Workforce Development
Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs
Gao ID: GAO-08-547 May 15, 2008
In the future, businesses will demand workers with higher-level skills and more education. Community colleges are key providers of career and technical training as well as traditional academic education. These colleges can also play important roles in the one-stop system created by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), through which a variety of federally funded employment and training programs provide services. Given the importance of community colleges to workforce development, GAO was asked to examine (1) how community colleges meet the workforce training needs of their communities; (2) what community colleges do to integrate with the nation's one-stop system; (3) the conditions or practices that enhance or impede these efforts; and (4) the actions the Departments of Labor and Education have taken to encourage linkages between community colleges and the workforce investment system, including one-stops. To address these objectives, GAO visited 20 community colleges, surveyed one-stop centers and their associated workforce investment boards, and talked to Labor and Education officials. Labor and Education generally agreed with GAO's findings.
The community colleges that GAO visited developed various approaches and programs for career and technical training to meet the needs of industry sectors, individual employers, and certain types of students and workers. Through a variety of outreach, relationship building, and data collection efforts, community colleges have come to understand the specific training needs of key industries in their regions and use this information to keep programs current or develop new programs to address these needs. Community college activities include providing contract or customized training to the employees of specific employers; working with small businesses; and targeting training and education programs to specific populations, such as disadvantaged adults, high-school students transitioning to college, and one-stop clients. Many of the community colleges that GAO visited integrate with their one-stops by operating the one-stop centers, colocating college staff at the one-stop, and participating on workforce investment boards. Nationwide, GAO estimated that about 11 percent of one-stops are operated solely or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent have community college staff colocated at the center. Similarly, GAO estimated that, nationwide, 49 percent of local workforce investment boards have community college presidents represented on their boards. Some of the benefits of these arrangements include cost sharing and improved communication among participating programs. Officials at the colleges and one-stops that GAO visited reported also conducting other joint activities, such as strategic planning and data sharing. Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and leadership as factors that help integration between community colleges and the workforce system but identified WIA performance system measures and WIA funding issues as impediments. Under WIA, states and local workforce areas must meet performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs that can be difficult to obtain when serving some populations, such as those on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families or youth, causing disincentives for the one-stops to serve them. In a 2004 report, GAO recommended that Labor develop a systematic way to account for differences in the population groups served by states' one-stop centers and apply it to all states when establishing their performance levels. Labor has not taken action on this recommendation; however, Labor officials stated that states may use their own adjustment models and that the department has worked to ensure consistency in the process. It is uncertain whether Labor and Education's efforts to build linkages between community colleges and the workforce system will be successful in encouraging community colleges to focus on workforce development. Labor's WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants aim, in part, to help community colleges and other workforce entities collaborate. As discussed in GAO's recent report on these grants, Labor's evaluations do not fully measure their effectiveness, and GAO recommends that Labor take steps to do so. Labor and Education jointly funded a $1.5 million initiative in 2006 to help build linkages between community colleges and the workforce system. The agencies did not conduct an evaluation, but plan to issue a report in 2008 about the participants' challenges and successes.
GAO-08-547, Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-547
entitled 'Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop
Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs' which was
released on May 15, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
May 2008:
Workforce Development:
Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet 21st
Century Workforce Needs:
Workforce Development:
GAO-08-547:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-547, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the future, businesses will demand workers with higher-level skills
and more education. Community colleges are key providers of career and
technical training as well as traditional academic education. These
colleges can also play important roles in the one-stop system created
by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), through which a variety of
federally funded employment and training programs provide services.
Given the importance of community colleges to workforce development,
GAO was asked to examine (1) how community colleges meet the workforce
training needs of their communities; (2) what community colleges do to
integrate with the nation‘s one-stop system; (3) the conditions or
practices that enhance or impede these efforts; and (4) the actions the
Departments of Labor and Education have taken to encourage linkages
between community colleges and the workforce investment system,
including one-stops. To address these objectives, GAO visited 20
community colleges, surveyed one-stop centers and their associated
workforce investment boards, and talked to Labor and Education
officials.
Labor and Education generally agreed with GAO‘s findings.
What GAO Found:
The community colleges that GAO visited developed various approaches
and programs for career and technical training to meet the needs of
industry sectors, individual employers, and certain types of students
and workers. Through a variety of outreach, relationship building, and
data collection efforts, community colleges have come to understand the
specific training needs of key industries in their regions and use this
information to keep programs current or develop new programs to address
these needs. Community college activities include providing contract or
customized training to the employees of specific employers; working
with small businesses; and targeting training and education programs to
specific populations, such as disadvantaged adults, high-school
students transitioning to college, and one-stop clients.
Many of the community colleges that GAO visited integrate with their
one-stops by operating the one-stop centers, colocating college staff
at the one-stop, and participating on workforce investment boards.
Nationwide, GAO estimated that about 11 percent of one-stops are
operated solely or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent
have community college staff colocated at the center. Similarly, GAO
estimated that, nationwide, 49 percent of local workforce investment
boards have community college presidents represented on their boards.
Some of the benefits of these arrangements include cost sharing and
improved communication among participating programs. Officials at the
colleges and one-stops that GAO visited reported also conducting other
joint activities, such as strategic planning and data sharing.
Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and
leadership as factors that help integration between community colleges
and the workforce system but identified WIA performance system measures
and WIA funding issues as impediments. Under WIA, states and local
workforce areas must meet performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated
Worker, and Youth programs that can be difficult to obtain when serving
some populations, such as those on Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families or youth, causing disincentives for the one-stops to serve
them. In a 2004 report, GAO recommended that Labor develop a systematic
way to account for differences in the population groups served by
states‘ one-stop centers and apply it to all states when establishing
their performance levels. Labor has not taken action on this
recommendation; however, Labor officials stated that states may use
their own adjustment models and that the department has worked to
ensure consistency in the process.
It is uncertain whether Labor and Education‘s efforts to build linkages
between community colleges and the workforce system will be successful
in encouraging community colleges to focus on workforce development.
Labor‘s WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants aim, in part, to
help community colleges and other workforce entities collaborate. As
discussed in GAO‘s recent report on these grants, Labor‘s evaluations
do not fully measure their effectiveness, and GAO recommends that Labor
take steps to do so. Labor and Education jointly funded a $1.5 million
initiative in 2006 to help build linkages between community colleges
and the workforce system. The agencies did not conduct an evaluation,
but plan to issue a report in 2008 about the participants‘ challenges
and successes.
What GAO Recommends:
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-547]. For more
information, contact George A. Scott at (202) 512-7215 or
scottg@gao.gov
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Community Colleges Tailor Career and Technical Training Courses to Meet
the Workforce Development Needs of Businesses, Workers, and Students:
Community Colleges Integrate with the One-Stop System in Many Ways,
Including Operating and Colocating with One-Stops and Participating on
WIBs:
State Funding and Leadership Help Community Colleges' Workforce
Efforts, While WIA Performance System Measures and WIA Funding Issues
Present Challenges:
Labor and Education Have Focused on Community Colleges' Workforce
Development Efforts through Targeted Grant Programs and a Strategic
Partnerships Initiative, but Their Impact Is Not Fully Known:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Types of Educational Programs Offered by Community Colleges:
Table 2: WIA Mandatory Programs and Related Federal Agencies:
Table 3: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits:
Figure:
Figure 1: WIA Funding for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2007:
Abbreviations:
ESL: English as a Second Language:
ETPL: Eligible Training Provider List:
GED: General Equivalency Diploma:
I-BEST: Integrated Basic Education and Skills Training:
ITA: Individual Training Account:
NAAL: National Assessment of Adult Literacy:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIB: workforce investment board:
WIRED: Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 15, 2008:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
The Honorable Michael B. Enzi:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Chair:
Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The United States is moving increasingly toward a knowledge-based
economy, requiring workers to have higher-level skills and more
education. By 2014, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics forecasts that
almost 54 percent of total job openings will be filled by those with
some college education or a bachelor's degree or higher. Furthermore,
global competition has resulted in companies laying off workers and
moving their operations to lower-cost locations, sometimes resulting in
workers needing to be retrained for other occupations. The nation's
approximately 1,200 community colleges serve over 6.5 million students-
-a population that has increased almost 24 percent since 1990. In
addition to providing traditional academic programs, community colleges
are providers of education and training for those seeking basic skills
for entry into the workforce as well as those seeking to acquire new
skills or upgrade existing ones to obtain a different job or retain
current employment.
In 1998, Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), requiring
states and localities to bring together federally funded employment and
training programs into a comprehensive workforce investment system,
called the one-stop system. This system provides a range of employment
assistance for eligible individuals, including training. These
individuals can obtain training services from any approved training
provider, which can include community colleges. In addition to helping
job seekers, the one-stop system also establishes relationships with
employers to assist them in finding skilled workers. Four agencies--the
Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing
and Urban Development--fund and administer programs, which are
mandatory partners in the one-stop system. Labor is responsible for the
largest number of these programs, followed by Education, and is also
responsible for providing guidance to states and localities on
delivering services through the one-stop system. Other federal, state,
local, and private sector programs may also serve as partners with the
approval of the local workforce board, which is the governing entity
for the one-stop system within the local workforce investment area.
Community colleges can also be involved in other workforce programs
that Labor funds. Two of these programs are the High Growth Job
Training Initiative (High Growth) and the Community-Based Job Training
Grants (Community Based), which train workers for jobs projected to
experience growth or require new skill sets. A third program is the
Workforce Innovation and Regional Economic Development (WIRED) grants,
which can include developing a pipeline of skilled workers as one part
of a regional economic development strategy.[Footnote 1]
As Congress moves toward reauthorization of WIA, and given the
importance of community colleges to workforce development, the Senate
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions requested that we
review community colleges' roles in workforce training and the nation's
workforce system. Specifically, we examined (1) how community colleges
meet the workforce training needs of their communities; (2) what
community colleges do to integrate with the nation's one-stop system;
(3) the conditions or practices that enhance or impede these efforts;
and (4) the actions Labor and Education have taken to encourage
linkages between community colleges and the workforce investment
system, including one-stops.
To address these objectives, we conducted site visits at 20 community
colleges in 6 states--Iowa, Michigan, New Jersey, North Carolina,
Oregon, and Washington (see app. II). We selected these states or a
specific community college in a state on the basis of expert
recommendations or research studies that highlighted places known to be
active in workforce development or to be engaged in innovative
initiatives. We also considered other criteria, including
recommendations from Labor; receipt of a High Growth, WIRED, or
Community Based grant; receipt of a waiver from the Eligible Training
Provider List (ETPL)--which is a list of training vendors approved by
the state and local workforce boards; colocation of the college and the
one-stop; state unemployment rates; and geographical diversity. During
these site visits, we conducted semistructured interviews with
community college officials, state and local workforce officials, and
representatives of community college statewide associations. In some
cases, we also toured the one-stop facilities that partnered with our
selected schools. We also conducted short Web-based surveys of a
nationally representative sample of 311 workforce investment boards
(WIB)--the governing entity of the one-stop system within a local area-
-and 334 one-stop centers that were associated with these
WIBs.[Footnote 2] The survey response rates were 82 percent and 73
percent, respectively. All estimates from the surveys have a margin of
error of plus or minus 8 percent, unless otherwise noted in the report.
(See app. I for more detailed information about our scope and
methodology.) We conducted semistructured interviews with Labor and
Education officials, as well as representatives of employers'
associations, in addition to reviewing relevant research and agency
regulations and guidance. We conducted this performance audit from
April 2007 through May 2008 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Results in Brief:
The community colleges that we visited developed various approaches and
programs for career and technical training to meet the needs of
industry sectors, individual employers, and certain types of students
and workers. Through a variety of outreach, relationship building, and
data collection efforts, community colleges have come to understand the
specific training needs of key industries in their region and use this
information to keep programs current or develop new ones to address
these needs. The colleges that we visited receive input about programs
and courses from many sources, including labor market data and
analyses; advisory committees or skill panels, which include
representatives from local businesses or entities representing a large
business sector; and community organizations, such as the local
chambers of commerce. For example, Kirkwood Community College in Iowa
has established 80 advisory committees, representing about 1,000
businesses from its community. Most of the community colleges that we
visited also addressed employer needs by providing training to the
employees of specific employers through contract or customized
training. Contract training allows a community college to respond
quickly to an individual employer, by developing either a specific
training course or an entire training plan. The colleges that we
visited also worked closely with small businesses in their communities.
Some colleges that we visited had developed programs targeted to
economically and educationally disadvantaged adults, such as those on
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), to assist them in
ensuring their successful completion of community college programs.
Oregon, for example, was implementing statewide its career pathways
model, which is an approach for providing education and training in a
way that allows students to progressively move to higher-wage positions
within an occupation as they complete more training. To build
transitions between secondary and postsecondary education and prepare
the future workforce, several of the colleges that we visited had dual
enrollment or related programs with high schools. These programs allow
high-school students to earn community college credit for either
technical and occupational training or academic transfer programs while
still in school. We also found that community colleges were key
training providers for one-stop clients. Based on our survey of one-
stop managers, we estimated that 40 percent of the one-stop clients who
were enrolled in training by a one-stop from July 2006 through June
2007 selected a community college to obtain their training.
The community colleges that we visited integrate with their one-stops
through operating the one-stop centers, colocating college staff at the
one-stops, participating on the local WIB, and taking part in other
joint activities. Community college and workforce officials explained
that some of the benefits of these arrangements included cost savings
and improved communication among participating programs. For example,
at the one-stop in Mason City, Iowa, which is operated by the North
Iowa Area Community College, half of the manager's salary is paid by
the college. Based on our survey of one-stop centers, we estimated that
about 11 percent of one-stops nationwide are operated solely or jointly
by a community college, while 34 percent have community college staff
colocated at the center. Community college presidents and senior staff
also participate in one-stop governance by serving on the local WIB.
Many of the community colleges that we visited had such an arrangement;
nationwide, we estimated that 49 percent of local WIBs have community
college presidents represented on their boards. Additional
collaborative efforts reported by the community colleges and workforce
officials that we visited included sharing data; conducting joint
strategic planning; or partnering with one-stops on workforce
activities, such as the cross-training of one-stop staff.
Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and
leadership as two factors that help integration between community
colleges and the workforce system, but they also identified challenges
with WIA performance system measures and WIA funding as impediments to
their efforts. Officials we interviewed almost universally cited state
funding as a factor that facilitates the workforce development
activities of community colleges. Some states that we visited, such as
New Jersey and Iowa, created state programs that provided community
colleges with additional pools of money for training. In New Jersey,
these programs were financed with a dedicated state payroll tax for
workforce development, paid by both employers and workers; while in
Iowa, funding for these programs was raised through bonds. Leadership
by governors, college presidents, the WIB chairs, state agency staff,
and one-stop management in bringing together community colleges and
other workforce entities to partner on workforce development was also
cited by many of our states and schools as important to supporting
community college workforce efforts, including integration with the one-
stop system. Some college and workforce officials stated that the WIA
performance system measures and WIA funding issues created impediments
to their workforce efforts. Specifically, these officials commented
that some of the measures for the Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth
programs, such as earnings and job retention, created disincentives to
serve more disadvantaged clients because of the difficulty in obtaining
employment for these population groups. In serving them, the local
workforce area and, ultimately, the state may risk not meeting their
performance levels established by Labor and may incur financial
penalties. In a 2004 report, GAO recommended that Labor develop a
systematic adjustment model to apply to all states that could account
for different populations or economic conditions when establishing
states' performance measures. Labor has not taken action on this
recommendation. However, Labor officials told us that states may use
their own adjustment models, if they prefer, when negotiating their
next year's performance measures, and that the department has worked to
ensure consistency in the negotiation process. Some community college
and workforce officials also noted that WIA's funding formula has
resulted in large funding fluctuations from year to year, thus making
program planning difficult. GAO's past work has identified these and
other issues related to the current funding formulas and outlined
adjustments to the formulas for consideration by Congress when WIA is
reauthorized. Other barriers noted by colleges and workforce officials
included the lack of coordination between Education and Labor
concerning the performance measures for their respective workforce
programs; the lack of funding under WIA for the one-stop
infrastructure, such as building and maintenance costs; and an overall
decline in WIA funding in recent years.
While Labor and Education have undertaken various activities that
focused on building linkages between community colleges and the
workforce, it is uncertain whether these efforts will be successful or
will encourage more colleges to build linkages with the one-stop
system. Labor's WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants were
developed to make the workforce system more market-driven by
encouraging collaboration between businesses and key workforce
partners, including community colleges. However, as we discussed in our
May 2008 report about Labor's grant process, Labor will need to take
steps to ensure that its evaluations of these grants more fully measure
the grants' effectiveness. In addition, Labor and Education jointly
funded and organized a $1.5 million initiative in 2006, called the
Strategic Partnerships for a Competitive Workforce Initiative, to help
build linkages between community colleges and the workforce system. The
initiative supported teams of local workforce organizations--including
community colleges that had received Community Based grants--to develop
strategic plans for implementing career pathways, which is an approach
that combines education with work to help workers move progressively to
higher-skilled positions. Labor and Education officials stated that
they viewed the initiative as a success based on informal feedback
received from the participants, although the agencies are not planning
future joint initiatives due to other competing priorities. The
agencies did not conduct an evaluation of the initiative, but Labor and
Education plan to issue a report in 2008 that will discuss the
successes and challenges experienced by the participants.
Background:
According to the American Association of Community Colleges, the nation
has about 1,200 community colleges--accredited institutions that
primarily offer the associate, or 2-year degree, as the highest degree.
Community colleges offer a wide array of educational programs that
encompass traditional academic coursework as well as career and
technical training. (See table 1.) In addition, career and technical
education programs are offered on both a for-credit basis and a
noncredit basis. An advantage of noncredit courses is that colleges can
add or delete them more quickly than for-credit courses, thereby
allowing colleges to respond to local training needs in a more
responsive way.
Table 1: Types of Educational Programs Offered by Community Colleges:
Type of program: Academic degree or transfer;
Description: Courses leading to an Associate of Arts, Associate of
Science, or other academic degree, or courses eligible for transfer
credit to an institution that offers baccalaureate degrees.
Type of program: Career and technical education (also known as
workforce or occupational training);
Description: Courses leading to an Associate of Applied Science or
other occupationally related degree, certificate, license, diploma, or
other credential. May or may not involve transferable credit. Examples
include a dental assistant certificate and a noncredit certified
nursing assistant program.
Type of program: Below college-level academic (also known as
developmental or remedial education);
Description: Courses, including mathematics, English, and reading, that
are required to be taken by students who lack college-level proficiency
in those subjects before they can be accepted in a college-level
program.
Type of program: Basic skills;
Description: Other courses, including Adult Basic Education, English as
a Second Language, and those courses preparing students for the General
Educational Development examination.
Source: GAO, Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most
Schools Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce
Development, GAO-05-4 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004).
[End of table]
Community colleges also serve a diverse student body. With generally
low tuition and unrestrictive admissions policies that emphasize open
enrollment, these colleges serve individuals ranging from those earning
their first educational credential to midcareer professionals seeking
to upgrade their skills or reenter the workforce. In general, community
college students are more likely to be from a minority group, older,
and socioeconomically disadvantaged than those at 4-year baccalaureate
institutions. They also are more likely to be enrolled in career and
technical education programs--about half of all community college
students are enrolled in these programs--and attending less than full
time, in part, because some of these students are already
employed.[Footnote 3]
While community colleges serve individuals' education and training
needs, they also work directly with employers to provide training to
their employees under a contract. Such training can be short term or it
can lead to a credential.
Workforce Investment Act:
While individuals and companies access workforce education and training
programs that are available at community colleges on their own, the
federal government provides employment and training services that the
public and employers may also use. In 1998, WIA created a new,
comprehensive workforce investment system designed to change the way
that federally funded employment and training services were
delivered.[Footnote 4] The act's goal was to unify a fragmented
employment and training system to better serve both job seekers and
employers. WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act with three new
programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth--and required that these
and other employment and training programs be delivered through a
single service system, known as the one-stop system. Sixteen categories
of programs funded through 4 separate agencies--deemed mandatory
partners--must provide services through this system.[Footnote 5] (See
table 2.)
Table 2: WIA Mandatory Programs and Related Federal Agencies:
Federal agency: Department of Labor;
Mandatory program: WIA Adult;
WIA Dislocated Worker;
WIA Youth;
Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
Trade adjustment assistance programs;
Veterans' employment and training programs;
Unemployment Insurance;
Job Corps;
Senior Community Service Employment Program;
Employment and training for migrant and seasonal farm workers;
Employment and training for Native Americans.
Federal agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory program: Vocational Rehabilitation Program;
Mandatory program: Adult Education and Literacy;
Mandatory program: Vocational Education (Perkins Act).
Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Mandatory program: Community Services Block Grant.
Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
Mandatory program: HUD-administered employment and training.
Source: GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and
Performance Measures for Major Programs, GAO-03-589 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 18, 2003); and the Department of Labor.
Note: Although WIA required 17 programs to participate in the one-stop
system, the Welfare-to-Work Program no longer exists, reducing the
total to 16 mandatory programs.
[End of table]
Under WIA, almost $27 billion in grants have been provided to states
for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs since fiscal year
2000, as shown in figure 1. Between fiscal years 2000 and 2007,
however, WIA funding declined by about 12 percent.
Figure 1: WIA Funding for Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth Programs,
Fiscal Years 2000 to 2007:
This figure is a versicle bar graph showing WIA funding for adult,
dislocated worker, and youth programs, fiscal years 2000 to 2007. The X
axis represents the fiscal year, and the Y axis represents the fiscal
amount to states (in billions).
Fiscal year: "2000";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.53.
Fiscal year: "2001";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.51.
Fiscal year: "2002";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.44.
Fiscal year: "2003";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.34.
Fiscal year: "2004";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.34.
Fiscal year: "2005";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.23.
Fiscal year: "2006";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.27.
Fiscal year: "2007";
Fiscal amount to states (in billions): 3.10.
[See PDF for image]
Note: Data represent final amounts after rescissions and supplemental
appropriations. Data for fiscal years 2006 and 2007 are estimated.
[End of figure]
The amount of money that is allocated to the states and local workforce
areas depends on a specific formula that takes into account certain
factors, such as local unemployment and the number of low-income
individuals in the local population. In addition, WIA also allows
discretionary funds to be set aside at the federal and state
levels.[Footnote 6] At the state level, this funding can be used to
help dislocated workers--workers affected by layoffs and plant
closings--through rapid response services that provide information
about financial and educational options and other statewide activities.
WIA provides for state and local WIBs to govern the WIA one-stop
system. A state WIB is responsible for developing statewide policies
and overseeing various activities carried out by the one-stop system.
Local WIBs, in turn, are responsible for developing local workforce
policies and overseeing the operations of the one-stop centers in their
designated workforce area. A variety of state and local agencies, as
well as community colleges, can be selected by the local board to
assume responsibility for the administrative and financial operation of
the one-stop center.
WIA allows flexibility in the way that the mandatory partners provide
services through the one-stop system, allowing colocation, whereby
staff from different programs are physically located at the same
location; electronic linkages; or referrals. While WIA requires these
mandatory partners to provide services through the one-stop system, it
does not provide additional funds to operate one-stop centers and
support one-stop partnerships. Mandatory partners are expected to share
the costs of developing and operating one-stop centers. In addition to
mandatory partners, local WIBs have the flexibility to include other
programs in the one-stop system, including community colleges, to
better meet specific state and local workforce development needs.
WIA and Community Colleges:
Community colleges can play important roles in the federal workforce
programs under WIA. One potential role is to serve on the state and
local WIBs responsible for the WIA system. Governors and the chief
local officials select the representatives to their respective boards
following the membership criteria prescribed by WIA and its
implementing regulations. While WIA specifies that membership of the
WIBs is to include representatives of various types of entities, the
regulations make clear that community college representatives should be
given special consideration for membership. Another possible role for
community colleges is to become a one-stop operator. Community colleges
may apply to a WIB to become the operator of the one-stop center,
overseeing its daily operation and services. In addition, as a key
provider of both education and career and technical training programs
in their communities, community colleges can meet the education and
training needs of one-stop clients by working closely with their local
one-stop centers to understand these needs and meeting WIA requirements
to become eligible training providers.[Footnote 7] For example,
community college staff at the one-stop can provide information on the
variety of classes available at the college, such as General
Equivalency Diploma (GED), English as a Second Language (ESL), or adult
basic education classes; conduct formal screenings or assessments of
clients to determine literacy levels; or determine eligibility for
financial aid options through the college. Individuals who are found
eligible for training under WIA receive vouchers--called Individual
Training Accounts (ITA)--to pay for training. ITAs can be used at the
training provider of their choice, which can include community
colleges.[Footnote 8]
Department of Education and Community Colleges:
While community colleges are primarily state-funded, they may also
receive federal funding from the Department of Education. Through funds
provided under the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Carl
D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 2006 (Perkins
Act),[Footnote 9] states and community colleges can develop a variety
of courses or programs that assist students, including one-stop
clients, with their education and training programs.[Footnote 10]
One program funded through the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
is the Adult Education Basic Grants to States program. Funds from this
program help community colleges provide adult education, English
literacy, GED preparation, and other basic skills. Approximately $564
million was provided in fiscal year 2007 to support 3,200 programs
delivering instruction through public schools, community colleges,
libraries, and community-based organizations. Through the Perkins Act,
Education provides grants to states to support academic, vocational,
and technical education in high schools, community colleges, and
regional technical centers. Approximately $1.1 billion in Perkins Act
funding was distributed in fiscal year 2007. The Perkins Act authorizes
grants to develop Tech Prep programs--a sequenced course of study in a
technical field that begins in high school, extends through 2 years of
postsecondary occupational education, and culminates in an associate
degree or certificate. Funded at $105 million in fiscal year 2007, the
Tech Prep program provides assistance to states to provide career and
technical education leading to an associate degree or a 2-year
certificate and strengthens pathways for students between secondary and
postsecondary schools.
In addition, Education funds student grant and loan programs under
Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended, to
individuals pursuing higher education. One example of such programs is
the Pell Grant for low-income students. In fiscal year 2007, Education
awarded approximately $14 billion in Pell Grants to about 5 million
recipients. However, while one-stops and community colleges can help
qualifying low-income students apply for Pell Grants or other types of
financial aid funded by Education, students enrolled in noncredit
education programs are usually not eligible for federal financial aid.
Community Colleges Tailor Career and Technical Training Courses to Meet
the Workforce Development Needs of Businesses, Workers, and Students:
To meet businesses' current and future workforce needs, the community
colleges that we visited keep their career and technical education
programs up to date through a variety of data collection and outreach
efforts. They also provide training directly to local employers through
contract or customized training programs; work with small businesses;
and offer programs to help specific groups of students and workers,
such as those receiving TANF.
Labor Market Analyses, Advisory Committees, and Skill Panels Are Some
Ways That Community Colleges Stay Apprised of Workforce Training Needs:
To help ensure that their programs are demand-driven, the community
colleges that we visited use a variety of methods to continually gather
and analyze labor market information and conditions. Community colleges
in all six states that we visited cited labor market analysis as an
important way to identify local needs and trends. In Iowa, for example,
a state agency has produced refined analyses of the education levels
and training needs of manufacturing workers in a particular local area
and shares these analyses with various workforce entities, including
community colleges. In Oregon and Washington, labor market data are
provided by state analysts who work in the field, where they can
provide timely, customized analyses--such as projected growth
occupations over a specific time period--in response to requests from
community colleges and others. However, in some instances, like
Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, schools develop their own labor
market analysis. Officials from Wake Tech Community College in North
Carolina told us that they worked with 13 local economic development
agencies to collect labor market data to identify the region's growth
occupations for which the college could potentially develop and provide
training.[Footnote 11]
Many of the community colleges that we visited relied on feedback from
employers, which provided the feedback through committees internal or
external to the colleges to help them ensure that their programs
reflect current workforce trends and provide training that will meet
specific job competencies. Advisory committees, which are internal to
each college, comprise local business men and women who meet
periodically to give input to the colleges about their career and
technical education programs. Kirkwood Community College, for example,
has 80 advisory committees that encompass areas such as health,
business, industrial technology, and transportation and safety.
According to a Kirkwood official, about 1,000 local business leaders
participate in Kirkwood's advisory committees. Similar to advisory
committees are external committees--involving community colleges,
business, and others--that focus on broad sectors, rather than
individual occupations, and that were also used in at least two of the
states that we visited. In Washington, for example, these committees
are known as "skill panels" and focus on the needs of a particular
sector by bringing together representatives of employers, labor, and
training providers in that sector to discuss their workforce needs.
Since 2000, for example, Washington has used skill panels to examine
training needs in 20 different industrial clusters, including health
care, manufacturing, food processing, biotechnology, homeland security,
information technology, and construction. In Michigan, these
collaborative groups are called "regional skills alliances," and they
involve employers, community colleges, one-stops, and other workforce
entities.
Outreach approaches to community and business organizations or their
representatives were other methods used by the community colleges that
we visited to keep their programs aligned with business needs. These
approaches included serving on the boards of local employers'
associations, community organizations, and hospitals; seeking business
input for formal periodic program reviews; surveying local businesses;
using college staff as "account developers" to interact directly with
local businesses; and obtaining information through the local one-
stop's business liaison.
In addition to gathering information about local labor market trends to
maintain their existing programs, community colleges also use this
information to create new programs and, in some cases, to discontinue
programs that no longer meet local needs. Several of the community
colleges that we visited had recently created new programs--for
example, polysomnography (sleep technician) and mechatronics (a field
combining skills from mechanics, hydraulics, and pneumatics)--based on
information gathered through a variety of sources about local business
needs. An official from Pitt Community College in North Carolina stated
that the college develops two to three new programs each year,
following a survey of selected industries in the area and
identification of programs at other community colleges. In other
instances, Pitt responded to insufficient local demand by discontinuing
its heavy machinery program and by folding a separate surveying program
into its construction and engineering programs.
Community Colleges Work Directly with Businesses through Contract
Training and Small Business Centers:
Through contract training, also known as customized training, community
colleges can respond quickly to an individual employer's training needs
by developing either a specific training course or an entire training
plan for the company's staff. In 2004, GAO conducted a survey of
community colleges and reported that, of the colleges responding to our
survey, more than three quarters offered contract training to more than
1 million trainees, or a median of 982 trainees per school[Footnote
12]. The community colleges that we visited varied widely in both the
number of contract trainings they provided and the number of businesses
with which they worked: in the 2006-2007 year, the number of contract
training courses ranged from 21 to 3,691, and the number of businesses
the colleges served ranged from 5 to 15[Footnote 13]5. The amount of
money that these colleges received from contract training was small--
typically less than 5 percent of the college's total revenue--but these
types of arrangements were offered to provide a full complement of
training services to businesses.
In some states, community colleges have taken steps to make it easier
for businesses to access contract training at community colleges. For
example, in Iowa, community colleges have established the One Source
initiative. The initiative provides a single point of entry into
community colleges' contract training programs for employers with
multiple locations as well as for employers based out of state with
multiple plants in Iowa. To develop the initiative, the community
colleges agreed that they would use a common pricing structure, and
that the community college or colleges closest to the employer would
deliver the training. New Jersey has a similar approach in which the
community colleges have formed a statewide consortium that works with
the state's largest employer association to make community college
training available to all businesses statewide, according to consortium
officials. Now in its first year of operation, the project has
committed to provide 295 courses in areas such as basic communication
and computer skills for employers statewide. As another example, to
enhance its capabilities to provide training to businesses, Lansing
Community College in Michigan has joined the Global Corporate College,
in addition to other community colleges nationwide. The Global
Corporate College creates a system for individual community colleges to
leverage their resources by allowing members to share intellectual
property, faculty, and curriculum, thus enabling a college to provide
training to a particular company that, without these additional
resources, it might not be able to provide.
Contract training opportunities may also come to community colleges by
way of the WIA one-stop system. One-stops establish their own
relationships with employers to successfully connect job seekers with
available employment. To meet employer workforce needs, the one-stops
offer an array of services, including customized training for a
specific employer, that may be provided by one-stop staff or by other
training providers, such as community colleges.[Footnote 14]
In several of the states that we visited, officials told us that small
businesses play an important role as local employers, and community
colleges work with them in several ways. For example, several of the
colleges that we visited maintain small business centers within the
college.[Footnote 15] In some cases, such as at Linn-Benton Community
College in Oregon, the centers provided training to small businesses on
various topics, such as how to develop a financial plan or a business
plan. Also, the colleges provide contract training for the workers of
small businesses, similar to their other contract training activities.
In addition, some community colleges run small business incubators, by
providing temporary space for new businesses to operate. For example,
North Carolina's Lenoir Community College has a small business
incubator that helped support an electrical contractor and a special-
occasion bakery, according to officials. Furthermore, North Iowa Area
Community College, which houses one of five entrepreneurial centers in
the state that provides support to small businesses, created a health
insurance program to help start-up businesses reduce their health
insurance costs. Created through public-private collaboration, the
program provides funding for health insurance to qualified
entrepreneurs in the region for up to their first 3 years in business.
Community Colleges Design Career and Technical Training to Help
Specific Groups of Students and Workers:
Students may arrive at community colleges ill-equipped to enroll in
college-level career and technical classes for many reasons, such as
low literacy skills or language barriers. One way that the community
colleges that we visited enhance the employability of low-skilled
adults in the labor market and prepare them for higher-level classes is
through providing adult basic education classes and other types of
support. Some of the colleges that we visited provided adult basic
education at the one-stop. In North Carolina and Iowa, community
colleges administer basic skills education, such as adult literacy,
ESL, and GED preparation, in contrast to other states where multiple
agencies may share responsibility for these programs. In addition to
basic education classes, some community colleges may also provide "soft
skills" training--the nontechnical skills and traits that workers need
to function in a job, such as oral communication skills, work ethic,
and teamwork. For example, Lenoir Community College in North Carolina
pioneered and still operates a soft-skills program that was
subsequently adopted statewide. Prompted by research that shows a
significant portion of low-level adult readers have a learning
disability, Michigan's Oakland Community College staff screens one-stop
clients for some types of learning disabilities and helps them to
develop coping strategies.
Another way that community colleges address both the needs of low-
skilled adults and of businesses is by assessing and certifying adults'
basic skills in three areas: applied math, reading, and information
retrieval. Adults who prove their proficiency in these skills receive a
certificate, known as the Career Readiness Certificate. According to
North Carolina officials, since the state launched its program in 2006,
about 9,200 certificates have been issued, and employers' responses
have been favorable. These officials believe that businesses are more
confident about the skill levels of those they hire and that they save
money by hiring individuals with the right skills "the first time," and
that community colleges view the program as another service they can
offer to businesses. As of June 2007, 14 states had Career Readiness
Certificate programs, and another 17 states were developing such
programs or had them available locally.
Many of the community colleges that we visited cited a number of
examples of their work with career pathways, which is an approach that
improves low-skilled adults' access to career and technical education
programs and is designed to improve their success in completing these
programs. A career pathway involves providing education, training, and
support services to workers to help them move to progressively higher-
skilled positions in a specific industry or occupational sector.
Oregon, for example, has provided funding to implement its career
pathway model statewide. Growing from an initiative that started at
Portland and Mount Hood Community Colleges to help low-income students
obtain credentials for higher-wage jobs, Oregon's model will provide
for program staff at the state level and for local coordinators at each
of the state's 17 community colleges; implementation is expected to be
complete by late 2008. In New Jersey, Camden County College worked with
the local one-stop and the WIB to develop career ladders for
transportation workers and food service aides in two Camden hospitals,
which are major local employers. According to officials, the career
ladders helped them meet a commitment to hire local residents from
Camden, a city with a reported high-school dropout rate of 52 percent
and with one of the highest poverty rates in the country.
Building on the career-ladder model, Washington has combined basic
skills and career and technical training--in addition to supportive
services such as child care--in a program known as Integrated Basic
Education and Skills Training (I-BEST). By providing basic skills and
occupation-specific educators in every class and incorporating career
pathways, I-BEST addresses individuals' needs for both types of
training. All seven of the community and technical colleges that we
visited in Washington had I-BEST programs, and the federal Department
of Health and Human Services has identified I-BEST as a promising
program for transitioning TANF parents to work.
Community colleges also provide training or course work to high-school
students preparing to enter the workforce or for academic transfer.
Some states, such as Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, have
dual-enrollment programs that allow high-school students to earn
community college credit.[Footnote 16] Furthermore, several community
college officials, such as those we met with in Washington, told us
their colleges participate in Education's Tech Prep program, which
provides funding to states to build linkages between secondary and
postsecondary schools. In addition, community college officials in
several states told us that their colleges participate in other events
to inform high-school students about their career and technical
education programs, such as career fairs and occupational summer camps.
Community colleges are important training providers for one-stop
clients who receive training through WIA-funded ITAs. From our survey
of one-stop centers, we estimated that 40 percent of the one-stop adult
clients who were enrolled in training by the one-stop between July 2006
and June 2007 selected a community college as their training provider.
During the 2006-2007 year, the number of ITAs used at the community
colleges that we visited ranged from 34 to 381, and their value
averaged between $366 and $4,566.[Footnote 17] The revenue that these
colleges received from ITAs was small compared with their total tuition
and contract training revenue, representing no more than 4 percent of
the total revenue from those sources.[Footnote 18]
Community Colleges Integrate with the One-Stop System in Many Ways,
Including Operating and Colocating with One-Stops and Participating on
WIBs:
The community colleges that we visited integrate with their one-stop
centers through various activities. Examples of these activities
include operating the one-stop; participating on the local WIBs; or
partnering with the one-stop on workforce activities, such as strategic
planning or data sharing. However, the extent to which community
colleges nationwide conduct some of these activities varied.
Some Colleges Operate or Colocate Staff at One-Stops and Participate on
WIBs:
Officials at many of the colleges that we visited told us that one way
they integrate with the one-stop system is by becoming the operator for
the center.[Footnote 19] An entity that operates a one-stop typically
coordinates the day-to-day operation of the center; some of the
colleges that we visited were also the fiscal agent that receives WIA
funding to operate some of the programs accessible through the one-
stop. Community college officials explained that the benefits of this
arrangement were cost efficiencies, cost savings, or access to other
funding opportunities. The one-stop in Mason City, Iowa, for example,
is operated by the North Iowa Area Community College, where the one-
stop manager is an employee of the college. As a result, the college
pays half of the manager's salary. In addition, the college pays part
of the salaries for the Economic Development and Career Center
directors, who are also part of the management team for the one-stop.
We found similar arrangements in several of the colleges that we
visited. Officials at Kirkwood Community College in Iowa, which
operates the Cedar Rapids one-stop, stated that their positions at both
the college and the one-stop offer a vantage point for developing
funding proposals through the college that benefit both entities. For
example, Kirkwood obtained funding to help students pay for continuing
education classes for which they could not receive financial aid. WIA
clients taking classes at Kirkwood are also eligible for this
assistance, allowing them to use their ITAs for other types of classes.
According to several community college and workforce officials at the
sites that we visited, colocation of community college staff at the one-
stop was another way that the college was integrated with the one- stop
system. Some officials with whom we spoke noted that colocation at the
one-stop helps to improve communication among the various agency
programs, improves the delivery of services to the client, or excises
duplication. College and workforce officials at Linn-Benton Community
College in Oregon commented that colocation is particularly important
in rural areas because these areas tend to be resource poor and have
limited mass transportation. These officials stated that locating
workforce programs and support services in one place helped clients
obtain services from agencies that typically would be spread throughout
the community. A Passaic County Community College official in New
Jersey stated that prior to the county's colocation effort, community
college officials did not know about the services and tools available
to clients that were provided by agencies now colocated at the one-stop
center.[Footnote 20] As a result of colocating, the college is sending
students to some of these organizations for services that the college
had previously provided, such as résumé writing. Based on our survey,
we estimated that about 11 percent of the one-stops are operated solely
or jointly by a community college, while 34 percent of the one-stops
have community college staff colocated at the one-stop center.
Officials at many of the sites that we visited reported that community
college officials sit on either the local or state WIBs, or both.
Nationwide, we estimated that 49 percent of the local WIBs have
community college presidents represented on their board, 26 percent
have vice presidents, 32 percent have deans, and 39 percent have other
community college staff.[Footnote 21] While WIA requires that
representatives from an education agency sit on the local WIB, it does
not stipulate that the representative be from a community college,
although the implementing regulations require that they be given
special consideration. In Iowa, however, state law requires that
community colleges sit on the local WIBs. An Iowa college official
explained that having the community colleges participate on the WIB
benefits the workforce system, because not only do the colleges provide
leadership and program capability, but they are at "ground zero," where
service delivery occurs.
Community Colleges Are Integrated with One-Stops through Many Different
Workforce Activities:
In pursuing their workforce missions, our selected community colleges
collaborated on a broad array of other joint tasks and activities with
their one-stops and other workforce partners, in addition to operating
and colocating at the one stop or participating on the WIB. Examples of
these activities included building a new one-stop facility, producing
data analysis, conducting strategic planning, and cross-training one-
stop staff on their organization's respective program services.
Highlights of some of these examples include the following:
* Building a one-stop together: Linn-Benton, Portland, and Passaic
County Community Colleges worked with their one-stop and state and
local partners to design and build the one-stop facility. In Linn-
Benton, many partners were involved in getting the one-stop built, but
the college owned the land on which the one-stop is located and raised
the construction money by selling bonds. Today, the college owns the
facility, and the partners lease the space that they occupy.
* Sharing data: All of the states that we visited develop labor market
information, which is shared with key workforce partners, including the
community colleges. In some cases, workforce partners may also request
special analyses or additional data that are more specific to their
communities. In the states that we visited, these data are developed
and provided by the state agency responsible for overseeing labor or
employment service programs. Although in Iowa, for example, the North
Iowa Area Community College pays for a refined analysis and shares it
with the one-stop and others.
* Strategic planning: Some of the community colleges that we visited
conduct strategic planning efforts on workforce development with other
workforce system agencies or organizations. For example, Oakland
Community College in Michigan, the economic development agency, and the
one-stop with funding from a business sponsor develop and write an
annual report on the economic outlook for the county. A Michigan
college official pointed to Michigan's regional skills alliances as
vehicles for continued strategic planning by workforce partners in a
particular business sector.
* Cross-training of staff: Some of the community college officials that
we visited talked about the importance of ensuring that one-stop staff
understand the basics about each agency's programs and services,
including the colleges. Some officials referred to this as the "no
wrong door" approach, meaning that a one-stop client should be able to
approach anyone at the center and get help or be directed to the right
person. To accomplish this, they conduct cross-training. For example,
one-stop staff at the center run by Portland Community College spent
about 6 to 12 months training partner staff on everyone else's programs
before the facility officially opened. Also, Linn-Benton Community
College in Oregon wrote a resource directory outlining all of the
programs offered by the various agencies and conducted team-building
exercises for the staff using the resource directory.
State Funding and Leadership Help Community Colleges' Workforce
Efforts, While WIA Performance System Measures and WIA Funding Issues
Present Challenges:
State funding and leadership are some of the factors that community
colleges and other workforce officials identified as supporting their
workforce efforts and integration with one-stops. However, these
officials also pointed to challenges with the WIA performance system
measures and issues related to WIA funding.
State Funding and Leadership Are Key to Supporting Workforce
Development:
Some community college and workforce officials with whom we spoke cited
additional training funds provided by their states as an important
factor to supporting community colleges' workforce development efforts.
One example of this support is New Jersey's Workforce Development
Program, which makes grants available on a competitive basis to
businesses or business consortia partnering with an educational
institution, such as a community college. The grants fund incumbent
worker training and are financed through a dedicated state payroll tax
for workforce development, paid by both employers and workers. The
employers receiving the grants provide a 50 percent match. In Iowa,
community colleges are permitted to sell bonds to raise funds for
incumbent worker training in new or expanding companies. Michigan is
also considering Iowa's approach as a way to help finance workforce
training. In Oregon, the governor created the Employment Workforce
Training Fund, which is paid for through WIA discretionary monies, to
help communities pay for incumbent worker training.
Six of the 20 community colleges that we visited were participating in
a WIRED, High Growth, or Community Based grant. Some officials noted
that the additional federal funding provided through these grants was
important in launching projects or sustaining them. In total, more than
$3 million dollars in the 2006-2007 year were awarded to the schools
through one or more of these Department of Labor grants.
Leadership by individuals at all levels of the workforce system--state
officials, WIBs, one-stops, and colleges--was cited by several
workforce and community college officials at the sites that we visited
as a factor facilitating integration of colleges into the workforce
system. In New Jersey and Michigan, some officials commented that
leadership came from their governors in that they placed a priority on
workforce and economic development in their respective states and
viewed community colleges as key partners in workforce training. New
Jersey's governor accomplished this, in part, by specifically tasking
the Commissioners of Higher Education and the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development with bringing together community colleges and the
workforce system in implementing his plan for economic growth in the
state. Under Michigan's governor, the state developed a new initiative
called "No Worker Left Behind" in which the state provides 2 years of
free tuition at a community college for workers who are training for
certificates or degrees in high-demand occupations. Some Oregon state
officials pointed to the governor's Workforce Policy Cabinet as an
important mechanism for integration. Through the cabinet, established
in 1991, the heads of agencies representing workforce programs or
programs that are critical to workforce development meet regularly to
discuss issues and make decisions.
WIA Performance System Measures and Funding Issues Were Cited as
Challenges:
Community college and other workforce officials at our selected sites
outlined some challenges in undertaking their various workforce
initiatives and joint efforts. These challenges included barriers
arising from meeting WIA performance system measures, the volatility
created by the WIA funding formula, and the decline in WIA funding
overall.
Some officials told us that helping certain clients connect to the
workforce through the one-stop system is difficult due, in part, to
disincentives created by the WIA performance system measures. For
example, WIA holds state and local workforce areas accountable for
meeting performance levels in their Adult, Dislocated Workers, and
Youth programs on measures such as job placement, retention, and
earnings. States may receive incentive funds or suffer financial
sanctions, depending on whether they meet these levels. But youth or
TANF clients, for example, typically have more difficulty in obtaining
jobs, and generally retain them for shorter periods of time than other
types of clients, partly as a result of transportation, child care, or
substance abuse issues. These job seekers may also require more-
intensive services and case management from the one-stop staff before
they are ready to search for a job. In the case of older workers, they
generally are looking for part-time work and accept jobs at wages that
are lower than what they were previously making. As a result, WIA
performance measures can create incentives for one-stops to offer
services first to clients who are easier to serve and more likely to be
successful in obtaining and retaining a job.
GAO reported in 2004 and 2007 that many state and local officials did
not think the negotiation process with Labor adequately considered
factors that could affect the performance level of the state. We
recommended that Labor develop a systematic model for all states to use
that could take into account the type of population served or the
economic conditions of the state.[Footnote 22] As we outlined in those
reports, a model of this type could help the process set more uniform
goals and provide a tool to states and local areas that do not have the
resources to develop their own models. To date, Labor has not
implemented this recommendation. Labor officials reported to us that
they allow states to use their own model in negotiating their
performance levels, which would allow states to take into account
economic conditions, populations served, and other factors relevant to
meeting the levels. In addition, these officials stated that Labor
works to ensure consistency in the negotiation process for establishing
state performance levels between the department's regional offices,
which conduct the negotiations, and the states, through guidance to the
regions as well as discussions between the Assistant Secretary and
Labor's regional office administrators.
Some community college and workforce officials also noted that
Education and Labor have not aligned their performance measures across
their respective workforce programs. One workforce official explained
that this forces local-level staff to spend time trying to align and
bridge different reporting requirements and policies, instead of
working with clients. The Office of Management and Budget has
recommended that common measures be adopted by related workforce
programs across agencies. Labor has adopted and implemented these
common measures within some of their workforce programs. While
Education has adopted these measures, Education officials reported to
us that they have not fully implemented all aspects of the measures due
to differences between Education and Labor's workforce programs
concerning program definitions, collection timelines, and populations
to be measured. However, Education is continuing to work on resolving
these issues.
Other WIA funding issues were also noted by some community college and
workforce officials as barriers to workforce efforts and integration
between colleges and one-stops. One issue they cited was the
fluctuations in funding from year to year caused by some of the WIA
allocation formulas. In some of the sites that we visited, officials
stated that WIA funding was reduced by 40 percent from the previous
year. GAO addressed this issue in two reports in 2003 and outlined
options for Congress to consider when reauthorizing WIA that could help
reduce the volatility in some of the WIA allocation formulas.[Footnote
23] However, Congress has not yet passed legislation that would
reauthorize WIA. Other officials stated that the lack of infrastructure
funding for WIA has created problems with integration, particularly
when organizations try to obtain or renovate a building to provide
adequate space so that partners can colocate. Some college and
workforce officials we interviewed cited a decline in WIA funding
overall as a problem because it creates difficulties in planning and
serving clients. Oregon state officials told us that they closed 8
employment service offices and laid off 80 staff because of declining
funding, causing concerns about client access to services, particularly
in rural parts of the state.
Labor and Education Have Focused on Community Colleges' Workforce
Development Efforts through Targeted Grant Programs and a Strategic
Partnerships Initiative, but Their Impact Is Not Fully Known:
In addition to other activities, Education and Labor have undertaken
and supported two key initiatives that focus on building linkages
between community colleges and the workforce system: the WIRED,
Community Based, and High Growth grants and the Strategic Partnerships
for a Competitive Workforce Initiative, a joint initiative with
Education. It is unclear whether these initiatives will be successful
in building such linkages or encouraging more community colleges to
focus on workforce development, due to the agencies' inability to
measure the full impact of these collaborative efforts.
Since 2001, Labor has awarded about $900 million through WIRED,
Community Based, and High Growth grants to promote a more market-driven
workforce system by increasing collaboration among businesses,
community colleges, and other key workforce development partners.
Unlike the WIRED and High Growth grants--which go to governors or a
broad range of public and private organizations, respectively--the
Community Based awards are primarily targeted to community colleges to
build their capacity to provide skilled workers for high-growth
industries and occupations. In 2006, Labor awarded $125 million in
Community Based grants to community colleges. However, in our May 2008
report about Labor's grant process, we stated that Labor will be
challenged to assess the impact of these grants because it did not plan
well from the outset to identify performance goals and collect data
comparable to those collected from other programs. As a result, we
recommended that the department take the appropriate steps to ensure
that it can fully evaluate the grants' impact.[Footnote 24]
In addition, Labor and Education jointly funded and organized a $1.5
million initiative--the Strategic Partnerships for a Competitive
Workforce--to help build linkages between community colleges and the
workforce system. The initiative involved 32 teams of local workforce
organizations selected from Community Based grantees and focused on
building career pathways. In doing so, teams were tasked with
developing a strategic plan for implementing an education and training
approach that would foster partnerships and coordination within the
community between kindergarten and 12TH grade, vocational schools,
colleges and universities, community-based organizations, and
employers. Under the Strategic Partnerships initiative, Labor and
Education held four training institutes that covered topics related to
building career pathways in industries, including health care and
advanced manufacturing. In planning for the institutes, officials from
Labor and Education met regularly to carry out tasks and
responsibilities as well as to work out numerous differences between
the agencies in terminology and approaches to the career pathway model.
Based on the informal feedback received from training institute
participants, Labor and Education have viewed the Strategic
Partnerships initiative as a success, but the departments are not
planning any other joint initiatives in the future due to budget
constraints and other pressing priorities. Labor and Education are
planning to issue a report in 2008 highlighting the lessons learned
from the initiative.
Since September 2007, the two departments have also been working on an
interagency agreement to conduct a multivariate analysis of the
National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) data. NAAL is a nationally
representative assessment of English literacy among American adults
aged 16 years and older and is conducted by the National Center for
Education Statistics. According to officials, these data will help
agency officials better understand the correlations among the areas of
literacy, postsecondary education, and employment in specific
industries.
Labor and Education have also conducted other activities independent of
their joint efforts, such as conferences, online meetings, Web sites,
and other institutes that focus on various workforce development
issues, some of which involve community colleges and the workforce
development system. For example, Education has an initiative--the
College and Career Transitions Initiative--that creates model career
pathways and implements strategies to ease student transitions from
secondary to postsecondary education into several occupation areas,
including information technology; science, engineering, and
mathematics; health science; education and training; and law, public
safety, and security. Education has also created a new position--Deputy
Assistant Secretary for Community Colleges--to heighten the visibility
of community colleges and issues specific to them, such as workforce
development, within the department. Labor has established a Web site--
[hyperlink, http://www.workforce3one.org]--that highlights information
and promising practices on workforce issues, including the role that
community colleges play. The department also holds an annual workforce
conference that has included sessions on community colleges and the
workforce system.
Concluding Observations:
At a time when the nation is facing several workforce trends
simultaneously, the nation's workforce system may be tested. The nation
may soon face a labor shortage as the baby boomer generation retires,
and economic dislocations are predicted to continue due to global
competition, thus increasing the need to retrain and reemploy affected
workers quickly. As these trends converge, it will be increasingly
important that the nation have a nimble, responsive workforce system
and good information about that workforce to maintain a competitive
economy in a global marketplace. In addition, when Congress
reauthorizes WIA, it will be important to consider issues that we have
raised in the past, such as the yearly funding fluctuations that result
from certain of the act's allocation formulas.
Through their workforce education programs, community colleges will
continue to be an important part of a responsive workforce system--
given their mission, affordability, and accessibility--as will federal
policies and programs that support lifelong learning. The selected
colleges we visited for this report are pursuing their workforce
missions by working with the private sector in their communities and
regions to serve diverse groups of individuals and businesses, and by
participating in activities that forge connections to high-school
students to prepare them for the workforce. Under WIA, community
colleges are major providers of training and participate in other
federal workforce programs. As the need grows for citizens to gain or
upgrade their skills, an important federal policy issue is how to
encourage more community colleges to follow the lead of those that are
taking actions in this area.
Labor and Education have taken some important first steps that address
aspects of the community colleges' role in the workforce system through
Labor's WIRED, High Growth, and Community Based grants and the jointly
sponsored Strategic Partnerships initiative. Continued efforts by Labor
and Education to build on past successes in aligning their respective
workforce programs will help ensure that the nation will benefit from
the full potential of community colleges that are already actively
engaged in workforce development and the one-stop system and will
encourage more community colleges to follow their examples.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor and Education for review
and comment. Labor provided a written response to the report (see app.
III); Education did not. Both agencies provided technical comments,
which we incorporated in the report where appropriate.
Labor generally agreed with our findings and conclusions but expressed
concern with comments from community college and state workforce
officials who we interviewed about disincentives resulting from the WIA
performance measures. Labor asserts that it is not the measures, per
se, that may cause disincentives to arise in serving certain client
groups, but the states' performance levels (i.e., percentage of clients
that must meet these measures). The department contends that it
provides for a thorough negotiation process with the states in setting
these levels, which allows states to account for these groups. We
believe that the performance measures for clients and the performance
levels for states are interrelated, in that the percentage of clients
meeting the individual measures determines the extent to which a state
meets its performance levels. In light of Labor's comments, we changed
the title of the relevant report section to convey that the
disincentive relates to both individual measures and state performance-
level measures.
Labor also stated its position that the department's regulations and
guidance provide enough latitude to states for addressing extenuating
circumstances, such as hard-to-serve populations or adverse economic
conditions, in determining their performance levels. We continue to
believe that the disincentive issue, as evidenced by the information
discussed in this and prior GAO reports, continues to surface, and that
our previous recommendation that Labor develop a systematic model that
would account for a variety of factors for all states to use could be a
mechanism to help remedy the problem.
We are sending copies of this report to relevant congressional
committees, the Secretaries of Labor and Education, and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or scottg@gao.gov. Contacts for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. A GAO contact and other staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
George A. Scott:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To describe policies in place that address the involvement of community
colleges in the one-stop system, we selected a stratified random
probability sample of comprehensive one-stops and their corresponding
Workforce Investment Board (WIB), which oversees a selected one-stop,
for a sample survey. We received a list of comprehensive one-stop
centers in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands
from the Department of Labor's locator database. To determine the
reliability of these data, we compared the list from Labor to an April
2007 GAO survey of states. We identified discrepancies in the number of
comprehensive one-stop centers reported in several states. We completed
follow-up with 27 states and 2 territories to ensure that we could
select a representative sample of comprehensive one-stop centers. After
completion of follow-up with the 27 states and 2 territories, we
selected a sample from this corrected universe of one-stops. We
determined that these data were sufficiently reliable to develop the
universe of one-stops. There were 1,684 one-stops in our universe.
To minimize the burden on WIB respondents, we decided to stratify the
universe based on the number of comprehensive one-stops we identified
as being governed by a particular WIB. Thus, comprehensive one-stops in
a relatively small WIB (i.e., a WIB with 4 or fewer comprehensive one-
stops) had a higher sampling rate than comprehensive one-stops in a
larger WIB. The universe was divided into 4 strata, those with 3 or
fewer, 4 to 7, 8 to 15, and 16 or more one-stops per WIB. The universe
of comprehensive one-stops was stratified only to ease the burden on
WIB respondents--the stratification was not used to compare survey
results. We surveyed 334 one-stop centers and 311 of their associated
WIBs. The response rates for the one-stop and WIB surveys were 73
percent and 82 percent, respectively.
Each one-stop had a nonzero probability of being selected, and that
probability could be computed for any case. Each selected case was
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all
of the one-stops in the universe, including those that were not
selected. In addition to the survey about the one-stop that was sent to
the WIB, the WIB also received a survey directly related to its
activities. Since the WIB questionnaire was not specifically related to
the one-stops in the survey (the questions were asked of the WIB in
general), the two surveys were analyzed separately. Because each WIB
had a different probability of selection (proportional to the number of
one-stops), the statistical weights were calculated for a replacement
design of a stratified sample with an unequal probability of selection.
For both components of the survey, the one-stop and the WIB, we
followed a probability procedure that was based on random selections;
therefore, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we
might have drawn. Since each sample could have provided different
estimates, we expressed our confidence in the precision of our
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval (e.g.,
plus or minus 9 percentage points). This is the interval that would
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we
could have drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that each of
the confidence intervals in this report will include the true values in
the study population. All percentage estimates in this report have a
margin of error of plus or minus 8 percent or less, unless otherwise
noted.
In addition to margins of error due to sampling, the practical
difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, difficulties concerning
interpreting questions, sources of information that are available to
respondents, or data entry and analysis can introduce unwanted
variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development
of both questionnaires used in this study, in the data collection, and
in the data analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. For example,
social science survey specialists designed both questionnaires in
collaboration with GAO staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the
draft questionnaires were pretested at various stages in their
development with four WIB officials to ensure that questions were
relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. The questionnaires
were also reviewed by an additional GAO survey specialist. Data
analysis was conducted by a GAO data analyst working directly with the
GAO staff with subject matter expertise. When the data were analyzed, a
second independent data analyst checked all computer programs for
accuracy. Since these were Web-based surveys, respondents entered their
answers directly into the electronic questionnaires. Doing so
eliminated the need to have the data keyed into databases, thus
removing an additional source of errors. To ensure adequate response
rates, we sent multiple e-mails to respondents who did not complete
their questionnaires within a reasonable time frame. In addition to
sending multiple e-mails to survey nonrespondents, GAO contractors
contacted the remaining nonrespondents by telephone to encourage them
to respond.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2007 through May 2008 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits:
We conducted semistructured interviews with officials from 20 community
colleges in 6 states to obtain a detailed understanding of their career
and technical education activities, their relationships with their
local one-stops and local WIBs, and their views on how particular state
and federal policies enhanced or impeded their workforce development
efforts. (See table 3.) In addition to these community colleges, we met
with officials of Anne Arundel Community College in Maryland during an
early exploratory interview in May 2007. We conducted our site visits
between June and November 2007.
Table 3: Community Colleges Selected for Site Visits:
State: Iowa;
Community college: Des Moines Area Community College;
Kirkwood Community College;
North Iowa Area Community College.
State: Michigan;
Community college: Lansing Community College;
Oakland Community College.
State: New Jersey;
Community college: Camden County College;
Cumberland County College;
Salem Community College.
State: North Carolina;
Community college: Lenoir Community College;
Pitt Community College;
State: Oregon;
Community college: Linn-Benton Community College;
Mt. Hood Community College;
Portland Community College;
State: Washington;
Community college: Bates Technical College;
Bellingham Technical College;
Clover Park Technical College;
Pierce College District;
Skagit Valley College;
Tacoma Community College;
Whatcom Community College.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for:
Employment and Training:
Washington. D.C. 20210:
April 16, 2008:
Mr. George A. Scott:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Scott:
This letter is the Department of Labors (DOL) response to the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) Draft Report No. 08-547
entitled, "Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to Meet
21st Century Workforce Needs." We appreciate the opportunity to comment
on the draft.
DOL, concurs with GAO's concluding observations that community colleges
will continue to be an important part of a responsive workforce system.
In fact, DOL suggests that community colleges are a critical and
pivotal part of the workforce education continuum. As noted in GAO's
conclusion, DOL. has promoted and will continue to promote strong
collaboration between the public workforce investment system and
community colleges and other strategic partners through our initiatives
(Community-Based Job Training Grants, Workforce Innovation in Regional
Economic Development, and the High Growth Job Training Initiative), as
well as through our policy guidance and technical assistance strategies
to the workforce system and its partners.
DOL has created a community of practice for community colleges on our
online knowledge network, Workforce3One, and we have ongoing
collaborations with the American Association of Community Colleges and
the League for Innovation to develop and share best practices. DOL
views the Department of Education as an important partner in this
effort. Currently, DOL and Education do not jointly fund any
initiatives; however, the two agencies are committed to ongoing
collaboration around community college issues, as well as education at
all levels, workforce education, program integration, and the
identification of best practices.
GAO makes several observations about the impact of Workforce Investment
Act (WIA) performance measures on partnerships between community
colleges and the workforce system in the attached report, and DOL
offers its responses below. 1. WIA performance measures can potentially
serve as a disincentive to working with certain clients (page 24).
DOL disagrees that the measures, in and of themselves, create a
disincentive to serve certain clients. WIA performance measures of
Entered Employment, Retention, and Earnings represent the culmination
of DOL's workforce training efforts. In other words, it is DOL's
ultimate expectation to ensure that all program participants get a job,
stay employed, and earn wages as a result of program intervention. To
change that expectation for some groups would defeat the purpose of
WIA, which is to integrate underutilized, more difficult to serve
populations into the workplace.
In some cases, performance levels have been noted as a disincentive to
serve certain participants. DOL would like to point out a key
distinction between measures and performance levels. Measures refer to
a category or system of measurement, such as Entered Employment and
Retention; performance levels are equivalent to goals or a target
number, such as a percentage of participants. Setting ambitious, yet
appropriate, performance levels for DOL's program performance measures
is critical, and that is why DOL holds thorough negotiations with WIA
state grantees.
DOL believes it is important to drive the workforce investment system
toward continuous improvement. At the same time, it is important to
ensure that the workforce system is providing access to services for
targeted populations that may face significant barriers to employment,
such as older workers, individuals with disabilities, veterans, migrant
and seasonal farm workers, Indian and Native Americans, or Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) recipients. A recent review of
data showed that TANF recipients who also participate in the workforce
system have strong performance outcomes, in some cases higher than the
general population that is served. In supporting local efforts to
better tap into the wider pipeline of available workers, DOL wants to
verify that performance targets correspond to representative levels of
target populations to ensure that DOL does not impair the impact and
intent of national job training programs and leave behind the most
vulnerable populations in need of service.
2. The negotiation process between labor and the states does not
adequately consider factors that affect performance levels. GAO
recommends development of a systematic model that could be used by all
states to take into account factors such as population served and
economic factors (page 25).
When negotiating goals for adult programs, states proposing new efforts
to increase access to services for special populations that may face
significant barriers, such as older workers, individuals with
disabilities, migrant and seasonal farm workers, Indian and Native
Americans, or TANF recipients, may provide data to show how outcomes
will be impacted. DOL supports efforts that will help states better tap
into the wider pipeline of available workers. Available performance
data indicate that the workforce investment system's employment and
training programs have positive impacts on individuals served,
including traditionally underserved populations. In order to continue
good management and oversight of our programs, it will be necessary for
states to demonstrate how outcomes are impacted by changes in the mix
of participants served.
When W1A was enacted, it authorized a negotiations process rather than
the use of a national regression analysis (as was authorized by
previous legislation) for determining performance levels. States do
have the option of using a regression analysis or some type of
statistical analysis when preparing materials for the performance
negotiation process with DOL's regional administrators. However, DOL
believes that the statute, regulations, and policies provide ample
guidance to the states to take into account factors that may affect the
negotiated performance levels. DOL believes that the negotiations
process supports state and local responsibility to set strategic goals
and to take ownership of the goal setting process.
3. Education and Labor have not aligned their performance measures
across their respective workforce programs (page 25).
In 2001, the President announced a Management Agenda to improve the
management and performance of the Federal government. One of the five
government-wide goals, budget and performance integration, emphasizes
program effectiveness. As part of the President's budget and
performance integration initiative, six Federal agencies” Labor,
Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development,
Interior, and Veterans Affairs”collaborated with the Office of
Management and Budget to develop a set of uniform performance metrics,
called "common measures," for programs with similar goals. DOL has been
a leader in implementing the common measures initiative, with nearly
all of its employment and training program having adopted the measures.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Brent R. Orrell:
Acting Assistant Secretary:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
George A. Scott, (202) 512-7215, scottg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Kathy Larin, Assistant Director, and Janet Mascia, Analyst-in-Charge,
managed the assignment. Christopher Morehouse, Kelly Bradley, and Linda
Stokes made significant contributions in all aspects of the assignment
and in writing the report. Jean McSween, Stuart Kaufman, and Lisa Mirel
assisted in the survey design, implementation, and data analysis.
Susannah Compton provided writing assistance, and Jessica Botsford
provided legal support.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Employment and Training Program Grants: Evaluating Impact and Enhancing
Monitoring Would Improve Accountability. GAO-08-486. Washington, D.C.:
May 7, 2008.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the
Workforce System. GAO-07-1051T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Found One-Stop Centers Useful in
Hiring Low-Skilled Workers; Performance Information Could Help Gauge
Employer Involvement. GAO-07-167. Washington, D.C.: December 22, 2006.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. GAO-05-650.
Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches
to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-539.
Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
Workforce Investment Act: Employers Are Aware of, Using, and Satisfied
with One-Stop Services, but More Data Could Help Labor Better Address
Employers' Needs. GAO-05-259. Washington, D.C.: February 18, 2005.
Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools Use Both
Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development. GAO-05-4.
Washington, D.C.: October 18, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on
State Allocations. GAO-03-1043. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For more information, see GAO, Employment and Training Program
Grants: Evaluating Impact and Enhancing Monitoring Would Improve
Accountability, GAO-08-486 (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2008).
[2] The sample sizes for the one-stop centers and their associated WIBs
are not the same because some local areas contain more than one center.
[3] Thomas Bailey, Timothy Leinbach, Marc Scott, Mariana Alfonso,
Gregory Kienzl, and Benjamin Kennedy, Community College Research Center
Brief No. 21, The Characteristics of Occupational Students in Post-
Secondary Education (August 2004).
[4] The authorization for WIA expired on September 30, 2003, but annual
appropriations for WIA programs will continue through fiscal year 2008.
[5] In addition to job training efforts at the federal level, many
states operate their own employment and training programs, often
funding them through employer taxes. States use these programs to
address a variety of training needs, such as those of new and expanding
businesses, employed or incumbent workers, and workers affected by
employer layoffs or closures. For more information, see Regional
Technology Solutions and the National Governors' Association, Center
for Best Practices, A Comprehensive Look at State-Funded, Employer-
Focused Job Training Programs (1999).
[6] Labor allots 100 percent of the Adult funds and 80 percent of the
Dislocated Worker funds. The Secretary of Labor retains the balance of
the Dislocated Worker funds in a national reserve account to be used
for National Emergency Grants, demonstrations, and technical assistance
and allots the remaining funds to the states. Upon receiving its
allotments, each state may set aside up to 15 percent of each allotment
for statewide activities and may set aside no more than 25 percent of
the Dislocated Worker allotment to provide rapid response services to
workers affected by layoffs and plant closings. After states set aside
funds for rapid response and for other statewide activities from the
Dislocated Worker allotment, they allocate the remainder of the funds-
-at least 60 percent--to their local workforce areas.
[7] Local boards, in partnership with the state, compile an ETPL by
identifying training providers and programs whose performance qualifies
them to receive WIA funds to train adults and dislocated workers.
[8] WIA requires that ITAs only be used to purchase training from
programs on the ETPL. To be eligible for training under WIA, an adult
or dislocated worker must have received at least one core service
(e.g., job assistance) and one intensive service (e.g., case management
or comprehensive assessments); be unable to retain or obtain employment
through such services; have the skills and qualifications to
successfully complete the training; and be unable to obtain grant
assistance from other sources to pay for the training. Eligibility for
training is determined by WIA adult or dislocated work staff at the one-
stop center. For additional information about ITAs and training under
WIA, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for
Training, but Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes, GAO-
05-650 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005).
[9] Pub. L. No. 109-270, 20 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.
[10] The Adult Education and Family Literacy Act was enacted as Title
II of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-220, 20
U.S.C. § 9201 et seq.
[11] Wake Tech Community College was not one of our selected sites.
However, we spoke with officials of other community colleges in the
course of our meetings with state community college associations.
[12] GAO, Public Community Colleges and Technical Schools: Most Schools
Use Both Credit and Noncredit Programs for Workforce Development, GAO-
05-4 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2004), 13.
[13] Nineteen of the 20 community colleges that we visited provided
data on their contract training and total revenue for the 2006-2007
year. For this purpose, the colleges were permitted to use a 12-month
reporting period convenient to them, whether that represented a state
fiscal year, federal fiscal year, program year, or academic year.
[14] Using WIA funding for customized training is allowed where the
employer pays not less than 50 percent of the cost of the training.
[15] Some of these colleges receive funds through the Small Business
Administration's Small Business Development Center program.
[16] In Washington, during the 2006-2007 year, about 12 percent of the
students in the state's Running Start dual-enrollment program were in
career and technical programs, such as nursing, auto/diesel mechanics,
and welding, and the majority of students were in academic transfer
programs. North Carolina officials estimated that the percentage of all
dual-enrollment students pursuing career and technical education was
about 32 percent.
[17] Fifteen community colleges provided us with data about the ITAs
they issued during the 2006-2007 year. These data were for the most
recent 12-month period, whether that represented a state fiscal year,
federal fiscal year, program year, or academic year.
[18] Of the community colleges that we visited, 11 provided us with
enough data to derive this percentage.
[19] A one-stop operator is selected by the local WIB either through a
competitive process or under an agreement between the local WIB and a
consortium of entities, which includes at least three mandatory
partners. Under certain circumstances, the local WIB or entities that
were operators prior to WIA may also be designated as the one-stop
operator.
[20] Passaic County Community College was not one of our selected
sites. However, we spoke with officials of other community colleges in
the course of our meetings with state community college associations.
[21] For the percentage estimates for presidents and other staff, our
confidence intervals exceeded a margin of error of plus or minus 8
percent. Ranges for our estimates were 41 percent to 57 percent and 30
percent to 48 percent, respectively.
[22] For more information, see GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States
and Local Areas Have Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but
Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1,
2004); and Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further
Improve the Workforce System, GAO-07-1051T (Washington, D.C.: June 28,
2007).
[23] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation
Formulas for Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers, GAO-03-636
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2003); and Workforce Investment Act:
Potential Effects of Alternative Formulas on State Allocations, GAO-03-
1043 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 28, 2003).
[24] GAO-08-486.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: