TANF Recipients with Impairments Are Encouraged to Apply to SSI; Impact on SSI Caseload Growth Is Inconclusive

Estimates from our nationwide survey of county TANF offices indicated  that almost all offices reported that they refer at least some recipients with  impairments to apply for SSI. Nearly All County TANF Offices Refer Recipients with Impairments to Apply for SSI, but the Level of Encouragement Varies

Based on estimates from our survey, 97 percent of all counties refer at  least some of their adult TANF recipients with impairments to SSA to  apply for SSI. About 61 percent reported that they  will also assist a recipient in completing the SSI application, and about   74 percent reported that they follow up to ensure the application process  is complete. Findings About How SSI Caseload Growth Has Been Affected by Referred TANF Recipients with Impairments Are Inconclusive due to Data Limitations

Since county TANF offices refer individuals with impairments to SSI, these  referrals will have some effect on the SSI caseload. In addition to SSA not knowing the magnitude of the effect that TANF  referrals have had on SSI caseload growth, TANF officials we interviewed  stated that they generally do not have historical data on SSI referrals,  approvals, and denials. Reasons for this low service utilization may include exemptions  from the work requirements and an insufficient number of job training or  related services. A Broad Range of Services Are Offered to Recipients Awaiting SSI Determinations, but Utilization Is Low

Even though about 51 percent of county TANF offices do not require adult  TANF recipients awaiting SSI determinations to participate in any type of  job services, education services, work experience programs, or other  employment services, 83 percent of county TANF offices reported that  they are still willing to provide work-related or support services to this  population. While the low utilization of services may be due to exemptions from  the work requirements, service availability may also be an issue. Some state and county TANF officials we  interviewed also believe that one of the main reasons why there is low  utilization of services is recipients’ fear of jeopardizing their SSI  applications. Estimates  from our survey also showed that two frequently reported forms of  interaction between county TANF offices and SSA include having a  contact at SSA with whom to discuss cases and following up with SSA  regarding applications for SSI. Although TANF offices reported an interest in developing a close working  relationship with SSA, based on their interactions with SSA, some state  and county TANF officials believed that they had to take the lead in  developing these relationships. However, about 27 percent of county TANF  offices reported that they were discouraged in their attempts to establish a  relationship with SSA because the local SSA field office told the TANF  office that SSA did not have the time or the interest. He  further explained that TANF case managers can explain the benefits and  provide assistance to the TANF recipient applying for SSI. Further, in all of the states we visited, TANF offices reported  working with other agencies, such as the Department of Education and the  Department of Labor, to help TANF recipients with impairments find  work. Conclusions

With the new emphasis on work and self-sufficiency taken by TANF and  SSI, and the overlap in the populations served by both programs,  opportunities exist to improve the way these two programs interact in  order to help individuals with impairments become more self-sufficient. Recommendations

To help individuals with impairments become more self-sufficient and to  address the gap in continuous work services between the TANF and SSI  programs, we are recommending that SSA, as part of a new demonstration  project, work with TANF offices to develop screening tools, assessments,  or other data that would identify those TANF recipients with impairments  who while potentially eligible for SSI may also be capable of working. Appendix I: Scope and Methods

To determine the extent that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF) recipients with impairments are encouraged to apply for  Supplemental Security Income (SSI), whether work requirements are  imposed, the range of services provided during the period of SSI eligibility  determination, and the extent that interactions exist between the SSI and  TANF programs, we conducted a nationally representative survey of   600 county TANF administrators from October 14, 2003, through February  20, 2004.
Why GAO Did This Study

The nation's social welfare system has been transformed into a system emphasizing work and personal responsibility, primarily through the creation of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grant. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program has expanded policies to help recipients improve self-sufficiency. Given that SSA data indicate an overlap in the populations served by TANF and SSI, and the changes in both programs, this report examines (1) the extent that TANF recipients with impairments are encouraged to apply for SSI and what is known about how SSI caseload growth has been affected by such TANF cases, (2) the extent that work requirements are imposed on TANF recipients applying for SSI, and the range of services provided to such recipients, and (3) the extent that interactions exist between the SSI and TANF programs to assist individuals capable of working to obtain employment.

What GAO Found

In our nationwide survey of county TANF offices, we found that nearly all offices reported that they refer recipients with impairments to SSI, but the level of encouragement to apply for SSI varies. While almost all of the county TANF offices stated that they advise such recipients with impairments to apply for SSI, 74 percent also follow up to ensure the application process is complete, and 61 percent assist recipients in completing the application. Because TANF offices are referring individuals with impairments to SSI, these referrals will have some effect on the SSI caseload. However, due to data limitations, the magnitude of the effect these referrals have on SSI caseload growth is uncertain. While SSA can identify whether SSI recipients have income from other sources, it cannot easily determine whether this income comes from TANF or some other assistance based on need. In addition, past research has not found conclusive evidence regarding the impact that TANF referrals have on SSI caseload growth. Estimates from our survey found that although some TANF offices impose work requirements on individuals with impairments, about 86 percent of all offices reported that they either sometimes or always exempt adult TANF recipients awaiting SSI determinations from the work requirements. One key reason for not imposing work requirements on these recipients is the existence of state and county TANF policies and practices that allow such exemptions. Nevertheless, county TANF offices, for the most part, are willing to offer noncash services, such as transportation and job training, to adult recipients with impairments who have applied for SSI. However, many recipients do not use these services. This low utilization may be related to exempting individuals from the work requirement, but it may also be due to the recipients' fear of jeopardizing their SSI applications. Another reason for the low utilization of services is that many services are not necessarily available; budgetary constraints have limited the services that some TANF offices are able to offer recipients with impairments. Many county TANF offices' interactions with SSA include either having a contact at SSA to discuss cases or following up with SSA regarding applications for SSI. Interactions that help individuals with impairments increase their self-sufficiency are even more limited. In all the states we visited, we found that such interactions generally existed between TANF agencies and other agencies (such as the Departments of Labor or Education). In addition, 95 percent of county TANF offices reported that their interactions with SSA could be improved. State and county TANF officials feel they have to take the lead in developing and maintaining the interaction with SSA. One SSA headquarters official stated that SSA has no formal policy regarding outreach to TANF offices but would consider a partnership provided there is some benefit for SSA. Still, about 27 percent of county TANF offices reported that they were discouraged in their attempts to establish a relationship with SSA because staff at the local SSA field office told them that they did not have the time or the interest.