TEMPORARY 

ASSISTANCE FOR 

NEEDY FAMILIES

Action Is Needed to 

Better Promote 

Employment-Focused 

Approaches

Report to Congressional Requesters

November 2014

GAO-15-31

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-31, a report to 

congressional requesters

November 2014

TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY 

FAMILIES 

Action Is Needed to Better Promote EmploymentFocused Approaches

Why GAO Did This Study

The TANF block grant requires states 

to engage a certain percentage of 

work-eligible cash assistance 

recipients in specified work-related 

activities, such as job search 

assistance and training. Yet, data 

suggest that more TANF recipients 

could receive assistance that would

help them gain employment and 

reduce their dependence. GAO was

asked to provide examples of what 

some states are doing to achieve these 

goals and how to expand these efforts. 

This report (1) reviews some 

approaches that have been identified 

as holding promise for engaging TANF 

recipients in employment and 

increasing their earnings and examines 

ways in which selected states and 

localities have used them, and (2) 

identifies factors that influence their

use. To first identify promising 

approaches, GAO reviewed 

summaries and syntheses of rigorous 

research on approaches that increase 

employment and earnings, and profiled 

10 state and local programs that were

nominated by experts familiar with 

welfare research and state and local 

efforts, and that were selected to 

represent a range of approaches. GAO 

also reviewed relevant federal laws, 

regulations, and agency guidance, and 

interviewed agency officials and 

experts with a range of views. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that HHS should 

issue guidance to clarify how the 

career pathways approach can be 

used by TANF agencies and identify 

potential changes to address the lack 

of incentives in the TANF program. 

HHS agreed with GAO’s 

recommendations. 

What GAO Found

The 10 state and local programs GAO examined used various promising 

approaches to help Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) cash 

assistance recipients gain employment by meeting a range of participant needs. 

These approaches included the use of subsidized employment, employment 

alongside treatment for a health condition, and training for high-demand jobs. For 

example, for individuals in need of additional work experience, San Francisco’s 

TANF program has provided subsidies to employers to place participants in 

temporary, wage-paying jobs. To help individuals with mental and physical 

disabilities and substance abuse problems, nonprofit contractors for New York 

City’s TANF program have provided individualized assessment and treatment, 

often combined with employment. To prepare individuals with various skill levels 

for high-demand jobs, Minnesota and Washington have used a career pathways 

approach of combining occupation-specific training with basic skills education 

and support services. However, experts told us that some states have a 

misperception that this approach is not allowable under TANF rules, even though 

the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS) 

support its use. HHS told us that states could still meet program requirements 

while using this approach, but the agency has not issued formal guidance 

clarifying this. Internal control standards for the federal government state that 

information should be communicated to managers in a form that enables them to 

carry out their responsibilities. As a result of these misperceptions, the career 

pathways approach may be underused by TANF agencies and TANF recipients 

could miss out on the potential benefits of this approach. 

Expertise and dedicated funds facilitated use of these promising approaches, but 

the federal TANF program, itself, lacks incentives for their wider adoption. Of the

10 programs GAO examined, 9 drew on the expertise of partner organizations—

including community college systems, workforce agencies, and nonprofits. The 

programs also benefitted from decisions by state and local policymakers to 

dedicate funds—including TANF funds—for the selected programs, according to 

officials. However, incentives for large numbers of state and local TANF agencies 

to adopt and test promising approaches are lacking under the structure of the 

TANF program for several reasons. First, many program design and funding 

choices are left to the states, and GAO’s prior work has shown that state use of 

TANF funds for more costly welfare-to-work approaches can compete with other 

allowable uses of TANF funds. Second, TANF’s main performance measure 

does not necessarily encourage agencies to use certain approaches that 

incorporate longer-term education and training or treatment services, although 

states are not prohibited from doing so. Third, little incentive exists for TANF 

agencies to evaluate their programs. HHS’s authority over many aspects of 

TANF is limited and it has not proposed legislative changes to address these 

areas. Yet, because HHS oversees TANF, it is positioned to identify, suggest, 

and work in consultation with Congress on potential changes that would better 

address the lack of incentives for the use of promising approaches by states and 

to better meet the TANF goal of increasing employment. Without federal action, 

adoption and evaluation of promising approaches may continue to be limited to 

select states and localities, leaving TANF recipients in other locations without 

access to these promising approaches. 

View GAO-15-31. For more information, 

contact Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or 

brownke@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Letter 1 

Background 3

Selected State and Local Programs Reflect Elements of Four 

Promising Approaches 11

Expertise and Dedicated Funds Facilitated the Use of Promising 

Approaches, but the TANF Program Lacks Incentives for Wider 

Adoption or Testing 28

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 39

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 42

Appendix II Categories of Federal Work Activities and Limitations on Counting 

Time in Those Activities 45

Appendix III Selected Recent and Ongoing Department of Health and Human 

Services-Funded Evaluations 47

Appendix IV Bibliography 50

Appendix V Agency Comments from the Department of Health and Human 

Services 52

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 57

Tables

Table 1: Characteristics of Selected Programs 20

Table 2: Selected Program Partner Organizations and Technical 

Assistance 29

Table 3: Categories of Federal Work Activities 45

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Figures

Figure 1: Percentage of Work-Eligible Individuals by Participation 

Status, April 2011–June 2011 6

Figure 2: Percentage of TANF Work-Eligible Individuals with 

Hours of Participation, by Work Activity, Fiscal Year 2011 8

Figure 3: Two Subsidized Employment Models 13

Figure 4: Treatment and Employment Services 15

Figure 5: Career Pathways 17

Figure 6: Modified Work-First Approach 19

Figure 7: D.C. TANF Program’s Service Delivery Model 25

Figure 8: Example of Possible Allocation of TANF Funds by a 

State 31

Abbreviations

AFDC Aid to Families with Dependent Children 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

MOE maintenance of effort

PRWORA Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

 Reconciliation Act of 1996

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

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.
Page 1 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 19, 2014

The Honorable Orrin Hatch

Ranking Member

Committee on Finance

United States Senate

The Honorable Dave Reichert

Chairman

Subcommittee on Human Resources

Committee on Ways and Means

House of Representatives

The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant, 

administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS), provides $16.5 billion annually in federal funding to states for cash 

assistance as well as a variety of other benefits and services to meet the 

needs of low-income families with children.1 In March 2014, states used 

federal and state TANF funds to provide cash assistance to 1.6 million 

low-income families nationwide.2

 

1

42 U.S.C. § 601 et seq.

In keeping with a TANF goal of reducing 

families’ dependence on government by promoting work, TANF requires 

states to engage a certain percentage of families with a work-eligible 

individual receiving cash assistance in specified work-related activities or 

face potential financial penalties. These work activities include, for 

example, unsubsidized employment, job search and job readiness 

assistance, certain training and education, and work experience. In recent 

years, some state TANF agencies have narrowed the scope of services 

they provide, reportedly in response to resource constraints and staff 

reductions. Related to this trend, data suggest that more TANF 

recipients—especially those considered hard to employ—could receive 

2

Federal law governing TANF generally refers to the term “assistance” and does not make 

distinctions between different forms of aid funded by TANF. However, HHS draws 

distinctions between “assistance” and “nonassistance.” HHS regulations define assistance 

to include cash, payments, vouchers, or other forms of benefits designed to meet families’ 

ongoing, basic needs. 45 C.F.R. § 260.31. HHS also generally includes in assistance 

services, such as child care and transportation assistance for parents who are 

unemployed. HHS uses the term nonassistance to refer to TANF expenditures that fulfill 

one of the four TANF purposes, but do not meet this regulatory definition. In our report, we 

refer to HHS’s definition of assistance as “cash assistance.” 
 

Page 2 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

assistance that will help them to gain employment and reduce their 

dependence on cash assistance.

GAO has been asked to provide examples of what some states are doing 

now to help TANF recipients reach these goals and how these efforts can 

be expanded. Our report (1) reviews some approaches that have been 

identified as holding promise to engage TANF recipients in employment 

and increase their earnings and examines ways in which selected states 

and localities have used them, and (2) identifies factors that influence the 

use of these and other promising approaches.

To first identify promising approaches, we reviewed research summaries 

and syntheses of rigorous research on promising approaches for 

engaging TANF recipients in employment and increasing their earnings.3

 

3

Specifically, we primarily focused on studies that used a random assignment 

(experimental) research design. This type of design compares the outcomes for groups 

that were randomly assigned either to the treatment or to a nonparticipating control group 

before the intervention, in an effort to control for any systematic difference between the 

groups that could account for a difference in their outcomes. A difference in these groups’ 

outcomes is believed to represent the program’s impact.

To identify state and local programs that are currently using these 

approaches to serve TANF cash assistance recipients, we interviewed 

cognizant researchers; officials from HHS, the Department of Labor, and 

the Department of Education; and others with TANF expertise. We 

selected 12 experts based on their knowledge of the research and efforts 

under way at the state and local level, as well as to reflect a range of 

perspectives on welfare-to-work issues. We identified them through our 

literature review and through referrals from other experts. We selected 10 

programs to profile (located in 6 states—California, Kentucky, Minnesota, 

New York, Utah, and Washington—and the District of Columbia) from 

those nominated by experts to reflect diversity in approaches used, 

economic conditions, demographics, and geographic regions, among 

other factors. We conducted in-depth interviews, by phone and through 

four site visits, with program administrators and state and local TANF 

officials to learn about key program features that might increase 

employment and incomes. We obtained views from experts; federal, 

state, and local officials; and program administrators on factors that 

facilitate the use of promising approaches and that could broaden their 

use. We assessed information and communication HHS provides to 

states related to promising approaches against federal internal control 
 

Page 3 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

standards.4

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to November 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

We obtained budget, performance, and other program data 

for the programs we selected, and reviewed HHS administrative data on 

states’ engagement of TANF recipients in prescribed work activities. We 

assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing related documentation 

and interviewing knowledgeable officials and determined they were 

sufficiently reliable for providing contextual information on these programs 

and describing work participation trends, respectively. We also reviewed 

relevant GAO, HHS Office of Inspector General, and HHS reports, as well 

as relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. Appendix I describes 

our objectives, scope, and methodology in greater detail.

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 

1996 (PRWORA) established four purposes for the TANF block grant:

1. provide assistance to needy families so that children may be 

cared for in their own homes or homes of relatives;

2. end dependence of needy parents on government benefits by 

promoting job preparation, work, and marriage;

3. prevent and reduce out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and

4. encourage two-parent families.5

Within these goals, states have responsibility for designing, implementing, 

and administering their welfare programs to comply with federal 

 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 

5

Pub. L. No. 104-193, sec. 103(a)(1), § 401, 110 Stat. 2105, 2113.

Background

TANF and the Work 

Participation Rate
 

Page 4 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

guidelines, as defined by federal law and HHS, including imposing a 5-

year lifetime limit on many families receiving cash assistance.6 In 

addition, the block grant includes a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) 

requirement, which requires states to maintain a significant portion of their 

historic financial commitment to welfare-related programs. In fiscal year 

2013, states spent a total of $31.6 billion in federal TANF funds and state 

MOE funds, with federal funds accounting for 53 percent of the total. The 

federal law that established TANF also created a TANF Contingency 

Fund that states could access in times of economic distress.7

In line with the second purpose, a key TANF goal is helping parents 

prepare for and find jobs. The primary means for measuring state efforts 

in this area has been TANF’s work participation rate. Generally, states 

are held accountable for ensuring that at least 50 percent of all families 

receiving TANF cash assistance and considered work-eligible participate 

in one or more of the federally-defined allowable activities for the required 

number of hours each month.

In creating 

the TANF block grant, Congress emphasized the importance of state 

flexibility, and restricted HHS’s regulatory authority over the states except 

to the extent expressly provided in the law.

8 The law also contains a provision known 

as the caseload reduction credit, which allows states to reduce the work 

participation rate they are required to meet based on reductions in the 

size of their TANF caseload.9 In addition, TANF regulations provide that 

states that spend more than their MOE requirements generally receive an 

increase in their caseload reduction credit.10

 

6

According to HHS, most states either have a shorter and more restrictive time limit, or 

use state funds or a hardship exemption to exempt or extend assistance to families. 

7

Pub. L. No. 104-193, § sec. 103(a)(1), § 403(b), 110 Stat. 2105, 2122. For example, 

collectively, states in economic distress can access up to $612 million in the TANF 

Contingency Fund in each of fiscal years 2013 and 2014, but they must spend more than 

a specified amount of state funds to do so. 

8

The work participation rate requirement for two-parent families is generally 90 percent. 

9

42 U.S.C. § 607(b)(3).

1045 C.F.R. § 261.43.
 

Page 5 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Our work has shown that over the years, states have engaged about one 

third of families receiving TANF cash assistance in federally-defined work 

activities nationwide while still meeting their required work participation 

rates. Generally, this is because many states have relied on the caseload 

reduction credit and other allowable options to meet the requirement 

rather than engaging more families in specified work activities to reach a 

50 percent rate. This has raised concerns among some policymakers that 

states are meeting the letter but not the spirit of the law. PRWORA 

established higher work participation rate requirements and eliminated 

many exemptions from these requirements for recipients compared to 

what was in place prior to TANF.11 This reflected research that found that 

mandatory work requirements could reduce welfare receipt and increase 

employment among single mothers and help address concerns about 

long-term welfare receipt. In our prior work, we concluded that states’ use 

of the modifications currently allowed in federal law and regulations, as 

well as states’ policy choices, have diminished the usefulness of the work 

participation rate as a national TANF performance measure.12

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 required states to report additional 

information on TANF recipients’ engagement in activities.13 An HHS 

report to Congress, based on 2011 state data, found that that 24 percent 

of work-eligible individuals met federal work participation rate standards, 

but more than 50 percent of work-eligible individuals had zero hours of 

participation (see fig. 1).14

 

11See 64 Fed. Reg. 17,720, 17,722 (Apr. 12, 1999). Further, the Deficit Reduction Act of 

2005, which reauthorized the TANF block grant, was generally expected to strengthen 

these work requirements by adding several provisions to improve the reliability of work 

participation data and program integrity and by modifying the caseload reduction credit.

While some of these individuals were 

exempted from participation or excluded for some other reason such as 

caring for a child under age one, at least some of these individuals had 

12GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and 

Economic Changes for State Programs and Work Participation Rates, GAO-10-525 

(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010). 

13Pub. L. No. 111-291, § 812, 124 Stat. 3064, 3160. 

14In fiscal year 2011, about 54 percent of families receiving cash assistance included an 

individual who was considered work-eligible for the purpose of the work participation rate. 

Work-eligible individuals are generally adult recipients of cash assistance or certain noncash recipient parents of children receiving assistance, who count toward the work 

participation rate. 

TANF Programs Currently 

Engage Recipients in a 

Limited Range of Workrelated Activities
 

Page 6 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

not been engaged in work activities by the state or local TANF agency.15

Figure 1: Percentage of Work-Eligible Individuals by Participation Status, April 2011–June 2011

HHS data show that federal and state spending on work-related activities, 

such as subsidized employment, has declined in the last 3 years for 

which data are available (fiscal years 2011-2013) and has been under 8 

percent of total TANF spending in each of these years.

Note: The number of individuals in each of the categories sum to more than 100 percent since a 

work-eligible individual could be included in more than one category. According to HHS, the 

percentage of work-eligible individuals that counts toward the work participation rate for the purpose 

of this analysis is likely to be lower than the official work participation rate for most states. This is due 

to methodological differences between the calculations. For example, work eligible individuals who 

are disregarded from the official work participation rate—such as certain single parent families with a 

child under the age of one or families subject to a work-related sanction—are included in this 

analysis.

Almost half of individuals meeting the work participation rate standards 

did so through unsubsidized employment—working in a regular job while 

 

15HHS reported that the data from states indicate that individuals with zero hours of 

participation represent a range of situations including the following: individuals who are 

non-compliant and are in the sanction process; families disregarded from the participation 

rate because they were caring for a child under age one, subject to a work-related 

sanction, or participating in a Tribal work program; individuals the state or local agency 

failed to engage; and individuals who were exempt due to illness or disability.
 

Page 7 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

receiving cash assistance. This suggests that states’ ability to meet the 

work participation rate relies heavily on the activities of individuals who 

are already able to work rather than providing special assistance to those 

who have the most difficulty finding and keeping jobs. In fiscal year 2011, 

unsubsidized employment was the most common work activity among 

individuals participating in at least one hour of a countable work activity 

per month.16

 

16In meeting the 30-hour average weekly requirement, individuals must spend at least 20 

of the hours in certain activities (referred to as core activities). Any additional hours 

needed to meet the requirement can come from non-core or core activities. (See appendix 

II for the 12 categories of federal work activities and limitations on counting time in those 

activities.) Some activities have restrictions on the amount of time that can be spent in 

them and still be counted toward the work participation rate. For example, counting 

participation in job search and job readiness assistance is limited to no more than six 

weeks in a 12-month period (or 12 weeks in a 12-month period if the state meets the 

definition of a “needy state” for the TANF Contingency Fund) and no more than four 

consecutive weeks. Vocational educational training is limited to 12 months over an 

individual’s lifetime, and no more than 30 percent of the families that a state counts toward 

its federal work participation rates may do so through participation in vocational 

educational training.

Job search and job readiness assistance, followed by 

vocational education training, were the next most common activities (see 

fig. 2).
 

Page 8 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Figure 2: Percentage of TANF Work-Eligible Individuals with Hours of Participation, by Work Activity, Fiscal Year 2011

Note: The number of individuals in each of the categories sum to more than 100 percent since a 

work-eligible individual could be included in more than one category.

Between 1987 and 1996, there was considerable experimentation with 

welfare-to-work programs under TANF’s predecessor program, Aid to 

Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as HHS granted waivers to 

states to test and evaluate new approaches. A body of HHS-sponsored 

research resulted, showing that welfare-to-work programs can increase 

employment and reduce welfare receipt. This research helped inform the 

creation of TANF. Between 1987 and 1996, 46 states received waivers 

from existing AFDC requirements to test and evaluate new approaches to 

improve employment outcomes for people on welfare. These initiatives 

were referred to as section 1115 waivers because they were granted 

History of Welfare 

Program Experimentation, 

Research and State 

Waivers
 

Page 9 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

under section 1115 of the Social Security Act.17 According to HHS 

officials, HHS required states that applied for and received waivers from 

federal program requirements to have an independent organization 

evaluate its program change, supported by HHS and state funding.18

These waiver initiatives included placing time limits on the receipt of 

benefits and strengthening work requirements, among others. According 

to HHS, many of the policies and concepts included in state waiver 

requests were later incorporated into TANF. States that received section 

1115 waivers under AFDC were allowed, under PRWORA, to continue to 

operate under these waivers until their expiration. However, the last of 

these waivers expired in 2007, and no provision in law allowed these 

AFDC waivers to be extended. Questions have been raised as to whether 

HHS continues to have the authority under section 1115 to waive certain 

TANF program rules; this report does not address this issue.19 Under law, 

HHS is required to conduct TANF and related research20 and the agency 

supports a broad array of research and evaluations. See appendix III for a 

list of relevant recent and ongoing HHS-funded evaluations.

 

17AFDC and, subsequently, TANF, were authorized under the Social Security Act, as 

amended.

18States could claim the cost of evaluation as a regular AFDC expenditure and receive 

matching federal funding, according to HHS officials. 

19Some members of Congress have raised concerns about a 2012 announcement by 

HHS that the agency would use waiver authority to allow states to test various strategies, 

policies, and procedures designed to improve employment outcomes for needy families. 

HHS made this announcement in a July 2012 Information Memorandum, Transmittal No. 

TANF-ACF-IM-2012-03. On September 4, 2012, we held that this Information 

Memorandum constitutes a rule and is subject to the Congressional Review Act’s 

requirement that it be submitted to Congress and the Comptroller General before taking 

effect. See B-323772, Sept. 4, 2012. While questions have been raised about the extent 

of HHS’s authority to take this action, neither this report nor our issued products, B323772, Sept. 4, 2012 or GAO-12-1028R, Sept. 19, 2012, address whether the 

Information Memorandum is a valid interpretation of statutes or regulations. The potential 

for waivers has been controversial and the House of Representatives passed a bill in 2013 

aimed at preventing HHS from implementing them (Preserving the Welfare Work

Requirement and TANF Extension Act of 2013, H.R. 890, 113th Cong. (2013)). This 

legislation has not been enacted. According to HHS, as of November 3, 2014, no state 

had formally submitted a request for a waiver related to TANF work requirements.

2042 U.S.C. § 613(a).
 

Page 10 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Since the 1996 welfare law replaced AFDC with the TANF block grant 

and gave states flexibility to set spending priorities, they have used a 

smaller share of the grant to provide cash assistance.21 Within the first 5 

years of TANF, the number of families receiving cash assistance declined 

by over half and states shifted their TANF priorities to other forms of aid, 

or non-cash services. These can include any other services meeting 

TANF purposes, such as job preparation activities, child care and 

transportation assistance for parents, out-of-wedlock pregnancy 

prevention activities, and child welfare services. In fiscal year 1997, 

nationwide, states spent about 23 percent of federal TANF and state 

MOE funds on non-cash services. In contrast, states spent more than 66 

percent of federal TANF and state MOE funds for these purposes in fiscal 

year 2013. While the TANF block grant still serves as the nation’s major 

cash assistance program for low-income families with children, states 

have also increasingly used it as a flexible funding stream for supporting 

a broad range of allowable services. However, we previously reported 

that the accountability framework currently in place in federal law and 

regulations has not kept pace with this evolution. Our prior work found 

that TANF’s accountability framework provides incomplete information on 

how states’ non-cash services are contributing to TANF purposes. We 

noted that Congress may wish to consider ways to improve reporting and 

performance information so that it encompasses the full breadth of states’ 

uses of TANF funds.22 The composition of the overall TANF caseload has 

also changed, with the percentage of “child-only” cases increasing from 

about 23 percent in fiscal year 1998 to about 46 percent in fiscal year 

2011. These cases consist of families receiving cash assistance on behalf 

of children only, in contrast to other cases in which adults in the families 

also receive benefits on their own behalf.23

 

21In this report, we focus on TANF cash assistance recipients.

According to HHS, the 

increase in the percentage of child-only cases was primarily due to a 

sharp decline in the number of TANF cases with an eligible adult, rather 

than an increase in the number of child-only cases.

22GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: More Accountability Needed to Reflect 

Breadth of Block Grant Services, GAO-13-33 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2012). 

23Generally, in child-only cases, the parent or adult caregiver is not eligible for benefits for 

one or more of a variety of reasons, such as receipt of certain other federal benefits or 

immigration status. See GAO, TANF and Child Welfare Programs: Increased Data 

Sharing Could Improve Access to Benefits and Services, GAO-12-2 (Washington, D.C.: 

Oct. 7, 2011). 

Evolution of the TANF 

Block Grant
 

Page 11 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Some TANF cash assistance recipients are work-ready while others face 

challenges that make them harder to employ. According to the preamble 

to a TANF final rule from 1999, several provisions of the law, including 

time limits, higher participation rate requirements, and fewer individual 

exemptions from participation requirements, taken together, suggest that 

states should serve more clients beyond just those who are job-ready.24

However, some state TANF officials we interviewed for a 2012 report said 

the pressure to meet TANF work participation rate requirements causes 

them to focus on the “ready-to-work” cash assistance population, which 

can leave the “hard-to-employ” population without services. Health 

issues, disability, substance abuse, criminal records, domestic violence, 

limited education, and responsibilities for disabled children or parents can 

all constitute employment challenges for TANF recipients, who may need 

enhanced assistance to prepare for, find, and keep jobs. States may 

generally only count a family’s participation in job readiness assistance, 

which can include mental health and substance abuse treatment, towards 

the work participation rate for up to 12 weeks in a year.

A body of rigorous research points to four approaches that can be used to 

increase the employment and earnings of TANF cash assistance 

recipients: subsidized employment, treatment and employment services, 

career pathways, and modified work-first.25

 

2464 Fed. Reg. 17,720, 17,722 (Apr. 12, 1999).

While still relevant, some of 

this research is based on programs that operated, at least in part, during 

TANF’s predecessor program, AFDC, and have since ended; and some 

of these older studies focused on programs that predominantly targeted 

women. Some prior studies have also focused on individuals with 

education levels that are higher, on average, than the TANF population. 

25See appendix IV for a bibliography.

Hard-to-Employ TANF 

Recipients

Selected State and 

Local Programs 

Reflect Elements of 

Four Promising 

Approaches

Research Indicates 

Several Promising 

Approaches for Increasing 

Employment and Earnings
 

Page 12 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Further, although some of the programs discussed helped to increase 

participants’ employment and earnings—and therefore, may have 

decreased dependence on public assistance—they did not necessarily 

increase household incomes. This is because the increased income from 

earnings can be offset by the loss of cash welfare, food assistance, and 

other support services. Ongoing research, including some of the current 

studies discussed below and in appendix III, aims to test updated 

versions of some of these approaches that might lead to longer-term 

results.

• Subsidized employment – Subsidized employment broadly refers to 

the use of public funds to create or support temporary work 

opportunities for people who might otherwise be unemployed. One 

model of subsidized employment—transitional jobs—focuses on the 

hard-to-employ by providing temporary, wage-paying jobs, support 

services, and job placement help to individuals who have difficulty 

getting and holding jobs in the regular labor market. Subsidized 

employment programs have been used for decades to provide income 

support for people who are unable to find jobs in the regular labor 

market and improve employability for people with limited work 

experience.26 These programs can vary, for example, in terms of the 

amount of wages that are subsidized; prospects for permanent, 

unsubsidized employment; the degree of worksite supervision 

provided; and whether the worker is employed directly or through an 

intermediary (see fig. 3).

 

26The New Deal’s Works Progress Administration, which employed more than 8 million 

people in infrastructure projects in the 1930s, was an early subsidized employment 

program. See Dan Bloom, Transitional Jobs: Background, Program Models, and 

Evaluation Evidence, a report prepared by MDRC at the request of U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services, 2010.

Research Snapshot: Subsidized 

Employment

Evaluation of Florida’s Back to Work 

program

Florida’s Back to Work program used 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 funding to create subsidized jobs.

Administered by regional workforce boards, it 

operated in 2010 and placed about 5,600 

individuals in subsidized jobs. For-profit, nonprofit, and public sector employers received 

subsidies that covered 80 to 95 percent of 

program participants’ wages for 6 months. 

For-profit organizations were asked to 

commit to hiring the participants after the 

subsidy ended and non-profits were 

encouraged to do the same. Program 

participants experienced significantly greater 

increases in unsubsidized employment 

compared to individuals who were eligible 

but did not take part in subsidized 

employment. Participants experienced a 

nearly $4,000 average increase in earnings 

over their prior earnings compared to about a 

$1,500 average increase for the comparison 

group.

Source: Anne Roder and Mark Elliott, Stimulating 

Opportunity: An Evaluation of ARRA-Funded Subsidized 

Employment Programs, Economic Mobility Corporation, Inc. 

(New York, NY: September 2013).
 

Page 13 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Figure 3: Two Subsidized Employment Models

Research has shown that subsidized employment can increase 

employment and earnings, although some studies suggest that these 

gains may not last beyond the subsidized position. Nevertheless, 

these programs can provide individuals who are hard to employ with 

work experience and can have indirect effects, such as reduced 

recidivism among former prisoners. Subsidized employment programs 

in the 1970s and 1980s, during the time of TANF’s predecessor 

program, yielded positive results on employment and earnings. One 

such demonstration project tested a model in which 10,000 welfare 

recipients in seven locations received 4 to 8 weeks of training and 

spent up to one year in subsidized positions as home health aides.27

Following welfare reform, transitional jobs gained traction as a 

strategy to increase the employability of TANF recipients. The theory 

Most of the subsidized employment programs that produced long-term 

employment gains targeted women; disadvantaged men experienced 

fewer positive results following the period of subsidized employment.

 

27The AFDC Homemaker Home Health Aid demonstration produced increases in 

employment and earnings in most of the seven sites that were sustained for 3 years. 

Transitional Jobs, 5. 
 

Page 14 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

behind this approach is that people best learn to work through 

working. Program staff can observe and coach participants on skills 

such as developing good work habits and dealing with coworkers to 

improve their future success in an unsubsidized job. Participants may 

be able to subsequently acquire jobs they would not otherwise have 

access to. Recent studies of transitional jobs programs have not 

shown sustained increases in employment, although these programs 

had indirect effects of reducing recidivism and reliance on welfare 

receipt.28

As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Congress provided funding through the TANF Emergency 

Contingency Fund that in part helped states cover the costs of 

increased expenditures for subsidized employment programs.29

Thirty-nine states and the District of Columbia reportedly used $1.3 

billion from the Emergency Contingency Fund to create 260,000 

subsidized jobs, according to research.30 Although these efforts were 

not focused solely on TANF cash assistance recipients, experts we 

spoke with said the availability of additional funds renewed interest 

among states in subsidized employment. According to one study, 

these efforts involved the private sector in creating subsidized 

positions to a greater extent than in the past.31

Two coordinated research initiatives are currently under way to 

evaluate the “next generation” of subsidized employment programs. 

The HHS-funded Subsidized and Transitional Employment 

 

 

28The Center for Employment Opportunities and the Transitional Work Corporation, both 

part of the HHS Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ project, generated decreases 

in recidivism and welfare receipt, respectively. The Center for Employment Opportunities 

program targeted former prisoners. Reductions in recidivism, relative to a control group, 

continued for program participants even after employment gains dissipated. According to 

the Center for Employment Opportunities evaluation, relationships with program staff or 

attitudinal changes resulting from program participation may have contributed to this 

reduction. Meanwhile, participants in the Transitional Work Corporation program 

experienced reductions in TANF receipt of about $600 per person over the first 18 months 

of the follow-up period. Transitional Jobs, 26, 33, 35. 

29The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 created a $5 billion Emergency 

Contingency Fund for state TANF programs, available in fiscal years 2009 and 2010. Pub. 

L. No. 111-5, § 2101(a)(1), 123 Stat. 115, 446.

30Anne Roder and Mark Elliott, Stimulating Opportunity: An Evaluation of ARRA-Funded 

Subsidized Employment Programs, Economic Mobility Corporation, Inc. (New York, NY: 

September 2013).

31Stimulating Opportunity, 7. 
 

Page 15 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Demonstration is evaluating seven subsidized employment programs 

that target current, former, or potential TANF recipients, low-income 

noncustodial parents, and others. The Department of Labor-funded 

Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration is evaluating seven sites 

for which it has provided grants for transitional jobs programs that 

target either non-custodial parents or former prisoners. HHS and the 

Department of Labor entered into a memorandum of agreement to 

coordinate these studies through shared data collection instruments 

and evaluation sites and coordinated reporting efforts. Both projects 

incorporate lessons from earlier research on transitional jobs and test 

whether providing subsidies to private employers can be effective for 

less job-ready participants. Reports on the results of these studies are 

scheduled for 2015 through 2018.

• Treatment and employment services – This approach provides 

treatment for mental health needs, substance abuse, or a physical 

disability as well as employment services in different combinations 

and sequences (see fig. 4). The theory behind this approach is that 

treatment can help to stabilize a health condition to make steady work 

possible, while work experience can help participants learn how to 

manage problems that could otherwise prevent them from retaining a 

regular job.

Figure 4: Treatment and Employment Services

Research Snapshot: Treatment and 

Employment Services

Evaluation of New York City’s Personal 

Roads to Individual Development and 

Employment (PRIDE)

New York City’s PRIDE was a large-scale 

welfare-to-work program for recipients with 

work-limiting medical or mental health 

conditions. This program operated from 1999 

to 2004, and served more than 30,000 

people. Staff performed in-depth 

assessments of participants’ work and 

education histories and medical conditions, 

then assigned them to activities—including 

unpaid work experience, education, and job 

placement assistance— that took account of 

their medical conditions. An evaluation of 

3,000 randomly-assigned participants found 

that PRIDE significantly reduced the amount 

of welfare that participants received, in part 

because it generated increases in 

employment. Thirty-four percent of 

participants worked in jobs covered by 

unemployment insurance within 2 years after 

entering the study, compared to 27 percent 

of the control group. However, about twothirds of participants never worked during the 

2-year study period.

Source: Dan Bloom, Cynthia Miller, and Gilda Azurdia, 

Results from the Personal Roads to Individual Development 

and Employment (PRIDE) Program in New York City, a 

report prepared by MDRC at the request of the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (July 2007).
 

Page 16 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Rigorous research has shown some limited impacts for this approach. 

Evaluation of one program that offered a mix of unpaid work 

experience, educational activities, and job search assistance to TANF 

recipients with work-limiting health conditions and disabilities showed, 

to some extent, increased employment that lasted for two years.32

Another evaluation for a program in which staff visited participants’ 

homes to teach them life skills showed substantial increases in 

employment and earnings for those considered very hard to employ, 

but the larger population of participants receiving services 

experienced only small increases in employment and earnings.33 In 

terms of future research possibilities, HHS is considering whether 

emerging research from the fields of psychology and neuroscience on 

executive functioning—which is related to behaviors such as goalsetting, self-regulation, planning, and problem-solving—could help 

adults succeed in employment.34

• Career pathways – This approach has been defined in different 

ways, but can involve providing contextual learning to prepare 

individuals of various skill levels to advance in a high-demand 

occupation or industry. Reading, writing, and math skills are taught 

using real-life materials and situations from the industry in which they 

will be used. Employers in the targeted sectors help to determine what 

skills are required for participants to become employed and advance 

their careers in growing industries. Workers of varying skill levels can 

use multiple entry or exit points to advance within a specific sector or 

occupational field and gain industry-recognized credentials through a 

clear sequence of education, training, or a combination of education 

and training. Participants are provided career counseling and other 

support services (see fig. 5).

If so, it may have applications for 

TANF.

 

32This refers to the Personal Roads to Individual Development and Employment program. 

See Dan Bloom, Cynthia Miller, and Gilda Azurdia, Results from the Personal Roads to 

Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) Program in New York City, a report 

prepared by MDRC at the request of the Department of Health and Human Services (July 

2007).

33The Building Nebraska Families program produced significant increases in employment, 

earnings, and other outcomes for very hard-to-employ participants. See Dan Bloom, 

Pamela J. Loprest, and Sheila R. Zedlewski, TANF Recipients with Barriers to 

Employment, Urban Institute (Washington. D.C.: August 2011). 

34See Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human 

Services, “Executive Function Meeting of Experts,” accessed August 6, 2014, 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/opre-executive-function-meeting-of-experts.
 

Page 17 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Figure 5: Career Pathways

This approach builds on results from a random-assignment evaluation 

of sector-based employment, indicating that programs offering sectorspecific training can increase the employment and earnings of lowincome individuals.35

successful in connecting low-skilled individuals to jobs. Research on 

education-oriented welfare-to-work programs that operated in the 

1980s and 1990s showed that the most successful programs offered 

short-term assignments that did not allow participants to “languish” in 

activities without making progress. This is in contrast to remedial 

education and GED preparation programs that either had difficulty 

retaining participants or kept them for years without clear progress. 

These prior findings informed a call for training that promotes career 

advancement, integrates basic education and skills training, and 

engages local employers, while providing support services to TANF 

recipients to improve program retention.

The approach is also informed by lessons from 

prior research showing that adult basic education alone has not been 

36

 

35Sheila Maguire et al., Tuning In to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the Sectoral 

Employment Impact Study, Public/Private Ventures (Philadelphia, PA: 2010).

36Judith M. Gueron and Gayle Hamilton, “The Role of Education and Training in Welfare 

Reform,” The Brookings Institution, Policy Brief no. 20 (April 2002).
 

Page 18 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

As confirmed by HHS officials, there are no completed rigorous 

experimental impact studies of a comprehensive career pathways 

program, but HHS is funding relevant ongoing evaluations, as part of 

an inter-agency effort with the Departments of Education and Labor to 

promote the use of career pathways.37

The Department of Education, Department of Labor, and HHS have 

jointly promoted the use of career pathways approaches as a 

promising strategy for helping adults acquire marketable skills and 

industry-recognized credentials.

One of the studies, known as 

the Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency project, is a 

nine-site, random assignment evaluation of career pathway programs. 

Initiated in 2007, the study will last 10 years, and early results are 

expected in the next 2 to 3 years. HHS also has a research portfolio 

for evaluating health care-related education and training programs 

operated with Health Profession Opportunity Grants (HPOG). These 

grants are targeted to TANF recipients and other low-income 

individuals and aim to prepare them for occupations in the health care 

field that pay well and are expected to either experience labor 

shortages or be in high demand. Three of the HPOG grantees are to 

have site-specific impact evaluations as part of the Innovative 

Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency project with reports expected 

in 2016. An interim analysis of the impacts of HPOG is expected in 

June 2016. HHS expects that further follow-up analysis of both 

Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency and HPOG 

impacts will be released in 2018.

38 The three agencies issued a 

Request for Information on the use of career pathways in April 2014 to 

inform policy development, strategic investments, and technical 

assistance activities and improve coordination of federal policy 

development.39

 

37Although a comprehensive career pathways program has not yet been rigorously 

evaluated, we included this approach because it was based on a rigorous evaluation of 

sector-based career training and lessons from other prior rigorous evaluations.

The agencies have begun a joint analysis of 

38In a joint letter issued on April 4, 2012, the agencies defined career pathways as “a 

series of connected education and training strategies and support services that enable 

individuals to secure industry relevant certification and obtain employment within an 

occupational area and to advance to higher levels of future education and employment in 

that area.” In addition, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act makes several 

references to career pathways. For example, one purpose of the title of the Act dealing 

with adult education and literacy is to create partnerships to assist adults in the transition 

to postsecondary education and training, including through career pathways. 

3979 Fed. Reg. 22,662 (Apr. 23, 2014). 

Research Snapshot: Sector-Based 

Career Training

Public/Private Ventures’ Sectoral 

Employment Impact Study

Results from Public/Private Ventures’ 

Sectoral Employment Impact Study based 

on follow-up interviews 24 to 30 months 

after random assignment suggest that 

sectoral programs can increase the 

employment and earnings of traditionally 

disadvantaged workers. The study, 

launched in 2003, evaluated three sectoral 

programs that train workers for skilled 

positions in a range of industries, including 

healthcare, manufacturing, information 

technology, and construction. The study 

assessed impacts on employment, 

earnings, hourly wages and access to 

work-related benefits. Programs included in 

the study offered training that was focused 

on a specific sector or sectors and that 

took no more than a year to complete. 

Over the follow-up period, treatment group 

participants were employed an average of 

1.3 months more than individuals in the 

control group. Individuals enrolled in 

training also earned about $4,500 more 

than individuals in the control group over a 

2-year period and were also more likely to 

work in jobs with higher wages and 

benefits.

Sources: Sheila Maguire et al., Tuning In to Local Labor 

Markets: Findings from the Sectoral Employment Impact 

Study, Public/Private Ventures (Philadelphia, PA: 2010); 

and Alan Werner et al., Literature Review: Career 

Pathways Programs, OPRE Report #2013-24, Office of 

Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for 

Children and Families, Department of Health and Human 

Services (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2013).
 

Page 19 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

responses to the Request for Information. According to HHS officials, 

this information will yield insights on (1) the benefits of and challenges 

to aligning diverse funding streams, programs, and stakeholders 

around career pathways systems; and (2) the current and potential 

future use of career pathways systems to help at-risk populations, 

including TANF cash assistance recipients, gain skills and access the 

middle class. 

• Modified work-first – This approach entails a strong work focus and 

some upfront education or training, as needed (see fig 6). Research 

on welfare-to-work programs during the 1990s sought to test the 

effectiveness of programs that emphasized rapid employment (“work 

first”) through mandatory job search compared to those that focused 

first on mandatory education and training. One program combined 

aspects of both of these approaches: it included a strong employment 

focus, the use of both job search and short-term education or training, 

and an emphasis on holding out for a good job, as opposed to 

participants taking the first job they were offered.40

Figure 6: Modified Work-First Approach

Research shows that programs using this approach increased 

employment and earnings and reduced welfare receipt. This approach 

 

40Gayle Hamilton, Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National 

Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies, a report prepared by Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation at the request of the Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: 

2002).

Research Snapshot: Modified Work-First 

Approach

The National Evaluation of Welfare-toWork Strategies (NEWWS)

NEWWS examined the long-term effects of 

11 mandatory welfare-to-work programs, in 

seven sites, on welfare recipients and their 

children. These programs took different 

approaches to helping welfare recipients find 

jobs, advance in the labor market, and leave 

public assistance. During the 1990s, more 

than 40,000 single-parent families were 

tracked over 5-year follow-up periods. A 

Portland, Oregon program outperformed the 

other programs that were examined. It 

offered education or training to some 

participants, depending on the caseworkers’ 

assessment of the individuals’ skills and 

needs, and encouraged all participants to 

hold out for jobs that paid better than the 

minimum wage and offered stable 

employment. In the program’s fifth year, it 

produced a 6.4 percent increase in 

employment and 14.6 percent increase in 

average earnings, compared to the control 

group.

Source: Gayle Hamilton, Moving People from Welfare to 

Work: Lessons from the National Evaluation of Welfare-toWork Strategies, Department of Health and Human 

Services, a report prepared by Manpower Demonstration 

Research Corporation at the request of the Department of 

Education (Washington, D.C.: 2002).
 

Page 20 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

appears more effective than programs that focus solely on education 

and training or solely on job search. 

We examined 10 ongoing programs that all help TANF cash assistance 

recipients to gain employment, using various different elements of the 

above cited promising approaches to meet a range of participant needs 

(see table 1).41

Table 1: Characteristics of Selected Programs

These populations included those whose limited prior 

work experience prevented them from gaining employment on their own, 

those with one or more work-limiting characteristic such as a mental or 

physical disability or substance abuse problem, and those in need of 

additional skills to enter a new field or to increase their employability. All 

of the selected programs serve TANF recipients: 5 of the 10 serve TANF 

recipients exclusively, while the other programs serve a broader 

population.

Program approach Participant characteristics

Program name

Subsidized 

employment

Treatment and 

employment 

services

Career 

pathways

Modified 

work first

Target 

population

Percentage of 

participants who 

receive TANF 

cash assistance

San Francisco Jobs 

Now!

x Adults divided into 

three tiers ranging 

from hard-toemploy to workready 

41 %

Los Angeles County 

subsidized 

employment program

x TANF recipients 

ranging from hardto-employ to workready

100 %

Erie County (NY) 

Placing Individuals in 

Vital Opportunity 

Training (PIVOT)

x Job-ready TANF 

recipients who had 

not found jobs on 

their own or during 

“job club” activities 

100 %

 

41We did not review any state laws or regulations. All information on state laws or 

regulations was provided by state and local officials.

All Selected Programs 

Focus on Employment 

while Using Various 

Elements of the 

Approaches to Meet the 

Needs of Their Target 

Populations
 

Page 21 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Program approach Participant characteristics

Program name

Subsidized 

employment

Treatment and 

employment 

services

Career 

pathways

Modified 

work first

Target 

population

Percentage of 

participants who 

receive TANF 

cash assistance

Utah Licensed 

Clinical Therapists

x TANF recipients 

with substance 

abuse, domestic 

violence, or mental 

health problems 

100 %

New York City’s 

Wellness, 

Comprehensive 

Assessment, 

Rehabilitation and 

Employment program 

(WeCARE)

x Adults with mental 

or physical health 

or substance 

abuse problems

18 %

Ramsey County (MN) 

Families Achieving 

Success Today 

(FAST) 

x Adults with mental 

or physical health 

or substance 

abuse problems 

9 %

Washington State 

Integrated Basic 

Education and Skills 

Training (I-BEST) 

x Low-skilled and 

low-literacy adults 

15 %

Minnesota Fast 

Training Resources 

and Credentialing 

Adult Career 

Pathways 

(FastTRAC)

x Low-wage, lowskilled adults 18 %

Kentucky Ready to 

Work

x x TANF recipients 

interested in 

education; 

separate track for 

those with low 

literacy and math 

skills 

100 %

District of Columbia 

TANF program

x TANF recipients; 

separate tracks for 

those with different 

levels of 

education, 

experience, and 

skills and 

personal, health, 

or other barriers 

100 %

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by experts and program officials. | GAO-15-31
 

Page 22 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Some of the programs we examined offered subsidized employment to 

those whose limited prior work experience prevents them from gaining 

employment on their own. For example:

• San Francisco’s Jobs Now! program uses a community jobs model 

similar to a transitional employment program to place participants in 

employment positions. The program includes 6 months of subsidized 

employment and is targeted to those with limited experience or 

exposure to work. Some participants are placed in public service 

training programs where they are employed with the local human 

services agency or other city departments like the Office of Parks and 

Recreation. Other participants who are more job ready are placed in a 

wage-subsidy program with private businesses. Under this program 

tier, Jobs Now! subsidizes 100 percent of the wage for the first month, 

75 percent for the second month, and $1,000 for the next 3 months. 

Employers also agree to make a good faith effort to retain the 

employee after the subsidy ends. Administrators reported that the 

retention rate with private employers—once the subsidy ends—is 

between 75 and 80 percent.

• Similarly, Erie County, New York’s PIVOT wage subsidy program 

requires a commitment from employers to hire participants after the 

wage subsidy ends. PIVOT is designed to serve those TANF 

recipients who are among the more work-ready, but who did not find 

jobs on their own during previous job search activities. When 

participants are referred to the program through the local TANF 

agency, they receive a skills assessment and enter a job-readiness 

training program for 45 days while their eligibility is being determined. 

Participants are screened to match their skill levels with employer 

needs. PIVOT places participants in local employment—in industries 

such as banking, hospitality, legal services, manufacturing, health, 

and childcare—for 6 months during job training. Participants’ days are 

typically split between a work experience program and other work 

activities such as GED classes or barrier remediation, such as English 

lessons for refugees with language barriers.

• Los Angeles County’s large subsidized employment program includes 

a component in which participants can gain work experience with forprofits, nonprofits or government agencies, and an on-the-job training

component that places participants with private sector employers. For 

the latter, a subsidy for the participants’ wages is sent to a private job 

provider during the first two months of employment. After those 60 

days, the wage is paid directly by the employer, who receives $350 for 

each part-time employee and $500 for each full-time employee.
 

Page 23 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Three of the ten programs we examined used the treatment and 

employment services approach to serve participants with one or more 

physical or mental disabilities, substance abuse, or other work-limiting 

characteristics. 

• Utah’s Licensed Clinical Therapist program provides services for 

clients with substance abuse, domestic violence, and mental health 

problems. An administrator said participants often enter the program 

under emotional turmoil that—if untreated—would prevent them from 

gaining stable employment. To address this need, clients receive a 

clinical assessment to diagnose mental health problems and they can 

participate in clinical therapy sessions offered by the program in 

combination with job search and resume building activities.

• New York City WeCARE was designed to provide comprehensive 

services to hard-to-employ clients with mental or physical health 

needs or substance abuse problems. The program uses an in-house 

comprehensive assessment of physical, psychological, and social 

needs by a board-certified doctor and social worker to determine 

whether a client is fully employable, can participate in work-related 

activities with limitations, needs treatment to stabilize a condition 

before engaging in work-related activities, or if the client could be 

eligible for federal disability benefits. One important program element 

is flexibility. For example, participants have a window of several days 

to make a scheduled appointment. A contractor told us that by offering 

flexibility, the program is better able to engage participants whom 

other programs might automatically sanction for non-participation.42

• Ramsey County, Minnesota’s FAST program is a partnership between 

agencies that co-locate services like mental health treatment, 

vocational rehabilitation, community health care, and TANF 

employment supports. Administrators said with the right supports and 

an individualized service plan, clients with mental or physical health or

substance abuse problems –who are not eligible for federal disability 

benefits—can gain employment. FAST contracts services with 

Goodwill/Easter Seals, which provides day-to-day supervision of 

 

42Unforeseen circumstances, such as caring for a sick child, may cause a TANF recipient 

to miss a scheduled appointment or some hours of work activity. Some states use 

sanctions, such as a reduction in the amount of TANF cash assistance or gradual or 

immediate termination of TANF cash assistance, to encourage recipients to participate in 

program activities, according to one study. 
 

Page 24 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

participants and facilitates the individual placement and supports 

created for them. Home visits are used as needed to assess families’ 

needs, and family supports, including employment retention services, 

can last up to 9 months or longer.

Three of the ten programs we examined used multiple elements of the 

sector-based career pathways approach to increase the skills of 

participants looking to enter a new field or increase their employability.

• Washington State’s I-BEST program was developed to help 

participants increase their literacy and basic skills while earning 

certificates or degrees in order to qualify for in-demand jobs. The 

program is offered in 34 community and technical colleges in the 

state. The program curriculum is based on regional job market 

demands and resources. A college must demonstrate local demand 

for a career program and show that those who complete the program 

will be able to exit it and receive an average wage of $13/hour or 

more. Program administrators said they believe their program is 

successful because of its team-taught, integrated service delivery 

model. Within I-BEST classrooms, two instructors work together to 

bolster basic skills while integrating career-related content into 

students’ curriculum. Since the program’s founding about 10 years 

ago, more than 200 career programs in fields such as health care, 

early childhood education, and advanced manufacturing have been 

approved by the Washington State Board for Community and 

Technical Colleges.

• The Minnesota FastTRAC program aims to move low-wage, lowskilled adults into credit-bearing training. Participants typically enter 

the program after being referred by various sources including local 

TANF and workforce programs. Participants are screened to 

determine their education level and needs. Similar to the I-BEST 

program, clients then go to classroom-based programs, in which 

instruction in math and reading is provided within the context of a 

profession like healthcare. Clients may also participate in some job 

shadowing during this period.

• Similarly, Kentucky officials perceived a need to increase educational 

attainment among the TANF population to improve their employability 

and launched the Ready to Work program about 16 years ago. The 

program is run statewide through the Kentucky Community and 

Technical College System. Unlike the I-BEST program, which focuses 

specifically on high-demand occupations, Ready to Work allows 

participants to select classes from the full catalogue of local courses. 
 

Page 25 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

However, the program does offer counseling on job prospects in 

various career tracks. Participants also engage in on- or off-campus 

work study positions with public and private employers that are 

subsidized using TANF funds and connected to each participant’s 

program of study and career goal.

All of the programs we examined used some form of assessment to 

identify participants’ service needs. Across the programs, factors 

assessed included skill levels, work history, interests, and physical and 

mental health. Additionally six of the 10 programs structured services or 

program offerings in two or more tiers or employment tracks for the 

purpose of better targeting the needs of participants.

• For example, the D.C. TANF program, which uses elements of a 

modified work-first approach, was redesigned in 2008-2009 in 

response to complaints that under the program’s “one size fits all” 

service delivery model, job-ready clients and those with significant 

barriers to employment were receiving the same services. Under the 

redesign, a continuum of services is available based on the client’s 

needs at assessment. Clients are categorized into a service delivery 

tier based on their education, experience, and skills, as well as 

barriers they may face (see fig 7).

Figure 7: D.C. TANF Program’s Service Delivery Model
 

Page 26 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Although the programs we examined were all focused on work, they 

varied in the extent to which they were structured to help their states meet 

TANF’s work participation rate requirements, according to state and 

program officials. Contributing to the work participation rate, such as by 

requiring participants to meet specific federally-defined hours and 

activities requirements, was a goal of 5 of the 10 programs, for at least 

some portion of the participants served. For example, a Kentucky Ready 

to Work program administrator said its work study component is its 

biggest asset for meeting the work participation rate requirements. 

Students are placed in private-employment positions when possible and 

when positions are not available, administrators said students can work 

on campus or in volunteer positions to meet their hours requirements. In 

the D.C. TANF program, participants have different requirements 

depending on their service delivery tier. For example, job-ready 

participants are expected to meet both hours and activity requirements 

that are consistent with the federal work participation rate standards. 

Those who are less job ready must meet the hour requirements but may 

participate in any mix of activities even if it they do not count toward the 

District’s work participation rate. An administrator told us the D.C. TANF 

program was designed based on what they thought would work best to 

get participants employed and with the expectation that this will also 

result in meeting the work participation rate requirements.

The work participation rate requirement was given less emphasis by the 

other five programs we examined, according to state and program 

officials. These administrators said their programs did not emphasize the 

work participation rate because of a conscious choice to prioritize other 

program goals, or because their programs served too few work-eligible 

TANF recipients to affect the state’s rate. Nearly all (9 of the 10 programs 

we examined) were components of larger TANF programs, meaning that 

states and localities may have a variety of other mechanisms for meeting 

the work participation rate requirements beyond these programs. Even 

without a strong emphasis on the work participation rate, these 

programs—like those that did emphasize the work participation rate—still 

maintained an employment focus and some offered activities that at least 

partially counted toward the work participation rate.

Administrators in Los Angeles County’s subsidized employment program 

said they do not over-emphasize contributing toward the work 

participation rate requirements, but instead focus on placing participants 

in work. Similar to the D.C. TANF program—where addressing 

participants’ barriers and progressively increasing their engagement over 

time is thought to contribute to the work participation rate and increase 

Selected Programs 

Emphasize Work 

Participation Rate to 

Varying Degrees
 

Page 27 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

long-term stable employment—Los Angeles County officials said if 

participants can be placed in employment, meeting the requirement is 

typically not an issue. Additionally, administrators said that because 

California allows clients to participate in some activities for longer 

durations than can be counted toward the federal requirement, they focus 

on keeping people engaged in work-related activities under the state 

rules.43

Because TANF cash assistance beneficiaries comprise only 15 percent of 

Washington State’s I-BEST participants, contributing toward the work 

participation rate is not an explicit goal of this career pathways program. 

However, administrators said that time spent in the program’s short-term 

training can count toward meeting the work participation rate 

requirements. Some experts who were knowledgeable about career 

pathways programs nationwide told us that some states have a 

misperception that the career pathways approach is not allowable under 

TANF rules, since only 12 months of vocational education training can be 

counted toward the work participation rate. However, HHS officials told us 

that states can allow TANF recipients to combine education with other 

work activities that count toward the work participation rate, meaning that 

within certain constraints, activities under the career pathways approach 

can be counted toward the work participation rate requirements. Some 

experts said that formal guidance from HHS, among other agencies, 

clarifying this fact might encourage broader use. Internal control 

standards for the federal government state that information should be 

communicated to managers and others who need it in a form that enables 

them to carry out their responsibilities.44

 

43According to officials, California allows TANF recipients to participate in up to 24 months 

of education or training, even though only 12 months of vocational educational training is 

countable toward the federal work participation rate.

In TANF’s decentralized block 

grant environment, state and local officials make many program decisions 

and it is important that they also receive pertinent information in a form 

that enables them to carry out their duties and responsibilities efficiently 

and effectively. While HHS’s Administration for Children and Families has 

conducted webinars and regional workshops to help guide TANF 

agencies in the implementation of career pathways approaches, the 

agency has not issued any such formal guidance. Greater clarity 

44GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
 

Page 28 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

regarding how activities related to the career pathways approach may be 

allowable under TANF rules could address misperceptions and 

encourage more widespread use of this approach by state and local 

TANF agencies.

Nearly all of the 10 programs we examined that currently use elements of 

promising approaches drew on expertise beyond the state or local TANF 

agency (see table 2). Nine of these programs involved partnerships with 

organizations and agencies such as community college systems, 

workforce agencies, and nonprofit organizations or contracted vendors. 

These partnerships provided the selected programs with access to the 

experience and expertise of a range of partners. For example:

• Officials with the Los Angeles County TANF agency noted that 

partnership with a local workforce agency is a key facilitating factor in 

its subsidized employment program. The workforce agency has acted 

as the employer of record for payroll and insurance purposes, and 

had existing employer relationships, so the TANF agency did not need 

to develop these capacities. 

• While Kentucky’s Ready to Work program is entirely funded by TANF, 

the program is administered by the state’s community college system, 

and its case managers are located on campus and familiar with the 

college environment. According to program officials, clients generally 

pay their tuition through federal Pell Grants, so Ready to Work case 

managers help clients complete financial aid applications and ensure 

they remain eligible for the grants.

Expertise and 

Dedicated Funds 

Facilitated the Use of

Promising 

Approaches, but the 

TANF Program Lacks 

Incentives for Wider 

Adoption or Testing

The Selected Programs 

Benefitted from Partner 

Expertise and Dedicated 

Funding
 

Page 29 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

• Officials with Ramsey County, Minnesota’s FAST program that seeks 

to engage individuals with disabilities in work reported that the 

experience and credibility of the initiative’s lead nonprofit partner was 

a key facilitating factor. They particularly valued the nonprofit’s 

previous experience working with both rehabilitation and employment 

services, as opposed to other contractors that have only operated in 

the TANF employment context.

Table 2: Selected Program Partner Organizations and Technical Assistance

Partner organizations in addition to state or local TANF agency

Program name

Community 

college 

system

Workforce 

agency

Nonprofit 

or 

vendor

Received 

technical 

assistance

San Francisco Jobs Now! •

Los Angeles County subsidized 

employment program

• •

Erie County (NY) Placing Individuals 

in Vital Opportunity Training (PIVOT)

• •

Utah Licensed Clinical Therapists a

New York City’s Wellness, 

Comprehensive Assessment, 

Rehabilitation and Employment 

program (WeCARE)

•

Ramsey County (MN) Families 

Achieving Success Today (FAST)

• • •

Washington State Integrated Basic 

Education and Skills Training (IBEST) 

•

Minnesota Fast Training Resources 

and Credentialing Adult Career 

Pathways (FastTRAC)

• • • •

Kentucky Ready to Work • •

District of Columbia TANF program • •

Source: GAO summary of information provided by program officials. | GAO-15-31

a

Utah’s TANF program is administered by the state workforce agency.

Six of the programs also received technical assistance from a federal 

agency or nonprofit, such as a policy research organization or foundation. 

For example, Minnesota officials cited participation in the federal Career 

Pathways Institute as an important step in the development of the state’s 
 

Page 30 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

career pathways program.45

Decisions by state and local policymakers to dedicate funds for the 

selected programs also facilitated the use of promising approaches, 

according to program officials. We have previously reported that when 

federal TANF funds are allocated to states, states do not necessarily 

direct the funding to state welfare agencies, but may allocate funds to 

support various programs depending on legislative priorities (see fig. 8). 

Officials with 7 of the 10 programs we interviewed noted that state or local 

funding decisions had facilitated their use of promising approaches.

Officials said participation in technical 

assistance activities connected them with many other programs that 

influenced elements of their work. Officials in Los Angeles and Ramsey 

County, Minnesota, said that taking part in an evaluation conducted by a 

research organization helped inform their program models, and Ramsey 

County officials said their participation had enabled them to access 

additional resources, such as training from national experts.

46

 

45In 2010, the Departments of Labor and Education initiated a one-year Career Pathways 

Initiative that funded nine states and two tribal entities to develop sustainable career 

pathways and promote linkages among system partners. As part of the initiative, two 

Career Pathways Institutes brought together grantee teams and subject matter experts, 

state and local practitioners, and federal staff. 

For 

example, officials with the District of Columbia TANF program noted that 

the allocation of additional funding has been the key factor that has 

allowed the agency to continue to support its modified work-first 

approach. Officials reported that the approach requires more staff 

resources to assess clients’ work readiness and determine appropriate 

activities than does the agency’s prior model of “one size fits all.” The 

allocation of additional resources has allowed the agency to support 

these staff. The allocation of additional funds by state and local 

governments also facilitated San Francisco’s use of a subsidized 

employment approach for TANF cash assistance recipients, according to 

program officials. They reported that these funds have supported the 

agency’s ability to increase its wage subsidy in an effort to attract higherwage employers.

46In addition to federal TANF funds, selected programs reported receiving funds from 

state and local sources. However, some of these funds may have included federal TANF 

funds that were being allocated by state and local entities. In addition, some of these state 

or local funds may have been used by states to meet their TANF maintenance of effort 

requirement. 
 

Page 31 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Figure 8: Example of Possible Allocation of TANF Funds by a State

Additionally, in 3 of the 10 programs, TANF funds and other funding 

sources were mixed to support the program, which served both TANF 

clients and other low-income populations. For example, New York City’s 

WeCARE program combined TANF funds with state and local funds to 

serve 24,000 daily participants, which included TANF cash assistance 

recipients as well as low-income single adults and childless couples with 

clinical barriers to employment who received cash assistance through a 

state-funded program. These funding sources were combined to award 

contracts to vendors that provide treatment and employment services to 

any client regardless of his or her program affiliation. Officials with 

Minnesota’s FastTRAC career pathways program said that initial funding 

for their program came from a foundation grant and subsequently from 

funds available under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. They noted that the state has been able to maintain the program 

after that funding was no longer available because the program is a 

partnership with multiple state agencies and a nonprofit organization, 

most of whom contribute some funding. These funds are combined and 

then sent to local providers of career pathways programs through 

competitive grants. While Minnesota officials suggested that combining 

resources across partners was key to their program, they also noted the 

challenges of reconciling different funding streams and performance 

measures. Experts knowledgeable about career pathways programs 
 

Page 32 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

nationwide echoed these concerns to us. They suggested a need for 

federal guidance to clarify how various sources of federal funds can be 

used to support these programs, and that some TANF programs may be 

reluctant to use a career pathways approach in the absence of a clear 

statement that use of TANF funds for career pathways programs is 

explicitly allowable. As noted above, HHS has provided some information 

related to career pathways, but has not issued formal guidance. 

Consistent with internal control standards, guidance could help state and 

local officials to better carry out their responsibilities. Without explicit 

clarification that TANF funds may be used to finance career pathways 

activities, some state and local TANF agencies may be discouraged from 

attempting this approach.

As structured, the TANF program lacks incentives to encourage broader 

adoption of promising approaches by large numbers of state and local 

TANF agencies. The federal law that created TANF established a goal of 

increasing job preparation and employment, and included a provision 

addressing the development and evaluation of innovative approaches for 

reducing welfare dependency.47

TANF leaves many program design and funding choices to states. The 

law that created the TANF block grant established a goal of state 

flexibility, and restricted HHS’s regulatory authority over the states except 

to the extent expressly provided in the law.

However, several TANF program 

characteristics may not encourage states to adopt and test new 

approaches for increasing the employment and earnings of cash 

assistance recipients. HHS’s authority over many aspects of TANF is 

limited and it has not proposed legislative changes to address these 

areas. Without federal action, adoption and evaluation of promising 

approaches may continue to be limited to select states and localities, 

leaving TANF recipients in other locations without access to these 

promising approaches.

48

 

47Pub. L. No. 104-193, § 103(a)(1), 110 Stat. 2105, 2112. 

This flexibility allows for 

multi-agency partnerships that can facilitate the use of promising 

approaches, as discussed above. It also allows states to spend TANF 

4842 U.S.C. §§ 601(a), 617. Accordingly, HHS has limited authority to influence state 

program choices and cannot compel states to adopt particular approaches for their 

welfare-to-work programs.

TANF Lacks Incentives for 

the Broader Adoption and 

Testing of Promising 

Approaches

Program Design and Funding
 

Page 33 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

funds on a wide range of programs and services that are not necessarily 

related to welfare-to-work activities, as long as these services support 

one of TANF’s four statutory purposes.49 In a 2012 report, we found that 

states spent significant amounts of TANF funds on services such as child 

welfare or child care, and that state use of federal TANF funds for these 

and other services can create tensions and trade-offs in state funding 

decisions.50

Additionally, the federal work participation rate requirements do not 

necessarily work as an incentive for states to implement certain promising 

approaches, according to our interviews and prior work. Some experts 

and HHS officials we interviewed suggested that limits on the amount of 

time that certain job readiness and training activities may be counted 

toward a state’s work participation rate

As a result, any additional resources needed for 

implementing more costly promising approaches for TANF cash 

assistance clients may compete with other allowable uses of TANF funds. 

Officials with three programs we interviewed that exclusively use TANF 

funds to implement elements of promising approaches noted that their 

programs had been continuously funded for many years and suggested 

that it would be difficult to find funding for the programs were they 

beginning today.

51

 

4942 U.S.C. §§ 601(a), 604(a). 

may discourage states from 

pursuing approaches that involve longer-term treatment or education. We 

have previously reported the concerns of state and local TANF officials 

that these limits do not allow sufficient time to address barriers to work for 

clients who have been out of the workforce for an extended period of time 

or to train clients for higher-wage employment that will prevent them from 

needing assistance in the future.

50In this report, we concluded that while states still spend some portion of TANF funds on 

welfare-to-work programs for the cash assistance population, their new and varied uses of 

TANF funds for non-cash services over time beyond this population raise questions about 

how state efforts are contributing to TANF purposes. We recommended that HHS develop 

a plan for revising its financial reporting categories to better understand how states use 

TANF funds. HHS subsequently published an information memorandum and Federal 

Register notices on a revised reporting form for collecting more detailed and accurate 

TANF expenditure data. See 78 Fed. Reg. 56,236 (Sept. 12, 2013), 79 Fed. Reg. 2444 

(Jan. 14, 2014). The agency said it plans to implement the revised form in fiscal year 2015 

and provide technical assistance to states through this transition. GAO, Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families: More Accountability Needed to Reflect Breadth of Block 

Grant Services, GAO-13-33, (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 6, 2012). 

51See 42 U.S.C. § 607(c). 

Work Participation Rate 

Requirements
 

Page 34 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Officials with 5 of the 10 programs we interviewed that were using 

promising approaches also expressed concerns about the limits. For 

example, officials with Ramsey County Minnesota’s treatment and 

employment services program said the TANF work activities rules do not 

provide enough flexibility for families coping with mental illness in that the 

time limit on job search and job readiness assistance and the 20-hour 

minimum for core work activities are not realistic for all.52 As a result, 

officials said most clients in the program receive cash assistance through 

a state program rather than through TANF.53 Yet, serving such clients 

through a state program instead of TANF likely limits the program’s 

replicabilty in other state or local TANF agencies, as not all states may be 

willing to devote state funds for this purpose.54 Officials with Kentucky’s 

Ready to Work program reported that the 12-month limit on counting 

vocational educational training toward the work participation rate55

 

52See 42 U.S.C. § 607(c). 

has 

caused the program to rely more heavily on its work-study subsidized 

employment component, which has increased the program’s cost. 

Further, one official said that while the subsidized work-study component 

is a critical program feature, the expectation that clients will work at least 

20 hours a week once they have exhausted their allowable full-time 

education may affect academic outcomes.

53In 2010, we reported that some states have opted to fund cash assistance for certain 

low-income families with state dollars not counted toward the state’s maintenance of effort 

requirement, known as solely state funds. Families provided with cash assistance through 

solely state funds are not included in the work participation rate calculation. We reported 

that families for whom states use solely state funds to provide cash assistance are those 

that typically have the most difficulty meeting the TANF work requirements, such as 

families that included a parent with disabilities. See Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families: Implications of Recent Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs 

and Work Participation Rates, GAO-10-525 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010). According 

to HHS, families in a solely state funded program are not in the numerator or denominator 

used to calculate the work participation rate, but they could affect the calculation of the 

caseload reduction credit because any such shift would be considered an eligibility 

change. A reduced caseload due to an eligibility policy change does not count toward a 

caseload reduction credit.

54As of our 2010 report, for which we surveyed all 50 states and the District of Columbia, 

14 states provided cash assistance to low-income families with significant barriers to 

employment using solely state funds. The report found that in 9 of these 14 states, work 

participation rules were generally not the same for these families as for families in the 

state’s TANF program. We did not collect information on what employment services, if 

any, are provided to these families.

55See 42 U.S.C. § 607(d)(8). 
 

Page 35 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

The work activity limits only apply to what states may count toward the 

work participation rate and do not prevent states from allowing clients to 

engage in these activities for longer periods of time. However, several 

experts we interviewed explained that many state policies on activities 

that are available to clients are shaped by the work participation rate 

requirements. That is, some states may design their programs to provide 

and support only those activities that count toward the work participation 

rate, while other states also provide and support activities that do not 

count toward the rate. In addition, we have previously found that states 

have relied on a combination of factors allowed in law to reduce the 

percentage of families they needed to engage in work to meet their work 

participation rate requirements.56 According to the most recent data 

available from fiscal year 2011, 23 states used these factors to reduce 

their required work participation rate for all TANF families from 50 percent 

to 0 percent. As a result, states may have less incentive to use promising 

approaches to engage hard-to-employ individuals in work activities, as 

they can meet their work participation rate requirements without engaging 

these individuals. In 2013, we noted that the work participation rate is 

complex and that any potential changes to the measure would likely have 

a profound impact on state TANF programs.57

Finally, interviews conducted for this report and our previous work 

indicate that state and local TANF agencies have little incentive to test the 

effectiveness of new approaches. While several program administrators 

cited short-term or anecdotal evidence that their programs may contribute 

to increases in employment and earnings, only 4 of the 10 programs had 

undergone or were currently involved in a rigorous impact evaluation.58

 

56GAO-10-525 and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Served 

and Work Participation, GAO-11-880T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2011). 

57In this report, we identified a number of potential options that could improve TANF 

performance and oversight, based on our prior work, and that might be considered as part 

of an extension or reauthorization of TANF. GAO, Temporary Assistance for Needy 

Families: Potential Options to Improve Performance and Oversight, GAO-13-431 

(Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2013).

58These programs are participating or have participated in rigorous impact evaluations 

sponsored by HHS. The Los Angeles County subsidized employment program and nonTANF clients in San Francisco Jobs Now! are being included in the Subsidized and 

Transitional Employment Demonstration. Washington’s I-BEST is part of the Innovative 

Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency project. Ramsey County’s FAST program was 

evaluated as part of the TANF/Supplemental Security Income Disability Transition Project. 

For more information on these studies, see Appendix III. 

Research and Evaluation
 

Page 36 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

States are not required to conduct impact evaluations of their TANF 

programs under federal TANF law, although these evaluations can 

provide useful information on program effectiveness. A rigorous 

evaluation impact study with a random assignment design allows for 

comparison with a control group in order to distinguish the program’s 

influence from other factors.

Officials with some of the programs that had not undergone rigorous 

evaluations said they had not participated in these studies because of 

concerns about administrative burden, the newness of the program, or 

that a portion of their caseload would not receive services or count toward 

the work participation rate. Local Minnesota FastTRAC contractors said 

long-term follow ups with clients who had left the program would be 

burdensome to staff, who need to focus on newer or existing participants’ 

needs. An official with the D.C. TANF program said it had not yet been 

evaluated formally because the program had only recently been 

redesigned. A Kentucky Ready to Work administrator said the program 

has not been rigorously evaluated through a random assignment study. 

The administrator said this was because the state TANF agency does not 

want to deny services to anyone who is eligible as a result of being 

assigned to a control group or miss an opportunity to contribute toward 

the work participation rate.59

We have previously found that although HHS has a strong tradition of 

leading and supporting rigorous welfare research, there are fewer 

incentives for states to evaluate their programs under TANF than existed 

under the previous welfare program with its evaluation and funding 

provisions.

An administrator at one site that was 

undergoing a rigorous impact evaluation said that because only half of 

study participants would be selected for the program, recruitment for the 

study was challenging.

60

 

59In our prior work, we have noted that the ethical concern that the control group should 

not be harmed by withholding needed services can be addressed by providing the control 

group with whatever services are considered standard practice. In this case, however, the 

evaluation will no longer be testing whether a new approach is effective at all; it will 

instead test whether it is more effective than standard practice. GAO, Program Evaluation: 

A Variety of Rigorous Methods Can Help Identify Effective Interventions, 

Indeed, although HHS maintains an active research agenda, 

GAO-10-30 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2009).

60GAO, Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising Strategies to 

Increase Parents’ Incomes, GAO-06-108 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 2, 2005). 
 

Page 37 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

TANF agency participation in some recent and ongoing HHS evaluations 

has been limited. For example, none of the four sites in the recentlycompleted Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration and 

Evaluation were TANF agencies.61 In addition, in two ongoing evaluations 

of career pathways programs, participating sites consist primarily of 

community colleges and workforce agencies. According to HHS, these 

sites vary in the extent to which they serve TANF cash assistance 

recipients.62 An HHS official we interviewed reported that engaging TANF 

programs in evaluations of promising approaches is difficult because of 

the administrative burden on the state or locality. Officials added that 

HHS has no authority to require state agency participation in research 

and evaluation and no dedicated funding to provide states or localities 

incentives to participate. However, HHS officials also noted that often 

entities beyond TANF agencies serve TANF cash assistance recipients 

and research findings are still relevant for these partners. HHS has also 

taken steps to share research findings with local TANF programs, welfare 

researchers, and policymakers. For example, the agency has sponsored

an annual Welfare Research and Evaluation Conference to share 

evaluations of welfare reform and formulate ways to incorporate these 

findings in the design and implementation of programs since 1998. HHS 

also makes research results available through presentations at other 

conferences related to welfare and low-income issues, their agency 

websites, and online announcements sent to subscribers.

While the 10 state and local programs we examined are making use of 

some promising approaches for moving TANF recipients into employment 

and increasing their earnings, incentives are lacking for large numbers of 

state and local TANF agencies to adopt and test such approaches under 

the structure of the TANF program. This suggests a loss of opportunity. 

Data already suggest that state TANF programs currently engage 

recipients in a relatively limited range of activities and that more TANF 

recipients could be engaged in activities that are work-related. TANF’s 

 

61One of the sites was a nonprofit that conducted a program exclusively for TANF clients. 

62According to HHS, in preliminary analysis for the Innovative Strategies for Increasing 

Self-Sufficiency evaluation approximately 14 percent of all sample members were 

receiving TANF at baseline, with a high of nearly 40 percent in one site. In preliminary 

analysis for the Health Profession Opportunity Grants evaluation, similarly, 15 percent of 

participants were receiving TANF, with a number of sites reporting a quarter or more as 

being TANF recipients. 

Conclusions
 

Page 38 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

goals include ending needy families’ dependence on government benefits 

by promoting work. However, the program’s block grant structure means 

that many policy decisions are decentralized, and HHS has limited 

authority in directing state programmatic choices. This tends to leave 

innovation to individual localities and states. Yet other allowable uses of 

TANF funds compete with the adoption of promising welfare-to-work 

approaches. Further, limited participation by TANF agencies in HHS 

evaluations may slow the development and adoption of new promising 

approaches, leaving TANF without a continuous improvement process. In 

announcing its intention to exercise waiver authority, HHS noted that the 

purpose of its proposed waivers was to test alternative and innovative 

strategies, policies, and procedures designed to improve employment 

outcomes for needy families. However, as HHS officials told us, no state 

has applied for a waiver since its announcement in 2012. While we are 

not taking a position on whether HHS has authority to issue waivers, it is 

clear that this strategy has not encouraged states to innovate and test 

new approaches. We recognize that PRWORA limits HHS’s authority 

over state program and funding choices and evaluations of state 

programs. Yet, HHS, as the federal agency that oversees TANF, is 

positioned to identify, suggest, and work in consultation with Congress on 

potential changes that would address the lack of incentives for states to 

adopt promising approaches. Absent federal action, adoption and 

evaluation of promising approaches may continue to be limited to select 

states and localities, leaving TANF recipients in other locations without 

access to these promising approaches. In the meantime, at least one 

promising approach—career pathways—appears to suffer from 

misperceptions about whether activities under the career pathways 

approach can be counted toward the work participation rate, or whether 

the career pathways approach is allowable with TANF funds. Without 

clarification that it is, indeed, allowable, TANF agencies may be 

discouraged from attempting it.
 

Page 39 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

To encourage broader adoption and evaluation of promising approaches 

and address impediments to the use of the career pathways approach 

among TANF agencies, we recommend that HHS should take the 

following two actions:

• In consultation with Congress, identify potential changes that would 

address the lack of incentives for states and localities to adopt 

promising approaches and then develop and submit a legislative 

proposal outlining those changes.

• Issue formal guidance to clarify how activities under the career 

pathways approach can be countable for the purpose of the work 

participation rate and that TANF funds may be used to finance the 

career pathways approach.

We provided a draft of this report to HHS, the Department of Education, 

and the Department of Labor. The Departments of Education and Labor 

did not have comments. HHS provided written comments, reproduced in 

appendix V, in which the agency generally concurred with our 

recommendations. HHS also provided technical comments that we 

incorporated, as appropriate. 

HHS agreed with our recommendation that the agency consult with 

Congress on ways to address the lack of incentives for states and 

localities to adopt promising employment-focused approaches. HHS 

noted that in the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Request, it 

stated, “when Congress takes up reauthorization, the Administration will 

be prepared to work with lawmakers to strengthen the program’s 

effectiveness in accomplishing its goals. This effort should include using 

performance indicators to drive program improvement and ensuring that 

states have the flexibility to engage recipients in the most effective 

activities to promote success in the workforce, including families with 

serious barriers to employment.” The budget request also included a 

legislative proposal to increase incentives for states to implement or 

strengthen subsidized employment programs by creating a new initiative 

funded by diverting existing TANF Contingency Funds to this new use. 

We were aware of these points in HHS’s budget request and maintain 

that HHS should develop more concrete proposals to address the lack of 

incentives within the TANF program itself, and note that the agency need 

not wait for Congress to take up reauthorization to do so. HHS also noted 

that it has sponsored a large body of research that helps federal policy 

makers understand the wide variety of services provided by state TANF 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 40 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

programs and provides credible information to state TANF decisionmakers about possible innovative and effective approaches to serving 

their clients. At the same time, the agency acknowledged that gaps 

remain in the research on effective employment-focused approaches for 

low-income families and noted that additional research is needed. 

HHS also agreed with our recommendation that the agency issue formal 

guidance to clarify how the career pathways approach can be used by 

TANF agencies. HHS said that it will issue a formal Information 

Memorandum on the implementation of career pathways approaches in 

TANF, as part of the agency’s ongoing technical assistance efforts. It also 

elaborated on the various ways it has promoted career pathways and 

other employment-focused approaches in recent years, as we 

acknowledged in the report. In addition to the need for guidance, HHS 

said that the 12-month limit on counting vocational education training 

toward the work participation rate is a constraint to the implementation of 

career pathways models in TANF programs. However, as we note in our 

report, states may allow TANF recipients to combine education with other 

work activities that count toward the work participation rate. Better 

clarification of this fact through formal guidance should help to address 

state misperceptions that the time limit on counting vocational education 

training prohibits the use of career pathways approaches.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretaries of Health 

and Human Services, Education, and Labor, and interested congressional 

committees. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 
 

Page 41 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, 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. GAO staff who made key contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix VI.

Kay E. Brown, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Our report (1) reviews some approaches that have been identified as 

holding promise to engage TANF recipients in employment and increase 

their earnings and examines ways in which selected states and localities 

have used them, and (2) identifies factors that influence the use of these 

and other promising approaches.

To first identify promising approaches, we reviewed research summaries 

and syntheses of rigorous research on approaches for engaging TANF 

recipients in employment and increasing their earnings.1 We primarily 

focused on studies that used a random assignment (experimental) 

research design. This type of design compares the outcomes for groups 

that were randomly assigned either to the treatment or to a 

nonparticipating control group before the intervention, in an effort to 

control for any systematic difference between the groups that could 

account for a difference in their outcomes. A difference in these groups’ 

outcomes is believed to represent the program’s impact.2

We considered approaches to be “promising” if a rigorous evaluation had 

determined that a program using this approach contributed to increased 

employment, income, or earnings, or reduced welfare receipt. Not all 

programs using the approach had to yield positive results in order for the 

approach to be considered promising. We realize that there is variation in 

how these approaches are implemented. Although a comprehensive 

career pathways program has not yet been rigorously evaluated, we 

included this approach because it was based on a rigorous evaluation of 

sector-based career training and lessons from other prior rigorous 

evaluations.

To help compile 

the research we reviewed, we conducted a literature search of 12 

research databases, including EconLit, ProQuest Research Library, and 

Social Services Abstracts, using search terms such as “welfare to work.” 

Our intent was not to describe all possible promising approaches, but 

rather to identify some key approaches.

 

1

Research shows that welfare-to-work programs that increase employment and earnings 

do not necessarily increase household incomes. This is because the increased income 

from earnings can be offset by the loss of cash welfare, food stamps, and other support 

services.

2

GAO, Program Evaluation: A Variety of Rigorous Methods Can Help Identify Effective 

Interventions, GAO-10-30 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 23, 2009). 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

We sought input on our list of approaches from researchers with MDRC, 

a nonprofit, nonpartisan education and social policy research 

organization. We also validated our list of approaches through the 

process of seeking expert nominations for programs currently using these 

approaches. For example, based on our review of the literature, we 

initially identified earnings supplements—the practice of supplementing 

low-wage workers’ earnings with incentives to encourage employment 

and employment retention—as a possible promising approach. However, 

because we did not find any current examples of this approach being 

used to serve TANF cash assistance recipients, we did not include it in 

our final list of promising approaches.

To identify state and local programs that are currently using these 

approaches to serve TANF cash assistance recipients, we interviewed 

cognizant researchers; officials from the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS), the Department of Labor, and the Department of 

Education; and others with TANF expertise. We selected 12 experts 

based on their knowledge of the research and efforts under way at the 

state and local level, as well as to reflect a range of perspectives on 

welfare-to-work issues. We identified them through our literature review 

and through referrals from other experts. We asked the experts and 

agency officials to identify state and local programs that are currently 

using the promising approaches we identified through our literature 

review to serve TANF cash assistance recipients. We asked the experts 

to indicate the specific reasons why they recommended these programs 

and whether evaluation results or outcome data were available for the 

programs; however, these programs have generally not been rigorously 

evaluated.

From the programs identified by experts, we selected 10 programs to 

profile (located in 6 states—California, Kentucky, Minnesota, New York, 

Utah, and Washington—and the District of Columbia) to reflect diversity in 

approaches used, economic conditions, demographics, and geographic 

regions. We also considered how the program was connected to TANF 

and whether the program was in an area where TANF is state- or countyadministered.3

 

3

According to HHS, the majority of states centrally administer TANF, but some states 

(California, Colorado, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin) play a supervisory role and delegate administration of TANF to the counties.

We did not report on work participation rates for the states 

in which these programs are operated because some are state programs 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

and others are locally administered. Work participation rates are 

calculated only on the state level by HHS, based on data reported by the 

states, and generally available after the end of the fiscal year. We 

conducted in-depth interviews, by phone and through four site visits, with 

program administrators and state and local TANF officials to learn about 

key program features that help increase employment and earnings. For 3 

programs, we also interviewed local contractors. We obtained views from 

experts; federal, state, and local officials; and program administrators on 

factors that facilitate the use of promising approaches and that could 

broaden their use. We assessed information and communication HHS 

provides to states related to promising approaches against federal 

internal control standards.4

We obtained budget, performance, and other program data for the 

programs we selected, as well as HHS administrative data on states’ 

engagement of TANF recipients in prescribed work activities. We 

assessed the reliability of these data by reviewing related documentation 

and interviewing knowledgeable officials and determined they were 

sufficiently reliable for providing contextual information on these programs 

and describing work participation trends, respectively. We also reviewed 

relevant GAO, HHS Office of Inspector General, and HHS reports, as well 

as relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance.

We conducted this performance audit from January 2014 to November 

2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 

4

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
Appendix II: Categories of Federal Work 

Activities and Limitations on Counting Time in 

Those Activities

Page 45 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

In meeting the 30-hour average weekly requirement, individuals must 

spend at least 20 of the hours in certain activities (referred to as core 

activities). Any additional hours needed to meet the requirement can 

come from non-core or core activities.

Table 3: Categories of Federal Work Activities

Activity Definition

At least daily 

supervision required

Limitations on counting 

time (for all families)

“Core” activities

Unsubsidized 

employment

Full- or part-time employment in the public or 

private sector that is not subsidized by TANF or 

any other public program.

Subsidized private sector 

employment

Employment in the private sector for which the 

employer receives a subsidy from TANF or other 

public funds to offset some or all of the wages 

and costs of employing an individual.

Subsidized public sector 

employment

Employment in the public sector for which the 

employer receives a subsidy from TANF or other 

public funds to offset some or all of the wages 

and costs of employing an individual.

Work experience A work activity, performed in return for welfare, 

that provides an individual with an opportunity to 

acquire the general skills, knowledge, and work 

habits necessary to obtain employment. The 

purpose of work experience is to improve the 

employability of an individual who cannot find 

unsubsidized full-time employment. 

X 

On-the-job training Training in the public or private sector that is 

given to a paid employee while he or she is 

engaged in productive work and that provides 

knowledge and skills essential to the full and 

adequate performance of the job.

Job search and job 

readiness assistance

The act of seeking or obtaining employment, 

preparation to seek or obtain employment, 

including life-skills training, and substance 

abuse treatment, mental health treatment, or 

rehabilitation activities. Such treatment or 

therapy must be determined to be necessary 

and documented by a qualified medical, 

substance abuse, or mental health professional. 

X Participation in this activity 

may be counted for 6 weeks 

(12 weeks in certain 

circumstances) in a year

Appendix II: Categories of Federal Work 

Activities and Limitations on Counting Time 

in Those Activities
Appendix II: Categories of Federal Work 

Activities and Limitations on Counting Time in 

Those Activities

Page 46 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Activity Definition

At least daily 

supervision required

Limitations on counting 

time (for all families)

Community service 

programs

Structured programs and embedded activities in 

which individuals perform work for the direct 

benefit of the community under the auspices of 

public or nonprofit organizations. Community 

service programs must be limited to projects that 

serve a useful community purpose in fields such 

as health, social service, environmental 

protection, education, urban and rural 

redevelopment, welfare, recreation, public 

facilities, public safety, and child care. 

Community service programs are designed to 

improve the employability of individuals not 

otherwise able to obtain unsubsidized full-time 

employment. A state agency shall take into 

account, to the extent possible, the prior training, 

experience, and skills of an individual in making 

appropriate community service assignments.

X 

Vocational educational 

training

Organized educational programs that are 

directly related to the preparation of individuals 

for employment in current or emerging 

occupations.

X Participation in this activity is 

limited to 12 months in an 

individual’s lifetime

Caring for a child of a 

recipient in community 

service

Providing child care to enable another cash 

welfare recipient to participate in a community 

services program. This is an unpaid activity and 

must be a structured program designed to 

improve the employability of participating 

individuals.

X 

“Non-core” activities

Job skills training directly 

related to employment

Training or education for job skills required by an 

employer to provide an individual with the ability 

to obtain employment or to advance or adapt to 

the changing demands of the workplace.

X Must be combined with 20 

hours per week in a “core” 

activity

Education directly related 

to employment (for those 

without a high school 

diploma or equivalent 

certificate)

Education related to a specific occupation, job, 

or job offer.

X Must be combined with 20 

hours per week in a “core” 

activity

Attendance in a 

secondary school 

program or course of 

study leading to a 

certificate of general 

equivalence (for those 

who have not completed 

secondary school or

gotten a certificate of 

general equivalence)

Regular attendance, in accordance with the 

requirements of a secondary school or course of 

study, at a secondary school or in a course of 

study leading to a certificate of general 

equivalence, in the case of a work-eligible 

individual who has not completed secondary 

school or received such a certificate.

X Must be combined with 20 

hours per week in a “core” 

activity

Source: GAO analysis of relevant federal laws and regulations. | GAO-15-31
Appendix III: Selected Recent and Ongoing 

Department of Health and Human ServicesFunded Evaluations

Page 47 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Employment Retention and Advancement Project (ERA): This study 

ran from 1998 to 2011. Under the study, Health and Human Services 

issued planning grants to 13 states to develop new programs. The goal 

was to test strategies for helping employed individuals keep their jobs and 

advance in the workforce. Only 3 of the programs were found to increase 

employment retention and advancement: the Texas sites (Corpus Christi 

and Fort Worth), Chicago, and Riverside PASS ERA programs. An ERA 

report was published in April 2010, “The Employment Retention and 

Advancement Project: How Effective Are Different Approaches Aiming to 

Increase Employment Retention and Advancement? Final Impacts for 

Twelve Models,” which can be viewed at: 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/the-employmentretention-and-advancement-project-how-effective-are. Among the 

participating sites, 8 were led by TANF agencies at either the state or 

local level. The Texas ERA program offered monthly stipends of $200 to 

former TANF recipients working at least 30 hours per week. The Chicago 

program was a work-focused advancement program, offering targeted job 

search assistance and help indentifying and accessing career ladders. 

These services were provided to participants by staff in a private, forprofit firm, and TANF recipients were required to have regular contact 

with program staff to continue to receive TANF benefits. In contrast, the 

Riverside PASS ERA program provided voluntary, individualized retention 

and advancement services provided primarily by three community-based 

organizations and community colleges. Each of these programs targeted 

a specific population’s service needs.

Enhanced Services for Hard-to-Employ Demonstrations and 

Evaluations: This demonstration tested several strategies for helping 

hard-to-employ parents find and sustain employment. One of the four 

sites in the study included TANF participants: the Transitional Work 

Corporation in Philadelphia conducted a subsidized employment 

demonstration exclusively for TANF clients. Other sites included 

programs in Kansas, Missouri, New York, Pennsylvania, and Rhode 

Island. This 10-year evaluation was completed in 2012. Findings from this 

study were used to influence the design of two new federal subsidized 

employment initiatives. Final evaluation reports can be viewed at: 

http://www.mdrc.org/publication/what-strategies-work-hard-employ. 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families/ Supplemental Security 

Income Disability Transition Project (TSDTP): This study is an effort to 

identify the extent of overlap between TANF and SSI programs and 

populations and develop pilot programs aimed to improve a variety of 

outcomes for individuals with disabilities and work-limiting barriers to 

Appendix III: Selected Recent and Ongoing 

Department of Health and Human ServicesFunded Evaluations

Recent Studies
Appendix III: Selected Recent and Ongoing 

Department of Health and Human ServicesFunded Evaluations

Page 48 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

employment. The study is a collaboration between ACF and the Social 

Security Administration through a contract with MDRC. This study is 

complete. Reports were published throughout 2013 and 2014. TSDTP 

included Ramsey County, Minnesota—a program highlighted in this GAO 

report—which participated in a pilot-phase experiment to increase 

employment among TANF participants with work limitations and 

disabilities. Los Angeles County, California and Muskegon County, 

Michigan were also involved in the study, implementing pilot tests of 

approaches to serving individuals with disabilities either through the 

provision of services to TANF participants with work-limiting barriers, 

streamlining the Supplemental Security Income application process, or 

improving coordination between the two systems.

Behavioral Innovations to Increase Self-Sufficiency (BIAS) study: 

Launched in 2010, BIAS is the first major opportunity to apply a 

behavioral economics lens to programs that serve poor families in the 

United States. The goal of the study is to learn how tools from behavioral 

science can improve the well-being of low-income children, adults and 

families. The study is being conducted by OPRE and MDRC in 

partnership with behavioral experts. One site within the study is the Los 

Angeles county TANF agency. Results are planned for rolling release in 

2014 and 2015. Two reports on BIAS were issued in April and August of 

2014.

Health Professions Opportunities Grant (HPOG): HPOG was 

established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act with the 

goal of providing training programs in high-demand healthcare 

professions to TANF recipients and other low-income individuals. In 2010, 

the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) awarded five-year 

grants to 32 grantees in 23 states. The program includes post-secondary 

educational institutions, workforce investment boards, state and local 

government agencies, and community-based organizations. Two of the 

27 non-tribal HPOG grantees are Departments of Human or Social 

Services agencies and also administer the TANF program. One of the five 

tribal sites also administers the Tribal TANF program. However, a number 

of HPOG grantees also serve as the employment services providers for 

TANF agencies. ACF’s Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation 

(OPRE) is evaluating HPOG demonstration projects. An interim analysis 

of the impacts of HPOG is expected in June 2016.

Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficient Project: The 

Innovative Strategies for Increasing Self-Sufficiency evaluation began in 

Ongoing Studies
Appendix III: Selected Recent and Ongoing 

Department of Health and Human ServicesFunded Evaluations

Page 49 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

2007 as a multi-site, random-assignment evaluation of promising 

strategies for increasing employment and self-sufficiency among lowincome families. It is under the direction of ACF. This study focuses on 

the career pathways approach as the main intervention. One of the nine 

ISIS sites—Seattle/King County Workforce Development Corporation—is 

a contracted employment services provider for a local TANF agency and 

serves both TANF and non-TANF clients. Other sites in the study include: 

Des Moines Area Community College, I-BEST in Washington State, 

Instituto del Progreso Latino, Madison Area Technical College, Pima 

Community College, San Diego Workforce Partnership, and Valley 

Initiative for Development and Advancement.

Job Search Assistance (JSA) Strategies: This study was launched by 

OPRE in fall 2013 and features a multi-site, random-assignment 

evaluation to measure the relative impact of specific job search services 

offered by TANF programs on short-term labor market outcomes such as 

earnings and time to employment. The JSA evaluation aims (1) to provide 

information about the relative impacts of various JSA services and the 

manner in which agencies provide them, and (2) to provide actionable 

and policy-relevant feedback to the TANF field, including federal TANF 

policymakers, state and local TANF administrators, and frontline 

caseworkers. Site recruitment is ongoing, and initial findings could be 

reported as early as the end of 2016.

Subsidized and Transitional Employment Demonstration (STED): 

The STED study was launched by ACF in 2010 with the goal of 

demonstrating and evaluating the next generation of subsidized 

employment models for critical low-income populations. The project is led 

by MDRC, under contract with ACF, and examines strategies for 

providing counter-cyclical employment and for successfully transitioning 

individuals from short-term subsidized employment to unsubsidized 

employment. STED is being conducted in coordination with the 

Department of Labor’s Enhanced Transitional Jobs Demonstration 

Project. Random assignment began at the first sites in early 2012 and 

continued through late 2013. Of the seven STED sites, three are TANF 

agency-operated including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Minnesota. 

The evaluation is scheduled to run through 2017.
Appendix IV: Bibliography

Page 50 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Bloom, Dan. Transitional Jobs: Background, Program Models, and 

Evaluation Evidence. Prepared by MDRC for the Department of Health 

and Human Services. Washington, D.C.: 2010.

———, Cynthia Miller, and Gilda Azurdia. Results from the Personal 

Roads to Individual Development and Employment (PRIDE) Program in 

New York City. MDRC. July 2007.

———, Pamela J. Loprest, and Sheila R. Zedlewski. TANF Recipients 

with Barriers to Employment. Washington. D.C.: Urban Institute, August 

2011.

Derr, Michelle and LaDonna Pavetti. Assisting TANF Recipients Living 

with Disabilities to Obtain and Maintain Employment: Creating Work 

Opportunities. Prepared by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. for the 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Washington, D.C.: 

February 2008.

Greenberg, David H., Victoria Deitch, and Gayle Hamilton. “A Synthesis 

of Random Assignment Benefit-Cost Studies of Welfare-to-Work 

Programs.”Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, vol. 1, issue 1, article 3 

(2010). 

Gueron, Judith M. and Gayle Hamilton. The Role of Education and 

Training in Welfare Reform. The Brookings Institution, Policy Brief no. 20 

(April 2002).

Hamilton, Gayle. Improving Employment and Earnings for TANF 

Recipients. Prepared by the Urban Institute for the Department of Health 

and Human Services. Washington, D.C.: March 2012.

———. Moving People from Welfare to Work: Lessons from the National 

Evaluation of Welfare-to-Work Strategies. Prepared by MDRC for the 

Department of Health and Human Services and Department of Education. 

Washington, D.C.: 2002.

Hendra, Richard, Keri-Nicole Dillman, Gayle Hamilton, Erika Lundquist, 

Karin Martinson, and Melissa Wavelet. The Employment Advancement 

Project: How Effective Are Different Approaches Aiming to Increase 

Employment Retention and Advancement? Final Impacts for Twelve 

Models. Prepared by MDRC for the Department of Health and Human 

Services. Washington, D.C.: April 2010.

Appendix IV: Bibliography
Appendix IV: Bibliography

Page 51 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Kirby, Gretchen, Heather Hill, LaDonna Pavetti, Jon Jacobson, Michelle 

Derr, and Pamela Winston. Transitional Jobs: Stepping Stones to 

Unsubsidized Employment. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy 

Research, Inc., April 2002.

Maguire, Sheila, Joshua Freely, Carol Clymer, Maureen Conway, and 

Deena Schwartz. Tuning In to Local Labor Markets: Findings from the 

Sectoral Employment Impact Study. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private 

Ventures, 2010.

Roder, Anne, and Mark Elliott. Stimulating Opportunity: An Evaluation of 

ARRA-Funded Subsidized Employment Programs. Economic Mobility 

Corporation, New York, NY: September 2013.

Werner, Alan, Catherine Dun Rappaport, Jennifer Bagnell Stuart, and 

Jennifer Lewis. Literature Review: Career Pathways Programs, OPRE 

Report #2013-24, Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, 

Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services (Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2013).
Appendix V: Agency Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services

Page 52 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Appendix V: Agency Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services
Appendix V: Agency Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services

Page 53 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches
Appendix V: Agency Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services

Page 54 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches
Appendix V: Agency Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services

Page 55 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches
Appendix V: Agency Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services

Page 56 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgments

Page 57 GAO-15-31 TANF Promising Approaches

Kay E. Brown at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Gale Harris (Assistant Director), 

Kristen Jones (Analyst-in-Charge), Holly Hobbs, and Michael Pahr made 

significant contributions to all aspects of this report. Also contributing to 

this report were James Bennett, Sue Bernstein, Ed Bodine, Alexander 

Galuten, Ashley McCall, Sheila McCoy, Almeta Spencer, and Walter 

Vance.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(131293)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

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

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.