Employment and Training Programs
Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Gao ID: GAO-11-645T May 11, 2011This testimony discusses the findings from our recent work on federal employment and training programs and our prior work on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). GAO has recently identified 47 federally-funded employment and training programs for fiscal year 2009, defining them as programs that are specifically designed to enhance the job skills of individuals in order to increase their employability, identify job opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain employment. These programs, which are administered by nine separate federal agencies--including the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS)--spent about $18 billion dollars in fiscal year 2009 to provide services such as job search assistance and job counseling to program participants. Seven programs accounted for about three-fourths of this spending, and two--Wagner- Peyser funded Employment Service (ES) and WIA Adult--together reported serving over 18 million individuals, or about 77 percent of the total number of participants served across all programs. Forty-four of the 47 programs we identified, including those with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population. However, differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. Almost all of the 47 programs tracked multiple outcome measures related to employment and training, and the most frequently tracked outcome measure was "entered employment." However, little is known about the effectiveness of employment and training programs because, since 2004, only 5 reported conducting an impact study, and about half of all the remaining programs have not had a performance review of any kind. The multiplicity of employment and training programs combined with the limited information regarding impact raise concerns about the extent to which the federally-funded employment and training system is performing as efficiently and effectively as it should. As early as the 1990s we issued a series of reports that raised questions about the efficiency and effectiveness of the federally-funded employment and training system, and we concluded that a structural overhaul and consolidation of these programs was needed. Partly in response to such concerns, 13 years ago Congress passed WIA. This testimony focuses on two areas where we have identified opportunities to promote greater efficiencies: colocating services and consolidating administrative structures
Increasing colocation of services at a single site, as well as consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative agencies, could increase efficiencies, and several states and localities have undertaken such initiatives. However, implementation may pose challenges and little information is available about the strategies and results of these initiatives. To facilitate further progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we have previously recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in promoting further efficiencies. Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to foster state and local innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative structures.
GAO-11-645T, Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-645T
entitled 'Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on
Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures' which
was released on May 11, 2011.
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.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Higher Education and Workforce Training,
Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, May 11, 2011:
Employment and Training Programs:
Providing Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating
Administrative Structures:
Statement of Andrew Sherrill, Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
GAO-11-645T:
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the findings from our
recent work on federal employment and training programs and our prior
work on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).[Footnote 1] As you
know, GAO has recently identified 47 federally-funded employment and
training programs for fiscal year 2009, defining them as programs that
are specifically designed to enhance the job skills of individuals in
order to increase their employability, identify job opportunities,
and/or help job seekers obtain employment.[Footnote 2] These programs,
which are administered by nine separate federal agencies--including
the Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services
(HHS)--spent about $18 billion dollars in fiscal year 2009 to provide
services such as job search assistance and job counseling to program
participants.[Footnote 3] Seven programs accounted for about three-
fourths of this spending, and two--Wagner-Peyser funded Employment
Service (ES) and WIA Adult--together reported serving over 18 million
individuals, or about 77 percent of the total number of participants
served across all programs.[Footnote 4] Forty-four of the 47 programs
we identified, including those with broader missions such as
multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program in
that they provide at least one similar service to a similar
population. However, differences may exist in eligibility, objectives,
and service delivery.
Almost all of the 47 programs tracked multiple outcome measures
related to employment and training, and the most frequently tracked
outcome measure was "entered employment." However, little is known
about the effectiveness of employment and training programs because,
since 2004, only 5 reported conducting an impact study, and about half
of all the remaining programs have not had a performance review of any
kind.[Footnote 5]
The multiplicity of employment and training programs combined with the
limited information regarding impact raise concerns about the extent
to which the federally-funded employment and training system is
performing as efficiently and effectively as it should. As early as
the 1990s we issued a series of reports that raised questions about
the efficiency and effectiveness of the federally-funded employment
and training system, and we concluded that a structural overhaul and
consolidation of these programs was needed. Partly in response to such
concerns, 13 years ago Congress passed WIA.
My testimony today will focus on two areas where we have identified
opportunities to promote greater efficiencies: colocating services and
consolidating administrative structures. In preparing this statement
we relied on our previous work in these areas (please see the related
GAO products section). These products contain detailed overviews of
the scope and methodology we used. The work on which this statement is
based was performed in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
audits 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 provided a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
In summary, increasing colocation of services at a single site, as
well as consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative
agencies, could increase efficiencies, and several states and
localities have undertaken such initiatives. However, implementation
may pose challenges and little information is available about the
strategies and results of these initiatives. To facilitate further
progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we have previously
recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work together to
develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained
congressional oversight is pivotal in promoting further efficiencies.
Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to foster state and
local innovation in integrating services and consolidating
administrative structures.
Greater Colocation of Services at One-Stop Centers May Increase
Efficiencies:
Congress passed WIA partly in response to concerns about fragmentation
and inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs.
[Footnote 6] WIA authorized several employment and training programs--
including Job Corps and programs for Native Americans, migrant and
seasonal farmworkers, and veterans--as well as the Adult Education and
Literacy program.[Footnote 7] WIA replaced the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA)[Footnote 8] programs for economically
disadvantaged adults and youths and dislocated workers with three new
programs--WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth.[Footnote 9]
These programs provide a range of services, including occupational
training and job search assistance. Beyond authorizing these programs,
WIA also required the establishment of one-stop centers in all local
areas[Footnote 10] and mandated that many federal employment and
training programs, including the ES and WIA Adult programs, provide
services through the centers.[Footnote 11]
Under WIA, sixteen different categories of programs, administered by
four federal agencies, must provide services through the one-stop
system, according to Labor officials.[Footnote 12] Thirteen of these
categories include programs that meet our definition of an employment
and training program, and three categories do not, but offer other
services to jobseekers who need them (see fig. 1). These 13 program
categories represent about 40 percent of the federal appropriations
for employment and training programs in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote 13]
Figure 1: Categories of Programs Required to Provide Services through
the One-Stop System and Related Federal Agencies:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
One-Stop Center:
Department of Labor:
* WIA Adult, Youth, and Dislocated Worker;
* Employment Service;
* Trade Adjustment Assistance;
* Veterans‘ employment and training;
* Unemployment Insurance[A];
* Job Corps;
* Senior Community Service Employment Program;
* Employment and training for Native Americans and migrant farm
workers.
Department of Education:
* Vocational Rehabilitation Program;
* Adult Education and Literacy[A];
* Vocational Education (Perkins Act).
Department of Health & Human Services:
* Community Services Block Grant.
Department of Housing & Urban Development:
* HUD-administered employment programs[A].
Source: Agency documents.
Note: Vocational Education (Perkins Act) programs include the Career
and Technical Education - Basic Grants to States and Tech-Prep
Education programs. HUD-administered employment programs include the
Community Development Block Grant and Housing Choice Voucher Family
Self-Sufficiency programs.
[A] Program did not meet our definition of an employment and training
program in our recent study of multiple employment and training
programs.
[End of figure]
One-stop centers serve as the key access point for a range of services
that help unemployed workers re-enter the workforce--including job
search assistance, skill assessment and case management, occupational
skills and on-the-job training, basic education and literacy training,
as well as access to Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits and other
supportive services--and they also assist employers in finding
workers. Any person visiting a one-stop center may look for a job,
receive career development services, and gain access to a range of
vocational education programs. In our 2007 study, we found that a
typical one-stop center in many states offered services for eight or
nine required programs on-site.[Footnote 14]
In addition to required programs, one-stop centers have the
flexibility to include other, optional programs in the one-stop
system, such as the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
Program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
Employment and Training Program, or other community-based programs,
which help them better meet specific state and local workforce
development needs. The Dayton, Ohio, one-stop center, for example,
boasts over 40 programs on-site at the 8-1/2 acre facility, including
an organization that provides free business attire to job seekers who
need it, an alternative high school program that assists students in
obtaining a diploma, and organizations providing parenting and self-
sufficiency classes. Nationwide, services may also be provided at
affiliated sites--designated locations that provide access to at least
one employment and training program.
While WIA requires certain programs to provide services through the
one-stop system, it does not provide additional funds to operate one-
stop systems and support one-stop infrastructure. As a result,
required programs are expected to share the costs of developing and
operating one-stop centers. In 2007, we reported that WIA programs and
the ES program were the largest funding sources states used to support
the infrastructure--or nonpersonnel costs--of their comprehensive one-
stop centers.[Footnote 15] To help cover operational costs and expand
services, some one-stop centers that we visited for a study of
promising practices raised additional funds to support the
infrastructure through fee-based services, grants, or contributions
from partner programs and state or local governments. For example, one-
stop operators in Clarksville, Tennessee, reported that they raised
$750,000 in one year through a combination of business consulting,
drug testing, and drivers' education services. In addition, the one-
stop center in Kansas City, Missouri, had a full-time staff person
dedicated to researching and applying for grants. The one-stop
generated two-thirds of an entire program year's operating budget of
$21 million through competitive grants available from the federal
government as well as from private foundations.[Footnote 16]
One-stop centers required under WIA provide an opportunity for a broad
array of federal employment and training programs--both required and
optional programs--to coordinate their services and avoid duplication.
Although WIA does not require that programs be colocated within the
one-stop center, this is one option that programs may use to provide
services within the one-stop structure. Labor's policy is to encourage
colocation of all required programs to the extent possible; however,
officials acknowledged that colocation is one of multiple means for
achieving service integration. We have previously reported that
colocating services can result in improved communication among
programs, improved delivery of services for clients, and elimination
of duplication.[Footnote 17] While colocating services does not
guarantee efficiency improvements, it affords the potential for
sharing resources and cross-training staff, and may lead, in some
cases, to the consolidation of administrative systems, such as
information technology systems. Our early study of promising one-stop
practices found that the centers nominated as exemplary did just that--
they cross-trained program staff, consolidated case management and
intake procedures across multiple programs, and developed shared data
systems.[Footnote 18] More broadly, these promising practices
streamline services for job seekers, engage the employer community,
and build a solid one-stop infrastructure. Other types of linkages
between programs, such as electronic linkages or referrals, may not
result in the same types of efficiency improvements, but they may
still present opportunities to streamline services.
Although the potential benefits of colocation are recognized,
implementation may pose challenges. WIA Adult and the Employment
Service are generally colocated in one-stop centers, but TANF
employment and training services are colocated in one-stops to a
lesser extent. In our 2007 report, we found that 30 states provided
the TANF program on site at a typical comprehensive one-stop center.
These states accounted for 57 percent of the comprehensive one-stop
centers nationwide. Some previous efforts to reauthorize WIA have
included proposals to make TANF a mandatory one-stop partner.[Footnote
19] Increasing colocation, however, could prove difficult due to
issues such as limited available office space, differences in client
needs and the programs' client service philosophies, and the need for
programs to help fund the operating costs of the one-stop centers. HHS
officials noted, that when TANF employment and training services are
not colocated in one-stop centers, they are typically colocated with
other services for low-income families, such as SNAP, formerly known
as the Food Stamp Program, and Medicaid. Officials acknowledged that
colocating TANF employment and training services in one-stop centers
may mean that they are no longer colocated with these other services,
although Florida, Texas, and Utah provide SNAP services through one-
stops along with TANF services, and Utah also provides Medicaid
through one-stops. Officials said that in states where this is not the
case, the potential trade-off would need to be considered.
Consolidating Administrative Structures May Also Increase Efficiencies:
Given that the purpose of WIA, in part, was to transform the
fragmented employment and training system into a coherent one, our
work suggests that greater efficiencies could be achieved. Three of
the largest employment and training programs, the TANF, ES, and WIA
Adult programs, provide some of the same employment and training
services to low-income individuals, despite differences between the
programs (see figure 2). While the TANF program serves low-income
families with children, the ES and WIA Adult programs serve all
adults, including low-income individuals. Specifically, the WIA Adult
program gives priority for intensive and training services to
recipients of public assistance and other low-income individuals when
program funds are limited. All three programs share a common goal of
helping individuals secure employment, and the TANF and WIA Adult
programs also aim to reduce welfare dependency. However, employment is
only one aspect of the TANF program, which has other broad social
service goals, and as a result, TANF provides a wide range of other
services beyond employment and training, including cash assistance.
Figure 2: Employment and Training Services Provided by the TANF,
Employment Service and WIA Adult Programs, Fiscal Year 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table]
Program name: Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities (DOL);
Employment counseling and assessment: Secondary service;
General Equivalency Diploma assistance: [Empty];
Development of job opportunities: Primary service;
Job readiness skills training: Primary service;
Job referrals: Primary service;
Job retention training: [Empty];
Job search or job placement activities: Primary service;
Occupational or vocational training: [Empty];
On-the-job training: [Empty];
Remedial academic, English language skills, or basic adult literacy:
[Empty];
Work experience: [Empty];
Other: Primary service[A].
Program name: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (HHS);
Employment counseling and assessment: Secondary service;
General Equivalency Diploma assistance: Secondary service;
Development of job opportunities: Primary service;
Job readiness skills training: Secondary service;
Job referrals: Secondary service;
Job retention training: [Empty];
Job search or job placement activities: Secondary service;
Occupational or vocational training: Secondary service;
On-the-job training: Secondary service;
Remedial academic, English language skills, or basic adult literacy:
Secondary service;
Work experience: Secondary service;
Other: Primary service[B].
Program name: WIA Adult Program (DOL);
Employment counseling and assessment: Primary service;
General Equivalency Diploma assistance: Primary service;
Development of job opportunities: Primary service;
Job readiness skills training: Primary service;
Job referrals: Primary service;
Job retention training: Secondary service;
Job search or job placement activities: Primary service;
Occupational or vocational training: Primary service;
On-the-job training: Primary service;
Remedial academic, English language skills, or basic adult literacy:
Secondary service;
Work experience: Primary service;
Other: [Empty].
Source: GAO survey of agency officials.
[A] Job search workshops.
[B] Subsidized employment.
[End of figure]
The TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs maintain separate administrative
structures to provide some of the same services to low-income
individuals. At the federal level, the TANF program is administered by
HHS, and the ES and WIA Adult programs are administered by Labor. At
the state level, the TANF program is typically administered by the
state human services or welfare agency, and the ES and WIA Adult
programs are typically administered by the state workforce agency. By
regulation, ES services must be provided by state employees.[Footnote
20] At the local level, WIA regulations require at least one
comprehensive one-stop center to be located in every local workforce
investment area. These areas may have the same boundaries as counties,
may be multicounty, or may be within or across county lines.[Footnote
21] Similarly, every county typically has a TANF office. TANF
employment and training services may be delivered at TANF offices, in
one-stop centers, or through contracts with for-profit or nonprofit
organizations, according to HHS officials. In one-stop centers, ES
staff provide job search and other services to ES customers, while WIA
staff provide job search and other services to WIA Adult customers.
Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated the state workforce and
welfare agencies that administer the TANF, ES, and WIA Adult programs,
among other programs.[Footnote 22] In Utah, the workforce agency
administers the TANF program in its entirety. In Florida and Texas,
the workforce agencies administer only that part of TANF related to
employment and training services. In all three states, the one-stop
centers serve as portals to a range of social services, including
TANF. Officials from these three states told us that consolidating
agencies led to cost savings through the reduction of staff and
facilities. For example, a Utah official said that the state reduced
the number of buildings in which employment and training services were
provided from 104 to 34. According to a Texas official, Texas also
privatized 3,000 full-time staff equivalents (FTE) at the local level,
which reduced the pension, retirement, and insurance costs that had
previously been associated with these state positions. Officials in
the three states, however, could not provide a dollar figure for the
cost savings that resulted from consolidation.
State officials also told us that consolidation improved the quality
of services for participants in the WIA Adult and TANF programs. An
official in Utah noted the consolidation allowed job seekers to apply
for assistance they had not considered in the past, allowed employment
counselors to cluster services that made sense for the client, and
allowed clients to experience seamless service delivery. These
benefits reflected what the official said was one of the visions of
consolidation: having one employment plan per client, rather than
multiple employment plans for clients served by multiple programs.
While Florida officials acknowledged that a subset of TANF clients
have significant barriers to employment--such as mental health issues--
that one-stop centers may not be well equipped to address, officials
said that the one-stops in their state are able to address the
employment and training needs of the majority of TANF clients. When
asked about the quality of the TANF and workforce programs in Florida,
Texas, and Utah, Labor officials were not aware of any performance
problems in these programs and added that they view all three states
as forerunners in program improvement efforts. That said, they noted
that Utah may not be representative of other states, due to its
relatively small and homogenous population. In addition, officials
from the Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP) said that Texas and
Florida may place more of an emphasis on quickly finding work for TANF
clients than other states.
Even with the benefits identified by state officials, consolidation
may have its challenges. An official in Utah noted that the
reorganization of state agencies and staff was time-consuming and
costly, and it took several years before any cost savings were
realized. For example, developing a shared database across programs
increased costs temporarily. In addition, when states consolidate
their agencies, they must still adhere to separate program
requirements for TANF and WIA. A 2004 article on service integration
by authors from CLASP and the Hudson Institute concluded that options
were available for states to make significant progress in integrating
TANF and WIA services, but it also noted the difficulty in
administering separate programs with different requirements.[Footnote
23] The article specifically noted differences in work requirements,
program performance measures, and reporting requirements, among
others. A Utah official said that it was important for program
administrators to be knowledgeable about these separate reporting
requirements and processes across the multiple federal agencies that
oversee these programs. Similarly, this official said that direct
service staff needed to be knowledgeable about multiple programs and
how to allocate costs across these programs. For states that have not
consolidated their workforce and welfare agencies, not knowing what
actions are allowable under the law may present a challenge to
consolidation. According to the article on service integration, states
face some legal barriers to fully integrating TANF and WIA services,
but if they do not know what is allowable under the law, they may not
always exercise the full range of options available to them.
In conclusion, understanding how well the one-stop system is reducing
fragmentation through coordinated service delivery would be useful in
deciding where efficiencies could be achieved, but no study has been
undertaken to evaluate the effectiveness of the one-stop system
approach. While a few program impact studies have been done or are
underway, these studies largely take a program-by-program approach
rather than focusing on understanding which approaches are most
effective in streamlining service delivery and improving one-stop
efficiency. In addition, Labor's efforts to collaborate with other
agencies to assess the effects of different strategies to integrate
job-seeker services have been limited. We previously recommended that
Labor collaborate with Education, HHS, and the Department of Housing
and Urban Development (HUD) to develop a research agenda that examines
the impacts of various approaches to program integration on job seeker
and employer satisfaction and outcomes.[Footnote 24] Labor has
committed to collaborating with other agencies and has involved them
in developing inter-agency initiatives for certain targeted
activities, but has not yet evaluated the effectiveness of the one-
stop system.
While states and localities have undertaken some potentially promising
initiatives to achieve greater administrative efficiencies, little
information is available about the strategies and results of these
initiatives; therefore, it is unclear the extent to which practices in
these states could serve as models for others. Moreover, little is
known about the incentives states and localities have to undertake
such initiatives and whether additional incentives may be needed. We
recently recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work
together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such
efforts, including information on state initiatives to consolidate
program administrative structures and state and local efforts to
colocate additional programs at one-stop centers. As part of this
effort, we recommended that Labor and HHS examine the incentives for
states and localities to undertake such initiatives and, as warranted,
identify options for increasing them. In their responses, Labor and
HHS agreed with our recommendations. However, HHS noted that it lacks
legal authority to mandate increased TANF-WIA coordination or to
create incentives for such efforts.[Footnote 25]
Increasing efficiencies among federal employment and training programs
is clearly challenging. These are difficult issues to address because
they may require agencies and Congress to re-examine within and across
various mission areas the fundamental structure, operation, funding,
and performance of a number of long-standing federal programs and
activities. As the nation rises to meet its current fiscal challenges,
GAO will continue to assist Congress and federal agencies in
identifying actions needed to address these issues.
Chairwoman Foxx, Ranking Member Hinojosa, and Members of the
Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy
to respond to any questions you may have at this time.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-7215 or sherrilla@gao.gov. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Dianne Blank, Pamela Davidson,
Patrick Dibattista, Alex Galuten, Jennifer Gregory, Isabella Johnson,
and Sheila McCoy.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Federally Funded Employment and Training Programs by
Agency, Fiscal Year 2009:
Department of Labor:
* Community-Based Job Training Grants;
* Disabled Veterans' Outreach Program;
* Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded Activities;
* H-1B Job Training Grants;
* Homeless Veterans' Reintegration Project;
* Job Corps;
* Local Veterans' Employment Representative Program;
* National Farmworker Jobs Program;
* Native American Employment and Training;
* Registered Apprenticeship and Other Training;
* Reintegration of Ex-Offenders;
* Senior Community Service Employment Program;
* Trade Adjustment Assistance;
* Transition Assistance Program;
* Veterans' Workforce Investment Program;
* WIA Adult Program;
* WIA Youth Activities;
* WIA Dislocated Workers;
* WIA National Emergency Grants;
* WANTO;
* YouthBuild.
Department of Education:
* American Indian Vocational Rehabilitation Services;
* Career and Technical Education ” Basic Grants to States;
* Career and Technical Education ” Indian Set-aside;
* Grants to States for Workplace and Community Transition Training for
Incarcerated Individuals;
* Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Program;
* Native Hawaiian Career and Technical Education;
* Projects with Industry;
* Rehabilitation Services ” Vocational Rehabilitation Grants to States;
* State-Supported Employment Services Program;
* Tech-Prep Education;
* Tribally Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Institutions.
Department of Health and Human Services:
* Community Services Block Grant
* Refugee and Entrant Assistance ” Voluntary Agency Matching Grant
Program;
* Refugee and Entrant Assistance ” Targeted Assistance Grants;
* Refugee and Entrant Assistance ” Social Services Program;
* Refugee and Entrant Assistance ” Targeted Assistance Discretionary
Program;
* Temporary Assistance for Needy Families;
* Tribal Work Grants[A].
Department of the Interior:
* Conservation Activities by Youth Service Organizations[B];
* Indian Employment Assistance
* Indian Vocational Training ” United Tribes Technical College.
Department of Agriculture:
* SNAP Employment and Training Program.
Department of Defense:
* National Guard Youth Challenge Program.
Environmental Protection Agency:
* Brownfield Job Training Cooperative Agreements.
Department of Justice:
* Second Chance Act Prisoner Reentry Initiative.
Department of Veterans Affairs:
* Vocational Rehabilitation for Disabled Veterans[C].
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving
Efficiency. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-506T].
Washington, D.C.: April 7, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential
Duplication in Federal Teacher Quality and Employment and Training
Programs. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-509T].
Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue.[hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-441T]. Washington, D.C.: March 3,
2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,
Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP]. Washington, D.C.: March 1,
2011.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on
Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could
Promote Efficiencies. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. Washington, D.C.: January 13,
2011.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing Areas
of Concern, but More Focus Needed on Understanding What Works and What
Doesn't. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-396T].
Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2009.
Workforce Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers
Collaborate to Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-547]. Washington, D.C.: May 15,
2008.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure Continues to
Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All Employment
Service Offices Are Part of the System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096]. Washington, D.C.: September
4, 2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Additional Actions Would Further Improve the
Workforce System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1051T]. Washington, D.C.: June 28,
2007.
Workforce Investment Act: Substantial Funds Are Used for Training, but
Little Is Known Nationally about Training Outcomes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-650]. Washington, D.C.: June 29,
2005.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-657]. Washington, D.C.:
June 1, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Actions Can Help States Improve
Quality of Performance Outcome Data and Delivery of Youth Services.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-308]. Washington, D.C.:
February 23, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and
Information Sharing Is Needed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725]. Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-589]. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-239]. Washington, D.C.: November
22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-274]. Washington, D.C.: February
11, 2002.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Overlapping Programs
Indicate Need for Closer Examination of Structure. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-71]. Washington, D.C.: October 13,
2000.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-00-145]. Washington, D.C.: June
29, 2000.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Information Crosswalk on 163
Employment Training Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-95-85FS]. Washington, D.C.:
February 14, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Major Overhaul Needed to Reduce
Costs, Streamline the Bureaucracy, and Improve Results. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-95-53]. Washington, D.C.:
January 10, 1995.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlap Among Programs Raises
Questions About Efficiency. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-193]. Washington, D.C.: July
11, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements
Underscore Need for Change. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-120]. Washington, D.C.:
March 10, 1994.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Major Overhaul is Needed.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-HEHS-94-109].
Washington, D.C.: March 3, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Overlapping Programs Can Add
Unnecessary Administrative Costs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-80]. Washington, D.C.: January
28, 1994.
Multiple Employment Training Programs: Conflicting Requirements Hamper
Delivery of Services.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936.
[2] See GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13,
2011).
[3] For a list of programs and agencies, see appendix I.
[4] For information on the amount each program reported spending on
employment and training services in fiscal year 2009, and the
estimated amount spent in fiscal year 2010, see GAO-11-92, appendixes
II and III.
[5] Impact studies, which many researchers consider to be the best
method for determining the extent to which a program is causing
participant outcomes, can be difficult and expensive to conduct, as
they take steps to examine what would have happened in the absence of
a program to isolate its impact from other factors.
[6] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998).
[7] David H. Bradley, The Workforce Investment Act and the One-Stop
Delivery System, a report prepared for the Congressional Research
Service (Washington, D.C.: Jan.10, 2011). According to CRS, WIA also
amended the Wagner-Peyser Act of 1933, which establishes the
Employment Service, to make the Employment Service an integral part of
the one-stop system.
[8] Pub. L. No. 97-300, 96 Stat. 1322 (1982).
[9] For the repeal of JTPA, see Pub. L. No. 105-220 § 199(b)(2),
(c)(2)(B), 112 Stat. 936, 1059. For the new WIA Adult and Dislocated
Worker programs, see § 131 et seq., 112 Stat. 936, 982. For the new
WIA Youth Program, see § 126 et seq., 112 Stat. 936, 971.
[10] Pub. L. No. 105-220 §134(c), 112 Stat. 936, 992. WIA required
that one-stop centers be established in local workforce investment
areas in all participating states. States are responsible for
designating local workforce investment areas, and each state must have
one or more local areas. As of April 2007, we found that the number of
local areas in each state ranged from 1 to 50.
[11] Pub. L. No. 105-220 §134(c)(2)(A), 112 Stat. 936, 993.
[12] According to Labor officials, although WIA required 17 categories
of programs to participate in the one-stop system, the Welfare-to-Work
program has been discontinued, reducing the total to 16 categories of
required programs. For the purposes of this testimony, we refer to
these 16 categories of programs as "required programs."
[13] Fiscal year 2010 appropriations were reported by federal agency
officials in GAO's 2010 survey of employment and training programs.
Because the TANF program is not required to provide services through
the one-stop system, the appropriations represented by these 13
program categories do not include appropriations for the TANF program.
[14] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop System Infrastructure
Continues to Evolve, but Labor Should Take Action to Require That All
Employment Service Offices Are Part of the System, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 4,
2007).
[15] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096]. We
defined infrastructure costs as the nonpersonnel costs necessary for
the general operation of a one-stop center, including the rental costs
of the facilities, costs of utilities and maintenance, and equipment
(including adaptive technology for individuals with disabilities).
[16] See GAO, Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented
Strategies to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research
and Information Sharing Is Needed, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725] (Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2003). As part of this study, we visited 14 one-stop centers that were
identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce
development experts.
[17] Specifically, we reported that colocating community college staff
at one-stop centers can result in these benefits. See GAO, Workforce
Development: Community Colleges and One-Stop Centers Collaborate to
Meet 21st Century Workforce Needs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-547] (Washington, D.C.: May 15,
2008).
[18] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725].
[19] See, for example, H.R. 27 and S.1021 from the 109TH Congress.
[20] 20 C.F.R. § 652.215.
[21] 20 C.F.R. § 662.100(c).
[22] In 2000, Florida consolidated its state workforce programs and
the employment and training part of the TANF program under its new
Agency for Workforce Innovation. In 1995, Texas consolidated 28
employment and training programs from 10 agencies into one agency, the
Texas Workforce Commission, including the employment and training
services under the TANF program. In 1997, Utah consolidated six
agencies that were administering 23 employment and training programs
into the state Department of Workforce Services. We chose to interview
officials in these three states since they are considered to be the
furthest along in their efforts to consolidate agencies. We did not
conduct a legal analysis of state programs.
[23] See Mark Greenberg and Jennifer L. Noyes, "The Opportunities for
Service Integration Under Current Law," Focus, Vol. 23, No. 2, Summer
2004. This article summarized a 2004 CLASP analysis of the legal
issues related to integrating TANF employment services with WIA
programs. The article defined a fully integrated workforce development
system as one where all unemployed and employed workers could seek
employment assistance from a universal system, and states and
localities could structure service strategies based on individualized
assessments and needs instead of on federal rules specifying
particular approaches for particular categories of claimants.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-725].
[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92].
[End of section]
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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
