Employment and Training Programs
Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency Gao ID: GAO-11-506T April 7, 2011This testimony discusses the findings from our recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federally funded employment and training programs and our prior work on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). We recently issued two reports addressing fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in federal programs--one that outlined opportunities to reduce potential duplication across a wide range of federal programs and another that focused more specifically on employment and training programs. This work and our larger body of work in the area will help government policymakers address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our nation's government--pressures that stem, in part, from our mounting debt and sustained high unemployment. Our work to examine fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in employment and training programs has a long history. 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 these concerns, Congress passed WIA. The purpose of WIA, in part, was to transform the fragmented employment and training system into a coherent one, establishing a one-stop system that serves the needs of job seekers and employers. Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that have included recommendations regarding many aspects of WIA, such as performance measures and accountability, one-stop centers, and training, among other topics. GAO's work has continued to find fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in employment and training programs. The area is characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals, beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by multiple federal agencies. Fragmentation of programs exists when programs serve the same broad area of national need but are administered across different federal agencies or offices. Program overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation among government programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication. Given the challenges associated with fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication, careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to address these issues. This testimony discusses (1) what GAO has found regarding fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal employment and training programs, (2) the role that WIA activities can play in addressing these conditions, and (3) what additional information could help Congress minimize fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among these programs.
In summary, for fiscal year 2009, GAO identified 47 federally funded employment and training programs administered across nine agencies. Almost all of these programs overlap with at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar population, but differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service delivery. WIA's structure provides the opportunity to reduce overlap and duplication because it requires that several of these programs provide services through the one-stop system, but they need not be on-site. Increasing colocation at one-stop centers, as well as consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative agencies could increase efficiencies, and several states and localities have undertaken such initiatives. To facilitate further progress in increasing administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together to develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing issues of fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication. Specifically, Congress could explore opportunities to enhance program evaluations and performance information and foster state and local innovation in integrating services and consolidating administrative structures.
GAO-11-506T, Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-506T
entitled 'Employment and Training Programs: Opportunities Exist for
Improving Efficiency' which was released on April 7, 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 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education
and Related Agencies, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, April 7, 2011:
Employment and Training Programs:
Opportunities Exist for Improving Efficiency:
Statement of Andrew Sherrill, Director Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues:
GAO-11-506T:
Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to discuss the findings from our
recent work on fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication in
federally funded employment and training programs and our prior work
on the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA).[Footnote 1] As you
know, we recently issued two reports addressing fragmentation,
overlap, and potential duplication in federal programs--one that
outlined opportunities to reduce potential duplication across a wide
range of federal programs[Footnote 2] and another that focused more
specifically on employment and training programs.[Footnote 3] This
work and our larger body of work in the area will help government
policymakers address the rapidly building fiscal pressures facing our
nation's government--pressures that stem, in part, from our mounting
debt and sustained high unemployment.
Our work to examine fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication
in employment and training programs has a long history. 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
these concerns, Congress passed WIA. The purpose of WIA, in part, was
to transform the fragmented employment and training system into a
coherent one, establishing a one-stop system that serves the needs of
job seekers and employers. Since WIA was enacted, we have issued
numerous reports that have included recommendations regarding many
aspects of WIA, such as performance measures and accountability, one-
stop centers, and training, among other topics.
GAO's work has continued to find fragmentation, overlap, and potential
duplication in employment and training programs. The area is
characterized by a large number of programs with similar goals,
beneficiaries, and allowable activities that are administered by
multiple federal agencies. Fragmentation of programs exists when
programs serve the same broad area of national need but are
administered across different federal agencies or offices. Program
overlap exists when multiple agencies or programs have similar goals,
engage in similar activities or strategies to achieve them, or target
similar beneficiaries. Overlap and fragmentation among government
programs or activities can be harbingers of unnecessary duplication.
Given the challenges associated with fragmentation, overlap, and
potential duplication, careful, thoughtful actions will be needed to
address these issues.
My testimony today will discuss (1) what GAO has found regarding
fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in federal employment and
training programs, (2) the role that WIA activities can play in
addressing these conditions, and (3) what additional information could
help Congress minimize fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among
these programs. In preparing this statement we relied on our previous
work in these areas (please see the related GAO products appendix).
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, for fiscal year 2009, GAO identified 47 federally funded
employment and training programs administered across nine agencies.
Almost all of these programs overlap with at least one other program
in that they provide at least one similar service to a similar
population, but differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and
service delivery. WIA's structure provides the opportunity to reduce
overlap and duplication because it requires that several of these
programs provide services through the one-stop system, but they need
not be on-site. Increasing colocation at one-stop centers, as well as
consolidating state workforce and welfare administrative agencies
could increase efficiencies, and several states and localities have
undertaken such initiatives. To facilitate further progress in
increasing administrative efficiencies, we recommended that the
Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services (HHS) work together
to develop and disseminate information about such efforts. Sustained
congressional oversight is pivotal in addressing issues of
fragmentation, overlap, and potential duplication. Specifically,
Congress could explore opportunities to enhance program evaluations
and performance information and foster state and local innovation in
integrating services and consolidating administrative structures.
GAO Identified 47 Federal Employment and Training Programs, and Most
Overlapped with at Least One Other Program:
For fiscal year 2009, we identified 47 federally funded employment and
training programs administered across nine agencies, primarily the
Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS)
(for a list of programs and agencies, see appendix I).[Footnote 4]
These programs reported spending approximately $18 billion on
employment and training services in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 5]
Seven programs accounted for about three-fourths of this spending,
including the WIA Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth programs, which
spent nearly $6 billion on employment and training services (see table
1). Most participants received employment and training services
through one of two programs: Employment Service/Wagner-Peyser Funded
Activities (Employment Service) and WIA Adult.[Footnote 6] Together,
these two programs reported serving over 18 million individuals, or
about 77 percent of the total number of participants served across all
programs.[Footnote 7]
Table 1: Seven Largest Programs: Estimated Amount Spent on Employment
and Training Activities in Fiscal Year 2009 and Estimated Number of
Participants Served:
Program (Agency): Rehabilitation Services -Vocational Rehabilitation
Grants to States (Education);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: $2,956,743,700;
Estimated Number of Participants: 979,409;
Year Served[B]: 2009.
Program (Agency): WIA Dislocated Worker (Labor);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: 2,421,340,000;
Estimated Number of Participants: 671,786;
Year Served[B]: 2008.
Program (Agency): WIA Youth (Labor);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: 2,112,069,000;
Estimated Number of Participants: 282,426;
Year Served[B]: 2008.
Program (Agency): Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (HHS);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: 1,777,958,939;
Estimated Number of Participants: 134,767[C];
Year Served[B]: 2008.
Program (Agency): Job Corps (Labor);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: 1,775,000,000;
Estimated Number of Participants: 59,357;
Year Served[B]: 2008.
Program (Agency): WIA Adult (Labor);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: 1,356,540,000;
Estimated Number of Participants: 5,171,158;
Year Served[B]: 2008.
Program (Agency): Employment Service (Labor);
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: 1,203,677,000;
Estimated Number of Participants: 13,472,624;
Year Served[B]: 2009.
Program (Agency): Total;
Estimated Amount Spent on Employment and Training Activities in
FY09[A]: $13,603,328,639;
Estimated Number of Participants: 20,771,527.
Source: GAO survey of agency officials.
[A] Estimates may include funds provided by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act).
[B] Officials provided the estimated number of participants for the
most recent year for which data were available.
[C] This number represents the monthly average number of individuals
receiving TANF cash assistance who were engaged in work activities
such as subsidized employment, work experience, on-the-job training,
job search and job readiness assistance, community service, vocational
educational training, job skills training, and in certain
circumstances education directly related to employment. It does not
include the number of individuals engaged in unsubsidized employment.
Officials were unable to provide an annual estimate.
[End of table]
Almost all programs overlap with at least one other program, but
differences may exist in eligibility, objectives, and service
delivery. Forty-four of the 47 programs, which include broad
multipurpose block grants, overlap with at least one other program, in
that they provide at least one similar service to a similar
population. Some of these overlapping programs serve multiple
population groups, while others target specific populations, and some
programs require participants to be economically disadvantaged. The
target populations being served by the most programs are Native
Americans, veterans, and youth. For example, all 8 programs that
target Native Americans provide seven similar types of employment and
training services.[Footnote 8] However, some individuals within a
population group may be eligible for one program, but not another
because program eligibility criteria differ. One of the programs
targeting Native Americans, for example, serves only disabled Native
Americans residing on or near a federal or state reservation, and
another program serves only Native Hawaiians.
Some efforts have been made to address overlap in programs and
services. Officials from 27 of the 47 programs reported that their
agencies have coordinated efforts with other federal agencies that
provide similar services to similar populations. For example, Labor
and HHS issued a joint letter encouraging state-administered youth
programs to partner together using funds under the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act)[Footnote 9] to promote
subsidized employment opportunities. In addition, an official from the
Department of the Interior reported that the agency works with Labor
and HHS to coordinate programs for Native Americans. Under law, Native
American tribes are allowed significant flexibility to combine funding
from multiple programs.[Footnote 10] Moreover, as part of its proposed
WIA reforms, the Administration is proposing consolidating 4
employment and training programs administered by Education into 1
program.[Footnote 11] The Administration also proposes consolidating
Education's Career and Technical Education - Basic Grants to States
and Tech-Prep Education programs, at the same time reducing program
funding. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer the Senior
Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS.
Three of the largest programs maintain separate administrative
structures to provide some of the same services. The Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), Employment Service, and WIA
Adult programs provide some of the same employment and training
services--such as job search and job referral services--to low-income
individuals, although there are differences between the programs (see
figure 1).[Footnote 12] The TANF program serves low-income families
with children, while the Employment Service and WIA Adult programs
serve all adults, including low-income individuals.[Footnote 13] 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 also has three other broad social service goals: to
assist needy families so that children can generally be cared for in
their own homes, to reduce and prevent out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and
to encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. As
a result, TANF provides a wide range of other services beyond
employment and training, including cash assistance.[Footnote 14]
Figure 1: 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]
Although the extent to which individuals receive the same employment
and training services from TANF, the Employment Service, and WIA Adult
is unknown, the programs maintain separate administrative structures
to provide some of the same services to low-income individuals. Data
limitations make it difficult to assess duplication of services, but
Labor officials estimate that in program year 2008 approximately 4.5
percent of all WIA Adult participants who received training--about
4,500 of the nearly 100,000 participants who exited the program--were
also receiving TANF. However, it is unclear whether the WIA Adult
participants who self-identify as TANF recipients have received TANF
employment and training services.[Footnote 15] Nonetheless, the three
programs maintain separate administrative structures. At the federal
level, the TANF program is administered by HHS, and the Employment
Service and WIA Adult programs are administered by Labor. At the state
level, the TANF program is typically administered by state human
services or welfare agencies, while the other two programs are
typically administered by state workforce agencies. At the local
level, Employment Service and WIA Adult services are generally
provided through the one-stop centers, while TANF employment and
training services may be administered through the one-stop or through
other structures. Federal agency officials acknowledged that greater
administrative efficiencies could be achieved in delivering these
services, but also said that other factors, such as the proximity of
services to clients, could warrant having multiple entities providing
the same services.
WIA's Structure Provides the Opportunity to Reduce Fragmentation,
Overlap, and Duplication:
Congress passed WIA partly in response to concerns about fragmentation
and inefficiencies in federal employment and training programs.
[Footnote 16] 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 17] WIA replaced the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) programs for economically disadvantaged adults
and youths and dislocated workers with three new programs--WIA Adult,
WIA Dislocated Worker, and WIA Youth.[Footnote 18] The Adult and
Dislocated Worker programs provide three tiers, or levels, of service:
core, intensive, and training. Core services include basic services
such as job search assistance and labor market information and they
may be self-service in nature.[Footnote 19] Intensive services may
include such activities as comprehensive assessment and case
management--activities that require greater staff involvement.
Training services may include occupational skills or on-the-job
training. Beyond authorizing these programs, WIA also established one-
stop centers in all local areas[Footnote 20] and mandated that many
federal employment and training programs provide services through the
centers.[Footnote 21]
Thirteen Categories of Employment and Training Programs Must Provide
Services Through the One-Stop System:
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 22] 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 figure 2). These thirteen
program categories represent about 40 percent of the federal
appropriations for employment and training programs in fiscal year
2010.[Footnote 23]
Figure 2. 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 Educationand 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--such as job
search assistance, skill assessment and case management, occupational
skills and on-the-job training, basic education and literacy training,
as well 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 8 or 9
required programs on-site, and one state offered services for 16
required programs on-site.[Footnote 24]
In addition to required programs, one-stop centers have the
flexibility to include other, optional programs in the one-stop
system, such as TANF, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program
(SNAP) Employment and Training Program, or other community-based
programs, which helps 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. Under WIA, 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 Employment Service program were the largest funding sources states
used to support the infrastructure--or nonpersonnel costs--of their
comprehensive one-stop centers.[Footnote 25] For program year 2005
[Footnote 26], of the 48 states that could provide funding
information, 23 states identified WIA programs as the primary funding
source and 19 states reported it was the Employment Service program.
In addition, 27 states reported using TANF funds to pay for part of
their one-stop center infrastructure costs, and 3 states identified
TANF as the primary funding source. In 2007, TANF was on-site at a
typical one-stop in 30 states.[Footnote 27]
Increasing Colocation of Services in One-Stop Centers and
Consolidating State Administrative Structures May Increase
Efficiencies:
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 previously reported that colocating
services can result in improved communication among programs, improved
delivery of services for clients, and elimination of
duplication.[Footnote 28] While colocation 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 29] 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.
Consolidating administrative structures and colocating services may
increase efficiencies, but implementation could pose challenges.
[Footnote 30] Florida, Texas, and Utah have consolidated their
workforce and welfare agencies[Footnote 31] and officials said that
this reduced costs and improved the quality of services for
participants, but they could not provide a dollar figure for cost
savings. Even when states consolidate their agencies, they must still
follow separate requirements for individual programs. With regard to
colocating services, 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.
Efforts to increase colocation could prove challenging 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.
[Footnote 32] 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, so 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. In addition, GAO is currently
examining innovative one-stop strategies to enhance collaboration with
employers and economic development partners to better meet local labor
market needs.
To the extent that colocating services and consolidating
administrative structures reduce administrative costs, funds could
potentially be available to serve more clients or for other purposes.
For the TANF program alone, GAO estimated that states spent about $160
million to administer employment and training services in fiscal year
2009. According to a Department of Labor official, the administrative
costs for the WIA Adult program were at least $56 million in program
year 2009. Officials told GAO they do not collect data on the
administrative costs associated with the Employment Service program,
as they are not a separately identifiable cost in the legislation.
Labor officials said that, on average, the agency spends about $4,000
for each WIA Adult participant who receives training services.
Congress Needs Better Information on Program Performance to Address
Fragmentation, Overlap, and Potential Duplication in Employment and
Training Programs:
Making informed decisions about where to invest scarce resources
requires information about what's working and what's not but, despite
improvements, performance data do not provide a complete picture of
the employment and training system. Nearly all employment and training
programs track multiple outcome measures and many programs track
similar measures--most often an "entered employment" rate (the number
of participants who found jobs), employment retention, and wage gain
or change. We have made a number of recommendations regarding the
performance management systems of the key employment and training
programs, and Labor has made some progress addressing our concerns.
However, two issues remain. First, only a small proportion of job
seekers who receive services at one-stops are reflected in WIA outcome
data. While customers who use self-services are estimated to be the
largest portion of those served under WIA, job seekers who receive
self-service or informational services are specifically excluded from
performance calculations by the statute. Second, WIA's performance
measurement system contains no provision for measuring overall one-
stop performance, relying instead on a program-by-program approach
that cannot easily be used to assess the overall performance of the
one-stop system.
Information about the effectiveness of these programs can also help
guide policymakers and program managers in making decisions about how
to improve, coordinate, or consolidate existing programs. However,
little is known about the effectiveness of employment and training
programs because only 5 of the 47 programs reported that they had
conducted any impact studies since 2004.[Footnote 33] Impact studies,
which allow for determining the extent to which a program is causing
participant outcomes, can be difficult and expensive to conduct
because they take steps to examine what would have happened in the
absence of a program to isolate its impact from other factors.
[Footnote 34] Such studies may not be cost-effective for smaller
programs, particularly in periods of tight budgets, but strategically
chosen impact studies can be an important means for understanding
where efficiencies can be achieved. Labor has been slow to comply with
a requirement to conduct a multi-site control group evaluation of the
WIA-funded programs.[Footnote 35] In 2004 and 2007, we recommended
that Labor comply with the requirements of the law and conduct an
impact evaluation of WIA services to better understand what services
are most effective for improving outcomes. Since then, Labor has
completed a nonexperimental study of the WIA Adult and Dislocated
Worker programs and also has an experimental design impact study of
these programs currently under way. The nonexperimental study found
that the WIA Adult program had positive impacts on average earnings up
to 4 years after participant entry, but noted that the magnitude of
this effect could have been due to the selection of applicants with
greater income prior to participation and better job prospects. The
study found that the impacts for participants in the Dislocated Worker
program were also positive, but smaller.[Footnote 36] Labor expects
that the experimental design impact study currently underway will
examine impact by funding stream, but will not be completed until June
2015.[Footnote 37]
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 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 38] 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.
In January 2011, the President signed the GPRA Modernization Act of
2010 (GPRAMA),[Footnote 39] further amending the almost two-decades-
old Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).[Footnote
40] Implementing provisions of the new act--such as its requirement to
establish outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of
crosscutting policy areas--could play an important role in clarifying
desired outcomes, addressing program performance spanning multiple
organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce unnecessary
duplication, overlap, and fragmentation. Specifically, GPRAMA requires
(1) disclosure of information about accuracy and validity, (2) data on
crosscutting areas, and (3) quarterly reporting on priority goals on a
publicly available Web site. Additionally, GPRAMA significantly
enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress when
establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency goals. This
information can inform deliberations on spending priorities and help
re-examine the fundamental structure, operation, funding, and
performance of a number of federal programs. However, to be
successful, it will be important for agencies to build the analytical
capacity to both use the performance information, and to ensure its
quality--both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and
availability of research and evaluation resources.
In conclusion, removing and preventing unnecessary duplication,
overlap, and fragmentation 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. Implementing provisions of GPRAMA could play an
important role in clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program
performance spanning multiple organizations, and facilitating future
actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.
Sustained attention and oversight by Congress will also be critical.
Our work highlights two key areas where congressional oversight could
facilitate progress:
* Enhancing program evaluations and performance information; and:
* Fostering state and local innovation in integrating services and
consolidating administrative structures.
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. Likewise, we will continue to
monitor developments in the areas we have already identified.
Chairman Rehberg, Ranking Member DeLauro, 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, Caitlin Croake,
Pamela Davidson, Patrick Dibattista, Alex Galuten, Andrew Nelson, Paul
Schearf, and Kathleen Van Gelder.
[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.
[A] Also known as the Native Employment Works program.
[B] For the purposes of our study, this program includes several
programs administered by Interior's National Park Service: Public
Lands Corps, Youth Conservation Corps, Youth Intern Program, and Youth
Partnership Program.
[C] Also known as the VetSuccess program.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/HEHS-94-78]. Washington, D.C.: January
28, 1994.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936.
[2] GAO, 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.: Mar. 1,
2011). An interactive, Web-based version of the report is available
at: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ereport/gao-11-318SP].
[3] GAO, Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing
Information on Colocating Services and Consolidating Administrative
Structures Could Promote Efficiencies, GAO-11-92 (Washington, D.C.:
January 13, 2011).
[4] We defined an employment and training program as a program that is
specifically designed to enhance the specific job skills of
individuals in order to increase their employability, identify job
opportunities, and/or help job seekers obtain employment. We excluded
certain programs that did not meet this definition, did not provide
employment and training services, or were components of other
employment and training programs. We included programs with broader
missions if a primary purpose of the program was to provide employment
and training assistance, including multipurpose block grants and
career and technical education programs. We did not conduct a legal
analysis in order to identify the programs or to determine their
objectives, requirements, or goals.
[5] 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 [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92], appendixes II and III.
[6] For information on the estimated number of participants receiving
employment and training services, by program, see [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92], appendix IV.
[7] Officials provided estimates for the most recent year for which
data were available. Reported participant numbers for the Employment
Service program are for 2009, and reported participant numbers for the
WIA Adult program are for 2008.
[8] We also found that five of the six programs that target veterans
provide seven similar types of employment and training services, and
the five programs that target youth provide seven similar types of
employment and training services.
[9] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115.
[10] 25 U.S.C. §3403.
[11] This is part of the Administration's broader proposal to
consolidate 9 Rehabilitation Act programs administered by Education
into 3 programs. Some of these programs do not meet our definition of
an employment and training program.
[12] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92]. To
identify areas of potential duplication across the 47 programs, we
selected the TANF, Employment Service, and WIA Adult programs for more
in-depth analysis. We selected these three programs because our prior
work indicated they had the potential for duplication based on a high
degree of overlap, and they were also among the largest of the 47
programs in terms of the amount spent on employment and training
services.
[13] 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.
[14] To reduce dependency, TANF requires many cash assistance
recipients to participate in work activities such as subsidized
employment, on-the-job training, or community service.
[15] Labor's estimate likely understates the number of TANF recipients
served by the WIA Adult program, as the program collects information
on TANF receipt only if participants receive intensive or training
services. Further, HHS officials told us that data are not available
at the federal level on the total number of individuals who receive
TANF employment and training services because HHS lacks the legal
authority to require such reporting.
[16] Pub. L. No. 105-220, 112 Stat. 936 (1998).
[17] 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.
[18] 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.
[19] Unlike the JTPA adult program, WIA imposes no income eligibility
requirements for adults receiving any of its core services.
[20] 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.
[21] Pub. L. No. 105-220 §134(c)(2)(A), 112 Stat. 936, 993.
[22] 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 include 16
categories of required programs. For the purposes of this report, we
refer to these 16 categories of programs as "required programs."
[23] 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.
[24] 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).
[25] 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).
[26] Program year 2005 ran from July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006.
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1096].
[28] 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).
[29] 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 which
were identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce
development experts.
[30] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92].
[31] In Utah, the workforce agency administers the TANF program in its
entirety; in Florida and Texas the workforce system administers only
TANF employment and training services.
[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-92].
[33] However, agencies may currently have impact studies under way.
[34] The five impact studies identified by officials generally found
that the effects of participation were not consistent across programs,
with only some demonstrating positive impacts that tended to be small,
inconclusive, or restricted to short-term impacts.
[35] 29 U.S.C. § 2917(c).
[36] Carolyn J. Heinrich, Peter R. Mueser, and Kenneth R. Troske,
Workforce Investment Act Nonexperimental Net Impact Evaluation, Final
Report, December 2008. This nonexperimental study was a net impact
evaluation that used a closely matched comparison group design rather
than a random assignment design to assess the impact of the programs
on participants' postprogram earnings.
[37] The WIA impact study currently underway uses a random assignment
experimental design to assess programs' impacts on participants' post
program employment and earnings and their cost effectiveness.
[38] 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).
[39] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).
[40] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[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:
