Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: HHS Needs to Improve Guidance and Monitoring of Tribal Programs
Published: 2011-09-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) gives American Indian tribes the option to administer their own Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant programs. GAO first reported on the use of this flexibility by tribes in 2002 (GAO-02-768), and given the upcoming expected reauthorization of TANF, GAO was asked to examine (1) how tribal TANF programs have changed since 2002, especially in light of changing economic conditions; (2) the challenges tribes face in administering their own TANF programs and what tribes have done to address them; and (3) the extent to which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided guidance and oversight to promote the integrity and effectiveness of tribal TANF programs. GAO analyzed federal TANF data; interviewed federal officials; surveyed all tribal TANF administrators; and conducted site visits at 11 tribal TANF programs in four states.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Since GAO first reported on tribal TANF programs in 2002, the number of programs has increased--from 36 in 2002 to 64 in 2010. In addition, more tribes use program flexibilities to both tailor services to meet the needs of their TANF families and cope with changing economic conditions. GAO also found that some tribes have increased their work participation rate goals over time. For example, more than half of the 36 tribes that have been administering a TANF program since 2002 have raised these goals over time. Many tribes also allow a wide range of activities families can use to meet work participation rates, such as cultural activities or commuting time. Tribes also reported in GAO's survey that changing economic conditions have adversely affected their caseloads, funding, and services provided. For example, some tribes reported that since the beginning of the economic recession in 2007, they have larger average monthly caseloads, use other federal funding to fill budget gaps, and cut back supportive services to provide more cash grants. According to GAO's survey results, tribal TANF programs face challenges with initial program implementation, staff development and retention, and the development of adequate data systems. Moreover, all 11 tribes GAO visited talked about the various barriers to self-sufficiency facing their TANF participants, such as a lack of transportation and limited employment opportunities. To address these challenges, many tribes reach out to HHS regional office staff, other tribal and federal programs, and private consultants. For example, to address challenges related to developing adequate data systems, GAO learned that the majority of tribes use consultants to develop their systems and provide training. In addition, to enhance employment opportunities, some tribes have placed participants at their Head Start offices, while another tribe has partnered with its modular housing plant. HHS provides oversight and guidance for tribal TANF programs, but does not always do so in a timely or consistent manner. HHS officials told GAO that they use tribal TANF single audit report findings to target training and technical assistance to tribes. However, the systems that HHS uses to track these reports are fragmented, and as a result, tribal TANF officials may not consistently be aware of all the single audit findings related to tribal TANF programs, or be in a position to promptly identify and address recurring problems and mitigate risk. Other oversight tools, such as quarterly data reports used to calculate work participation rates, are not consistently updated by HHS in a timely manner, which, according to GAO's survey, is a challenge to tribes' administration of their TANF programs. HHS headquarters and regional offices provide guidance such as basic policy manuals, training at yearly conferences, and one-on-one assistance over the phone. However, some tribes expressed difficulty in finding and receiving clear, consistent, and timely guidance from HHS, which hinders their ability to successfully manage tribal TANF programs and finances.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that HHS review its process for tracking related single audit reports, improve processes for maintaining tribal TANF data that can be shared in a timely manner, and provide timely, accessible and consistent guidance that is clearly communicated to its tribal TANF programs. HHS commented it will be mindful of these recommendations as it examines ways to improve its efforts.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of  1996 (PRWORA) brought about significant reforms to the country’s  welfare system when it replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent  Children (AFDC) program with the Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families (TANF) block grant. As part of these reforms, federally  recognized American Indian tribes were given the option to administer  their own tribal TANF programs either individually or as part of a  consortium, providing benefits and services to American Indian families,  who previously were served by state AFDC programs. Overall, the TANF  block grant program provides approximately $17 billion annually to assist  low-income families and improve employment and other outcomes, of  which it provides about $182 million specifically to tribal TANF programs.
In the United States, American Indians disproportionately experience  socioeconomic challenges, including high rates of poverty and  unemployment. In 2008, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that American  Indians throughout the nation were almost twice as likely to live in poverty  as the rest of the population—27 percent compared to 15 percent. Those  living on or near reservations often face additional challenges because  many of these communities are isolated. PRWORA gives tribal TANF  programs broad flexibility in designing their programs and tailoring them  to meet TANF requirements and address their families’ needs.
Since 2002, when we first reported on the status of tribal TANF  programs, changes in economic conditions and recent legislation have  affected these programs. An economic recession started in December  2007, and while the reauthorization of TANF through the Deficit  Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA) did not make legislative changes to tribal  TANF, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery  Act) established the Emergency Contingency Fund that tribes as well as  states could access for additional funding. These changes have raised  questions about how tribal TANF programs have evolved over time and  what the role of federal agencies is in assisting and overseeing them.
As Congress looks toward potentially reauthorizing the TANF program in  2012, you asked us to address (1) how tribal TANF programs have  changed since 2002, especially in light of changing economic conditions;  (2) the challenges tribes face in administering their own TANF programs  and what tribes have done to address them; and (3) the extent to which  the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has provided  guidance and oversight to promote the integrity and effectiveness of tribal  TANF programs.
To address these issues, we analyzed HHS tribal TANF work participation,  expenditure, and caseload data for fiscal years 2002 to 2009. We also  reviewed tribes’ applications for the Recovery Act’s Emergency Contingency  Fund, and data on tribes’ expenditures of these funds. Our review also  included all 64 tribal TANF plans approved by HHS as of October 2010. In  addition, we reviewed all tribal TANF Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) Circular No. A-133 single audit data collection reports from fiscal  years 2002 to 2010 that had TANF-related audit findings. We conducted a  Web-based survey of all 64 approved tribal TANF programs in fiscal year  2010. Fifty of these administrators (78 percent) responded to the survey, and  represent a mix of different-sized tribal TANF programs and regions. We  also conducted site visits to 11 selected tribal TANF programs in Wisconsin,  New Mexico, Arizona, and California. We selected these programs because  they varied in geographic location, size of their service population, number of  years in operation, program structure, and amount of TANF and TANF- related program funding received. Information and findings from our site  visits cannot be generalized beyond the tribes we visited. Additionally, we  conducted interviews with tribal TANF consultants, U.S. Department of the  Interior (DOI) officials, and HHS officials in headquarters and all regional  offices serving areas where tribal TANF programs were located. We also  attended HHS regional tribal TANF conferences in California and  Washington. Finally, we reviewed relevant information from past GAO, HHS,  DOI, nonprofit, academic and research institutions’ reports, as well as  relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance. A detailed description of our  scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through September  2011 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 we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: According to 2009 population estimates from the U.S. Census Bureau,  about 3.2 million U.S. residents identify themselves as solely of American  Indian or Alaska Native origin. Furthermore, the Bureau of Indian Affairs  (BIA) in DOI reported that for 2005—the most recent year for which data  are available—the total number of enrolled members in federally  recognized American Indian and Alaska Native tribes and villages was  nearly 2 million. American Indians have high rates of poverty,  unemployment, single-parent families, and substance abuse relative to  the population as a whole. BIA reported that the unemployment rate for  American Indians living on or near a reservation was 49 percent in 2005,  the most recent year for which data are available, while the Bureau of  Labor Statistics reported a national unemployment rate of 5 percent for  the same year. A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute noted  that from the first half of 2007 to the first half of 2010, the national  American Indian unemployment rate—which includes individuals living in  both urban areas and on tribal lands—increased 7.7 percentage points to  15.2 percent, while it increased 4.9 percentage points to 9.1 percent  among Caucasians. Additionally, in 2009, 53 percent of American Indian  children lived in single-parent families, compared with 34 percent of all  children nationwide. HHS data estimates for 2004 through 2008 indicate  that the percentage of American Indians or Alaska Native adults who  needed treatment for alcohol or illicit drug use problems in the past year  was higher than the national average (18 percent and 10 percent,  respectively).
As of October 2010, there were 565 federally recognized tribes—340 in the  continental United States and 225 in Alaska. Federally recognized Indian  tribes are Native American groups eligible for the special programs and  services provided by the United States to Indians because of their status as  Indians. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance  Act, as amended, federally recognized Indian tribes can enter into self- determination contracts or self-governance compacts with the federal  government to take over administration of certain federal programs for  Indians previously administered by the federal government on their behalf.
Tribal lands vary dramatically in size, demographics, and location. The  largest reservation, that of the Navajo Nation, is about 24,000 square  miles in size and is inhabited by more than 176,000 American Indians. In  comparison, some of the smallest tribal lands, held by California tribes,  take up less than 1 square mile and some tribal lands have fewer than 50  Indian residents. Some Indian reservations have a mixture of Indian and  non-Indian residents. In addition, most tribal lands are rural or remote,  although some are near metropolitan areas.
subsections: section_title: Legislation Authorizing Tribal TANF
paragraphs: Although tribal members were previously served through state AFDC  programs, under PRWORA, they can be served through tribal or state  TANF programs. Tribal and state TANF programs may use TANF funds  in any manner reasonably calculated to accomplish the purposes of  TANF. These purposes are to (1) provide assistance to needy families  so that children can be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of  relatives; (2) end needy parents’ dependence on government benefits by  promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce  the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies; and (4) encourage the  formation and maintenance of two-parent families. Like states, tribes  generally have the flexibility to set their own TANF eligibility requirements,  to determine what policies will govern mandatory sanctions for  noncompliance with program rules, and to determine what types of work  supports they will provide to recipients, such as child care, transportation,  and job training. However, some of the federal requirements for state  TANF programs differ from those for tribal TANF programs (see table 1).
Before the 1996 welfare reforms, some tribes were operating their own  Tribal Job Opportunities and Basic Skills (JOBS) programs that provided  work and training activities. These tribes remained eligible to provide  these services through the Native Employment Works (NEW) program  when PRWORA repealed the JOBS program. As of January 2011, 31  tribes and tribal organizations operate both a tribal TANF program and a  NEW Program.
More recently, in 2006, DRA made several modifications to state TANF  programs, none of which applied to tribes. DRA also reauthorized TANF  through fiscal year 2010, and the Claims Resolution Act of 2010  extended it through fiscal year 2011.
section_title: State Matching MOE Funds
paragraphs: TANF has a maintenance-of-effort (MOE) provision that requires states to  maintain a significant portion of their historic financial commitment to their  welfare programs. States are not required to provide funding to tribal  TANF programs, but many do so. As of July 2010, HHS data indicate that  54 of 64 tribal TANF programs received state funding. Contributions  made by states to tribal TANF programs generally count toward a state’s  MOE requirement.
section_title: Agencies Overseeing Tribal TANF Programs
paragraphs: The Office of Family Assistance within the Administration for Children and  Families (ACF) in HHS is the main federal agency responsible for  overseeing tribal TANF programs. Both HHS’s headquarters office and 6  out of 10 regional offices have staff that work directly with tribes to help  them implement and maintain their tribal TANF programs. Tribal TANF is  a block grant, and we have previously found that building accountability  into block grants is an important, but difficult, task requiring trade-offs  between federal and state—or in this case, tribal—control over program  finances, activities, and administration. HHS holds tribes accountable, in  part, through the tribes’ reporting requirements, which are similar to those  for state TANF programs. For example, tribes have to submit quarterly  reports that include caseload data, data used to calculate work  participation rates, and financial information. In addition, per the Single  Audit Act, as amended, all states—including tribal governments—local  governments, and nonprofit organizations expending $500,000 or more in  federal awards during one fiscal year are required to obtain an audit in  accordance with the requirements set forth in the Single Audit Act.
In addition to the TANF block grant that tribes receive from HHS, the  Recovery Act’s TANF Emergency Contingency Fund provided up to $5  billion to help states and tribes in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 that had an  increase in caseloads or in certain types of expenditures. HHS provides  these funds to tribes as a reimbursement for expenses incurred no later  than September 30, 2010. According to HHS, the funds a jurisdiction  receives as reimbursement are available without fiscal year limitation and  can be spent in any way permissible under TANF. According to HHS, 24  tribes have received Emergency Contingency Fund grants totaling  approximately $14 million as of June 2011.
The Indian Employment, Training and Related Services Demonstration  Act of 1992 provides tribes with additional program and funding  flexibilities. Specifically, it allows DOI to authorize federally recognized  Indian tribes to combine funds they receive from various federal agencies  and programs for employment, training, and related services, such as  TANF, into one program, called a “477 plan.” These plans help tribes  streamline funding from as many as 11 different federal sources by  utilizing a single budget and a single reporting system. According to a  DOI official, eligible grant funds include formula-funded programs in HHS,  DOI, and the Department of Labor. DOI oversees these plans at the  federal level. As of July 2011, 15 tribes incorporate their tribal TANF  programs into these plans.
section_title: Since 2002, More Tribes Have Used Program Flexibilities to Tailor Services and Cope with Changing Economic Conditions
subsections: section_title: More Tribes Administer Their Own TANF Programs and Serve Native Families Outside of Their Tribes
paragraphs: The number of tribal TANF programs has increased from 36 in 2002 to 64  in 2010 (see fig. 1), and several additional tribes are actively pursuing  administering their own programs. Most of the tribes that have begun  administering their own program since 2002 had no previous experience  managing a TANF program; however, according to information provided by  HHS, at least two tribes that were previously served as part of a larger  tribal TANF consortium of tribes have decided to administer their own  programs. For a list of all tribes administering a TANF program, including  those tribes who were previously served as part of a larger tribal TANF  consortium, see app. II. In addition to the 64 tribal TANF programs in  operation in 2010, HHS officials stated that as of April 2011, 11 more  tribes were actively pursuing starting their own program.
The number of tribes served by tribal TANF programs has also increased  from 174 in 2002 to at least 272 in 2010, and more of the tribes  administering their own programs are serving Native families outside of  their own tribe. Tribes have the flexibility to determine whom their  program will serve as well as their service area—the geographic area that  their TANF program will cover. In 2002, we reported that 16 out of 36  tribes (44 percent) served only their own enrolled tribal members.  According to our review of tribes’ TANF plans, 16 out of 64 tribes (25  percent) administering a program serve only members of their tribe  whereas 48 tribal TANF programs (75 percent) extend their services and  benefits to families who are not enrolled members of their tribe. For  example, according to their most recently approved TANF plan, the  Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin serves both enrolled tribal members  as well as other Indians who are members of federally recognized tribes  residing on its reservation who are eligible for TANF, whereas the Hopi  tribe serves only its own enrolled tribal members. We also found that  according to HHS data, 11 of the 64 tribal TANF programs have  expanded in order to serve more Native families in nearby or surrounding  areas. For example, the California Tribal TANF Partnership began  administering TANF in 2003 and has expanded its program at least three  times since then to include more tribes. As of May 2011, this partnership  was associated with 35 tribes and other organizations, and its TANF  program service area spanned 14 different counties in California.
Nationwide, the total number of families receiving tribal TANF cash  assistance has increased since 2002, primarily because the number of  programs has grown, but also because of varied caseload increases  among existing programs. Figure 2 below shows the changes in the  nationwide average monthly number of families receiving tribal TANF cash  assistance since 2002. As shown, the total nationwide average monthly  caseload increased almost every year between 2002 and 2009; in some  years, increases were driven primarily by the addition of new programs.  However, aggregate changes from year to year hide significant variation in  caseload trends among programs. For example, between 2008 and 2009,  the majority of tribal TANF programs experienced increases in their  average monthly caseloads, but some saw their caseloads decline. And  even where increases occurred, they varied widely. A couple of smaller  programs—which serve a dozen or fewer families on average per month— saw their average monthly caseloads increase by as few as four families,  which represents caseload increases of about 33 and 67 percent,  respectively. In comparison, a couple of the larger programs saw their  average monthly caseloads increase by more than a hundred families,  representing caseload increases of about 16 percent and 21 percent,  respectively. While tribal TANF programs range in size, the majority of  these programs are relatively small, and according to preliminary fiscal year  2009 caseload data provided by HHS, 41 out of 63 tribes reporting  caseload data had an average monthly caseload of less than 200 families.
Tribes report that the flexibility they are given to tailor their tribal TANF  programs allows them to address the specific needs of their TANF  families. All 50 of the tribes responding to our survey reported that the  flexibility to provide employment-focused and education-related services  to families was a very major or major benefit to administering their own  TANF program (see fig. 3). In addition, 49 out of 50 tribes reported that  the ability to administer and deliver TANF services in a culturally sensitive  manner and the ability to tailor the program to the needs of their  community were very major or major benefits to administering TANF. One  tribe responding to our survey reported that administering TANF  encourages nation-building by strengthening the tribe’s social fabric and  by helping to develop their tribal workforce. Similarly, a study conducted  by Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. notes that tribal control of TANF  affords tribes the opportunity to improve services for program participants  and expand program coordination.
In addition, we found that tribes continue to use the flexibility to set   their own work participation requirements. According to tribes’   fiscal year 2009 work participation data provided by HHS, participation  rate requirements for both newer and more-established programs  combined ranged from 20 to 50 percent. In 2002, we reported that   most of the tribes’ work participation rates generally ranged from   15 to 30 percent over the first few years of the tribal TANF program. We  also found that some tribes have increased their rates over time. For  example, more than half of the 36 tribes that have been administering a  TANF program since 2002 have raised their work participation rate  goals over time. One tribe gradually raised its work participation rate  goal for all families more than 10 percentage points over the course of 8  years, from 35 percent to 48 percent. According to tribes’ TANF plans,  minimum work requirements vary among tribes, and while one newly  established program required 22 percent of all tribal TANF families to  participate in 16 hours of work each week in fiscal year 2010, another  more-established program required 35 percent of all families to  participate in a minimum of 40 hours of work each week. According to  HHS data, of those tribal TANF adults required to participate in work  activities, a higher percentage were participating and meeting minimum  requirements in 2009 than in 2002 (see fig. 4).
Our review of tribes’ TANF plans shows that the majority of tribes  administering TANF programs count work activities beyond the 12  identified in PRWORA toward meeting work participation requirements,  and over time tribes have increased the number and types of activities they  count as work activities. PRWORA provides tribes the flexibility to count a  wide spectrum of activities as work activities, which helps them  accommodate the training needs and cultural traditions of their recipients.  Some tribes count cultural activities (including beading and participating in  tribal ceremonies), NEW participation (including educational activities and  training and job readiness activities), and commuting time toward meeting  work participation rate requirements. For example, the California Tribal  TANF Partnership allows tribal TANF recipients to participate in cultural  activities, such as basket weaving, to help meet work participation  requirements (for a related photo of the basket weaving activity, see app.  III). Furthermore, in 2002, we reported that 1 out of 36 tribal TANF  programs (3 percent) counted commuting time toward meeting work  participation requirements. In 2010, according to our analysis of tribes’  TANF plans, we found that 35 out of 64 tribes (55 percent) counted  commuting time toward meeting work participation requirements.
Some of the activities tribes count as work activities, including receiving  counseling, substance abuse treatment, and participating in life skills and  parenting classes, are used by tribes to support the more family-oriented  goals of the TANF program, such as preventing and reducing out-of- wedlock pregnancies, promoting marriage, and encouraging the formation  and maintenance of two-parent families. For example, the Forest County  Potawatomi tribe offers classes such as Positive Indian Parenting,  Healthy Relationships, and Nurturing Fathers, and counts time spent in  these classes toward work participation requirements (see fig. 5). These  types of activities may benefit TANF families, even when they do not lead  directly to paid employment. For more examples of work activities that  tribes use to meet their work participation rate requirements, see photos  from our site visits in appendix III.
Both in our survey and during our site visits, tribes reported that the  recent economic downturn has contributed to an increase in the size of  their TANF caseloads, in part because it has exacerbated the scarcity of  job opportunities within and near their service areas. In all, 30 of the 50  tribes that responded to our survey question reported that as of  September 2010, their average monthly caseload was larger than when  their tribal TANF program first began providing services; and of those, 12  reported that the increase was due to economic conditions or high  unemployment. One tribe in particular said that its caseload was higher in  September 2010 because there had been job layoffs and because  companies in their area had been consolidating positions or not hiring.  According to preliminary data provided by HHS, seven out of 55 tribes  were serving at or above their program capacity in fiscal year 2009.
An Oneida tribal TANF staff member told us that because there are fewer  jobs available in their area, there could be over 100 people to apply for an  entry-level position at a fast food restaurant. Another tribe we met with,  the Hopi tribe, said that, despite the lack of employment opportunities on  the reservation, many tribal members have moved back to the reservation  after the economic recession caused them to lose their jobs, which has  further strained the tribes’ resources and contributed to an increase in  their average monthly caseload.
Changing economic conditions have in some instances led to reductions  in state contributions to tribal TANF programs. Most states with tribal  TANF programs have in the past provided tribes with state funding, but  some are revisiting this commitment in light of tight fiscal conditions. In an  effort to address a growing shortfall in its budget for TANF, the state of  Washington, for example, reduced funding for tribal TANF programs  effective January 2011, reducing funding that tribes in the state have  relied on to help administer their TANF programs. Similarly, in the state  of Arizona, a tribe we spoke with said that the state has had to cut back  on funding for TANF-related programs. For example, the tribe said that its  parenting program used to be funded by five different grants from the  state, but because the state faces budget deficits, it has cut both the  number of grants and the amount of funding for the program.
In response to the economic recession that began in 2007, the Recovery  Act created the $5 billion TANF Emergency Contingency Fund for states  and tribal TANF programs. Tribes can qualify for these funds based on  increases in the number of families receiving cash assistance or in TANF  expenditures for nonrecurrent, short-term benefits or subsidized  employment. As of June 2011, 24 tribes had received Emergency  Contingency Fund grants totaling approximately $14 million. According to  our review of tribes’ HHS-approved Emergency Contingency Fund  applications, 21 out of the 24 tribes demonstrated an increase in the  number of families receiving basic assistance. Fifteen tribes showed  increased expenditures for funding for nonrecurrent, short-term benefits,  and 9 tribes requested funds due to increased expenditures for subsidized  employment needs. Once a tribe received the Emergency Contingency  Fund grant, the funds could be spent on any TANF-related purpose for  TANF-eligible families. For example, 22 of the tribes responding to our  survey applied for and received Emergency Contingency Fund grants,  and of these 22 tribes, 17 reported using these grants to expand existing  tribal TANF services and programs. Furthermore, more than half of these  22 respondents reported using Emergency Contingency Fund grant  funding to issue more cash grants or to fill TANF budget gaps caused by  the recession. While two of the tribes we visited said that they used  Emergency Contingency Fund grants to fund cash grants for families,  another tribe said they used the funds for supportive services, such as  providing approximately 700 children with school clothes.
According to our survey and site visits, the recent economic downturn has  also affected the types of TANF services some tribes are providing to  participants. Of the 49 tribes that responded to our survey question, 39  (80 percent) reported that since the beginning of the economic recession  in 2007, they have increased their provision of nonrecurrent, short-term  benefits—emergency payments to families to cover housing, utilities,  transportation, or other expenses. For example, the Forest County  Potawatomi stated in their application to HHS for Recovery Act funds that  as a result of current economic conditions, they have been providing  more assistance to help families with car repairs and utilities. Other tribes  have had to cut back on supportive services so that they could provide  more TANF families with basic cash assistance. The Lac du Flambeau  tribal TANF staff reported having to reduce spending on alcohol and other  drug abuse programs as a result of economic conditions.
section_title: Tribal TANF Programs Face Various Administrative and Other Challenges, and Many Partner with Other Entities to Address Them
subsections: section_title: Tribes Reported Challenges with Initial Program Implementation, Staffing, Data Systems, and Overcoming Barriers to Participants’ Self- Sufficiency
paragraphs: The majority of tribal TANF programs that responded to our survey  reported that they have faced administrative challenges related to initial  program implementation, staff development and retention, and  development of adequate data systems (see fig. 6). In addition, all 11  tribes we visited talked about other challenges related to overcoming the  various barriers to self-sufficiency that their TANF participants face, such  as a lack of transportation and limited employment opportunities.
According to survey respondents, some of the top challenges were:    Staff development and retention. Many tribes face challenges in  finding, developing, and retaining their TANF staff. One tribe we  visited said that it has been difficult for them to hire knowledgeable  staff, such as a TANF program manager that is familiar with the  program’s goals. According to HHS officials, another tribe lost their  tribal TANF director 3 years ago and has struggled to find someone to  permanently fill that position. Our survey results also indicate that 38  out of 49 tribes (78 percent) responding to the question have had  difficulty in developing expertise in the staff they do employ. For  example, one tribe said that while it was important for them to hire  locally based staff for its TANF program, it was difficult to do so  because not only were there very few qualified applicants, but also  because there was a lack of training opportunities for new staff not  familiar with the administration of TANF. Another tribe noted that they  had to train and develop their own staff, as state TANF caseworkers  often had Master’s degrees in Social Services, while most of their own  caseworkers did not. Furthermore, once tribes have hired and  developed their staff, it is increasingly difficult for them to retain that  staff. One tribal TANF administrator we spoke with said she had about  three to four different supervisors during the last 4 years. An HHS  official also told us that, in his opinion, staff turnover can affect tribal  TANF programs more dramatically than state TANF programs since  tribes may lack the institutional knowledge and experience necessary  to administer the program and provide training to staff. systems that can support their TANF programs. While tribes can use  a percentage of their TANF grant for developing a new information  system, this would decrease the amount of funding available for direct  services to TANF families.
With a reservation spanning about 24,000 miles and  three states—Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah—the  Navajo Nation refers to its TANF program as the  Program for Self-Reliance, in order to reflect its  mission to empower families to become  self-sufficient. A tribal TANF administrator said that  having the flexibility to design a program that  incorporates the Navajo teaching of Taa’ hwo ajit  eego laid the groundwork to “break the cycle” of  dependence and instill self-confidence.
In addition to the challenges outlined above, tribes we visited identified  several barriers to self-sufficiency faced by their TANF participants that  present challenges to their programs. These barriers include limited  public transportation, employment opportunities, child care options, and  educational attainment, among others. All 11 tribes we visited mentioned  the availability of transportation as a challenge, with tribal TANF officials  noting that many of their program participants lack a valid driver’s license  or have limited or no public transit options. Many tribes also said that their  TANF participants have limited job opportunities. The Forest County  Potawatomi tribe, for instance, told us that few jobs exist for TANF  participants because of recent closures of logging mills and because  seasonal jobs are only available during the summer months. This same  tribe said that due to its rural setting and recent child care facility  closures, TANF participants have limited options for child care, hampering  their ability to work. A lack of education among participants also affects  their ability to secure employment. One tribe told us that its TANF  participants, some of whom have only earned their General Equivalency  Diploma, have had a harder time competing for jobs during the economic  recession. Furthermore, of the 11 tribes we visited, 6 mentioned  substance abuse, domestic violence, or both as barriers to their TANF  participants’ self-sufficiency.
When tribes experience challenges administering their TANF programs,  they often turn to other entities for assistance, such as HHS, other tribal  and federal programs, and consultants, among others. In particular, those  responding to our survey reported that they most commonly contact HHS  regional office staff, other tribes, and private consultants (see fig. 7). In  addition, 9 out of the 11 tribes we visited indicated that they also work with  other federal programs to help address challenges.
According to our survey, tribes most commonly contacted HHS regional  office staff for assistance. All 48 tribes responding to this question (100  percent) selected “yes” for this question in our survey. According to HHS  officials, tribes often reach out to their regional offices for guidance and  technical assistance to address challenges that can occur during the  initial implementation of their TANF programs. Regional offices provide  most of HHS’s training and technical assistance to tribes, and the majority  of their assistance focuses on the development and oversight of tribal  TANF plans. Regional offices also inform tribes about policy and  procedural updates and provide clarification if needed. For example,  when the Recovery Act’s TANF Emergency Contingency Fund became  available, HHS provided technical assistance and outreach through its  regional offices. HHS regional offices also provide regional tribal TANF  conferences, typically held once per year. In addition, one senior HHS  official said that their regional staff can also conduct in-person site visits  to provide direct one-on-one assistance to tribes, but generally they lack  the resources to do any extensive travel.
section_title: Other Tribal Programs
paragraphs: To enhance employment and training opportunities for program  participants, tribal TANF programs reach out to other programs within  their tribe (see fig. 8), and many also contact other tribes when they  experience challenges administering their program. The Menominee  Tribe has worked with its local tribal college to provide different education  and training opportunities to its tribal TANF participants, such as degree  and trades programs (for a related photo of the Menominee tribal college,  see app. III). In our survey, 46 out of 47 tribes (98 percent) responding to  the question indicated that they contact other tribes when they experience  challenges administering their own TANF programs. For example, tribal  TANF administrators from one program we spoke with participated in  meetings with other tribal TANF programs in their state, which they found  more valuable than HHS regional meetings for coordinating with other  tribal TANF programs on particular issues and sharing information about  such topics as data, tribal TANF plans, and HHS guidance.
To enhance employment opportunities for tribal TANF participants and  address some of their barriers to self-sufficiency, tribes also collaborate  with other federal programs. Tribes seek out these partnerships, in part,  because their TANF programs are typically serving areas with high  unemployment rates. Some tribes we visited told us they collaborated  with such programs to create opportunities for individuals to help meet  their work participation requirements. For example, at least three tribes  we visited—the Lac du Flambeau, Zuni, and Hopi tribes—placed  participants at their Head Start offices to gain work experience (for a  related photo of the Lac du Flambeau Head Start program, see app. III).  The Hopi tribe has also sent some participants to an orientation for the  Job Corps program, an education and training program that helps young  people learn a career, earn a high school diploma or General Equivalency  Diploma, and find and retain employment.
To facilitate further coordination with federal programs and address  challenges related to program implementation and staffing, tribal TANF  programs can also participate in a “477 plan” administered by DOI.  According to DOI, when TANF is integrated into a comprehensive “477  plan,” participants may receive additional support services, such as  longer-term job preparedness, and “477 plan” case managers can receive  additional training from DOI to better assist unemployed tribal members  with finding jobs. DOI also noted that consolidating resources into a single  plan helps to minimize overhead costs, maximize client participation, and  integrate services. Of the 11 tribes responding to our survey that include  their TANF program in such a plan, nearly all indicated that doing so  improved service delivery coordination (10 out of 11), increased continuity  of service provision (10 out of 11), and improved administrative and staff  coordination (9 out of 11). For example, one tribe we visited said their  participation in a “477 plan” allowed them to reduce paperwork and  duplication among their various federal programs, including TANF, and to  provide a one-stop service location as well.
Tribal TANF programs also coordinate with other federal grant programs  under HHS, such as the Native Employment Works (NEW) program. Of  the tribes we surveyed, 18 out of 22 (82 percent) that operate both NEW  and TANF programs reported improved service delivery coordination as a  benefit of operating both programs. In addition, 16 out of the 22 tribes  indicated that they had benefited from increased continuity of service  provision and improved administrative and staff coordination as a result of  administering both programs.
section_title: Private Consultants
paragraphs: In our survey, 37 out of 46 tribes (80 percent) reported that they contact  private consultants when they experience challenges administering their  TANF programs. During our site visits, we learned that tribes reach out to  consultants to address some of the top challenges reported in our survey,  such as developing data systems and staff expertise. For example, to  address challenges related to developing adequate data systems, we  learned that the majority of tribes use data systems and receive training  on these systems from consultants, according to HHS. Another tribe we  visited consulted with the University of California, Davis to help facilitate  the development of goals for their tribal TANF plan, which included  clarifying the tribe’s definitions for performance and results. In addition,  the Center for Human Services at the University of California, Davis  annually presents a National Tribal TANF Institute to provide information,  tools, and networking opportunities to support the development and  operation of tribal TANF programs that meet the needs of Native people.
section_title: HHS Oversight of and Guidance for Tribal TANF Programs Lacks Consistency and Timeliness
subsections: section_title: HHS Uses Tribal TANF Single Audit Reports to Target Training and Technical Assistance, but Fragmented Systems Track and Monitor These Reports
paragraphs: According to HHS officials, the single audit is the primary oversight  mechanism for tribal TANF programs, and single audit findings are used  to target technical assistance to tribes. At least 19 tribes have had  repeat single audit findings since 2002, most often in the areas of  allowable costs/cost principles, reporting, eligibility, cash management,  and equipment and property management. One official from an HHS  regional office explained that a lack of infrastructure and the inability to  retain qualified staff in tribal TANF programs are often the main causes of  repeat audit findings such as these. HHS officials described how record  keeping can be a challenge for tribal TANF programs as a result of  inadequate computer systems. More specifically, one senior HHS official  stated that one of the most common findings from tribes’ audits is  weaknesses in procurement systems, where documents supporting  procurement purchases are missing and incomplete, or inventory lists are  missing. One HHS regional official added that tribes are especially  susceptible to financial audit findings because of staff turnover—a tribe  could be making progress with addressing their audit findings, but then a  key staff member may leave, and the tribe is “back to square one.” To  help tribes prevent financial audit findings resulting from new or  inexperienced staff, one regional official stated that they invite new tribal  TANF financial officers to come to their offices for basic training on the  TANF program and fiscal issues. Another HHS official described how they  have also used single audit report findings to target their training and  technical assistance by holding sessions on common audit findings and  resolutions at some of their annual tribal TANF conferences. HHS has  also included guidance on single audits in some of its policy manuals  available on its tribal TANF Web site, such as an audit supplement guide  that outlines common tribal TANF audit findings and program activities  that can ensure compliance with government regulations. Additionally,  HHS has the authority to impose financial penalties if it decides they are  warranted.
However, we found that HHS’s tracking of single audit reports was  fragmented, with multiple systems tracking different sets of reports with  tribal TANF findings. An HHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) official  explained that audits are tracked in an agencywide single audit database  that HHS’s OIG oversees, and some program offices, including ACF,  have their own database for tracking audits they are responsible for  resolving. However, audits with tribal TANF findings may not always be  tracked in ACF’s database, because depending on the nature of the  finding, another HHS program office or even another federal agency may  be responsible for resolving it. For example, HHS officials explained that  audit reports with crosscutting findings affecting multiple programs usually  do not show up in ACF’s database, as they are assigned to and tracked  by HHS’s Office of Finance, Division of Systems Policy, Program Integrity  and Audit Resolution, which is responsible for handling or resolving these  specific types of findings. However, a summary of all audit findings are  sent to the HHS tribal TANF program office for their review.
One senior HHS tribal TANF official confirmed that due to workload  priorities, they are behind in reviewing these summaries of audit findings  for both state and tribal TANF programs. One HHS OIG official explained  that these summary reports contain all audit findings for tribal TANF  programs, including those that the tribal TANF office is not responsible for  resolving. If these summary reports are not reviewed in a timely manner,  tribal TANF officials may not be aware of all recurring audit findings  related to tribal TANF programs. For example, one tribe was found to  have not met compliance requirements for allowable costs or cost  principles for each of the five consecutive years it submitted single audit  reports. According to information provided by the OIG, ACF was  responsible for resolving some but not all of the findings, and thus may  not have known that these findings had occurred every year if they did not  review the summary reports in a timely manner. Our Standards for  Internal Control in the Federal Government provide that internal control  monitoring should ensure that findings of audits and other reviews are  promptly resolved. Due to the delays in reviewing the summaries and  the fragmented systems for reporting and tracking single audit findings,  HHS tribal TANF officials may not consistently be aware of all the single  audit findings related to tribal TANF programs, or be in a position to  promptly identify and address recurring problems and mitigate risk.
section_title: HHS Collects Tribal TANF Data, but Does Not Consistently Update and Review It in a Timely Manner
paragraphs: In addition to HHS officials’ use of the single audit as the primary  oversight mechanism for tribal TANF programs, quarterly data reports  used to calculate work participation rates and financial reports, as well as  other program reporting requirements, also help HHS oversee program  performance and ensure program integrity (see table 2).
Through quarterly data reports, HHS reviews tribes’ data used to  calculate work participation rates and follows up with tribes to make  updates and changes to the data as necessary (see fig. 9). One tribe we  visited mentioned that it is helpful to have HHS review their data to make  sure that both HHS and the tribe itself are calculating the work  participation rates correctly and arriving at the same numbers.
While one of the tribes we visited noted that it was helpful to have HHS  review their data, HHS does not consistently update and review tribal  TANF quarterly work participation data submitted by tribes in a timely  manner. We found that in some cases, it has taken HHS several years to  review, update, and share the results of its work participation rate data  review with tribes, even though these rates help tribes measure the  degree to which TANF families are engaged in work activities that can  lead to self-sufficiency. According to our survey, 22 out of 49 tribes (45  percent) indicated that failing to receive data reports from HHS in a timely  manner has been a very major or major challenge to administering their  tribal TANF program. One tribe in particular stated that they received an  official response from HHS regarding their fiscal year 2009 participation  rates two years later, in fiscal year 2011. The tribal official noted in our  survey that “tribes have deadlines to meet and we have to wait years for a  response.” Another tribe responding to our survey stated that while they  submit their data reports to HHS each quarter, they are waiting up to  three years to receive their reports back from HHS. Because HHS does  not review and share work participation rate data with tribes in a timely  manner, tribes may not know of any errors in their data reporting until  years later, which could impact not only the data reporting for that year,  but also for subsequent years.
An HHS contractor primarily responsible for working with tribes on their  TANF work participation data said that, in his opinion, tribal TANF data  present different challenges for HHS than state TANF data. For example,  updating information on tribes’ work participation rates requires keeping  track of 64 different TANF plans, where the work participation rates or  work hours often change every year, which, according to the HHS  contractor, is not as common with state TANF programs. In addition, the  number of plans will continue to grow as more tribes have expressed  interest in starting their own programs. The same HHS contractor noted  that while it would be useful for tribes to see their work participation  calculations or to access information for a specific month or year, access  to that type of information would require additional programming.  Furthermore, he said it would take a more sophisticated program than  what HHS is currently using—such as a program flexible enough to define  the different tribal TANF variables—to help make updating the data to  share with tribes a little easier.
HHS uses different methods to provide guidance to tribes on their TANF  programs (see fig. 10).
Tribal TANF programs are generally satisfied with the assistance they  receive from HHS, but some cited deficiencies. When asked to rate  different types of assistance received from HHS headquarters and regional  offices, the majority of the tribal TANF respondents in our survey indicated  that they found guidance and policy documents, technical assistance,  training and conferences provided to them by HHS to be somewhat to very  useful (see fig. 11). However, many tribes noted that the assistance that  HHS headquarters and regional offices provided to them for data reporting  and data system development was only slightly or not useful, with some  tribes also indicating that they had not received these types of assistance  from HHS at all (see fig. 11). For example, 13 out of 40 tribes (33 percent)  indicated that data system development assistance from HHS  headquarters was only slightly or not useful, while 14 (35 percent) indicated  that they had not received any assistance in this area.
Tribes also reported that HHS regional and headquarters offices’  timeliness varied in responding to requests for assistance. Specifically,  tribal TANF survey respondents indicated greater satisfaction with the  speed of HHS regional offices compared to headquarters (see fig. 12).  For example, 33 out of 48 tribes (69 percent) responding to our survey  said that they were very satisfied with the speed of HHS regional office  staff, while only 18 of 46 tribes (38 percent) were very satisfied with the  speed at which HHS headquarters office staff respond to their requests.
However, some of the survey respondents and tribes we interviewed  described situations where HHS regional and headquarters assistance  was not timely. For example, some tribes we interviewed described how  they had repeatedly sent emails to their regional office asking for  information, but the region was unresponsive. Some tribes we interviewed  at regional conferences and who responded to our survey also indicated  that delayed responses from HHS were particularly frustrating when they  were trying to figure out new policies or when they had a limited time in  which they could act—such as implementing the new financial form or  submitting their Emergency Contingency Fund applications. One senior  HHS official explained that even those questions that seem simple on the  surface may have greater implications, so all questions must be reviewed  and vetted to provide an accurate response, which takes time. However,  one tribe stated that HHS made a general announcement about the new  financial reporting form in 2007, and then they never heard anything else  about the development or implementation of the form until 2 years later,  when they were required to start using it. This tribe also noted that HHS  held a training meeting with tribes to discuss its requirements after tribes  were already required to begin reporting program data using the new  financial form. As a result, they did not have an opportunity to include in  the reports what they learned in the training. In our survey, another tribe  described how they do not receive notifications about program changes  from HHS in a timely manner, stating that “we are expected to implement  . . . federal requirements immediately, without immediate guidance or  training if needed.”
Tribes also indicated in our survey that tribal TANF guidance provided by  HHS regional and headquarters offices via phone, email, and training  conferences was not always clear or consistent. In our survey, 18 out of  50 tribal TANF respondents (36 percent) indicated that HHS policy on  subsidized employment was not clear. HHS officials stated that the  timeframes for implementing the Recovery Act did not allow for the  issuance of proposed and final rules. HHS posted questions and answers  on subsidized employment on their website and sought to provide  guidance when they could. However, some tribes explained that in  general, they receive mixed messages from HHS’s regional offices and  headquarters, and sometimes even from different staff members within  the same regional office. Tribes told us that there seems to be some  confusion at HHS over how and what information is communicated to  tribes, with HHS staff sending tribes incorrect or inconsistent information  on tribal TANF policies. For example, one tribe responding to our survey  noted that their regional office contact does not always provide direct  answers to tribal leaders, which can lead to misinterpretation, while  another tribe we visited noted that different HHS regional offices had  different interpretations of what types of activities count as cultural  activities. HHS officials stated that because tribes are very diverse, it is  difficult to have a “one size fits all’ approach to developing some of the  policies that tribes want guidance on, such as cultural activities allowed to  meet work participation requirements. Federal officials would prefer to  give tribes broad flexibility to determine themselves what constitutes an  appropriate activity. However, some tribes expressed frustration with this  approach, citing how the cultural activities they choose to include in their  tribal TANF plans are still subject to review by HHS, and some are not  always approved.
In addition, tribes have received different kinds of guidance in different  formats, and not all tribes were satisfied with the way in which HHS  provided it. One tribe described how all of the guidance they received on  subsidized employment was shared informally via phone calls and  emails—there was no official policy memo from HHS that detailed this  guidance. This tribe also acknowledged that it can be difficult to provide  policy information to all of the tribal TANF programs at one time, and  suggested that HHS leverage its Web site to provide relevant guidance  and ensure that all tribes have access to the same information. For  example, documents related to past regional tribal conferences, Web  casts, and information on tribal TANF technical assistance services are  posted on a different HHS Web site, and are not linked to the tribal TANF  Web page. As a result, tribes may not know that this information is related  to tribal TANF and available to them online. Further, some tribes cannot  always attend HHS’s annual regional training conferences, and as a  result they miss out on training opportunities and access to key  information or guidance. One HHS regional office added that regional  offices are not universally consulted or pulled in by HHS headquarters to  strategize on technical assistance efforts, or to come up with collective  objectives and goals. As a result, the types and amount of technical  assistance provided to tribes by each of the different regions varies. The  majority of the HHS regional offices we interviewed said that they would  like to be able to visit tribes in person to provide more one-on-one training  and guidance when tribes need or want it, but recognized that there are  limited resources for travel. HHS headquarters officials also described  how limited travel funds impacted their ability to visit tribal TANF  programs in person as well. Additionally, tribes indicated in our survey  that they would like to receive more assistance from HHS—33 out of 44  respondents (75 percent) wanted additional assistance from HHS  regional offices, while 30 out of 38 respondents (79 percent) wanted more  assistance from HHS headquarters.
Regional offices do not always receive clear and consistent guidance  from HHS headquarters on new policies, either. HHS officials told us that  tribal TANF policies are primarily created in their headquarters office, and  then it is up to the regional offices to provide much of the training and  technical assistance to tribes related to these policies. One regional  official stated that they do not have written policies or guidance on what  they should do if tribes are having difficulties administering their tribal  TANF program, but that this is the same for state TANF programs, too.  Another regional official said they had asked the HHS headquarters office  for guidance for the new financial reporting form for a year before they  received it. As one tribe indicated, this resulted in the regional office being  unable to answer questions from tribes about the new form.
Further, because HHS and DOI did not always agree on how to coordinate  oversight of tribal TANF programs incorporated in “477 plans,” tribes with  “477 plans” were sometimes confused over which agency’s rules and  regulations they are required to follow. For example, one tribe responding  to our survey described how HHS and DOI still needed to provide them a  definitive answer as to whether or not the Emergency Contingency Fund  grant which was transferred to their “447 plan” program could be expended  until the end of fiscal year 2011. One HHS official described how in the  past, DOI did not provide HHS with written regulations or terms and  conditions for “477 plans” in general, and this made it difficult for them to  know how to implement tribal TANF as part of the “477 plan.” In response,  a DOI official explained that DOI purposely did not develop any regulations  because adding more rules would diminish the flexibility of the plans, which  is contrary to their principal goals. However, both DOI and HHS officials  told us that they have been coordinating more to share information with  each other and develop policies together, such as recent joint consultations  with tribes with “477 plans” on using one funding instrument.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: While the tribal TANF program as a whole is relatively small in comparison  to the TANF program for states, Congress designed tribal TANF in  recognition that tribes, like states, would be better equipped to understand  and meet the needs of their own communities. However, since the creation  of tribal TANF, HHS’s administration of the program has not kept pace with  the growth of tribal TANF or with tribes’ changing needs. Improved access  to information on how to implement parts of their TANF program or policy  changes that could affect their programs can facilitate tribes’ achieving  program goals. Further, more prompt, consistent collection and review of all  tribal TANF-related single audit report findings and work participation rate,  caseload, and financial data, could help HHS to more effectively monitor  tribal TANF programs and determine how it could better target its technical  assistance and guidance to address areas where tribes may be having  difficulty. In addition, more timely HHS data analysis could improve both the  accuracy of tribes’ data reporting and the ability of HHS and tribal  administrators to determine if tribal TANF programs are effectively  maintaining program integrity and meeting their goals.
Given the fiscal pressures facing the federal government and the  continued demands placed on assistance programs, it is critical that  programs designed to serve those most in need are in a position to  provide benefits and services as effectively and efficiently as possible  while maintaining program integrity. Unless HHS makes improvements in  the consistency and availability of single audit report findings, tribal TANF  policy guidance, and program data, tribal TANF program administrators  will not have the complete information they need to improve the  effectiveness and integrity of their programs.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we  recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services take the  following three actions:    Review and revise, as appropriate, HHS’s process for monitoring,  tracking, and promptly resolving tribal TANF single audit findings so  that it can more systematically target training and technical assistance  to better address recurring problems and mitigate risk.
Improve processes for maintaining and monitoring tribal TANF data— such as work participation rate, caseload, and financial data—that can  be shared with tribes in a timely manner.    Create procedures to provide more timely, accessible, and consistent  guidance on tribal TANF policies that is clearly communicated to tribal  TANF programs, and ensure that all tribal TANF policy developments  and procedures are readily and easily accessible on HHS’s Web site.  For example, HHS could consider more effective ways to provide  training to tribes on how new guidance or policy decisions will affect  the administration of their programs, and consistently update its Web  site to provide information on related tribal TANF technical assistance  and training.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Interior and the  Secretary of Health and Human Services for review and comment. HHS  provided us with written comments on a draft of our report which are  reprinted in appendix IV. Both DOI and HHS also provided us with  technical comments that we incorporated, as appropriate.
HHS agreed that effective monitoring and continuous improvement of its  guidance and technical assistance to tribes as well as to states and other  grantees is important, and stated their appreciation for our findings on  areas where monitoring, guidance and technical assistance could be  improved to tribal TANF programs. HHS also stated that it would be  mindful of our overall recommendations and specific examples of ways to  improve its efforts, and it is already outlining actions they plan to take to  address our recommendations.
Specifically, with regard to our first recommendation, HHS commented it  would review and seek to identify opportunities for improvement at each  step of its process for monitoring, tracking and resolving tribal TANF audit  findings, including the identification of recurring problems and risks, and  the identification of technical assistance needs identified through the audit  resolution process. During the course of our audit work, HHS officials  could not find some single audit reports, but they were recently able to  provide them, so we removed our finding related to this from the report.  HHS also stated that it will take follow-up steps to ensure that all audits  with tribal TANF findings will be promptly addressed, and has committed  additional staff to working on audit issues.
In response to our second recommendation, HHS recognized the need for  more timely sharing of data with tribal TANF programs, and cited efforts it is  undertaking to address this, including the hiring of an additional tribal TANF  data specialist and its continuing work on improving reporting and  publishing of preliminary and final caseload and work participation data for  recent years.
With regard to our third recommendation, HHS stated it would strengthen  its efforts to be attentive to opportunities for improvement in training and  technical assistance, but it also commented on how we presented  findings on its guidance to tribal TANF programs. First, HHS noted that  while our report title and text highlight the need to improve guidance, the  data provided in the report generally indicate a high level of satisfaction  with the guidance and technical assistance currently being provided.  We  state in our report that tribal TANF programs responding to our survey  were generally satisfied with the assistance they received from HHS, but  some respondents did cite specific weaknesses in areas such as data  system development and reporting. Additionally, in multiple survey open- ended responses and interviews with us, tribal TANF staff cited instances  where the timeliness, clarity, and consistency of guidance could be  improved, and our title reflects the need for HHS to examine these areas  further. In regard to the specific survey findings on data system  development and reporting, HHS clarified that the need for additional data  system development assistance reflects a need to increase capacity across  a broad range of HHS programs, but it is training new employees to assist  with data reporting.
In addition, HHS noted that the regional and headquarters offices work  together, and that a tribe may be unaware that the headquarters office  contributed to assistance received through a regional office. HHS also  stated that a question raising complex issues would typically be reviewed  by both the regional and headquarters offices, and would likely take longer  to resolve. We point out in our report that tribes often cited frustration with  not receiving consistent and timely information from both regional and  headquarters offices, especially on policy changes that had a limited time in  which they could act. Thus, it is important that if both offices are indeed  collaborating to provide assistance to tribal TANF programs, that their  information be consistent and timely for all tribes in all regions. It can be  challenging to work with multiple tribes who each have their own unique  tribal TANF programs, but if it is taking the regional and headquarters HHS  offices longer to resolve a particular question, if would be helpful if they  communicated this to the tribes, especially if it is related to a policy change  with a specific timeframe or deadline.
Finally, HHS described how ACF has committed to undertake additional  research initiatives to better understand the needs of tribal members,  operations of tribal TANF programs and effective practices. These studies  could be helpful in providing HHS with more information on better ways to  support the tribes.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to appropriate  congressional committees, the Secretary of Health and Human Services,  the Secretary of the Interior, and other interested parties. The report will  also be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about 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. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To obtain information on how tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy  Families (TANF) programs have changed since 2002 (when we last  reviewed the program), the challenges tribes face in administering their  own programs and what tribes have done to address them, and federal  agencies’ guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we analyzed  federal TANF data, documents and tribal TANF single audit data  collection reports for selected years; surveyed all tribal TANF  administrators; conducted site visits at 11 tribal TANF programs in four  states, and interviewed federal officials.
We conducted our work from June 2010 to September 2011 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: Review and Analysis of Tribal TANF Data and Documents from HHS and DOI
paragraphs: Because the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is  responsible for collecting tribal TANF data and reporting on tribal TANF  programs nationally, we reviewed relevant TANF data compiled by that  agency. Specifically, we reviewed both published and unpublished data  for fiscal years 2002 to 2009 on (1) the work participation status of all  tribal TANF adults, (2) work activity data for those TANF adult recipients  with activities, (3) tribes that met and did not meet work participation  rates, (4) tribes’ caseloads, and (5) tribes’ expenditure data. The  expenditure data analysis also includes tribal TANF expenditure data  provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) for those 15 tribes  that include TANF in a “477 plan” for fiscal years 2002 to 2009. We also  reviewed fiscal year 2009 and 2010 expenditure data from HHS for the  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)  Emergency Contingency Fund and tribes’ applications for these funds.
We interviewed HHS officials to gather information on the processes they  use to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the tribal TANF work  participation, work activity, caseload, and expenditure data, but we did not  independently verify these data with tribes. However, we did follow up  with HHS during the course of our analysis whenever we found any  inconsistencies or errors with the data in order to ensure that the data  were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of  this report. In some cases, we received revised information from the  agency. We also reviewed DOI documentation related to expenditure  data reporting. We found these data to be sufficiently reliable for our  purposes.
In addition, we reviewed selected documents submitted by tribes to HHS,  which the agency does not publish. For example, we reviewed all 24  tribes’ HHS-approved applications for the Emergency Contingency Fund  as of June 2011, mentioned above, and all 64 tribal TANF plans approved  by HHS as of October 2010. In addition, we reviewed published and  unpublished documents from HHS and DOI, such as all seven of the  Welfare Peer Technical Assistance Network needs assessments for tribal  TANF and Native Employment Works (NEW) programs and a sample of  four “477 plan” assessments selected and provided by DOI officials.
section_title: Review of Single Audit Data Collection Reports
paragraphs: HHS does not regularly perform on-site reviews of tribes’ TANF data, but  auditors periodically review tribal TANF programs to comply with the  Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended. To determine if there were any  significant tribal TANF or “477 plan” single audit compliance findings, we  reviewed all 398 Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-133  single audit data collection reports for fiscal years publicly available as of  May 2011 that included tribal TANF or “477 plan” programs for fiscal  years 2002 through 2010. Then we reviewed the specific types of  compliance findings in all 114 available single audit data collection reports  for tribal TANF programs in existence for 2 years or longer with significant  compliance findings for the majority of years that their program was in  existence for fiscal years 2002 through 2010.
section_title: Survey of Tribes Administering a Tribal TANF Program
paragraphs: To better understand tribal TANF programs, we conducted a Web-based  survey of all tribal TANF administrators for all 64 tribal organizations that  administer their own TANF program. The survey included questions about  the benefits and challenges of administering a tribal TANF program,  changes to TANF service delivery related to the economic recession, and  HHS assistance to tribes after the Recovery Act. The survey was  conducted from October to December 2010 with 50 out of the 64 tribal  TANF administrators (78 percent) responding. We obtained contact  information for surveyed tribal TANF administrators from HHS. Beginning  on October 25, 2010, we sent e-mail notifications to these officials, and we  sent two follow-up e-mails over a period of about 2 weeks to encourage  tribes to respond to our survey. We also made follow-up phone calls to  encourage nonrespondents to complete our questionnaire.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.  However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce  nonsampling errors, such as variation in how respondents interpret  questions and their willingness to offer accurate responses. We took  steps to minimize nonsampling errors, including pretesting draft  instruments and using a Web-based administration system. Specifically,  during survey development, we pretested draft instruments with three  tribal TANF administrators from three states (Alaska, California, and  Washington) in September and October 2010. We selected the pretest  tribes to provide variation in selected program characteristics and  geographic location. In the pretest, we were generally interested in the  clarity, precision, and objectivity of the questions, as well as the flow and  layout of the survey. For example, we wanted to ensure that definitions  used in the survey were clear and known to the respondents, categories  provided in closed-ended questions were complete and exclusive, and  the ordering of survey sections and the questions within each section was  appropriate. We revised the final survey based on pretest results. Another  step we took to minimize nonsampling errors was using a Web-based  survey. Allowing respondents to enter their responses directly into an  electronic instrument created a record for each respondent in a data file  and eliminated the need for and the errors associated with a manual data  entry process. To further minimize errors, programs used to analyze the  survey data and make estimations were independently verified to ensure  the accuracy of this work.
While we did not validate specific information that tribal TANF  administrators reported through our survey, we reviewed their responses,  and we conducted follow-up, as necessary, to determine that their  responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. For example, we reviewed responses and  identified those that required further clarification and, subsequently,  followed-up with those tribes to ensure the information they provided was  reasonable and reliable. In our review of the data, we also identified and  logically fixed skip pattern errors for questions that respondents should  have skipped but did not. On the basis of these checks, we believe our  survey data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our work.
section_title: Site Visits to Tribes in Selected States
paragraphs: To gather additional information on how tribal TANF programs have  changed since 2002, the challenges tribes face in administering their own  program and what tribes have done to address them, and federal  agencies’ guidance and oversight of tribal TANF programs, we conducted  site visits to 11 selected tribes administering TANF programs in  Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arizona, and California to interview tribal TANF  administrators and their staff about their programs (see table 3). We  visited these tribes from November 2010 to January 2011. We selected  these tribes because they varied in geographic location and selected  tribal TANF program characteristics, including the size of the tribal service  population, the number of years operating their tribal TANF program,  program structure (e.g., tribes with “477 plans”), and type and amount of  TANF and TANF-related program funding received (e.g., NEW grants, the  Recovery Act’s Emergency Contingency Fund, and state funding). We  also selected tribes that were located in both urban and rural areas to  ensure that we captured any related differences in TANF program  implementation as well as the types of challenges tribes may face.
During the site visits, we interviewed tribal TANF officials and staff as well  as TANF participants. Through these interviews, we collected information  on tribes’ TANF services and work activities, the benefits and challenges  of administering a TANF program, the impacts of the economic recession,  and tribes’ working relationship with federal agencies as well as with other  tribes administering a TANF program. We cannot generalize our findings  beyond the tribes we visited.
section_title: Interviews with Federal Officials
paragraphs: To learn more about federal agencies’ oversight and guidance of tribal  TANF, we conducted interviews with DOI officials and HHS officials in  headquarters and all regional offices serving areas where tribal TANF  programs were located. These six regional offices are located in Chicago,  IL; Dallas, TX; Kansas City, MO; Denver, CO; San Francisco, CA; and  Seattle, WA. We also attended HHS regional tribal TANF conferences in  California and Washington. In addition, we interviewed tribal TANF  consultants and reviewed relevant information from past GAO, HHS, DOI,  nonprofit, academic, and research institutions’ reports on tribal TANF, and  reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and guidance related to tribal  TANF.
section_title: Appendix II: Approved Tribal TANF Programs (Fiscal Years 2002-2010)
paragraphs: Appendix II: Approved Tribal TANF Programs  (Fiscal Years 2002-2010)
subsections: section_title: Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36) Alaska
paragraphs: Association of Village Council Presidents, Inc. (serves 56  Alaska Native villages)
Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. (serves all members of federally  recognized tribes in the Municipality of Anchorage)
Central Council Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes of Alaska  (serves 20 Indian and Alaska Native villages)
Bristol Bay Native Association (serves 29 Alaska Native villages)
Navajo Nation (also in New Mexico and Utah)
San Carlos Apache Tribe  California  Robinson Rancheria/California Tribal TANF Partnership (serves 16 tribes)
North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians  Owens Valley Career Development Center (serves 8 tribes)  Morongo Band of Mission Indians  Southern California Tribal Chairmen’s Association, Inc.  (serves 18 tribes)
Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians  Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria (serves 4 tribes)  Karuk Tribe  Round Valley Indian Tribes  Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians  Montana  Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation  Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California (serves 2 tribes)  Oklahoma  Muscogee (Creek) Nation  Washington  Spokane Tribe of Indians  South Puget Intertribal Planning Agency (serves 4 tribes)
section_title: Number of tribal TANF programs in existence in FY 2002 (36) South Dakota Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation Wisconsin Washington
paragraphs: Additional tribal TANF programs that started from   FY 2003 through 2010 (28)
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Kathy Larin (Assistant Director),  Rachel Frisk, Kristy Kennedy, Meredith Moore, Brenda Muñoz, and Heddi  Nieuwsma made significant contributions to this report. Joanna Chan,  Lorraine Ettaro, and Stuart Kaufman also made important contributions to  this report. David Chrisinger and Mimi Nguyen provided writing and  graphics assistance, and Alex Galuten provided legal assistance.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Indian Issues: Observations on Some Unique Factors that May Affect  Economic Activity on Tribal Lands. GAO-11-543T. Washington, D.C.:  April 7, 2011  Human Services Programs: Opportunities to Reduce Inefficiencies.   GAO-11-531T. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2011.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families: Implications of Caseload and  Program Changes for Families and Program Monitoring. GAO-10-815T.  Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2010.
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: Implications of Changes in  Participation Rates. GAO-10-495T. Washington, D.C.: March 11, 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 Grant. GAO-06-414. Washington, D.C.:  March 3, 2006.
Welfare Reform: More Information Needed to Assess Promising  Strategies to Increase Parents’ Incomes. GAO-06-108. Washington, D.C.:  December 2, 2005.
Welfare Reform: HHS Should Exercise Oversight to Help Ensure TANF  Work Participation Is Measured Consistently across States. GAO-05-821.  Washington, D.C.: August 19, 2005.
Indian Child Welfare Act: Existing Information on Implementation Issues  Could Be Used to Target Guidance and Assistance to States.   GAO-05-290. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2005.
Welfare Reform: Rural TANF Programs Have Developed Many Strategies  to Address Rural Challenges. GAO-04-921. Washington, D.C.:  September 10, 2004.
Indian Economic Development: Relationship to EDA Grants and Self- determination Contracting Is Mixed. GAO-04-847. Washington, D.C.:  September 8, 2004.
TANF And Child Care Programs: HHS Lacks Adequate Information to  Assess Risk and Assist States in Managing Improper Payments.   GAO-04-723. June 18, 2004.
Welfare Reform: Tribal TANF Allows Flexibility to Tailor Programs, but  Conditions on Reservations Make it Difficult to Move Recipients into Jobs.  GAO-02-768. Washington, D.C.: July 5, 2002.
Welfare Reform: Tribes Are Using TANF Flexibility To Establish Their  Own Programs. GAO-02-695T. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2002.