Workforce Investment Act
Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization Gao ID: GAO-03-884T June 18, 2003This testimony highlights findings from today's report on strategies that exemplary one-stop centers have implemented to strengthen and integrate services for customers and to build a solid one-stop infrastructure. It also shares findings and recommendations from our past work on challenges that states and localities have experienced as they implement WIA, which may be helpful as WIA is reauthorized.
The workforce development system envisioned under WIA represents a fundamental shift from prior systems, and barely 3 years have passed since it was fully implemented. States and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to develop creative new approaches to providing services through their one-stop systems. In particular, a group of 14 one-stops, identified as exemplary by government officials and workforce development experts, developed promising strategies in several key areas. To streamline services for job seekers, they ensured that job seekers could readily access needed services, made sure that staff were knowledgeable about all of the one-stop services available, or consolidated case management and intake procedures. To engage and serve employers, the centers dedicated specialized staff to work with employers or industries, tailored services to meet specific employers' needs, or worked with employers through intermediaries. To build a solid one-stop infrastructure, the centers found innovative ways to develop and strengthen program partnerships and to raise additional funds beyond those provided under WIA. Our work on WIA implementation over the past 3 years has identified a number of issues that should be considered during WIA reauthorization. First, the performance measurement system is flawed--the need to meet certain performance measures may be causing one-stops to deny services to some clients who may most need them; there is no measure that assesses overall one-stop performance; and the outcome data are outdated by the time they are available and are not useful in day-to-day program management. Second, funding issues continue to plague officials. The funding formula used to allocate funds to states and local areas does not reflect current program design and often causes unwarranted fluctuations in funding levels from year to year. In addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support one-stop infrastructure, and developing equitable cost sharing agreements has not always been successful. Third, many training providers consider the current process for certifying their eligibility to be overly burdensome, resulting in reduced training options for job seekers as providers have declined to serve WIA-funded clients. Finally, state officials have told us that they need more help from Labor in the form of clearer guidance and greater opportunities to share promising practices in managing and providing services through their one-stop centers.
GAO-03-884T, Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-884T
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised
Strategies to Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for
Reauthorization' which was released on June 18, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and Training, Committee
on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Wednesday, June 18, 2003:
Workforce Investment Act:
Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to Strengthen Services, but
Challenges Remain for Reauthorization:
Statement of Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues:
GAO-03-884T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-884T, a testimony before the Committee on Health,
Education, Labor and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment, Safety and
Training, U.S. Senate
Why GAO Did This Study:
This testimony highlights findings from today‘s report on strategies
that exemplary one-stop centers have implemented to strengthen and
integrate services for customers and to build a solid one-stop
infrastructure. It also shares findings and recommendations from our
past work on challenges that states and localities have experienced as
they implement WIA, which may be helpful as WIA is reauthorized.
What GAO Found:
The workforce development system envisioned under WIA represents a
fundamental shift from prior systems, and barely 3 years have passed
since it was fully implemented. States and localities have found ways
to use the flexibility in WIA to develop creative new approaches to
providing services through their one-stop systems. In particular, a
group of 14 one-stops, identified as exemplary by government officials
and workforce development experts, developed promising strategies in
several key areas. To streamline services for job seekers, they
ensured that job seekers could readily access needed services, made
sure that staff were knowledgeable about all of the one-stop services
available, or consolidated case management and intake procedures. To
engage and serve employers, the centers dedicated specialized staff to
work with employers or industries, tailored services to meet specific
employers‘ needs, or worked with employers through intermediaries. To
build a solid one-stop infrastructure, the centers found innovative
ways to develop and strengthen program partnerships and to raise
additional funds beyond those provided under WIA.
Our work on WIA implementation over the past 3 years has identified a
number of issues that should be considered during WIA reauthorization.
First, the performance measurement system is flawed--the need to meet
certain performance measures may be causing one-stops to deny services
to some clients who may most need them; there is no measure that
assesses overall one-stop performance; and the outcome data are
outdated by the time they are available and are not useful in day-to-
day program management. Second, funding issues continue to plague
officials. The funding formula used to allocate funds to states and
local areas does not reflect current program design and often causes
unwarranted fluctuations in funding levels from year to year. In
addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support one-stop
infrastructure, and developing equitable cost sharing agreements has
not always been successful. Third, many training providers consider
the current process for certifying their eligibility to be overly
burdensome, resulting in reduced training options for job seekers as
providers have declined to serve WIA-funded clients. Finally, state
officials have told us that they need more help from Labor in the form
of clearer guidance and greater opportunities to share promising
practices in managing and providing services through their one-stop
centers.
What GAO Recommends:
Because little is known about whether promising one-stop service
delivery approaches are meeting customers‘ needs, we have recommended
that the Secretary of Labor collaborate with other federal agencies to
develop a research agenda that examines the impacts of these promising
approaches on one-stop customer satisfaction and outcomes. In
addition, we have recommended that the Secretary take steps to
alleviate problems pertaining to the WIA performance measurement
system, WIA allocation formulas and one-stop infrastructure funding,
and the process for certifying eligible training providers. Finally,
we have suggested that Labor provide clearer guidance and greater
opportunities for one-stop administrators to share promising practices
in one-stop service delivery and management.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-GAO-03-884T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen, (202)
512-7215, nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me here today to present the findings from our
recent work on the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). As you know, WIA
represented a significant departure from earlier job training programs.
Passed in 1998 and implemented by most states in July 2000, it was
designed to unify a fragmented employment and training system and
create a single, universal system--a one-stop system that could serve
the needs of all job seekers and employers. WIA sought to streamline
the delivery of federally funded employment and training services,
enabling job seekers to make informed choices among training providers
and course offerings, and enhancing the private-sector role in the
workforce system. WIA gave states and localities flexibility in
deciding how to implement the one-stop system, allowing local one-stops
to tailor their systems to local needs. Four separate federal agencies-
-the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), Education,
and Housing and Urban Development (HUD)--fund about 17 categories of
programs that are required to provide services through the one-stop
system. In addition to programs that are required to take part in the
new system, Labor encourages states and localities to include optional
partners, such as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), in
order to better meet the specific workforce development needs of their
local area. Labor takes a lead role in this new system and is
responsible for assessing the effectiveness of Labor-funded programs
and for providing guidance to states and localities as programs deliver
their services through the one-stop system.
Since WIA was enacted, we have issued numerous reports that addressed
state and local efforts related to WIA, including challenges in
implementing the new training provider system, new partnership
requirements, and the new performance measurement system, as well as
issues related to funding. While much of our past work has focused on
challenges pertaining to WIA implementation, today we are releasing a
report that examines how states and localities have used the
flexibility in WIA to develop promising approaches to streamline
jobseeker services, engage employers, and strengthen one-stop
infrastructure.[Footnote 1] My testimony today will discuss (1)
promising strategies to improve one-stop services and operations being
implemented by a group of 14 one-stop centers that were identified as
exemplary and (2) challenges identified in our previous work that
states and localities have faced in implementing WIA.
In summary, in the barely 3 years since the full implementation of WIA,
states and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to
develop creative new ways to improve their one-stop systems. In
particular, a group of 14 one-stops, identified as exemplary by
government officials and workforce development experts, developed
promising strategies in the key areas of streamlining services for job
seekers, engaging and serving employers, and building a solid one-stop
infrastructure. However, despite the successes state and local
officials are having as they implement WIA and continue to build
relationships among the myriad partners in this new, and dramatically
different system, challenges remain. First, the performance measurement
system is flawed, causing some one-stops to deny services to some
clients who may be most in need of them. Moreover, outcome data are
outdated and are, therefore, not useful for day-to-day program
management. Second, funding issues also continue to plague the system.
The funding formulas used to allocate funds to states and local areas
do not reflect current program design and has caused wide and
unwarranted fluctuations in funding levels from year to year. In
addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support one-stop
infrastructure, and developing equitable cost sharing agreements has
not always been successful. Third, many training providers consider the
current provisions for certifying their eligibility to be overly
burdensome, which may reduce training options for job seekers as
providers have withdrawn from the WIA system. Finally, state officials
have told us that they need more help from Labor in the form of clearer
guidance and instructions and greater opportunities to share promising
practices in managing and providing services through their one-stop
centers.
Background:
The Workforce Investment Act created a new, comprehensive workforce
investment system designed to change the way employment and training
services are delivered. When WIA was enacted in 1998, it replaced the
Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) with three new programs--Adult,
Dislocated Worker, and Youth--that allow for a broader range of
services, including job search assistance, assessment, and training for
eligible individuals.[Footnote 2] In addition to establishing three new
programs, WIA requires that a number of other employment-related
services be provided through a one-stop system, designed to make
employment and training services easier for job seeker customers to
access. WIA also requires that the one-stop system engage the employer
customer by helping employers identify and recruit skilled workers.
While WIA gives states and localities flexibility in implementing these
requirements, the law emphasizes that the one-stop system should be a
customer-focused and comprehensive system. Such a system gives job
seekers the job search and support services they need and provides
services that better meet employers' needs. (See fig. 1.):
Figure 1: One-Stop Customers Include Job Seekers and Employers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The major hallmark of WIA is the consolidation of services through the
one-stop center system. Seventeen categories of programs--termed
"mandatory partners"--with appropriations totaling over $15 billion
from four separate federal agencies, are required to provide services
through the system. (See table 1.):
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory Programs, Their Related Federal Agencies, and
Fiscal Year 2003 Program Appropriations:
Federal agency: Department of Labor; Mandatory program: WIA Adult;
Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: $898,778,000.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: WIA Dislocated Worker; Fiscal Year
2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 1,461,145,495.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: WIA Youth; Fiscal Year 2003
appropriations: Federal agency: 994,458,728.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser);
Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 756,783,723.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Trade adjustment assistance
programs; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 972,000,000.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Veterans' employment and training
programs; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 167,199,097.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Unemployment Insurance; Fiscal Year
2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 2,634,253,000.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Job Corps; Fiscal Year 2003
appropriations: Federal agency: 1,522,240,700.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Welfare-to-Work grant-funded
programs; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 0.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Senior Community Service Employment
Program; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 442,306,200.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Employment and training for migrant
and seasonal farm workers; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations: Federal
agency: 77,330,066.
Mandatory program: Federal agencyDepartment of Education: Employment
and training for Native Americans; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations:
Federal agency: Department of Education: 55,636,000.
Federal agency: Department of Education; Mandatory program: Vocational
Rehabilitation Program; Fiscal Year 2003 appropriations:
2,506,948,000.
Mandatory program: Federal agency: Adult Education and Literacy; Fiscal
Year 2003 appropriations: Federal agency: 571,262,500.
Mandatory program: Federal agencyDepartment of Health and Human
Services (HHS): Vocational Education (Perkins Act); Fiscal Year 2003
appropriations: Federal agencyDepartment of Health and Human Services
(HHS): 1,513,170,925.
Federal agency: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS);
Mandatory program: Community Services Block Grant; Fiscal Year 2003
appropriations: 645,762,085.
Federal agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
Mandatory program: HUD-administered employment and training; Fiscal
Year 2003 appropriations: 65,000,000.
Federal agency: Total; Mandatory program: [Empty]; Fiscal Year 2003
appropriations: $15,284,274,519.
Source: U.S. General Accounting Office, Multiple Employment and
Training Programs: Funding and Performance Measures for Major Programs,
GAO-03-589 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 18, 2003) and Labor.
[End of table]
WIA allows flexibility in the way these mandatory partners provide
services through the one-stop system, allowing co-location in one
building, electronic linkages, or referrals to off-site partner
programs. While WIA requires these mandatory partners to participate,
WIA did not provide additional funds to operate one-stop systems and
support one-stop partnerships. As a result, mandatory partners are
expected to share the costs of developing and operating one-stop
centers.
Beyond the mandatory partners, one-stop centers have the flexibility to
include other partners in the one-stop system. Labor suggests that
these additional, or optional partners, may help one-stop systems
better meet specific state and local workforce development needs. These
optional partners may include TANF[Footnote 3] or local private
organizations. States have the option of mandating particular optional
partners to participate in their one-stop systems. For example, in
2001, 28 states had formal agreements between TANF and WIA to involve
TANF in the one-stop system.[Footnote 4] In addition, localities may
adopt other partners to meet the specific needs of the community.
About $3.3 billion was appropriated in fiscal year 2003 for the three
WIA programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and Youth. The formulas for
distributing these funds to the states were left largely unchanged from
those used to distribute funds under JTPA and are based on such factors
as unemployment rates, including the number of long-term unemployed,
and the relative number of low-income adults and youth in the
population. In order to receive their full funding allocation, states
must demonstrate the effectiveness of their three WIA programs by
tracking and reporting a variety of performance measures. These
performance measures gauge program results in the areas of job
placement and retention, earnings change, skill attainment and customer
satisfaction. WIA requires states to use Unemployment Insurance (UI)
wage records to gather this information about WIA
participants.[Footnote 5] States are held accountable by Labor for
their performance in these areas and may suffer financial sanctions if
they fail to meet their expected performance standards. WIA did not
establish any comprehensive measures to assess the overall performance
of the one-stop system.
WIA also requires that training providers wishing to serve individuals'
training needs through WIA's Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs meet
key data reporting requirements, including completion rates, job
placement rates, and wages at placement for all students they serve,
including those not funded under WIA. WIA requires the collection of
these outcome data so that job seekers receiving training can use them
to make more informed choices about training providers. Unlike prior
systems, WIA requires that individuals eligible for training under the
Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs receive vouchers--called
Individual Training Accounts--which they can use for the training
provider and course offering of their choice, within certain
limitations. WIA also requires these data so that states and localities
can assess training providers' performance. For example, a state might
only allow training providers' courses with an 80-percent completion
rate to remain on the training provider list. If a course fails to meet
that level, it would no longer be allowed to serve WIA-funded
individuals.
Finally, WIA called for the development of workforce investment boards
to oversee WIA implementation at the state and local levels. At the
state level, WIA requires, among other things, that the workforce
investment board assist the governor in helping to set up the system,
establish procedures and processes for ensuring accountability, and
designate local workforce investment areas. WIA also requires that
boards be established within each of the local workforce investment
areas to carry out the formal agreements developed between the boards
and each partner and oversee one-stop operations. WIA requires that
private-sector representatives chair the boards and make up the
majority of board members. This is to help ensure that the private
sector is able to provide information on the available employment
opportunities and expanding career fields and help develop ways to
close the gap between job seekers and labor market needs.
States and Localities Have Embraced WIA's Flexibility to Develop
Promising Approaches to Serving Job Seekers and Employers:
States and localities have found ways to use the flexibility in WIA to
develop creative new ways to serve job seekers and employers. In
particular, a group of 14 one-stops, identified as exemplary by
government officials and workforce development experts for our study of
promising one-stop approaches, has developed strategies for
streamlining services for job seekers, engaging and serving employers,
and building a solid one-stop infrastructure.[Footnote 6] All of the 14
centers in the study streamlined services for jobseekers by ensuring
that they can readily access needed services, by educating program
staff about all of the one-stop services available to job seekers, or
by consolidating case management and intake procedures. In addition, to
engage employers and provide them needed services, all of the centers
used strategies that included dedicating specialized staff to work with
employers or industries, tailoring services to meet specific employers'
needs, or working with employers through intermediaries, such as
Chambers of Commerce or economic development entities. Finally, to
provide the infrastructure needed to support better services for job
seekers and employers, many of the one-stops we visited found
innovative ways to develop and strengthen program partnerships and to
raise additional funds beyond those provided under WIA. (Figure 2 shows
the locations of the 14 one-stop centers we visited.):
Figure 2: GAO Site Visits to One-Stop Centers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Selected One-Stops Used Strategies to Streamline Services for Job
Seekers:
All of the one-stop centers in our recent study focused their efforts
on streamlining services for job seekers by ensuring that job seekers
could readily access needed services, educating program staff about all
of the one-stop services available to job seekers, or consolidating
case management and intake procedures. To ensure that job seekers could
readily access needed services, one-stops we visited allocated staff to
help them navigate the one-stop system, provided support to customers
with transportation barriers, and expanded services for one-stop
customers. For example, managers in Erie, Pennsylvania, positioned a
staff person at the entrance to the one-stop to help job seekers
entering the center find needed services and to assist exiting job
seekers if they did not receive the services they sought. In addition
to improving access to one-stop center services on-site, some of the
one-stops we visited found ways to serve job seekers who may have been
unable to come into the one-stop center due to transportation barriers
or other issues. For example, in Boston, Massachusetts, the one-stop
placed staff in off-site locations, including family courts,
correctional facilities, and welfare offices, to give job seekers ready
access to employment and program information. Finally, one-stops also
improved job seeker access to services by expanding partnerships to
include optional service providers--those beyond the program partners
mandated by WIA. These optional partners ranged from federally funded
programs, such as TANF, to community-based organizations providing
services tailored to meet the needs of local job seekers. The one-stop
in Dayton, Ohio, was particularly proactive in forming optional
partnerships to meet job seekers' service needs. At the time of our
visit, the Dayton one-stop had over 30 optional partners on-site.
To educate program staff about one-stop services, centers used cross-
training sessions in order to inform staff about the range of services
available at the one-stop. Cross-training activities ranged from
conducting monthly educational workshops to a shadow program to help
staff become familiar with other programs' rules and operations.
Officials in Salt Lake City, Utah, reported that cross-training
improved staff understanding of programs outside their area of
expertise and enhanced their ability to make referrals. The Pikeville,
Kentucky, one-stop supported cross-training workshops in which one-stop
staff from different partner programs educated each other about the
range of services they could provide. After learning about the other
programs, Pikeville staff collaboratively designed a service delivery
flow chart that effectively routed job seekers to the appropriate
service providers, providing a clear entry point and a clear path from
one program to another. In addition, the Vocational Rehabilitation
staff at the Pikeville one-stop told us that cross-training other
program staff about the needs of special populations enabled them to
more accurately identify hidden disabilities and to better refer
disabled customers to the appropriate services.
Centers also sought to reduce the duplication of effort across programs
and the burden on job seekers navigating multiple programs by
consolidating case management and intake procedures across programs
through the use of shared service plans for customers and shared
computer networks. Ten of the 14 one-stops we visited consolidated
their intake processes or case management systems. This consolidation
took many forms, including having case workers from different programs
work as a team developing service plans for customers to having a
shared computer network across programs. For example, in Blaine,
Minnesota, caseworkers from the various one-stop programs met regularly
to collaborate in developing and implementing joint service plans for
customers who were co-enrolled in multiple programs. To efficiently
coordinate multiple services for one-stop customers in Erie,
Pennsylvania, one-stop staff used a networked computer system with a
shared case management program, so that all relevant one-stop program
staff could share access to a customer's service plan and case file. In
Kansas City, Missouri, the Youth Opportunity Program and the WIA Youth
Program staff shared intake and used a combined enrollment form to
alleviate the burden of multiple intake and assessment forms when
registering participants.
Selected One-Stops Developed Strategies to Engage and Provide Services
to Employers:
All of the one-stops we visited engaged and served employers by
dedicating specialized staff to establish relationships with employers
or industries, by working with employers through intermediaries, or by
providing specially tailored services to meet employers' specific
workforce needs. One-stop officials told us that engaging employers was
critical to successfully connecting job seekers with available jobs. In
order to encourage employers' participation in the one-stop system,
specialized staff outreached to individual employers and served as
employers' primary point of contact for accessing one-stop services.
For example, the one-stop in Killeen, Texas, dedicated specialized
staff to serve not only as the central point of contact for receiving
calls and requests from employers but also to identify job openings
available through employers in the community. In addition to working
with individual employers, staff at some of the one-stops we visited
also worked with industry clusters, or groups of related employers, to
more efficiently meet local labor demands--particularly for industries
with labor shortages. For instance, the one-stop in Aurora, Colorado,
dedicated staff to work with specific industries, particularly the
healthcare industry. In response to a shortage of 1,600 nurses in the
Denver metro area, the Aurora one-stop assisted in the creation of a
healthcare recruitment center designed to provide job seekers with job
placement assistance and healthcare-related training.
In addition to dedicating specialized staff, all of the one-stops we
visited worked with intermediaries to engage and serve employers.
Intermediaries, such as a local Chamber of Commerce or an economic
development entity, served as liaisons between employers and the one-
stop system, helping one-stops to assess the workforce needs of
employers while connecting employers with one-stop services. For
example, the one-stop staff in Clarksville, Tennessee, worked with
Chamber of Commerce members to help banks in the community that were
having difficulty finding entry-level employees with the necessary math
skills. To help connect job seekers with available job openings at
local banks, the one-stop developed a training opportunity for job
seekers that was funded by Chamber members and was targeted to the
specific skills needed for employment in the banking community.
Specialized staff at many of the one-stops we visited also worked with
local economic development entities to recruit new businesses to the
area. For example, the staff at the Erie, Pennsylvania, one-stop worked
with a range of local economic development organizations to establish
an employer outreach program that developed incentive packages to
attract new businesses to the community.
Finally, all of the one-stops we visited tailored their services to
meet employers' specific workforce needs by offering an array of job
placement and training assistance designed for each employer. These
services included specialized recruiting, pre-screening, and
customized training programs. For example, when one of the nation's
largest cabinet manufacturers was considering opening a new facility in
the eastern Kentucky area, the one-stop in Pikeville, Kentucky, offered
a tailored set of services to attract the employer to the area. The
services included assisting the company with pre-screening and
interviewing applicants and establishing an on-the-job training package
that could use WIA funding to offset up to 50 percent of each new
hire's wages during the 90-day training period. The Pikeville one-stop
had responsibility for administering the application and assessment
process for job applicants, including holding a 3-day job fair that
resulted in the company hiring 105 people through the one-stop and a
commitment to hire 350 more in the upcoming year. According to a
company representative, the incentive package offered by the one-stop
was the primary reason the company chose to build a new facility in
eastern Kentucky instead of another location.
One-Stop Centers Built a Solid Infrastructure by Strengthening Program
Partnerships and Raising Additional Funds:
To build the solid infrastructure needed to support better services for
job seekers and employers, many of the one-stops we visited developed
and strengthened program partnerships and raised funds beyond those
provided under WIA. Operators at 9 of the 14 one-stops we visited
fostered the development of strong program partnerships by encouraging
communication and collaboration among partners through functional teams
and joint projects. Collaboration through teams and joint projects
allowed partners to better integrate their respective programs and
services, as well as pursue common one-stop goals and share in one-stop
decision-making. For example, partners at the Erie, Pennsylvania, one-
stop center were organized into four functional teams--a career
resource center team, a job seeker services team, an employer services
team, and an operations team--which together operated the one-stop
center. As a result of the functional team meetings, partners reported
that they worked together to solve problems and develop innovative
strategies to improve services in their respective functional area.
One-stop managers at several of the sites in our study told us that the
co-location of partner programs in one building facilitated the
development of strong partnerships. For this reason, one-stop managers
at several of the centers reported that they fostered co-location by
offering attractive physical space and flexible rental agreements. For
example, in Pikeville, Kentucky, the local community college donated
free space to the one-stop on its conveniently located campus, making
it easier to convince partners to relocate there. Partners were also
eager to relocate to the Pikeville one-stop because they recognized the
benefits of co-location for their customers. For instance, staff from
the Vocational Rehabilitation Program said that co-location at the one-
stop increased their customers' access to employers and employment-
related services. Several one-stops that did not co-locate found ways
to create strong linkages with off-site partners. For example, in
addition to regular meetings between on-site and off-site staff, the
one-stop in Aurora, Colorado, had a staff person designated to act as a
liaison and facilitate communication between on-site and off-site
partners. Nationwide, co-location of partner services has been
increasing since WIA was enacted. For example, in 2000, 21 states
reported that Education's Vocational Rehabilitation Program was co-
located at the majority of their one-stops; this number increased to 35
states by 2001. Similarly, TANF work services were co-located in at
least some one-stops in 32 states in 2000, increasing to 39 states by
2001.
Managers at all but 2 of the 14 one-stops we visited said that they
were finding ways to creatively increase one-stop funds through fee-
based services, grants, or contributions from partner programs and
state or local governments. Managers said these additional funds
allowed them to cover operational costs and expand services despite
limited WIA funding to support one-stop infrastructure and restrictions
on the use of program funds. For example, one-stop operators in
Clarksville, Tennessee, reported that they raised $750,000 in fiscal
year 2002 through a combination of fee-based business consulting, drug
testing, and drivers' education services. Using this money, the center
was able to purchase a new voicemail and computer network system, which
facilitated communication among staff and streamlined center
operations.[Footnote 7] Centers have also been proactive about applying
for grants from public and private sources. For example, 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 its entire program year 2002 operating budget of $21 million
through competitive grants available from the federal government as
well as from private foundations. This money allowed the center to
expand its services, such as through an internship program in high-tech
industries for at-risk youth. One-stop centers also raised additional
funds by soliciting contributions from local or state government and
from partner agencies. For instance, the Dayton, Ohio, one-stop
received $1 million annually from the county to pay for shared one-stop
staff salaries and to provide services to job seekers who do not
qualify for services under any other funding stream. Dayton one-stop
partners also contributed financial and in-kind resources to the center
on an as-needed basis.
Despite Successes, Some Aspects of WIA Have Stymied Officials' Efforts
to Implement WIA as Intended:
Despite the successes state and local officials are having as they
implement WIA, some key aspects of the law, as well as Labor's lack of
clear guidance in some areas, have stymied their efforts. First, the
performance measurement system is flawed--the need to meet certain
performance measures may be causing one-stops to deny services to some
clients who may be most in need of them; there is no measure that
assesses overall one-stop performance; and the data used to measure
outcomes are outdated by the time they are available and are,
therefore, not useful in day-to-day program management. Second, funding
issues continue to plague the system. The funding formulas used to
allocate funds to states and local areas do not reflect current program
design and has caused wide fluctuations in funding levels from year to
year. In addition, WIA provided no separate funding source to support
one-stop infrastructure and developing equitable cost sharing
agreements has not always been successful, largely because of the
limitations in the way funds for some of the mandatory programs can be
spent. Third, the current provision for certifying training providers
as eligible is considered overly burdensome by many providers and may
reduce training options for job seekers as providers have withdrawn
from the WIA system. Finally, state officials have told us that they
need more help from Labor in the form of clearer guidance and
instructions and greater opportunities to share promising practices in
managing and providing services through their one-stop centers.
WIA's Performance Measurement System May Be Causing Some Clients to Be
Denied Services and Does Not Provide an Accurate Picture of WIA's
Effectiveness:
The performance measurement system developed under WIA may be causing
some clients to be denied services and does not allow for an accurate
understanding of WIA's effectiveness. First, the need to meet
performance levels may be the driving factor in deciding who receives
WIA-funded services at the local level. Officials in all five states we
visited for one study told us that local areas are not registering many
WIA participants, largely because local staff are reluctant to provide
WIA-funded services to job seekers who may be less likely to find
employment or experience earnings increases when they are placed in a
job.[Footnote 8] For example, one state official described how local
areas were carefully screening potential participants and holding
meetings to decide whether to register them. As a result, individuals
who are eligible for and may benefit from WIA-funded services may not
be receiving services that are tracked under WIA. We found similar
results in our studies of older workers and incumbent workers.[Footnote
9]
Performance levels for the measures that track earnings change for
adults and earnings replacement for dislocated workers may be
especially problematic. Several state officials reported that local
staff were reluctant to register already employed adults or dislocated
workers. State and local officials explained that it would be hard to
increase the earnings of adults who are already employed or replace the
wages of dislocated workers, who are often laid off from high-paying,
low-skilled jobs or from jobs that required skills that are now
obsolete. In addition, for dislocated workers, employers may provide
severance pay or workers might work overtime prior to a plant closure,
increasing these workers' earnings before they are dislocated. Many
dislocated workers who come to the one-stop center, therefore, have
earned high wages just prior to being dislocated, making it hard to
replace --let alone increase --their earnings. If high wages are earned
before dislocation and lower wages are earned after job placement
through WIA, the wage change will be negative, depressing the wage
replacement level. As a result, a local area may not meet its
performance level for this measure, discouraging service to those who
may need it.
Second, outcomes are measured largely using unemployment insurance (UI)
wage data, but these data suffer from time delays of up to as much as
14 months, making the data outdated by the time they are available. For
example, we asked states in a survey we conducted in 2001, how quickly
job placement outcome data would be available to them from UI wage
records. We found that for 30 states, the earliest time period that job
placement data would be available was 6 months after an individual
entered employment, with 15 states reporting that it may take 9 months
or longer. Similarly, over half of states reported that obtaining the
necessary information on employment retention could take a year or
longer. In fact, current available data on the wage-related measures
reflects performance from the previous program year. While UI wage
records are the best data source currently available for documenting
employment, the lack of timely data makes it difficult for state and
local officials to use the performance measures for short-term program
management, including improving one-stop services. Some states and
localities have developed other means, sometimes adding additional
performance measures, to fill this information gap.
Finally, there are no measures to gauge the performance of the one-stop
system as a whole. At least 17 programs provide services through the
one-stop system and most have their own performance measures. Although
these performance measures may be used for assessing outcomes for
individual programs, they cannot be used to measure the success of the
overall system. For example, no program has a measure to track job
seekers who use only self-service or informational activities offered
through the one-stop, which may constitute a large proportion of job
seekers. Not knowing how many job seekers use the one-stop's services
limits the one-stop's ability to assess its impact. Furthermore, state
and local officials told us that having multiple performance measures
has impeded coordination among programs. There has been limited
progress in developing overall performance measures for the one-stop
system. Labor convened a working group in September 2001 to develop
indicators of the one-stop system's performance, but they have not yet
issued them.
Funding the System Envisioned under WIA Is Hampered by Flawed Funding
Formulas and the Lack of a Specific Funding Source for the One-Stop
Infrastructure:
As states and localities have implemented WIA, they have been hampered
by funding issues, including flawed funding formulas and the lack of a
funding source dedicated specifically to the one-stop infrastructure.
We identified several issues associated with the current formulas.
Formula factors used to allocate funds are not aligned with the target
populations for these programs, there are time lags in the data used to
determine these allocations, and there is excessive funding volatility
associated with the Dislocated Worker Program that is unrelated to
fluctuations in the target populations. As a result, states' funding
levels may not always be consistent with their actual need for
services. In addition, no funding source exists with which to fund the
one-stop infrastructure, and the volatile funding levels that states
have experienced in the past 3 years have limited their ability to plan
and develop their one-stop systems under WIA.
Formulas Used to Allocate Funds Have Limitations:
Some of the factors used in the formulas to allocate funds are not
clearly aligned with the programs' target populations.[Footnote 10] For
example, the Youth program targets a specific group of low-income youth
with certain barriers to employment. However, two-thirds of its funds
are distributed based on two factors that measure general unemployment
rather than youth unemployment. The remaining third is distributed
according to the number of low-income youth in states, but even this
factor does not measure low-income youth who face barriers to
employment. The target population and formula for the WIA Adult program
also are misaligned. Basic services provided through the Adult program
are open to all adults regardless of income, while low-income adults
and public assistance recipients have priority for training and other
more intensive services. However, the WIA Adult allocation formula is
more narrowly focused on states' relative shares of excess
unemployment, unemployment in Areas of Substantial Unemployment (ASUs),
and low-income adults. Finally, the Dislocated Worker Program is
targeted to several specific categories of individuals, including those
eligible for unemployment insurance and workers affected by mass
layoffs. The factors used to distribute Dislocated Worker funds are
not, however, specifically related to these populations. Two-thirds of
program funds are distributed according to factors that measure general
unemployment. One-third is distributed according to the number of long-
term unemployed, a group that is no longer automatically eligible for
the program.
In addition to formula misalignment, allocations may not reflect
current labor market conditions because there are time lags between
when the data are collected and when the allocations are available to
states. The oldest data are those used in the Youth and Adult program
formulas to measure the relative numbers of low-income individuals in
the states. The decennial Census is the source for these data, and
allocations under this factor through 2002 are based on data from the
1990 Census. The data used to measure two of three factors for both the
Youth and Adult programs are more recent, but are still as much as 12
months out of date. The time lags for the data used to calculate
Dislocated Worker allocations range from 9 months to 18 months.
Finally, funding for the Dislocated Worker Program suffers from
excessive and unwarranted volatility--significantly more volatile, as
much as 3 times more so, than funding for either the Youth or Adult
program. Some states have reported that this volatility makes program
planning difficult. While some degree of change in funding is to be
expected due to changing dislocations in the workforce, changes in
funding do not necessarily correspond to these changes. For example,
changes in the numbers of workers affected by mass layoffs from year to
year--one measure of dislocation activity--ran counter to changes in
Dislocated Worker allocations in several states we examined. In New
York, for example, dislocations due to mass layoffs increased by 138
percent in 2001, but funding allocations that year decreased by 26
percent. Conversely, in 1999, New York's dislocations decreased by 34
percent, while funding allocations actually increased by 24 percent.
Several aspects of the Dislocated Worker formula contribute to funding
volatility and to the seeming lack of consistency between dislocation
and funding. The excess unemployment factor has a "threshold" effect--
states may or may not qualify for the one-third of funds allocated
under this factor in a given year, based on whether or not they meet
the threshold condition of having at least 4.5 percent unemployment
statewide. As a result, small changes in unemployment can cause large
changes in funding, and when the economy is strong and few states have
unemployment over 4.5 percent, the states that do qualify for this pot
of funds may experience large funding increases even if their
unemployment falls. In addition, the Dislocated Worker formula is not
subject to the additional statutory provisions that mitigate volatility
in Youth and Adult program funding. These provisions include "hold
harmless" and "stop gain" constraints that limit changes in funding to
within 90 and 130 percent of each state's prior year allocation and
also "small state minimums" that ensure that each state receives at
least 0.25 percent of the total national allocation. While these
provisions prevent dramatic shifts in funding from year to year, they
also result in allocations that may not as closely track changes in the
program target populations.
Developing alternative funding formulas to address the issues we have
identified is an important but challenging task. This task is
complicated by the need to strike an appropriate balance among various
objectives, such as using formula factors that are best aligned with
program target populations and reducing time lags in data sources,
while also using available data sources to measure these factors as
accurately as possible. In addition, there have been proposals for
reauthorizing WIA that would substantially modify the program target
populations and funding streams, which in turn would have consequences
for revising the funding formulas.
Funding One-Stop Infrastructure Has Been Challenging:
Many of WIA's mandatory partners have identified resource constraints
as a major factor in their ability to participate in the one-stops. In
fact, the participants in a GAO-sponsored symposium[Footnote 11]
identified insufficient funding levels as one of the top three WIA
implementation problems. Labor also found that in many states, the
agencies that administer the Employment Service program had not yet
been able to co-locate within the one-stops. We were told by Employment
Service officials and one-stop administrators we spoke with that this
was often because they still had leases on existing facilities and
could not afford to incur the costs of breaking those leases. Limited
funding made it even more difficult to assign additional personnel to
the one-stop or to devote resources to developing electronic linkages
with the one-stop. In the states we visited, mandatory partners told us
that limited funding was a primary reason that, even when they co-
located staff at the one-stop, they did so on a limited basis. As a
result, mandatory partners had to employ a wide range of methods to
provide the required support for the operation of the one-stops. Across
all the sites we visited for an early implementation study, WIA's Adult
and Dislocated Worker programs and, across most sites, Employment
Service, were the only partners consistently making monetary
contributions to pay for the one-stops' operational costs. Other
mandatory partners tended to make in-kind contributions--for example,
Perkins and Adult Education and Literacy partners provided computer or
GED training.
Mandatory partners also noted that restrictions on the use of their
funds can serve as another constraint affecting their ability to
contribute resources to the one-stops. Some programs have caps on
administrative spending that affect their ability to contribute to the
support of the one-stop's operations. For example, WIA's Adult and
Dislocated Worker programs have a 10-percent administrative cap that
supports both the one-stops' operation and board staff at the local
level. In addition, as we have reported in the past, regulations often
prohibit states from using federal program funds for acquisition of
real property or for construction.[Footnote 12] This means partners,
such as those carrying out Perkins, cannot provide funds to buy or
refurbish a one-stop building. Moreover, Adult Education and Literacy
and Perkins officials noted that under WIA they can only use federal
funds for the purpose of supporting the one-stop, though only a small
portion of their funds come from federal sources.
WIA's System for Certifying Training Providers May Reduce Training
Options for Job Seekers:
Training options for job seekers may be diminishing rather than
improving, as training providers reduce the number of course offerings
they make available to WIA job seekers.[Footnote 13] According to
training providers, the data collection burden resulting from
participation in WIA can be significant and may discourage them from
participating. For example, the requirement that training providers
collect outcome data on all students in a class may mean calling
hundreds of students to obtain placement and wage information, even if
there is only one WIA-funded student in that class. Even if they used
other methods that may be less resource-intensive, training providers
said privacy restrictions might limit their ability to collect or
report student outcome data. Training providers also highlighted the
burden associated with the lack of consistency between the states use
for WIA and for other mandatory partners. For example, the definition a
state establishes for "program completer" for students enrolled in WIA
can be different from the definition a state establishes for students
enrolled in Education's Carl D. Perkins Vocational Education Program
(Perkins). Training providers find the reporting requirements
particularly burdensome given the relatively small number of
individuals who have been sent for training. Guidance from Labor and
Education has failed to address how training providers can provide this
information cost-effectively.
States and Localities Seek More Help from Labor:
In addition to challenges arising from implementing portions of the
law, state and local officials often cite the need for more help from
Labor in terms of clearer guidance and definitions and greater
opportunities for information sharing. Although Labor has provided
broad guidance and technical assistance to aid the transition from JTPA
to WIA, some workforce officials have told us that the guidance has not
addressed specific implementation concerns. Efforts to design flexible
programs that meet local needs could be enhanced if Labor addressed the
concerns of workforce officials with specific guidance and disseminated
information on best practices in a timely manner. A number of our
studies have recommended that Labor be more proactive and provide
better guidance and clearer definitions:
* on participant registration policies and on performance measure
definitions to allow for accurate outcome tracking and better program
accountability[Footnote 14]
* on how to better administer the WIA dislocated worker program,
including how to provide additional assistance to local areas using
rapid response funds[Footnote 15]
* on how to more effectively administer the WIA youth program,
including how to recruit and engage parents, youth, and the business
community; improve competition in contracts for services to youth;
determine eligibility; and retain out-of-school youth[Footnote 16]
* on a definition of unliquidated obligations so that it includes funds
committed at the point of service delivery, specifies what constitutes
an obligation and the timeframe for recording an obligation in order to
improve financial reporting.[Footnote 17]
Labor has taken limited steps to respond to these recommendations. It
has released revised guidance on the performance measurement system and
has allowed states to revise their negotiated performance levels, which
may address possible disincentives to serving certain job seekers.
Labor is also currently finalizing guidance for state and local areas
on services for dislocated workers. In response to our recommendations
pertaining to the WIA Youth Program, Labor agreed to issue a toolkit on
effective youth councils; reach out to new providers to enhance
competition; simplify eligibility documentation; and develop a best
practices Web site on serving out-of-school youth. In addition, Labor
agreed with our findings and recommendations related to providing
clearer definitions of unliquidated obligations; however, it declined
to consider obligations in assessing WIA's financial position. Finally,
Labor has convened a one-stop readiness workgroup that included
representatives from Education, HHS, and HUD. This group has developed
a set of suggested strategies for addressing major WIA implementation
issues and plans to disseminate a national issuance, signed by the
heads of all the federal partner agencies, that would emphasize the
commitment of these federal partners to the one-stop system.
We have also recommended that Labor be more proactive in sharing
various promising practices to help states and localities still
struggling with implementation challenges. Our reports have recommended
that Labor share promising practices in areas that include cost-
effective methods of collecting training provider information,
addressing the difficulties of using UI data in measuring outcomes,
better ways to coordinate services for TANF clients through the one-
stop, and better spending management strategies.
While Labor has developed several mechanisms for providing guidance and
allowing local one-stop administrators to share best practice
information, these efforts have been limited. Labor is establishing a
new unit within ETA--the Office of Performance and Results--whose
function will be to coordinate efforts to identify and share promising
approaches in areas such as the use of supplemental data sources to
close gaps in UI data. In addition, Labor's primary mechanisms for
distributing information about promising practices at one-stop centers
are a Web site, forums, and conferences. The promising practices Web
site, in particular, represents a good step toward building a mechanism
to support information sharing among one-stop administrators. However,
neither Labor nor the Web site's administrators have conducted a
customer satisfaction survey or user evaluation of the site, so little
is known about how well the site currently meets its objective to
promote information sharing about promising practices at one-stop
centers. In addition to the Web site, Labor cosponsors several national
conferences to promote information sharing and networking opportunities
for state and local grantees and stakeholders. Labor also hosted
several forums during WIA implementation to allow information exchanges
to occur between the department and state and local one-stop
administrators. While these conferences and forums provide a venue for
one-stop managers to talk with one another about what is and is not
working at their centers, participation is limited to those who can
physically take part.
Concluding Observations:
WIA represents a fundamental shift in the way federally funded
employment and training services are delivered to job seekers and
employers. It was, perhaps, a far more radical change than it initially
appeared. But, in just under 3 years, states and localities have
learned to embrace its flexibility, developing systems that meet local
needs. They are doing what WIA envisioned--bringing on new partnerships
and forging new relationships at all levels. They are actively working
to engage the employer community and involve intermediaries and others
to address the economic development needs of local communities. The
process of implementation has not been perfect, but it is moving
forward. Some aspects of the law that have caused difficulties may
deserve attention during reauthorization. But, given the significant
changes brought about by WIA, more time may be needed to allow a better
assessment of what is working and what is not before making major
changes in WIA's structure.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
GAO Contact and Acknowledgments:
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Sigurd R.
Nilsen at (202) 512-7215. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Dianne Blank, Elisabeth Anderson, Katrina Ryan, and
Tamara Harris.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Issues Related to Allocation Formulas for
Youth, Adults, and Dislocated Workers. GAO-03-636. Washington, D.C.:
April 25, 2003.
Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Funding and Performance
Measures for Major Programs. GAO-03-589. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2003.
Food Stamp Employment and Training Program: Better Data Needed to
Understand Who Is Served and What the Program Achieves. GAO-03-388.
Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,
D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development.
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. GAO/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies
to Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and
Information Sharing is Needed, GAO-03-725 (Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2003).
[2] While WIA was enacted in 1998, states were not required to
implement major provisions of WIA until July 1, 2000, when JTPA's
repeal was effective.
[3] TANF provides low-income families with income support and
employment-related assistance.
[4] For more information on TANF participation in one-stop centers, see
GAO-02-739T.
[5] In some cases, supplemental data sources may be used when UI data
are not available.
[6] The centers in our study represented a geographic and demographic
mix, ranged from rural to urban, and served from 500 to 42,500
customers each month. Some of the sites, such as Kansas City, Missouri,
represented a mix of urban, suburban, and rural customers. They also
represented a mix of one-stop operators--those responsible for
administering the one-stop centers--including nonprofit organizations,
a consortium of one-stop partners, and local government entities.
[7] While several centers had enthusiastically adopted fee-based
services as a method of raising funds, it is important to note that
managers of at least one center said they chose not to charge for
services because they believed this might deter some employers or job
seekers from accessing the services they need.
[8] See, Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance
Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness,
GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).
[9] See, for example, Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs
Focus on Business Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve
Access for Some Workers, GAO-03-353 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2003);
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Job and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services, GAO-03-350 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 24, 2003).
[10] The formulas for distributing these funds to the states were left
largely unchanged from those used to distribute funds under JTPA.
[11] The symposium included officials from the key associations
representing state and local implementers, such as the National
Association of Workforce Boards and the American Association of
Community Colleges.
[12] See Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address
Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO-02-72, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 4,
2001).
[13] The most recently available data on the proportion of WIA job
seekers who receive training shows an overall decline from JTPA
figures. During program year 2001, 43 percent of participants who
exited the adult and dislocated worker programs had received training
under WIA. By comparison, during program year 1998, 73 percent of JTPA
exiters (including adults, dislocated workers, and older workers) had
received training. This decline may result from a variety of factors,
one of which may be fewer training opportunities.
[14] See Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance
Measures to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness,
GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 2002).
[15] See Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding
Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program, GAO-02-274
(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002).
[16] See Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development,
GAO-02-413 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2002).
[17] See Workforce Investment Act: States' Spending Is on Track, but
Better Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting, GAO-03-239
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 22, 2002).
