Temporary Assistance For Needy Families: More Accountability Needed to Reflect Breadth of Block Grant Services
Published: 2012-12-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The TANF block grant, created as part of the 1996 welfare reforms, gives states flexibility to make key decisions about how to allocate funds to provide services to low-income families. The number of families receiving cash assistance declined by over half within the first 5 years of TANF, and states shifted their TANF priorities to other forms of aid, or non-cash services. In fiscal year 2011, states spent about 64 percent of nearly $31 billion in federal and state funds for such services, with federal funds accounting for nearly $9 billion. GAO examined (1) how states have used TANF funds for non-cash services and (2) what information is available to assess TANF performance for non-cash services and what challenges are involved in doing so. GAO reviewed past reports and relevant federal laws and regulations; analyzed state TANF expenditure information; and interviewed HHS officials, TANF experts, and officials in 10 selected states through site visits and phone conferences. These 10 states accounted for nearly half of all TANF spending for non-cash services in fiscal year 2010.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Nationwide, states have used Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant funds not only to provide cash assistance, but also to provide noncash services, such as job preparation and work supports for low-income families and aid for at-risk children. Among our 10 selected states, job preparation and work activities included help with the job search process, skills training, and subsidized employment. California generally provides such services to families receiving cash assistance while the other nine states extend some of them to other low-income families. Florida and Utah provide such services in coordination with the Workforce Investment Act one-stop center system. Work supports among these states mainly include child care subsidies for low-income working families. Services for at-risk children include child welfare activities, such as child abuse hotlines, investigative and legal services, child protection, and preventive services. TANF has allowed states to make funding decisions based on state priorities, particularly as cash assistance caseload declines freed up funds for non-cash services. However, according to officials in three states GAO reviewed, state decisions to fund a broad array of services can create tensions and tradeoffs between meeting cash assistance and other service needs.
TANF's accountability framework provides incomplete information on how states' non-cash services are contributing to TANF purposes. Plans that states submit to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) outlining how they intend to run their TANF programs provide limited information on goals and strategies for non-cash services. In addition, past HHS reports and selected states identified some weaknesses in TANF expenditure reporting. For example, officials in one selected state noted that the use of TANF funds for child welfare services is not clearly identifiable in HHS's reporting categories for TANF expenditures. HHS is working to revise reporting categories, with a goal of implementing them for fiscal year 2014. No reporting requirements currently mandate performance information specifically on families receiving non-cash services or TANF's role in filling needs in prominent spending areas for TANF funds, like child welfare. These reporting gaps limit the information available for oversight of TANF block grant funds by HHS and Congress. Generally, HHS has limited authority to impose new TANF reporting requirements on states unless directed by Congress. While GAO's previous work on grant design highlights several features of grants, such as broad and varied purposes, that pose challenges to the development of performance information and measures, it also lays out accountability principles that can help address these issues for TANF.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: Congress may wish to consider ways to improve reporting and performance information so that it encompasses the full breadth of states' uses of TANF funds. GAO recommends that HHS develop a detailed plan with timelines to revise reporting categories for TANF expenditures. In its response, HHS provided some timeframes that we added to the report, although we maintain a more detailed plan will help HHS monitor its progress in completing this effort.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: In 1996, the federal government made sweeping changes to federal  welfare policy by replacing the previous cash assistance program with the  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The  Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996  (PRWORA), which created TANF, ended the Aid to Families with  Dependent Children (AFDC) program that had entitled eligible families to  monthly cash assistance. Instead, Congress has provided $16.5 billion in  TANF funds to states each year to operate their own welfare programs  within federal guidelines. At the federal level, the U.S. Department of  Health and Human Services (HHS) is responsible for overseeing TANF  programs. The number of families receiving cash assistance declined by  over half within the first 5 years of TANF, and states shifted their TANF  spending priorities to other forms of aid, which we refer to as non-cash  services.
TANF funds may be used for a broad array of non-cash  services, ranging from job preparation activities to emergency aid for  housing, energy, food, and clothing. In fiscal year 2011, states spent  about two-thirds of total federal TANF and state-related funds (about  $19.5 billion out of $30.6 billion) on a range of non-cash services for  families who receive cash assistance and other low-income families.
Although a large share of federal TANF and state-related funds are spent  on non-cash services, we reported in 2006 that little information exists on  the numbers served by TANF funds beyond those receiving cash  assistance, what services are funded, and how these services fit into a  strategy or approach for meeting TANF goals. noted that this information gap hinders decision makers in determining  the success of TANF and what trade-offs might be involved in any  changes to the TANF block grant.on non-cash services to help inform the potential reauthorization of the  TANF block grant. This report examines: (1) how states have used TANF  funds for non-cash services, and (2) what information is available to  assess TANF performance for non-cash services and what challenges  may be involved in improving performance information.
GAO, Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in States’ Uses  of the TANF Block Grant, GAO-06-414 (Washington, D.C.: March 3, 2006). reliable for providing TANF expenditure information as reported by states.  We also conducted interviews with HHS officials and TANF experts as  well as semi-structured interviews with officials in 10 selected states,  including the District of Columbia, to provide more in-depth information on  state TANF spending for non-cash services as well as TANF reporting  and performance measures. State interviews were conducted through  four site visits to Arkansas, the District of Columbia, Louisiana, and  Washington as well as six phone conferences with California, Colorado,  Florida, Illinois, New York, and Utah. Furthermore, we collected  additional information from selected states on these topics using a data  collection instrument. We focused on TANF-funded programs and  services for fiscal year 2010 in our selected states, as this was the latest  year for which information was available when we selected states for our  study. States were judgmentally selected to capture a variety of state  characteristics, including the proportion of federal and state funds states  spent on TANF non-cash services; the proportion spent for specific non- cash services including child welfare, emergency aid, and other services,  job preparation and work activities, and work supports such as child care;  the total amount of federal and state expenditures for non-cash services;  and organizational, geographic, and other considerations. While these 10  states accounted for nearly half of all federal and state spending for TANF  non-cash services in fiscal year 2010, the results from our interviews are  not generalizable to all states. In addition, we relied on a survey of states  funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation and Casey Family Programs to   We found  describe how states generally fund their child welfare systems.the survey’s data reliable for these purposes.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2011 to December  2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: PRWORA ended AFDC, which provided states with federal funds to  share states’ costs for monthly cash assistance to eligible low-income  families, and created TANF. Congress has provided states with $16.5  billion per year in fixed federal TANF funding to cover cash benefits,  administrative expenses, and services primarily targeted to needy  families; the amount does not vary according to the number of cash  assistance recipients, referred to as the TANF caseload. Under TANF,  states are given flexibility in setting various welfare program policies. For  example, states generally determine cash assistance benefit levels and  eligibility requirements. States are also generally allowed to spend TANF  funds on other services as long as these services meet TANF purposes,  which are: (1) to provide assistance to needy families so that children  may be cared for in their own homes or homes of relatives; (2) to end  dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job  preparation, work, and marriage; (3) to prevent and reduce out-of- wedlock pregnancies; and (4) to encourage two-parent families.
Federal law sets some conditions for states receiving federal funds for  TANF. For example, states are required to maintain a specified level of  their own past spending on certain welfare programs to receive all of their  TANF funds, referred to as state maintenance of effort (MOE). In addition,  states must ensure that a minimum percentage of families receiving cash  assistance meet work participation requirements set in law, referred to as  the work participation rate. Activities creditable towards meeting work  participation rates are defined in federal law and are generally focused on  participants gaining employment, work-related skills, and vocational  education. States that do not meet minimum work participation rates may  be penalized by a reduction in their block grant. States can use various  policy options to help them meet their work participation rates, such as by  reducing cash assistance caseloads and spending state funds for TANF  purposes above the required MOE amount. In addition, states are limited  in the amount of time they can provide federal cash assistance to  families. In general, states may not use federal TANF funds to provide  cash assistance to a family that includes an adult who has received cash  assistance for 5 years or more. Such time limits do not apply to other  TANF-funded services.
The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 reauthorized the TANF block grantand included changes expected to strengthen the work participation rate  requirement for states, among other changes. TANF is authorized  through March 27, 2013.
subsections: section_title: HHS Oversight Responsibilities
paragraphs: Federal law sets forth the basic TANF reporting requirements for states.  For example, states are required to provide information and report on  their use of TANF funds to HHS through quarterly reports on  demographic and economic circumstances and work activities of families  receiving cash assistance, state TANF plans outlining how each state  intends to run its TANF program, and quarterly financial reports providing  data on federal TANF and state MOE expenditures, among other things.  HHS reviews state information and reports to ensure that states meet the  conditions outlined in federal law. For example, HHS uses information on  demographic and economic circumstances and work activities of families  receiving cash assistance to determine whether states are meeting work  participation rates.
For quarterly financial reports, HHS collects information on two types of  state expenditures.  1.  Assistance, which we refer to throughout the report as cash  assistance, primarily includes monthly cash payments directed at  ongoing, basic needs.  2.  Nonassistance, which we refer to throughout the report as non-cash  services, can include any other services meeting TANF purposes.  These include services such as job preparation activities, child care  and transportation assistance for parents who are employed, family  formation efforts, and child welfare services, as well as some cash  benefits such as non-recurring short-term benefits and refundable tax  credits to low-income working families.
The distinction between cash assistance and non-cash services is  important because only families that receive cash assistance are included  in the work participation rate calculation and are subject to time limits on  receiving federally-funded cash assistance. Such conditions do not apply  to families who receive non-cash services.
Amid concerns regarding limited information on TANF expenditures,  Congress included additional reporting requirements in the Claims  Resolution Act of 2010, which extended TANF authorization through  September 2011. The act required states to submit additional information  to HHS on nonassistance (or non-cash services) broadly categorized on  HHS’s expenditure reporting form as either “other” or “authorized solely  under prior law” for March 2011 and April through June 2011. The act  only required these reports in 2011, and did not require on-going  reporting for following years. Expenditures in these categories made up  nearly 28 percent of all federal TANF and state MOE spending for non- cash services nationwide in fiscal year 2011, and the resulting reports  indicated that over half of them were for child welfare services.
section_title: National Trends in TANF Expenditures
paragraphs: The major contrasts between the funding structure of the TANF block  grant and its predecessor became apparent in the early years of TANF.  When TANF was first implemented in fiscal year 1997, on average over  3.9 million families were receiving cash assistance every month. This  number declined by over half within the first 5 years of TANF, and  averaged about 1.9 million families in fiscal year 2011. The composition  of the overall TANF caseload also changed, with the percentage of “child- only” cases increasing from about 23 percent from July through  September 1997 to over 40 percent in fiscal year 2010. These cases  consist of families receiving cash assistance on behalf of children only, in  contrast to other cases in which adults in the families also receive  benefits on their own behalf. Generally, in child-only cases, the parent or  adult caregiver is not eligible for benefits for one or more of a variety of  reasons, such as receipt of other federal benefits or immigration status.
With the financial structure of the block grant, states have generally  maintained access to their full TANF block grant allocation each year and  have still been required to meet minimum MOE requirements, even as  cash assistance caseloads declined. We examined issues related to the  federal-state fiscal partnership under TANF in 2001 amid concerns that  states would replace their own spending with federal TANF funds—   thereby freeing up state funds for other purposes, including tax relief. Although we have not updated this work, we found at that time that the  MOE requirement, in many cases, limited the extent to which states used  their federal funds to replace state funds. Declining cash assistance  caseloads also freed up federal TANF funds that states could save under  a “rainy day fund” for use in future years, providing states additional  flexibility in their budget decisions. In fact, we reported in 2010 that many  states had some TANF reserves that they drew down to meet increasing  needs in the recent economic downturn.
Over time, states also used TANF flexibility to shift spending to non-cash  services. In fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent about 23 percent of  federal TANF and state MOE funds on non-cash services. In contrast,  states spent almost 64 percent of federal TANF and state MOE funds for  these purposes in fiscal year 2011 (see fig. 1).
The shift in combined federal TANF and MOE spending over time is also  reflected in federal and state spending when considered separately. In  fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent about 23 percent of federal  TANF funds for non-cash services, compared to about 58 percent in fiscal  year 2011 (see fig. 2). An even greater shift occurred in MOE spending  patterns over time. While in fiscal year 1997, nationwide, states spent  about 23 percent of state MOE funds for non-cash services, this rose to  about 70 percent in fiscal year 2011.
The increased emphasis on non-cash services is widespread among the  states. Thirty-four states spent half or more of their federal TANF funds  for non-cash services in fiscal year 2011. Fifteen of these states spent  three-quarters or more of their federal TANF funds in this way (see fig. 3).
The move away from traditional cash assistance toward non-cash  services by states is not necessarily driven by reduced need for cash  assistance among low-income families. Several factors have affected the  early decline and continued low levels of cash assistance since states  implemented TANF. The initial decline occurred during a strong economy  where federal support for work supports like child care increased and  TANF provided new program emphasis on work. Many former welfare  recipients increased their income through employment, and employment  rates among single parents increased. At the same time that some  families worked more and had higher incomes, others had incomes that  left them still eligible for cash assistance. However, many of these eligible  families were not participating in the program. According to our estimates  in a 2010 report, the vast majority—87 percent—of the caseload decline  through 2005 can be explained by the decline in eligible families  participating in the program, in part because of changes to state welfare  programs. These changes included mandatory work requirements;  changes to application procedures; lower benefits; policies such as  lifetime limits on assistance; diversion strategies such as providing one- time, non-recurring benefits instead of monthly cash assistance to  families facing temporary hardships; and sanctions for non-compliance,  according to a review of the research. Among eligible families who did not  receive cash assistance, 11 percent did not work, did not receive means- tested disability benefits, and had very low incomes. While we have not  updated this analysis, some recent research shows that this potentially  vulnerable group may be growing.number of families in poverty and those receiving cash assistance  through TANF is not as strong as it has been in the past (see fig. 4).
section_title: States Use Flexible Federal TANF Funds to Emphasize Job Preparation and Work Supports for Low- Income Families and Services for At-Risk Children
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2011, nationwide, the top areas of state spending of federal  TANF funds for non-cash services were child welfare, emergency aid,  and other services; job preparation and work activities; and work supports  including child care.populations for services and delivery methods differed within and across  these three spending areas. State decisions on how to allocate funding  for non-cash services were influenced by state priorities and TANF’s  funding structure, according to officials we interviewed.
subsections: section_title: States Focus Federal Funds for Non-Cash Services in Common Areas but Can Differ in Target Populations and Service Delivery
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2011, nationwide, states spent federal TANF funds for non- cash services in common areas including child welfare, emergency aid,  and other services; job preparation and work activities; and work supports  including child care. These spending areas accounted for 70 percent of  over $8.7 billion in federal TANF funds spent on non-cash services  nationwide that year (see fig. 5).
As shown in figure 6, based on each state’s spending for non-cash  services, these areas—child welfare, emergency aid, and other services;  job preparation and work activities; and work supports—also represented  the three areas most frequently emphasized by states. For example, 18  states spent the largest percentage of their federal TANF funds for non- cash services for child welfare, emergency aid, and other services and 17  states spent the largest percentage for job preparation and work  activities.
The spending area referred to as child welfare, emergency aid, and other  services includes a range of services categorized as “authorized solely  under prior law” and “other,” which were primarily child welfare services.  According to expenditures reported by states in HHS’s report to Congress  required by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 for April through June  2011, states spent over 54 percent of federal funds categorized as  “authorized solely under prior law” and “other” combined on child welfare  services.
States spent an average of 29 percent of their federal TANF  funds for non-cash services in this area, ranging from under 5 percent in  12 states to over 85 percent in 2 states.
TANF requires each state to engage a specified percentage of families  receiving cash assistance in work or work-related activities, and  combined, states had spending on job preparation and work activities  totaling over $1.9 billion in fiscal year 2011. Nationwide, 17 states had  these services as a top spending area for federal TANF funds for non- cash services that same year. Overall, states spent an average of about  25 percent of their federal TANF funds for non-cash services in this area,  ranging from under 5 percent in eight states to 79 percent in one state.Expenditures are not reported in a way to determine what portion of  spending in this area is spent on those receiving cash assistance versus  other eligible low-income individuals.
Eight states had work supports as a top spending area for federal TANF  funds for non-cash services in fiscal year 2011. We reported in 2006 that  growth in TANF spending for work supports, particularly for child care,  reflected state efforts to support employment as these supports helped  many families formerly receiving cash assistance maintain jobs. States  spent an average of about 13 percent of their federal TANF funds for non- cash services in this area, ranging from under 5 percent in 25 states to 67  percent in 1 state.
While states spent a large portion of their federal TANF funds in these  areas, we found in our interviews with selected states that target  populations for services and delivery methods can differ. The following  provides examples of these differences in our selected states for child  welfare, emergency aid, and other services; job preparation and work  activities; and work supports.
Among our selected states, federal TANF funds were used to support  child welfare services, such as child abuse hotlines, investigative and  legal services, child protection, and preventive services as well as  emergency aid, such as clothing and shelter. Child welfare services are  generally provided to children and their families to prevent the occurrence  of child abuse or neglect, to help stabilize the family and prevent the need  to remove the child from the home if abuse has occurred, and to improve  the home and enable the child to reunite with his or her family if the child  has been removed from the home. Officials in several of our ten selected  states said that TANF funds helped expand existing child welfare  programs that were also funded with other federal sources, such as Title  IV-E of the Social Security Act for foster care payments and adoption  assistance, Medicaid for health care coverage for low-income individuals  including children, Title IV-B of the Social Security Act for child and family  services to promote the welfare of children, and Social Services Block  Grant (SSBG) funds for states to provide social services to meet certain  needs of individuals residing within each state. The officials noted that  TANF’s flexibility allowed them to meet budgetary needs in this area. One  study shows that states rely on federal TANF funds to help support  children and families served by state child welfare agencies (see fig. 7).
In addition to child welfare services, selected states used funds in this  spending area to provide a variety of other services. For example, the  District of Columbia used federal TANF funds to support homeless  shelters, provide case management, and conduct home visits to families  formerly receiving cash assistance.
Among our selected states, job preparation and work activities included  job readiness training related to resume-writing and interview preparation,  help with the job search process, skills training, and subsidized  employment. These activities provided work-related assistance that  typically counts toward the state’s work participation requirement, and  that the state must track for reporting and compliance purposes. Officials  in one selected state noted that they also provided activities such as  English as a Second Language courses that do not count toward meeting  work participation requirements. Officials in 5 of our 10 selected states  said they provide services like resume and interview assistance through  contractors or directly through the state.
While selected states provided similar services, the populations served  and delivery methods often differed. For example, California targets its  non-cash services to families receiving cash assistance, with the  exception of those receiving short-term aid in an effort to divert them from  the caseload. Its TANF-funded services promote job preparation and  work activities directed at this population. Other states we reviewed said  they provide certain non-cash services to low-income families regardless  of whether they receive cash assistance. For example, Arkansas and  Washington use federal funds from TANF to partner with local colleges  and businesses to provide tailored education and training opportunities  designed to meet the needs of local industries. Arkansas officials said  that the state’s Career Pathways program provides eligible individuals  who have children, such as cash assistance recipients and those with   with education  incomes up to 250 percent of the federal poverty line,and career training at participating community colleges for high demand  jobs. Arkansas officials noted that the program was originally going to be  supported using federal funds under the Workforce Investment Act, but  these funds were not available, so TANF funds were used instead.  Meanwhile, Florida and Utah coordinate work-related services with those  provided through the Workforce Investment Act one-stop center system,  through which job seekers can access most federally-funded employment  and training programs and services.
Among our selected states, work supports primarily included child care  subsidies or vouchers for low-income families that are working, which  may include those receiving cash assistance. Selected states provided  child care services similarly through statewide child care systems,  counties, or contract vendors. Officials in several selected states said  they use TANF funds to provide child care services in combination with  federal funds from the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which  helps states provide child care subsidies for low-income families. This  practice of using both TANF and CCDF funds for child care services was  also noted in our previous work, which indicated that states use a  combination of TANF, CCDF, TANF funds transferred to CCDF, SSBG,  and state funds to provide child care subsidies to low-income families.  Officials in several of our selected states said that TANF funds helped  them address unmet needs and expand services provided through CCDF  to larger populations. However, they also noted that even with these  combined funding sources, they have had waitlists for child care  subsidies in their state. Our prior work shows that waitlists are not always  an accurate indicator of need. For example, in our 2005 and 2010 reports  on the decline of the number of children served by CCDF, we noted that  states have made changes since 2001 that could decrease the number of  families that can access child care but could also provide larger subsidies  to those who receive services. These included eligibility and enrollment  changes, increased provider payment amounts, and increased co- payment amounts for families (see fig. 8). An official we spoke with in one  state said that they do not use waitlists, and instead adjust key features of  their child care subsidy program, such as eligibility criteria, to match the  resources they have available. These adjustments allow them to avoid  waitlists but also make some families that could potentially benefit from  the program unable to participate.
For additional information on selected states’ TANF programs and  spending for non-cash services, see appendix III.
section_title: State Decisions for Non- Cash Services are Influenced by TANF’s Funding Structure and State Priorities
paragraphs: TANF’s funding structure has given states flexibility in making decisions  regarding non-cash services. As mentioned earlier, the dramatic caseload  declines during the first few years of TANF’s implementation allowed  states to spend federal funds not used on cash assistance for new or  existing non-cash services. For example, Louisiana officials said their  state’s caseload declines freed up federal TANF funds for new programs  to encourage marriage, provide pre-kindergarten services, and help  prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies. In fiscal year 2010, Louisiana spent  71 percent of its federal TANF funds for non-cash services on these  efforts. Further, they noted that caseloads continued to decline or stayed  the same, since many families that would have been eligible for cash  assistance left the state following Hurricane Katrina.
Officials in several other selected states also said that federal TANF  funds were spent on existing or new programs according to state  legislative priorities, and, as a result, funds are often allocated to and  administered through multiple state and local agencies. This is in contrast  to TANF’s predecessor program, AFDC, which was typically administered  through state welfare agencies. More specifically, in 2 of our 10 selected  states, officials said that federal TANF funds were allocated directly to a  lead agency, usually the state TANF office, which may have allowed it to  focus funds in specific areas. For example in Utah, federal TANF funds  were generally provided first to its Department of Workforce Services.  While the department had agreements with other state agencies to  provide services, 63 percent of its federal TANF funds for non-cash  services in fiscal year 2010 were used for job preparation and work  activities. Similarly, in Louisiana, federal TANF funds were generally  provided to the state Department of Child and Family Services, which  used interagency agreements to support its emphasis on the family  formation and out-of-wedlock pregnancy prevention efforts mentioned  above. In contrast, federal TANF funds can be allocated to multiple  agencies through a state’s annual legislative budget process. For  example in Florida, federal TANF funds went to several agencies that  provided a variety of services to low-income families as well as those  receiving cash assistance (see fig. 9). Florida officials said legislative  priorities can shift from year to year, and recent emphasis has been on  out-of-wedlock pregnancy prevention programs and child welfare  initiatives, such as protective investigations and adoption subsidies.
States’ use of federal TANF funds for a broad array of non-cash services  beyond traditional cash assistance can create tensions and trade-offs in  state funding decisions, particularly in times of severe fiscal constraints.  Officials in three of our selected states cited tensions between the need to  provide cash assistance and the need to provide other state services.  They noted that this has become more apparent as the number of  families needing cash assistance increased during the recent economic  downturn. Officials in five selected states cited recent spending  reductions in non-cash areas including job preparation and work  activities, and officials in one state noted the need to reduce family  formation efforts, particularly after American Recovery and Reinvestment  Act of 2009 funds were no longer available.
To help manage costs, states may make changes to key elements of their  cash assistance programs, such as adjusting eligibility criteria, benefit  levels, and other features. For example, officials in one selected state  said that instead of reducing spending for non-cash services to meet  increased need for cash assistance during the recession, the state  recently enacted more stringent eligibility criteria and reduced benefit  amounts for cash assistance. They explained that their state legislature  allocates TANF funds to the cash assistance program just like any other  program for non-cash services and thus, funding is not shifted between  programs to accommodate increased need. Almost no federal  requirements or benchmarks exist as to eligibility criteria or benefit  amounts or on the percentage of low-income families who are to be  covered by a state’s cash assistance program. Officials in 9 of our 10  selected states said that the state allocates funds for cash assistance  based on caseload projections using data from previous years.  Remaining funds are then available for non-cash services.
section_title: TANF’S Accountability Framework Provides Incomplete Information on States’ Use of TANF Funds
subsections: section_title: Current Reporting Provides Limited Information on State’s Use of Funds for Non-Cash Services
paragraphs: Although the TANF block grant has evolved into a flexible funding stream  that states use to support a broad range of allowable services while also  serving as the nation’s major cash assistance program for low-income  families with children, the accountability framework currently in place in  federal law and regulations has not kept pace with this evolution. As a  result, there is incomplete information available for assessing TANF  performance.
Under federal law and regulations, states are required to submit several  reports to HHS related to TANF. These generally include: quarterly reports on demographic and economic circumstances and  work activities of families receiving cash assistance;  state TANF plans outlining how each state intends to run its TANF  program, generally filed every two years; quarterly financial reports providing data on federal TANF and state quarterly state MOE reports providing data on families receiving cash  benefits under separate state programs, which are funded entirely  with state MOE funds and are not subject to certain federal  requirements; and annual single audit reports resulting from required audits of nonfederal  entities that expend federal funds.
Taken together, this set of reports and the information provided serves as  the accountability framework in place to help HHS and Congress ensure  that states use TANF funds in keeping with the block grant’s purposes  and identify any program improvements that may be warranted. Yet,  these numerous requirements provide limited information on state  strategies for using their TANF funds for non-cash services. Our past  work has shown that a sound accountability framework includes (1)  defining desired outcomes, (2) measuring performance to gauge  progress, and (3) using performance information as a basis for decision- making. This requires complete, accurate, and reliable data. However,  this type of performance information is not available for a majority of  TANF funds nationwide. There are no reporting requirements mandating  performance information specifically on families receiving non-cash  services or their outcomes, or information related to TANF’s role in filling  needs in other areas like child welfare, even though this has become a  more prominent spending area for TANF funds in many states.reporting gaps limit the information available for oversight of TANF block  grant funds by HHS and Congress.
State TANF plans serve as a potential source of useful program  information. However, they currently provide limited descriptions of a  state’s goals and strategies for its TANF block grant, including how non- cash services fit into these goals and strategies, and the amount of  information in each plan can vary by state. Federal law includes general  language on what should be included in the state TANF plan. For  example, the law states that plans are to outline how a state will “conduct  a program…that provides assistance to needy families with (or expecting)  children and provides parents with job preparation, work, and support  services to enable them to leave the program and become self-sufficient.”  Federal law does not require states to include descriptions in their state  plans of how they intend to use TANF funds beyond the cash assistance  population for non-cash services, and states have used their discretion in   For example, a state  determining how much detail to put in their plans. plan prepared by one of the selected states outlined its cash assistance  program and provided descriptions of a variety of non-cash services it  intends to provide. In contrast, the state plan of another selected state  described its intentions to provide supportive services, particularly to  families who have exhausted cash assistance benefits, but did not  describe what those services would be.
HHS officials also noted that they do not have the authority to require states to include  basic information about their cash assistance programs, including state TANF eligibility  criteria, benefits levels, and other program features.
The financial reports on federal TANF and state MOE expenditures also  provide some information on the types of non-cash services provided by  states, but recent HHS studies and officials in most selected states we  spoke to have noted some weaknesses in the information collected from  states. Specifically, an HHS study from 2009 reviewed most states’  expenditures and noted incomplete and inconsistent information related  to HHS’s current TANF expenditure reporting form for states. HHS  identified similar issues in its reports to Congress required under the  Claims Resolution Act of 2010, which examined more detailed information  from states on TANF expenditures reported on the form. For example, the  reports show that spending for child welfare services is often reported in  the “other” category for non-cash services as well as the “authorized  solely under prior law” categories for cash assistance and non-cash  services. In addition, the reports noted inconsistencies between states  with the activities counted under the form’s reporting categories. Officials  in 7 of the 10 selected states said that the form does not fully capture the  purposes of their TANF spending. For example, one state official  described how their state’s use of TANF funds for child welfare services is  not identifiable in the form’s reporting categories. Also, current  expenditure reporting does not provide data in a way that allows  distinctions between expenditures made on behalf of cash assistance  recipients to help them find employment and leave welfare, and  expenditures provided to other individuals and families not directly related  to welfare-to-work purposes.
While state plans and expenditure reports individually provide some  information on non-cash services, even when considered together, they  do not provide a complete picture on state goals and strategies for uses  of TANF funds. This is because the state plan is not required to be written  in a way that connects to HHS’s financial reporting categories. This  makes it difficult to determine how and whether spending areas fit into  each state’s stated goals and strategies. One state official we interviewed  said that with the current reporting requirements, it was hard for them to  know how much TANF funding each of their state programs were using  and what benefit the state was getting from each program. As a result,  the state developed an additional internal report that presents the costs of  performing activities by program, which provides it with better information  for assessing the return on investment for each program. Officials from  another state also said that it might be helpful to have the state plan more  closely tied to the TANF expenditure reporting form, but they would want  very specific instructions for how this should be done.
HHS officials noted the department’s recent efforts to improve TANF  expenditure reporting and acknowledged that reporting could be improved  in certain other areas as well. HHS officials said they are revising the  TANF expenditure reporting form to the extent permitted by law to include  additional reporting categories, such as those related to child welfare  services. They said they are also revising reporting instructions for states  to improve consistency across states. Officials noted the importance of  considering the implications for states of any changes or additions to  current reporting requirements. For example, some state officials we  interviewed described how new or revised reporting requirements can  require costly and time-consuming changes to automated and other  systems and practices in states and localities, and need to be carefully  considered in terms of burden and appropriate timing for states. HHS  officials were unable to provide a detailed plan with specific timeframes  for the reporting revisions, but said that they are working on them, that  they will seek input from relevant parties, and that when the revisions are  finalized, they will be shared with Congress to assist in potential TANF  reauthorization. In commenting on a draft of this report, HHS stated that it  intends to publish draft revisions and instructions for comment in early  2013, with a goal of implementing the revisions for fiscal year 2014.
section_title: A Key Performance Measure Focuses on Cash Assistance Recipients
paragraphs: The work participation rate for states, established in law and focused on  families receiving cash assistance, serves as a key performance measure  for state TANF programs. This focus remains, even though the cash  assistance component of TANF no longer reflects how most TANF funds  are spent. Our 2010 report shows that the emphasis on the work  participation rate as a measure of program performance has helped  change the culture of state welfare programs so that they focus on  moving families off cash assistance and into employment.held accountable for ensuring that a specified percentage of all families  receiving TANF cash assistance, and considered work-eligible, participate   States are  in one or more of the federally-defined allowable activities for the required  number of hours each week. We noted in our 2010 report that while the  rate specified in law is 50 percent, states have used various policy  options, such as credits for caseload reductions and spending above  required MOE amounts, to reduce their required rates below 50 percent,  as permitted by law. TANF also provides states some flexibility regarding  which families to include or exclude in calculating their rates. Our 2010  report noted that over the years, states have typically engaged about one- third of work-eligible families in allowable work activities nationwide and  generally met their reduced rates. State participation rates have remained  essentially the same since TANF’s implementation, despite legislative  changes in 2005 that were generally expected to strengthen the work  requirements, as we also reported in 2010 and again in 2011. We also  noted in 2012 that the TANF work participation rate requirements, as  enacted, in combination with the allowable credits and flexibility provided  to states, may not serve as an incentive for states to engage more  families in work.
Our previous work and our work in selected states also shows that the  work participation rate measure may not capture aid and services that  states believe are important and that it may also serve as a disincentive  to work with families with complex needs. All 10 selected states were  using federal TANF funds to offer a range of non-cash services that  could, for example, help remove barriers to work and/or keep families off  the cash assistance caseload. A few of these states provided emergency  aid to help meet low-income families’ immediate needs, including  housing, child care, and transportation. These efforts are not captured in the key performance measure, the work participation rate. Also, some  officials in several selected states also said that the pressure to meet  TANF work participation rate requirements causes them to focus on the  “ready to work” cash assistance population, which can leave the “harder- to-serve” population without services.
section_title: Selected States Are Developing Some Performance Measures for Non-Cash Services
paragraphs: In our interviews with state officials in the 10 selected states, we found  that eight said their states had developed or are developing performance  measures of their own that include at least some TANF non-cash  services. Officials from seven of these eight states said that their states  had tracked information that included the number of people served by  some state programs that used federal TANF funds for non-cash  services. In addition, of these eight states, officials in Washington and the  District of Columbia said they are going through a “re-design process” for  their cash assistance program. For example, they are more closely  aligning services across multiple state agencies to provide  comprehensive services to meet the individual needs of families receiving  cash assistance and to help them attain self-sufficiency. Washington  officials said they are developing alternative measures of family well- being to measure the effectiveness of TANF as a whole for these families  under the re-designed TANF program. Examples of measures  Washington officials are considering for families receiving cash  assistance include examining whether parents are attaining higher levels  of education, training, and financial literacy; whether children have  increased access to early childhood and preschool programs; and  whether families have increased access to health care, stable housing,  and supports for family conflict and domestic violence.
section_title: Improving Performance Information to Include TANF Non-Cash Services Is Challenging
paragraphs: Several features of TANF pose challenges to designing performance  measures, as indicated by our previous work. In our 2006 report on  improving performance accountability in grant programs, we noted that  some grant features in particular affect the difficulties of designing  accountability mechanisms. These features include the extent to which  a grant: operates as a funding stream rather than a distinct program, and supports a limited or diverse array of objectives.
We also said in our 2012 guidance on designing evaluations that a block  grant, with loosely defined objectives that simply adds to a stream of  funds supporting on-going state programs, presents a significant  challenge to efforts to portray the results of the federal program.  Moreover, we noted in 1995 that accountability for block grants can be  difficult since accountability provisions need to strike a balance between  the potentially conflicting objectives of increasing state flexibility while  attaining certain national objectives—a balance that inevitably involves  philosophical questions about the proper roles and relationships among  the levels of government in our federal system. The four stated TANF  purposes in the law that generally define allowable use of funds for states  are broad, so the ways in which states use TANF funds can often be  complex and varied across states. Also, as discussed previously, as  allowed under TANF, states have used TANF funds to expand existing  state programs that may be funded with other federal sources, such as  Workforce Investment Act funds for employment and training services;  CCDF funds for child care; and SSBG and Title IV-B and E funds of the  Social Security Act for child welfare services.
While accountability for the TANF block grant can be challenging, general  principles of performance measurement can help guide the development  of improved performance information. As we cited earlier, our previous  work noted that an essential first step in any system of performance  information and measurement is to establish goals to be achieved  through the relevant program or funding stream. This work also identified  characteristics of successful performance measurement systems.  These include ensuring that performance measures are tied to program  goals, demonstrate the degree to which the desired results were  achieved, and take into account stakeholder concerns. In addition, real  world considerations, such as the cost and effort involved in gathering  and analyzing data, must be taken into account while striving to collect  sufficiently complete, accurate, and consistent data to be useful for  decision makers. Moreover, other key decisions in establishing  performance measures relate to whether to link penalties or rewards to  any such measures. Although in many situations HHS can revise its  reporting form to make adjustments to the reporting categories, generally  HHS has limited authority to impose new TANF reporting requirements on  states unless directed by Congress, so many changes to the types of  performance information that states are required to report would require  congressional action.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Over the years, TANF has clearly evolved beyond a traditional cash  assistance program and now also serves as a source of funding for a  broad range of services states provide to other eligible families. States  still spend some portion of TANF funds on welfare-to-work programs for  the cash assistance population, but their new and varied uses of TANF  funds for non-cash services over time beyond this population raise  questions about how state efforts are contributing to TANF purposes. Yet,  without an accountability framework that encompasses the full breadth of  states’ uses of TANF funds, Congress will not be able to fully assess how  funds are being used, including who is receiving services or what is being  achieved. We acknowledge HHS’s steps toward improving TANF  expenditure reporting and its concerns about reporting revisions for  states. Any efforts to require more information or make changes to  existing reporting and performance measures must consider this potential  reporting burden for states. At the same time, gaps in TANF reporting and  performance information make it difficult for policymakers to fully assess  the workings of TANF. If Congress determines that TANF, as currently  structured, continues to address its vision for the program, improved  reporting and performance information will be important to enhance  Congress’ decision making and oversight of TANF in the future.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To provide better information for making decisions regarding the TANF  block grant and better ensure accountability for TANF funds, Congress  should consider ways to improve reporting and performance information  so that it encompasses the full breadth of states’ uses of TANF funds.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: As HHS takes steps to revise expenditure reporting for TANF to better  understand how states use TANF funds, it should develop a detailed plan  with specific timelines to assist in monitoring its progress for revising its  financial reporting categories for expenditures of federal TANF and state  MOE funds.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of our report to HHS for review and comment. HHS  indicated in its general comments (see appendix IV) that it agrees that  current reporting on TANF expenditures provides limited information on  the range of ways in which states use federal TANF and state MOE  funds. HHS noted that it intends to publish draft revisions to its reporting  categories for TANF expenditures and instructions for states for comment  in early 2013, with a goal of implementing the revisions in fiscal year  2014. We have added this information to the report. We commend HHS’s  efforts to improve TANF expenditure reporting, and maintain that a  detailed plan with timelines for revising the reporting categories will  facilitate monitoring of its progress and help ensure that the revisions are  implemented in a timely fashion. We also agree with HHS that as it works  to improve financial reporting, it will be helpful to develop more refined  categories of spending than the current categories in existing federal  reporting, and to look at overall usage of funds, including transfers and  MOE spending.
In addition, HHS said that it lacks the authority to require states to provide  certain types of information in their state plans, such as plans for using  TANF funds or meeting MOE requirements as well as strategic goals or  performance targets or measures. HHS noted that absent a statutory  change, it cannot add additional categories of required information to the  state plan, and any decision to establish such new requirements is one  for Congress to consider.
HHS also noted that the report underscores that a large share of TANF  spending now goes to categories of spending other than cash assistance,  and that improved information can assist in considering both appropriate  allowable expenditure categories and the potential for performance  measurements for these other categories of TANF and MOE spending. In  addition to these general comments, HHS also provided us with technical  comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found  on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: HHS Categories of Expenditures for Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services on the Form ACF-196
paragraphs: Appendix I: HHS Categories of Expenditures  for Cash Assistance and Non-Cash Services  on the Form ACF-196 expenditures on non-recurrent short-term benefits or subsidized employment. It also includes TANF  Contingency funds provided to states when certain triggers indicate increased needs.
section_title: Appendix II: TANF Spending Areas for Non- Cash Services
paragraphs: HHS’s TANF expenditure reporting form, the Form ACF-196, includes 13  categories for states to report spending for non-cash services. We  combined HHS TANF expenditure reporting categories under the  following “spending areas” for the purposes of our report.
section_title: Appendix III: Selected State Profiles
paragraphs: This appendix provides selected TANF-related information—such as  TANF caseload and spending data—as well as data on numbers of  families and children in poverty for each of the 10 states we reviewed in  this report: Arkansas, California, Colorado, the District of Columbia,  Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Utah, and Washington.
States were judgmentally selected to capture a variety of state  characteristics including the proportion of federal and state funds states  spent on TANF non-cash services; the proportion spent for specific non- cash services including child welfare, emergency aid, and other services,  job preparation and work activities, and work supports such as child care;  the total amount of federal and state expenditures for non-cash services;  and organizational, geographic, and other considerations. These 10  states accounted for nearly half of all federal and state spending for TANF  non-cash services in fiscal year 2010.
subsections: section_title: Max monthly benefit: $204
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Department of Education
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Education, training, and job search  services for TANF caseload families as well  as incentive bonuses for families no longer  receiving cash assistance to continue finding  employment.  Career Pathways initiative to increase  access to education credentials to help TANF  caseload and other low-income families attain  higher paying jobs through partnerships with  local colleges and businesses.  Subsidized child care services primarily  for TANF caseload families through the  state’s child care system.
Administration costs for the Departments  of Workforce Services and Human Services.
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $714
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Agencies Involved in Providing Non-cash Services State TANF Office: Department of Social Services (supervises funds provided to 58 counties)
section_title: Other Agencies: Department of Child Support Services
paragraphs: Examples of programs    and services provided Education and training for TANF caseload  families only.   Wage subsidies for TANF caseload families  as well as other eligible low-income families  not on the TANF caseload.  Administration costs for both the counties  and the state, in addition to some related  costs for contractors.
section_title: Department of Education
section_title: Department of Public Health
paragraphs: Domestic violence services for TANF  caseload families only.  Temporary transitional services such as  child protection, family preservation, and  case management to meet a specific crisis  situation.
section_title: Employment Development Department
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $462
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Agencies Involved in Providing Non-cash Services State TANF Office: Department of Human Services (supervises funds provided to 64 counties)
section_title: Other Agencies: Department of Health Care Policy and Finance
paragraphs: Examples of programs    and services provided Child welfare services for TANF caseload  families as well as other eligible low-income  families not on the TANF caseload.  Homeless Prevention and Rapid  Re-housing Program, in partnership with  the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority,  for TANF caseload families as well as other  eligible low-income families not on the TANF  caseload.  Administrative costs for both the counties  and the state.
section_title: Department of Public Health and Education
paragraphs: Child care tax credits for TANF caseload  families as well as other eligible low-income  families not on the TANF caseload.
section_title: Housing and Finance Authority
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $428
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Other Agencies: Addiction, Prevention and Recovery Services Agency
section_title: Rehabilitation Services Administration
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Child care vouchers for TANF caseload  families as well as other eligible low-income  families not on the TANF caseload, delivered  through the Office of the State  Superintendent for Education.  Child welfare services for TANF caseload  families only, with case management  services provided through the Department of  Child and Family Services.  Emergency aid such as shelter, food, and  clothing for TANF caseload families as well  as other eligible low-income families not on  the TANF caseload.  Home visits to TANF caseload families to  identify barriers to employment and link  these families to needed services.  Teen pregnancy prevention program  through the Department of Health, which  provides sex education to young women.
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $303
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Department of Economic Opportunity
section_title: Department of Health
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Child welfare services including protective  investigations, abuse hotlines, case  management, and other family safety  activities for TANF caseload families as well  as other eligible low-income families not on  the TANF caseload.  School readiness child care program for  TANF caseload families as well as other  eligible low-income families not on the TANF  caseload.  Education, training and work subsidies for  TANF caseload families as well as other  eligible low-income families not on the TANF  caseload.
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $432
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Child welfare screening, assessments,  and investigations for TANF caseload  families.   Home visits and parent training for child  welfare cases.
section_title: Other Agencies: Department of Children and Family Services
section_title: Department of Healthcare and Family Services
paragraphs: Employment and training programs  provided to TANF caseload families through  contractors administered by the state.  Child care certificate and voucher program  for TANF caseload families as well as other  eligible low-income families not on the TANF  caseload.
section_title: State Board of Education
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $240
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Other Agencies: Department of Education
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Pre-kindergarten program to reduce  out-of-wedlock pregnancies and encourage  two-parent families by increasing literacy  and responsible behavior for TANF caseload  families as well as other eligible low-income  families not on the TANF caseload.  Administration costs associated with  multiple programs.
section_title: Department of Safety/Corrections
paragraphs: Work-related activities, education, and  skills training for TANF caseload families.
section_title: Louisiana Workforce Commission
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $788
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Agencies Involved in Providing Non-Cash Services State TANF Office: Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (supervises funds provided to 58 local social service districts)
paragraphs: Examples of programs    and services provided Child protective and preventive services  and maintenance of a child welfare hotline  for TANF caseload families as well as other  eligible low-income families not on the TANF  caseload.  Administration costs including TANF  eligibility determination.  Work programs for TANF caseload families  as well as other eligible low-income families  not on the TANF caseload.
section_title: Department of Health
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $498
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Other Agencies: Department of Health
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Employment, education, and job training  services for TANF caseload families as well  as other eligible low-income families not on  the TANF caseload.  Subsidized employment for TANF caseload  families.  Administration and systems costs for the  state.
Healthy marriage promotion programs  through education and training.  After-school youth development programs  to help prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancy.
section_title: Max monthly benefit: $478
section_title: Average Number Receiving Cash Assistance per Month All people
section_title: Department of Commerce
paragraphs: Examples of programs  and services provided  Vocational education and GED support  generally through community colleges  as well  as job preparation and job search  assistance for TANF caseload families as  well as other eligible low-income families not  on the TANF caseload.  Subsidized employment for TANF caseload  families only.  Child care assistance for TANF caseload  families as well as other eligible low-income  families not on the TANF caseload.  Administration and systems costs for the  state.
section_title: Department of Early Learning
paragraphs: Washington officials noted discrepancies between their fiscal year-end 2010 TANF expenditure data  with the data HHS published for that year. Officials said further that discrepancies are likely due to  differences in reporting time frames between the state and HHS.
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Robert Campbell, Gale Harris,  Kristy Kennedy, Nhi Nguyen, Michael Pahr, and Michelle Loutoo Wilson  made significant contributions to all aspects of this report. Also  contributing to this report were James Bennett, Elizabeth Curda, Rachel  Frisk, Alexander Galuten, Kathleen van Gelder, Thomas James, Edward  Leslie, Jennifer McDonald, Ellen Phelps Ranen, Almeta Spencer, and  Walter Vance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
paragraphs: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Program  Performance. GAO-12-812T. Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2012.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: State Maintenance of Effort  Requirements and Trends. GAO-12-713T. Washington, D.C.: May 17,  2012.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Update on Families Served  and Work Participation. GAO-11-880T. Washington, D.C.: September 8,  2011.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Recent  Legislative and Economic Changes for State Programs and Work  Participation Rates. GAO-10-525. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2010.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Fewer Eligible Families Have  Received Cash Assistance Since the 1990s, and the Recession’s Impact  on Caseloads Varies by State. GAO-10-164. Washington, D.C.: February  23, 2010.
Welfare Reform: Better Information Needed to Understand Trends in  States’ Uses of the TANF Block. GAO-06-414. Washington, D.C.: March  3, 2006.
Welfare Reform: States Provide TANF-Funded Work Support Services to  Many Low-Income Families Who Do Not Receive Cash Assistance.   GAO-02-564. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Welfare Reform: Challenges in Maintaining a Federal-State Fiscal  Partnership. GAO-01-828. Washington, D.C.: August 10, 2001.
section_title: Accountability
paragraphs: Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision. GAO-12-208G. Washington, D.C.:  January 2012.
Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability Provisions  Could Lead to Better Results. GAO-06-1046. Washington, D.C.:  September 29, 2006.
Block Grants: Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions.   GAO/AIMD-95-226. Washington, D.C.: September 1, 1995.