Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety, and

Training, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and

Pensions, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m.

Thursday, May 16, 2002 WORKFORCE

INVESTMENT ACT

Coordination of TANF

Services Through OneStops Has Increased

Despite Challenges

Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director

Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues

GAO-02-739T
Page 1 GAO-02-739T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the coordination of

services for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) clients

through one-stop centers established under the Workforce Investment Act

of 1998 (WIA). Welfare reform legislation, which created TANF, directed

welfare agencies to focus on helping needy adults with children find and

maintain employment—a goal that has long been the province of the

workforce development system. Congress passed WIA to unify a

fragmented employment and training system—creating a new,

comprehensive workforce investment system—one that provides for a

fundamental shift in the way services are designed and delivered. Despite

TANF’s similar focus, TANF was not mandated to participate in the onestop system; however, as we have previously testified,1

 many states and

localities are coordinating their TANF services through one-stop centers.

With the emphasis on work intensifying in the current TANF

reauthorization debate, the coordination of TANF and WIA programs may

become increasingly important.

You asked us to assess the extent to which states were coordinating TANF

services with their one-stop centers. As you requested, my remarks today

focus on (1) the status of state and local efforts to coordinate TANFrelated services—including TANF work services, TANF cash assistance,

and other support services—with one-stop centers and how this status has

changed since 2000, when WIA was implemented; (2) the challenges that

states and localities have faced in coordinating their TANF work services

with their one-stop centers; and (3) the innovative approaches that they

have taken to coordinate TANF services through the one-stop system. My

testimony is based on our ongoing work on the coordination of TANF and

WIA services and includes results from: a survey we conducted from

September through December 2001 of workforce development agency

officials in all 50 states and a similar survey that we conducted in the

spring of 2000; visits to 4 states and 9 localities from October 2001 to

January 20022

; and telephone interviews with state TANF and workforce

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF

Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain, GAO-02-500T

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2002); and Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status

and the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: June 29,

2000).

2

We conducted fieldwork in Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, and New Jersey.
Page 2 GAO-02-739T

officials in 12 states during January and February 2002. In addition, results

were drawn from our recently completed work on WIA youth and

dislocated worker programs, WIA performance measures, and early WIA

implementation issues.

In summary, coordination between TANF-related programs and WIA’s onestop centers has increased since the spring of 2000, when WIA was first

implemented. Nearly all states reported some coordination between the

programs at either the state or the local level. Most often, coordination

took one of two forms: through colocation whereby a client accessed

TANF-related programs at the local one-stop, or through referrals and

electronic linkages to off-site programs.3

 How services were delivered also

depended on state and local preferences and conditions. However, as we

testified earlier, despite progress, states and localities continued to report

a variety of challenges. WIA funds may not be readily used to serve TANF

clients in the one-stops because WIA’s performance measures may

discourage serving clients who may not be successful. Moreover, when

TANF clients need training to achieve self-sufficiency, WIA funds may not

be available because the amount of training provided under WIA has been

reduced. In addition, even when officials choose to use the one-stop

system to provide TANF-funded services, other challenges remain, largely

stemming from infrastructure limitations—such as inadequate facilities or

antiquated computer systems that do not communicate with each other—

and different program definitions and reporting requirements. Despite

these challenges, some local areas have found innovative ways to provide

TANF services in the one-stops, often focusing their efforts on resolving

the issues that had been found in the fragmented employment training

system. In our work, we saw some early evidence that states and localities

were increasing their efforts to bring services together to fit local needs.

As states and localities have begun to recognize the shared goals of the

workforce and welfare systems, they have developed ways to coordinate

services. However, these changes, like all culture changes, will take time.

In recent years, Congress passed two pieces of legislation intended, in

part, to foster greater coordination among education, welfare, and

employment and training programs. The Workforce Investment Act was

 3

Colocation refers to TANF clients’ being served directly at the one-stop either by TANF

staff or by other staff cross-trained to provide TANF-related services. Electronic linkages

refers to the use of computers, telephones, or other electronic connections between the

one-stop and a separate office where services are provided to TANF clients.

Background
Page 3 GAO-02-739T

passed in 1998 and fundamentally changed the nature of federally funded

employment and training services. WIA replaced the former program with

a new one that focused more on providing services to the general public.

WIA also provides for greater consolidation in service delivery, requiring

states and localities to use a centralized service delivery structure—the

one-stop center system—to provide most federally funded employment

and training assistance. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families

block grant, created 2 years earlier by the 1996 Personal Responsibility

and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), allowed states

greater flexibility than ever before in designing employment and training

services for clients receiving cash assistance.4

 While TANF is not one of 17

federal programs mandated to provide services through the one-stop

system, states and localities have the option to include TANF as a partner.

Our prior work on pre-WIA one-stops found that states varied in the

degree to which employment and training services for TANF clients were

being coordinated through the one-stop system.

WIA replaced the four Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for

economically disadvantaged adults and youth, and dislocated workers,

with three new ones—adult, dislocated worker, and youth—that deemphasize the categorical nature of JTPA5

 and allow for a broader range of

services to be given to the general public. Services provided under WIA are

markedly different from those provided under JTPA, no longer focusing

exclusively on training. Instead, the adult and dislocated worker programs

provide for three tiers, or levels, of service: core (basic services such as

job search assistance); intensive (staff-intensive services such as

assessment and case management); and training for eligible individuals.6

To gauge the success of WIA-funded programs, states and localities are

held accountable through the use of 17 different performance measures

 4

TANF also gave states more flexibility in determining the nature of financial assistance,

the types of client services, the structure of the program, and the ways in which services

were provided.

5

In contrast to JTPA, WIA adult and dislocated worker programs no longer use income to

determine eligibility for all program services. The youth program, however, uses lowincome as an eligibility requirement.

6

Services are provided sequentially. That is, in order to receive intensive services, clients

must first receive core services; to receive training services, a client must first receive core

and then intensive services. Localities may establish certain activities as prerequisites for

moving from core to intensive and training services. Key to moving from core to a higher

level of services is the determination that the services are needed to help job seekers

become self-sufficient.
Page 4 GAO-02-739T

that focus on outcomes such as getting and keeping a job. States negotiate

with the Department of Labor to determine the level of performance they

are expected to achieve for each of the measures; localities, in turn,

negotiate with the states to determine their expected levels of

performance.

In addition, to establishing the three new programs, WIA requires that

states and localities use the one-stop center system to provide services for

these and many other employment and training programs. This one-stop

system was developed by states prior to WIA, largely through One-Stop

Planning and Implementation Grants from Labor. About 17 categories of

programs, funded through four federal agencies—the departments of

Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban

Development—must provide services through the one-stop center system

under WIA.7

 WIA does not require that all program services be provided on

site (or colocated)—they may be provided through electronic linkages

with partner agencies or by referral—but WIA does require that the

partners’ relationships and services be spelled out in a memorandum of

understanding.

While several programs are required by WIA to provide services through

the one-stop centers, others have been left to the discretion of state and

local officials, including the TANF block grant program. Flexibility is also

a key feature of the TANF program. Under TANF, states have more

flexibility than under its predecessor programs to determine the nature of

financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of the

program, and how services are to be delivered. At the same time, TANF

established new accountability measures for states—focused in part on

 7

In addition, three other categories of programs are required to provide services through

the one-stop center: Youth Opportunity Grants; demonstration, pilot, multiservice,

research, and multistate projects; and national emergency grants. Because they are of

limited scope, we did not include them in our total.
Page 5 GAO-02-739T

meeting work requirements8—and a 5-year lifetime limit on federal TANF

assistance. These measures heighten the importance of helping TANF

recipients find work quickly and retain employment. As states have used

the new flexibility under TANF and have focused more on employment,

the importance of coordinating services for TANF clients has received

increased attention. To help clients get and keep jobs, states need to

address problems that may interfere with employment, such as child care

and transportation issues and mental and physical health problems.

Frequently, solving these problems requires those who work directly with

clients to draw on other federal and state programs, often administered by

other agencies, to provide a wide array of services. While local welfare

agencies have typically administered TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid,

other programs that provide key services to TANF clients are administered

by housing authorities, education agencies, and state employment services

offices. TANF’s focus on employment means that welfare agencies may

need to work more closely than before with state and local workforce

development systems, in part, to help reduce the burden on employers

who might need to respond to requests from multiple government

agencies. In the past, under the Work Incentive Program, welfare agencies

and workforce development systems collaborated at some level, but our

previous work on pre-WIA programs found wide variation in the degree to

which the welfare and non-welfare programs worked together to provide

employment and training services.9

 8

Work requirements under PRWORA include countable work activities as well as work

participation requirements. Work activities include unsubsidized employment; subsidized

private or public sector employment; work experience; on-the-job training; job search and

job readiness assistance; community service programs; vocational educational training and

job skills training directly related to employment; education directly related to

employment; satisfactory attendance at a secondary school or a course of study leading to

a certificate of general equivalence; or the provision of child care services to an individual

who is participating in a community service program. PRWORA’s work participation rates

require that a specified proportion of the state’s TANF assistance caseload be engaged in

countable work activities each month. The required work participation rate for all families

was 25 percent for fiscal year 1997 and 50 percent for fiscal year 2002. For more

information on work activities that states and localities are using as part of their TANF

programs, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities

Can Play an Important Role in TANF Programs, GAO/HEHS-00-122 (Washington, D.C.:

July 28, 2000).

9

U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and

the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000);

Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance to TANF

Clients, GAO/HEHS-99-22 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999).
Page 6 GAO-02-739T

State and local efforts to coordinate their TANF and WIA programs

increased in 2001, at least 1 year after all states implemented WIA. Nearly

all states reported some coordination at the state or local level, achieved

by means ranging from informal linkages (such as information sharing or

periodic program referrals) to formal linkages (such as memorandums of

understanding), shared intake, or integrated case management.

Coordination of TANF-related services with one-stop centers increased

from 2000 to 2001, and the form of coordination—colocation of services,

electronic linkages or client referral—was based, in part, on the type of

services provided—TANF work services, TANF cash assistance, or

support services—as well as state and local preferences and conditions.

Nearly all states reported some linkages at the state level between their

TANF and WIA agencies, and we saw modest increases in states’ efforts to

coordinate the programs between 2000 and 2001. Twenty-eight states

reported that in 2001 they made extensive use of formal linkages, such as

memorandums of understanding and state-level formal agreements,

between the agencies administering TANF and WIA, compared with 27

states in 2000. Similarly, states increased their use of coordinated planning

in 2001, with 19 states reporting that they used it to a great extent,

compared with 18 states in 2000 (see fig. 1). When we looked at states

individually, we saw that many used additional coordination methods in

2001. Seventeen states indicated that the number of the state-level

coordination methods they used to a great extent increased in 2001. In

fact, in 2001, 9 states used all five of the coordination methods that we

analyzed, up from 7 states in 2000.10

 10Our survey asked states to report the extent to which different types of coordination were

occurring at the state level between WIA and TANF programs. We analyzed five types of

coordination methods: formal linkages (such as memorandums of understanding, statelevel agreements, or mutual referral agreements); informal linkages and interagency

communication (such as sharing information about programs or changes in programs as

they occur); interagency and intra-agency workgroups and consolidated advisory boards;

coordinated planning; and shared performance measurement and reporting.

Most States Are

Coordinating Their

TANF and WIA

Services at Some

Level and Increased

Some of Their

Coordination Efforts

Since 2001

Coordination Occurred

between TANF and WIA

Agencies at the State Level

in Most States and

Increased Slightly from

2000 to 2001
Page 7 GAO-02-739T

Figure 1: Methods of State Coordination Occurring to a Great Extent, 2000 and 2001

Source: GAO survey data.

Increased coordination between TANF and WIA programs was also seen

in the use of TANF funds to support one-stop center infrastructure or

operations. The number of states using TANF funds to support one-stop

centers increased to 36 in 2001 from 33 in 2000. In addition, the number of

states ranking TANF as one of the three largest funding sources for their

one-stop centers rose to 15 from 12.

Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001

were seen at the local level. Forty-four states reported that most of their

one-stop centers had informal linkages, such as periodic program referrals

or information sharing, with their TANF programs in 2001, compared with

35 states in 2000 (see fig. 2). Similarly, 16 states reported that most of their

one-stop centers had shared intake or enrollment systems in 2001—up

from 13 in 2000; and 15 states reported in 2001 that they used an integrated

case management system in most of their one-stop centers—an increase of

1 state from our 2000 results. Also, our analysis suggests that more

Local-Level Coordination

of TANF and WIA Services

Also Increased, and the

Form It Took Varied

According to Services

Provided

Number of states

0

6

12

18

24

30

Formal linkages Informal

linkages

Interagency/

Intra-agency 

workgroups

Coordinated

planning

Shared

performance

Coordination methods

27

28

29

27

22

23

18 19

7

9

2000

2001
Page 8 GAO-02-739T

coordination methods are in use at the local level. The number of states

that reported that most of their one-stop centers used all seven methods of

local-level coordination increased in 2001 to 10 states from 7 in 2000.11

Figure 2: Coordination Methods That States Reported Most of Their One-Stop

Centers Were Using, 2000 and 2001

Source: GAO survey data.

 11Our survey asked states to tell us whether most of the centers coordinated TANF and WIA

programs. We analyzed seven types of coordination methods: informal linkages (such as

periodic program referrals or information services) and interagency communication (such

as phone calls, memos, or flyers announcing program services); formal linkages (such as

memorandums of understanding or mutual referral agreements); coordinated planning;

shared intake and enrollment; integrated case management; shared client tracking; and

shared performance measures.

Number of states

0

10

20

30

40

50

Informal

Formal

Coordinated

Shared intake,

Integrated case

Shared client

Shared

Coordination methods

35

44

28 28

22 21

13

16

14 15

13 14

11 12

2000

2001

linkages

linkages

planning

enrollment

management

tracking

performance
Page 9 GAO-02-739T

Increases in coordination between the TANF programs and one-stop

centers were also seen in the use of the one-stop system to provide

services to TANF clients. While the same number of states—24—reported

in both 2000 and 2001 that services for the TANF work program were

colocated at the majority of their one-stops, the use of electronic linkages

or referrals increased. In 2001, 15 states reported that services for the

TANF work program were either electronically linked to the majority of

their one-stop centers or provided by referral between the two programs,

compared with 11 states in 2000.

About half of the states coordinated their TANF cash assistance or Food

Stamps or Medicaid programs with the one-stop centers, electronically, or

by referral in 2000 and 2001. State officials in both Connecticut and New

Jersey reported that even though one-stop staff did not determine

eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the one-stop centers, the staff

were expected to refer clients to appropriate support services outside the

one-stop centers. While not as prevalent as electronic linkages or referrals,

colocation of cash assistance appeared to increase in 2001: 16 states

reported that they provided cash assistance services at least part time at

the majority of their one-stop centers, compared with 9 states in 2000.

Colocation of Food Stamps and Medicaid remained the same: 7 states

reported in both years that they provided those services at least part time

at the majority of the one-stop centers.

In general, the form of coordination between TANF and one-stops was

different depending on the particular program services that were provided.

For example, when the TANF work programs were coordinated through

the one-stop centers, services were more likely to be colocated. TANF

cash assistance and the Food Stamps and Medicaid programs were more

likely to be connected electronically or by referrals (see fig. 3). Sometimes

states instituted policies to further strengthen the relationships between

the programs and to ensure that clients were connected to one-stop

services. In Michigan, for example, TANF clients are required to attend an

orientation session at the one-stop before they can receive cash

assistance. Similarly, in Connecticut, where there were low participation

rates for TANF clients at one-stop centers, the legislature enacted a law

requiring TANF clients to use one-stop centers as a condition of receiving

cash assistance.
Page 10 GAO-02-739T

Figure 3: Forms of Coordination That States Reported the Majority of Their OneStop Centers Were Using in 2001

Source: GAO survey data.

State and local officials told us that decisions about how services were

delivered were based on state and local preferences and conditions. Some

state and local officials expressed a preference for colocating TANF

programs at one-stop centers. For example, officials in a local area in

Louisiana believed that colocation of TANF programs at the one-stop

center would benefit TANF clients by exposing them to the one-stop

center’s employer focus. These officials also said that colocation would

result in a more seamless service delivery approach, giving clients easier

access to the services. Other officials preferred not to colocate all TANFrelated programs. While they supported the colocation of TANF work

programs, they believed that cash assistance, Food Stamps, or Medicaid

should be provided elsewhere. For example, Michigan officials told us that

keeping eligibility functions for TANF cash, Food Stamps, and Medicaid

separate was beneficial, because welfare staff had more expertise in the

provision of social services while Department of Labor staff were better

Number of states

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

programs

Service provided

Colocation

Electronic linkage/referrals

TANF work

TANF cash

assistance

Support

programs
Page 11 GAO-02-739T

equipped to provide work-related services. Still other officials were

concerned about the colocation of any TANF-related programs, sharing a

view that TANF clients required special attention and were best served by

staff trained to address the barriers they may face in obtaining

employment. Some officials saw the one-stop centers as better structured

to serve clients whose participation was voluntary, whereas TANF clients

are generally required to engage in work activities. Officials in Washington

state, for example, reported that TANF clients need a higher level of

supervision and more structured assistance to maintain participation in

the program and achieve desired outcomes than they believed one-stop

centers could provide.

Despite apparent increases in coordination between the TANF programs

and one-stops from 2000 to 2001, states and localities have continued to

face challenges in coordinating their TANF work programs with one-stop

centers. WIA funds may not be readily used to serve TANF clients in the

one-stops because WIA’s performance measurement system discourages

serving those clients who may not be successful. In addition, when TANF

clients need training to achieve self-sufficiency, the amount of training

available under WIA is generally less than what was historically provided

under JTPA. Even when TANF funds were used in the one-stops, states

and localities encountered challenges in coordinating services. Most of

these challenges are similar to those we reported in 2000 when WIA was

first implemented.

When TANF clients are served in the one-stop, they may be eligible to

receive services funded by a range of programs in the one-stop in addition

to TANF—the primary one being WIA—but WIA funds may not always be

made available to serve TANF clients. WIA’s performance measurement

system, with its focus on achieving successful outcomes, such as getting

and keeping a job, may actually discourage the one-stop from providing

WIA-funded services to those that are less likely to be successful or those

that are considered to be hard-to-serve. In addition, states and localities

have reduced the amount of training they provide using WIA funds.

WIA’s performance measurement system—one based on client outcomes,

such as getting and keeping a job and increasing wages—may actually

discourage localities from serving those clients who are less likely to be

successful or those considered hard-to-serve. Under the new system,

states and localities are expected to achieve levels of performance that

have been negotiated in advance; not achieving these levels may mean

Serving TANF Clients

through the One-Stop

Centers Has

Presented Challenges

to States and

Localities

WIA Funds May Not

Always Be Made Available

to Serve TANF Clients

WIA’s Performance

Measurement System May

Discourage Spending WIA

Funds on Hard-to-Serve Clients
Page 12 GAO-02-739T

financial sanctions for states and localities. In a recent study we reported

that all the states we visited believed that the negotiated levels for some of

their measures were set too high for them to meet.12 States reported that

limitations in available baseline, or historic data, made it difficult to set

fair, realistic performance levels. Some measures had no prior data

available on which to set performance levels. Where baseline data were

available, such as for the wage-related measures, the data were collected

under JTPA, a program whose population focus was different from that of

WIA.13 In addition, some states believe that the performance levels did not

account for variations in economic conditions or for the many

economically disadvantaged or hard-to-serve individuals seeking services

in some local areas. As a result, state officials told us that, in order to meet

their performance levels, local areas may not be registering or serving all

clients eligible for services under WIA. One state official described how

local areas were carefully screening potential WIA participants and

holding meetings to decide whether to register them. TANF clients with

little or no work histories may be particularly vulnerable to being screened

out of WIA-funded services because of concerns over meeting job

retention goals.

Even without concerns over their ability to meet performance measures,

the amount of training that states and localities are providing has been

reduced under WIA. Because of PRWORA’s work participation rate

requirements and some states’ work first approach—one that emphasizes

obtaining employment quickly—few TANF clients may be considered

eligible for training. Even when TANF clients are eligible for training, few

training funds may be available under WIA. Training options for job

seekers appear to be decreasing rather than increasing, as training

providers reduce the number of course offerings they make available to

WIA job seekers. As we reported previously,14 training providers say that

the data collection burden resulting from participation in WIA can be

significant and may discourage them from participating. For example, the

 12See U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in

Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness, GAO02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).

13While JTPA focused on providing training to the economically disadvantaged, including

the hard-to-serve, WIA provides a broader range of services to all individuals, regardless of

their eligibility for other services.

14See U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed

to Address Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO-02-72 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001).

The Amount of Training States

and Localities Provide Has

Declined Under WIA
Page 13 GAO-02-739T

requirement that training providers collect outcome data on all students in

a class may mean calling hundreds of students to obtain placement and

wage information, even if there is only one WIA-funded student in class.

Even if they used other methods that may be less resource-intensive,

training providers say that privacy limitations might limit their ability to

collect or report student outcome data. As a result, training providers,

including local community colleges, are frequently opting out of providing

services funded by WIA.

Training providers find the reporting requirements particularly

burdensome given the relatively small number of individuals who have

been sent for training. Given a new emphasis under WIA on focusing

intensive services or training on those clients who are not successful

getting a job, local workforce areas are often designing programs that use

a work first approach. As a result, the amount of training they provide is

often reduced from what was provided under JTPA. We recently reported

that this work first approach often means that localities require job

seekers to dedicate a set amount of time or a specific number of tasks to

finding employment before receiving additional services, including

training.15 For example, a counselor from a local area in Massachusetts

told us that clients with marketable skills are expected to seek

employment rather than additional training. As a result of these changes

under WIA, the amount of training provided using WIA funds may be

declining from the levels observed under JTPA.

Even when officials chose to use the one-stop to provide most TANFfunded services, they told us they encountered challenges to coordination.

Limited facilities, unavailability of one-stop centers in some areas, and few

TANF clients in other areas, as well as incompatible computer systems

sometimes mean that services cannot readily be colocated or coordinated

in other ways, even when officials would otherwise choose to do so. In

addition, incompatible program reporting requirements sometimes limit

efforts to coordinate services. These challenges are the same ones we

reported nearly 2 years ago when WIA was first implemented.

 15 See U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and

Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program, GAO-02-274

(Washington, D.C. Feb. 11, 2002).

Even When State and

Local Officials Chose to

Use The One-Stop Centers

to Provide TANF-Funded

Services, Other Challenges

Remain
Page 14 GAO-02-739T

Facilities. Limited facilities have hampered state and local efforts to bring

services together through the one-stop system. Colocation of TANF

services within the one-stop was not a viable option in many of the

locations that we visited for a recent study.16 Officials in several states

reported that available space at one-stop centers was limited and that the

centers could not house additional programs or service providers. In

addition, state officials explained that long-term leases or the use of stateowned buildings often prevented TANF work programs from relocating to

one-stop centers.

Local conditions, such as unavailability of one-stop centers in some areas

and few TANF clients in other areas, may also mean that all TANF work

programs are not easily colocated at one-stop centers. For example,

officials in Alabama reported that although welfare agencies were located

in every county, one-stop centers were less prevalent in their state. They

believed it was impractical to have TANF-related services colocated at

one-stop centers, because one-stop centers would be inaccessible to many

TANF clients. In addition, officials in Illinois said that they were hesitant

to coordinate the provision of work-related services for TANF clients at

one-stop centers in areas where the TANF population had recently

declined. Because of declining TANF caseloads in Illinois, state officials

stressed the importance of allowing local areas the flexibility to determine

how to coordinate TANF-related services with one-stop centers.

Information Systems. The states that we visited reported that the inability

to link the information systems of TANF work programs and one-stop

centers complicated efforts to coordinate programs. A recent conference

that we cosponsored also highlighted this issue,17 specifically identifying

the age of information systems as inhibiting coordination efforts. The

pressing need to modernize the systems stemmed from the shift in

objectives under TANF—focusing more on preparing TANF clients for

work than under previous welfare programs. This shift created new

demands on information systems—systems that were often antiquated and

limited in the ability to use new technologies, such as Web-based

 16U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF

Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain, GAO-02-500T

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 12, 2002).

17For more information on integration of information systems for human services

programs, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Services Integration: Results of a

GAO Cosponsored Conference on Modernizing Information Systems, GAO-02-121

(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2002).

Limited Facilities and

Incompatible Information

Systems Hamper State and

Local Efforts
Page 15 GAO-02-739T

technologies. In addition, the systems used by agencies providing services

to TANF clients did not provide for sharing client data, thus hindering the

case management of clients. Some of these concerns were also raised

during site visits and telephone interviews for our recent study. Some local

officials said that they could not merge or share data and were not

equipped to collect information on clients in different programs. TANF

clients are often tracked separately from clients of other programs, and

even Labor’s system, the One-Stop Operating System (OSOS), does not

allow one-stop centers to include any programs outside of Labor’s

programs, including TANF. In addition, other officials expressed concerns

that sharing data across programs would violate confidentiality

restrictions.

State officials noted that although the focuses of TANF work and WIA

programs were related, differences in program definitions—such as what

constitutes work or what income level constitutes self-sufficiency—and

the different reporting requirements attached to the various funding

streams made coordination difficult. Each program has restrictions on

how its money can be used and what type of indicators it can use to

measure success. Because the federal measures evaluate very different

things, tracking performance for the TANF and WIA programs together

was difficult. Despite the flexibility in TANF, state officials felt constrained

by the need to meet federally required work participation rates, and they

told us that they used these federal requirements to gauge how well their

TANF work programs were performing. For example, one state official

was concerned that the state TANF agency was focused more on meeting

work participation rates than on designing programs that might help TANF

clients become self-sufficient. WIA, on the other hand, has a different set

of performance measures geared toward client outcomes, including the

degree to which clients’ earnings change over time and whether or not

clients stay employed.18

The difficulty in coordinating services while tracking separate

performance measures for multiple programs in the one-stop extends

beyond TANF. We recently reported that separate performance measures

impede cooperation of the one-stop program partners, as expressed by

over one-third of the states surveyed. Some states even believed that

 18For more information on performances measures for WIA-funded programs, see U.S.

General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in

Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness,

GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).

Incompatible Program

Requirements Sometimes Hold

Back Efforts to Coordinate

Services
Page 16 GAO-02-739T

separate measures caused competition among programs. In addition, there

are currently no measures to gauge the overall success of the one-stop

system in coordinating services and in meeting the needs of employers and

job seekers. The Department of Labor has convened a working group to

develop additional indicators of one-stop performance that states and

localities could use, but these measures are not yet available. We have

recommended to the Department of Labor that it ensure the development

of these measures in enough time for states to implement them at the

beginning of program year 2002.

Despite these challenges, states and localities are designing and

developing coordinated service delivery approaches at the one-stop

centers, finding strategies to serve TANF clients and other job seekers by

focusing their efforts on resolving some of the longstanding issues

inherent in a fragmented system. In so doing, they have looked to the new

requirements of WIA and focused on a broader range of services to meet

the employment-related needs of the general public. In addition, they have

begun to emphasize simultaneous services to both employers and job

seekers. While no outcome data are yet available on the success of their

work, some of their early efforts show promise for implementing an

integrated workforce investment system.

In designing services at one-stop centers, states and localities have sought

to combine WIA’s emphasis on services to the general public with efforts

to solve the problems that have existed in a fragmented employment and

training system. For example, in earlier work, we identified some key

problems that exist in a fragmented system, including (1) frustration for

employers because of wasted time responding to multiple job inquiries for

the same openings from several different government entities; (2)

confusion on the part of job seekers and service providers because there

was not a clear entry point or clear path from one program to another, nor

was there ready access to program information; and (3) frustration for job

seekers because programs were not tailored to meet their needs and

because navigating the various programs to get needed assistance meant

completing multiple intake and assessment procedures.19 To effectively

coordinate their programs, states and localities needed to address these

 19See U.S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major

Overhaul Is Needed, GAO/T-HEHS-94-109 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 3, 1994).

Some Local Areas

Have Found

Innovative Ways to

Coordinate Services

Through the One-Stop

Centers

Innovative Approaches

Use Flexibility and Aim to

Reduce Problems Inherent

in a Fragmented System
Page 17 GAO-02-739T

issues, while meeting the enhanced client focus of WIA. We identified the

following key areas as critical to successfully integrating services under

WIA:

• Attracting and serving employers in ways that minimize wasted time and

reduce their frustration.

• Bringing job seekers to the one-stop centers to help them obtain ready

access to employment and program information.

• Creating a customer friendly environment for job-seekers by reducing

confusion, providing them with a clear entry point and clear path from one

program to another.

• Providing services to job seekers that are tailored and seamless, and

helping them identify and obtain needed program services without the

burden of completing multiple intake and assessment procedures.

• Helping job seekers become self-sufficient by providing post-employment

services that assist with job retention and advancement.

Figure 4 charts the processes followed by customers passing through the

system and each of the key areas in which we identified promising

approaches.

Figure 4: One-Stop Process, Key Areas of Promising Approaches

 Source: GAO’s analysis.

Follow-up

and

retention

services

Core/

Universal

Intensive/

Specialized

Training

Attracting and serving employers

Helping job

seekers

become

self-sufficient

Providing job seeker services that are 

tailored and seamless

Employers

Employer

services

One-stop

Job

seekers

Information/

Referral

Creating a 

customer

friendly

environment

for job seekers

Pre-employment services

Bringing in

job seekers
Page 18 GAO-02-739T

To effectively attract and better serve employers, many one-stop centers

market their services, minimize the burden on employers who use the

centers, and provide employer-focused services. Employers may be

confused when multiple government agencies—such as the local welfare

agency and the one-stop operator—both contact them to seek employment

opportunities for their clients. To bring in employers and to reduce the

frustration and confusion that they experienced when receiving contacts

from multiple agencies, the centers we visited in an earlier study in

Titusville and Melbourne, Florida, designated an individual or a team to

serve as the center’s representative for an employer or employment sector,

covering issues related to job listings and placements. In providing

services to employers, centers in Dayton, Ohio, Janesville, Wisconsin, and

in Utah allowed employers to use the one-stop facilities to recruit,

interview, and test job candidates. One center in Florence, Kentucky,

provided video-teleconferencing facilities so that candidates could be

interviewed by employers who were located outside the local area. In a

small center in Portland, Oregon, where facility space was limited, a desk

was dedicated for employer use, allowing them to have a presence at the

one-stop center and to recruit, screen, and interview candidates. To help

bring in and serve small businesses, centers in New Orleans, Louisiana;

Killeen, Texas; and Eugene, Oregon, were creating a business-only

resource center within the one-stop center with a range of special

resources that included Internet services, business-related reference

material, and assistance with business tax questions.

At the same time one-stop centers are attracting employers, they also need

to attract job seekers, including those receiving TANF assistance, and

make them aware of the centers’ resources. In our work on multiple

employment programs, we found that job seekers were confused and

frustrated by the limited information readily available on government

programs that could help them and on where they could access this

information.20 The centers we visited in another study found several ways

to address these problems and bring in job seekers. For example, sites in

New Jersey and Louisiana established satellite one-stop centers in public

housing areas to bring in low-income job-seekers, including TANF clients,

for services. In the Denver, Colorado, area, one-stop centers are

specialized, each providing services to certain populations. Clients

 20See U.S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment Programs, GAO/HRD-93-26R,

(Washington, D.C.: June 15, 1993).

Attracting and Serving

Employers

Bringing in Job Seekers
Page 19 GAO-02-739T

receiving TANF cash assistance are served by a one-stop that occupies the

lower floor of a professional-looking new facility that house all welfarerelated services. Other centers bring in customers by targeting services to

younger members of the community, such as high school students. For

example, the center in Racine, Wisconsin, established a youth resource

area with computers and programs dedicated to career exploration. The

center worked with the school system and has become a site for school

field trips throughout the primary and secondary school years. And in

Lafayette, Louisiana, officials created a separate youth-only one-stop

center in the same building that contains a library and a substance abuse

program. They also plan to locate information kiosks for youth services in

the shopping malls.

Once job seekers are inside the door of the one-stop center, the next step

is to create a customer friendly environment—one that reduces confusion

and provides a clear entry point to services. One-stop center operators

told us that they try to find ways to avoid the atmosphere of a government

office and the long waiting lines that have symbolized government

transactions, like applying for welfare benefits or unemployment

insurance. Almost without exception, one-stop centers we visited had an

information desk directly inside the front door that was continually staffed

by a receptionist or greeter. Some centers considered this position key to

providing high-quality services to their clients. One center in Texas

assigned only top performers to the information desk and regarded that

assignment as an honor.

Many centers, such as Dayton, Ohio, and Killeen, Texas, minimized the

waiting time for services by performing a quick assessment at the

information desk and then referred clients to service areas. One-stop

centers in Utah featured an express desk to serve customers needing quick

services. Instead of having to sit down with a job counselor or case

manager, customers using the express desk could, for instance, obtain bus

passes or electronic benefit transfer cards, or drop off required

documents, such as what might be needed to support a claim for TANF or

food stamp benefits. Some centers, such as the one in Janesville,

Wisconsin, also used their resource rooms—where they maintain job

listings, computers with Internet access, telephones, and fax machines—

as the waiting area for specialized services, thus allowing the customers to

use their wait time to accomplish necessary job search tasks.

Creating a Customer

Friendly Environment for

Job Seekers
Page 20 GAO-02-739T

Many job seekers can meet all their needs in the self-service resource

room. In fact, Labor officials expect that the majority of customers under

WIA will receive needed services through self-service or with very limited

assistance from staff. However, some clients, like many TANF recipients,

may need more intensive case management and training services to help

them get and keep a job. Trying to obtain just this type of intensive service

has historically frustrated clients who were left on their own to navigate

the array of federal programs, each with its own intake and assessment

procedures. One-stop centers we visited often found ways to coordinate

the services provided by multiple programs, creating a seamless approach

to delivering services. One locality in Connecticut, for example, crosstrains case management staff to provide both TANF and WIA services. A

new youth-only one-stop in Milwaukee cross-trains staff in all partner

programs so that services are always available and delivered seamlessly.

And in Killeen, Texas, where more than one case manager could be

involved in a case, the center assigned a primary case manager who took

the lead to coordinate most activities and assist the client in navigating the

system. In many locations we visited, the case managers were aware of all

the program services available to serve a client—including support

services to enable a client to attend training or to get or keep a job—and

tailored the services to meet the client’s needs. In our earlier work, we

found tailoring of services to be a key feature in successful employment

training programs.21

The efforts of the one-stop centers do not end once a client gets a job. The

focus of post-employment services changes to one of helping the client

retain the job or get a better job. Localities sometimes focused most of

their post-employment efforts on TANF clients, often providing

transportation services—helping clients get to and from a job. For

example, a New Jersey one-stop provided van services to transport former

TANF clients to and from job interviews and, once clients were employed,

to and from their jobs, even during evening and night shifts. Similarly, a

one-stop in Connecticut provided mileage reimbursement to current and

former TANF clients for their expenses associated with going to and from

their jobs. And in Louisiana, a one-stop we visited contracted with a

nonprofit agency to provide van services to transport Welfare-to-Work

grant recipients to and from work-related activities.

 21See U.S. General Accounting Office, Employment Training: Successful Projects Share

Common Strategy, GAO/HEHS-96-108, (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 1996).

Providing Job Seekers with

Services That Are Tailored

and Seamless

Helping Job Seekers

Become Self-Sufficient
Page 21 GAO-02-739T

Even though TANF was not made a mandatory partner under WIA, we see

continuing evidence that many states and localities are increasing their

efforts to bring services together to fit local needs. These changes, like all

culture changes, will take time. It appears, however, that as the systems

have matured and their shared purposes and goals have become more

evident, many states and localities have found it advantageous to more

formally coordinate their TANF and WIA services, although it is not

happening everywhere. Many state and local officials hailed the flexibility

in both the WIA and TANF programs as an important step in helping them

to design their service delivery systems and to coordinate services where

appropriate. But their efforts to bring services together continue to be

hampered by the same obstacles that we reported nearly 2 years ago:

limited capacity to develop the needed infrastructure—both in terms of

facilities and information systems—and the need to respond to the

multiple, sometimes incompatible, federal requirements of the separate

programs. Despite the obstacles, some local areas have creatively found

ways to coordinate services for their TANF clients through the one-stop

system. However, as Congress moves toward reauthorizing TANF this year

and WIA in 2003, consideration should be given to finding ways to remove

remaining obstacles to coordinating services and focusing on client

outcomes.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to

respond to any questions that you or other members of the subcommittee

may have.

If you or other members of the subcommittee have questions regarding

this testimony, please contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7215 or Dianne

Blank at (202) 512-5654. Individuals making key contributions to this

testimony included Kara Finnegan Irving, Rachel Weber, and Natalya

Bolshun.

Concluding

Observations

GAO Contacts and

Acknowledgments
Page 22 GAO-02-739T

Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service

Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program

Development. GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and

One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain. GAO-02-500T.

Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding

Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274.

Washington, D.C.: February 11, 2002.

Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance

Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA’s Effectiveness.

GAO-02-275. Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.

Human Services Integration: Results of a GAO Cosponsored Conference

on Modernizing Information Systems. GAO-02-121. Washington, D.C.:

January 31, 2002.

Means-Tested Programs: Determining Financial Eligibility Is

Cumbersome and Can Be Simplified. GAO-02-58. Washington, D.C.:

November 2, 2001.

Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns

Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.

Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce.

GAO-01-368. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001.

Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs

Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. GAO-01-71.

Washington, D.C.: October 13, 2000.

Welfare Reform: Work-Site Based Activities Can Play an Important Role

in TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2000.

Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of

TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.

Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment

Assistance to TANF Clients. GAO/HEHS-99-22. Washington, D.C.:

February 26, 1999.

Related GAO Products

(130157)
Page 23 GAO-02-739T