Welfare Reform: Moving Hard-to-Employ Recipients Into the Workforce
Published: 2001-03-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Although some welfare recipients who might seem hard to employ are able to successfully enter the workforce, others have needed considerable time and support to become work-ready. As a result, some states have begun to implement or are considering strategies to help hard-to-employ recipients join the workforce. To be successful in moving hard-to-employ Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients into the workforce within their 60-month time limit for federal benefits, states must develop programs and provide work and work-preparation activities tailored to the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients and they must ensure that recipients with characteristics that impede employment have access to programs and activities that meet their needs. Some states believe that they would be better able to accomplish this if they (1) had caseload data on the number and characteristics of hard-to-employ TANF recipients, particularly those who will reach their 60-month limit before they are able to work and (2) used a range of work and work-preparation activities that meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients, including activities that extend beyond those that meet federal work participation requirements.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: With the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity  Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), the Congress eliminated the legal  entitlement to cash welfare assistance and replaced it with Temporary  Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants to states. TANF  emphasizes work and responsibility over dependence on government  benefits. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) oversees  the TANF block grant program, which provides grants to states totaling up  to $16.5 billion per year through 2002 and requires states to maintain a  historical level of state spending on welfare-related programs. While the  welfare reform legislation specified some rules for states' receipt of federal  funds, states have the discretion to design their programs to meet their  goals.
Caseloads have fallen dramatically since the passage of the welfare reform  legislation, from 4.4 million families in August 1996 to 2.2 million families in  June 2000. To avoid financial penalties, states must continue to ensure that  increasing proportions of their TANF caseloads are employed or involved  in other work activities. The 60-month limit on receipt of federally funded  TANF benefits heightens the urgency with which states must move  recipients into the workforce—including those who might need extra  assistance to get and keep a job. This group is often referred to as hard-to- employ recipients.
In light of the impending reauthorization of TANF in 2002, the Congress has  expressed an interest in better understanding the factors that make some  TANF recipients hard-to-employ, and the challenges states face in helping  them find and keep jobs. This report provides information on (1) the  participation of TANF recipients in work and work activities, the  characteristics of TANF recipients, and how those characteristics have  changed over time; (2) the strategies states are using to help hard-to- employ TANF recipients get and keep jobs; and (3) the challenges states  face in planning and implementing strategies for hard-to-employ recipients.
To provide information on the participation of TANF recipients in work and  work activities and their characteristics, we drew on several sources of  data. These included two national surveys, the Census Bureau’s Current  Population Survey (CPS) and the Urban Institute's National Survey of  America’s Families (NSAF); HHS’ compilation of TANF administrative data  from states; and 15 studies that were not national in scope. (See app. II for  a list of the studies.)
We also collected additional administrative data on the characteristics and  work activities of TANF recipients from nine states—California,  Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon, Washington,  and Wisconsin—that together served nearly one-half of TANF families  nationwide in June 2000. Although the information we present concerning  these states is not intended to be representative of all TANF programs,  these states were selected because together they employ a range of  approaches to implementing the TANF program, including strategies for  the hard-to-employ, and have experienced various levels of caseload  decline. They include states with both county- and state-administered  TANF programs, states that began welfare reform under waivers prior to  enactment of PRWORA, and those that instituted reform after the law went  into effect. Finally, we included states in different regions of the country,  and with a range of population sizes.
To obtain information on the strategies states are using to move their hard- to-employ recipients into the workforce and the challenges they face in  doing so, we conducted site visits in six of the nine states from which we  collected administrative data—California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland,  Michigan, and Washington. In each state, we interviewed state and local  TANF administrators and others involved in delivering services to TANF  recipients, and visited two or more local TANF agencies. We conducted our  work from November 1999 to January 2001 in accordance with generally  accepted government auditing standards (see app. I).
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Congress passed PRWORA in 1996, making sweeping changes to  national welfare policy. The act replaced the Aid to Families with  Dependent Children (AFDC) program with TANF block grants, a fixed  federal funding stream that provides states with a total of $16.5 billion per  year over 5 years and allows states the flexibility to design their own  programs and strategies for promoting work and self-sufficiency. Under  TANF there are strong work requirements for recipients and there is a limit  on the number of months (60) that families can receive federally funded  TANF benefits.
The number of families receiving cash assistance has declined dramatically  in recent years. More than 5 million families received cash assistance in  1994 but, as the economy improved and TANF work enforcement gathered  steam, fewer families received assistance. Caseloads have fallen  dramatically since the act went into effect, from 4.4 million families in  August 1996 to 2.2 million families in June 2000. Caseload declines slowed  toward the end of 1999 and in a few states rose slightly, but the most recent  data available from HHS indicate that, nationally, caseloads continue to  decline.
Although there are no supporting data, many assume that as caseloads  have fallen the composition of the caseload has changed. Specifically, some  have speculated that those TANF recipients who could easily find and keep  jobs have left the rolls, and hard-to-employ recipients—those with  characteristics that interfere with employment—comprise an increasing  share of the remaining cash assistance recipients. As a result, there is some  concern that state programs that may have been effective at moving easier- to-employ recipients into the workforce may not meet the needs of those  remaining on the rolls.
subsections: section_title: Work Requirements
paragraphs: Under PRWORA, TANF recipients face stronger work requirements than  welfare recipients faced in the past. Unless a state opts out, nonexempt  adult recipients who are not working must participate in community  service employment 2 months after they start receiving benefits. Adults are  required to participate in work activities within 2 years after they start  receiving assistance under the block grant. If recipients do not comply with  the work activity requirement, states must impose sanctions that reduce  cash assistance, and may opt to terminate the grant entirely.
PRWORA allows states to exempt some TANF recipients from the work  activity requirement while still receiving benefits. States may exempt  parents with children under age 1 from work requirements, and may  disregard them in calculating participation rates. States may not penalize  parents with children under 6 for not working if child care is not available.  Recipients who are exempted by the state from work requirements are still  subject to the federal 60-month limit on receipt of benefits and may be  included in a 20-percent hardship exemption from the time limits.
All states allow recipients to meet their work activity requirement through  paid employment. Many states have an earned income disregard that  allows recipients to earn some amount without losing cash assistance, and  many states raised the amount of this disregard after implementation of  TANF to give TANF recipients additional incentives to work. In states with  a higher earnings disregard, more employed persons may still be receiving  TANF benefits—and thus remain part of the caseload—than in states with  lower earnings disregards, where working recipients with lower earnings  levels are removed from the rolls.
To avoid financial penalties, states must ensure that at least a specified  minimum percentage of adult recipients are participating in work or work- related activities each year that count for federal participation rate  purposes. These types of activities are not necessarily identical to the  activities the state allows recipients to engage in to maintain eligibility for  benefits. As specified in PRWORA, work activities that count for federal  participation rate purposes include employment (subsidized or  unsubsidized), work experience programs, on-the-job training and  community service. Providing child care for TANF recipients engaged in  work or work-preparation activities also counts for federal participation  rate purposes. Job search is considered a work activity for a recipient for  up to 6 weeks (or 12 weeks in high-unemployment areas), as are certain  types of education and training that are directly related to employment and  attendance at secondary school or in a course of study leading to a  certificate of general equivalence in the case of a recipient who has not  completed secondary school or received such a certificate. The required  number of hours of work participation for TANF recipients and the  percentage of a state’s caseload that must participate to meet mandated  participation rate requirements were designed to increase over time (see  table 1).
section_title: Time Limits
paragraphs: Under PRWORA, families with an adult TANF recipient cannot receive  federally funded assistance for more than 60 months. However, the law  allows states to impose a shorter time limit or to provide assistance beyond  60 months using state funds. The law also allows states to exempt families  with adult TANF recipients from the 60-month limit on federal assistance  based on hardship or if the family includes a victim of domestic violence. If  a state determines that a family meets one of these criteria, it can opt to  continue the family’s federally funded cash assistance beyond 60 months.  However, a state can exempt no more than 20 percent of its TANF caseload  at any point in time from the federal 60-month limit.
section_title: States Have Options for Managing TANF Resources and Programs
paragraphs: Federal laws and regulations give states flexibility in determining the types  of programs they offer to TANF recipients and how TANF block grant and  state funds can be used. States also have the flexibility to set a wide range  of program rules such as eligibility criteria, earned income disregard  amounts, and benefit levels. Most programmatic decisions are also left to  states. For example, states can choose to administer the TANF program  themselves or devolve responsibility for many of the program management  decisions to county or local TANF offices. States can deliver employment- related services to TANF recipients through their workforce development  or employment service agencies or through their TANF agencies.
With few restrictions, states can also determine the typical pathway for  most new applicants. For example, in designing their TANF programs,  states have the flexibility to determine whether new applicants initially will  be referred to education, training, and work-preparation activities, or  whether they first will be encouraged to enter the workforce as quickly as  possible. Many states have chosen the latter approach, often referred to as  Work First, in part because of the emphasis PRWORA places on work.  Under a Work First approach, recipients are encouraged to find jobs as  quickly as possible and most recipients are placed in job search—an  activity that involves looking for a job—rather than in education or other  work preparation activities. Only recipients who fail to find jobs, or who  find jobs only to lose them immediately, are referred to education, training,  or other types of activities.
States also have a great deal of flexibility in determining exactly what types  of education, training, or other work-preparation activities as well as what  types of support services they provide with their TANF funds. In addition to  TANF funds, states can also access U.S. Department of Labor Welfare-to- Work (WtW) grants to operate community service or work experience  programs, create jobs through wage subsidies, provide on-the-job training,  or provide employment placement and job readiness services. WtW funds  may also be used for a wide range of support services, including education  and training, child care, short-term housing, and transportation assistance  for those placed in work activities.
section_title: Federal Oversight Responsibilities
paragraphs: Although PRWORA's emphasis on devolution of program authority to  states and other levels of government calls for state and local governments  to take responsibility for program results and outcomes, PRWORA gives  the federal government some program oversight responsibilities. Under the  law, HHS is responsible for administering TANF funding, setting reporting  requirements for states, and reviewing state TANF plans. HHS is also  responsible for conducting research on the benefits and effects of the  TANF program, and receives funding for welfare reform and social services  research and evaluation studies. In keeping with this, HHS' stated goals for  research supported with these funds are to gain knowledge about, and  thereby improve, welfare policy and practice and to ensure that knowledge  gained is widely disseminated in formats accessible to policymakers and  program administrators at all levels. Section 413 of the Social Security Act  specifically directs HHS to develop “. . . innovative methods of  disseminating information on any research, evaluations, . . . including the  facilitation of the sharing of information and best practices among States  and localities through the use of computers and other technologies.”
HHS also has created several mechanisms to educate states about the  broad latitude granted them by PRWORA and its implementing regulations  for assisting TANF recipients. HHS can issue a variety of publications and  communiqués and sponsor national and regional conferences that can  include discussions of the law and regulations, possible sources and uses  of state and federal funds, and creative state strategies. The Welfare Peer  Technical Assistance Network, funded by HHS, was created to provide a  variety of services and products to states, counties, localities, and  community-based organizations that work with TANF recipients.
section_title: Many Adults on TANF Are Not Employed, and Many Have Characteristics That Make It Difficult for Them to Work
paragraphs: Even though an increasing percentage of TANF recipients nationwide are  combining welfare and work, most recipients are not engaged in work or  work activities as defined by PRWORA. At least in part, this may be  because many current recipients have characteristics that make it difficult  for them to work, according to data from national surveys and several  studies, as well as from officials in the six states we visited.  Characteristics that impede employment are fairly common among TANF  recipients, although there are few data available to assess whether  recipients with such characteristics represent a greater share of the  caseload than previously.
subsections: section_title: Over Half of Adults on TANF Are Not Engaged in Work Activities, Including Employment, That Count for Work Participation Rate Purposes
paragraphs: To avoid financial penalties, states must ensure each year that at least a  specified minimum percentage of adults receiving TANF are participating  in work or work-related activities that count for federal participation rate  purposes. So far, all states have been able to meet the required minimum  work participation rate for their TANF caseload in general, in part because  states receive credit for caseload declines, which reduces the required  participation rate they must achieve. In fiscal year 1999, 42 percent of all  TANF recipients were engaged in unsubsidized employment or participated  for at least some hours in other work activities, such as job search, that  count for federal participation rate purposes. However, not all participated  for enough hours to have that activity count toward their state's  participation rate.
The proportion of TANF recipients nationwide who were engaged in  unsubsidized employment increased during the past few years. According  to our analysis of HHS data, the percentage of recipients who were engaged  in unsubsidized employment increased from 17 percent in fiscal year 1997  to 25 percent (or 400,000 recipients) in fiscal year 1999. In each of the  states that provided us with data on their caseload characteristics, fewer  than half of the recipients who received TANF assistance during March  2000 were employed at that time. The percentage of the caseload that was  employed in each of these states in March 2000 ranged from just under 40  percent in Connecticut, Washington, and Michigan; to 13 to 15 percent in  Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon, and New York; to 6 percent in Maryland.
In the last few years, the percentage of TANF recipients participating in  work activities other than unsubsidized employment that count for federal  participation rate purposes has been quite small. Between fiscal years 1997  and 1999, no more than 5 percent of the caseload each year participated in  any one of the following activities: subsidized work experience, job search,  or education-related activities.
section_title: Many TANF Recipients Have Characteristics That Can Make It Difficult to Work
paragraphs: Studies have shown that having certain characteristics, such as poor health  or disability, no high school diploma, limited work experience, exposure to  domestic violence, substance abuse, and limited English proficiency,  makes finding and keeping a job more difficult. Based on data from its 1997  NSAF, the Urban Institute concluded that the greater the number of these  characteristics a TANF recipient has, the less likely that recipient is to be  engaged in work or work activities. The survey found that 88 percent of  recipients who had none of these characteristics were working or engaging  in work-related activities, compared to 59 percent of recipients with one of  these characteristics and 27 percent of recipients with three or more (see  fig. 1). Officials in all six of the states we visited agreed that recipients  with one or more work-impeding characteristics find it hardest to  successfully enter the workforce—and are often referred to as hard-to- employ recipients. However, states have found that while having these  characteristics makes employment difficult, it does not make employment  impossible. Some recipients who have characteristics that make it difficult  to work do, in fact, find jobs.
Studies have found that a considerable percentage of TANF recipients have  characteristics that make it difficult for them to work. Table 2 identifies the  range of estimates a number of studies provide on the prevalence of some  of these characteristics in the welfare population. For example, estimates  from the studies reviewed of the proportion of the welfare caseload with  health problems or disability range from 20 to 40 percent, and the  proportion of the caseload with no high school diploma from 30 to 45  percent.
Information from the states we visited is consistent with the studies’ data.  Officials in the states we visited indicated that many recipients have poor  mental or physical health, have substance abuse problems, or were victims  of domestic violence. Some officials noted that the actual extent of these  characteristics can be hard to determine because most states and localities  rely on recipients to disclose this information about themselves to their  case managers, which they are often reluctant to do.
State and local officials in the six states we visited shared the opinion that a  larger proportion of the current caseload has difficulty obtaining  employment in comparison to past caseloads, but none had data to  demonstrate this. The small amount of data available to compare TANF  caseloads over time does not show statistically significant changes in the  characteristics of welfare recipients since welfare reform; however, these  data do not include measures of many of the characteristics that impede  employment. Officials in the states we visited reported that while caseloads  fell rapidly between 1995 and 1999, the declines slowed between 1999 and  2000; they attributed this slowing to the changing composition of the  caseload. They reported that new recipients who are the most job-ready  leave the welfare rolls relatively quickly, leaving behind recipients who  have greater difficulty obtaining and retaining jobs. Some officials not only  believed that the caseload had become harder to employ, but also  speculated that hard-to-employ TANF recipients are more visible now  because, in the past, there was no incentive to determine whether  recipients had characteristics that made them difficult to employ.
Among the states we visited, only Washington had collected statewide data  to determine whether its caseload had become harder to employ, and they  are of limited use. The state measured changes between August 1997 and  February 2000 in the percentages of recipients who had each of four  characteristics it found to limit a recipient's employment: less than a high  school education, limited English-speaking ability, a young child, and no  recent work experience. While Washington found that the percentage of  the caseload with the first three of these characteristics increased slightly  over this period, the proportion of the caseload with no recent work  experience and with two or more of these characteristics decreased. Data  on key characteristics such as poor health, mental illness, substance abuse,  exposure to domestic violence, poor basic work skills, or other  characteristics that make it difficult to work were not available, so results  from this study are limited.
There are no national data available to track changes in many of the  characteristics found to impede employment over time among welfare  recipients. The CPS does measure characteristics such as age, race,  marital status, citizenship status, school attendance, and educational  achievement of welfare recipients nationwide, as well as their receipt of  disability payments, but our analyses of these data show no significant  changes since welfare reform. (See app. II for a list of these studies.)
section_title: States Use Different Strategies to Help Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients Get and Keep Jobs
paragraphs: Every state we visited implemented a Work First approach that emphasizes  employment over training and education to help TANF recipients obtain  jobs; however, to varying degrees, all states have modified or enhanced  their approach to better serve recipients for whom the Work First approach  is not successful because they have characteristics that may impede  employment. The states we visited differ markedly in their approach to  identifying recipients who have these characteristics so that they can either  be exempted from work requirements or provided with targeted programs  and services that would help them obtain employment. Some states and  localities require TANF recipients to look for a job and only offer enhanced  services to those who are unsuccessful, while others begin by screening  and assessing new applicants to identify those who have characteristics  that might impede their ability to get a job. The strategies states use to  assist those recipients identified as hard-to-employ also vary. Some of the  states we visited have focused their efforts on improving and expanding  case management, while others have programs and services targeted  specifically to prepare hard-to-employ recipients for work. All six of the  states we visited also refer recipients to programs run by non-TANF  agencies and organizations that help recipients deal with specific problems  such as substance abuse and mental illness that may affect their ability to  get and keep a job.
subsections: section_title: The Six States We Visited Have Adjusted Their Work First Approach in Order to Serve Hard-to-Employ Recipients
paragraphs: Every state we visited implemented a TANF program that can be  characterized as Work First and, as a result, their TANF programs share a  few common elements. All of the programs seek to move people from  welfare into unsubsidized jobs as quickly as possible. Officials expressed  the belief that the best way to succeed in the labor market is to join it, and  the best setting in which to develop successful work habits and skills is on  the job. PRWORA requires that all TANF recipients determined ready to  work by the state either work or participate in a work activity as a  condition for receiving benefits. Most recipients are referred directly to job  search—an activity that involves looking for a job. Employment is  presented as the goal of the TANF program for all recipients, and job  search, rather than activities such as education and training, is considered  the most expedient strategy for helping recipients, in general, obtain jobs.
As their experience working with hard-to-employ recipients has grown,  however, the states and localities we visited have concluded that the Work  First approach is not effective in helping certain types of TANF recipients  get and retain jobs. States have found that recipients who have certain  characteristics that interfere with employment need more time and  additional supports and services to adequately prepare for work. In  response, all of the states we visited said that they had made changes to  their TANF programs, but they differed markedly in the ways in which they  had modified or enhanced their programs to better accommodate the needs  of hard-to-employ recipients.
section_title: The States We Visited Use Different Approaches to Identify Hard-to-Employ Recipients
paragraphs: One of the key issues confronted by states and localities we visited in  implementing strategies to meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients is  identifying this population. The states and localities we visited use two  distinct approaches. Some, such as Michigan and Butte County, California,  require most recipients to look for employment, or “test the job market,”  immediately after applying for assistance, and do only minimal initial  screening to determine whether applicants should be exempt from work  requirements. Only recipients who are unsuccessful in finding a job  within a certain time period are reassessed and either exempted or referred  to targeted services and programs to address work-impeding  characteristics. Other states, including Connecticut and Maryland, reported  that they screen and assess all new applicants. Based on this screening and  assessment, some recipients are exempted from work requirements. Those  who are not exempt but who have characteristics that impede employment  can be referred for targeted services to prepare them for work. According  to officials in the states we visited, this latter group represents a sizable  share of their total TANF caseload. No one approach has been proven more  effective than another for moving recipients who have characteristics that  might impede employment into jobs.
subsections: section_title: Some States and Localities Use the Job Market to Identify Hard- to-Employ Recipients
paragraphs: Some of the states and localities we visited rely primarily on the job market  to identify recipients who have characteristics that impede employment.  Officials in these states pointed out that many such recipients nevertheless  have successfully found and kept jobs through the usual Work First  process. They stated that all recipients should have the opportunity to test  the labor market before being referred for additional services. According to  officials in these states, this approach has two distinct advantages: first, by  allowing recipients to test the job market, the state does not prejudge or  label recipients as hard-to-employ when they may, in fact, be able to obtain  jobs; and second, this strategy sends a clear message that TANF is  temporary and that employment is the immediate goal.
The states and localities we visited that use the job market to identify hard- to-employ recipients do some very limited up-front screening to identify  recipients who clearly meet the exemption criteria, but send most new  applicants directly to job search after they apply for TANF assistance. Case  managers in Michigan, for example, ask a few questions during the  application process to identify recipients who are clearly exempt from  work requirements, such as those who are victims of domestic violence,  but do not use a standardized questionnaire to screen new applicants.  Recipients are not further assessed or referred to job preparation activities  other than job search unless they fail to find a job within 30 days. Similarly,  in Butte County, California, recipients must look for a job for 4 weeks  before they can be referred to job preparation activities beyond those that  are part of the usual Work First process in that county.
section_title: Some States Have Focused on Identifying and Assessing the Needs of Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients
paragraphs: Some of the states and localities we visited have developed strategies  designed to identify hard-to-employ recipients soon after they apply for  benefits so that they can be referred to appropriate programs before they  attempt to find jobs. Officials from states and localities that use this  approach argue that by identifying these recipients early, agencies can  more appropriately focus resources and time on activities and services that  hard-to-employ recipients need in order to become employed. Strategies  ranged from conducting an in-depth assessment of every new applicant to  developing a series of increasingly detailed assessments for recipients who  cannot find employment quickly. Some of these programs are described  below:  Each local TANF agency in Maryland has developed an assessment  instrument to identify hard-to-employ recipients soon after they apply  for benefits. In Frederick County, a team of three trained clinicians— including a case manager, a child support enforcement worker, and a  social worker—conduct a thorough assessment of each recipient soon  after she submits an application.
The Washington TANF agency has developed a computerized  questionnaire for screening all new applicants. Applicants are asked a  series of general questions on more than a dozen topics ranging from  child care and transportation to legal issues, domestic violence, and  substance abuse. A response that indicates a possible problem in any  area prompts the caseworker to ask a series of more detailed questions  on that topic. Recipients found to be hard-to-employ are referred  directly to programs and services that address their special needs or, if  they are found to have what the state deems a major issue—such as  family violence, some specific health problems, homelessness,  substance abuse, or pregnancy—they are referred to an on-site social  worker for a more in-depth assessment and referral to appropriate  services.
section_title: The States We Visited Expanded Their Case Management for Hard-to- Employ TANF Recipients
paragraphs: All of the states we visited have changed the way they manage TANF cases  in order to better help recipients obtain and keep jobs. Unlike typical case  management prior to welfare reform, which consisted primarily of  determining eligibility, case management under TANF is an ongoing and  multifaceted process. Staff interact with recipients, determine needs,  establish goals, address characteristics that impede employment, and  monitor compliance with program requirements.
The states we visited took various approaches and emphases in structuring  their case management process, not only in response to the changes in  welfare policy and goals, but also to meet the needs of hard-to-employ  TANF recipients. Some examples follow:  Washington has implemented a statewide case management process  called case staffing. Case staffing consists of holding periodic meetings  that involve every member of the staff who has any interaction with a  recipient, including representatives from contractors and other agencies  that provide services to TANF recipients. Staff members consider each  recipient's history, current activities, and employment plan, and whether  past activities have yielded desired results. The group then makes  recommendations as to how the case manager should proceed with the  recipient, such as referrals to other programs or alternative job- preparation activities.
In addition to its general case management services, Connecticut uses  intensive case management as a primary strategy for moving hard-to- employ recipients into the workforce. The state also provides intensive  case management to recipients who are at risk of having a sanction  imposed for not complying with program rules, or who have reached  their lifetime limit on the TANF program. Intensive case management  services can include employee assistance programs for employers of  TANF recipients.
In Grand Rapids, Michigan, the local TANF agency has stationed two  case managers at a large company that employs TANF recipients to help  hard-to-employ recipients retain their jobs. These on-site case managers  serve as a resource for both employees and the employer, helping  employees cope with crises that might otherwise cause them to lose  their jobs, and intervening on behalf of the employer at the first sign of  trouble. The company's retention rate for current and former TANF  recipients was 81 percent, as compared to only 33 percent for their non- TANF employees. Company officials directly attributed the higher  retention rates to on-site case management and cooperation from the  local TANF agency.
The states we visited have faced challenges in altering their case  management to meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients. Officials and  advocates for welfare recipients in Maryland told us that case managers,  who for years served primarily as eligibility specialists, have had difficulty  changing their focus to employment preparation and planning. This is  especially true for those who continue to have responsibility for  determining eligibility for food stamps and other means-tested programs.  The difficulties case managers have encountered in learning new  responsibilities have been exacerbated in areas where caseload reductions  have been accompanied by disproportionate reductions in staff. Recipient- to-case-manager ratios vary by state and locality. For example, in one  locality in Florida, case managers had responsibility for as many as 400  cases, while case managers in one Maryland county had responsibility for  an average of 15 cases. State officials reported that in areas where case  managers have large caseloads, they do not have the time to provide hard- to-employ recipients with the extensive monitoring and referrals to  additional programs and services they need.
section_title: Some States Have Developed Other Strategies Targeted to Hard-to-Employ Recipients
paragraphs: In addition to assessment and case management, several of the states and  localities we visited have developed programs targeted specifically to  prepare hard-to-employ recipients to enter the workforce. States that have  developed targeted programs have emphasized short-term interventions  with a strong employment focus that often involve several different  activities to address specific problems a recipient may face. Some of these  targeted programs are designed to provide hard-to-employ recipients with  the skills they need to cope with crises and succeed at the workplace on a  day-to-day basis. Other targeted programs offer recipients hands-on work  experience in a structured, highly supervised, supportive environment.
subsections: section_title: Soft-Skills Training
paragraphs: Some of the most innovative programs developed by TANF agencies in the  states we visited were designed to help hard-to-employ recipients learn to  cope with the multiple characteristics that make employment difficult.  State officials reported that in many cases, the difficulties hard-to-employ  recipients have in finding and keeping jobs stem from their inability to deal  with these characteristics on an ongoing basis, rather than simply having  the characteristics themselves. Officials in every state we visited told us  that a recipient with low educational attainment can often obtain an  unskilled job, particularly in a strong economy, but if she lacks the skills  required to deal with situations such as a chronic health problem, a child  with behavior problems, or a breakdown in child care or transportation  arrangements, she is likely to miss work and lose the job. Similarly, one  official stated that a recipient may have the skills and abilities needed to  function in a particular job, but if she does not know how to dress  appropriately, conduct herself in an interview, or fill out a job application  properly, she will not be able to get that job. In the six states we visited we  encountered several examples of programs designed to provide recipients  with the life skills needed to be successful in the workforce, often referred  to as soft-skills training:  In Baltimore County, Maryland, a private firm called Workforce  Solutions is under contract to run a 12-week program for TANF  recipients designed to address specific characteristics that may impede  employment—such as low basic reading and math skills—while also  providing participants with ways to cope with personality issues such as  antisocial behavior and inappropriate responses to authority.
In Broward County, Florida, a soft-skills program for long-term TANF  recipients uses role-playing, simulated work activities, team-building  exercises, and other techniques to help recipients change their attitude  and feelings about work. The program focuses on helping recipients  develop positive attitudes, coping skills, critical thinking, workplace  ethics, and confidence.
In Butte County, California, the TANF agency has coordinated with a  nonprofit organization that manages a boutique that provides  makeovers and professional clothing for interviewing and working.  Recipients are also provided with necessities such as hosiery,  undergarments, and shoes at no cost.
section_title: Work Experience Programs
paragraphs: A few of the states and localities we visited relied heavily on work  experience activities to prepare hard-to-employ recipients to join the  workforce. Intensive, highly supervised, hands-on work experience  allows recipients to experience a workplace environment first hand.  However, most localities we visited rarely, if ever, referred recipients to  these types of programs, in part because they felt that such programs were  unnecessary in a strong economy with ample job opportunities. While a  few of the work experience programs in the states we visited were very  specialized and targeted to certain subgroups of hard-to-employ recipients  such as immigrants with limited English skills, most served a broader range  of hard-to-employ recipients. TANF worksite activities differ in who is  required to participate and in how much the activities mirror unsubsidized  employment. Some examples of work experience programs follow:  Community Rehabilitation Industries offers a targeted work-experience  program to refugees in Los Angeles, California. The program is designed  to provide hands-on experience at a manufacturing business and a range  of supplemental services, including English as a Second Language (ESL)  classes, sobriety support, parenting skills instruction, and basic skills  remediation. These programs are provided at the work-site and  participants are paid to attend.
Washington has a statewide internship and training program, called  Community Jobs (CJ), that provides hard-to-employ recipients who  have various work-impeding characteristics with 20 hours of paid work  experience per week for up to 9 months. The program provides  intensive case management to help participants cope with the demands  of their work experience positions. The program also requires  participants to enroll in a complementary work activity, such as basic  education or substance abuse or mental health treatment, for an  additional 20 hours per week. Program officials report that the number  of CJ slots is insufficient to meet demand, primarily because the  program does not have the funding to support more slots.
section_title: State TANF Agencies We Visited Rely on Non-TANF Agencies and Organizations to Meet Some Needs of Hard-to-Employ Recipients
paragraphs: All of the states we visited relied on non-TANF agencies and organizations  to provide certain services, including those that address the characteristics  that, according to state officials, impeded employment for recipients.  Officials in every state we visited cited domestic violence, substance abuse,  mental health problems, limited education, poor health, and having a  disability as factors that affected a recipient's ability to get and keep a job.  Most states relied primarily on non-TANF government agencies and other  community organizations with expertise and experience in providing  services to address these problems rather than developing new programs  specifically for TANF recipients. States used TANF as well as a variety of  other funding sources to pay for these services, including funding from  other federal, state, and private programs. Some examples include the  following:  Domestic violence: The policy in every state we visited is to refer  victims of domestic violence to emergency housing and other services,  including counseling and legal assistance, although in some locations  officials reported that the availability of such services was limited. In  most cases, these services are provided by nonprofit organizations,  public health agencies, and privately funded legal assistance programs.
Low educational attainment/limited English proficiency: All of the states  we visited had policies to refer recipients to adult basic education, ESL  courses, and high school equivalency programs offered by local school  districts, community adult education programs, colleges and  universities, or nonprofit organizations.
Poor health/disability: Most of the states we visited had policies to refer  recipients with physical or mental impairments that might make them  eligible for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, for  assistance in applying for SSI benefits. In Maryland, the TANF agency  contracts with an agency to provide services through their Disability  Entitlement Advocacy Program to help disabled recipients of cash  assistance apply for, qualify for and receive SSI. In addition, all states  referred disabled recipients to vocational rehabilitation services.
section_title: Some State Decisions Have Made It More Challenging to Help Hard-to-Employ TANF Recipients Enter the Workforce
paragraphs: In the states we visited, decisions about collecting and analyzing data on  caseload characteristics, setting time limits shorter than 60 months, and  limiting work and work-preparation activities to those that count toward  federal work participation requirements have increased the challenge of  moving hard-to-employ TANF recipients into the workforce. Few states  compile and analyze data on those characteristics that make recipients  hard to employ, making it difficult for them to estimate the number of  recipients likely to reach their 60-month limit on federal benefits, and to  develop strategies to help them become employed before their federally  funded benefits run out. In addition, as a group, hard-to-employ recipients  may need more time to be integrated into the workforce; time limits shorter  than 60 months may decrease the likelihood that they will acquire the skills  they need for work before their assistance ends. Finally, some states tend  to place recipients only in work and work-preparation activities that count  when calculating federal work participation rates. This may prevent hard- to-employ recipients from participating in other activities that may better  prepare them for employment.
subsections: section_title: Few of the States We Visited Collect the Data They Need for Planning and Monitoring Programs for Hard-to- Employ Recipients
paragraphs: Because states have not compiled statewide data on the characteristics of  their TANF recipients and do not have the systems to analyze data that the  localities collect, the states face challenges in developing programs tailored  to the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients and assuring that all hard-to- employ recipients have access to such programs. Although ACF has  annually sponsored conferences on evaluating welfare reform since 1998,  at the time of our site visits, none of the six states we visited had sufficient  data to allow them to identify the share of their caseload that is hard-to- employ. Of the nine states we asked for data on the number of adult TANF  recipients with learning disabilities, substance abuse issues, exposure to  domestic violence, other mental or psychological conditions, limited  English proficiency, physical impairment, poor physical health,  developmental disabilities, and criminal history—characteristics that  impede employment—only two provided statewide data on some of these  characteristics. Most states reported that these data were not available.
States could not provide these data, in part, because they are not required  to collect them, and because identification of such characteristics is  inherently difficult. In addition, widely accepted screening and assessment  tools that can be used to determine the presence of those characteristics  are lacking. State officials also indicated that they lack the computer  systems necessary to aggregate and analyze such data for managing their  caseloads as a whole.
PRWORA requires states to collect and report specific caseload  information such as marital status, citizenship, and ages of family members  to HHS on a quarterly basis, but states also have the flexibility to collect  any additional data they deem necessary to manage their TANF programs.  Only two of the states we visited—Connecticut and Washington—had  begun to use this flexibility to systematically collect statewide data that  would enable them to identify recipients with characteristics that make  them hard-to-employ. As we noted earlier, Washington and Connecticut  each developed a standardized screening instrument to identify applicants  with characteristics—such as low literacy, limited English proficiency, and  learning disabilities, as well as mental health, substance abuse, domestic  violence, and physical health problems—that may interfere with  employment. However, they have been collecting these data only since July  and August 2000, respectively.  Other states do some screening of  applicants, but screening tools may vary by locality within the states, as in  California, Florida, and Maryland; or may consist of just a few basic  questions on the TANF application, as in Michigan. Even where states  identified hard-to-employ recipients, they did not necessarily have this  information in databases that allowed states and localities to use it to  manage their caseloads.
Some of the reasons states gave for not identifying applicants with  characteristics that could interfere with employment included the lack of  widely accepted screening and assessment tools, difficulties in eliciting  information from recipients, and a lack of skills among case managers in  conducting screenings and assessments. The few states and localities that  had questionnaires available to screen all new applicants, including  Washington, Connecticut, and counties in Maryland and California, had  developed the screening tools themselves, in part because they were  unable to identify existing screening tools. Even among those states and  localities that used screening and assessment tools, however, case  managers faced a myriad of obstacles in identifying recipients who have  characteristics that impede employment. For example, state and local  officials reported that recipients are sometimes reluctant to reveal certain  characteristics, such as substance abuse or domestic violence, because  they fear losing custody of their children or triggering reprisals from the  abuser. Cultural issues and privacy concerns can also prevent recipients  from sharing information with case managers. Also, some recipients may  be unaware that they have specific problems or may be in denial regarding  the problems. Furthermore, some case managers may hesitate to ask about  recipients' physical limitations for fear of violating the Americans with  Disabilities Act. Case managers may also have concerns about privacy  and confidentiality and about the impact of labeling recipients as hard-to- employ before they have had a chance to prove themselves as job-ready.
Such difficulties are especially challenging for case managers not trained in  screening and assessing TANF recipients. Few of the states we visited  provided training to case managers in how to use screening tools or  identify recipients who have characteristics that could impede  employment.
HHS and other federal agencies have initiatives under way to either  develop tools or evaluate available screening and assessment tools. ACF at  HHS contracted with the Urban Institute to conduct a study of existing  screening and assessment tools. The final report for this study is scheduled  to be completed in 2001, but a preliminary report confirms that there are  few existing screening tools for TANF programs to draw upon. HHS is also  collaborating with the Departments of Labor and Education to develop a  publication on screening tools to identify persons with disabilities. HHS  also funded publication of guides, published in July 2000, on screening  TANF recipients for mental illness and substance abuse. However, HHS  has done little so far to encourage state efforts to compile data that identify  hard-to-employ recipients, or can be used to estimate the number of TANF  recipients who will reach their 60-month limit before joining the workforce.
Officials in the states we visited reported that states and localities not only  lack data but also lack computer systems sophisticated enough to process  statewide data on caseload characteristics. These findings are consistent  with our recent study on TANF information systems, which reported that  10 of 15 localities surveyed indicated that their automated systems provide  about half or less of the information needed for case management. Eight  of 15 states and only 6 of 15 localities reported that their systems provided  all or most of the data needed for service planning.
The lack of comprehensive caseload data and adequate computer systems  has made it difficult for states to make plans for recipients likely to reach  their time limits. Not all of the states we visited have conducted analyses to  determine how many would likely reach their time limits, the  characteristics of those most likely to reach their time limits, or the impact  of various strategies to deal with those who have reached their time limits.  HHS is doing little to encourage states to collect and analyze data on the  characteristics of TANF recipients likely to reach their time limits.  PRWORA provides states with several strategies to deal with recipients  who reach their time limits. States are able to exempt recipients from the  60-month limit on federal assistance in cases that involve hardship or  domestic violence. It is up to each state to define hardship, and states can  extend this exemption to no more than 20 percent of their TANF caseload.  All the states we visited plan to exercise this option, but none had decided  what criteria (other than domestic violence) they would use to determine  who would qualify for this exemption.
However, based on their analysis of statewide data, both Washington and  Maryland have concluded that, at some point, this exemption will not allow  them to extend benefits to all qualified recipients who reach their 60-month  limit. This is because, as the caseload continues to fall, the number the  state can provide with extended benefits (20 percent of the caseload) will  also fall. Meanwhile, each month more recipients will reach their time  limits. Analyses conducted in Washington and Maryland indicate that, at  some point, even families facing severe hardship will have their federal  benefits terminated because they cannot be served under the current 20- percent hardship exemption policy. Officials in all of the states we visited  told us that they had not yet estimated the cost of other strategies, such as  continuing benefits to all recipients who reach their time limits using state  funds, or providing federal assistance to such families through subsidized  employment programs.
Inadequate data management information systems have also made it  difficult for states to develop mechanisms for holding local public and  private service providers accountable for delivering needed services to  hard-to-employ recipients. Advocates for welfare recipients in five of the  states we visited noted that hard-to-employ recipients with similar  characteristics could receive vastly different services depending on their  case manager, local TANF office, or program provider. Advocates in  Maryland and Florida reported that recipients in some localities have  access to a wide range of programs and services tailored to meet their  needs, whereas such specialized programs are not provided in other  localities. For example, Baltimore County, Maryland, contracts with a  number of service providers to deliver specialized work preparation  programs, while recipients in the city of Baltimore have little access to  such programs. In Maryland, as in other states, few mechanisms are in  place to ensure that recipients throughout the state are treated uniformly  or to ensure that recipients receive the assistance they need to get jobs.
section_title: Time Limits Shorter Than 60 Months Could Make It More Difficult for Hard-to-Employ Recipients to Enter the Workforce Before Their Federal Benefits End
paragraphs: Officials in all six of the states we visited said that they expect at least some  of their hard-to-employ recipients to reach their time limits before they are  able to develop the skills to enter sustained employment, particularly those  who have multiple characteristics that make employment difficult. States  that have adopted time limits of shorter than 60 months have already seen  some recipients reach their time limits without being prepared for long- term employment.
Connecticut, the state with the shortest time limit of the six states we  visited—21 months—has found that hard-to-employ recipients cannot  address all of the characteristics that impede employment by the time their  benefits are terminated. The state has developed an alternative safety net  program in order to provide services and support to recipients who are not  employed when they reach the time limit. In addition, a large share of those  who are still receiving TANF benefits at 21 months have their benefits  extended. In April 2000, 39 percent of Connecticut's caseload had had their  time limits extended.
At least one state, Florida, has adjusted its time limits to account for the  challenges faced by hard-to-employ recipients. In that state, most  recipients face a time limit of 24 months (out of any given 60-month  period), but recipients who lack a high school diploma or have significant  skill deficits have a time limit of 36 months (out of any 72-month period).  Florida has a lifetime limit on benefits of 48 months, but will allow an  additional 12 months of benefits in cases of hardship.
section_title: Limiting Work Activities to Those That Count for Federal Participation Rate Purposes Makes It More Difficult to Prepare Hard-to- Employ TANF Recipients for Employment
paragraphs: Although the types of work activities that count when calculating states'  work participation rates are specified in PRWORA, states have the  flexibility to define allowable activities for the purpose of determining  continued eligibility for TANF assistance. Consequently, the activities that  count for federal participation rate purposes and those that allow TANF  recipients to maintain their eligibility for assistance need not be the same.  While some states we visited allow TANF recipients to maintain their  eligibility for assistance by participating in activities that do not count  toward the participation rate, others allow only the work activities that  count.
Michigan and Florida, for example, limit the work activities that enable  TANF recipients to continue to receive assistance strictly to those that  count toward meeting work participation rate requirements. In these  states, only TANF recipients who were exempted from participating in a  work activity were referred to programs that are not considered work  activities in calculating the federal participation rate.
In contrast, other states we visited allow hard-to-employ recipients to  maintain their eligibility for benefits by participating in programs and  services that do not count for federal work participation rate purposes,  such as soft-skills training and substance abuse treatment. However,  officials in these states expressed concern that they might have difficulty  continuing to meet work participation rate targets if their caseloads consist  more predominantly of hard-to-employ recipients and as caseload  reduction slows. In California and Maryland, for example, some counties  offered soft-skills training to help TANF recipients obtain the basic time  management, budgeting, and social skills necessary to maintain steady  employment, activities that do not count for federal participation rate  purposes. Connecticut considers substance abuse treatment, domestic  violence counseling, and some adult education programs as work activities.
However, Connecticut officials stated that if the proportion of their  caseload needing these services increases, they may have more difficulty  meeting federally mandated participation rates since these activities are  not counted when calculating the rates.
HHS has several mechanisms to educate states about the broad latitude  granted them in PRWORA. However, HHS has provided little guidance to  states on the broad discretion they have to allow hard-to-employ TANF  recipients to engage in work-preparation activities that, although not  counted for federal participation rate purposes, may be best suited to  recipients’ needs.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Welfare reform led to major changes in state welfare policy and programs.  Only now have states had enough experience with their TANF programs to  begin to understand how well these programs are meeting the needs of  TANF recipients, particularly those with characteristics that suggest they  might be hard to employ. States have found that, while some recipients  with these characteristics are able to successfully enter the workforce,  many need considerable time and support in order to become work-ready,  including services and work-preparation activities that address their  specific needs. As a result, some states have begun to implement, or are  considering adopting, strategies specifically designed to help hard-to- employ recipients join the workforce.
To be successful in moving hard-to-employ TANF recipients into the  workforce within their 60-month time limit for federal benefits, states must  develop programs and provide work and work-preparation activities  tailored to the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients and they must  ensure that recipients with characteristics that impede employment have  access to programs and activities that meet their needs.
Some states believe they would be better able to accomplish this if they (1)  had caseload data on the number and characteristics of hard-to-employ  TANF recipients, particularly those who will reach their 60-month limit  before they are able to work; and (2) used a range of work and work- preparation activities that meet the needs of hard-to-employ recipients,  including activities that extend beyond those that meet federal work  participation requirements. None of the states we visited, however, have  systematically compiled this type of statewide caseload data, and some  states are reluctant to provide TANF recipients with many of the types of  work-preparation activities that do not count when calculating work  participation rates.
In addition, estimates of the number and characteristics of TANF recipients  likely to reach their 60-month time limit before they can become employed  will allow states to determine which recipients could qualify for a hardship  exemption, what services and supports will be needed by those who do not,  and whether states will provide these services. However, not all of the  states we visited have collected or analyzed data on the time it takes  recipients to become job-ready in order to estimate the number of TANF  recipients likely to exceed their 60-month time limit on benefits.
HHS is supporting initiatives that will help states identify hard-to-employ  recipients, but so far it has done little to help states systematically analyze  these data so that they can be used to estimate the number of TANF  recipients who will reach their 60-month limit before becoming employed.  In addition, although HHS has several efforts under way to help states use  the flexibility allowed under PRWORA, these efforts have not sufficiently  resolved the confusion some states have expressed about how to use this  flexibility to best serve the needs of their hard-to-employ recipients. Our  work revealed some instances in which officials were unclear about how  much discretion they have under PRWORA to allow them to provide work- preparation activities that do not count toward federal participation rates,  even if these services were needed by hard-to-employ recipients.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: To help ensure that the states provide hard-to-employ TANF recipients with  the services and support they need in order to become employed, and are  able to manage TANF caseloads with substantial numbers of hard-to- employ recipients, we recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human  Services and Assistant Secretary of ACF take the following actions:  promote research and provide guidance that would encourage and  enable states to estimate the number and characteristics of hard-to- employ TANF recipients, and identify recipients who will reach their 60- month limit on benefits before they are able to work, and   expand the scope of guidance to states to help them use the flexibility  PRWORA affords to provide appropriate work-preparation activities to  hard-to-employ TANF recipients within the current TANF rules  governing work participation rates and federally countable work  activities.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to HHS for its review. A copy of HHS'  response is in appendix III. We also incorporated technical comments we  received from HHS, where appropriate.
HHS took issue with both of our recommendations. Concerning our first  recommendation—that HHS promote research and provide guidance that  would encourage and enable states to estimate the number and  characteristics of hard-to-employ TANF recipients, and identify recipients  who will reach their 60-month limit on benefits before they are able to  work—HHS said that this approach overemphasizes the importance of  identifying hard-to-employ recipients through measurable characteristics.  They stated that “research suggests that while measurable characteristics  are helpful in making such predictions , they are  imperfect predictors, since many people with presumed barriers to  employment nevertheless work.” Yet, HHS appears to support the use of  measurable characteristics through their ongoing activities to improve  tools and methods to identify these characteristics. Moreover, researchers,  state officials, and national experts report that these data are key to  ensuring that appropriate services are provided to hard-to-employ  recipients. We therefore continue to believe that HHS should promote  research and provide guidance that would encourage and enable states to  estimate the number and characteristics of hard-to-employ TANF  recipients, and identify recipients who will reach their 60-month limit on  benefits before they are able to work.
With regard to our second recommendation—that HHS expand the scope  of guidance to states to help them use the flexibility PRWORA affords to  provide appropriate work-preparation activities to hard-to-employ TANF  recipients within the current TANF rules governing work participation  rates and federally countable work activities—HHS stated that they are  already providing such guidance to the states and listed a number of  initiatives in addition to those mentioned in this report. We agree with HHS  that several of their initiatives appear to have the potential to better inform  states of their flexibility under PRWORA. Notwithstanding these efforts,  however, during our site visits we discovered that some states and  localities did not understand the full range of flexibility they have under the  law, which indicates to us that this information is not being thoroughly  disseminated to states. As a result, we continue to recommend that HHS  expand the scope of their guidance to states to include helping them use  their flexibility to provide appropriate work-preparation activities to hard- to-employ recipients within the current TANF rules.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents  earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after its  issue date. At that time, we will send copies to the Honorable Tommy G.  Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human Services; appropriate  congressional committees; and other interested parties. We will also make  copies available to others on request.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact me on  (202) 512-7215. Other GAO contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed  in appendix IV.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: We designed our study to provide information on (1) the participation of  Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients in work and  work activities, the characteristics of TANF recipients, and how those  characteristics have changed over time; (2) the strategies states are using  to help hard-to-employ TANF recipients get and keep jobs; and (3) the  challenges states face in planning and implementing programs for hard-to- employ recipients. In doing our work, we analyzed national-level survey  and administrative data, collected supplemental data on caseload  characteristics from nine states, and conducted site visits at the state and  local levels in six of these states. We also reviewed the results of several  existing studies conducted in individual states and localities and conducted  interviews with numerous experts on welfare reform and with advocates of  welfare recipients.
We provided a draft of this report to officials in the Department of Health  and Human Services (HHS) and the six states we visited for their review.  We conducted our work from November 1999 to January 2001 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: National-Level Data
paragraphs: To obtain information on the characteristics and composition of the adults  in TANF families, we analyzed data from the 1996, 1998, and 2000 Current  Population Survey Annual Demographic Surveys (March CPS Supplement).  In consultation with Census officials and welfare reform experts, we  determined that this was the only source of national data on TANF  recipients currently available that included comparable information from  the time of welfare reform to the present. Other potential data sources we  pursued included the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), the Survey  of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), the National Longitudinal  Survey of Youth (NLSY), the National Survey of America’s Families (NSAF),  and the Survey of Program Dynamics (SPD). Our statistical analyses of the  CPS data included frequency tables, cross-tabulations, and chi-square tests  of significance. All of the relationships we have reported using the CPS  data analyzed were significant at the p < .05 level.
We also obtained state administrative data on TANF recipients’  participation in federally allowable work activities from ACF.
section_title: State-Level Data
paragraphs: To supplement the national data on recipient characteristics, we requested  data on TANF caseload characteristics since 1995 from nine states— California, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, New York, Oregon,  Washington, and Wisconsin—that were home to nearly half of the nation's  TANF families in 2000. Because no state was able to provide all of the  information we requested, we could conduct only limited analyses with  these data.
section_title: Review of Existing Research
paragraphs: To obtain further information on the characteristics of TANF recipients and  on state strategies for helping hard-to-employ recipients, we reviewed  numerous studies that contained this information. To identify the relevant  studies we searched several on-line bibliographic databases. We requested  information from individuals on Internet mailing lists administered by the  Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the Association for Public Policy  Analysis and Management. We also consulted with experts on welfare  issues, including officials at the Department of Health and Human Services  and members of GAO’s Welfare Reform Advisory Committee, to identify  other studies we should consider.
Data from surveys of TANF recipients were incorporated into our report  only if the survey had obtained data on at least 70 percent of the sample of  families for which it sought such data, or if a nonresponse analysis of the  data showed that there were no important differences between families  represented in the data and those missing. Appendix II contains a list of  these studies. Except for this assessment, we did not independently verify  the data included in the studies.
section_title: State Site Visits
paragraphs: To obtain information about each assignment objective, we interviewed  officials in state welfare departments in six of the nine states from which  we collected data, as well as officials in at least two local sites in each of  these states. Our site visit states were California, Connecticut, Florida,  Maryland, Michigan, and Washington. In selecting the six states for our in- depth fieldwork, we sought to include states that represented a variety of  approaches to moving hard-to-employ recipients into the workforce and  that varied in terms of region, population size, degree of caseload decline,  and time of initial welfare reform, and in whether the TANF program was  administered at the state or county level. The local sites were chosen by the  state-level officials. The TANF families in our six site visit states made up  33 percent of the national TANF caseload in June 2000.
During our site visits, we spoke with state and local TANF program  administrators, data officers, program analysts, case managers and  supervisors, child support officers, Welfare-to-Work liaisons, and private  contractors; and with representatives of partnering agencies such as public  health departments, departments of labor, departments of vocational  rehabilitation, community colleges, and others. The state and local  interviews were administered using a semistructured interview guide that  we developed through a review of relevant literature and discussions with  recognized experts on welfare reform.
Some limitations exist in any methodology that gathers information about  programs undergoing rapid change, such as welfare reform. Results  presented in our report represent only the conditions present in the states  and localities we visited at the time of our site visits, between March and  July 2000. We cannot comment on any changes that may have occurred  after our fieldwork. Furthermore, our fieldwork focused on in-depth  analysis of a few selected states and localities. We cannot generalize our  findings beyond the six states we visited and their localities.
section_title: Interviews With Welfare Experts and Advocates
paragraphs: In developing the scope and methodology we would use to address our  assignment objectives, we consulted with welfare reform experts from  HHS, the Department of Labor, the Bureau of the Census, the Urban  Institute, Mathematica, the National Governors’ Association, the American  Public Human Services Association, and GAO’s Welfare Reform Advisory  Committee. Following our site visits, we conducted phone interviews with  advocates for welfare recipients nationally and in each of the six states in  an effort to ensure that our understanding of and reporting on the states’  caseloads and strategies were accurate and objective.
section_title: Selected Studies Providing Data on the Characteristics of TANF Recipients
paragraphs: Born, Catherine, and others. Life On Welfare: Who Gets Assistance 18  Months Into Reform? Baltimore, Md.: University of Maryland School of  Social Work, Nov. 1998.
Building Bridges: States Respond to Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform.  Published by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at  Columbia University (CASA) and the American Public Human Services  Association (APHSA), Aug. 1999.
Cancian, Maria, and others. Before and After TANF: The Economic Well- Being of Women Leaving Welfare. Madison. Wisc.: Institute for Research on  Poverty, University of Wisconsin − Madison, Dec. 1999.
Danziger, Sandra, and others. Barriers to the Employment of Welfare  Recipients. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan, Poverty Research  Center and Training Center, Apr. 1999.
Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida.  Leaving the Welfare Rolls: The Health and Mental Health Issues of Current  and Former Welfare Recipients. Tampa, Fla.: Florida Agency for Healthcare  Administration, undated.
Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among  Welfare Recipients. GAO/HEHS-99-12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General  Accounting Office, Nov. 1998.
Fogarty, Debra, and Shon Kraley. A Study of Washington State TANF  Leavers and TANF Recipients: Findings From Administrative Data and the  Telephone Survey. Olympia, Wash.: Office of Planning and Research,  Economic Services Administration, Department of Social and Health  Services, Mar. 2000.
Johnson, Amy, and Alicia Meckstroth. Ancillary Support Services to  Support Welfare to Work. Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., under  contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  Washington, D.C.: June 1998.  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/Summary.html.
Kirby, Gretchen, and others. Integrating Alcohol and Drug Treatment into a  Work-Oriented Welfare Program: Lessons From Oregon. Washington, D.C.:  Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 1999.
Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski. Current and Former Welfare  Recipients: How Do They Differ? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,  Nov. 1999.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. How WFNJ Clients Are Faring Under  Welfare Reform: An Early Look. Work First New Jersey Evaluation. State of  New Jersey Department of Human Services, Oct. 1999.
Risler, Ed, and others. The Remaining TANF Recipients: A Research Based  Profile. The Georgia Welfare Reform Research Project. Report to the  Director of the Division of Family and Children Services. Atlanta, Ga.:  Department of Human Resources, State of Georgia, Dec. 1999.
Sweeney, Eileen. Recent Studies Indicate That Many Parents Who Are  Current or Former Welfare Recipients Have Disabilities and Other Medical  Conditions. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feb.  2000.
Women on Welfare: A Study of the Florida Work and Gain Economic Self- Sufficiency Population. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of Children &  Families, May 1999.
Zedlewski, Sheila. Work-Related Activities and Limitations of Current  Welfare Recipients. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, July 1999.
section_title: Comments From the Department of Health and Human Services
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to those named above, Sonya Harmeyer, Heather McCallum,  and Catherine Pardee made significant contributions to this report. Jeff  Appel, Jon Barker, Paula Bonin, Richard Burkard, Patrick DiBattista, Gale  Harris, Art Kendall, Lise Levie, Ann McDermott, and Jim Wright also  provided key technical assistance.
section_title: Bibliography
paragraphs: American Public Human Services Association. TANF Client Assessments:  Program Philosophies and Goals, Sequencing of Process, Uses of  Information and State Changes or Modifications, Promising Practices, and  Lessons Learned, Research Notes. Washington, D.C.: Sept. 2000.  http://www.aphsa.org/opd/research/researchnotes0900.html.
Born, Catherine, and others. Life On Welfare: Who Gets Assistance 18  Months Into Reform? Baltimore, Md.: University of Maryland School of  Social Work, Nov. 1998.
Brawley, Scott. TANF Client Assessment: State Uniformity, Types of  Workers and Staff-Related Actions, Tools and Information Sources, and  Information Sharing, Research Notes. Washington, D.C.: American Public  Human Services Association, Aug. 2000.  http://www.aphsa.org/opd/research/brawley1final.htm.
Building Bridges: States Respond to Substance Abuse and Welfare Reform.  Published by the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at  Columbia University (CASA) and the American Public Human Services  Association (APHSA), Aug. 1999.
Cancian, Maria, and others. Before and After TANF: The Economic Well- Being of Women Leaving Welfare. Madison, Wisc.: Institute for Research on  Poverty, University of Wisconsin − Madison, Dec. 1999.
Danziger, Sandra, and others. Barriers to the Employment of Welfare  Recipients. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Poverty Research Center and Training  Center, University of Michigan, Apr. 1999.
Department of Mental Health Law and Policy, University of South Florida.  Leaving the Welfare Rolls: The Health and Mental Health Issues of Current  and Former Welfare Recipients. Tampa, Fla.: Florida Agency for Healthcare  Administration, undated.
Derr, Michelle K., Heather Hill, and LaDonna Pavetti. Addressing Mental  Health Problems Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program  Administrators. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for  the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for  Children and Families, July 2000.
Domestic Violence: Prevalence and Implications for Employment Among  Welfare Recipients. GAO/HEHS-99-12. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General  Accounting Office, Nov. 1998.
Fogarty, Debra, and Shon Kraley. A Study of Washington State TANF  Leavers and TANF Recipients: Findings From Administrative Data and the  Telephone Survey. Olympia, Wash.: Office of Planning and Research,  Economic Services Administration, Department of Social and Health  Services, Mar. 2000.
Johnson, Amy, and Alicia Meckstroth. Ancillary Support Services to  Support Welfare to Work. Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research,  Inc., for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, June 1998.  http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/isp/ancillary/Summary.htm.
Kirby, Gretchen, and Jacquelyn Andersen. Addressing Substance Abuse  Problems Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators.  Washington, D.C.: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., for the U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children  and Families, July 2000.
Kirby, Gretchen, and others. Integrating Alcohol and Drug Treatment into a  Work-Oriented Welfare Program: Lessons From Oregon. Washington, D.C.:  Mathematica Policy Research, Inc., June 1999.
Kramer, Fredrica D. “Seeing TANF from the Inside Out—Reconsidering the  Program's Role in the Wake of Welfare Reform.” The Forum, Vol. 3, No.2  (July 2000). New York, N.Y.: National Center for Children in Poverty,  Columbia University.
Kramer, Fredrica. “The Hard-to-Place: Understanding the Population and  Strategies to Serve Them.” Issue Notes, Washington, D.C.: Welfare  Information Network (March 1998).  http://www.welfareinfo.org/hardto.htm.
Loprest, Pamela, and Sheila Zedlewski. Current and Former Welfare  Recipients: How Do They Differ? Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,  Nov. 1999.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Addressing Mental Health Problems  Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,  Administration for Children and Families, July 2000.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. Addressing Substance Abuse Problems  Among TANF Recipients: A Guide for Program Administrators.  Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,  Administration for Children and Families, July 2000.
Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. How WFNJ Clients Are Faring Under  Welfare Reform: An Early Look. Work First New Jersey Evaluation. State of  New Jersey Department of Human Services, Oct. 1999.
Michalopoulos, Charles, Christine Schwartz, and Diana Adams-Ciardullo.  What Works Best for Whom: Impacts of 20 Welfare-to-Work Programs by  Subgroup. Washington, D.C.: Manpower Demonstration Research  Corporation, Aug. 2000.
Risler, Ed, and others. The Remaining TANF Recipients: A Research Based  Profile. The Georgia Welfare Reform Research Project. Report to the  Director of the Division of Family and Children Services. Atlanta, Ga.:  Department of Human Resources, State of Georgia, Dec. 1999.
Storen, Duke, and K.A. Dixon. State TANF Policy and Services to People  With Disabilities. Prepared by the John J. Heldrich Center for Workforce  Development at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, funded by the  U. S. Department of Education, National Institute on Disability and  Rehabilitation Research, Nov. 1999.  http://www.comop.org/rrtc/rrtc/TANF.htm   Sweeney, Eileen. Recent Studies Indicate That Many Parents Who Are  Current or Former Welfare Recipients Have Disabilities and Other Medical  Conditions. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, Feb.  2000.
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program: Third Annual  Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health and  Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Aug. 2000.
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires  Coordinated Federal Effort. GAO/HEHS-00-48. Washington, D.C.: U.S.  General Accounting Office, Apr. 27, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important Role in  TANF Programs. GAO/HEHS-00-122. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General  Accounting Office, July 28, 2000.
Women on Welfare: A Study of the Florida Work and Gain Economic Self- Sufficiency Population. Tallahassee, Fla.: Florida Department of Children &  Families, May 1999.
Zedlewski, Sheila, and Pamela Loprest. How Well Does TANF Fit the Needs  of the Most Disadvantaged Families? Washington, D.C.: The Urban  Institute, Dec. 29, 2000.
Zedlewski, Sheila. Work-Related Activities and Limitations of Current  Welfare Recipients. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, July 1999.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Welfare Reform: Work-Site-Based Activities Can Play an Important Role in  TANF Programs (GAO/HEHS-00-122, July 28, 2000).
Welfare Reform: Improving State Automated Systems Requires  Coordinated Federal Effort (GAO/HEHS-00-48, Apr. 27, 2000).
Welfare Reform: State Sanction Policies and Number of Families Affected  (GAO/HEHS-00-44, Mar. 31, 2000).
Welfare Reform: Implementing DOT’s Access to Jobs Program in Its First  Year (RCED-00-14, Nov. 26, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Assessing the Effectiveness of Various Welfare-to-Work  Approaches (GAO/HEHS-99-179, Sep. 7, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Information on Former Recipients’ Status (GAO/HEHS-99- 48, Apr. 28, 1999).
Welfare Reform: States’ Experiences in Providing Employment Assistance  to TANF Clients (GAO/HEHS-99-22, Feb. 26, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States’ Use of Welfare-to- Work Grants (GAO/HEHS-99-40, Feb. 5, 1999).
Welfare Reform: Child Support an Uncertain Income Supplement for  Families Leaving Welfare (GAO/HEHS-98-168, Aug. 3, 1998).
Welfare Reform: States Are Restructuring Programs to Reduce Welfare  Dependence (GAO/HEHS-98-109, June 18, 1998).
Welfare Reform: HHS’ Progress in Implementing Its Responsibilities  (HEHS-98-44, Feb. 2, 1998).
Welfare Reform: States’ Efforts to Expand Child Care Programs  (GAO/HEHS-98-27, Jan. 13, 1998).
Welfare Reform: Three States’ Approaches Show Promise of Increasing  Work Participation (GAO/HEHS-97-80, May 30, 1997).
subsections: section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)