GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

February 22, 2010 

The Honorable Jim McDermott 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Danny K. Davis 

Member 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families: A Review of Recent GAO Work 

In response to your request for information on the support provided to low-income Americans, 

and African-Americans in particular, we summarized prior GAO reports on programs and 

policies supporting low-income workers and families through (1) income supports, (2) worker 

training, (3) programs involving fathers, and (4) care and protection of children. Enclosed are 

fact sheets that highlight our prior work in these four areas. 

To summarize the most relevant reports, we conducted a search of GAO’s publications database, 

identified those reports published since 2000 that were most relevant to your areas of interest, 

obtained updates on agency recommendations, and consulted with cognizant GAO staff. We 

included publicly available funding data on related federal programs, but did not independently 

verify these data with agency officials. We identified and included any information related to 

African-American individuals or families contained in these reports. We excluded health-related 

programs from our scope to reflect your primary areas of interest. We conducted our work from 

October 2009 to February 2010 in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance 

Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform 

the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to 

discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the 

analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees. This report also 

will be available on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Should you or your staffs have any 

questions, please contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. Key contributors to this report were Janet Mascia, Assistant Director, and Kim Siegal, 

analyst-in-charge. James Bennett assisted with graphics. 

Kay E. Brown 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

Enclosure 
Enclosure 2/22/10

Why GAO Did This Work 

With poverty rates and 

unemployment on the rise, the 

federal system of income, 

employment, and family supports 

has become increasingly important 

to a growing number of Americans. 

Due to their higher rates of poverty, 

certain minority groups are more 

likely than their nonminority 

counterparts to be represented in 

these programs and ancillary 

programs that serve low-income 

workers and families. The health of 

these programs is, therefore, 

especially important to these 

groups. In addition, because 

African-American children are more 

likely than other children to be 

raised in single-parent households, 

child support enforcement and 

programs that promote greater 

paternal involvement are 

particularly relevant for AfricanAmerican families. 

Due to interest in the support 

provided to low-income individuals, 

and African-Americans in 

particular, you asked us to 

summarize GAO reports on 

programs and policies supporting 

low-income workers and families 

through (1) income supports, (2) 

worker training, (3) programs 

involving fathers, and (4) care and 

protection of children. 

For more information, contact Kay Brown at 

(202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov.

Support for Low-Income Individuals and 

Families 

A Review of Recent GAO Work 

Introduction 

The percent of Americans living in poverty has been on an upward trajectory 

in recent years, with 13.2 percent of Americans living below the federal 

poverty line (e.g., $17,163 for a family of three) in 2008 up from 11.3 percent 

in 2000, according to Census data, and rates have been higher for certain 

minority groups. African-Americans and Hispanics both had poverty rates 

almost twice that of the national average at 24.7 and 23.2 percent, 

respectively. Children also experienced high poverty rates. In 2008, 19 

percent of children under 18 lived in poverty, and nearly 30 percent of 

children living in a family headed by a single mother fell under the poverty 

line. Those living in poverty face an increased risk of adverse outcomes, such 

as poor health and low educational attainment. These outcomes, in turn, 

limit individuals’ development of the skills, abilities, and knowledge 

necessary to fully participate in the labor force and ultimately become selfsufficient. 

Over the past decade and a half, Congress has made significant changes to 

the federal system of support for low-income families and individuals. These 

changes have provided states greater authority and flexibility in how they use 

funds to design program benefits and service delivery. The variability in 

program implementation by state and local governments heightens the 

importance of understanding policy choices and practices at these levels, as 

well as the federal level, in order to describe the nation’s current support 

system for low-income families. GAO has accordingly produced numerous 

reports on issues related to supports for low-income families and individuals. 

The following is a summary of selected findings from GAO reports on 

programs and policies that affect low-income families and individuals. 

Topics of these prior reports include 

• strategies aimed at increasing the incomes of welfare recipients; 

• how worker training programs are addressing the needs of lowincome families; 

• implementation of the largest-ever federal marriage and fatherhood 

program; and 

• the availability of subsidized child care for low-income families. 

In some instances, the environment during which the reports were written, 

such the economic climate or the statutory or regulatory framework, may 

have changed; so it is important to read them in that context. 

Enclosure Structure 

Income Supports pp. 2-8 

Worker Training pp. 9-10 

Programs Involving Fathers pp. 11-13 

Care and Protection of Children pp. 14-17 

Related GAO Products pp. 18-19 

Page 1 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 

Background 

Authorized in 1996 and 

reauthorized in 2006, the 

Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families (TANF) program 

represents a significant departure 

from the welfare entitlement 

program it replaced—Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children 

(AFDC)—in funding structure, 

goals, and program requirements. 

Under the TANF block grant, 

states receive federal funds to 

design and operate their own 

welfare programs within federal 

guidelines. The TANF program 

focuses on ending the 

dependence of needy parents on 

government benefits by 

promoting job preparation, work, 

and marriage. TANF also places a 

5-year lifetime limit on cash 

assistance paid to families with 

federal funds and requires states 

to achieve minimum participation 

rates in federally recognized work 

activities. 

States must spend a specified 

amount of their own funds on 

eligible low-income families—at 

least 75 percent of the state funds 

they spent in fiscal year 1994, 

known as the maintenance-ofeffort (MOE) requirement. States 

may use these funds to pay for 

separate state programs. 

Source: GAO (images above). 

Needy families striving to achieve self sufficiency can benefit from 

temporary cash assistance and other supports funded by the federal 

TANF program. GAO has, in several reports, examined how this welfare 

program is achieving program goals. We have reported on TANF incomegenerating activities, states’ spending changes, and special provisions for 

TANF recipients in domestic violence situations. 

Strategies to Increase TANF Recipient Incomes 

With TANF’s greater focus on work, many former recipients now rely 

more on their earnings; however, they often work at low-wage jobs with 

limited benefits and advancement opportunities. In a 2005 report, we 

identified four strategies that aimed to increase incomes for recipients of 

TANF. 1

 These were training, post-secondary education, self-employment, 

and financial asset building. Training strategies often targeted services to 

particular groups or job-market needs. Other programs used postsecondary education to position clients for higher-wage jobs. Some 

programs we visited gave participants the tools to run their own 

businesses as a way out of poverty. Finally, we found asset building 

strategies aimed to help clients save and invest money to pursue career 

goals and support their families. HHS was supporting these strategies 

through research, targeted grants, and technical assistance; however, not 

enough was known about the effectiveness of specific strategies in 

increasing TANF recipients’ earnings capacity. Additionally, it was not 

clear whether service providers understood how to incorporate education 

and training into a work-focused welfare system. 

Figure 1: A Student in the Kentucky River Foothills R.O.U.T.E. Training Program 

in Richmond, Kentucky Trains for a Commercial Truck Driver’s License 

Source: GAO. 

We recommended that HHS (1) identify opportunities for additional 

research on increasing TANF recipients’ earnings, (2) review its existing 

efforts to better ensure information and implementation assistance 

reaches the wide range of program administrators and service providers 

involved in welfare programs, and (3) seek out new opportunities to 

collaborate with Education and Labor on research and technical 

assistance. At the time of this 2005 report HHS maintained that its efforts 

in these areas were currently sufficient; however, the agency has since 

taken steps to address these recommendations including initiating a joint 

effort with the Department of Labor to help welfare and other low-income 

families move ahead in the labor market. 

 

1

GAO-06-108. (For full report citations, see Related GAO Products.) 

Page 2 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 

Background 

$16.5 billion to the 50 states and 

District of Columbia. Additionally, 

17 states qualify for supplemental 

grants that total $319.5 million. (FY 

2009) 

To help states in the event of an 

economic downturn, Congress 

created a $2 billion TANF 

contingency fund. To receive and 

retain contingency funds, states 

must meet a test of economic 

need and increase certain uses of 

state spending above historical 

levels. However, final payments 

were distributed in December of 

2009, and this fund is currently 

depleted. 

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act) made an 

additional $5 billion available to 

states for fiscal years 2009 and 

2010 through a new Emergency 

Contingency Fund. 

The Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) in the 

Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) 

Source: GAO (images above). 

TANF Spending Changes 

States’ increased flexibility under TANF, as well as the budgetary stresses 

they experience after a recession, draw attention to the fiscal partnership 

between the federal government and states. In 2006, GAO issued a report 

providing information on how welfare-related spending had evolved over 

the decade after welfare reform and after the short national recession in 

2001.2

 We are currently updating this information for a 2010 report on the 

factors associated with caseload trends. In the 2006 report, we found that 

welfare-related spending in the nine states we reviewed (representing 50 

percent of TANF spending) generally increased from 1995 to 2000 and 

from 2000 to 2004. Overall, spending increases reflected changes in 

eligible populations and needs, increasing costs, as well as policy 

changes. Spending priorities shifted away from cash assistance to other 

forms of aid, particularly work supports such as child care, in keeping 

with welfare reform goals. However, reporting and oversight mechanisms 

had not kept pace with the evolving role of TANF funds in state budgets, 

leaving information gaps at the national level related to numbers served 

and how states use funds to meet welfare reform goals, hampering 

oversight. 

We suggested that Congress consider addressing these information gaps, 

and Congress did so as part of the reauthorization of TANF in the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005, which strengthened work and reporting 

requirements and required HHS to issue new regulations to improve 

accountability for state TANF programs. 

Figure 2: Percentage Change in TANF and MOE Spending for Noncash Aid 

and Services (Percentage Change in Real Spending from 1995 to 2004) 

Note: This compares 1995 federal and state AFDC-related funds spent in the noncash categories—employment services and training,

work and other supports, and aid for the at-risk—with the amount of federal TANF and state MOE spending in these same categories 

in 2004. These data will not directly correspond to amounts reported by states to HHS because of differences in fiscal years and our 

study methodology. 

 

2

GAO-06-414. 

Page 3 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) 

Background 

Domestic violence affects a 

substantial percentage of lowincome women, according to 

existing research. Further, 

research shows that it can, in 

some cases, pose a barrier to 

work and financial independence. 

For example, several studies have 

shown that abusers may feel 

threatened by any steps a woman 

takes toward financial 

independence, and may thwart a 

job search or employment by 

interfering with transportation to 

work, or by making harassing 

phone calls to a woman while she 

is in the workplace. 

Many victims of domestic 

violence may be reluctant to 

disclose such personal and 

intimate details of their lives. 

TANF clients may be particularly 

reluctant to disclose abuse in the 

TANF program setting. Advocates 

for victims of domestic violence 

explain that TANF clients worry 

that government officials may not 

maintain confidentiality about 

domestic violence disclosures and 

that any disclosure of domestic 

violence to government officials 

could result in the loss of custody 

over their children. 

Source: GAO (images above). 

Domestic Violence Provisions in TANF 

Under TANF, states may adopt an exemption from work requirements 

and time limits for receiving cash assistance for victims of domestic 

violence. In a 2005 report, we found that 48 states had adopted such 

exemptions or a comparable state policy at that time.3

 However, the 

terms of these waivers varied from state to state. For example, some 

states required recipients to provide evidence that they were victims of 

domestic violence before the work requirement would be waived. Other 

states required clients to participate in domestic violence services. In 

addition, state officials reported that staff in local TANF offices often had 

limited skills in dealing with domestic violence issues and that policies 

regarding staff training varied. Although HHS had disseminated 

information about domestic violence screening, HHS had not issued 

guidance regarding best practices in that area. 

We recommended that HHS (1) examine state domestic violence 

screening practices and determine whether certain practices—such as 

employing and training domestic violence specialists—are particularly 

promising, and (2) provide states with information on the these practices 

and encourage their adoption. In accordance with these 

recommendations, HHS issued a guide in January 2009 which includes 

information on screening practices from programs in several states and 

includes a chapter on screening and enrollment that describes promising 

screening practices and identifies assessment tool resources. HHS also 

now operates a Web site that provides technical assistance on domestic 

violence topics. 

Figure 3: Number of States with Particular Policies Regarding Frequency of 

Domestic Violence Training Based on 2005 GAO Survey 

 

3

GAO-05-701. 

Page 4 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

formerly Food Stamps 

Background 

The federal Food Stamp Program, 

now called the Supplemental 

Nutrition Assistance Program 

(SNAP) is intended to help lowincome individuals and families 

by supplementing their income so 

that they can purchase nutritious 

food. States administer the 

program by determining whether 

households meet the program’s 

income and asset requirements, 

calculating monthly benefits for 

qualified households, and issuing 

benefits to participants on an 

electronic benefits card. The 

Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) 

in the Department of Agriculture 

pays the full cost of food stamp 

benefits and shares the states’ 

administrative costs—with FNS 

usually paying approximately 50 

percent. 

$ 37.7 billion (based on 

preliminary FY 2008 data). The 

Recovery Act provides nearly $20 

billion in additional funds, 

increasing benefits for FY 2009-

2010, boosting average household 

benefits by 20 percent. 

Food and Nutrition Service in the 

Department of Agriculture 

Source: GAO (images above). 

SNAP, formerly known as the federal Food Stamp Program, provides an 

important safety net for low-income families, especially during economic 

downturns. In 2009, an average of 33.7 million people received this 

benefit each month, according to preliminary administrative data. GAO 

has reported on automatic eligibility offered through participation in 

other programs, the number of eligible families who receive the benefit, 

and various waivers states may adopt to extend access to certain 

categories of families. 

Eliminating Food Stamp Categorical Eligibility 

Current law allows households that receive or are authorized to receive 

TANF noncash services, such as transportation or child care, to obtain 

automatic eligibility for food stamps, also known as categorical eligibility. 

For a 2007 report, we examined the potential effects of eliminating this 

TANF noncash categorical eligibility, an option that was being considered 

at the time.4

 Our analysis showed that a vast majority of TANF noncash 

households would remain eligible for food stamps without the noncash 

categorical eligibility because their income or asset levels are within the 

regular food stamp limits. However, other households could lose 

eligibility for food stamps because their income or asset levels were too 

high. Many state officials also believed eliminating noncash categorical 

eligibility would decrease Food Stamp Program participation, as well as 

increase the administrative workload and costs related to the Food Stamp 

Program. Categorical eligibility remains a part of this program. 

Food Stamps and Working Families 

GAO work on the Food Stamp Program (pre-SNAP) found that many 

federal, state, and local officials believed the program was not realizing its 

potential as a component of the nation’s work support system. They held 

the opinion that eligible working families participated at a lower rate than 

the eligible population as a whole. In a 2004 report, we confirmed this 

supposition, finding that an estimated 52 percent of eligible individuals in 

working families participated in the Food Stamp Program compared with 

about 70 percent of eligible members of nonworking families, based on 

2001 data.5

 Factors that might have impeded an eligible working family’s 

participation in the program included whether a family considered the 

program's administrative process—including having to make frequent 

trips to a food stamp office during working hours and providing 

documentation of income—overly burdensome. However, there were 

some potentially significant benefits, including error and fraud 

prevention, to some of the administrative requirements. 

FNS and several states and localities had taken or suggested steps to 

address the impediments to participation in the program for working 

families, while also considering ways to balance easier participation with 

program integrity. These efforts included increasing food stamp outreach, 

adopting new administrative processes to ease participation and reduce 

program error, developing tools to help families estimate their food stamp 

benefit amount, and renaming the program to reduce the stigma 

 

4

GAO-07-465. 5

GAO-04-346. 

Page 5 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 

formerly Food Stamps 

Background

 

Figure 4: Food Stamp Participation 

from 2000–2009 

Food Stamps and Working Families (cont.) 

associated with food stamps. This final effort was undertaken by FNS in 

2008 by renaming the Food Stamp Program the Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program (SNAP). In addition, in a subsequent GAO report, we 

found that, based on survey results, almost all states allowed households 

to submit applications, report changes, and submit recertifications 

through the mail. 6

 Also, 26 states had implemented or were developing 

systems to allow households to perform these tasks online. However, 

because FNS did not systematically track efforts to improve access, the 

outcomes of their use were still largely unknown. 

Page 6 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 

We recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture direct FNS to 

encourage states to collect and report on the results of their outreach and 

other efforts to increase participation among eligible working families. 

This recommendation was subsequently implemented. In addition, a 2009 

FNS report found that participation has been growing in recent years, 

reaching 56 percent of the working poor who were eligible based on 2007 

data. 

Food Stamp Access through Waivers 

To help states administer SNAP, FNS has offered options and waivers that 

states may adopt to their program rules and regulations. For a 2002 

report, we found that at that time, almost all states used one or more 

options or waivers in their food stamp eligibility determination or 

reporting processes.7

 For example: 

• More than half of the states had chosen to make households receiving 

TANF services automatically eligible for food stamps. 

• Thirty-three states had exempted the value of some or all vehicles in 

the determination of food stamp eligibility. 

Source: GAO (images above). 

• Twenty states had planned to implement an option providing food 

stamp benefits to families who were leaving TANF, and three states 

were already implementing this option. 

States used these options and waivers to simplify paperwork 

requirements for both the food stamp recipient and worker responsible 

for determining eligibility. No state was implementing or planning to 

implement all aspects of another option, which allowed states to merge 

their TANF and Food Stamp Program eligibility and benefit requirements 

for families receiving both types of assistance because they believed it 

would be too difficult to administer. 

 

6

GAO-07-573. 7

GAO-02-409. 
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

Background 

The Earned Income Tax Credit 

(EITC) is intended in part to offset 

the burden of the Social Security 

payroll tax on low-income workers 

and encourage low-income 

individuals to work. It is a 

refundable federal tax credit 

available to eligible workers 

earning low to moderate incomes. 

Refundable means that a person 

does not need to owe taxes to 

receive benefits. Among other 

things, the EITC is based on earned 

income and the presence of 

qualifying children, if any. 

 23

EITC, which provides a refundable tax credit for low-income workers, is 

one of the largest poverty reduction programs in the U.S. GAO has 

examined the rate of participation in the program for those who are 

eligible, as well as Internal Revenue Service (IRS) efforts to address 

overpayments while maintaining program access. 

EITC Participation 

In a 2001 correspondence to Congress, we found that about 75 percent of 

the 17.2 million eligible households had claimed the EITC.8

 While this 

estimate is several years old, it continues to be cited by researchers. We 

found that the participation rate varied by the number of qualifying 

children in the household. Participation rates for households with one or 

two qualifying children were 96 percent and 93 percent, respectively, 

based on 1999 data. In contrast, the participation rate for households with 

three or more qualifying children was 62.5 percent. The participation rate 

for households without qualifying children was 44.7 percent. Of those 

eligible for the tax credit, but not participating, more than half (about 60 

percent) had no qualifying children (see figure 5). 

The relatively low participation rate of households without children may 

be due to the fact that these households receive significantly smaller 

benefits from the credit than do households with qualifying children (see 

table 1). Although qualifying households in 1999 were eligible to claim 

$23.5 billion in EITCs, the Internal Revenue Service estimates that 

participating households actually claimed $20.9 billion. 

.7 million recipients claimed 

over $49 billion for tax year 200 Figure 5: Eligible Nonparticipating Households, by Number of Qualifying Children, 

1999 

8. 

Internal Revenue Service 

S

Efforts to Address EITC Overpayments While Maintaining Access 

While the EITC has helped lift millions of individuals out of poverty, the 

program has also experienced high rates of noncompliance. Unlike many 

benefit programs, EITC recipients generally receive payments without 

advance, formal determinations of eligibility. IRS estimates on 

overpayments have ranged from 24 to 32 percent of dollars claimed at a 

cost of up to $12 billion per year. A joint IRS/Treasury task force found 

that the leading causes of errors resulting in EITC overpayments were due 

to taxpayers (1) claiming children who did not meet the definition of a 

qualifying child, (2) using an incorrect filing status, and (3) misreporting 

their income (see figure 6). GAO has examined several of IRS’s efforts to 

reduce these sources of overpayments. 

 ource: GAO (images above). 8

GAO-02-290R. 

Page 7 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) 

Background 

The EITC amount increases with 

a filer’s earnings up to a point, 

then remains unchanged for a 

certain bracket of income, and 

then beginning at the “phase-out 

income level” gradually decreases 

to zero as earnings continue to 

increase. The phase-out level is 

the highest income at which a 

filer can receive the maximum 

credit. 

Table 1: EITC Parameters for Tax Year 

2009 

Source: Congressional Research Service. 

a

 The Recovery Act provides a temporary increase in the 

EITC for taxpayers with three or more qualifying children for 

2009 and 2010 tax returns. The Act also increases the 

beginning point of the phase-out range for the credit for all 

married couples filing a joint return, regardless of the number 

of children. 

Source: GAO (images above) 

No eligible child 

 Maximum tax credit $ 457 

 Phase-out income level 

(single filer/ married filing 

jointly) 

 7,470/ 

12,470 

One eligible child 

 Maximum tax credit 3,043 

 Phase-out income level 

(single filer /married filing 

jointly) 

 16,420/ 

21,420 

Two eligible children 

 Maximum tax credit 5,028 

 Phase-out income level 

(single filer filer/married filing 

jointly) 

16,420/ 

21,420 

Three or more eligible 

childrena

 Maximum tax credit 5,657 

 Phase-out income level 

(single filer/married filing 

jointly) 

16,420/ 

21,420 

Efforts to Address EITC Overpayments while Maintaining Access (cont.) 

Figure 6: Leading Sources of EITC Errors Contributing to Overclaims in Tax Year 

1999 

In August 2002, the Treasury Secretary approved a recommendation that 

IRS certify the eligibility of taxpayers’ qualifying children, the largest 

source of filing errors. In our 2003 review of this effort we found that the 

program was adequately developed to potentially improve EITC 

compliance with consideration for minimizing taxpayer burden.9

 For 

example, officials designed the program to include only the taxpayers 

most likely to make the errors that contribute most to the overpayments. 

IRS subsequently implemented three tests in 2004 to address leading 

sources of EITC errors: the qualifying child test, mentioned above, where 

selected taxpayers were asked to document that their child lived with 

them for more than half the year in 2003; a filing status test, in which 

selected taxpayers were asked to provide documentation to prove the 

accuracy of their 2003 filing status; and an income misreporting test—a 

new screening process to select EITC returns that identify taxpayers 

likely to have the most significant changes in their assessments after 

underreporting their income. GAO’s 2004 review found that IRS’s 

implementation of the tests proceeded smoothly and largely as planned.10

 

However, IRS’s plans for evaluating the 2004 tests generally lacked 

documentation and detail for many key issues, which undermined their 

value to managers and stakeholders. 

In accordance with one of our report recommendations, the IRS 

published reports in both 2005 and in 2008 on the results of the three 

tests. These reports contain a description of the test designs for the three 

EITC initiatives and applicable shortcomings, considering effectiveness in 

reducing erroneous payments as well as the burden on the tax filer. This 

is important as stakeholders use the report to make future decisions 

about the EITC. 

 

9

GAO-03-794. 10GAO-05-92. 

Page 8 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Worker Training 

Background 

In 1998, the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA) created a 

new, comprehensive workforce 

investment system designed to 

change the way that federally 

funded employment and training 

services were delivered. The act’s 

goal was to unify a fragmented 

employment and training system 

to better serve both job seekers 

and employers. WIA replaced the 

Job Training Partnership Act with 

three new funding streams for 

adults, youth, and dislocated 

workers and required that these 

and other employment and 

training programs be delivered 

through a single service system, 

known as the one-stop system. 

The amount of money that is 

allocated to the states and local 

workforce areas depends on a 

specific formula that takes into 

account certain factors, such as 

local unemployment and the 

number of low-income individuals 

in the local population. 

WIA currently provides the largest source of federal funds for worker 

training. As such, low-income and unemployed workers can use WIAfunded programs to prepare for higher paid employment. GAO has 

produced several reports that examine worker training as it pertains to 

low-income workers, including those who are receiving TANF and youth 

who are out of school and unemployed. 

Worker Training for Low-Wage Workers 

Low-wage workers who receive training can achieve wage gains leading 

to self-sufficiency; however, they often face a unique set of challenges. To 

better understand how federally funded worker training programs are 

addressing these challenges, we interviewed state and local program 

officials that experts identified as having special initiatives focused on 

some of these challenges for a 2003 report.11 These officials noted that 

many low-wage workers have a range of personal challenges—such as 

limited English and literacy skills, childcare and transportation needs, 

scheduling conflicts, and financial constraints—that made participating in 

training difficult. In response, some local programs offered flexible hours 

and provided help with transportation and child care, among other 

services. However, officials reported that challenges to implementing 

successful training still existed. For example, they explained that the WIA 

performance measure used at the time to track the change in adult 

earnings after 6 months could limit training opportunities for employed 

workers. The wage gain for employed workers would not likely be as 

great as that for unemployed job seekers, and this might provide a 

disincentive to enrolling employed workers into training because their 

wage gain may negatively affect program performance. 

We recommended that the Secretary of Labor review a current WIA 

performance measure for change in adult average earnings to ensure that 

this measure does not create a disincentive for serving already-employed 

workers. We suggested that the Department of Labor consider having 

separate average earnings gains measures for employed workers and 

unemployed workers. Labor subsequently implemented this 

recommendation. 

Coordination between WIA and TANF 

WIA requires states to provide most federally funded employment-related 

services through a single service system, known as a one-stop system. 

Despite its similar focus on increasing employment for able workers, 

TANF was not required to be part of WIA’s one-stop system, although 

states and localities have the option to include TANF programs. In 

response to a 50-state survey we conducted for a 2002 report, nearly all 

states reported some coordination of their TANF and WIA services at the 

state or local level, and some of this coordination increased between 2000 

and 2001.12 For example, localities increasingly coordinated the provision 

of services to TANF clients through local one-stop centers—either 

through colocating services at the one-stop or through referring clients to 

providers outside the one-stop. However, at the time of our report, we 

found this coordination could be affected by geographic considerations, 

such as variations in layout of agency service districts, physical distance 

between one-stop centers and welfare offices, and the number of TANF 

clients in a given area. Also, there was no clear way for states and 

localities to easily access information on successful approaches 

For FY 2009: 

$924 million: State grants for 

youth activities 

$862 million: State grants for 

adult activities 

$1.465 billion: State grants for 

dislocated worker training 

activities. 

The Recovery Act provides an 

additional $3.15 billion for these 3 

programs and a national reserve 

for dislocated workers. 

The Employment and Training 

Administration in the Department 

of Labor 

Source: GAO (images above).

 

11GAO-03-353. 12GAO-02-696. 

Page 9 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Worker Training 

Figure 7: Staff Working with Youth 

Participants 

Project CRAFT/Nashville (Nashville, Tennessee) 

Source: GAO. 

Source: GAO (images above). 

Coordination between WIA and TANF (cont.) 

to overcome obstacles in coordinating services. Several challenges, 

including program differences between TANF and WIA and different 

information systems used by welfare and workforce agencies, inhibited 

state and local coordination efforts. 

To help states more effectively address some of the obstacles to 

coordination, we recommended that Labor and HHS work together to 

jointly develop and distribute information on promising approaches for 

coordinating services for TANF clients through one-stops. We also 

recommended that Labor and HHS promote research that would examine 

the role of coordinated service delivery on outcomes of TANF clients. The 

agencies subsequently implemented these recommendations. 

Programs Serving Disconnected Youth 

Youth who are disconnected from school and employment are more likely 

than others to engage in crime, become incarcerated, and rely on public 

systems of support. While all races and ethnicities are represented among 

this youth population, research studies show that African-American males 

constitute a disproportionate share due to their overrepresentation in the 

child welfare and juvenile justice systems. For a 2008 report, we 

interviewed directors of 39 local programs identified by agencies and 

experts as helping youth meet educational and employment goals.13

 

These directors attributed their success to, among other things, effective 

staff and leadership; a holistic approach to serving youth that addresses

the youth’s multiple needs; specific program design components, such

experiential learning opportunities and self-paced curricula; and a focus 

on empowering youth. Many of the 39 local program directors reported 

common challenges in operating their programs, particularly lack of other 

services, like housing, mental health care and transportation in the 

community, funding constraints, and management of multiple federal 

grants. Most of the 15 directors that relied on Labor’s WIA Youth funds 

reported that meeting performance goals within the 1-year time frames 

workforce investment boards often write into contracts hinders their 

ability to serve youth with great challenges, who may need more time to 

obtain skills. Labor officials reported that they intend for workforce 

investment boards to develop longer-term contracts to help programs 

serve hard-to-employ youth. 

 as 

 

We recommended that Labor work with states and workforce investment 

boards to better ensure they have the information and guidance needed to 

develop and implement contracts that allow local programs to serve youth 

who are in need of more assistance than others, while still achieving 

performance goals. Labor agreed with our recommendation and identified 

several steps it planned to take to implement it, including issuing related 

guidance to the workforce investment system on developing contracts. 

13GAO-08-313. 

Page 10 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Programs Involving Fathers 

Background 

In 1996, the Personal 

Responsibility and Work 

Opportunity Reconciliation Act 

(PRWORA) created TANF and 

made sweeping changes to 

federal welfare policy, including a 

new emphasis on marriage as an 

area of societal and governmental 

concern. Congress cited the 

negative consequences to 

children of unmarried women, 

including greater risk for child 

abuse and neglect, higher rates of 

poverty, and lower educational 

attainment. The legislation 

reauthorizing TANF, the Deficit 

Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA), 

appropriated $150 million a year 

for 5 years in discretionary grants 

to promote healthy marriage (to 

encourage the formation and 

maintenance of two-parent 

households) and responsible 

fatherhood (to strengthen the role 

of the father in a child’s life). 

$150 million (FY 2009) 

The Administration for Children 

and Families in the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Source: GAO (images above). 

In recent years, there has been interest among policymakers and 

researchers in promoting family formation with the goal of reducing 

childhood poverty. However, low-income, noncustodial parents, most 

often fathers, continue to face challenges in providing for their children. 

GAO recently reported on the implementation of the largest federal 

marriage and fatherhood program. We have also investigated driver’s 

license suspension for nondriving related offenses, including nonpayment 

of child support. Additionally, given that half of all incarcerated adults are 

fathers, it is important to understand what programs are available for 

them upon their release to support their self-sufficiency. We have 

examined the extent of restrictions on public benefits for former drug 

offenders upon their release from prison. 

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative 

At $150 million in federal discretionary grants a year, the Healthy 

Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative (Initiative), represents an 

unprecedented federal financial commitment to support marriage and 

fatherhood programs. GAO was accordingly asked to study how these 

programs are being implemented and monitored. In the resulting 2008 

report, we found that both programs’ grantees provide similar services, 

but that healthy marriage programs are more likely to target teenaged 

youth, while responsible fatherhood programs are more likely to target 

incarcerated parents. 14 However, amid a condensed deadline for 

awarding the grants, HHS was not able to fully examine grantees’ 

programs as described in their applications. In addition, HHS’s ability to 

readily identify which grantees were not in compliance or not meeting 

goals was hindered because it lacked uniform performance indicators and 

a computerized management information system that would enable HHS 

to more efficiently track key information on individual grantees. 

We recommended that HHS use its planned management information 

system and other information to help identify those grantees at risk of not 

meeting performance goals or not in compliance with grant requirements. 

We also recommended that HHS create clear, consistent guidance and 

policy for monitoring grantees. HHS responded that it is in the process of 

developing a risk-based approach to monitoring, but disagreed that the 

department lacked clear, consistent monitoring guidance. We believe the 

recommendations remain valid. 

Figure 8: Activities Provided by Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Grantees 

 

14GAO-08-1002. 

Page 11 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Background 

Although the federal government 

has a limited role with regard to 

driver’s licenses, federal law does 

promote license suspensions in 

circumstances that involve child 

support arrearages. 

All states have adopted practices 

to suspend licenses for some 

nondriving offenses.

A majority of states have 

adopted policies to suspend 

licenses for such offenses as 

• failure to maintain proper 

insurance; 

• failure to appear in court for a 

traffic violation; and 

• failure to pay a motor vehicle 

fine, surcharge, or fee. 

Source: GAO (images above). 

Programs Involving Fathers 

License Suspensions 

States may suspend driver’s licenses for various reasons other than 

driving offenses, including failure to meet child support obligations, 

among other things, and these suspensions can then make it difficult for 

some low-income individuals to maintain or find work. We recently 

examined the practices being used in four states to mitigate the financial 

impact of these suspensions on low-income individuals.15 We identified 

three types of practices—payment assistance, license reinstatement 

support, and suspension exemptions—that may ease the financial impact 

of suspensions on low-income individuals. Payment assistance includes 

payment plans; payment alternatives, such as performing community 

service; and fine reductions. License reinstatement support helps drivers 

take the sometimes complicated steps to obtain a valid license through 

personalized guidance, ongoing case management, or legal advice and 

representation. States may authorize exemptions from license suspension 

in certain circumstances. For example, all four states we reviewed 

permitted exemptions in cases of child support arrearages, and officials in 

those states noted that they viewed license suspension as an option of last 

resort. However, the need to garner support from multiple organizations, 

difficulty in crossing jurisdictional boundaries, and sustaining program 

funding were all identified as challenges to implementing practices 

intended to mitigate the financial impact of driver’s license suspensions. 

The limited information on the prevalence and impact of nondriving 

suspensions, as well as on the effectiveness of the types of practices we 

found, may make it difficult for other localities and states to readily 

assess the need for these practices and to identify the most effective 

approaches. Also, while driver licensure is generally within the domain of 

state governments, some federal efforts exist that could facilitate 

information gathering and dissemination. The Department of 

Transportation participates in a national working group that has brought 

together federal, state, and local officials to facilitate research, identify 

effective alternatives to suspension, and share information with state 

policymakers. In addition, HHS disseminates “best practices” for child 

support enforcement, including those related to driver’s license 

suspensions, which provides a mechanism for information-sharing among 

states. 

 

15GAO-10-217. 

Page 12 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Programs Involving Fathers 

Background 

Federal Benefits That May Be 

Denied to Drug Offenders: 

• TANF: Temporary cash 

assistance designed to meet a 

needy family’s ongoing basic 

needs 

• Supplemental Nutrition 

Assistance Program: Food 

assistance payments to lowincome households 

• Postsecondary education: 

Federal Pell Grants, Stafford 

loans, and work-study 

assistance 

• Federally assisted housing: 

Public housing primarily for 

low-income families with 

children and vouchers for 

private-market assistance for 

very low-income families 

• Other federal benefits: 

Federal licenses (e.g., for 

physicians, pilots, and others) 

and procurement contracts, 

among others

Source: GAO (images above). 

Drug Offenders and Denial of Benefits 

More than half of male drug offenders in federal and state prisons have 

minor children who could benefit from their support, material and 

otherwise, when they are released from prison. However, these fathers 

are often lacking in the skills, experience, and education necessary for 

gainful employment and may be restricted from obtaining assistance from 

some federal support programs. For example, several provisions of 

federal law allow for or require certain federal benefits to be denied to 

individuals convicted in federal or state courts of drug offenses, as well as 

members of their households or families. These benefits include TANF, 

SNAP, federally assisted housing, postsecondary education assistance, 

and some federal contracts and licenses. Given the sizable population of 

drug offenders in the United States, the number and the impacts of federal 

denial of benefit provisions may be particularly important if the 

operations of these provisions work at cross purposes with recent federal 

initiatives intended to ease prisoner re-entry and foster prisoner 

reintegration into society. 

In a 2005 report, we estimated that thousands of men and women, albeit a 

small proportion of applicants, were denied postsecondary education 

benefits, federally assisted housing, or selected licenses and contracts as 

a result of federal laws that allow denial of benefits to drug offenders.16

 

During academic year 2003-2004, about 41,000 applicants (0.3 percent of 

all applicants) were disqualified from receiving postsecondary education 

loans and grants because of drug convictions. Federal law mandates that 

convicted drug felons face a lifetime ban on receipt of TANF and food 

stamps unless states pass laws to exempt some or all convicted drug 

felons in their state from the ban. At the time of our review, 32 states had 

laws exempting some or all convicted drug felons from the ban on TANF, 

and 35 states had laws modifying the federal ban on the then Food Stamp 

program. Because of the eligibility requirements associated with receiving 

these benefits, only those convicted drug felons who, but for their 

conviction, would have been eligible to receive the benefits could be 

affected by the federal bans. For example, TANF eligibility criteria include 

requirements that an applicant have custodial care of a child and that 

income be below state-determined eligibility thresholds. Available data 

for 14 of 18 states that fully implemented the ban on TANF indicate that 

about 15 percent of drug offenders released from prison in 2001 met key 

eligibility requirements and constitute the pool of potentially affected 

drug felons. 

 

 

16GAO-05-238. 

Page 13 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Child Care / Head Start 

Background 

Child Care 

Since the passage of welfare reform 

in 1996, child care assistance has 

become a principal tool for 

supporting work efforts among 

TANF recipients and other lowincome families. Under programs 

funded by the Child Care and 

Development Fund (CCDF), TANF, 

and state resources, states have the 

flexibility to serve three groups of 

families: (1) TANF families 

participating in work activities, (2) 

families that recently transitioned 

off TANF (transitioning families), 

and (3) other low-income families. 

States may transfer up to 30 

percent of TANF funds to CCDF or 

spend TANF funds directly for child 

care assistance. States may make 

changes to child care policies that 

affect program access or the 

amount of assistance (i.e., 

subsidies) provided to families who 

can enter the program. 

CCDF: $7 billion in FY 2009, 

including $2 billion provided under 

the Recovery Act. States also 

transferred a net total of $1.7 billion 

from federal TANF funds to CCDF 

in FY2008. 

The Administration for Children 

and Families in the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Source: GAO (images above). 

For low-income working families, the availability of affordable quality 

child care, including through a Head Start program, can be critical to 

keeping parents employed while safeguarding their children’s health and 

intellectual development. GAO has reported on the availability of child 

care assistance for low-income families, as well as various aspects of the 

Head Start program, including enrollment and oversight. 

Child Care Availability 

States have flexibility in determining which low-income families are 

provided child care subsidies funded by CCDF, TANF, and related state 

resources. States must balance the funds available for subsidies with the 

number of families who want subsidized child care. For a 2005 report, we 

found that when they could not serve all families, most states reported 

giving higher priority to TANF families than those transitioning off of 

TANF or other low-income working families.17 In addition, from 2001 to 

2005, 35 states made the following eligibility and enrollment changes: 

• 19 states made changes tending to decrease access to assistance. 

• 8 made changes tending to increase access to assistance. 

• 8 made a mix of changes. 

We found that many states had been making changes that could decrease 

program access, such as changing income eligibility criteria, but may have 

provided larger subsidies to those who receive services. States might have 

been providing larger subsidies in an effort to keep pace with increasing 

child care fees or to provide families with a broader array of options 

among providers. We are updating this information for an upcoming 

report in order to provide information on state child care policies amid 

changes in federal law, as well as the current economic climate. 

At the time of the 2005 report, HHS reported that since 2001, the number 

of children and families receiving child care assistance under CCDF had 

remained relatively constant. Specifically, approximately 1.75 million 

children and over 1 million families had been served through CCDF 

(including TANF dollars transferred to CCDF) on an average monthly 

basis since fiscal year 2001. However, HHS officials did not have 

information on working families receiving child care assistance directly 

through TANF funds, although most ($1.4 billion of $1.7 billion) of the 

federal TANF funds directly spent on child care was directed to these 

families. We suggested that Congress consider requiring that ACF find 

cost-effective ways to collect data on the numbers of children and 

families receiving these subsidies. To date, no action has been taken 

based on this matter for Congressional consideration. 

Head Start Enrollment 

From the mid-1990s through 2003, there were a number of changes in 

Head Start’s operating environment, including a decrease in the number 

of poor children; an increase in the number, size, and scope of other 

federal and state early childhood programs; and an expansion in Head 

Start spending and enrollment. In a 2003 report, we found that the extent 

to which Head Start programs had enrolled fewer children than they were 

funded to serve was unknown because ACF did not collect accurate 

national data and did not monitor underenrollment in a uniform or timely 

 

17GAO-05-667. 

Page 14 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Child Care / Head Start 

 Background 

Head Start 

Head Start, created in 1965, is the 

largest federal early childhood 

program designed to prepare lowincome preschool children for 

school by providing a 

comprehensive set of early child 

development services. Head Start 

operates through federal-to-local 

grants primarily provided to 

community-based organizations, 

and has expanded substantially 

over the last two decades. From 

fiscal years 1990 to 2008, 

appropriations for Head Start more 

than quadrupled. 

$7.1 billion appropriated in FY 

2009. The Recovery Act provides 

an additional $2.1 billion. 

The Administration for Children 

and Families in the Department of 

Health and Human Services 

Source: GAO (images above). 

Head Start Enrollment (cont.) 

manner.18 ACF regional officials and officials of underenrolled Head Start 

grantees cited a mixture of factors that made it difficult to achieve full 

enrollment, such as increased parental demand for full-day child care, a 

decrease in the number of eligible children, facilities-related problems, 

and more parents seeking openings with other sponsors of early 

education and care. ACF national and regional offices and grantees all 

reported taking action to address underenrollment; however, guidance 

issued by ACF lacked clear criteria for prioritizing grantees for corrective 

actions. 

We recommended that the Secretary of HHS direct ACF to (1) ensure the 

accuracy of national enrollment data, (2) develop a standard criterion for 

regional offices to use in identifying grantees whose underenrollment 

merited action, (3) develop an additional enrollment measure that takes 

into consideration the different levels of service provided by full-day and 

part-day programs, and (4) develop a more systematic process for 

regional offices to collect reliable enrollment data during the program 

year. All four recommendations were subsequently implemented. 

Head Start Risk Management 

Because reports of financial improprieties at a number of Head Start 

programs around the country raised questions about the effectiveness of 

HHS’s program oversight, we were asked to provide information on this 

issue. In a 2008 report, we found that ACF had not undertaken a 

comprehensive assessment of risks that might have limited Head Start’s 

ability to meet federal program objectives.19 ACF needed to identify 

external and internal risks, estimate their significance, and decide how to 

best manage them. While ACF said it was working to establish two 

systems to address programwide risk, our analysis suggested that these 

systems fell short of that goal. Both initiatives depended, in part, on data 

from the annual Program Information Report (PIR) survey of grantees, 

which had been found to be unreliable. ACF had taken steps to improve 

oversight of Head Start grantees by implementing a more rigorous process 

for certifying reviewers who conduct on-site monitoring visits, among 

other actions. However, ACF did not have clear criteria for determining 

which grantees needed additional oversight as part of its refunding 

analysis. Such decisions were made on an ad-hoc basis, and grantees with 

similar problems may have received different levels of oversight. 

We recommended that ACF (1) develop a more strategic approach to 

assessing risks to the Head Start program, (2) expand its efforts to collect 

data on and estimate improper payments, (3) improve the accuracy of 

data from its annual PIR survey, and (4) develop clear criteria for 

providing additional assistance for high-risk grantees. ACF agreed with 

the latter two recommendations and emphasized that progress has been 

made toward the first two. 

 

18GAO-04-17. 19GAO-08-221. 

Page 15 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Child Welfare 

Background 

State and local governments are the 

primary administrators of child 

welfare programs designed to 

protect children from abuse or 

neglect. However, federal laws and 

regulations establish a framework 

within which states make their 

programmatic and fiscal decisions. 

Federal funds account for 

approximately half of states’ total 

reported spending for child welfare 

services, with the rest of funding 

coming from states and localities, 

according to 2004 data. Titles IV-E 

and IV-B of the Social Security Act 

are the principal sources of federal 

funds dedicated for child welfare 

activities. Title IV-E provides the 

majority of dedicated federal funds 

for support payments to foster 

families, adoption assistance, and 

related administrative costs. Title 

IV-B authorizes a significantly 

smaller amount of funds to states 

for broad child welfare purposes, 

including child protection, family 

preservation, and adoption 

services. 

In FY 2009, $4.7 billion was 

appropriated for foster care 

payments and related costs and 

$2.4 billion for adoption assistance 

under Title IV-E. $738 million was 

provided under Title IV-B. The 

Recovery Act includes a temporary 

increase in federal Title IV-E 

funding (from Oct. 1, 2008, through 

Dec. 31, 2010) totaling an estimated 

$823 million. 

The Administration for Children 

and Families within the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human 

Services 

Source: GAO (images above). 

The child welfare system aims to ensure the safety, permanency, and wellbeing of children. If a child is not safe at home, the child welfare agency 

may place the child in a foster care or an alternative setting or provide 

services to stabilize and strengthen a child’s own home. Federal funding 

reimburses states for some of their foster care payments for children from 

low-income families—who also comprise many of the children in the 

welfare system. GAO has conducted several related studies including 

some that focus on the challenges of the child welfare system, the overrepresentation of African-American children in foster care and the 

adoption of hard to place foster care children. 

Child Welfare Challenges 

States have struggled to meet established federal child welfare standards 

for ensuring the safety and well-being of children in their care. In 

response to a 2006 GAO survey, state child welfare agencies identified as 

their most important challenges providing an adequate level of services 

for children and families, recruiting and retaining caseworkers, and 

finding appropriate homes for certain children. They also identified three 

challenges of increasing concern over the next 5 years: children’s growing 

exposure to illegal drugs, increased demand to provide services for 

children with special needs, and changing demographic trends or cultural 

sensitivities in providing services for some groups of children in the 

states’ child welfare systems.20 For example, child welfare officials in 

several states reported that the current protocols for investigating and 

removing children from their homes do not necessarily reflect the cultural 

norms of some immigrant and other minority families. These differences 

included limitations in family functioning that may be caused by poverty, 

the environment, or culture, as opposed to those that may be due to 

unhealthy family conditions or behaviors. States we visited reported that 

HHS’s training, technical assistance and reviews of their child welfare 

systems helped them improve their child welfare programs.

Figure 9: Child Welfare Challenges Reported by States, in Fiscal Year 2006, as the 

Top Three Most Important Challenges to Resolve 

African American Children in Foster Care 

While children of all races are equally as likely to suffer from abuse and 

neglect, a significantly greater proportion of African-American children 

enter and remain in foster care than children of other races and 

ethnicities. In a 2007 report, we found that the higher rates of AfricanAmerican children in foster care were partly a result of higher rates of 

poverty and a greater reliance on relatives to provide foster care, among 

other factors.21 For example, families living in poverty have greater 

 

20GAO-07-75. 21GAO-07-816. 

Page 16 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 
Child Welfare 

Background African American Children in Foster Care (cont.) 

difficulty obtaining housing, mental health, and other services needed to 

keep families stable and children safely at home. African-American 

children also stay in foster care longer because of difficulties in recruiting 

adoptive parents and also a greater reliance on relatives to provide foster 

care. These relatives may be unwilling to terminate the parental rights of 

the child’s parent, as required in adoption, or they may need the financial 

subsidy they receive while the child is in foster care. However, state child 

welfare officials we surveyed expressed concerns about the inability to 

use federal child welfare funds to provide subsidies to legal guardians, 

considered a promising strategy for reducing the disproportionate number 

of African-American children in foster care. 

We suggested that Congress consider amending current law to allow 

subsidies for legal guardianships, and Congress subsequently did so as 

part of the Fostering Connections to Success and Increasing Adoptions 

Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-351). 

Child protection process 

Generally, once an allegation of 

child maltreatment comes to the 

attention of child welfare staff: 

1. Staff screen and investigate 

reports of child maltreatment, 

and make decisions about 

whether a child can remain 

safely at home with or without 

family support services, or 

must be immediately removed 

and placed in foster care. 

2. The decision to place a child in 

foster care is subsequently 

Adoption of Hard to Place Children 

A significant portion of children waiting for adoption have one or more 

“special needs,” or factors that discourage or delay their adoption. They 

can include a child’s age, minority status, or membership in a sibling 

group. According to state child welfare officials we interviewed and 

surveyed for a 2005 report, limited resources, court processes, and delays 

in completing interstate placements hindered recruitment of adoptive 

families and delayed the adoption process for children with special 

needs.22 For example, officials said that interstate placements were often 

hampered by delays in completing home studies of prospective families, 

but data to track and credit states for collaborating on interstate 

placements were not available. States and HHS have implemented 

strategies and programs, such as post-adoption resource centers, to 

promote special needs adoptions, but few evaluations measured their 

effectiveness. HHS’s Adoption Assistance program provided support for 

special needs adoptions but used an income eligibility threshold that was 

more restrictive than the standard of need used by other cash assistance 

programs. 

We recommended that HHS help states collect and report data related to 

the interstate placement processes. This recommendation was addressed 

in the July 2006 enactment of the Safe and Timely Interstate Placement of 

Foster Children Act of 2006 (P.L. 109-239). This act requires that a state 

receiving a request to place a child for adoption or foster care complete a 

home study within 60 days and that state plans for child welfare services 

include reference to state efforts to facilitate orderly and timely in-state 

and interstate placements. 

 

presented before a judge who 

evaluates the evidence and 

either corroborates or 

overturns the decision. 

3. After entering a child in foster 

care, child welfare staff develop 

case plans that are approved by 

the courts outlining steps 

parents must take before a 

child can return home or, for 

children the courts decide 

cannot safely be returned 

home, establishing other 

permanency goals for them, 

such as adoption or legal 

guardianship. 

Page 17 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 

Source: GAO (images above). 

22GAO-05-292. 
Page 18 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 

Related GAO Products 

License Suspensions for Nondriving Offenses: Practices in Four States That May Ease the 

Financial Impact on Low-Income Individuals. GAO-10-217. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 

2010. 

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Initiative: Further Progress Is Needed in 

Developing a Risk-Based Monitoring Approach to Help HHS Improve Program Oversight. 

GAO-08-1002. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2008. 

Disconnected Youth: Federal Action Could Address Some of the Challenges Faced by Local 

Programs That Reconnect Youth to Education and Employment. GAO-08-313. Washington, D.C.: 

February 28, 2008.

Head Start: A More Comprehensive Risk Management Strategy and Data Improvements Could 

Further Strengthen Program Oversight.GAO-08-221. Washington, D.C.: February 12, 2008. 

African American Children In Foster Care: Additional HHS Assistance Needed to Help States 

Reduce the Proportion in Care. GAO-07-816. Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2007. 

Food Stamp Program: Use of Alternative Methods to Apply for and Maintain Benefits Could Be 

Enhanced by Additional Evaluation and Information on Promising Practices. GAO-07-573. 

Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2007. 

Food Stamp Program: FNS Could Improve Guidance and Monitoring to Help Ensure 

Appropriate Use of Noncash Categorical Eligibility GAO-07-465. Washington, D.C. March 28, 

2007. 

Child Welfare: Improving Social Service Program, Training, and Technical Assistance 

Information Would Help Address Long-standing Service-Level and Workforce Challenges. 

GAO-07-75. Washington, D.C.: October 6, 2006. 

Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in States’ Uses of the TANF 

Block Grant. GAO-06-414. Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2006. 

Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies to Increase Parents’ 

Incomes. GAO-06-108. Washington, D.C.: December 2, 2005. 

Drug Offenders: Various Factors May Limit the Impacts of Federal Laws That Provide for 

Denial of Selected Benefits. GAO-05-238. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2005. 

TANF: State Approaches to Screening for Domestic Violence Could Benefit from HHS 

Guidance. GAO-05-701. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 2005. 

Child Care: Additional Information Is Needed on Working Families Receiving Subsidies. 

GAO-05-667. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005. 

Child Welfare: Better Data and Evaluations Could Improve Processes and Programs for 

Adopting Children with Special Needs. GAO-05-292. Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2005. 
Page 19 GAO-10-342R Support for Low-Income Individuals and Families 

Earned Income Tax Credit: Implementation of Three New Tests Proceeded Smoothly, But Tests 

and Evaluation Plans Were Not Fully Documented. GAO-05-92. Washington, D.C.: December 30, 

2004. 

Food Stamp Program: Steps Have Been Taken to Increase Participation of Working Families, 

but Better Tracking of Efforts Is Needed. GAO-04-346. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2004. 

Head Start: Better Data and Processes Needed to Monitor Underenrollment. GAO-04-17. 

Washington, D.C.: December 4, 2003. 

Earned Income Credit: Qualifying Child Certification Test Appears Justified, but Evaluation 

Plan Is Incomplete. GAO-03-794. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2003. 

Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised 

Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers. GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: 

February 14, 2003. 

Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate Services for TANF 

Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: 

July 3, 2002. 

Food Stamp Program: States’ Use of Options and Waivers to Improve Program Administration 

and Promote Access. GAO-02-409. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2002. 

Earned Income Tax Credit Eligibility and Participation. GAO-02-290R. Washington, D.C.: 

December 14, 2001. 

(130964)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs