Workforce Investment Act: Coordination Between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain
Published: 2002-03-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) brought most federally funded employment and training services into a single, one-stop center system. Coordination between Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) programs and one-stop centers has increased since the act was implemented in 2000. Nearly all states reported some coordination at either the state or the local level. Most often, coordination took one of two forms: colocation, in which a client accesses TANF programs at the local one-stop, or referrals and electronic links to off-site programs. Despite progress, states and localities continue to report problems because of infrastructure limitations and varying program definitions and reporting requirements. Some of these challenges could be overcome through state and local innovation, but others will be resolved only through federal intervention. Early evidence suggests that states and localities are increasing their efforts to bring services together to fit local needs. As states and localities have begun to recognize the shared goals of the workforce and welfare systems, they have developed ways to coordinate services.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee:  Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the coordination of  services for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  program through one-stop centers established under the Workforce  Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). Welfare reform legislation, which created  TANF, directed welfare agencies to focus on helping needy adults find and  maintain employment, a goal that has long been the province of the  workforce development system. Congress passed WIA to unify a  fragmented employment and training system—creating a new,  comprehensive workforce investment system. Despite TANF’s similar  focus, TANF was not mandated to participate in the one-stop system;  however, as we have previously testified, many states and localities are  coordinating their TANF programs with one-stop centers. With the  emphasis on work intensifying in the current TANF reauthorization  debate, the coordination of TANF and WIA programs may become  increasingly important.
You asked us to assess the extent to which states were coordinating their  TANF services with their one-stop centers. As you requested, my remarks  today focus on (1) the status of state and local efforts to coordinate TANF- related programs—including TANF work programs, TANF cash assistance,  and other support services—with one-stop centers and how this status has  changed since 2000, when WIA was implemented, and (2) the challenges  that states and localities have faced in coordinating their TANF work  programs with their one-stop centers and the approaches that they have  taken to address these challenges. My testimony is based on a survey that  we conducted from September through December 2001 of workforce  development agency officials in all 50 states and a similar survey that we  conducted in the spring of 2000; visits to four states and nine localities  from October 2001 to January 2002; and phone interviews with state  TANF and workforce officials in 12 states during January and February  2002.
In summary, coordination between TANF-related programs and one-stop  centers has increased since the spring of 2000, when WIA was first  implemented. Nearly all states reported some coordination between the  programs at either the state or the local level. Most often, coordination  took one of two forms: through colocation whereby a client accessed  TANF-related programs at the local one-stop, or through referrals and  electronic linkages to off-site programs. How services were delivered also  depended on state and local preferences and conditions. However, as we  testified earlier, despite progress, states and localities continued to report  a variety of challenges stemming from infrastructure limitations—such as  inadequate facilities or antiquated computer systems that do not  communicate with each other—and different program definitions and  reporting requirements. These challenges complicated efforts to  coordinate TANF work programs with one-stop centers. We found that  some of the challenges—such as facilities limitations—could be overcome  through state and local innovation, but others—such as multiple,  sometimes conflicting, program requirements—will be resolved only  though federal intervention. We saw some early evidence that states and  localities were increasing their efforts to bring services together to fit local  needs. As states and localities have begun to recognize the shared goals of  the workforce and welfare systems, they have developed ways to  coordinate services. However, these changes, like all culture changes, will  take time.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: In recent years, Congress passed two pieces of legislation intended, in  part, to foster greater coordination among education, welfare, and  employment and training programs. The Workforce Investment Act (WIA)  was passed in 1998 to consolidate services for many employment and  training programs, requiring states and localities to use a centralized  service delivery structure—the one-stop center system—to provide most  federally funded employment and training assistance. States and localities  had been developing one-stop centers prior to WIA, helped in part by One- Stop grants from the Department of Labor (Labor), but they were not  required to do so until the passage of WIA. The Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families (TANF) block grant, created two years earlier by the 1996  Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act  (PRWORA), allowed states and localities greater flexibility than ever  before in designing employment and training services for clients receiving  cash assistance. While TANF is not one of 17 federal programs mandated  to provide services through the one-stop system, states and localities have  the option to include TANF as a partner. GAO’s prior work on pre-WIA  programs found that states varied in the degree to which employment and  training services for TANF clients were being coordinated through the  one-stop system.
For well over a decade, states and localities have engaged in efforts to  integrate services for their employment and training programs. In fiscal  year 1994, Labor helped them in their efforts when it began awarding One- Stop Planning and Implementation grants, requiring states to include most  Labor-funded programs in the new one-stop centers in order to receive the  grants. The key objectives of Labor’s one-stop initiative, aside from  integration, were to create a system that was customer-driven and  accountable for its outcomes and that made its core services available to  all job seekers. By 1998, all 50 states had received at least some one-stop  planning or implementation grant funds.
When WIA was enacted, it expanded the use of the one-stop system,  requiring states and localities to use this once optional service delivery  structure to provide many other employment and training services. In  implementing WIA, Labor continued to promote the key objectives of the  earlier one-stop initiative while emphasizing state and local flexibility and  a strong role for the private sector on new, local boards that oversee the  program. WIA also extended the one-stop concept beyond Labor  programs, requiring states and localities to form partnerships with other  agencies offering employment and training services. About 17 categories  of programs, funded through four federal agencies—the Departments of  Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban  Development—must provide services through the one-stop center system  under WIA. WIA does not require that all program services be provided on  site (or colocated)—they may be provided through electronic linkages  with partner agencies or by referral—but WIA does require that the  relationships and services be spelled out in a Memorandum of  Understanding between the partners.
While several programs are required by WIA to provide services through  the one-stop centers, others have been left to the discretion of state and  local officials, including the TANF block grant program. State and local  flexibility is also a key feature of the TANF program, which was passed by  Congress two years before WIA. Under TANF, states have more flexibility  than under its predecessor programs to determine the nature of financial  assistance, the types of client services, the structure of the program, and  how services are to be delivered. At the same time, TANF established new  accountability measures for states—focused in part on meeting work  requirements—and a 5-year lifetime limit on federal TANF assistance.  These measures heighten the importance of helping TANF recipients find  work quickly and retain employment. As states have used the new  flexibility under TANF and have focused more on employment, the  importance of coordinating services for TANF clients has received  increased attention. To help clients get and retain jobs, states need to  address problems that may interfere with employment, such as child care  and transportation issues and mental and physical health problems.  Frequently, solving these problems requires those who work directly with  clients to draw on other federal and state programs, often administered by  other agencies, to provide a wide array of services. While local welfare  agencies have typically administered TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid,  other programs that provide key services to TANF clients are administered  by housing authorities, education agencies, and state employment services  offices. TANF’s focus on employment means that welfare agencies may  need to work more closely than before with state and local workforce  development systems. In the past, under the Work Incentive program,  welfare agencies and workforce development systems collaborated at  some level, but our previous work on pre-WIA programs found wide  variation in the degree to which the welfare and nonwelfare programs  worked together to provide employment and training services.
section_title: State and Local Coordination of TANF-Related Programs with One- Stop Centers Increased in 2001
paragraphs: State and local efforts to coordinate their TANF and WIA programs  increased in 2001, at least one year after all states implemented WIA.  Nearly all states reported some coordination at the state or local level,  achieved with methods ranging from informal linkages (such as  information sharing or periodic program referrals) to formal linkages  (such as memoranda of understanding), shared intake, or integrated case  management. Coordination of TANF-related services with one-stop centers  increased from 2000 to 2001, and the form of coordination—colocation of  services, electronic linkages or client referral—was based, in part, on the  type of services provided—TANF work, TANF cash assistance, or support  services—as well as state and local preferences and conditions.
subsections: section_title: Coordination between the TANF and WIA Agencies Increased at Both the State and Local Levels
paragraphs: Modest increases in states’ efforts to coordinate the management of TANF  and WIA programs occurred between 2000 and 2001. Twenty-eight states  reported that in 2001 they made extensive use of formal linkages, such as  memoranda of understanding and state-level formal agreements, between  the agencies administering TANF and WIA, compared with 27 states in  2000. Similarly, states increased their use of coordinated planning in 2001,  with 19 states reporting that they used it to a great extent compared with  18 states in 2000 (see figure 1). When we looked at states individually, we  saw that many were using additional coordination methods in 2001.  Seventeen states indicated that the number of the state-level coordination  methods they used to a great extent increased in 2001. In fact, in 2001, nine  states used all five of the coordination methods that we analyzed—formal  linkages, shared performance measurement and reporting, interagency  and intra-agency workgroups, coordinated planning, and informal linkages  and interagency communication (such as sharing program information)—  up from 7 states in 2000.
Increased coordination between TANF and WIA programs was also seen  in the use of TANF funds to support one-stop center infrastructure or  operations or both. The number of states using TANF funds to support  one-stop centers increased to 36 in 2001 from 33 in 2000. In addition, the  number of states ranking TANF as one of the three largest funding sources  for their one-stop centers rose to 15 from 12.
Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001  were seen at the local level, with the most dramatic changes occurring in  informal linkages, such as periodic program referrals or information  services. Forty-four states reported that most of their one-stop centers had  informal linkages with their TANF programs in 2001, compared with 35  states in 2000 (see figure 2). Similarly, 16 states reported that most of their  one-stop centers had shared intake or enrollment systems in 2001—up  from 13 in 2000; and 15 states reported in 2001 that they used an integrated  case management system in most of their one-stop centers—an increase of  1 state from our 2000 results. Also, our analysis suggests that more  coordination methods are in use at the local level. The number of states  that reported that most of their one-stop centers used all seven methods of  local-level coordination increased in 2001 to 10 states from 7 in 2000.Some of these coordination methods have the potential to reduce the  administrative burden on both clients and staff by decreasing the number  of applications that clients must complete and eliminating the need for  staff to enter similar client information into several systems. For example,  one locality in Connecticut cross-trained staff to provide both TANF and  WIA services and developed an integrated case management system so  that one case manager could track clients across both TANF and WIA  programs, in an effort to reduce the amount of time that staff needed to  spend on administrative tasks like data entry.
section_title: Coordination of Services through One-Stops Increased, and the Form It Took Varied According to Services Provided
paragraphs: Increases in coordination between the TANF program and one-stop  centers were also seen in the use of the one-stop center system to provide  services to TANF clients. While the same number of states—24—reported  in both 2000 and 2001 that services for the TANF work program were  colocated at the majority of their one-stops, the use of electronic linkages  or referrals increased. Fifteen states reported in 2001 that services for the  TANF work program were either electronically linked to the majority of  their one-stop centers or provided by referral between the two programs.  In 2000, 11 states reported these types of linkages.
About half of the states coordinated their TANF cash assistance or Food  Stamps or Medicaid programs with the one-stop centers, electronically or  by referral in 2000 and 2001. State officials in both Connecticut and New  Jersey reported that even though one-stop staff did not determine  eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the one-stops, the staff were  expected to refer clients to appropriate support services outside one-stop  centers. While not as prevalent as electronic linkages or referrals,  colocation of cash assistance appeared to increase in 2001: 16 states  reported that they provided cash assistance services at least part time at  the majority of their one-stop centers, compared with 9 states in 2000.  Colocation of Food Stamps and Medicaid remained the same: seven states  reported in both years that they provided those services at least part time  at the majority of one-stops.
In general, the form of coordination between TANF and one-stops was  different depending on the particular program services that were provided.  For example, when the TANF work programs were being coordinated  through the one-stop centers, services were more likely to be colocated.  TANF cash assistance and the Food Stamps and Medicaid programs were  more likely to be connected electronically or by referrals (see figure 3).  Sometimes states instituted policies to further strengthen the relationships  between the programs and ensure that clients were connected to one-stop  services. In Michigan, for example, TANF clients were required to attend  an orientation session at the one-stop before they could receive cash  assistance. Similarly, in Connecticut, where there were low participation  rates for TANF clients at one-stop centers, the legislature enacted a law  requiring TANF clients to use one-stop centers as a condition of receiving  cash assistance.
In our site visits, we saw wide variation in the degree to which other  support services, such as child care and transportation, were provided  through the one-stop system. For child care assistance, the forms of  coordination ranged from the colocation of child care programs at the one- stop to providing information on services available elsewhere. In New  Jersey, for example, representatives from child care assistance programs  were colocated at some of the one-stop centers, whereas in Arizona,  coordination was limited to brochures supplied to one-stop centers. Many  of the one-stops that we visited provided some kind of transportation  assistance, although the nature of the services and whether or not the  services were reserved for TANF clients varied from locality to locality.  For example, in one location in New Jersey that we visited, the one-stop  center reimbursed transportation expenses to any low-income client  attending training, whether or not the client was covered under TANF.  Another New Jersey one-stop provided van services to transport former  TANF clients to and from job interviews and, once clients were employed,  to and from their jobs, even during evening and night shifts. Similarly, a  one-stop in Connecticut provided mileage reimbursement to current and  former TANF clients for their expenses associated with going to and from  their jobs. And in Louisiana, a one-stop we visited contracted with a  nonprofit agency to provide van services to transport Welfare-to-Work  grant recipients to and from work-related activities.
section_title: How Services Were Delivered Depended on State and Local Preferences and Conditions
paragraphs: Little is known about the relative success of TANF clients who use one- stop centers compared with those receiving services elsewhere, and state  and local officials told us that decisions about how services were delivered  were based on state and local preferences and conditions. Some state and  local officials expressed a preference for colocating TANF programs at  one-stop centers. For example, officials in a local area in Louisiana  believed that colocation of TANF programs at the one-stop center would  benefit TANF clients by exposing them to the one-stop center’s employer  focus. These officials also said that colocation would result in a more  seamless service delivery approach, giving clients easier access to the  services. Other state and local officials preferred not to colocate all TANF- related programs. While they supported the colocation of TANF work  programs, they thought that cash assistance, Food Stamps, or Medicaid  should be provided elsewhere. For example, Michigan officials told us that  keeping eligibility functions for TANF cash, Food Stamps and Medicaid  separate was beneficial, because welfare staff had more expertise in the  provision of social services while labor staff were better equipped to  provide work-related services. Still other state and local officials were  concerned about the colocation of any TANF-related programs, because  TANF clients required special attention and were best served by staff  trained to address their unique barriers. For example, in Arizona, TANF  work programs were provided to TANF clients through a system that was  not connected to one-stop centers. Rather than colocating or  systematically referring welfare clients to one-stop centers, officials there  said that one-stop staff should refer TANF clients to one-stop centers on a  case-by-case basis. State officials in Washington reported that TANF  clients need a higher level of supervision and more structured assistance  than they believed one-stop centers could provide. Officials saw the one- stop centers as better structured to serve those clients whose participation  was voluntary, whereas TANF clients are generally required to engage in  work.
Local conditions, such as geographically dispersed one-stop centers and  low population density of TANF clients, also influenced state and local  decisions about how to coordinate TANF-related programs with one-stop  centers. For example, officials in Alabama reported that although welfare  agencies were located in every county, one-stop centers were less  prevalent in their state. They felt it was impractical to have TANF-related  services colocated at one-stop centers, because one-stop centers would be  inaccessible to many TANF clients. In addition, officials in Illinois said that  they were hesitant to coordinate the provision of work-related services for  TANF clients at one-stop centers in areas where the TANF population had  recently declined. Because of declining TANF caseloads in Illinois, state  officials stressed the importance of allowing local areas the flexibility to  determine how to coordinate TANF-related services with one-stop centers.  Conversely, other states were working to make one-stop centers more  accessible to TANF clients. For example, both New Jersey and Louisiana  established plans to create satellite one-stop centers in public housing  areas. Because of the variation in local conditions, several state officials  stressed the importance of local flexibility in determining the nature of  coordination of TANF-related programs with one-stop centers.
section_title: Coordinating TANF Services with One- Stop Centers Has Continued to Present Challenges to States and Localities
paragraphs: Despite increases in coordination between the TANF program and one- stops from 2000 to 2001, states and localities have continued to face  challenges in coordinating their TANF work programs with one-stop  centers. For some of the challenges, the existing flexibility under both  TANF and WIA allowed states and localities to find solutions; and we  found that some areas developed ways to resolve them. However, other  challenges cannot be easily resolved at the local level. Most challenges are  similar to those we reported in 2000 when WIA was first implemented. In  general, the challenges result from state and local efforts to (1) develop  the one-stop infrastructure that allows staff to readily provide needed  services to TANF clients and (2) develop more compatible program  definitions and requirements.
subsections: section_title: Developing One-Stop Infrastructure to Provide Services to TANF Clients
paragraphs: Infrastructure limitations—in terms of both facilities and computer  systems—continued to challenge states and localities in their efforts to  coordinate TANF-related programs with one-stop centers.
subsections: section_title: Limited Facilities
paragraphs: Colocation of TANF services within the one-stop was not a viable option  in many of the locations that we visited. Officials in several states reported  that available space at one-stop centers was limited and that the centers  could not house additional programs or service providers. In addition,  state officials explained that long-term leases or the use of state-owned  buildings often prevented TANF work programs from relocating to one- stop centers. States developed ways to overcome these challenges to  colocation in order to meet the needs of TANF clients. For example,  Louisiana’s Department of Labor placed a Welfare-to-Work staff member  in all local welfare offices. These staff members provided TANF clients  with information about the services available at one-stop centers. In  addition, one state assigned TANF staff to one-stop centers to serve TANF  clients.
section_title: Incompatible Information Systems
paragraphs: The states that we visited reported that the inability to link the information  systems of TANF work programs and one-stop centers complicated efforts  to coordinate programs. A recent conference that we cosponsored also  highlighted this issue, specifically identifying the age of information  systems as inhibiting coordination efforts. The need to modernize the  systems stemmed from the shift in objectives under TANF—focusing more  on preparing TANF clients for work than had previous welfare programs—  which created new demands on information systems; from the fact that  systems used by agencies providing services to TANF clients did not share  data on these clients, thus hindering the case management of clients; and  from the antiquated information systems that made it difficult for agencies  to take advantage of new technologies, such as Web-based technologies.  Some of these concerns were also raised during our site visits and phone  interviews. Some local officials said that they could not merge or share  data and were not equipped to collect information on clients in different  programs. TANF clients are often tracked separately from clients of other  programs, and even Labor’s system, the One-Stop Operating System  (OSOS), does not allow one-stop centers to include TANF programs. In  addition, other officials expressed concerns that sharing data across  programs would violate confidentiality restrictions. The issues of  incompatible computer systems are not easily resolved. Officials from two  states we visited said that their states’ WIA and TANF agencies were  exploring the development of a shared system but that cost estimates were  too high for it to be implemented at this time.
section_title: Developing More Compatible Program Definitions and Requirements
paragraphs: As states and localities attempted to coordinate services for TANF clients  through the one-stop, they encountered challenges to harmonizing  program definitions and meeting reporting requirements.
subsections: section_title: Incompatible Program Definitions
paragraphs: State officials noted that although the focuses of TANF work and WIA  programs were related, differences in program definitions—such as what  constitutes work or what income level constitutes self-sufficiency—made  coordination difficult. While many program definitions are established by  legislation and cannot be changed at the state or local level, a few can be  locally determined, and two states found ways to harmonize their locally  determined definitions. For example, Connecticut developed a self- sufficiency standard that could be uniformly applied across TANF and  WIA, so that both programs would place clients in jobs with similar wage  levels. One local one-stop center we visited in Arizona also worked to  accommodate differences in program definitions. At this center, TANF and  WIA officials worked together to develop training for both programs that  enabled TANF clients to meet the requirement of a TANF work activity.
section_title: Incompatible Reporting Requirements
paragraphs: As is the case with other programs in the one-stop centers, states and  localities continue to struggle with the different reporting requirements  attached to the various funding streams. Each program has restrictions on  how its money can be used and what type of indicators it can use to  measure success. Because the federal measures evaluate very different  things, tracking performance for the TANF and WIA programs together  was difficult. Despite the flexibility in TANF, state officials felt constrained  by the need to meet federally required work participation rates, and they  told us that they used these federal requirements to gauge how well their  TANF work programs were performing. For example, one state official  was concerned that the state TANF agency was focused more on meeting  work participation rates than on designing programs that might help their  TANF clients become self-sufficient. WIA, on the other hand, has a  different set of performance measures geared toward client outcomes,  including the degree to which clients’ earnings change over time and  whether or not the clients stay employed. Many states and localities are  organizing their WIA programs to maximize their ability to achieve these  and other key client outcomes. These differences in program indicators  often lead to very different program services for clients. Because of these  differences, coordinating TANF work programs with the one-stop centers  was difficult. These different reporting requirements may need either state  or federal action to resolve.