Contents 

Letter 

~___- --- 

Appendixes Appendix I: 

i Appendix II: 

> 

1 Appendix III: 

Appendix IV 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 38 

Selected Studies Providing Data on the Characteristics 

of TANF Recipients 42 

Comments From the Department of Health and Human 

Services 44 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51 

@ibliography 52 

belated GAO Products 

Tibles 

Figure 

__. 

Table 1: Mandated TANF Work Participation Rates for All Adult 

Recipients, 1997 Through 2002 9 

Table 2: Prevalence of Selected Characteristics Among TANF 

Recipients Based on Selected Studies 16 

Table 3: State and Local Site Visits 40 

~____- ____--. 

Figure 1: TANF Recipients Engaged in Work or Work Activities, by 

Number of Obstacles to Employment, 1997 15 

Page 1 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Contents 

Abbreviations 

,- 

ACF 

AFDC 

CJ 

CPS 

ESL 

HHS 

MDRC 

NLSY 

NSAF 

PRWORA 

PSID Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

SIPP Survey of Income and Program Participation 

SPD Survey of Program Dynamics 

SSI Supplemental Security Income 

TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 

wtw Welfare to Work 

Page 2 

Administration for Children and Families 

Aid to Families With Dependent Children 

Community Jobs 

Current Population Survey 

English as a Second Language 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation 

National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 

National Survey of America’s Families 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation 

Act of 1996 

GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

March 15,200l 

The Honorable Wahy Herger 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Nancy Johnson 

House of Representatives 

With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity 

Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the Congress eliminated the legal 

entitlement to cash welfare assistance and replaced it with Temporary 

Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to states. TANF 

emphasizes work and responsibility over dependence on government 

benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees 

the TANF block grant program, which provides grants to states totaling up 

to $16.5 billion per year through 2002 and requires states to maintain a 

historical level of state spending on welfare-related programs. While the 

welfare reform legislation specified some rules for states’ receipt of federal 

funds, states have the discretion to design their programs to meet their 

goals.’ 

Caseloads have fallen dramatically since the passage of the welfare reform 

legislation, from 4..4 million families in August 1996 to 2.2 million families in 

June 2000. To avoid financial penalties, states must continue to ensure that 

increasing proportions of their TANF caseloads are employed or involved 

in other work activities.2 The 60-month limit on receipt of federally funded 

TANF benefits heightens the urgency with which states must move 

recipients into the workforce-including those who might need extra 

‘For example, states can set time limits on benefits shorter than the federal 60-month limit, 

and can specify the work activities recipients can participate in to be eligible for benefits. 

“Work activities that count for federal participation rate purposes include employment, 

work experience programs, on-the-job training, community service, providing child care for 

other TANF recipients, job search, and (under certain circumstances) education and 

training. 

Page 3 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
assistance to get and keep a job.3 This group is often referred to as hard-to 

employ recipients. 

In light of the impending reauthorization of TANF in 2002, the Congress has 

expressed an interest in better understanding the factors that make some 

TANF recipients hard-to-employ, and the challenges states face in helping 

them find and keep jobs. This report provides information on (1) the 

participation of TANF recipients in work and work activities, the 

characteristics of TANF recipients, and how those characteristics have 

changed over time; (2) the strategies states are using to help hard-toemploy TANF recipients get and keep jobs; and (3) the challenges states 

face in planning and implementing strategies for hard-to-employ recipients. 

To provide information on the participation of TANF recipients in work and 

work activities and their characteristics, we drew on several sources of 

data. These included two national surveys, the Census Bureau’s Current 

Population Survey (CPS) and the Urban Institute’s National Survey of 

America’s Families (NSAF); HHS’ compilation of TANF administrative data 

from states; and 15 studies that were not national in scope. (See app. II for 

a list of the studies.) 

We also collected additional administrative data on the characteristics and 

work activities of TANF recipients from nine states-California, 

Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Washington, 

and Wisconsin-that together served nearly one-half of TANF families 

nationwide in June 2000.4 Although the information we present concerning 

these states is not intended to be representative of all TANF programs, 

these states were selected because together they employ a range of 

approaches to implementing the TANF program, including strategies for 

the hard-to-employ, and have experienced various levels of caseload 

decline. They include states with both county-. and state-administered 

TANF programs, states that began welfare reform under waivers prior to 

enactment of PRWORA, and those that instituted reform after the law went, 

- --.-_ 

% this report, the term TANF recipients is used to mean adult &mbem of families 

receiving TANF benefits. 

“It should be noted that two of the states from which we collected data, Connecticut and 

Oregon, are operating under waivers that allow them to function differently from other 

states. For example, Connecticut’s exemption policy for work requirements and time limits 

is broader than that allowed by PRWORA, and Oregon’s waiver allows case managers to 

determine the extent of appropriate work participation for its TANF recipients. 

Page 4 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Results in Brief 

into effect. Finally, we included states in different regions of the country, 

and with a range of population sizes. 

To obtain information on the strategies states are using to move their hardto-employ recipients into the workforce and the challenges they face in 

doing so, we conducted site visits in six of the nine states from which we 

collected administrative data-California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, 

Michigan, and Washington. In each state, we interviewed state and local 

TANF administrators and others involved in delivering services to TANF 

recipients, and visited two or more local TANF agencies. We conducted our 

work from November 1999 to January 2001 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards (see app. I). 

National survey data show that although a higher percentage of adult TANF 

recipients is currently engaged in work activities while receiving benefits 

than in the past, the majority are not. In part, this is because many have 

characteristics that make it difficult for them to get and keep jobs. In fiscal 

year 1999, a monthly average of nearly 60 percent of all TANF recipients 

nationwide did not participate in a work activity. Although this may have 

been caused by weak implementation of state work programs, studies have 

shown that a substantial share of TANF recipients have characteristics that 

make employment difficult, such as substance abuse, poor mental or 

physical health, disability, low educational attainment, limited work 

experience, limited English proficiency, low basic skills, or exposure to 

domestic violence. Many recipients have two or more of these 

characteristics, making it especially difficult for them to get and keep jobs. 

Some officials have asserted that this group may make up a larger 

percentage of the caseload as overall caseloads have declined. However, 

data are not available to determine whether recipients with characteristics 

that impede employment represent a greater share of the caseload than 

previously. 

All six of the states we visited implemented a “Work First” approach l,o 

TANF-one that emphasizes job search to move recipients into jobs as 

quickly as possible-but all have modified their programs in some way to 

better serve recipients who face difficulties in entering the workforce. 

States differ in their approaches to identifying hard-to-employ recipients. 

Some of the states and localities we visited require nearly all new 

applicants to look for a job, providing access to other programs only to 

those who are not initially successful in finding employment. Other states 

have developed screening and assessment procedures to identify new 

Page 6 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
applicants with characteristics that could impede employment before they 

have a chance to test the job market. No one approach has proven most 

effective for moving hard-to-employ recipient-s into jobs. State strategies to 

help prepare hard-to-employ recipients for work include expanded case 

management services, specialized training, and work experience. In 

addition, all six of the states we visited refer some recipients to non-TANF 

agencies and organizations for services such as substance abuse and 

mental health treatment, shelters from domestic violence, adult education, 

and legal aid, when appropriate. 

As they try to develop and implement strategies that help hard-to-employ 

TANF recipients enter the workforce, state decisions on collecting and 

analyzing data on caseload characteristics, imposing time limits shorter 

than 60 months, and determinin g which work and work-preparation 

activities can be used to satisfy state eligibility rules have created 

challenges. The states we visited had not collected and analyzed caseload 

data on the incidence of characteristics that impede employment, such as 

substance abuse or mental and psychological conditions, making it difficult, 

for them to make informed programmatic decisions to meet the needs of 

hard-to-employ recipients and to plan for recipients who are likely to reach 

their time limit on federal benefits. States that have imposed time limits 

shorter than 60 months face an even greater challenge in moving recipients 

into employment before they reach their time limits. 

HHS is supporting initiatives that will help states identify hard-to-employ 

recipients, but so far it has done little to further state efforts to 

systematically analyze these data so that they can be used to estimate the 

number of TANF recipients who will reach their 60-month limit before 

becoming employed. We are therefore recommending that HHS promote 

research and provide guidance that would enable states to estimate the 

number of hard-to-employ TANF recipients who will reach their 60-month 

limit on benefits. In addition, despite the flexibility states have under 

PRWORA, some states are unclear about the range of work and workpreparation activities they are allowed to provide to recipients and are 

reluctant to allow recipients to participate in the full range of activities they 

may need to get and keep jobs. Although HHS has several efforts under way 

to help states use their flexibility under PRWORA, some states are still 

uncertain about how to design programs that best meet the needs of their 

hard-to-employ recipients while still complying with the law. We are 

therefore recommending that HHS expand its efforts to help states better 

understand how to use the flexibility the law gives them to create 

appropriate programs for hard-to-employ recipients. 

Page 6 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
In commenting on the draft report, HHS disagreed with both of our 

recommendations. It maintained that the first recommendation 

overemphasizes the use of measurable characteristics, which they stated 

are not accurate predictors of employability. Experts, however, believe that, 

identifying employment barriers is key to ensuring that appropriate 

services and work activities are provided to hard-to-employ recipients, and 

HHS did note that identifying employment barriers is useful. With regard to 

the second recommendation, although HHS reported that it is already 

fulfilling it through their ongoing activities, we found instances where 

states and localities were not aware of their full range of options under 

PRWORA. Therefore, we continue to recommend that HHS expand the 

scope of its guidance to states to help them use the flexibility PRWORA 

affords to provide appropriate work and work-preparation activities to 

hard-to-employ TANF recipients. 

Background The Congress passed PRWORA in 1996, making sweeping changes to 

national welfare policy. The act replaced the Aid to Families with 

Dependent Children (AFDC) program with TANF block grants, a fixed 

federal funding stream that provides states with a total of $16.5 billion per 

year over 5 years and allows states the flexibility to design their own 

programs and strategies for promoting work and self-sufficiency. Under 

TANF there are strong work requirements for recipients and there is a limit 

on the number of months (60) that families can receive federally funded 

TANF benefits. 

The number of families receiving cash assistance has declined dramatically 

in recent years. More than 5 million families received cash assistance in 

1994 but, as the economy improved and TANF work enforcement gathered 

steam, fewer families received assistance. Caseloads have fallen 

dramatically since the act went into effect, from 4.4 million families in 

August 1996 to 2.2 million families in June 2000. Caseload declines slowed 

toward the end of 1999 and in a few states rose slightly, but the most recent 

data available from HHS indicate that, nationally, caseloads continue to 

decline. 

Although there are no supporting data, many assume that as caseloads 

have fallen the composition of the caseload has changed. Specifically, some 

have speculated that those TANF recipients who could easily find and keep 

jobs have left the rolls, and hard-to-employ recipients-those with 

characteristics that interfere with employment-comprise an increasing 

share of the remaining cash assistance recipients. As a result, there is some 

Page 7 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
concern that state programs that may have been effective at moving easierto-employ recipients into the workforce may not meet the needs of those 

remaining on the rolls. 

Work Requirements Under PRWORA, TANF recipients face stronger work requirements than 

welfare recipients faced in the past. Unless a state opts out, nonexempt 

adult recipients who are not working must participate in community 

service employment 2 months after they start receiving benefits. Adults are 

required to pCarticipate in work activities within 2 years after they start 

receiving assistance under the block grant. If recipients do not comply with 

the work activity requirement, states must impose sanctions that reduce 

cash assistance, and may opt to terminate the grant entirely. 

PRWORA allows states to exempt some TANF recipients from the work 

activity requirement while still receiving benefits. States may exempt 

parents with children under age 1 from work requirements, and may 

disregard them in calculating participation rates. States may not penalize 

parents with children under 6 for not working if child care is not available. 

Recipients who are exempted by the state from work requirements are still 

subject to the federal 60-month limit on receipt of benefits and may be 

included in a 20-percent hardship exemption from the time limits. 

All states allow recipients to meet their work activity requirement through 

paid employment. Many states have an earned income disregard that 

allows recipients to earn some amount without losing cash assistance, and 

many states raised the amount of this disregard after implementation of 

TANF to give TANF recipients additional incentives to work. In states with 

a higher earnings disregard, more employed persons may still be receiving 

TANF benefits-and thus remain part of the caseload-than in states with 

lower earnings disregards, where working recipients with lower earnings 

levels are removed from the rolls. 

Page 8 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
To avoid financial penalties, states must ensure that at least a specified 

minimum percentage of adult recipients are participating in work or workrelated activities each year that count for federal participation rate 

purposes. These types of activities are not necessarily identical to the 

activities the state allows recipients to engage in to maintain eligibility for 

benefits. As specified in PRWORA, work activities that count for federal 

participation rate purposes include employment (subsidized or 

unsubsidized), work experience programs, on-the-job training and 

community service. Providing child care for TANF recipients engaged in 

work or work-preparation activities also counts for federal participation 

rate purposes. Job search is considered a work activity for a recipient for 

up to 6 weeks (or 12 weeks in high-unemployment areas), as are certain 

types of education and training that are directly related to employment and 

attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a 

certificate of general equivalence in the case of a recipient who has not 

completed secondary school or received such a certificate.! The required 

number of hours of work participation for TANF recipients and the 

percentage of a state’s caseload that must participate to meet mandated 

participation rate requirements were designed to increase over time (see 

table 1). 

Table 1: Mandated TANF Work Participation Rates for All Adult Recipients, 1997 

Through 2002 

Minimum weekly 

hours 

Minimum percentage 

of state’s caseload 

that must participate 

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 

20 20 25 30 30 30 

- 

25 30 35 40 45 50 

_--- 

~ Time Limits 

-__ 

Under PRWORA, families with an adult TANF recipient cannot receive 

federally funded assistance for more than 60 months6 However, the law 

allows states to impose a shorter time limit or to provide assistance beyond 

60 months using state funds. The law also allows states to exempt families 

-.. 

‘According to HHS, neither the statute nor the TANF regulations defines work activities. 

“Child-only cases are not subject to the go-month time limit on federally funded assistance. 

Page 9 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
with adult TANF recipients from the 60-month limit on federal assistance 

based on hardship or if the family includes a victim of domestic violence. If 

a state determines that a family meets one of these criteria, it can opt to 

continue the family’s federally funded cash assistance beyond 60 months. 

However, a state can exempt no more than 20 percent of its TANF caseload 

at any point in time from the federal go-month limit.7 

States Have Options for Federal laws and regulations give states flexibility in determining the types 

Managing TANF Resources of programs they offer to TANF recipients and how TANF block grant and 

I 

and Programs state funds can be used. States also have the flexibility to set a wide range 

of program rules such as eligibility criteria, earned income disregard 

amounts, and benefit levels. Most programmatic decisions are also left to 

states. For example, states can choose to administer the TANF program 

themselves or devolve responsibility for many of the program management 

decisions to county or local TANF offices. States can deliver employmentrelated services to TANF recipients through their workforce development 

or employment service agencies or through their TANF agencies. 

With few restrictions, states can also determine the typical pathway for 

most new applicants. For example, in designing their TANF programs, 

states have the flexibility to determine whether new applicants initially will 

be referred to education, training, and work-preparation activities, or 

whether they fist will be encouraged to enter the workforce as quickly as 

possible. Many states have chosen the latter approach, often referred to as 

Work First, in part because of the emphasis PRWORA places on work. 

Under a Work First approach, recipients are encouraged to find jobs as 

quickly as possible and most recipients are placed in job search-an 

activity that involves looking for a job-rather than in education or other 

work preparation activities. Only recipients who fail to find jobs, or who 

find jobs only to lose them immediately, are referred to education, training, 

or other types of activities. 

States also have a great deal of flexibility in determining exactly what types 

of education, training, or other work-preparation activities as well as what 

types of support services they provide with their TANF funds. In addition to 

‘It should be noted that the “effective” time limit exemption is greater than 20 percent. 

because child-only cases, which comprise a significant portion of TANF caseloads, are not. 

subject to the 60-month time limit, yet are part of the denominator for calculating the 20- 

percent limit on exemptions. 

Page 10 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
TANF funds, states can also access U.S. Department of Labor Welfare-toWork (WtW) grants to operate community service or work experience 

programs, create jobs through wage subsidies, provide on-the-job training, 

or provide employment placement and job readiness services. WtW funds 

may also be used for a wide range of support services, including education 

and training, child care, short-term housing, and transportation assistance 

for those placed in work activities. 

Federal Oversight 

Responsibilities 

Although PRWORA’s emphasis on devolution of program authority to 

states and other levels of government calls for state and local governments 

to take responsibility for program results and outcomes, PRWORA gives 

the federal government some program oversight responsibilities. Under the 

law, HHS is responsible for administering TANF funding, setting reporting 

requirements for states, and reviewing state TANF plans. HHS is also 

responsible for conducting research on the benefits and effects of the 

TANF program, and receives funding for welfare -reform and social services 

research and evaluation studies.8 In keeping with this, HHS’ stated goals for 

research supported with these funds are to gain knowledge about, and 

thereby improve, welfare policy and practice and to ensure that knowledge 

gained is widely disseminated in formats accessible to policymakers and 

program administrators at all levels. Section 413 of the Social Security Act 

specifically directs HHS to develop “. . . innovative methods of 

disseminating information on any research, evaluations, . . . including the 

facilitation of the sharing of information and best practices among States 

and localities through the use of computers and other technologies.” 

HHS also has created several mechanisms to educate states about the 

broad latitude granted them by PRWORA and its implementing regulations 

for assisting TANF recipients. HHS can issue a variety of publications and 

communiques and sponsor national and regional conferences that can 

include discussions of the law and regulations, possible sources and uses 

of state and federal funds, and creative state strategies. The Welfare Peer 

Technical Assistance Network, funded by HHS, was created to provide a 

variety of services and products to states, counties, localities, and 

community-based organizations that work with TANF recipients. 

‘Section 1110 of the Social Security Act. 

Page 11 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Many Adults on TANF Even though an increasing percentage of TANF recipients nationwide are 

Are Not Employed, and combining welfare and work, most recipients are not engaged in work or 

work activities as defined by PRWORA. At least in part, this may be 

Many Have because many current recipients have characteristics that make it difficult, 

Characteristics That for them to work, according to data from national surveys and several 

Make It Difficult for 

Them to Work 

studies, as well as from officials in the six states we visited.g 

Characteristics that impede employment are fairly common among TANF 

recipients, although there are few data available to assess whether 

recipients with such characteristics represent a greater share of thtl 

caseload than previously. 

Over Half of Adults on To avoid financial penalties, states must ensure each year that at least a 

TANF Are Not Engaged in specified minimum percentage of adults receiving TANF are participating 

Work Activities, Including in work or work-related activities that count for federal participation rate 

Employment, That Count purposes. So far, all states have been able to meet the required minimum 

for Work Participation Rate 

work participation rate for their TANF caseload in general, in part because 

states receive credit for caseload declines, which reduces the required 

Purposes participation rate they must achieve.” In fiscal year 1999,42 percent of all 

TANF recipients were engaged in unsubsidized employment or participated 

for at least some hours in other work activities, such as job search, that 

count for federal participation rate purposes. However, not all participated 

for enough hours to have that activity count toward their state’s 

participation rate. 

The proportion of TANF recipients nationwide who were engaged in 

unsubsidized employment increased during the past few years. According 

to our analysis of HHS data, the percentage of recipients who were engaged 

in unsubsidized employment increased from 17 percent in fiscal year 1997 

‘See app. I for a description of how we identiiied these studies. 

‘“The required work rate is lowered by 1 percentage point for each percentage point drop in 

the caseload. States are required to meet a separate rate (90 percent) for two-parent 

families. Not all states have met this rate. 

Page 12 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
to 25 percent (or 400,000 recipients) in fiscal year 1999.” In each of the 

states that provided us with data on their caseload characteristics, fewer 

than half of the recipients who received TANF assistance during March 

2000 were employed at that time. The percentage of the caseload that was 

employed in each of these states in March 2000 ranged from just under 40 

percent in Connecticut, Washington, and Michigan; to 13 to 15 percent in 

Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New York; to 6 percent in Maryland.” 

In the last few years, the percentage of TANF recipients participating in 

work activities other than unsubsidized employment that, count for federal 

participation rate purposes has been quite small. Between fiscal years 1997 

and 1999, no more than 5 percent of the caseload each year participated in 

any one of the following activities: subsidized work experience, job search, 

or education-related activities. 

Many TANF Recipien 

Have Characteristics 

Can Make It Difficult -VT - Work 

.ts Studies have shown that having certain characteristics, such as poor health 

That or disability, no high school diploma, limited work experience, exposure to 

to domestic violence, substance abuse, and limited English proficiency, 

makes finding and keeping a job more difficult. Based on data from its 1997 

NSAF, the Urban Institute concluded that the greater the number of these 

characteristics a TANF recipient has, the less likely that recipient is to be 

engaged in work or work activities.13 The survey found that 88 percent of 

recipients who had none of these characteristics were working or engaging 

in work-related activities, compared to 59 percent of recipients with one of 

these characteristics and 27 percent of recipients with three or more (see 

“Percentages represent the average monthly number of families with at least one adult 

-. 

engaged in unsubsidized employment as a percentage of the number of families in the 

overall work rate, as defined by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). The 

families included in the overall work rates are all TANF families except (1) child-only cases 

and (2) families disregarded for one of the three reasons allowed under federal law: (a) have 

a child under age one; (b) are participating in the tribal work program; or (c) were 

sanctioned during the month but not for more than 3 of the past 12 months. 

‘“Some experts have speculated that this may be explained because states that have 

enforced work are likely to have experienced the greatest caseload decline and thus lower 

work levels on the rolls. Data were reported by states and may not be consistent across 

states. 

‘“NSAF is an ongoing, nationally representative survey of the noninstitutionalized, civilian 

population of persons under age 65 in the nation aa a whole conducted by the Urban 

Institute. 

Page 13 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
fig. 1).14 Officials in all six of the states we visited agreed that recipients 

with one or more work-impeding characteristics find it hardest to 

successfully enter the workforce-and are often referred to as hard-toemploy recipients. However, states have found that while having these 

characteristics makes employment difficult, it does not make employment 

impossible. Some recipients who have characteristics that make it difficult, 

to work do, in fact, find jobs. 

14The Urban Institute analysis counted only those characteristics shown to significantly 

depress work activity as obstacles to employment: education less than high school, last 

worked 3 or more years ago, child under age 1, either very poor mental health or health 

condition that limits work, caring for a disabled child, and limited English. NSAF did noi 

collect data on domestic violence or substance abuse. 

Page 14 GAO-01468 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Figure 1: TANF Recipients Engaged in Work or Work Activities, by Number of 

Obstacles to Employment, 1997 

Percentage 

100 -- ____- ___- --.-_ 

60 

0 

Number of Obstacles 

Source: 1997 NSAF, The Urban Institute. 

Studies have found that a considerable percentage of TANF recipients have 

characteristics that make it difficult for them to work. Table 2 identifies the 

range of estimates a number of studies provide on the prevalence of some 

of these characteristics in the welfare population. For example, estimates 

from the studies reviewed of the proportion of the welfare caseload with 

health problems or disability range from 20 to 40 percent, and the 

proportion of the caseload with no high school diploma from 30 to 45 

percent. 

Page 16 GAO-01-363 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Table 2: Prevalence of Selected Characteristics Among TANF Recipients Based on 

Selected Studies 

Characteristic 

Health problems or 

disabilities 

Lack of high school 

diploma 

Estimated range of TANF -- Number of selected 

recipients with characteristic studies measuring this 

(percent) characteristic 

----_- 

20-40 12 

- __ ---___-. 

30-45 a 

Current domestic violence 1 O-30 7 

_-._-. 

Lack of job skills 20-30 3 

--. 

Substance abuse 3-12 a 

English as a second 

language 7-13 4 

-___- -.--__.- 

Multiple barriers 44-64 5 

Note: Studies were conducted between 1997 and 1999. The estimates provided by each study are not 

directly comparable to those from other studies because each study defines characteristics slightly 

differently and examines a different specific population. For example, when measuring the incidence of 

substance abuse, one study counted only recipients who self-reported seeking substance abuse 

treatment while another counted recipients who case managers believed needed to address 

substance abuse problems. Likewise, the scope of the studies varies; most cover only a single state or 

community while one is national in scope. Because of difficulties identifying and measuring these 

characteristics, these studies may understate the prevalence of these characteristics among TANF 

recipients. Nonetheless, together these studies give a rough indication of the prevalence of these 

characteristics among TANF recipients. 

Information from the states we visited is consistent with the studies’ data. 

Officials in the states we visited indicated that many recipients have poor 

mental or physical health, have substance abuse problems, or were victims 

of domestic violence. Some officials noted that the actual extent of these 

characteristics can be hard to determine because most states and localities 

rely on recipients to disclose this information about themselves to their 

case managers, which they are often reluctant to do. 

State and local officials in the six states we visited shared the opinion that a. 

larger proportion of the current caseload has difficulty obtaining 

employment in comparison to past caseloads, but none had data to 

demonstrate this. The small amount of data available to compare TANF 

caseloads over time does not show statistically significant changes in the 

characteristics of welfare recipients since welfare reform; however, these 

data do not include measures of many of the characteristics that impede 

employment. Officials in the states we visited reported that while caseloads 

fell rapidly between 1995 and 1999, the declines slowed between 1999 and 

Page 16 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
2000; they attributed this slowing to the changing composition of the 

caseload. They reported that new recipients who are the most job-ready 

leave the welfare rolls relatively quickly, leaving behind recipients who 

have greater difficulty obtaining and retaining jobs. Some officials not only 

believed that the caseload had become harder to employ, but also 

speculated that hard-to-employ TANF recipients are more visible now 

because, in the past, there was no incentive to determine whether 

recipients had characteristics that made them difficult to employ. 

Among the states we visited, only Washington had collected statewide data 

to determine whether its caseload had become harder to employ, and they 

are of limited use. The state measured changes between August 1997 and 

February 2000 in the percentages of recipients who had each of four 

characteristics it, found to limit a recipient’s employment: less than a high 

school education, limited English-speaking ability, a young child, and no 

recent work experience.15 While Washington found that the percentage of 

the caseload with the first three of these characteristics increased slightly 

over this period, the proportion of the caseload with no recent work 

experience and with two or more of these characteristics decreased. Data 

on key characteristics such as poor health, mental illness, substance abuse, 

exposure to domestic violence, poor basic work skills, or other 

characteristics that make it difficult to work were not available, so results 

from this study are limited. 

There are no national data available to track changes in many of the 

characteristics found to impede employment over time among welfare 

recipients.“j The CPS does measure characteristics such as age, race, 

marital status, citizenship status, school attendance, and educational 

achievement of welfare recipients nationwide, as well as their receipt of 

-~__ ----~. 

15Steve Lerch, Jim Mayfield, and Mason Burley, under contract for the Joint Legislative Audit 

and Review Committee. Evaluatig WorkFkst: Analyses of Cost-Effectiveness, Barriers to 

Employment, and Job Search Serxkes (Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for 

Public Policy, June 2000). 

“Data are beginning to become available on whether some of these characteristics have 

changed since reform. These data indicate that the incidence of these characteristics in the 

TANF population has not changed over time. See Sheila Zadlewski and Pamela Loprest, 

How Well Does TANFFYt the NeearS of the Most Disadvantaged Families?(lVashin@on, 1D.C: : 

The Urban Institute, Dec. 29,200O). 

Page 17 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
disability payments, but our analyses of these data show no significant 

changes since welfare reform.17 (See app. II for a list of these studies.) 

_____l---_--.- 

States Use Different 

Strategies to Help 

Every state we visited implemented a Work First approach that emphasizes 

employment over training and education to help TANF recipients obtain 

Hard-to-Employ TANF 

jobs; however, to varying degrees, all states have modified or enhanced 

th eir approach to better serve recipients for whom the Work First approach 

Recipients Get and 

Keep Jobs 

is not successful because they have characteristics that may impede 

employment. The states we visited differ markedly in their approach to 

identifying recipients who have these characteristics so that they can either 

be exempted from work requirements or provided with targeted programs 

and services that would help them obtain employment. Some states and 

localities require TANF recipients to look for a job and only offer enhanced 

services to those who are unsuccessful, while others begin by screening 

and assessing new applicants to identify those who have characteristics 

that might impede their ability to get a job. The strategies states use to 

assist those recipients identified as hard-to-employ also vary. Some of the 

states we visited have focused their efforts on improving and expanding 

case management, while others have programs and services targeted 

specifically to prepare hard-to-employ recipients for work. All six of the 

states we visited also refer recipients to programs run by non-TANF 

agencies and organizations that help recipients deal with specific problems 

such as substance abuse and mental illness that may affect their ability to 

get and keep a.job. 

The Six States We Visited Every state we visited implemented a TANF program that can be 

Have Adjusted Their Work characterized as Work First and, as a result, their TANF programs share a 

First Approach in Order to few common elements. All of the programs seek to move people from 

Serve Hard-to-Employ welfare into unsubsidized jobs as quickly as possible. Officials expressed 

Recipients 

the belief that the best way to succeed in the labor market is to join it, ant1 

the best setting in which to develop successful work habits and skills is on 

17The only statistically significant change in age was a decrease in the percentage of the 

caseload between the ages of 25 and 29, from 23 percent in 1996 to 16 percent in 2000. The 

JIHS Third Annual Report to Congress on TANF reports that, over the past decade, the 

proportion of the caseload made up of minorities and what they term “somewhat, older 

parents with somewhat older children” grew. The CPS data did not show statistically 

significant changes in these characteristics between 1996 and 2000. 

Page 18 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipient* 
the job.” PRWORA requires that all TANF recipients determined ready to 

work by the state either work or participate in a work activity as a 

condition for receiving benefits. Most recipients are referred directly to job 

search-an activity that involves looking for a job. Employment is 

presented as the goal of the TANF program for all recipients, and job 

search, rather than activities such as education and training, is considered 

the most expedient strategy for helping recipients, in general, obtain jobs. 

As their experience working with hard-to-employ recipients has grown, 

however, the states and localities we visited have concluded that the Work 

First approach is not effective in helping certain types of TANF recipients 

get and retain jobs. States have found that recipients who have certain 

characteristics that interfere with employment need more time and 

additional supports and services to adequately prepare for work. In 

response, all of the states we visited said that they had made changes to 

their TANF programs, but they differed markedly in the ways in which they 

had modified or enhanced their programs to better accommodate the needs 

of hard-to-employ recipients. 

The States We Visited Use 

Different Approaches to 

Identify Hard-to-Employ 

Recipients 

__-__ 

One of the key issues confronted by states and localities we visited in 

implementing strategies to meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients is 

identifying this population. The states and localities we visited use two 

distinct approaches. Some, such as Michigan and Butte County, California, 

require most recipients to look for employment, or “test the job market,” 

immediately after applying for assistance, and do only minimal initial 

screening to determine whether applicants should be exempt from work 

‘*A recent study by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC) reviews 20 

welfare-to-work programs and assesses the effectiveness of these programs at increasing 

the employment and earnings of single-parent welfare recipients. The study found that 

employment-focused welfare programs resulted in higher earnings for the most 

disadvantaged recipients than education-focused programs, but that programs with a mix of’ 

activities tended to help the broadest range of people. (Charles Michalopoulos, Christine 

Schwartz, and Diana Adams-Ciardullo, E7zat Works Best for ESom: Impacts of 20 WeLfarr~- 

to- Work Programs by Subgroup, MDRC, Aug. 2000.) 

Page 19 GAO-01-368 Bard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
requirements.‘g Only recipients who are unsuccessful in finding a job 

within a certain time period are reassessed and either exempted or referred 

to targeted services and programs to address work-impeding 

characteristics. Other states, including Connecticut and Maryland, reported 

that they screen and assess all new applicants. Based on this screening and 

assessment, some recipients are exempted from work requirements. Those 

who are not exempt but who have characteristics that impede employment 

can be referred for targeted services to prepare them for work. According 

to officials in the states we visited, this latter group represents a sizable 

share of their total TANF caseload. No one approach has been proven more 

effective than another for moving recipients who have characteristics that 

might impede employment into jobs. 

Some States and Localities Use Some of the states and localities we visited rely primarily on the job market 

the Job Market to Identify Hard- to identify recipients who have characteristics that impede employment. 

to-Employ Recipients Officials in these states pointed out that many such recipients nevertheless 

have successfully found and kept jobs through the usual Work First 

process. They stated that all recipients should have the opportunity to test 

the labor market before being referred for additional services. According to 

officials in these states, this approach has two distinct advantages: first, by 

allowing recipients to test the job market, the state does not prejudge or 

label recipients as hard-to-employ when they may, in fact, be able to obtain 

jobs; and second, this strategy sends a clear message that TANF is 

temporary and that employment is the immediate goal. 

The states and localities we visited that use the job market to identify hardto-employ recipients do some very limited up-front screening to identify 

recipients who clearly meet the exemption criteria, but send most new 

applicants directly to job search after they apply for TANF assistance. Case 

managers in Michigan, for example, ask a few questions during the 

application process to identify recipients who are clearly exempt from 

work requirements, such as those who are victims of domestic violence, 

but do not use a standardized questionnaire to screen new applicants. 

Recipients are not further assessed or referred to job preparation activities 

lgReasons for such exemptions vary by state, but often include the need to care for an infant 

or disabled child or adult, lack of child care, short- or long-term disability or incapacity, 

homelessness, or domestic violence. Because exempt TANF recipients continue to be 

subject to the 60-month limit on federal benefits, exemptions are intended to be temporary. 

However, exemptions can be and often are extended, according to the states. As a result, 

exempted TANF recipients can receive benefits for extended periods without participating 

in activities that will prepare them for employment. 

Page 20 GAO-01-363 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
other than job search unless they fail to find a job within 30 days. Similarly, 

in Butte County, California, recipients must look for a job for 4 weeks 

before they can be referred to job preparation activities beyond those that 

are part of the usual Work First process in that county. 

Some States Have Focused on Some of the states and localities we visited have developed strategies 

Identifying and Assessing the designed to identify hard-to-employ recipients soon after they apply for 

Needs of Hard-to-Employ TANF benefits so that they can be referred to appropriate programs before they 

Recipients attempt to find jobs. Officials from states and localities that use this 

approach argue that by identifying these recipients early, agencies can 

more appropriately focus resources and time on activities and services that 

hard-to-employ recipients need in order to become employed. Strategies 

ranged from conducting an in-depth assessment of every new applicant to 

developing a series of increasingly detailed assessments for recipients who 

cannot find employment quickly. Some of these programs are described 

below: 

l Each local TANF agency in Maryland has developed an assessment, 

instrument to identify hard-to-employ recipients soon after they apply 

for benefits. In Frederick County, a team of three trained cliniciansincluding a case manager, a child support enforcement worker, and a 

social worker-conduct a thorough assessment of each recipient soon 

after she submits an application. 

l The Washington TANF agency has developed a computerized 

questionnaire for screening all new applicants. Applicants are asked a 

series of general questions on more than a dozen topics ranging from 

child care and transportation to legal issues, domestic violence, and 

substance abuse, A response that indicates a possible problem in any 

area prompts the caseworker to ask a series of more detailed questions 

on that topic. Recipients found to be hard-to-employ are referred 

directly to programs and services that address their special needs or, if 

they are found to have what the state deems a major issue-such as 

family violence, some specific health problems, homelessness, 

substance abuse, or pregnancy-they are referred to an on-site social 

worker for a more in-depth assessment and referral to appropriate 

services. 

Page 21 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
-- 

The States We Visited 

Expanded Their Case 

Management for Hard-toEmploy TANF Recipients 

All of the states we visited have changed the way they manage TANF cases 

in order to better help recipients obtain and keep jobs. Unlike typical case 

management prior to welfare reform, which consisted primarily of 

determining eligibility, case management under TANF is an ongoing and 

multifaceted process. Staff interact with recipients, determine needs, 

establish goals, address characteristics that impede employment, and 

monitor compliance with program requirements. 

The states we visited took various approaches and emphases in structuring 

their case management process, not only in response to the changes in 

welfare policy and goals, but also to meet the needs of hard-to-employ 

TANF recipients. Some examples follow: 

l Washington has implemented a statewide case management process 

called case staffing. Case staffing consists of holding periodic meetings 

that involve every member of the staff who has any interaction with a 

recipient, including representatives from contractors and other agencies 

that provide services to TANF recipients. Staff members consider each 

recipient’s history, current activities, and employment plan, and whethel 

past activities have yielded desired results. The group then makes 

recommendations as to how the case manager should proceed with the 

recipient, such as referrals to other programs or alternative jobpreparation activities. 

l In addition t,o its general case management services, Connecticut uses 

intensive case management as a primary strategy for moving hard-toemploy recipients into the workforce. The state also provides intensive 

case management to recipients who are at risk of having a sanction 

imposed for not complying with program rules, or who have reached 

their lifetime limit on the TANF program. Intensive case management, 

services can include employee assistance programs for employers of 

TANF recipients. 

. In Grand Rapids, Michigan, the local TANF agency has stationed two 

case managers at a large company that employs TANF recipients to help 

hard-to-employ recipients retain their jobs. These on-site case managers 

serve as a resource for both employees and the employer, helping 

employees cope with crises that might otherwise cause them to lose 

their jobs, and intervening on behalf of the employer at the first sign of’ 

trouble. The company’s retention rate for current and former TANF 

recipients was 81 percent, as compared to only 33 percent for their nonTANF employees. Company officials directly attributed the higher 

retention rates to on-site case management and cooperation from the 

local TANF agency. 

Page 22 GAO-01-360 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
- 

Some States Have 

Developed Other Strategies 

Targeted to Hard-to-Employ 

Recipients 

Soft-Skills Training 

The states we visited have faced challenges in altering their case 

management to meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients. Officials and 

advocates for welfare recipients in Maryland told us that case managers, 

who for years served primarily as eligibility specialists, have had difficulty 

changing their focus to employment preparation and planning. This is 

especially true for those who continue to have responsibility for 

determining eligibility for food stamps and other means-tested programs. 

The difficulties case managers have encountered in learning new 

responsibilities have been exacerbated in areas where caseload reductions 

have been accompanied by disproportionate reductions in staff. Recipientto-case-manager ratios vary by state and locality. For example, in one 

locality in Florida, case managers had responsibility for as many as 400 

cases, while case managers in one Maryland county had responsibility for 

an average of 15 cases. State officials reported that in areas where case 

managers have large caseloads, they do not have the time to provide hardto-employ recipients with the extensive monitoring and referrals to 

additional programs and services they need. 

-- 

In addition to assessment and case management, several of the states and 

localities we visited have developed programs targeted specifically to 

prepare hard-to-employ recipients to enter the workforce. States that have 

developed targeted programs have emphasized short-term interventions 

with a strong employment focus that often involve several different 

activities to address specific problems a recipient may face. Some of these 

targeted programs are designed to provide hard-to-employ recipients with 

the skills they need to cope with crises and succeed at the workplace on a 

day-to-day basis. Other targeted programs offer recipients hands-on work 

experience in a structured, highly supervised, supportive environment. 

Some of the most innovative programs developed by TANF agencies in the 

states we visited were designed to help hard-to-employ recipients learn to 

cope with the multiple characteristics that make employment difficult. 

State officials reported that in many cases, the difficulties hard-to-employ 

recipients have in finding and keeping jobs stem from their inability to deal 

with these characteristics on an ongoing basis, rather than simply having 

the characteristics themselves. Officials in every state we visited told us 

that a recipient with low educational attainment can often obtain an 

unskilled job, particularly in a strong economy, but if she lacks the skills 

required to deal with situations such as a chronic health problem, a child 

with behavior problems, or a breakdown in child care or transportation 

arrangements, she is likely to miss work and lose the job. Similarly, one 

Page 23 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
official stated that a recipient may have the skills and abilities needed to 

function in a particular job, but if she does not know how to dress 

appropriately, conduct herself in an interview, or fill out a job application 

properly, she will not be able to get that job. In the six states we visited we 

encountered several examples of programs designed to provide recipients 

with the life skills needed to be successful in the workforce, often referred 

to as soft-skills training: 

In Baltimore County, Maryland, a private firm called Workforce 

Solutions is under contract to run a 12-week program for TANF 

recipients designed to address specific characteristics that may impede 

employment-such as low basic reading and math skills-while also 

providing participants with ways to cope with personality issues such as 

antisocial behavior and inappropriate responses to authority. 

In Broward County, Florida, a soft-skills program for long-term TANF 

recipients uses role-playing, simulated work activities, team-building 

exercises, and other techniques to help recipients change their attitude 

and feelings about work. The program focuses on helping recipients 

develop positive attitudes, coping skills, critical thinking, workplace 

ethics, and confidence. 

In Butte County, California, the TANF agency has coordinated with a 

nonprofit organization that manages a boutique that provides 

makeovers and professional clothing for interviewing and working. 

Recipients are also provided with necessities such as hosiery, 

undergarments, and shoes at no cost. 

Work Experience Programs A few of the states and localities we visited relied heavily on work 

experience activities to prepare hard-to-employ recipients to join the 

workforce.” Intensive, highly supervised, hands-on work experience 

allows recipients to experience a workplace environment first hand. 

However, most localities we visited rarely, if ever, referred recipients to 

these types of programs, in part because they felt that such programs were 

unnecessary in a strong economy with ample job opportunities. While a 

few of the work experience programs in the states we visited were very 

specialized and targeted to certain subgroups of hard-to-employ recipients 

such as immigrants with limited English skills, most served a broader range 

of hard-to-employ recipients. TANF worksite activities differ in who is 

2oAlso sometimes referred to as community service or work-site-based activities. 

Page 24 GAO-01-363 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
required to participate and in how much the activities mirror unsubsidized 

employment.‘l Some examples of work experience programs follow: 

l Community Rehabilitation Industries offers a targeted work-experience 

program to refugees in Los Angeles, California. The program is designed 

to provide hands-on experience at a manufacturing business and a range 

of supplemental services, including English as a Second Language (ESL) 

classes, sobriety support, parenting skills instruction, and basic skills 

remediation. These programs are provided at the work-site and 

participants are paid to attend. 

l Washington has a statewide internship and training program, called 

Community Jobs (CJ), that provides hard-to-employ recipients who 

have various work-impeding characteristics with 20 hours of paid work 

experience per week for up to 9 months. The program provides 

intensive case management to help participarlts cope with the demands 

of their work experience positions. The program also requires 

participants to enroll in a complementary work activity, such as basic 

education or substance abuse or mental health treatment, for an 

additional 20 hours per week. Program officials report that the number 

of CJ slots is insufficient to meet demand, primarily because the 

program does not have the funding to support more slots. 

State TANF Agencies We 

Visited Rely on Non-TANF 

Agencies and Organizations 

to Meet Some Needs of 

Hard-to-Employ Recipients 

All of the states we visited relied on non-TANF agencies and organizations 

to provide certain services, including those that address the characteristics 

that, according to state officials, impeded employment for recipients. 

Officials in every state we visited cited domestic violence, substance abuse, 

mental health problems, limited education, poor health, and having a 

disability as factors that affected a recipient’s ability to get and keep a job. 

Most states relied primarily on non-TANF government agencies and other 

community organizations with expertise and experience in providing 

services to address these problems rather than developing new programs 

specifically for TANF recipients. States used TANF as well as a variety of 

other funding sources to pay for these services, including funding from 

other federal, state, and private programs. Some examples include the 

following: 

2’See We,!h.re Reform: Work-Site&wed Activit3es Can Play an Imporhnt Role in TAVF 

Programs (GAO/HEIIS-00-122, July 28,200O). 

Page 26 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
l Domestic violence: The policy in every state we visit,ed is to refer 

victims of domestic violence to emergency housing and other services, 

including counseling and legal assistance, although in some locations 

officials reported that the availability of such services was limited. ln 

most cases, these services are provided by nonprofit organizations, 

public health agencies, and privately funded legal assistance programs. 

l Low educational attainmenU’limited English proficiency: All of the states 

we visited had policies to refer recipients to adult basic education, ESL 

courses, and high school equivalency programs offered by local school 

districts, community adult education programs, colleges and 

universities, or nonprofit organizations. 

l Poor health/disability: Most of the states we visited had policies to refer 

recipients with physical or mental impairments that might make them 

eligible for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, for 

assistance in applying for SSI benefits.22 In Maryland, the TANF agency 

contracts with an agency to provide services through their Disability 

Entitlement Advocacy Program to help disabled recipients of cash 

assistance apply for, qualify for and receive SSI. In addition, all states 

referred disabled recipients to vocational rehabilitation services. 

~- ----- 

Some State Decisions In the states we visited, decisions about collecting and analyzing data on 

Have Made It More caseload characteristics, setting time limits shorter than 60 months, and 

Challenging to Help 

limiting work and work-preparation activities to those that count toward 

federal work participation requirements have increased the challenge of 

Hard-to-Employ TANF moving hard-to-employ TANF recipients into the workforce. Few states 

Recipients Enter the 

Workforce 

compile and analyze data on those characteristics that make recipients 

hard to employ, making it difficult for them to estimate the number of 

recipients likely to reach their 60-month limit on federal benefits, and to 

develop strategies to help them become employed before their federally 

funded benefits run out. In addition, as a group, hard-to-employ recipients 

may need more time to be integrated into the workforce; time limits shorter 

than 60 months may decrease the likelihood that they will acquire the skills 

they need for work before their assistance ends. Finally, some states tend 

to place recipients only in work and work-preparation activities that count 

when calculating federal work participation rates. This may prevent hard- 

%SI is a federal income assistance program administered by the Social Security 

Administration designed to provide aged, blind, and disabled people who have little or no 

income with cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter. 

Page 26 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
to-employ recipients from participating in other activities that may better 

prepare them for employment. 

Few of t.he States We Visited Because states have not compiled statewide data on the characteristics of 

Collect the Data They Need their TANF recipients and do not have the systems to analyze data that the 

for Planning and Monitoring localities collect, the states face challenges in developing programs tailored 

Programs for Hard-to- to the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients and assuring that all hard-toEmploy Recipients 

employ recipients have access to such programs Although ACF has 

annually sponsored conferences on evaluating welfare reform since 1998, 

at the time of our site visits, none of the six states we visited had sufficient, 

data to allow them to identify the share of their caseload that is hard-toemploy. Of the nine states we asked for data on the number of adult TANF 

recipients with learning disabilities, substance abuse issues, exposure to 

domestic violence, other mental or psychological conditions, limited 

English proficiency, physical impairment, poor physical health, 

developmental disabilities, and criminal history-characteristics that 

impede employment-only two provided statewide data on some of these 

characteristics. Most states reported that these data were not available. 

States could not provide these data, in part, because they are not required 

to collect them, and because identification of such characteristics is 

inherently difficult. In addition, widely accepted screening and assessment 

tools that can be used to determine the presence of those characteristics 

are lacking. State officials also indicated that they lack the computer 

systems necessary to aggregate and analyze such data for managing their 

caseloads as a whole. 

PRWORA requires states to collect and report specific caseload 

information such as marital status, citizenship, and ages of family members 

to HHS on a quarterly basis, but states also have the flexibility to collect 

any additional data they deem necessary to manage their TANF programs. 

Only two of the states we visited -Connecticut and Washington-had 

begun to use this flexibility to systematically collect statewide data that 

would enable them to identify recipients with characteristics that make 

them hard-to-employ. As we noted earlier, Washington and Connecticut 

each developed a standardized screening instrument to identify applicants 

with characteristics-such as low literacy, limited English proficiency, and 

learning disabilities, as well as mental health, substance abuse, domestic 

violence, and physical health problems-that may interfere with 

employment. However, they have been collecting these data only since July 

Page 27 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
and August 2000, respectively. 23 Other states do some screening of 

applicants, but screening tools may vary by locality within the states, as in 

California, Florida, and Maryland; or may consist of just a few basic 

questions on the TANF application, as in Michigan. Even where states 

identified hard-to-employ recipients, they did not necessarily have this 

information in databases that allowed states and localities to use it to 

manage their caseloads. 

Some of the reasons states gave for not identifying applicants with 

characteristics that could interfere with employment included the lack of 

widely accepted screening and assessment tools, difficulties in eliciting 

information from recipients, and a lack of skills among case managers in 

conducting screenings and assessments. 24 The few states and localities that 

had questionnaires available to screen all new applicants, including 

Washington, Connecticut, and counties in Maryland and California, had 

developed the screening tools themselves, in part because they were 

unable to identify existing screening tools. Even among those states and 

localities that used screening and assessment tools, however, case 

managers faced a myriad of obstacles in identifying recipients who have 

characteristics that impede employment. For example, state and local 

officials reported that recipients are sometimes reluctant to reveal certain 

characteristics, such as substance abuse or domestic violence, because 

they fear losing custody of their children or triggering reprisals from the 

abuser. Cultural issues and privacy concerns can also prevent recipients 

from sharing information with case managers. Also, some recipients may 

be unaware that they have specific problems or may be in denial regarding 

the problems. Furthermore, some case managers may hesitate to ask about, 

recipients’ physical limitations for fear of violating the Americans with 

Disabilities Act.25 Case managers may also have concerns about privacy 

and confidentiality and about the impact of labeling recipients as hard-toemploy before they have had a chance to prove themselves as job-ready. 

-__._ 

BWashington alsoscreens for a number of other issues that may impede a recipient’s ability 

to get and keep a job, ranging ITom homelessness to legal problems. 

%ther efforts to identify people with these characteristics, for example in the NSAF and 

other smaller-scale studies, have faced similar difficulties. As a result, some believe these 

studies understate the true prevalence of these characteristics. 

‘“Section 102 of the act bars u. . . inquiries of a job applicant aa to whether such applicant is 

an individual with a disability or a.s to the nature or severity of such disability. .” except for 

u 

. preemployment inquiries into the ability of an applicant to perform job-related 

functions.” 

Page 28 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Such difficulties are especially challenging for case managers not trained in 

screening and assessing TANF recipients. Few of the states we visited 

provided training to case managers in how to use screening tools or 

identify recipients who have characteristics that could impede 

employment. 

HHS and other federal agencies have initiatives under way to either 

develop tools or evaluate available screening and assessment tools. ACF at 

HHS contracted with the Urban Institute to conduct a study of existing 

screening and assessment tools. The final report for this study is scheduled 

to be completed in 2001, but a preliminary report confirms that there are 

few existing screening tools for TANF programs to draw upon. HHS is also 

collaborating with the Departments of Labor and Education to develop a 

publication on screening tools to identify persons with disabilities. HHS 

also funded publication of guides, published in July 2000, on screening 

TANF recipients for mental illness and substance abuse.“j However, HHS 

has done little so far to encourage state efforts to compile data that identify 

hard-to-employ recipients, or can be used to estimate the number of TANF 

recipients who will reach their 60-month limit before joining the workforce. 

Officials in the states we visited reported that states and localities not only 

lack data but also lack computer systems sophisticated enough to process 

statewide data on caseload characteristics. These fmdings are consistent 

with our recent study on TANF information systems, which reported that 

10 of 15 localities surveyed indicated that their automated systems provide 

about half or less of the information needed for case management.27 Eight, 

of 15 states and only 6 of 15 localities reported that their systems provided 

all or most of the data needed for service planning. 

The lack of comprehensive caseload data and adequate computer systems 

has made it difficult for states to make plans for recipients likely to reach 

their tune limits. Not all of the states we visited have conducted analyses to 

determine how many would likely reach their time limits, the 

_-__. 

2”See Adciressing Mental Health Problems Among TANFRecipen&TA Guide for-h-ogram 

Ao!mhistrators; and Adohssing Substance Abuse Problems Among TANFRecipients: A 

Guide for Program Administrators. Reports prepared by Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., 

for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and 

Families (Washington, D.C.: July 2000). 

27 WeEue Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires Coordinated Federal Effort 

(GAO/HEHS-0048, Apr. 27,ZOOO). 

Page 29 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
characteristics of those most likely to reach their time limits, or the impact 

of various strategies to deal with those who have reached their time limits. 

HHS is doing little to encourage states to collect and analyze data on the 

characteristics of TANF recipients likely to reach their time limits. 

PRWORA provides states with several strategies to dea.l with recipients 

who reach their time limits. States are able to exempt recipients from the 

60-month limit on federal assistance in cases that involve hardship or 

domestic violence. It is up to each state to define hardship, and states can 

extend this exemption to no more than 20 percent of their TANF caseload. 

All the states we visited plan to exercise this option, but none had decided 

what criteria (other than domestic violence) they would use to determine 

who would qualify for this exemption. 

However, based on their analysis of statewide data, both Washington and 

Maryland have concluded that, at some point, this exemption will not allow 

them to extend benefits to all qualified recipients who reach their 60-month 

limit. This is because, as the caseload continues to fall, the number the 

state can provide with extended benefits (20 percent of the caseload) will 

also fall. Meanwhile, each month more recipients will reach their time 

limits. Analyses conducted in Washington and Maryland indicate that, at 

some point, even families facing severe hardship will have their federal 

benefits terminated because they cannot be served under the current 20- 

percent hardship exemption policy. Officials in all of the states we visited 

told us that they had not yet estimated the cost of other strategies, such as 

continuing benefits to all recipients who reach their time limits using state 

funds, or providing federal assistance to such families through subsidized 

employment programs. 

Inadequate data management information systems have also made it 

difficult for states to develop mechanisms for holding local public and 

private service providers accountable for delivering needed services to 

hard-to-employ recipients. Advocates for welfare recipients in five of the 

states we visited noted that hard-to-employ recipients with similar 

characteristics could receive vastly different services depending on their 

case manager, local TANF office, or program provider. Advocates in 

Maryland and Florida reported that recipients in some localities have 

access to a wide range of programs and services tailored to meet their 

needs, whereas such specialized programs are not provided in other 

localities. For example, Baltimore County, Maryland, contracts with a 

number of service providers to deliver specialized work preparation 

programs, while recipients in the city of Baltimore have little access to 

such programs. In Maryland, as in other states, few mechanisms are in 

Page 30 GAO-Ol-36& Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
place to ensure that recipients throughout the state are treated uniformly 

or to ensure that recipients receive the assistance they need to get jobs. 

Time Limits Shorter Than 60 

Months Could Make It More 

Difficult for Hard-to-Employ 

Recipients to Enter the 

Workforce Before Their 

Federal Benefits End 

Officials in all six of the states we visited said that they expect at least some 

of their hard-to-employ recipients to reach their time limits before they are 

able to develop the skills to enter sustained employment, particularly those 

who have multiple characteristics that make employment difficult. States 

that have adopted time limits of shorter than 60 months have already seen 

some recipients reach their time limits without being prepared for longterm employment.“’ 

Connecticut, the state with the shortest time limit of the six states we 

visited-21 months-has found that hard-to-employ recipients cannot 

address all of the characteristics that impede employment by the time their 

benefits are terminated.” The state has developed an alternative safety net, 

program in order to provide services and support to recipients who are not. 

employed when they reach the time limit. In addition, a large share of those 

who are still receiving TANF benefits at 21 months have their benefits 

extended. In April 2000,39 percent of Connecticut’s caseload had had their 

time limits extended. 

At least one state, Florida, has adjusted its time limits to account for the 

challenges faced by hard-to-employ recipients. In that state, most 

recipients face a time limit of 24 months (out of any given 60-month 

period), but recipients who lack a high school diploma or have significant 

skill deficits have a time limit of 36 months (out of any 72-month period). 

Florida has a lifetime limit on benefits of 48 months, but will allow an 

additional 12 months of benefits in cases of hardship. 

---_. 

?3ates that impose a time limit shorter than 60 months are allowed;) provide extensions of 

cash benefits using federal funds for up to 60 months. 

29As mentioned earlier, Connecticut is operating under a waiver that allows it broad latitude 

in exempting recipients from work requirements and time limits. 

Page 31 GAO-01-368 Bard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
- --. 

Limiting Work Activities to Although the types of work activities that count when calculating states’ 

Those That Count for work participation rates are specified in PRWORA, states have the 

Federal Participation Rate flexibility to define allowable activities for the purpose of determining 

Purposes Makes It More continued eligibility for TANF assistance.3o Consequently, the activities that 

Difficult to Prepare Hard-tocount for federal participation rate purposes and those that allow TANF 

recipients to maintain their eligibility for assistance need not be the same. 

Employ TANF Recipients 

for Employment 

While some states we visited allow TANF recipients to maintain their 

eligibility for assistance by participating in activities that do not count 

toward the participation rate, others allow only the work activities that 

count. 

Michigan and Florida, for example, limit the work activities that enable 

TANF recipients to continue to receive assistance strictly to those that. 

count toward meeting work participation rate requirements3’ In these 

states, only TANF recipients who were exempted from participating in a 

work activity were referred to programs that are not considered work 

activities in calculating the federal participation rate. 

In contrast, other states we visited allow hard-to-employ recipients to 

maintain their eligibility for benefits by participating in programs and 

services that do not count for federal work participation rate purposes, 

such as soft-skills training and substance abuse treatment. However, 

officials in these states expressed concern that they might have difficulty 

continuing to meet work participation rate targets if their caseloads consist 

more predominantly of hard-to-employ recipients and as caseload 

reduction slows. In California and Maryland, for example, some counties 

offered soft-skills training to help TANF recipients obtain the basic time 

management, budgeting, and social skills necessary to maintain steady 

employment, a.ctivities that do not count for federal participation rate 

purposes. Connecticut considers substance abuse treatment, domestic 

violence counseling, and some adult education programs as work activities. 

‘“Work participation rates specified in PRWORA include subsidized and unsubsidized 

employment, work experience programs, on-the-job training, and community service. 1Jnder 

certain circumstances and within certain limits, job search, the provision of child care, and 

certain types of education and training may also be counted when calculating this rate. 

%chigan allows recipients to participate in a high school equivalency program for 10 

hours per week if 20 additional hours are spent working, in a work experience program, or 

in an on-the-job-training program. According to Michigan officials, this policy is more 

restrictive than federal policy related to countable work activities. At the tune of our sitct 

visit Florida was undergoing reorganization and state officials report that some education 

and substance abuse treatment are now allowed. 

Page 32 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Conclusions 

However, Connecticut officials stated that if the proportion of their 

caseload needing these services increases, they may have more difficulty 

meeting federally mandated participation rates since these activities are 

not counted when calculating the rates. 

HHS has several mechanisms to educate states about the broad latitude 

granted them in PRWORA. However, HHS has provided little guidance to 

states on the broad discretion they have to allow hard-to-employ TANF 

recipients to engage in work-preparation activities that, although not 

counted for federal participation rate purposes, may be best suited to 

recipients’ needs. 

.--_. 

Welfare reform led to major changes in state welfare policy and programs. 

Only now have states had enough experience with their TANF programs to 

begin to understand how well these programs are meeting ‘the needs of 

TANF recipients, particularly those with characteristics that suggest they 

might be hard to employ. States have found that, while some recipients 

with these characteristics are able to successfully enter the workforce, 

many need considerable time and support in order to become work-ready, 

including services and work-preparation activities that address their 

specific needs. As a result, some states have begun to implement, or are 

considering adopting, strategies specifically designed to help hard-toemploy recipients join the workforce. 

To be successful in moving hard-to-employ TANF recipients into the 

workforce within their 60-month time limit for federal benefits, states must, 

develop programs and provide work and work-preparation activities 

tailored to the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients and they must 

ensure that recipients with characteristics that impede employment have 

access to programs and activities that meet their needs. 

Some states believe 1) they would be better able to accomplish this if they ( 

had caseload data on the number and characteristics of hard-to-employ 

TANF recipients, particularly those who will reach their 60-month limit, 

before they are able to work; and (2) used a range of work and workpreparation activities that meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients, 

including activities that extend beyond those that meet federal work 

participation requirements. None of the states we visited, however, have 

systematically compiled this type of statewide caseload data, and some 

I states are reluctant to provide TANF recipients with many of the types of 

Page 33 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
work-preparation activities that do not count when calculating work 

participation rates. 

In addition, est,imates of the number and characteristics of TANF recipients 

likely to reach their 60-month time limit before they can become employed 

will allow states to determine which recipients could qualify for a hardship 

exemption, what services and supports will be needed by those who do not, 

and whether states will provide these services. However, not all of the 

states we visited have collected or analyzed data on the time it takes 

recipients to become job-ready in order to estimate the number of TANF 

recipients likely to exceed their 60-month time limit on benefits. 

HHS is supporting initiatives that will help states identify hard-to-employ 

recipients, but so far it has done little to help states systematically analyze 

these data so that they can be used to estimate the number of TANF 

recipients who will reach their 60-month limit before becoming employed. 

In addition, although HHS has several efforts under way to help states use 

the flexibility allowed under PRWORA, these efforts have not sufficiently 

resolved the confusion some states have expressed about how to use this 

flexibility to best serve the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients. Our 

work revealed some instances in which officials were unclear about how 

much discretion they have under PRWORA to allow them to provide workpreparation activities that do not count toward federal participation rates, 

even if these services were needed by hard-to-employ recipients. 

Recommendations 

-- --____- ---_--.- 

To help ensure that the states provide hard-to-employ TANF recipients with 

the services and support they need in order to become employed, and are 

able to manage TANF caseloads with substantial numbers of hard-toemploy recipients, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services and Assistant Secretary of ACF take the following actions: 

l promote research and provide guidance that would encourage and 

enable states to estimate the number and characteristics of hard-toemploy TAVF recipients, and identify recipients who will reach their 60 

month limit on benefits before they are able to work, and 

l expand the scope of guidance to states to help them use the flexibility 

PRWORA affords to provide appropriate work-preparation activities t,o 

hard-to-employ TANF recipients within the current TANF rules 

governing work participation rates and federally countable work 

activities. 

Page 34 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipient 
I I Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review. A copy of HHS’ 

response is in appendix III. We also incorporated technical comments we 

received from HHS, where appropriate. 

HHS took issue with both of our recommendations. Concerning our first 

recommendation-that HHS promote research and provide guidance that 

would encourage and enable states to estimate the number and 

characteristics of hard-to-employ TANF recipients, and identify recipients 

who will reach their 60-month limit on benefits before they are able to 

work-HHS said that this approach overemphasizes the importance of 

identifying hard-to-employ recipients through measurable characteristics. 

They stated that “research suggests that while measurable characteristics 

are helpful in making such predictions [of employability], they are 

imperfect predictors, since many people with presumed barriers to 

employment nevertheless work.” Yet, HHS appears to support the use of 

measurable characteristics through their ongoing activities to improve 

tools and methods to identify these characteristics. Moreover, researchers, 

state officials, and national experts report that these data are key to 

ensuring that appropriate services are provided to hard-to-employ 

recipients. We therefore continue to believe that HHS should promote 

research and provide guidance that would encourage and enable states to 

estimate the number and characteristics of hard-to-employ TANF 

recipients, and identify recipients who will reach their 60-month limit on 

benefits before they are able to work. 

With regard to our second recommendation-that HHS expand the scope 

of guidance to states to help them use the flexibility PRWORA affords to 

provide appropriate work-preparation activities to hard-to-employ TANF 

recipients within the current TANF rules governing work participation 

rates and federally countable work activities-HHS stated that they are 

already providing such guidance to the states and listed a number of 

initiatives in addition to those mentioned in this report. We agree with HHS 

that several of their initiatives appear to have the potential to better inform 

states of their flexibility under PRWORA. Notwithstanding these efforts, 

however, during our site visits we discovered that some states and 

localities did not understand the full range of flexibility they have under the 

law, which indicates to us that this information is not being thoroughly 

disseminated to states. As a result, we continue to recommend that HHS 

expand the scope of their guidance to states to include helping them use 

their flexibility to provide appropriate work-preparation activities to hardto-employ recipients within the current TANF rules. 

Page 36 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
--- ___.. .- 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Tommy G. 

Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services; appropriate 

congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also make 

copies available to others on request. 

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me on 

(202) 512-7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed 

in appendix IV. 

Cynthia M. Fagnoni 

Managing Director, Education, Workforce, 

and Income Security Issues 

Page 36 GAO-01..368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipient 
Page 37 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

We designed our study to provide information on (1) the participation of 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients in work and 

work activities, the characteristics of TANF recipients, and how those 

characteristics have changed over time; (2) the strategies states are using 

to help hard-to-employ TANF recipients get and keep jobs; and (3) the 

challenges states face in planning and implementing programs for hard-to.- 

employ recipients. In doing our work, we analyzed national-level survey 

and administrative data, collected supplemental data on caseload 

characteristics from nine states, and conducted site visits at the state and 

local levels in six of these states. We also reviewed the results of several 

existing studies conducted in individual states and localities and conducted 

interviews with numerous experts on welfare reform and with advocates of 

welfare recipients. 

We provided a draft of this report to officials in the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) and the six states we visited for their review. 

We conducted our work from November 1999 to January 2001 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

National-Level Data To obtain information on the characteristics and composition of the adults 

in TANF families, we analyzed data from the 1996, 1998, and 2000 Current, 

Population Survey Annual Demographic Surveys (March CPS Supplement).. 

In consultation with Census officials and welfare reform experts, we 

determined that this was the only source of national data on TANF 

recipients currently available that included comparable information from 

the time of welfare reform to the present. Other potential data sources we 

pursued included the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the Survtby 

of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the National Longitudinal 

Survey of Youth (NLSY), the National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF), 

and the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD).’ Our statistical analyses of the 

CPS data included frequency tables, cross-tabulations, and chi-square tests 

of significance. All of the relationships we have reported using the CPS 

data analyzed were significant at the p c .05 level. 

‘Sponsors of these surveys are as follows: PSID is conducted at the Survey Research Center 

Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan; SIPP and SPD are sponsored by the 

U.S. Census Bureau; NLSY is sponsored and directed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, IJ.S 

Apartment of Labor, with funding from a variety of other agencies; NSAF is directed by the 

Urban Institute. 

Page 33 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipient! 
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

We also obtained state administrative data on TANF recipients’ 

participation in federally allowable work activities from ACF 

State-Level Data 

-- - 

To supplement the national data on recipient characteristics, we requested 

data on TANF caseload characteristics since 1995 from nine statesCalifornia, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, 

Washington, and Wisconsin-that were home to nearly half of the nation’s 

TANF families in 2000. Because no state was able to provide all of the 

information we requested, we could conduct only limited analyses with 

these data. 

Review of Existing 

Research 

-- - 

To obtain further information on the characteristics of TANF recipients and 

on state strategies for helping hard-to-employ recipients, we reviewed 

numerous studies that contained this information. To identify the relevant 

studies we searched several on-line bibliographic databases.’ We requested 

information from individuals on Internet mailing lists administered by the 

Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Association for Public Policy 

Analysis and Management. We also consulted with experts on welfare 

issues, including officials at the Department of Health and Human Services 

and members of GAO’s Welfare Reform Advisory Committee, to identify 

other studies we should consider. 

Data from surveys of TANF recipients were incorporated into our report 

only if the survey had obtained data on at least 70 percent of the sample of 

families for which it sought such data, or if a nonresponse analysis of the 

data showed that there were no important differences between families 

represented in the data and those missing. Appendix II contains a list of 

these studies. Except for this assessment, we did not independently verify 

the data included in the studies. 

---- 

State Site Visits 

---- 

To obtain information about each assignment objective, we interviewed 

officials in state welfare departments in six of the nine states from which 

we collected data, as well as officials in at least two local sites in each of 

--. 

ZABI/Inform, Business & Industry, Business A.R.T., Wilson Business Abstracts Fulltext, 

Accounting + Tax Database, Wilson Social Science Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Social 

SciSearch, NTIS, Dissertation Abstracts, ECONLIT, ERIC, Statistical Universe, and the 

Welfare Information Network. 

Page 39 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

these states. Our site visit states were California, Connecticut, Florida, 

Maryland, Mic.higan, and Washington. In selecting the six states for our in-- 

depth fieldwork, we sought to include states that represented a variety of 

approaches to moving hard-to-employ recipients into the workforce and 

that varied in t,erms of region, population size, degree of caseload decline, 

and time of initial welfare reform, and in whether the TANF program was 

administered at the state or county level. The local sites were chosen by t,he 

state-level officials. The TANF families in our six site visit states made up 

33 percent of the national TANF caseload in June 2000. 

During our site visits, we spoke with state and local TANF program 

administrators, data officers, program analysts, case managers and 

supervisors, child support officers, Welfare-to-Work liaisons, and private 

contractors; and with representatives of partnering agencies such as public 

health departments, departments of labor, departments of vocational 

rehabilitation, community colleges, and others. The state and local 

interviews were administered using a semistructured interview guide that 

we developed through a review of relevant literature and discussions with 

recognized experts on welfare reform. 

Some limitations exist in any methodology that gathers information about 

programs undergoing rapid change, such as welfare reform. Results 

presented in our report represent only the conditions present in the states 

and localities we visited at the time of our site visits, between March and 

July 2000. We cannot comment on any changes that may have occurred 

after our fieldwork. Furthermore, our fieldwork focused on in-depth 

analysis of a few selected states and localities. We cannot generalize our 

findings beyond the six states we visited and their localities. 

-.- 

Table 3: State and Local Site Visits 

States Local sites 

California Los Angeles County, San Diego County, Butte County 

Connecticut Eastern and Southeastern Region, New Britain Regional Office 

Florida Dade Countv. Monroe Countv, Hillsborounh Countv 

Marviand Baltimore Countv. Frederick Countv 

Michigan Wayne County, Kent County 

Washington Bellevue, Lynnwood 

Page 40 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Interviews With Welfare 

Experts and Advocates 

--- 

In developing the scope and methodology we would use to address our 

assignment objectives, we consulted with welfare reform experts from 

HHS, the Department of Labor, the Bureau of the Census, the Urban 

Institute, Mathematics, the National Governors’ Association, the American 

Public Human Services Association, and GAO’s Welfare Reform Advisory 

Committee. Following our site visits, we conducted phone interviews with 

advocates for welfare recipients nationally and in each of the six states in 

an effort to ensure that our understanding of and reporting on the states’ 

caseloads and strategies were accurate and objective.3 

-- 

% Washington state, the advocates we interviewed were Columbia Legal Services, Welfare 

Rights Organizin g Coalition, Fremont Public Association, Children’s Alliance, Washington 

Welfare Reform Coalition, and National Council of Jewish Women. In the other states, the 

advocates we interviewed were Center for Law and Social Policy (National); AIliance for 

Children and Families (National); Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles; Legal Assistance 

Resource Center of Connecticut; Florida Legal Services, Inc.; FIP Legal Clinic (Maryland); 

and Michigan League for Human Services. 

Page 41 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix II 

Selected Studies Providing Data on the 

Characteristics of TANF Recipients 

Born, Catherine, and others. Life On Welfare: Who Ge,?sAssistance 1X 

Months hzto nefom?Baltimore, Md.: University of Maryland School of 

Social Work, Nov. 1998. 

Building Bridges: States Respond to Substance Abuse and Weh%re Reform. 

Published by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at 

Columbia University (CASA) and the American Public Human Services 

Association (APHSA), Aug. 1999. 

Can&n, Maria, and others. Before and After TNI? The Economic We& 

Being of Woznen Leaving Welfare. Madison. Wise.: Institute for Research on 

Poverty, University of Wisconsin -Madison, Dec. 1999. 

Danziger, Sandra, and others. Barriers to the Employment of WeffZe 

Recipients. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Poverty Research 

Center and Training Center, Apr. 1999. 

Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida. 

Leaving the Welfare RoLls: The Health and Mental Health Issues of &went 

and Fozmer WeuBre Recipients. Tampa, Fla.: Florida Agency for Healthcare 

Administration, undated. 

Domestic Kolence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among 

WeiZwe Recipients. GAOHEHS-99-12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Nov. 1998. 

Fogarty, Debra, and Shon Kraley. A Study of W~hzYngton State TANF 

Leavers and TmFRecipients: fitigs From Admin.z&trative Data and the 

Telephone Survey Olympia, Wash.: Office of Planning and Research, 

Economic Services Administration, Department of Social and Health 

Services, Mar. 2000. 

Johnson, Amy, and Alicia Meckstroth. An&!&y Support Services to 

Support We&u-e to Work Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., under 

contract with the U.S. Department of Health <and Human Services. 

Washington, D.C.: June 1998. 

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/Summary.html. 

Kirby, Gretchen, and others. l&egratingAlcoholand.Drug 7Yeatznentinto a 

Work-Ozitw ted Welfare Program: Lessons From Oregon. Washington, D c’ .I 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., June 1999. 

Page 42 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix II 

Selected Studies Providing Data on the 

Characteristics of TANF Recipients 

Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski. Current and Former Welfare 

Recipients: HowDo TheyDiYe~?Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 

Nov. 1999. 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc. How W7?NJ C’en& Are Faring Under 

Welfare Reform: Arj EarlyLook Work First New Jersey Evaluation. State of 

New Jersey Department of Human Services, Oct. 1999. 

Risler, Ed, and others. The Remaining TANFReciyiem3: A Research Based 

I?t-of?Ie. The Georgia Welfare Reform Research Project. Report to the 

Director of the Division of Family and Children Services. Atlanta, Ga.: 

Department of Human Resources, State of Georgia, Dec. 1999. 

Sweeney, Eileen. Recent Studies bm!icate That Many Parents Who Are 

Current or Former Welfare Recipients Have Disabilities and Other Medical 

Conditions, Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policp Priorities, Feb. 

2000. 

Women on Weh%re: A Study of the florida Work and Gain Economic Se& 

SulZciencyPopulation. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of Children & 

Families, May 1999. 

Zedlewski, Sheila. Work-ReIated Activities and Limitations of Current 

Welfare Recipients Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, July 1999. 

Page 43 GAO-Oi-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Amendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

--... 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES 

w 272mi 

Office of Inspector General 

Washington. D.C. 20201 

Ms. Cynthia M. Fagnoni 

Managing Director 

Education, Workforce, and 

Income Security Issues 

United States General 

Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Dear Ms. Fagnoni: 

Enclosed are the Department's comments on your draft report, 

"Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the 

Workforce." The comments represent the tentative position of the 

Department and are subject to reevaluation when the final version 

of this report is received. 

The Department also provided extensive technical comments 

directly to yc)ur staff. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this 

draft report before its publication. 

Sincerely, 

Michael F. Mangano 

Acting Inspector General 

Enclosure 

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the 

Department's response to this draft report in our capacity as 

the Department's designated focal point and coordinator for 

General Accounting Office reports. 

an independent assessment of these comments and therefore 

Page 44 GAO-01368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

COMMENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ON THE 

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE’S DRAFT REPORT “WELFARE REFORM: MOVING 

HARD-TO-EMPLOY REClPIENTS INTO THE WORKFORCE” (GAO-01-3681 

The Department of Health and Human Services (Department) appreciates the opportunity to 

comment on this draft report, which addresses an important topic. Because of provisions in the 

Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), such as 

time limits and work requirements, it is important that States learn how to identify and serve 

hard-to-employ recipients. The PRWORA gives States broad flexibility in developing 

approaches to help recipients enter and sustain employment. The Department has actively 

supported States in using the flexibility afforded by the PRWORA to develop efrective services 

for recipients at risk of reaching their time limit through guidance, technical assistance, 

facilitating communication among States, and research. 

The PRWORA replaced the Aid to Farmlies with Dependent Children entitlement program with 

the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. Under TANF, most 

recipients are limited to 5 years of federally-funded cash assistance. It is :mportant that 

recipients be able to support themselves and their children before they reach their tnne limit. 

Indeed, the PRWORA promotes independence by establishing requirements for adult recipients 

to work or participate in work-related activities (such as job search or community service) while 

they are receiving benefits. While many families become independent after receiving TANF 

benefits for a relatively short time, other families continue to receive benefits for years and run 

the risk of reaching the Federal 60-month time limit without being prepared for independence. 

Since the passage of PRWORA in 1996, the welfare caseload has declined dramatically. The 

number ofrecipients on welfare nationwide fell from 12,241,OOO recipients in August 1996 to 

5,781,OOO recipients in December 1999. This decline of over 50 percent reflects the statutory 

change in policy, a strong economy, and State efforts to help recipients become independent. As 

the welfare case load has declined, policymakers and program administrators have increasingly 

focused on recipients who are considered hard-to-employ and are at risk of reaching the Federal 

time limit. Many policymakers and program administrators believe that those who are more jobready have left the rolls, leavmg behind recipients who face barriers to employment. Although 

existing evidence does not show a trend toward a case load increasingly populated by recipients 

with identified barriers to employment, it is nevertheless essential to idenrify and serve recipients 

who may have difficulty entering employment and who are at risk of reaching the Federal time 

limit. 

The Department’s support for State efforts to develop effective services for hard-to-employ 

recipients includes guidance, technical assistance, facilitating communication among States, and 

research. For example, the Department has sponsored numerous conferences for State officials, 

and has undertaken activities in partnership with the National Governors’ Association and the 

Departments of Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation and Education focused 

on assisting recipients in ovcrconung barriers to entering and sustaining employment. The 

Department’s Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Peer Technical Assistance 

mechanism convenes State and local stake holders so they can teach others. The AC’F also has a 

Page 45 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

Peer Technical Assistance web site offering a variety of resources related to serving those who 

are hard-to-employ. The Department is conducting an evaluation of State and local community 

efforts to promote employment for the hard-to-employ recipients of TANF and noncustodial 

parents under the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Welfare-to-Work grants program. The 

Department is also evaluating programs in several States to promote retention and advancement 

in employment for current, former, and potential TANF recipients. Three programs have an 

explicit focus on hard-to-employ persons. The Department has undertaken a project on screening 

and assessment (mentioned in GAO’s report) that plans for three regional conferences for State 

officials. A forthcoming paper includes an appendix documenting many screening tools used by 

States. This project and others address questions such as which screening tools are most accurate, 

how to administer these tools, and how to ensure that TANF recipients effectively respond to the 

tools. These and other Department activities to assist and inform State efforts to help hard-toemploy persons enter the work force are described in more detail below. 

General Comments 

The Department does not believe that GAO’s report is consistent regarding the value of 

measurable characteristics of recipients as predictors of barriers to entering and sustaining 

employment. The report does note that measurable characteristics are only imperfect predictors, 

and that many States have chosen to rely on observing difficulties in employment or the receipt 

of long-term welfare as means of identifying hard-to-employ persons. In addition, the report 

notes the practical difficulties in assessing certain characteristics, for example, when recipients 

are reluctant to disclose information about sensitive topics such as substance abuse or domestic 

violence or when specialized training may be needed to assess characteristics such as learning 

disabilities. However, the report also emphasizes measurable characteristics. On balance, we 

believe this report’s emphasis on the value of measurable characteristics is not supported by the 

research evidence presented. Most importantly, we believe the report’s first recommendation 

does not take into account the problems in using measurable characteristics as predictors, and 

seems to suggest that better measurement of characteristics impeding employment is the best 

approach to serving hard-to-employ recipients. 

GAO Recommendation 

To help ensure that the states meet hard-to-employ TANF recipients’ need for services and 

support in order to become employable, and are able to manage TANF caseloads with substantial 

numbers of hard-to-employ recipients, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services and Assistant Secretary of ACF: 

l promote research and provide guidance that would encourage and enable states to estimate 

the number of hard-to-employ TANF recipients, their characteristics, and who will reach 

their 60-month limit on benefits before they are able to work, and 

Deuartment Comment 

We believe this recommendation overemphasizes the importance of identifying hard-to-employ 

recipients through measurable characteristics, and estimating their numbers. As the report notes, 

Page 46 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

many States have chosen to focus on recipients who are approaching the Federal titne limit, or 

who have demonstrated difficulties in entering or sustaining employment, rather than investing 

heavdy in predicting in advance which recipients will have difficulty. Research suggests that 

while measurable characteristics are helpful in making such predictions, they are imperfect 

predictors, since many people with presumed barriers to employment nevertheless work. In 

addition, there are many practical difficulties in measuring barriers, such as recipients’ reluctance 

to disclose highly persona1 information. The Department’s ongoing activities seek both to 

improve tools and methods for assessing employment barriers and to assist States in developing 

other strategies for identifying hard-to-employ recipients and helping these recipients move into 

the work force. 

GAO Recommendation 

c 

l expand the scope of their guidance to states to include helping them use the flexrbility 

PRWORA affords to provide appropriate work-preparation activities to hard-to-employ 

TANF recipients within the current TANF rules governing work participation rates and 

federally countable work activities. 

Department Comment 

We believe the Department’s ongoing activities already fulfill this recommendation. The 

Department has already issued relevant guidance and continues to provide extensive technical 

assistance to States in identifying and serving hard-to-employ recipients. 

The report implies that the Department has done very little in the way of technical assistance or 

research to help inform States decisions on serving hard-to-employ recipients. However, the 

Department has engaged in a multifaceted technical assistance approach that has expanded each 

year. Because of devolution of decision-making to the States and extensive use of partnerships 

and contracting, we have provided technical assistance to a broad array ofTANF stake holders. 

In addition, the Department has initiated and continues a broad program of research that will 

inform questions, such as the changing composition of the welfare case load, how best to identify 

hard-to-employ recipients, and how best to serve them. Examples of technical assistance and 

research initiatives include: 

l A series of three roundtables co-sponsored with the National Governors’ Association. The 

roundtables were designed to bring together State decision-makers to disseminate 

information on strategies to create an integrated service delivery system between TANF and 

the DOL’s Workforce Investment Act (WIA) programs for clients with barriers to 

employment (substance abuse and mental health, low job skills, English as a second 

language, etc.). 

l Publications and meetings to disseminate information on best practices in TANFIWIA 

collaboration and coordination, including: 

Page 47 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

-- 

- “Fixing to Change: A Best Practices Assessment of One-Stop Job Centers Working with 

Welfare Recipients.” A research report funded by the Department’s Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE). 

- Integrated Services Roundtable sponsored by AU’s Peer Technical Assistance Network 

in Atlanta, Georgia in March 2000 for eight states on how to bring together separate 

program funding streams to create community-based service delivery to improve the self 

sufficiency of low-income families. 

l Collaboration between ACF and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 

Administration (SAMHSA) for over 2 years on welfare reform issues. We have jointly 

funded and developed seven conferences, issued joint guidance and co-sponsored 

publications. We are collaborating on 10 targeted technical assistance meetings (owpper 

region). Each of ten ACF regional offices will choose among a menu of topics related to 

substance abuse based on the specific needs and requests of States in their region. Topics 

include substance abuse screening and assessment issues, outreach and marketing to suppor( 

TANF families with substance abuse issues, coordination of services for clients with 

domestic violence and substance abuse problems, dual diagnosis and co-occurring disorder 

issues for TANF recipients, coordination of services for families involved in both welfare 

and child welfare systems, the role of substance abuse treatment in preparing clients for 

work, tribal TANF and substance abuse, and building interagency collaboration to serve 

TANF recipients with alcohol and other drug problems. The ACF and SAMHSA have also 

undertaken a joint initiative on substance abuse and tribal TANF. 

l A TANF funding guide titled “Helping Families Achieve Self-Sufficiency” which provides 

easy-to-read guidance on the use ofTANF funds. The Department has distributed over 

11,000 copies of the guidance, and it is available on our web site at 

httn:iiwww.acf.dhhs.r!ov/programs/ofa/fnds2.htnl. 

l Monthly conference calls sponsored by ACF (called Family Independence Forums) on a 

variety of topics related to TANF and welfare reform. The audience for these calls generally 

includes 25 to 30 States and all IO of ACF’s regional offices. Each call focuses on one topic 

that may include information about other related Federal programs, promising practices, 

research, etc. The question and answer and comment period that is part of every call allows 

States (often local office staff participate as well) to continue sharing information and 

provides ACF with information on TANF implementation and issues. 

l National conferences sponsored by ACF at least annually to disseminate research and share 

best practices. In 1998 and 1999, we held five Promising Practices conferences across the 

Nation that had a heavy emphasis on serving those recipients with barriers to employment 

In 2000, our national conference was titled Welfare Reform: Employment Strategies for 

Overcoming Substance Abuse/Mental Health Barriers. We arc currently in the early stages 

of planning the conference for 2001. 

l Broad dissemination of the Department’s Office of Civil Rights guidance on TANF and 

Disability, as well as guidance on limited English proficiency. 

Page 48 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

l Numerous joint activities between ACF and the Departments of Labor, .Housing and Urban 

Development, Transportation and Education focused on assisting those recipients with 

barriers to entering and sustaining employment. 

l The ACF’s rapid response technical assistance mechanism, which provides resources to our 

Federal staff to provide outreach to stake holders concerning national or regional welfare 

reform issues. Many of the rapid response activities have focused on employment barriers. 

l The ACF’s peer technical assistance mechanism, which convenes State and local stake 

holders so that they can teach others. There is also a peer technical assistance web site 

offering a variety of resources related to serving those who are hard-to-employ. It is located 

at http:i/www.calib.com/I~cz. 

l The ACF’s participation in numerous conferences and meetings sponsored by Federal 

agencies and others, discussing flexibility under TANF and encouraging States to address 

employment barriers. 

l An ASPE evaluation of the effectiveness of selected initiatives funded through the DOL’s 

Welfare-to-Work grants program, which focuses on hard-to-employ people. The Department 

is conducting this evaluation in conjunction with the DOL and the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development, 

l An evaluation of programs to promote retention and advancement in employment for current, 

former and potential TANF recipients. Three programs have an explicit focus on hard-toemploy people. 

l A forthcoming compendium of descriptions of programs providing enhanced transitional 

employment services for TANF recipients. 

l The ASPE is providing staff assistance in the development of two national surveys: the 

Survey of Income and Program Participation and the Survey of Program Dynamics, 

mentioned in Appendix 1 of GAO’s report. These surveys will provide us with more data 

about recipients’ characteristics and the dynamics of welfare use, and provide better 

information about how many people might reach their time limits. 

l A screening and assessment project (mentioned in the GAO report) jointly funded by ACF 

and ASPE. As part of this effort, three regional conferences are planned for State officials. 

A forthcoming paper includes an appendix documenting many screening tools used by 

States. This project and others address questions such as which screening tools are most 

accurate, how to administer them, and how to ensure that TANF recipients answer them 

effectively. The American Public Human Services Association (APHSA) has also conducted 

a project on State TANF agency client assessment policies and practices. Findiugs are 

available on APHSA’s Research Notes web page site at: 

http://www.aspha.orglop&archiresearch.htm. 

-- 

Page 49 GAO-01-363 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Health 

and Human Services 

l Activities undertaken with funding specifically appropriated by Congress for the Department 

to study outcomes of welfare reform. Through grants with States and localities, the ASPE is 

encouraging States to develop data infrastructures that in some cases include examining 

characteristics of persons currently on a case load. Wisconsin, Washington State, Missouri, 

and Alameda County, California, have done or are doing work comparing their TANF case 

loads with people that have left TANF. Completed studies are cited in the bibliography of 

GAO’s report. The ASPE continues to support research in this area. 

l The University of Michigan Women’s Employment study examining such questions as the 

extent and prevalence of multiple barriers to work, and how barriers to employment and 

welfare-to-work program participation are related. This study is helping to identify key 

factors that enable welfare recipients to remain employed and enable social service providers 

to better assess client needs and design service components. The National Institute of Mental 

Health and ASPE are among those who have funded this study. 

l An ASPE-supported project bringing together State officials and academic researchers to 

explore how surveys could be used to measure the characteristics of recipients with the goal 

of providing States with improved measurement tools. 

l A Joint Center for Poverty Research (JCPR) conference this fall, supported by ASPE, will 

focus on hard-to-employ persons and welfare reform (the JCPR is supported by Department 

funds). 

l An ASPE study of how selected local TANF programs are organizing and delivering mental 

health services to their clients in order to identify promising practices, challenges and 

opportunities that will help others to better serve persons with mental health problems and 

help them find and retain employment. 

Page 60 6190-01-868 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Appendix IV 

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts Sigurd Nilsen, (202) 512-7003 

Clarita Mrena, (4 15) 904-2245 

Kathryn Larin, (202) 512-5045 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

In addition to those named above, Sonya Harmeyer, Heather McCallu~n, 

and Catherine Pardee made significant contributions to this report. Jeff 

Appel, Jon Barker, Paula Bonin, Richard Burkard, Patrick DiBattista, Gale 

Harris, Art Kendall, Lise Levie, Ann McDermott, and Jim Wright also 

provided key technical assistance. 

Page 51 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Bibliography 

American Public Human Services Association. TNF Client Assessments: 

Program P%iiosophies and Goals, Sequencing of Process, Uses of 

Norma tion and State Changes or ModilTcations, Promising Practices and 

LessonsLeamed, Research Notes. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2000. 

http://www.aphsa.org/opd/researcNresearchnotesO9OO.html. 

Born, Catherine, and others. Life On Welfare: Kho GetsAssistance 18 

Months lizto Kefozzrz.?BaItimore, Md.: University of Maryland School of 

Social Work, Nov. 1998. 

Brawley, Scott. TANF Client Assessment: State Uniformz& mes of 

Workers and Sta6Related Actions, Tooh and information Sources, and 

momation ShaxLvg Research Notes. Washington, D.C.: American Public 

Human Services Association, Aug. 2000. 

http://www.aphsa.org/opd/research/brawleylfmal.htm. 

Building Bn’dges: States Respond to Substance Abuse and Welfare Refornl. 

Published by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at 

Columbia University (CASA) and the American Public Human Services 

Association (APHSA), Aug. 1999. 

Cancian, Maxia, and others. Before andA&er TNF The Economic WellBeing of Women Leaving Welfare. Madison, Wise.: Institute for Research on 

Poverty, University of Wisconsin -Madison, Dec. 1999. 

Danziger, Sandra, and others. Barriers to the Employment of WeIf&-e 

Recipients. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Poverty Research Cemer and Training 

Center, University of Michigan, Apr. 1999. 

Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida. 

Leaving the Welfare RoL%: The Health and Mental Health Issues of Current 

andFormer Weu;Zre Recipeen&. Tampa, Fla.: Florida Agency for Healthcare 

Administration, undated. 

Den; Michelle K., Heather Hill, and LaDonna Pavetti. AddressingMental 

Health Problems Among TANI” Recipients: A Guide for Program 

Administiators. Washington, D.C.: Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., for 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for 

Children and Families, July 2000. 

Page 62 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipientw 
Bibliography 

Domestic l4olence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among 

Wez%z-e Recipients. GAOHEHS-99-12. Washington, D.C.: IJ.S. General 

Accounting Office, Nov. 1998. 

Fogarty, Debra, and Shon Kraley. A Study of WashJngton State TANF 

Leaven and T~FRecz$ients.- Fin&gs from Adznit&tz-ative Data and the 

Telephone Survey Olympia, Wash.: Office of Planning and Research, 

Economic Services Administration, Department of Social and Health 

Services, Mar. 2000. 

Johnson, Amy, and Alicia Meckstroth. Anciuary Suppo& Sercices to 

Support Welfare to Work. Washington, D.C.: Mathematics Policy Research, 

Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 1998. 

http://a.spe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/Summary.htm. 

Kirby, Gretchen, and Jacquelyn Andersen. Addressing Substance Abuse 

Problems Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators. 

Washington, D.C.: Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., for the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children 

and Families, July 2000. 

Kirby, Gretchen, and others. htegratzYngAicoholandDnzg Treatmentinto a 

Work-Oz%n ted WeLi%re Program: Lessons Krom Oregon. Washington, D . C . : 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc., June 1999. 

Kramer, Fredrica I). “Seeing TANF from the Inside Out-Reconsidering the 

Program’s Role in the Wake of Welfare Reform.” The Fozwm, Vol. 3, No.2 

(July 2000). New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty, 

Columbia University. 

Kramer, Fredrica. “The Hard-to-Place: Understanding the Population and 

Strategies to Serve Them.” Issue Notes, Washington, D.C.: Welfare 

Information Network (March 1998). 

http://www.welfareinfo.org/hardto.htm. 

Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski. Current and Fozmer Welfare 

Recz~ients:ffowDo TheyDzl%r?Washington, D.C.: The IJrban Institute, 

Nov. 1999. 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc. Addressing Mental wC%~.Itb Problems 

Among TANFRecipients: A Guide for Program AdmzIn&tratoxs. 

Page 63 GAO-01-368 Bard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
--- 

Bibliography 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, July 2000. 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc. Addt-essig Substance Abuse F+obIem? 

Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administzators. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 

Administration for Children and Families, July 2000. 

Mathematics Policy Research, Inc. How WFNJ Clients Are Faring Under 

Welfare Reform: An Ear(yLook. Work First New Jersey Evaluation. State of 

New Jersey Department of Human Services, Oct. 1999. 

Michalopoulos, Charles, Christine Schwartz, and Diana Adams-Ciardullo. 

What Works Best for morn: hnpac& of 20 Welfare-to- Work Programs by 

Subgroup. Washington, D.C.: Manpower Demonstration Research 

Corporation, Aug. 2000. 

Risler, Ed, and others. The Remaining TANF Recipients: A Research Based 

profile. The Georgia Welfare Reform Research Project. Report to the 

Director of the Division of Family and Children Services. Atlanta, Ga.: 

Department of Human Resources, State of Georgia, Dec. 1999. 

Storer-t, Duke, and K.A. Dixon. State TANFPolicy and Semkes to Peopk 

M?h Disabilities. Prepared by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce 

Development at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, funded by the 

U. S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and 

Rehabilitation Research, Nov. 1999. 

http://www.comop.org/rrtc/rrtc/TANF.htm 

Sweeney, Eileen. Recent Studies Indicate That Many Parents Who Are 

Current or Former Welfare Recipients Have Disabilities and Other Medical 

Conditions. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feb. 

2000. 

Temporwy Assistance for Needy Families (TMV Program: Third Annual 

Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Aug. 2000. 

Welfare Reform: hnprotig State Automated SySems Requires 

Coordinated Federal Effort. GAOIHEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: 1J.S. 

General Accounting Office, Apr. 27, 2000. 

Page 64 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Becipientw 
Bibliography 

Welt&-e Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Zmportan t Role in 

TANFProgranx. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General 

Accounting Office, July 28, 2000. 

Women on Welfare: A Study of the Florida Work and Gain Economic SeKSz&IciencyPopulation. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of Children & 

Families, May 1999. 

Zedlewski, Sheila, and Pamela Loprest. How Well Does 5?4NFI% the Needs 

of the Most Disadvantaged FamiIies?Washington, D.C.: The Urban 

Institute, Dec. 29, 2000. 

Zedlewski, Sheila. Work-Related Actitities and Limitations of Current 

Welfare Recipients. Washington, D.C.: The Urban YInstitute, July 1999. 

Page 66 GAO-01-368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients 
Related GAO Products 

(116037) 

Welt2re Reform: Work-Site-Based AcL&%ies &.n Play an tipotit Role in 

TANFProgrrams (GAOiHEHS-00-122, July 28, 2000). 

We&xre Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires 

Coordinated Federal Effort (GAOiHEHS-00-48, Apr. 27,200O). 

We&u-e Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Mected 

(GAO/HEHS-00-44, Mar. 31, 2000). 

Welfare Reform: linplementing DOTs Access to Jobs Program in 113 J3mt 

Year(RCED-00-14, Nov. 26, 1999). 

Wel&re Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of V’.ous Welfare-to- Work 

Approaches (GAOIHEHS-99-179, Sep. 7, 1999:). 

Weh%re Reform: Information on Former Rec&ients ’ S‘tatus (GAOIHEHS-99)- 

48, Apr. 28, 1999). 

WeflZe Reform: ,%a tes ’ Eqeriences in Providing Enlplopen t Assistance 

to TANF Clients (GAOIHEHS-99-22, Feb. 26, 1999). 

Weh%re Reform: Status ofAwar& and Selected States’ Use of Welfare-toWork Grants (GAO/HEHS-99-40, Feb. 5,1999>. 

Welt&re Reform: Child Support an Uncertain Income Supplement for 

Famires Leaving Welfare (GAOiHEHS-98168, Aug. 3, 1998). 

Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce WeLfae 

Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998). 

Wefffare Reform: HHS Progress in implementing Its Responsibilities 

(HEHS-98-44, Feb. 2, 1998). 

Welt..e Reform: States’ Effoorts to Emand Child Care programS 

(GAO/HEHS-98-27, Jan. 13,1998). 

Welf&re Reform: Thee States’Approaches Show Prom&e of Increasing 

Work Participation (GAO/HEHS-97-80, May 30, 1997). 

Page 66 GAO-014368 Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipient.s 
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and Mastercard credit 

cards are accepted, also. 

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent. 

Orders by mail: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

P.O. Box 37050 

Washington, DC 20013 

Orders by visiting: 

Room 1100 

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 

Orders by phone: 

(202) 512-6000 

fax: (202) 512-6061 

TDD (202) 512-2537 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please caB (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu wili provide information on how to obtain 

these lists. 

Orders by Internet: 

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to: 

info@www.gao.gov 

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov 

To Report Fraud, Contact one: 

-- -- 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

l Web site: httpd/www. gao.gov/fraudnetifraudnet.htm 

l e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

l l-800-424-5454 (automated answering system) 

PRINTED ON (@a RECYCLED PAPER