automatically transferred to other appropriate

systems, thereby helping reduce errors that arise from duplicate data

entry.

• Wisconsin’s Partnership for Full Employment Case Management

System is intended to provide frontline workers with read-only access

Texas

The Workforce

Information System of

Texas

• Help coordinate provision of services to all

job seekers by providing a single point of

access for multiple programs through use of a

“common front end.”

• Provide frontline workers with history of all

services provided to a client.

• Provide information for meeting reporting

requirements.

• Provide standard and customized reports.

TANF, Employment

Services, Food Stamp

Employment and Training

program, JOBS, JTPA,

child care, UI,

Supplemental Security

Income, food stamps, and

child support

Several phases of the project

have been implemented. The

next phase will incorporate

employment services information

pertaining to job orders,

applicants, and job-matching

procedures. Subsequent

enhancements will incorporate

child care data.

Texas Integrated

Enrollment Redesign

System

• Improve access to health and human

services by creating an integrated system for

determining eligibility for various programs.

• Provide a directory of community services.

• Provide ad hoc reporting capability.

Health and human

services, and all medical

assistance programs

In the early planning stages of a

projected 8-year project; the

initial plan was issued in June

1999.

Washington

Jobs Automated System

Ad Hoc

• Allow ad hoc generation of data reports by

user specifications, such as cases by

demographics, activity status, or program

participation.

TANF work activities Implemented in fall 1999

Wisconsin

Partnership for Full

Employment Case

Management System

• Provide case managers with desktop access

to data from various systems on recipients’

involvement with various programs.

TANF, child care, UI, job

training, Medicaid, Food

Stamp Employment and

Training program,

vocational rehabilitation,

new hires, and

transportation.

Being tested

Project Objectives Scope of program data Implementation status

Continued from Previous Page
Chapter 3

State Automated Systems Projects Seek to

Expand the Ability to Obtain and Analyze

Data From Multiple Sources

Page 50 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

to data in various state systems to enable them to determine a TANF

recipient’s involvement with different programs. For example, if a

recipient has a record on the state’s database of new hires, the system

should display the hiring date and the address of the employer.

• Georgia is using its System for the Uniform Calculation and

Consolidation of Economic Support Services to facilitate having a

single frontline worker handle an applicant’s involvement with TANF,

food stamps, and Medicaid, whereas in the past the applicant would

have been referred to three different eligibility workers.

• The New Jersey Departments of Health and Senior Services, Human

Services, and Labor are providing leadership to counties that want to

develop an on-line local electronic communication network. A frontline

worker in one county piloting the One Ease-E Link network told a

state official that she is now referring recipients to services “that she

never even knew existed before,” such as assistance in paying for

needed medicines.

States Are Developing

Databases and Query

Tools to Improve

Managers’ Capabilities

to Analyze Data Across

Programs

In the wake of welfare reform, program managers have a greater need to

obtain and analyze data from multiple programs to support their

responsibilities for service planning and program oversight. To meet this

need, states are developing data query tools and databases of current and

historical data from multiple programs. States are working to expand their

capabilities for analysis beyond the information contained in

preprogrammed monthly reports by developing query tools that enable

users to perform on-line queries and generate customized reports that meet

their particular information needs. In addition, states are extracting and

consolidating data from multiple systems in data warehouses, data marts,

and other specialized databases to which more sophisticated query tools

can be applied. Table 9 provides an overview of projects in the states we

reviewed.
Chapter 3

State Automated Systems Projects Seek to

Expand the Ability to Obtain and Analyze

Data From Multiple Sources

Page 51 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Table 9: Automated Systems Projects Being Designed to Enhance Analytical Capabilities of Program Managers

a

A data warehouse is a massive database that integrates information collected from disparate sources.

Data warehouses are separate from the systems used for daily business operations and are usually

dedicated to management decision support.

Project Objectives Scope of program data Implementation status

Ohio

Data warehousea • Provide a single repository of all transactions

data from the Department of Human Services

and 5 years of historical data.

• Provide instantaneous responses to queries.

• Provide data needed to meet federal TANF

reporting requirements.

TANF, Medicaid, food stamps,

child care, child support, and child

welfare

Under development

Texas

Data warehouse • Support management in program and

performance evaluation.

• Develop a repository of data from eight data

marts that is accessible from the Internet.

• Provide 8 years of labor market data.

TANF, AFDC, employment,

training, child care, labor market

information, food stamps, JOBS,

human resources, North

American Free Trade Agreement,b

UI, wages, child support, and

Food Stamp Employment and

Training program

In use

Washington

Data warehouse • Provide up-to-the-minute data on TANF

recipients.

• Support performance monitoring and ad hoc

report generation.

TANF eligibility and work activities Implemented in 1997

Data martc • Support user-specified data queries and

provide capability to view reports on-line.

Employment services Constructed and available to

state headquarters staff who

are being trained now;

rollout to field staff will follow.

Bar Code • Provide capability for ad hoc queries. TANF eligibility and work

activities, and child care

Implemented

Wisconsin

Wisconsin Data for

Organizational

Management

• Provide a more flexible reporting environment

and generate faster responses to requests for

data and reports through Internet access.

• Provide ability to display data by individual

case managers in local TANF agencies.

• Decrease drain on mainframe caused by data

queries.

TANF, child care, child support,

Medicaid, and food stamps

Under development; some

components in use.

Wisconsin Policy

and Administrative

Data

• Create an integrated, longitudinal database to

support management, evaluation, and

research.

• Provide information for monitoring the status

of former TANF recipients.

TANF, Medicaid, food stamps,

wages, criminal justice, UI,

vocational rehabilitation, child

support, and child welfare

Under development
Chapter 3

State Automated Systems Projects Seek to

Expand the Ability to Obtain and Analyze

Data From Multiple Sources

Page 52 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

b

The Department of Labor implemented a program in 1994 to assist workers who lose their jobs as a

result of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

c

A data mart is a smaller version of a data warehouse that usually incorporates data from fewer

sources and is designed to meet a specific business need or problem.

Source: GAO interviews in case study states and analysis of written materials about the projects.

The following examples illustrate how states expect their projects to help

managers.

• Texas’ data warehouse is expected to help managers assess program

results and the performance of service providers by providing the

capability to answer various questions, such as how many participants

in different training programs entered employment within 2 months and

what their average wage levels were.

• The Wisconsin Policy and Administrative Data project seeks to help

track former TANF recipients’ progress toward economic independence

by providing information such as their post-TANF earnings as compared

with the earnings of other low-wage workers, their job entry and

retention rates, and their use of other support programs.

The extent to which the large databases under development will effectively

and efficiently meet information needs for welfare reform remains to be

determined. According to a May 1998 report of the National Association of

State Information Resource Executives, “Practically every state has

developed, is designing or is planning to build a data warehouse to

implement welfare reform.”1 However, establishing a data warehouse is a

complex and potentially costly undertaking. Data must be reformatted to

use standard definitions and conventions across programs and checked for

missing or erroneous entries.2 Nonetheless, these automated systems

projects hold promise for expanding the amount of information available to

program managers.

1

National Association of State Information Resource Executives, Welfare Reform and State

Human Service Information Systems (Lexington, Ky.: NAIRE, May 1998).

2

For example, programs sometimes use different conventions for identifying clients, such as

Social Security numbers or system-generated identifiers.
Page 53 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems Chapte4r

States face a number of obstacles to improving their automated systems,

such as the magnitude of changes due to welfare reform, the inherent

difficulties involved in successfully managing information technology

projects, competition with the private sector to recruit and retain

information technology staff, and the complexity of obtaining federal

approval and funding for systems projects that involve multiple agencies.

The federal government could take actions to facilitate states’ automation

efforts by providing more information to states on best practices for

managing information technology, reviewing and modifying as needed the

federal approval and funding process for automated systems, facilitating

links among state automated systems, and addressing the need for

information to track TANF time limits across state lines. Currently, no

group or organization that brings together key federal agencies involved in

welfare reform has been formally charged with developing solutions to the

range of obstacles states face in improving their automated systems. To

encourage such federal efforts, we recommend that HHS establish an

interagency group that would meet such a challenge.

States Face a Range of

Obstacles to Improving

Their Automated

Systems

Experience shows that developing new automated systems or modifying

existing systems to meet current needs can be a complex and difficult

undertaking. This is certainly true in the current environment, in which

states face significant obstacles to effectively and efficiently managing

complex information systems projects.

Changes Due to Welfare

Reform Have Complicated

Systems Development and

Modification

The large-scale changes in the mission and operations of welfare agencies

have complicated states’ efforts to define the functional and data

requirements for automated systems projects.1 As the roles of frontline

workers and program managers have expanded beyond eligibility

determination to include a focus on employment, welfare agencies have

taken and continue to take steps to change the way they do business.

Washington state officials cited the large-scale changes in welfare reform

as a major obstacle to systems development. One state official commented

that planning systems modifications under these conditions is like

1

For more information on the process of developing functional and data requirements, see

Strategic Information Planning: Framework for Designing and Developing System

Architectures (GAO/IMTEC-92-51, June 1992).
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 54 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

“building the plane while you are flying”—trying to be responsive to

customer needs before the customer’s needs are fully understood.

Many state and local agencies have established new collaborative efforts

with other agencies and community organizations to provide services to

TANF clients, which creates new needs for information sharing among

these partners. The added complexity of working with many partners can

exacerbate systems development efforts, as has occurred in Georgia and

Washington. Georgia’s welfare reform program involves three primary

partners at the state level: the labor, welfare, and adult education agencies.

The ability of these agencies to develop automated systems to meet their

overlapping information needs for welfare reform has been hampered by

significant differences in agencies’ program priorities, systems

architectures, and technological capabilities. For example, the labor

agency has its own mainframe system, whereas the welfare agency uses a

mainframe system maintained by the Department of Administrative

Services and is therefore dependent on the cooperation of this department

to make any needed systems changes.

Officials in Washington also reported obstacles in this area, noting that the

complexity of automated systems projects typically increases substantially

as more agencies are involved, and the project scope tends to expand to

satisfy the needs of all the agencies. Some states have made organizational

realignments that helped to ease such systems development issues. For

example, the governor of Wisconsin merged the state labor and welfare

agencies into a single department in 1998, and Wisconsin state officials told

us that the merger had facilitated their systems development efforts.2

2

States’ welfare and workforce development systems have traditionally been located in

separate agencies. For further information on how welfare reform has affected these

systems, see Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to

TANF Clients (GAO/HEHS-99-22, Feb. 26, 1999).
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 55 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Furthermore, some states have devolved substantial authority to their

localities for designing TANF programs, which means that state automated

systems will be called upon to support a potentially more diverse range of

local program goals and operations. For example, Ohio cited the devolution

of its TANF program as a major obstacle in designing its Integrated Client

Management System. Ohio state officials told us that while the state’s focus

in developing this system is to support local needs, it has been very

challenging to actually do so because of the substantial diversity of

operations among the state’s 88 counties.3

In addition to the large-scale changes in the mission and operation of

welfare agencies, the expanded federal reporting requirements have

complicated for states the task of defining their own systems needs.

Several states we visited or surveyed noted that the substantial investment

in resources required to modify systems to meet the expanded federal

requirements constrained their own efforts to use or improve their systems

to better implement and oversee their welfare reform programs. In our

earlier work on states’ automated systems for JOBS, the previous welfareto-work program for AFDC recipients, we found that states focused system

design solely on meeting federal data collection and reporting requirements

rather than on other program objectives, such as providing information for

the use of frontline workers in helping welfare recipients find

employment.4

In addition, welfare reform has created a need for states to have access to

cross-state information on individuals’ TANF receipt to enable enforcement

of the 5-year TANF limit. As previously discussed, the states we reviewed

generally do not have access to such information.

3

Ohio has a county-administered, state-supervised TANF program.

4

See Welfare to Work: JOBS Automated Systems Do Not Focus on Program’s Employment

Objective (AIMD-94-44, June 8, 1994).
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 56 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Finally, a long-standing obstacle to developing automated systems that

support service delivery to low-income families is the multitude of

programs operated by several different federal agencies that provide

services to this population. We reported in 1995 that the complexity of the

system of aid for low-income families, including diverse and sometimes

contradictory program requirements and separate funding provisions, has

made it difficult for states to develop integrated, streamlined automated

information systems, often leading states to develop essentially separate

automated systems for each program.5 States continue to cite these

conflicting program requirements as obstacles to developing systems that

meet information needs that cross program and agency boundaries, which

has become more critical than ever as a result of the broad objectives of

welfare reform. For example, Texas officials said that the variety and

complexity of eligibility requirements for different federal programs have

presented a major challenge for the state’s plan to design an integrated

system intended to improve the efficient completion of eligibility

processes.6 In addition, Wisconsin officials commented that federal TANF

and welfare-to-work grant reporting requirements use different definitions

for some key terms, such as “closed case,” which complicates systems

development.

Managing Complex

Information Technology

Projects Poses Difficulties

Successfully managing information technology projects is difficult, and

many projects fail. Our fieldwork produced examples of difficulties states

encountered in effectively managing information technology projects. New

Jersey officials said that in planning for the development of systems to

support their welfare reforms, they had to decide whether to maintain and

modify existing systems or replace them using new technologies, which

would require identifying the most appropriate technological alternatives.

As a result of such challenges, it took about 4 years for the state to develop

its plans for automated systems initiatives. State officials in Ohio decided

to delay the rollout of its new system in order to shift from a client server

technology, as originally planned, to an Internet-based technology, in large

part to take advantage of the greater opportunities for information access

provided by the latter.

5

See Welfare Programs: Opportunities to Consolidate and Increase Program Efficiencies

(GAO/HEHS-95-139, May 31, 1995).

6

Texas officials also pointed out that the separation of Medicaid from TANF has increased

the difficulty of designing systems to determine Medicaid eligibility.
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 57 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

The HHS study of state automated systems mandated by PRWORA found

that the automated systems that were being used for TANF in 66 percent of

the states in 1997 first became operational in the 1970s or 1980s.7 New

types of systems hardware have been developed since the initial state

welfare automated systems were developed using mainframe architectures

in the 1970s. Client server architectures were developed to provide end

users with greater capabilities to manipulate data in a system. Additionally,

in the last several years, Internet-based architectures have been developed

that allow frontline workers and managers to access data from several

separate systems at one time. Through this new Internet capability, states

can build systems that better promote integrated service delivery while still

drawing on the capacities of existing systems. The need to update both

hardware and software is especially pronounced in the welfare arena

because many states are using older automated systems to manage their

welfare programs.

Obtaining Staffing for

Projects Has Presented

Obstacles Related to Y2K

Preparations and

Competition With the

Private Sector for Staff

Obtaining sufficient staff resources for automated systems projects is

another area in which states have encountered obstacles. Two principal

obstacles cited by states were the substantial staff resources diverted to

address the Y2K issue and difficulties recruiting and retaining qualified

information technology staff. The Y2K issue had a sharply defined deadline

and the potential for major service disruptions, which helps account for the

high priority states placed on modifying systems to address this issue.

States told us that this priority constrained their abilities to obtain

information technology staff to undertake new automated systems projects

for welfare reform.

7

The report noted that generally accepted information technology standards assume that the

average life of a large-scale computer system ranges from 5 to 7 years, and after that time,

new technology advances make it advantageous to implement a replacement system. See

HHS, ACF, Report to Congress on Data Processing (Washington, D.C.: HHS, Dec. 1997).
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 58 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

In addition, states have encountered long-standing problems in recruiting

and retaining information technology staff. States reported that these

problems are due to factors such as the relatively lower pay and benefits of

information technology jobs in the public versus the private sector and

fewer opportunities in the public sector to work with the newest hardware

and software. Several states noted that the loss of some information

technology staff to the private sector had significantly diminished their

organizational expertise in the area of information technology. Child

support enforcement officials in Texas told us that about 80 percent of

information technology personnel, such as systems analysts and

programmers, left state government jobs to join various firms that contract

with the child support enforcement program and other program areas.8

According to state officials, the loss of these personnel has resulted in poor

or reduced service to the public, because without timely upgrades to

automated systems, program personnel cannot easily access case

information, update files, or respond to customer inquiries.

Obtaining Federal Funding

Approval for Systems

Projects Presents Obstacles

States reported that the federal procedure that they must follow for

systems procurement is a major obstacle in obtaining federal funding for

their automated systems projects. As discussed earlier, to promote

accountability for the use of federal funds, the federal government requires

that states develop an APD to obtain federal funding for automated systems

projects related to food stamps, Medicaid, or child support enforcement.9

While these acquisition procedures applied to AFDC, they do not apply to

systems supported with TANF funds only. This reduced federal role in

TANF-funded systems is in keeping with the general devolution of

responsibility for TANF programs and operations to states. PRWORA

stated that HHS may not regulate state-managed TANF programs except in

those areas specifically authorized by PRWORA. PRWORA also specified

reduced HHS staffing levels for the administration of TANF. Policy

devolution and reduced staffing have altered HHS’ oversight roles and

responsibilities, particularly in the area of automated systems.

8

See Social Service Privatization: Ethics and Accountability Challenges in State Contracting

(GAO/HEHS-99-41, Apr. 5, 1999).

9

APDs must contain a state’s statement of needs and objectives, requirements analysis, and

alternatives analysis, and they must also set forth the project management plan with a costbenefit analysis, proposed budget, and prospective cost allocations. To obtain continued

federal funding throughout the system’s life, a state submits an APD update to report the

system’s status and to request additional funding annually or, if needed, more frequently.
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 59 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

States criticized the APD process as being too cumbersome with respect to

designing systems that require approvals from multiple federal agencies.

For example, Ohio state officials told us that they decided to develop their

new case management system using TANF funds only—even though they

would have preferred to use additional sources of federal funds—because

of a desire to avoid the APD process for such reasons. New Jersey state

officials commented that even though federal agencies encourage the

development of integrated systems, the narrow programmatic focus of

federal agencies in the APD cost allocation process makes this difficult.

The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) has echoed

such concerns, maintaining that federal procurement procedures, including

the APD approval process, are not structurally capable of quickly and

effectively responding to the rapidly changing business and technological

environments confronting welfare reform.10

10APHSA is the organization that represents managers of state and local human services

agencies. See Tools for Information Systems Reform (Washington, D.C.: APHSA, distributed

Dec. 1998), which includes APHSA’s recommendations for improving the federal

procurement process.
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 60 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Previous collaborative efforts of federal and state officials have had some

success in improving the APD process. In response to our 1992

recommendation that ACF, HCFA, and USDA collaborate when approving

states’ system proposals, an Information Technology Partnership Project

was established that year to address identified problems with the approval

process.11 The project involved a series of meetings of representatives from

HHS, USDA, the American Public Welfare Association,12 and the National

Association of State Information Resource Executives. In 1994, the project

developed a list of action items for improving the APD process. USDA

officials told us that the collaborative efforts of USDA and HHS contributed

to improvements in the APD approval process after the project ended. For

example, they noted that regulations issued jointly by USDA and HHS in

1996 provided regulatory relief by raising the thresholds that trigger APD

reviews. USDA officials also pointed out that all federal partner agencies

agreed upon an expedited approval process for state systems approvals

related to Y2K. While all of the short-term action items identified by the

Information Technology Partnership Project have been implemented,

several items that were designated for long-term action have not been

implemented and remain open issues, according to HHS officials.13

Federal Actions Could

Help States Improve

Automated Systems

The federal government’s primary role in the area of state development of

automated systems for social programs has historically been that of a

regulator, focusing on ensuring compliance with applicable federal statutes

and regulations. While PRWORA reduced the role of HHS in overseeing

systems funded solely with TANF funds, HHS still plays a key role, along

with USDA and Labor, in funding and overseeing states’ information

systems for social programs. Because of this key role, the federal

government could further enhance the progress of welfare reform by also

functioning as a facilitator of states’ automated system initiatives. On the

basis of our visits to six states, surveys of an additional nine states, a

11See Welfare Programs: Ineffective Federal Oversight Permits Costly Automated System

Problems (GAO/IMTEC-92-29, May 27, 1992) for a more detailed discussion of the

recommendation and related findings.

12The American Public Welfare Association subsequently changed its name to the American

Public Human Services Association.

13For example, the action item to propose performance and accountability standards for

systems projects to replace the existing federal up-front review, approval, and monitoring

processes was not implemented.
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 61 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

review of numerous reports on these issues, and consultation with experts

participating in the GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working Seminar on Social

Program Information Systems, we identified four key areas in which

federal actions could facilitate states’ efforts.

• Disseminate information on best practices for managing information

technology, particularly in the area of welfare reform. Without assuming

greater responsibility for managing states’ information technology

projects, the federal government could do more to provide information

on and increase states’ access to expertise in that area.14 For example,

the government could serve as a clearinghouse for information on best

practices in public and private organizations and sponsor conferences

that disseminate information on successfully managing information

technology projects. In addition, it could identify and disseminate

information on state best practices in developing or modifying

automated systems to support the new welfare reforms.

• Review, and modify as needed, the APD process to ensure that it meets

federal needs for state accountability without unnecessarily hindering

state development efforts. Although the APD is no longer required for

systems developed solely with TANF funds, the process is still key to

states’ efforts to integrate or connect TANF, food stamps, and Medicaid

systems. The federal process for APD could be reviewed to ensure that

it supports what is currently known about best practices in systems

development. In addition, the key departments and agencies involved—

USDA and HHS’ ACF and HCFA—could work more closely in the APD

review and approval process, as is warranted by the need to approve

plans for systems projects that involve multiple programs, and in

keeping with our recommendation about this in our 1992 report.

• Play a stronger role in facilitating links among the automated systems

used by different state and local agencies through such means as the

following.

• Serve as a clearinghouse for information on strategies being used to

develop connections among automated systems for different

14We have issued several guides to general best practices in information technology. See

Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making (GAO/AIMD-99-32, Dec. 1,

1998), Executive Guide: Measuring Performance and Demonstrating Results of Information

Technology Investments (GAO/AIMD-98-89, Mar. 1, 1998), Business Process Reengineering

Assessment Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.15, Apr. 1997), and Executive Guide: Improving Mission

Performance Through Strategic Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-

115, May 1, 1994).
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 62 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

programs, particularly in new areas such as vocational education and

criminal justice.

• Support demonstrations designed specifically to promote better

partnerships between state and local agencies, which lead to more

effective and efficient performance of automated systems.

• Coordinate existing and new data collection and reporting

requirements developed by federal agencies for different programs to

encourage common definitions and standards where feasible.

• Identify conflicting eligibility requirements for federal programs that

serve similar populations. Federal agencies could work together to

identify and revise those eligibility requirements determined at the

agency level rather than in legislation. In addition, agencies could

present to the Congress proposals for changing selected conflicting

eligibility requirements in order to better facilitate integrated service

delivery while still meeting congressional objectives.

• Address the need for states to have access to cross-state information on

individuals’ TANF receipt so the states can enforce the federal 5-year

TANF time limit. In its December 1997 report to the Congress, HHS

presented some options for a national tracking system for congressional

consideration and also noted that more information about how states

implemented welfare reforms would be needed before considering the

most appropriate options for tracking the time limit nationwide. A

November 1999 report by USDA studied options for a national system to

detect certain types of food stamp fraud and time limits that had been

exceeded as well as to track recipients’ time on TANF. TANF recipients

could begin to reach the 5-year time limit established by PRWORA as

early as 2001. In addition to establishing this time limit, PRWORA

required HHS to impose a financial penalty on states that provide

federal TANF aid to families no longer eligible because of the time limit,

and HHS will need accurate information to enforce this penalty.15 HHS

could take the lead in addressing the need for a national system and

work with the Congress to the extent that legislation and resources are

needed to accomplish that goal. HHS could also work with USDA as that

agency considers a national system to help it identify individuals who

are illegally receiving food stamps.

15PRWORA does authorize states to use their maintenance-of-effort funds to provide aid to

families who have reached their time limits.
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 63 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Conclusions The current environment provides a window of opportunity for more

coordinated federal attention to automated systems for social programs.

Because states have reported that their automated systems have

successfully made the transition to the new century, many state and local

staff resources will no longer be diverted to Y2K-related work. Increased

attention to the ongoing and evolving process of improving states’

automated systems for social programs could ultimately help bring about

more effective and efficient service delivery for low-income families. More

specifically, improved systems would help ensure that the intended goals

and requirements of TANF, such as promoting work and enforcing the 5-

year time limit on aid, are met.

Many of the obstacles states face may be best addressed at the state level,

such as the need for collaboration across state and local agencies.

However, coordinated action at the federal level would help address

several of the obstacles encountered by states as they take steps to

improve their automated systems for social programs. Because the issues

that need to be addressed involve several federal programs and agencies,

any actions undertaken must involve key federal agencies. However,

currently, no group or organization formally brings together the array of

federal agencies involved in welfare reform to help devise solutions to the

issues facing states in improving their welfare and welfare-related

automated systems. HHS could play a pivotal role in orchestrating such a

broad-based collaborative approach by bringing representatives of key

federal agencies and other organizations together to work on these issues.

Recommendation to

the Secretary of Health

and Human Services

We recommend that the Secretary of HHS establish an interagency group to

identify, and develop implementation plans for, federal actions that would

facilitate states’ efforts to improve their automated systems for federal

programs that serve low-income families. The group should include highlevel federal officials from HHS, USDA, Labor, and other federal agencies

as appropriate. The interagency group should obtain input from state and

local social program and information technology managers; the group

could also seek input from others, such as state organizations, professional

organizations of social program officials, and welfare researchers. In

addition to any actions that the interagency group identifies on its own, it

should consider actions in the following areas.
Chapter 4

Federal Action Could Help Overcome

Obstacles States Face in Improving

Automated Systems

Page 64 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

• Disseminating information on best practices for managing information

technology generally and best practices specific to automated systems

that support welfare reform.

• Reviewing, and modifying as needed, the federal process for systems

procurement to ensure that it meets federal needs for state

accountability without unnecessarily hindering state development

efforts.

• Facilitating links among the automated systems used by different state

and local agencies through such means as supporting demonstrations

designed to promote better partnerships between state and local

agencies and coordinating data reporting requirements for different

federal programs.

• Addressing the need for states to have access to cross-state information

on individuals’ TANF receipt to enforce the 5-year TANF time limit.

Agency Comments and

Our Response

We obtained comments on a draft of this report from HHS, USDA, and

Labor. USDA and Labor agreed with our recommendation. HHS said that it

would, along with other involved federal agencies, undertake a review of,

and modify as needed, the federal process for systems procurement. HHS

said that the objective of the review would be to ensure that federal needs

for state accountability are met without unnecessarily hindering state

development efforts. HHS did not specifically say that it would take

responsibility for establishing an interagency group to accomplish this

review, as we recommended. We continue to believe that HHS, as the

agency responsible for many of the programs, should take the initiative in

establishing an interagency group. In agreeing with the report

recommendation, Labor suggested that it might make sense to place the

recommended interagency group under the direction of the Domestic

Policy Council because of the cross-cutting nature of providing services to

low-income families. This is another way that our recommendation could

be implemented.

In its comments, HHS emphasized the initiatives it has taken or has under

way to help states achieve effective information systems that support the

transition of families from welfare to work. HHS also emphasized the

information systems procurement process when discussing what it would

review with other agencies. We believe that the interagency group should,

as outlined in the recommendation, address multiple issues, not just the

computer systems procurement process.
Page 65 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

USDA commented that the report did not sufficiently recognize

accomplishments since 1992 with respect to federal streamlining of the

APD approval process. We added information on these accomplishments to

the report. USDA also commented that effective implementation of the

report’s recommendation would require additional funding and staff

resources and that USDA’s Food and Nutrition Service has not been

successful in its efforts to obtain additional resources, including federal

employees and contractor support, to bolster the existing APD process. If

USDA believes that additional resources would be needed to implement

components of our recommendation, it should request and justify

additional resources in its budget proposal.

Comments from HHS, USDA, and Labor appear in appendixes III, IV, and V,

respectively. We also obtained technical comments from USDA and the six

case study states and incorporated them in the report as appropriate.
Page 66 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Appendix I

The GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working Apendxies

Seminar on Social Program Information

Systems: Objectives, History, and MembershipApendxiI

The capability to obtain the information needed to implement and oversee

welfare reform is a critical element for its success. To assist congressional

oversight and provide expertise to inform our work in the area of

automated information systems, GAO jointly established the working

seminar with the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government in March

1998. The federal government, as a major funder of automated systems for

social programs, has a major stake in the development and operation of

these systems. The primary objectives of the working seminar are to (1)

determine the overall directions in which state automated systems must

move to better meet the information needs of welfare reform, (2) identify

changes needed at the federal level to facilitate movement in these

directions, and (3) disseminate these findings to stimulate action to

implement such changes.

The working seminar met six times between March 1998 and November

1999. In the initial three meetings, members worked with GAO staff to

articulate some conceptual categories and methodological approaches to

help structure our study of the subject matter. The fourth meeting, in March

1999, featured views from officials from Ohio, Texas, and Wisconsin on the

capabilities of their automated systems, their efforts to improve these

systems, and the obstacles they have encountered. The June 1999 meeting

focused on federal obstacles that can impede states’ progress in developing

integrated information systems for social programs. The meeting sought to

identify the sources of some of these obstacles and explore how they might

be addressed. At the November 1999 meeting, we presented preliminary

findings based on the fieldwork we had completed on this job in

collaboration with field researchers from the Rockefeller Institute’s State

Capacity Project and obtained feedback from members of the working

seminar.

Members of the

GAO/Rockefeller

Institute Working

Seminar on Social

Program Information

Systems

Patrick Babcock, W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Rebecca Blank, University of Michigan

Rachel Block, Health Care Financing Administration, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

Catherine Born, University of Maryland

Henry Brady, University of California, Berkeley
Appendix I

The GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working

Seminar on Social Program Information

Systems: Objectives, History, and

Membership

Page 67 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Brett Brown, Child Trends

John Cuddy, Oregon Department of Human Services

Cynthia Fagnoni, GAO (cochair)

John Thomas Flynn, Litton PRC

Thomas Gais, Rockefeller Institute of Government

Susan Golonka, National Governors’ Association

Richard Hardin, Employment and Training Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor

Ronald Haskins, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of

Representatives

John Hurd, Ohio Department of Human Services

Anil Kakani, U.S. Office of Management and Budget

Andrea Kane, White House Domestic Council

Joseph Leo, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Jan Lilja, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture

Terrence Maxwell, Rockefeller Institute of Government

Lawrence Mead, New York University

Ronald Mincy, The Ford Foundation

Richard Nathan, Rockefeller Institute of Government (cochair)

Mark Ragan, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

Howard Rolston, Administration for Children and Families, U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix I

The GAO/Rockefeller Institute Working

Seminar on Social Program Information

Systems: Objectives, History, and

Membership

Page 68 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Elaine Ryan, American Public Human Services Association

Stephanie Shipp, U.S. Census Bureau

Larry Singer, Public Interest Breakthroughs, Inc.

Douglas Steiger, Finance Committee, U.S. Senate

Sheri Steisel, National Conference of State Legislatures

William Waldman, American Public Human Services Association

Joel Willemssen, GAO

Michael Wiseman, The Urban Institute
Page 69 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Appendix II

Links Among Automated Systems for

Different Social Programs ApendxiI

Links among automated systems can provide frontline workers and

program managers access to a broader range of information on TANF

recipients’ involvement with different social programs and thereby

facilitate the implementation of welfare reform. The extent to which states

have established links among automated systems for different programs

varies substantially. In the 15 states we surveyed, the systems that support

TANF eligibility determination are, in almost all cases, linked with the

automated systems for food stamps, child support enforcement, TANF

work activities, Medicaid eligibility determination, and transportation

subsidies for TANF recipients, as shown in figure 6.1 These links reflect

federal mandates and enhanced federal funding for automated system links

in these programs.2 In contrast, automated systems for other services that

TANF recipients may need in order to facilitate their movement toward

employment, such as child care subsidies, job training through JTPA,

welfare-to-work grant services, vocational rehabilitation, job listings, and

subsidized housing, are generally not linked to systems for determining

TANF eligibility.3

1

The types of automated systems links that states identified in their responses to this

question included daily, nightly, weekly, and monthly batched data exchanges and the

capacity of one system to query data from another system.

2

As discussed earlier, states were eligible for 90 percent in federal matching funds before

April 1994 if they combined separate systems for AFDC, food stamps, and Medicaid into a

single, integrated Family Assistance Management Information System. In addition, the

Family Support Act of 1988 required that statewide systems be developed to track

determination of paternity and child support collections, and that these systems be linked

with state systems for AFDC.

3

We do not assume that all of the programs listed in fig. 6 should be linked to the program for

TANF eligibility or that these are the only programs that might be linked. For example,

some officials said that it would be useful to have the system for TANF work activities

linked to the system for job listings to facilitate tracking TANF recipients’ referrals to job

listings. There is a wide range of other system links that are potentially useful for welfare

reform, including links to automated systems for public education, mental health services,

and criminal justice. For a survey of projects under way in 26 states to link data from social

service programs, see UC Data, An Inventory of Research Uses of Administrative Data in

Social Services Programs in the United States−1998 (Berkeley, Calif.: University of

California, Feb. 1, 1999).
Appendix II

Links Among Automated Systems for

Different Social Programs

Page 70 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Figure 6: Programs With an Automated System That Either Is the Same as, or Shares Data With, the System Used for

Determining TANF Eligibility

Note: We asked state officials to indicate whether the automated system used for each of the specified

programs is (1) the same system as used for determining TANF eligibility, (2) a separate system that is

linked to the system used for TANF eligibility, or (3) a separate system that is not linked to the system

used for TANF eligibility (that is, the systems do not share data). This figure shows the number of

states that responded either “1” or “2” for each of the programs; thus, lower bars indicate a larger

number of states in which a program is supported by a separate system that does not share data with

the system for determining TANF eligibility.

a

One state did not respond to the question on unemployment insurance.

b

One state did not respond, and another did not receive welfare-to-work grants.

Source: Responses from state officials to GAO’s questionnaire.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Food Stamps

Child Support Enforcement

TANF Work Activities

Medicaid Eligibility Determination

Transportation Subsidies

Child Care Subsidies

Unemployment Insurancea

Child Welfare Programs

JTPA

Welfare-to-Work Grantsb

Job Listings

Vocational Rehabilitation

Housing Subsidies

Number of States Responding in Each Category

Number of States=15

Program/Service
Page 71 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services ApendxiI
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 72 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 73 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 74 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Health

and Human Services

Page 75 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform
Page 76 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture ApendxiIV
Appendix IV

Comments From the Department of

Agriculture

Page 77 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform
Page 78 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Appendix V

Comments From the Department of Labor ApendxiV

Now on p. 13.
Page 79 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Appendix VI

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contacts Gale C. Harris, (202) 512-7235, harrisg.hehs@gao.gov

Andrew Sherrill, (202) 512-7252, sherrilla.hehs@gao.gov

Staff

Acknowledgments

The following people also made important contributions to this report:

Suzanne M. Lofhjelm; Catherine V. Pardee; Mark E. Ward; and Michael J.

Rich, Emory University.
Page 80 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Glossary

Common front end A specific application that provides users a single access point to multiple

databases without making separate queries to them; instead, it appears to

users that there is only one database. With a common front end, data can be

entered once and updated across all systems. Common front ends are often

built to assist caseworkers and are used with systems containing data

warehouses or other arrangements of multiple integrated databases.

Data mart A database that integrates information collected from disparate sources

and is designed to meet a specific business need or problem.

Data warehouse A larger version of a data mart that usually incorporates data from more

sources. Data warehouses are subject-oriented and separate from

databases used for daily business operations. They are usually dedicated to

management decision support and are accessed through report writers,

query tools, and data access and retrieval tools. All data are in a consistent

format, exist for a particular point in time, and do not change. Some

warehouses store data for points in time spanning several years.

Geographic information

system

A computer-based system that enables users to identify social services

listed in resource directories on the basis of proximity to a client’s

residence. The location of a client’s residence, the service provider, and

local geographic information are mapped and displayed in a “point-andclick” link.

Mainframe An industry term for a large computer that is designed for the most

intensive computation. Mainframe computers are often shared by multiple

users connected to the computer via terminals.

On-line connection A direct connection between the user’s terminal and the computer

containing the data. An on-line system is one in which data to be input

enter the computer directly from the point of origin, and the output data

are transmitted directly to the location where they are to be used.

Real-time system A system that processes transactions as they occur rather than batching

them; response to input is fast enough to affect subsequent inputs and
Glossary

Page 81 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

guide a process control system or a computer-assisted instruction system.

For processing to be real-time it must also be on-line.
Page 82 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Bibliography

American Public Human Services Association. Tools for Information

Systems Reform. Washington, D.C.: APHSA, distributed Dec. 1998.

American Public Welfare Association. Statewide Automated Child Welfare

Information Systems: Survey of State Progress. Washington, D.C.: APWA,

July 1997.

____. A Shock to the Systems: Automating Welfare Reform in the States.

Washington, D.C.: APWA, Sept. 1997.

Brown, Amy. “Management Information Systems—Section 19” in Work

First: How to Implement an Employment-Focused Approach to Welfare

Reform. New York, N.Y.: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation,

Mar. 1997.

Center for Technology in Government. Tying a Sensible Knot: A Practical

Guide to State-Local Information Systems. Albany, N.Y.: State University of

New York, 1997. http://www.ctg.albany.edu/resources/pdfrpwp/iis1.pdf

(cited Feb. 28, 2000).

Elwood, Deborah A., and Donald J. Boyd. Changes in State Spending on

Social Services Since the Implementation of Welfare Reform: A Preliminary

Report. Albany, N.Y.: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government, Feb.

2000.

Gais, Thomas L. “Welfare, Information, and the New Federalism.” The

Evaluation Exchange, Harvard Family Research Project, Vol. IV, No. 2

(1998).

Kaplan, April. “Linking the Systems: The Relationship Between Welfare and

Child Welfare Systems.” Resources, Welfare Information Network, Vol. 2,

No. 4 (July 1998).

Maxfield, Myles, James Ohls, and William S. Borden. Options for a National

Database to Track Participation in Federal Means-Tested Public Assistance

Programs: Report to Congress. Report prepared by Mathematica Policy

Research, Inc., for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition

Service. Washington, D.C.: USDA, Nov. 1999. http://www.fns.usda.gov/oane

/MENU/Published/FSP/FILES/dbaseopt.pdf (cited Feb. 28, 2000).
Bibliography

Page 83 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Maxwell, Terrence A. Welfare Reform and Information Management:

Rewiring the Human Service Systems. Albany, N.Y.: Nelson A. Rockefeller

Institute of Government, Dec. 1997.

_____. “Information Federalism: History of Welfare Information Systems.”

Working Paper. Albany, N.Y.: Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of

Government, 1999.

Nathan, Richard P., and Thomas L. Gais. Implementing the Personal

Responsibility Act of 1996: A First Look. Albany, N.Y.: Nelson A. Rockefeller

Institute of Government, 1999.

National Association of State Information Resource Executives. Welfare

Reform and State Human Service Information Systems. Lexington, Ky.:

NASIRE, May 1998.

_____. State Human Service Information Systems: Measuring the Impact of

Welfare Reform. Lexington, Ky.: NASIRE, Feb. 2000.

Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. “Symposium: Implementing

Welfare Reform: A First Look.” Rockefeller Institute Bulletin (1999).

Northwestern University/University of Chicago, Joint Center for Poverty,

Advisory Panel on Research Uses of Administrative Data. Administrative

Data for Policy-Relevant Research: Assessment of Current Utility and

Recommendations for Development. Chicago, Ill.: Northwestern

University/University of Chicago, Jan. 1998.

Public Interest Breakthroughs, Inc. California Welfare Reform Impact

Assessment Project Report. Vienna, Va.: Public Interest Breakthroughs,

Inc., June 5, 1998.

Singer, Larry. “The Role of IT in Welfare Reform.” Government Technology

(May 1997).

_____. “States Need Federal Partner.” Government Technology (Apr. 1998).

UC DATA, University of California at Berkeley. An Inventory of Research

Uses of Administrative Data in Social Services Programs in the United

States—1998. Report to the Northwestern University/University of Chicago

Joint Center for Poverty Research. Berkeley, Calif.: University of California,

Feb. 1, 1999.
Bibliography

Page 84 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for

Children and Families, Office of State Systems. Report to Congress on Data

Processing and Case Tracking in the Temporary Assistance for Needy

Families Program. Washington, D.C.: HHS, Dec. 1997. http://www.acf.dhhs.

gov/programs/oss/report.htm (cited Feb. 28, 2000).

Wiseman, Michael. A Management Information Model for New-Style Public

Assistance (99-10). Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, Aug. 1999.

http://newfederalism.urban.org/html/discussion99-10.html (cited Feb. 28,

2000).

Yates, Jessica. “Information Systems and Tools to Support Goals of SelfSufficiency.” Issue Notes, Welfare Information Network, Vol. 2, No. 11 (July

1998).
Page 85 GAO/HEHS-00-48 Automated Systems for Welfare Reform

Related GAO Products

Food Stamp Program: Various Factors Have Led to Declining Participation

(GAO/RCED-99-185, July 2, 1999).

Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients’ Status (GAO/HEHS-99-

48, Apr. 28, 1999).

Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance

to TANF Clients (GAO/HEHS-99-22, Feb. 26, 1999).

Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States’ Use of Welfare-toWork Grants (GAO/HEHS-99-40, Feb. 5, 1999).

Year 2000 Computing Crisis: Readiness of State Automated Systems to

Support Federal Welfare Programs (GAO/AIMD-99-28, Nov. 6, 1998).

Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare

Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998).

Medicaid: Early Implications of Welfare Reform for Beneficiaries and

States (GAO/HEHS-98-62, Feb. 24, 1998).

Chief Information Officers: Ensuring Strong Leadership and Effective

Council (GAO/T-AIMD-98-22, Oct. 27, 1997).

Child Support Enforcement: Strong Leadership Required to Maximize

Benefits of Automated Systems (GAO/AIMD-97-72, June 30, 1997).

Managing Technology: Best Practices Can Improve Performance and

Produce Results (GAO/T-AIMD-97-38, Jan. 31, 1997).

Welfare to Work: Most AFDC Training Programs Not Emphasizing Job

Placement (GAO/HEHS-95-113, May 19, 1995).

Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic

Information Management and Technology: Learning From Leading

Organizations (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1, 1994).

Automated Welfare Systems: Historical Costs and Projections (GAO/AIMD94-52FS, Feb. 25, 1994).

Strategic Information Planning: Framework for Designing and Developing

System Architectures (GAO/IMTEC-92-51, June 1992).

(116030) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00