In recent years, Congress passed two pieces of legislation intended, in part, to foster greater coordination among education, welfare, and employment and training programs. The Workforce Investment Act was passed in 1998 and fundamentally changed the nature of federally funded employment and training services. WIA replaced the former program with a new one that focused more on providing services to the general public. WIA also provides for greater consolidation in service delivery, requiring states and localities to use a centralized service delivery structure—the one-stop center system—to provide most federally funded employment and training assistance. The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families block grant, created 2 years earlier by the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), allowed states greater flexibility than ever before in designing employment and training services for clients receiving cash assistance. While TANF is not one of 17 federal programs mandated to provide services through the one-stop system, states and localities have the option to include TANF as a partner. Our prior work on pre-WIA one-stops found that states varied in the degree to which employment and training services for TANF clients were being coordinated through the one-stop system. WIA replaced the four Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for economically disadvantaged adults and youth, and dislocated workers, with three new ones—adult, dislocated worker, and youth—that de- emphasize the categorical nature of JTPA and allow for a broader range of services to be given to the general public. Services provided under WIA are markedly different from those provided under JTPA, no longer focusing exclusively on training. Instead, the adult and dislocated worker programs provide for three tiers, or levels, of service: core (basic services such as job search assistance); intensive (staff-intensive services such as assessment and case management); and training for eligible individuals.To gauge the success of WIA-funded programs, states and localities are held accountable through the use of 17 different performance measures that focus on outcomes such as getting and keeping a job. States negotiate with the Department of Labor to determine the level of performance they are expected to achieve for each of the measures; localities, in turn, negotiate with the states to determine their expected levels of performance. In addition, to establishing the three new programs, WIA requires that states and localities use the one-stop center system to provide services for these and many other employment and training programs. This one-stop system was developed by states prior to WIA, largely through One-Stop Planning and Implementation Grants from Labor. About 17 categories of programs, funded through four federal agencies—the departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development—must provide services through the one-stop center system under WIA. WIA does not require that all program services be provided on site (or colocated)—they may be provided through electronic linkages with partner agencies or by referral—but WIA does require that the partners’ relationships and services be spelled out in a memorandum of understanding. While several programs are required by WIA to provide services through the one-stop centers, others have been left to the discretion of state and local officials, including the TANF block grant program. Flexibility is also a key feature of the TANF program. Under TANF, states have more flexibility than under its predecessor programs to determine the nature of financial assistance, the types of client services, the structure of the program, and how services are to be delivered. At the same time, TANF established new accountability measures for states—focused in part on 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 keep jobs, states need to address problems that may interfere with employment, such as child care and transportation issues and mental and physical health problems. Frequently, solving these problems requires those who work directly with clients to draw on other federal and state programs, often administered by other agencies, to provide a wide array of services. While local welfare agencies have typically administered TANF, Food Stamps, and Medicaid, other programs that provide key services to TANF clients are administered by housing authorities, education agencies, and state employment services offices. TANF’s focus on employment means that welfare agencies may need to work more closely than before with state and local workforce development systems, in part, to help reduce the burden on employers who might need to respond to requests from multiple government agencies. In the past, under the Work Incentive Program, welfare agencies and workforce development systems collaborated at some level, but our previous work on pre-WIA programs found wide variation in the degree to which the welfare and non-welfare programs worked together to provide employment and training services. State and local efforts to coordinate their TANF and WIA programs increased in 2001, at least 1 year after all states implemented WIA. Nearly all states reported some coordination at the state or local level, achieved by means ranging from informal linkages (such as information sharing or periodic program referrals) to formal linkages (such as memorandums of understanding), shared intake, or integrated case management. Coordination of TANF-related services with one-stop centers increased from 2000 to 2001, and the form of coordination—colocation of services, electronic linkages or client referral—was based, in part, on the type of services provided—TANF work services, TANF cash assistance, or support services—as well as state and local preferences and conditions. Nearly all states reported some linkages at the state level between their TANF and WIA agencies, and we saw modest increases in states’ efforts to coordinate the programs between 2000 and 2001. Twenty-eight states reported that in 2001 they made extensive use of formal linkages, such as memorandums of understanding and state-level formal agreements, between the agencies administering TANF and WIA, compared with 27 states in 2000. Similarly, states increased their use of coordinated planning in 2001, with 19 states reporting that they used it to a great extent, compared with 18 states in 2000 (see fig. 1). When we looked at states individually, we saw that many used additional coordination methods in 2001. Seventeen states indicated that the number of the state-level coordination methods they used to a great extent increased in 2001. In fact, in 2001, 9 states used all five of the coordination methods that we analyzed, up from 7 states in 2000. Increased coordination between TANF and WIA programs was also seen in the use of TANF funds to support one-stop center infrastructure or operations. The number of states using TANF funds to support one-stop centers increased to 36 in 2001 from 33 in 2000. In addition, the number of states ranking TANF as one of the three largest funding sources for their one-stop centers rose to 15 from 12. Some of the largest gains in program coordination between 2000 and 2001 were seen at the local level. Forty-four states reported that most of their one-stop centers had informal linkages, such as periodic program referrals or information sharing, with their TANF programs in 2001, compared with 35 states in 2000 (see fig. 2). Similarly, 16 states reported that most of their one-stop centers had shared intake or enrollment systems in 2001—up from 13 in 2000; and 15 states reported in 2001 that they used an integrated case management system in most of their one-stop centers—an increase of 1 state from our 2000 results. Also, our analysis suggests that more 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. Increases in coordination between the TANF programs and one-stop centers were also seen in the use of the one-stop system to provide services to TANF clients. While the same number of states—24—reported in both 2000 and 2001 that services for the TANF work program were colocated at the majority of their one-stops, the use of electronic linkages or referrals increased. In 2001, 15 states reported that services for the TANF work program were either electronically linked to the majority of their one-stop centers or provided by referral between the two programs, compared with 11 states in 2000. About half of the states coordinated their TANF cash assistance or Food Stamps or Medicaid programs with the one-stop centers, electronically, or by referral in 2000 and 2001. State officials in both Connecticut and New Jersey reported that even though one-stop staff did not determine eligibility for Medicaid and Food Stamps at the one-stop centers, the staff were expected to refer clients to appropriate support services outside the one-stop centers. While not as prevalent as electronic linkages or referrals, colocation of cash assistance appeared to increase in 2001: 16 states reported that they provided cash assistance services at least part time at the majority of their one-stop centers, compared with 9 states in 2000. Colocation of Food Stamps and Medicaid remained the same: 7 states reported in both years that they provided those services at least part time at the majority of the one-stop centers. In general, the form of coordination between TANF and one-stops was different depending on the particular program services that were provided. For example, when the TANF work programs were coordinated through the one-stop centers, services were more likely to be colocated.