Workforce Investment Act
Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program Gao ID: GAO-02-274 February 11, 2002Under the Workforce Investment Act, local workforce areas are likely to offer dislocated workers services that are tailored to local needs and that emphasize a quick return to employment. Nine of the local workforce areas that GAO visited emphasized a quick return to work and enrolled fewer dislocated workers into training than were enrolled under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA). Five local areas enrolled into training an equal or greater number of dislocated workers than were enrolled under JTPA. States used the act's flexibility to decide how much of their set-aside funds to spend on rapid response for dislocated workers and how much to spend on other statewide activities. Most of the 50 states that responded to a GAO survey on rapid response activities said that their state unit provided services when layoffs and plant closings involved 50 or more workers and that the state generally relied on local workforce area officials to provide rapid response services for layoffs affecting fewer workers. Workforce officials in several states expressed concern that the act's dislocated worker funding formula causes dramatic fluctuations in funding that are unrelated to the number of dislocated workers in the state.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-02-274, Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-274
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding
Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program' which was released on
February 11, 2002.
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.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Report to Congressional Requesters:
February 2002:
Workforce Investment Act:
Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated
Worker Program:
GAO-02-274:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
With Greater Flexibility, Local Workforce Areas Tailored Services to
Meet Dislocated Worker Needs:
WIA Flexibility Allowed States To Use Set-Aside Funds for Various
Statewide Activities in Addition to Rapid Response:
Funding Formula Is Problematic:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Site Visits:
Surveys:
Appendix II: Use of Dislocated Worker Funds for Rapid Response in 42
States:
Appendix III: Combined Set-Aside Funds Available for Statewide
Activities in 52 States:
Appendix IV: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Used for Various
Activities:
Appendix V: Detailed Listing of the Federal Funding Formula for
Dislocated Workers:
Appendix VI: Comments from the U.S. Department of Labor:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Changes in Rapid Response under WIA for 20 States:
Table 2: Activities Funded by 43 States That Combined Their Adult,
Youth, and Dislocated Worker Set-Aside Funds for Statewide Activities
in Program Year 2000:
Table 3: Dislocated Worker Funding and Dislocation Activity for
Selected States:
Table 4: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Visits:
Table 5: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Allotment and Rapid
Response Set-Aside Funds in 42 States:
Table 6: Program Year 2000 WIA Allotments and Maximum 15 Percent
Combined Set-Aside for Statewide Activities for 52 States:
Table 7: Dislocated Worker Allotments for Program Years 1997 through
2001, by State:
Table 8: Percentage Change in Total Dislocated Worker Allotments for
Program Years 1998 through 2001, by State:
Table 9: States with Excess Unemployment for Program Years 1997 through
2001:
Table 10: Percentage Change in Long-Term Unemployment Allotments from
Prior Year, by State:
Table 11: Total Dislocated Worker Allotment per Unemployed Worker for
Program Years 1997 through 2001, by State:
Figures:
Figure 1: Number of Dislocated Workers Registered in Program Year 1999
under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under WIA in 14 Local Areas:
Figure 2: Number of Dislocated Workers Enrolled in Training at 14 Local
Areas in Program Year 1999 under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under
WIA:
Figure 3: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid
Response Activities in 42 States:
Figure 4: Providers of Various Rapid Response Services:
Figure 5: Ten States with the Largest Percentage Change in Dislocated
Worker Allotments from Program Year 2000 to Program Year 2001:
Figure 6: Number of States That Received Dislocated Worker Allotments
Based on Excess Unemployment in Program Years 1997 through 2001:
Figure 7: Two States with the Largest Percentage Change in Long-Term
Unemployment Allotments for Program Years 2000 and 2001:
Figure 8: Five-Year Dislocated Worker Allotments per Unemployed
Resident for Three States with Similar Program Year 1997 Allotments:
Figure 9: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Disseminating State List of Training Providers:
Figure 10: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting
Evaluations of Programs or Activities:
Figure 11: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Incentive Grants to Local Areas:
Figure 12: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Technical Assistance to Local Areas:
Figure 13: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Assisting
in the Establishment or Operation of One-Stop Delivery Systems:
Figure 14: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Additional
Assistance for Local Areas with a High Concentration of Eligible
Youths:
Figure 15: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Operating
Fiscal and Management Accountability Information Systems:
Figure 16: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Carrying
Out General State-Level Administrative Activities:
Figure 17: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Capacity Building to Local Areas through Training of Staff and
Development of Exemplary Program Activities:
Figure 18: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting
Research and Demonstration Projects:
Figure 19: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Incumbent Worker Training:
Figure 20: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Programs Targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities:
Figure 21: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Support for the Identification of Eligible Training Providers:
Figure 22: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Programs for Displaced Homemakers:
Figure 23: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Training Programs for Nontraditional Employment Positions:
Figure 24: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Other
Activities:
Abbreviations:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
UI: unemployment insurance:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 11, 2002:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Chairman:
The Honorable James M. Jeffords:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
In the past, the nation‘s job training system was fragmented,
consisting of overlapping programs that did not serve job seekers or
employers well. Then, in 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Workforce
Investment Act (WIA), seeking to create a system connecting employment,
education, and training services to better match job seekers to labor
market needs. WIA specifies separate funding sources for each of the
act‘s main client groups”adults, youths, and dislocated workers. In
general, dislocated workers are those who have been laid off and are
unlikely to return to their previous employment. During program year
2000,[Footnote 1] the Congress appropriated about $950 million to
provide services to adults, $1.2 billion to provide services to youths,
and $1.6 billion to assist states in providing services to some of the
3.3 million people laid off from their jobs each year. The dislocated
worker program under WIA has taken on increased importance because the
economy, which had entered a recession in March of 2001, took a sharper
downturn with the loss of an estimated 415,000 jobs during the month
following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001”the largest
employment decrease in a single month in more than 20 years.
When WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA), it changed
the definition of who is targeted for services and the way that the
services are funded and delivered. The new legislation introduced a
greater degree of state and local flexibility that allows training and
employment programs to be designed and managed at the local level to
meet the unique needs of local businesses and individuals. Under WIA,
states can set aside up to 25 percent of their dislocated worker
allotment to provide ’rapid response“ to layoffs and plant closings.
States can also set aside up to 15 percent of their dislocated worker
allotment and combine these funds with similar funds from their adult
and youth allotments to support a variety of other statewide
activities. States allocate the remainder of the dislocated worker
funds to local workforce areas. Because states did not implement many
of WIA‘s provisions until July 1, 2000, little information has been
available on how WIA changed the way that services are provided to
dislocated workers. To determine how states and local workforce areas
are assisting dislocated workers under WIA, you asked us to determine:
* How WIA has affected the services provided to dislocated workers at
the local level;
* How funds set aside for rapid response and other statewide activities
are used to assist dislocated workers under WIA;
* Whether the dislocated worker funding formula distributes funds to
states in relation to their dislocated worker population.
To determine how services are provided to dislocated workers, we sent
two surveys to 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
[Footnote 2] and visited 14 local workforce areas located in 6 states.
One survey focused on how states used dislocated worker set-aside funds
for rapid response activities, and the other survey focused on how
states used combined set-aside funds from the adult, youth, and
dislocated worker programs. We received 50 responses to each survey. We
also visited six states (California, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland,
Massachusetts, and Minnesota) that provided variety in terms of program
year 2000 funding, number of dislocated workers, and geographic
dispersion. Within each state, we visited two local workforce areas,
except in California where we visited four areas. We judgmentally
selected these workforce areas to represent a range of funding amounts
and urban and rural areas. We also interviewed, either in person or by
telephone, state officials and representatives of the local Workforce
Investment Boards in each local area that we visited. (App. I contains
a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.) We performed
our work between December 2000 and December 2001 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
With the greater flexibility granted by WIA, local workforce areas are
likely to offer services to dislocated workers that are tailored to
local needs and that emphasize a quick return to employment. Some local
workforce officials have tailored their programs to meet the specific
needs of dislocated workers in their areas. For example, one local
workforce area established a separate career resource center to assist
the area‘s professional workers who have been dislocated as well as
employers seeking such applicants with experience in areas such as
software development and biotechnology. Nine of the local workforce
areas that we visited emphasized a quick return to work and enrolled
fewer dislocated workers into training than were enrolled under JTPA,
while five local areas enrolled an equal or greater number of
dislocated workers into training than were enrolled under JTPA.
Collectively in the 14 local workforce areas, 52 percent fewer
dislocated workers (about 1,500 workers) received training during the
first year under WIA than received training during the previous year
under JTPA. In addition, while Labor has provided guidance and
technical assistance to state and local workforce officials in
transitioning from JTPA to WIA, guidance concerning basic program
requirements has been limited, resulting in some confusion for state
and local workforce officials responsible for implementing the program.
States used the flexibility under WIA to decide how much of their set-
aside funds to spend on rapid response for dislocated workers and how
much to spend on other statewide activities. Most of the 50 states
answering our survey on rapid response activities said that the state
rapid response unit provided services when layoffs and plant closings
involved 50 or more workers and that the state generally relied on
local workforce area officials to provide rapid response services for
layoffs affecting fewer workers. On average, states obligated 12
percent of their dislocated worker funds to provide rapid response
services. Obligations varied substantially, however, ranging from those
of Hawaii and Wyoming, which obligated less than one percent of their
dislocated worker funds for rapid response, to those of Georgia and
Rhode Island, which obligated the maximum 25 percent. Some states
provided only general information about benefits and available services
to workers during the rapid response visit, while other states provided
workshops covering such topics as résumé writing, interviewing, and
stress management. In addition, under WIA, states have the flexibility
to set aside up to an additional 15 percent of their dislocated worker
funds to support statewide activities other than rapid response, such
as maintaining a management information system. Of the 50 states
responding to our survey on the use of these set-aside funds, 43 states
combined funds from the dislocated worker set-aside with funds from the
adult and youth set-asides to support a variety of statewide activities
and programs. For example, Virginia spent the majority of its combined
funds to support the development and operation of a statewide
management information system, Missouri spent the majority of its
combined funds on establishing one-stop centers, and Iowa spent nearly
two-thirds of its combined funds on statewide administrative
activities.
The dislocated worker funding formula distributes funds to states in a
manner that does not recognize fluctuations in state dislocated worker
populations. Workforce officials in several states expressed concern
that the dislocated worker funding formula specified in WIA and created
in 1982 under JTPA causes dramatic funding fluctuations not related to
the number of dislocated workers in a state. The primary causes of
funding volatility appear to be related to two parts of the formula:
the number of excess unemployed (the number of unemployed individuals
greater than 4.5 percent of the labor force) in a state and the number
of long-term unemployed individuals (individuals who have been
unemployed for fifteen weeks or longer) in a state. The number of
states receiving any funding based on excess unemployment declined from
36 states in program year 1997 to 13 states in program year 2001. Fewer
eligible states combined with increasing funding over this period
resulted in more funding for those states still eligible. For example,
Mississippi‘s nearly 130 percent increase in funding was largely due to
the decrease in the number of states eligible for funding under this
criterion. The part of the funding formula that incorporates the number
of long-term unemployed persons is particularly problematic, because a
state‘s long-term unemployment data can vary significantly from year to
year and is not representative of the number of dislocated workers in a
state. For example, in program year 2000, the long-term unemployed in
New Hampshire increased by more than 85 percent and in the following
year declined by nearly 45 percent. The volatility created by this part
of the formula is also quite problematic in that the long-term
unemployed are no longer automatically eligible for the dislocated
worker program.
We are recommending that the secretary of Labor provide additional
guidance to local workforce areas as they further define their policies
and procedures and that the secretary disseminate timely information on
best practices being developed by local areas to meet the needs of
their dislocated workers. We are also suggesting that the Congress
consider modifying the existing dislocated worker funding formula and
direct the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor) to undertake a study that
would provide options for better distributing dislocated worker funds
to minimize funding volatility and better distribute program funds to
states in relation to their dislocated worker population.
Background:
WIA specifies one funding source for each of the act‘s main client
groups”adults, youths, and dislocated workers. Labor estimated that
approximately 927,000 dislocated workers would be served with these
funds in program year 2000. A dislocated worker is an individual who
(1) has been terminated or laid off, or who has received a notice of
termination or layoff, from employment; is eligible for, or has
exhausted entitlement to, unemployment insurance or is not eligible but
has been employed for a sufficient duration to demonstrate attachment
to the workforce; and is unlikely to return to previous industry or
occupation; (2) has been terminated or laid off, or has received a
notice of termination or layoff, from employment as a result of any
permanent plant closure of, or substantial layoff at, a plant,
facility, or enterprise; (3) was self employed but is unemployed as a
result of general economic conditions in the community in which the
individual resides or because of natural disasters; or (4) is a
displaced homemaker.[Footnote 3]
The secretary of Labor retains 20 percent of the dislocated worker
funds in a national reserve account to be used for emergency grants,
demonstrations, and technical assistance and allots the remaining funds
to each of the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
according to a specific formula. The formula, first adopted in 1982
under the Job Training Partnership Act, was grandfathered into the
dislocated worker program under WIA. According to the formula, of the
total funds that Labor allots to the states, one-third is based on each
of the following:
* the number of unemployed in the state compared with the total number
of unemployed in all states,
* the number of excess unemployed in the state compared with the total
number of excess unemployed in all states (i.e., the number of
unemployed greater than 4.5 percent of the total civilian labor force
in each state), and:
* the number of individuals unemployed for 15 weeks or more in the
state compared with the number of individuals unemployed for 15 weeks
or more in all states.
Upon receiving its allotment, each state can reserve no more than 25
percent of its dislocated worker funds to provide ’rapid response“
services to workers affected by layoffs and plant closings. The funds
set aside by the states to provide rapid response services are intended
to help dislocated workers transition quickly to new employment. In its
regulations, Labor divides rapid response activities into the following
three categories:
Required services. These include immediate and on-site contact with the
employer experiencing layoffs as well as with employee representatives
to assess the needs of affected workers and to provide information to
the affected workers about unemployment insurance (UI) and other
services.
Optional services. These include developing programs for layoff
aversion and incumbent worker training and for analyzing economic
dislocation data.
Additional assistance. This includes providing aid to local areas that
are experiencing increased unemployment, to pay for direct services
such as training.
Under WIA regulations, each state is required to have a rapid response
unit with responsibility for rapid response services. The staff in
these units may deliver services directly by providing orientations or
workshops for dislocated workers, or they may supervise the provision
of such services. In the latter capacity, the state unit staff would
assign the delivery of direct services to other personnel such as local
area staff or private contractors.
In addition to the dislocated worker funds that are set aside for rapid
response, WIA allows states to set aside up to 15 percent of their
dislocated worker allotment to support statewide activities other than
rapid response. These may include a variety of activities that benefit
adults, youths, and dislocated workers statewide, such as providing
assistance in the establishment and operation of one-stop centers,
developing or operating state or local management information systems,
and disseminating lists of organizations that can provide training. WIA
also permits states to combine the set-aside from the dislocated worker
allotment with similar set-asides from their adult and youth
allotments. After states set aside funds for rapid response and for
other statewide activities, they allocate the remainder of the funds”at
least 60 percent”to their local workforce areas. Approximately 600
local workforce areas exist throughout the nation to provide services
to dislocated workers.
When the Congress passed WIA in 1998, the dislocated worker program was
changed in ways that have important implications for dislocated
workers. Unlike JTPA, WIA ensured that some job search and placement
assistance is offered to anyone who seeks it, whether or not he or she
is eligible for the dislocated worker program. WIA also created three
sequential levels of service”core, intensive, and training. In order to
move from the core level to the intensive level and from the intensive
level to training, an individual must be unable to obtain a job that
allows him or her to become self sufficient.[Footnote 4]
Under WIA, the initial core services”including job search and placement
assistance, the provision of labor market information, and preliminary
assessment of skills and needs”are available to everyone, whether or
not he or she is a dislocated worker. If a dislocated worker is
determined to be unable to find a job or has a job that does not lead
to self-sufficiency after core services, he or she can receive
intensive services, which include comprehensive assessments,
development of an individual employment plan, case management, and
short-term prevocational services.[Footnote 5] A dislocated worker
cannot receive intensive services until he or she is officially
registered in the program. A dislocated worker who is determined to be
unable to find a job leading to self sufficiency after intensive
services can move on to training. At this level, a dislocated worker
can receive occupational skills training, on-the-job training, and
customized training.[Footnote 6]
With Greater Flexibility, Local Workforce Areas Tailored Services to
Meet Dislocated Worker Needs:
With the greater flexibility granted by WIA, local workforce areas are
likely to offer services tailored to local needs and services that
emphasize a quick return to employment. Many of the local areas that we
visited tailored services or designed programs to meet the needs of
dislocated workers in their areas. Some workforce areas had also
adopted a work-first approach to their services and required
individuals to dedicate a set amount of time or a specific number of
tasks to finding employment before receiving additional services, such
as training. This meant that more individuals returned to work before
being registered in the dislocated worker program. Thus, fewer
dislocated workers were registered in the program and fewer were
enrolled in training. Although WIA was intended to provide local
workforce officials with greater flexibility, it also increased their
need for timely and accurate information concerning the provisions of
the legislation that they are required to implement. Labor has provided
guidance and technical assistance to help states transition from JTPA
to WIA. Despite these efforts, state and local officials cite an
ongoing need for guidance concerning basic program requirements and how
to interpret them.
Several Local Areas Used Flexibility to Tailor Services to the Needs of
Their Dislocated Workers:
Several of the local areas we visited tailored their services or
designed programs to meet the particular needs of the dislocated
workers in their areas. For example, staff at the one-stop centers that
we visited provided general orientation about available services to all
interested individuals. However, one local area in California designed
an orientation program exclusively for dislocated workers. At this two-
hour orientation, benefits and requirements specific to dislocated
workers were described and counselors met one-on-one with interested
workers for more in-depth needs assessments and strategy development.
Unlike other local areas that we visited, this area had two staff
members who were responsible for providing a range of services only to
dislocated workers.
Another local area in California established a separate career resource
program to assist the area‘s professional workers who have been
dislocated and employers seeking qualified job applicants in areas such
as software development, biotechnology, communications, and human
resources. The program, tailored to professional and high-tech
dislocated workers, provided the dislocated workers with their own one-
stop center where job information and computers were available. In
addition, regular meetings were held to share information on job leads
and career fairs as well as for moral support. This program also had
its own Web site where participating dislocated workers could post
their résumés. Employers looking for qualified professional or high-
tech applicants were able to search the Web site for potential
candidates by means of key words, such as ’Web design,“ and obtain a
list of all résumés containing those key words.
A local area in Maryland that we visited was administering a 3-year $20-
million dislocated worker demonstration grant tailored to local
employer needs. The training programs consisted of customized training
with extensive involvement from employers in designing the programs to
train 3,000 people for high-tech jobs in a metropolitan area covering
three states. The program focused on entry-level information technology
and telecommunication jobs and, to date, has established training
programs for Web developers and cable technicians. This same local area
also developed a career transition workshop to help dislocated workers
cope emotionally with being laid off and plan for the future.
A local area in Louisiana facing a major plant closing tailored a
program to meet the needs of the 1,300 workers being laid off. Workers
in this plant were primarily from two adjacent workforce areas. Staff
from these two areas joined together to establish a transition center
on site at the employer‘s location. Staff and computers were available
around the clock to advise the workers of available services; provide
job search and placement assistance, career counseling, and vocational
assessments; and register workers into the dislocated worker program
under WIA.
Some Local Areas Emphasized Job Search and Placement, Leading to Fewer
Dislocated Worker Registrations:
The emphasis placed by some local workforce areas on individuals
finding a job and the availability of job search and placement
assistance prior to enrolling in the dislocated worker program has
reduced the number of people registering in the dislocated worker
program in those areas. Some local officials have interpreted WIA‘s
requirements as supporting a work-first philosophy. In four of the
local areas we visited, officials required individuals to spend a
certain amount of time or perform a specific number of tasks related to
finding employment before registering in the dislocated worker program
and receiving additional services. In its March 2001 Status of WIA
Readiness Implementation Report,[Footnote 7] Labor acknowledged that
many local areas have adopted some form of a work-first approach to the
delivery of services that stresses the importance of a quick entry or
reentry into the workforce. Officials from several of the local areas
that we visited confirmed that they viewed WIA as a work-first program
that emphasizes returning dislocated workers to the workforce. For
example, a counselor from a local area in Massachusetts told us that if
a client has a marketable skill, he or she must reenter the workforce
regardless of any desire for training for a career change.
Unlike JTPA, which required that an individual be enrolled as a
participant before receiving any services, WIA requires the provision
of core services to all adults who seek them, regardless of program
eligibility. All of the one-stop centers that we visited had a resource
area where individuals could access labor market information, review
job openings, create résumés, and even attend some workshops, with
topics such as interviewing techniques, without registering for the
dislocated worker program. Some local program officials believe that
many individuals found employment through these core services and that
they therefore did not go on to seek other services that would have
required program registration. Because program participation is not
recorded before receipt of these preliminary services, the total number
of people who used them and found employment is not known.
Collectively, the 14 locations that we visited registered nearly 3,000
fewer dislocated workers during the first year of WIA than they had
registered under JTPA during the previous program year (5,603 vs.
8,462). Of these locations, eight registered fewer dislocated workers
under WIA and six registered more dislocated workers (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Number of Dislocated Workers Registered in Program Year 1999
under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under WIA in 14 Local Areas:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the number of
dislocated workers registered in program year 1999 under JTPA and in
program year 2000 under WIA in 14 local areas. The 14 local workforce
areas are:
Hampden County, MA;
Bristol County, MA;
San Francisco City/County, CA;
North Santa Clara Valley, CA;
Los Angeles City, CA;
Riverside County. CA;
Western Maryland, MD;
Baltimore City, MD;
Southeast Minnesota, MN;
Hennepin County, LA;
Lafayette Parish, LA;
Orleans Parish, LA;
Chicago City, IL;
Rock Island County, IL.
[End of figure]
Officials from the local workforce areas that registered more
dislocated workers under WIA than during the previous year under JTPA
cited various reasons for the increase. For example, officials from two
local workforce areas said that they had more dislocated worker funds
available in program year 2000 and thus were able to provide services
to more workers, while another official said that the local workforce
area experienced several plant closings that resulted in more workers‘
needing assistance.
In Some Local Workforce Areas, Fewer Dislocated Workers Received
Training:
Under WIA, the 14 local workforce areas that we visited enrolled 52
percent fewer dislocated workers in training than they had enrolled
under JTPA. Collectively, about 1500 fewer dislocated workers were
enrolled in training under WIA than were enrolled in training under
JTPA (1,427 vs. 2,967). Of these areas, nine enrolled fewer dislocated
workers and five enrolled an equal or greater number of dislocated
workers in training under WIA (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Number of Dislocated Workers Enrolled in Training at 14 Local
Areas in Program Year 1999 under JTPA and in Program Year 2000 under
WIA:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the number of
dislocated workers enrolled in training at 14 local areas in program
year 1999 under JTPA and in program year 2000 under WIA. The 14 local
workforce areas are:
Hampden County, MA;
Bristol County, MA;
San Francisco City/County, CA;
North Santa Clara Valley, CA;
Los Angeles City, CA;
Riverside County. CA;
Western Maryland, MD;
Baltimore City, MD;
Southeast Minnesota, MN;
Hennepin County, LA;
Lafayette Parish, LA;
Orleans Parish, LA;
Chicago City, IL;
Rock Island County, IL.
[End of figure]
The decrease in the percentage of dislocated workers entering training
is tied to local requirements that dislocated workers spend a certain
amount of time receiving services or complete a certain number of tasks
before being enrolled in training. Although the act requires
individuals to receive sequential services, Labor has not imposed a
required minimum period of participation in the core or intensive
services, leaving this decision instead to the discretion of local
workforce boards. Four local areas have set requirements for the amount
of time or the number of tasks that a dislocated worker must complete
at each level of service before he or she can move to the next level.
Officials in three of these areas required dislocated workers to spend
at least three weeks searching for a job and documenting their attempts
at finding employment. Officials in the fourth local area required
dislocated workers to complete a certain number of tasks, such as
documenting 12 unsuccessful job applications or five case management
appointments, before moving to the next level of service.
The decrease in the percentage of dislocated workers being trained is
also tied to the wages of the jobs they may be offered during the job
search required before training. The receipt of future
services”specifically, training”hinges on a dislocated worker‘s ability
to find a job leading to self-sufficiency. Only those who are unable to
find such a job can continue to training. Among the locations we
visited, self-sufficiency was defined differently. Because the
definition, within certain parameters, is left to the discretion of
state or local workforce boards, the dislocated workers who are allowed
to continue to training vary from area to area. For example, a local
area in Maryland defined self-sufficiency as having a job that pays
$8.50 per hour, while a local area in Louisiana had recently increased
its self-sufficiency standard to having a job that pays $16.39 per
hour. Three other local areas we visited had no set standard at all.
The lower the standard, the harder it is for a worker to qualify for
training, because it is easier for the worker to find a job meeting the
criterion.
In three of the local areas that had an equal or greater number of
dislocated workers enrolled in training under WIA than during the
previous year under JTPA, officials said that the numbers being trained
under WIA merely reflect the training needs of the dislocated workers
in program year 2000. An official from a fourth local area said that
more workers were enrolled in training in program year 2000 because
local area officials had decided to limit the number of workers
enrolled in training during the final year of JTPA. An official from
the fifth local area said that the increased federal funds in program
year 2000 allowed them to enroll more dislocated workers in training in
that year.
Some Local Workforce Officials Expressed Confusion about Some
Dislocated Worker Requirements under WIA:
State and local workforce officials, uncertain as to the act‘s new
requirements or how to interpret them in a manner consistent with that
of Labor‘s Office of Inspector General, sought specific guidance from
Labor to assist them in implementing the act. Several officials in the
states and local workforce areas that we visited voiced a need for more
guidance. They said that they felt uncertain about when individuals
should be registered into the dislocated worker program, how to
determine when training is an appropriate service strategy, and how to
use rapid response funds to provide additional assistance to local
workforce areas. For example, a rapid response official in the state of
Maryland told us that he would like additional guidance from Labor
concerning the extent to which a state could use rapid response funds
to provide additional assistance to local workforce areas experiencing
layoffs. Labor‘s guidance, however, does not adequately address this
issue. In addition, WIA created a new mindset for workforce development
professionals and makes substantial changes in how dislocated workers
receive services. Unlike the more prescriptive dislocated worker
program under JTPA, state and local workforce officials must
continually interpret WIA‘s requirements in order to meet the
constantly changing needs of the workers and employers they serve.
However, all local workforce officials were not prepared to meet this
challenge. For example, Labor‘s February 2001 final interim report on
the early state and local progress toward WIA implementation noted that
state and local workforce officials would like to have more guidance on
how to interpret the requirements of the act.[Footnote 8]
Labor has provided guidance and technical assistance to aid state and
local workforce officials in transitioning from JTPA to WIA ranging
from training sessions conducted by headquarters and regional office
staff to the dissemination of guidance concerning WIA‘s technical
requirements. This guidance, in addition to information about best
practices, is generally available via the Internet. According to some
workforce officials, however, Labor‘s guidance has generally been too
broad for them to use when implementing WIA‘s requirements[Footnote 9]
and the information available on the Internet is often outdated.
According to Labor officials, the guidance that it has provided to
state and local workforce officials on a range of WIA topics has been
intentionally nonprescriptive to allow state and local workforce
officials to use the flexibility that the act allows to design programs
that will accomplish state and locally established goals.
Despite Labor‘s efforts to provide state and local workforce officials
with program guidance, misunderstandings still exist concerning some of
WIA‘s dislocated worker program requirements. In its March 2001 Status
of WIA Readiness Implementation Report,[Footnote 10] Labor found that
some dislocated worker program requirements were being interpreted
incorrectly. In particular, the report, which was based on Labor‘s WIA
Readiness Review of all states and 126 local workforce areas,
identified the need for additional guidance in the areas of program
eligibility and registration, the sequence of services, training, the
eligible training provider list, and the consumer report system.
WIA Flexibility Allowed States To Use Set-Aside Funds for Various
Statewide Activities in Addition to Rapid Response:
States used the flexibility under WIA to decide how much of their set-
aside funds to spend on rapid response for dislocated workers and how
much to spend on other statewide activities. All states provided some
rapid response services, but there was variation in the amount of
dislocated worker funds they obligated for rapid response and in the
services they provided. Most states, however, have not changed the way
they provide rapid response services since implementing WIA. During
program year 2000, state set-aside obligations for rapid response
averaged 12 percent and ranged from less than 1 percent to the maximum
allowable 25 percent. When providing rapid response, most states
responded primarily to layoffs and plant closings affecting at least 50
workers and provided, at a minimum, basic informational services for
affected workers. Many states also offered other services such as group
workshops on job search and used a portion of their rapid response
funds to provide additional assistance to local areas experiencing an
increase in unemployment. In addition, as allowed by the act, most
states combined funds from the 15-percent dislocated worker set-aside
with set-aside funds from the adult and youth programs to support a
variety of statewide activities and programs. Some activities, such as
disseminating a list of eligible training providers, are required by
the act, while others, such as conducting research and demonstration
projects, are optional.
Rapid Response Funding and Services Varied among States:
States differed in how much of their dislocated worker funds they used
for rapid response during program year 2000 and what services they
funded with this money. Nearly a third of the 42 states[Footnote 11]
that provided program year 2000 data in their survey responses said
that they obligated 5 percent or less of their dislocated worker funds
for rapid response activities.[Footnote 12]
Overall, the amount obligated for rapid response in the 42 states
ranged from less than 1 percent in Hawaii and Wyoming to the maximum
allowable 25 percent in Georgia and Rhode Island (see figure 3). On
average, these states obligated about 12 percent of their dislocated
worker funds for rapid response activities. Appendix II shows each
state‘s dislocated worker allotment and the amount obligated for rapid
response activities.
Figure 3: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid
Response Activities in 42 States:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid Response
Activities in 42 States:
Percentage of Dislocated Worker Funds Obligated for Rapid Response:
0-5.0: 12 states;
5.1-10.0: 5 states;
10.1-15.0: 5 states;
15.1-20.0: 7 states;
20.1-25.0: 8 states.
[End of figure]
Any rapid response funds not used in program year 2000, up to the 25-
percent ceiling, could be distributed to local areas[Footnote 13] or
carried over to the following program year to conduct rapid response
activities. For example, Maryland reallocated to its local workforce
areas $1 million of the $4.2 million it had set aside for rapid
response activities, and Louisiana carried over into the next program
year $5.1 million of the $6.1 million it had set aside for rapid
response.
Rapid response services almost always include the provision of basic
information for workers being laid off, and in many states, additional
services such as group workshops are available. Forty-five of the 50
states that responded to our survey had a rapid response unit
consisting of state employees who delivered at least some direct
services to the workers being laid off. Almost all of these state units
contacted employers experiencing layoffs to explain available rapid
response services and provided orientations for workers being laid off.
State staff often delivered these services in conjunction with local
area staff. In the six states that we visited, orientation sessions
provided information to workers on topics such as UI benefits, services
available at the local one-stop centers, and training opportunities. In
many states, services in addition to orientation are also available to
dislocated workers.[Footnote 14] These services, including group
workshops on topics such as job search and stress management and one-on-
one meetings to discuss subjects such as financial planning, were
provided usually by local area staff but sometimes in conjunction with
the state unit or private contractors, such as unions (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Providers of Various Rapid Response Services:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Type of service: Contact with employer;
State unit: 44 states;
Local staff: 34 states;
Private contractors: 4 states.
Type of service: Orientation for Workers;
State unit: 43 states;
Local staff: 46 states;
Private contractors: 10 states.
Type of service: Workshops for Workers;
State unit: 14 states;
Local staff: 45 states;
Private contractors: 12 states.
Type of service: One-on-one Meetings with Workers;
State unit: 14 states;
Local staff: 42 states;
Private contractors: 5 states.
[End of figure]
Rapid response units in some states were more involved in providing
direct services after a layoff than were units in other states. For
example, in Florida, the state rapid response unit provided a broader
range of services than did the units of most other states. The Florida
unit directly provided workshops and one-on-one meetings in addition to
general informational services. In Maryland, as in many states, the
state unit played a more limited role. The Maryland unit contacted
employers experiencing layoffs and participated, along with staff from
local one-stop centers, in orientations for the affected workers. Any
services beyond the orientations, including workshops and one-on-one
meetings at the work-sites, were provided exclusively by local staff.
Louisiana had a state unit that met with employers and conducted
orientations but provided no other direct services. To supplement the
additional services provided by its local areas, Louisiana contracted
with a private agency to provide workshops on topics such as résumé
development and stress management for dislocated workers around the
state. A state official explained that Louisiana hired this agency
because some local areas that experience significant layoffs
infrequently lack the experience to provide effective rapid response
services.
Five of the 50 states that responded to our survey delegated all
responsibility for direct rapid response services to staff in the local
workforce areas. For example, California had a state unit that informed
local areas of impending layoffs but delivered no direct services. The
state distributed a portion of its rapid response funds to the local
areas to provide direct services. State officials believed that the
state‘s size and diversity made local flexibility more feasible than a
single, uniform approach. Another advantage, according to a local
official, was that referrals of workers from rapid response units to
one-stop centers were smoother because rapid response staff were also
local area staff. While the state stressed local flexibility, it also
encouraged coordination among local areas that share a labor market.
Ten local areas in northern California were collaborating to
standardize their rapid response services, provide services jointly,
and possibly contract with a private agency for all rapid response. New
York was another state where local workforce area staff were generally
responsible for delivering rapid response services. Unlike California,
however, New York did not provide the local workforce areas with
funding for these services. New York also had a $1 million contract
with representatives of organized labor to provide rapid response
assistance when their union members were affected by a layoff.
Most states provided rapid response primarily for larger layoffs and
plant closings affecting 50 or more workers. Responding to layoffs of
50 or more workers appears to be related to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification (WARN) Act of 1988, which requires companies
with 100 or more full-time employees to notify state dislocated-worker
staff of layoffs and plant closures generally affecting 50 or more full-
time workers. Of the 45 states using state staff to provide rapid
response services, staff in 37 states generally provided rapid response
services for layoffs affecting 50 or more workers, which, on average,
represented 75 percent of the layoffs to which each state unit
responded during program year 2000. Workers affected by dislocation
events that are too small to trigger state unit involvement may
nonetheless receive local rapid response services. In fact, almost all
of the states that had a trigger for state rapid response said that
local staff in their states may have provided rapid response services
for layoffs and plant closings that were too small to trigger rapid
response by the state unit.
Illinois and Massachusetts illustrate different approaches to the use
of a trigger for state unit response. Illinois obligated about $2.4
million for rapid response and had a unit of state employees that was
responsible for rapid response services statewide. These employees
provided direct services for all layoffs and closures affecting 50 or
more workers and responded to 170 such events during program year
2000.[Footnote 15] Some local workforce areas provided rapid response
services for dislocation events affecting fewer than 50 workers, but
the state did not require them to serve these smaller events and did
not distribute any rapid response funds to them for this purpose. On
the other hand, Massachusetts obligated about $1.2 million for rapid
response and had a unit of state employees that attempted to provide
rapid response for all layoffs regardless of size. During program year
2000, the unit responded to 158 events affecting 50 or more workers and
149 events affecting fewer than 50 workers.
In addition to providing direct rapid response services to workers
affected by a layoff or plant closing, 32 states said that they used a
portion of their rapid response set-aside funds to provide additional
assistance to local areas that experienced an increase in unemployment
owing to plant closings or mass layoffs. In the states for which data
were available, more than half of the $129.6 million that these states
set aside for rapid response was used to provide additional assistance
to local workforce areas (see app. II). Of the 32 states responding
that provided additional assistance, 15 states said that they provided
additional assistance to local areas only to help them address specific
layoffs and required that local areas spend the funds exclusively on
workers affected by those layoffs. For example, Maryland provided
$250,000 in additional assistance to one local workforce area that
intended to provide training to a small number of workers laid off from
a bottled water plant, and Louisiana provided $72,531 in additional
assistance to a local workforce area to set up a worker transition
center at a clothing plant that was closing. Another eight states said
that they provided additional assistance to local areas that
experienced a general rise in unemployment and did not tie the use of
the funds to specific layoffs. For example, California provided $3
million in additional assistance to a local workforce area to provide
comprehensive services for its dislocated workers in a region with high
job turnover. Nine other states said that they awarded funds for both
rapid response and additional assistance during program year 2000.
Thirty of the 50 states responding to our survey have not changed the
way they provide rapid response since implementing WIA. The remaining
20 states reported making changes in the way they provide rapid
response as a result of WIA, but few of these changes were significant
and none were required by the act or the regulations. The more
significant changes involved giving the state unit greater
responsibility for direct services or developing new programs to
distribute set-aside funds to local workforce areas. For example,
Washington state and Kansas assigned state staff to each local
workforce area to coordinate and deliver rapid response services. Also,
Indiana developed a program to quickly distribute additional funds
within one or two days to local workforce areas experiencing mass
layoffs to help them provide rapid response services. Other changes
included increasing coordination between the state rapid response unit
and other workforce partners, changing the focus of orientations from
training benefits to available job search services, and shifting state
units from one state department to another. (See table 1.)
Table 1: Changes in Rapid Response under WIA for 20 States:
Type of change: State unit assumed more active role;
Number of states[A]: 4.
Type of change: New program to distribute funds to local areas;
Number of states[A]: 4.
Type of change: Greater coordination with other workforce partners;
Number of states[A]: 4.
Type of change: Information provided in orientations changed;
Number of states[A]: 3.
Type of change: State unit moved to another department;
Number of states[A]: 4.
Type of change: Other;
Number of states[A]: 3.
[A] The total does not add to 20 because some states made more than one
change in their rapid response program.
[End of table]
States Used Set-Aside Funds to Support a Wide Range of Services and
Various Programs:
During program year 2000, most states took advantage of the flexibility
under WIA and combined dislocated worker set-aside funds with set-aside
funds from the adult and youth programs to support a variety of
statewide activities. Some activities, such as developing or operating
a statewide management information system, benefited dislocated workers
along with other types of workers such as adults and youths; other
activities, such as career training for at-risk youths, benefited a
specific segment of the population who were not dislocated workers.
During program year 2000, states used their set-aside funds for
statewide activities for various purposes. Under WIA, states can set
aside up to 15 percent of their dislocated worker allotment to support
some required statewide workforce investment activities. These
activities include providing additional assistance to local areas that
have high concentrations of eligible youths, assisting in the
establishment and operation of one-stop center systems, disseminating a
list of eligible providers of training services, and operating a
management information system. In addition, the act allows states to
use the funds for other allowable activities such as state
administration, research and demonstration projects, and innovative
incumbent worker training programs (i.e., programs to improve the
skills of employed workers). Of the 50 states responding to our survey,
43 said that they combined set-aside funds for statewide activities
from the dislocated worker allotment with similar funds from the adult
and youth programs. Appendix III lists each state‘s allotment for their
adult, youth, and dislocated worker programs and identifies the maximum
amount of funds that could be set aside to support statewide
activities. As allowed by the act, these states combined the funds and
used them for a variety of purposes. For example, 41 states reported
that they spent, on average, 25.7 percent of the combined set-aside
funds on carrying out general state-level administrative activities,
while 37 states reported spending, on average, 14.8 percent on
assisting the establishment and operation of one-stop centers (see
table 2).
Table 2: Activities Funded by 43 States That Combined Their Adult,
Youth, and Dislocated Worker Set-Aside Funds for Statewide Activities
in Program Year 2000:
Activities: Required activities: Assist in the establishment or
operation of one-stop delivery systems;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 37;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 14.8.
Activities: Required activities: Operate fiscal and management
accountability information systems;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 37;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 13.4.
Activities: Required activities: Provide incentive grants to local
areas;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 26;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 10.0.
Activities: Required activities: Provide technical assistance to local
areas;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 31;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.7.
Activities: Required activities: Conduct evaluations of programs or
activities;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 33;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.0.
Activities: Required activities: Provide additional assistance for
local areas with a high concentration of eligible youths;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 24;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.0.
Activities: Required activities: Disseminate state list of training
providers;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 32;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 3.2.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Carry out general state-level
administrative activities;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 41;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 25.7.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement incumbent worker
training;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 17;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 13.2.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Conduct research and
demonstration projects;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 14;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 8.9.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement programs for
displaced homemakers;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 6;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 6.0.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Provide capacity building to
local areas through training of staff and development of exemplary
program activities;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 33;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 5.4.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement training programs for
nontraditional employment positions;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 6;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 5.0.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Implement programs targeted to
empowerment zones and enterprise communities;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 5;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 4.0.
Activities: Other allowable activities: Provide support for the
identification of eligible training providers;
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 19;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 2.4.
Activities: Other:
Number of states directly funding activity[A]: 30;
Average percentage of set-aside funds spent on activity[B]: 20.9.
[A] This column includes only states that identified a specific
percentage of funds for an activity. It does not include instances when
states responded that an activity may have been supported by funds
associated with a different activity and were unable to specify a
specific percentage.
[B] For states that reported directly funding an activity with set-
aside funds, we computed an average percentage of funds.
[End of table]
Several states are using the flexibility that WIA provides by spending
the majority of their combined set-aside funds on a single activity.
For example, Virginia spent over half of its $5.8 million combined set-
aside funds to operate a fiscal and management accountability
information system. Missouri used over half of its $6.7 million
combined set-aside funds to assist in the establishment and operation
of one-stop centers. Iowa used nearly two-thirds of approximately
$900,000 of its combined set-aside funds to carry out general state-
level administrative activities. Appendix IV shows the percentage of
combined set-aside funds that the 43 states dedicated to each activity
listed in table 2.
In addition to funding the required and optional activities identified
in the act, 30 states funded other activities. Many of these activities
were directed to programs that benefit a specific group. For example,
Arizona used about 4 percent of its $6.6 million combined set-aside
funds for older worker training and support, Kentucky used about 19
percent of its $6.4 million combined set-aside funds for statewide
youth programs, and Montana used about 5 percent of its $2.2 million
combined set-aside funds for adult literacy and education.
Several of the states that we visited used the flexibility provided by
the act to fund projects that the states determined were most in need
of additional funding. In many instances, these projects were targeted
to specific groups. For example, of its $63 million combined set-aside,
California spent $6 million on a project to train veterans, $15 million
on a project to train caregivers who work with the aging and disabled
population, and $20 million to provide job training to targeted groups
including at-risk pregnant teens, homeless individuals, noncustodial
parents, and farm workers. Similarly, Illinois spent $1.3 million of
its $13 million set-aside to help individuals obtain their high school
general equivalency diploma over the Internet; Louisiana spent $1.5
million of its $10 million set-aside on services for UI claimants who
were projected to exhaust their UI benefits (the projection is known as
UI profiling); Maryland spent $330,000 of its $6 million set-aside to
train at-risk youths for a career in the merchant marine service.
Funding Formula Is Problematic:
The dislocated worker funding formula distributes funds that vary
dramatically from year to year and that do not recognize fluctuations
in state dislocated worker populations. State and local officials said
that the volatility in the allotment of formula funds could limit the
ability of some states to provide basic program services to dislocated
workers. Without stable funding levels that are tied to the number of
dislocated workers, states are unable to conduct the meaningful long-
or short-term financial planning that is necessary to develop and
deliver high-quality services for dislocated workers. Information
obtained from Labor on state allotments between program years 1997 and
2001 also raises concerns about the performance of the current funding
formula (see app. V for a detailed listing of the dislocated workers
funding formula allotments by state). Many states have experienced very
substantial changes in funding from one year to the next over this time
period. For example, Mississippi‘s funding for program year 2001,
increased nearly 130 percent over that for program year 2000 (from
$13.4 million to $30.7 million), while Arkansas‘s funding dropped by
more than 40 percent (from $12.4 million to $7.1 million). Figure 5
displays the ten states with the largest percentage changes in
dislocated worker funding allotments between program years 2000 and
2001. Such changes, which do not seem to be in proportion to the number
of dislocated workers in a state, appear to corroborate concerns raised
by state officials regarding the volatility of the current formula.
Figure 5: Ten States with the Largest Percentage Change in Dislocated
Worker Allotments from Program Year 2000 to Program Year 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following
approximated data:
Ten States with the Largest Percentage Change in Dislocated Worker
Allotments from Program Year 2000 to Program Year 2001:
State: Mississippi;
Percentage change: approximately 125%.
State: Alaska;
Percentage change: approximately 70%.
State: Puerto Rico;
Percentage change: approximately 55%.
State: Delaware;
Percentage change: approximately 30%.
State: Minnesota;
Percentage change: approximately 30%.
State: Nebraska;
Percentage change: approximately 27%.
State: New York;
Percentage change: approximately -30%.
State: Idaho;
Percentage change: approximately -40%;
State: Arkansas;
Percentage change: approximately -45%.
State: Hawaii;
Percentage change: approximately -50%.
[End of figure]
The dislocated worker funding formula consists of three factors, each
of which determines one-third of the allotment given to a state. None
of the three factors is directly related to the dislocation activity in
a state. Two parts of this funding formula, however, contribute to the
fluctuations in state funding of the dislocated worker program. An
analysis of the funding formula reveals the primary cause of funding
fluctuations to be the result of the parts of the formula that
incorporate the number of excess unemployed (exceeding 4.5 percent of
the total labor force) and the number of long-term unemployed.
The number of excess unemployed displayed an extremely high degree of
volatility during the 1997 2001 time period. For example, in program
year 1997, 36 states had unemployment rates above 4.5 percent and
therefore qualified for funding under this part of the formula. By
program year 2001, only 13 states continued to receive funding under
this part of the formula. Thus, as economic conditions improve, the
number of states receiving funding under this part of the formula
decreases (see figure 6).
Figure 6: Number of States That Received Dislocated Worker Allotments
Based on Excess Unemployment in Program Years 1997 through 2001:
[refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Number of States That Received Dislocated Worker Allotments Based on
Excess Unemployment in Program Years 1997 through 2001:
Program year: 1997;
Number of states: approximately 38.
Program year: 1998;
Number of states: approximately 36.
Program year: 1999;
Number of states: approximately 25.
Program year: 2000;
Number of states: approximately 18.
Program year: 2001;
Number of states: approximately 15.
[End of figure]
The decline in the number of states that received funding under this
part of the formula, in combination with increased funding during this
period, resulted in more funding for states that received funds under
this part of the formula; states falling below the 4.5 percent
threshold saw their allotments reduced substantially. In program year
1997, $345 million was allotted among 36 states, for an average of $9.5
million per state. By program year 2001, $424 million was allotted to
13 states, resulting in an average allotment of $32.6 million per
state. The nearly 130 percent increase in funding between program years
2000 and 2001, reported for Mississippi in figure 5, was largely the
result of a two-thirds reduction in the number of states that received
funding under this criterion.
This volatility in funding will likely persist as unemployment rates
rise in response to the current economic slowdown. Rising unemployment
in the future means that more states will again qualify for funding
based on the excess unemployment criterion and that even as their own
unemployment increases, the 13 states will likely experience
substantial funding losses as more states become eligible for funding
based on this criterion.
In addition to the number of excess unemployed, the number of long-term
unemployed also contributed to the fluctuations in program funding for
individual states. For example, the allotments for long-term unemployed
in Minnesota declined by more than 20 percent in program year 2000 and
increased by more than 50 percent the following year. In New Hampshire,
the pattern was the opposite: an increase of more than 85 percent was
followed by a decline of nearly 45 percent (see figure 7). The funding
fluctuation introduced by the number of long-term unemployed is
particularly problematic in that the number of long-term unemployed is
not necessarily indicative of the number of dislocated workers in a
state, because individuals can be unemployed for 15 weeks or more and
not have been laid off. Furthermore, the long-term unemployed are no
longer included under the definition of a dislocated worker and are
therefore not automatically eligible for the dislocated worker program.
Figure 7: Two States with the Largest Percentage Change in Long-Term
Unemployment Allotments for Program Years 2000 and 2001:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Two States with the Largest Percentage Change in Long-Term Unemployment
Allotments for Program Years 2000 and 2001:
State: Minnesota;
Percentage change, Program year 2000: approximately -25%;
Percentage change, Program year 2001: approximately 55%.
State: New Hampshire;
Percentage change, Program year 2000: approximately 90%;
Percentage change, Program year 2001: approximately -45%.
[End of figure]
The high degree of volatility in formula allotments has resulted in
increasingly wide disparities in funding across states. In program year
1997, both Texas and Mississippi received the same funding per
unemployed resident. However, because Texas became ineligible for
funding based on excess unemployment in 2001, its funding per
unemployed resident dropped slightly, while Mississippi (one of the
thirteen states still eligible) saw its funding jump more than three-
fold.[Footnote 16] As shown in figure 8, the program year 2001 funding
per unemployed individual in Mississippi was three times higher than in
Texas, even though in program year 1997, the funding per unemployed
individual was nearly identical. (See table 11 in app. V for a complete
listing of each state‘s funding per unemployed resident for program
years 1997 through 2001.)
Figure 8: Five-Year Dislocated Worker Allotments per Unemployed
Resident for Three States with Similar Program Year 1997 Allotments:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the five-year dislocated
worker allotments per unemployed resident for three states with similar
program year 1997 allotments. The vertical axis of the graph represents
dollars from 0 to 500. The horizontal axis of the graph represents
program years from 1997 through 2001. The three states represented are
Mississippi, Montana, and Texas.
[End of figure]
When the Congress passed WIA in 1998, it mandated that the secretary of
Labor undertake a study to improve the formula for the adult program.
This mandate includes the study of the formula used to allot adult
program funds to the states and of the formula used to allocate these
funds within the states. The study has been completed but has not yet
been released. The mandate did not address the formula for allocating
dislocated worker program funds.
Conclusions:
WIA was passed with the intention of providing greater flexibility to
states and local workforce areas, but more detailed guidance could
enable local workforce areas to better use the act‘s flexibility.
Clearly, WIA intends to provide state and local areas with the
flexibility to design programs that meet the specific needs of
dislocated workers in their areas. Given the early stage of
implementation, it is not surprising that some state and local
officials remain confused about how to put into practice some of the
act‘s new requirements, such as when to register individuals in the
dislocated worker program. Although Labor has provided broad guidance
and technical assistance to aid the transition from JTPA to WIA, some
workforce officials have stated that the guidance does not address
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 regarding the act‘s
implementation and disseminated information on best practices in a
timely manner.
Some states have trouble meeting the needs of their dislocated workers,
because the amount of dislocated worker funds they receive varies
dramatically from year to year and is not directly related to the
states‘ dislocated worker populations. The fluctuation in funding is
caused by a three-part funding formula that incorporates factors that
are no longer relevant to the dislocated worker program, that are
highly volatile from year to year, and that do not reflect the number
of dislocated workers in a state. A dislocated worker formula that
incorporates factors more accurately approximating a state‘s dislocated
worker population would provide states with a more relevant level of
funding for services to their dislocated workers.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the secretary of Labor provide local workforce areas
with additional guidance on implementation issues and information on
best practices to facilitate implementation of the dislocated worker
program under WIA and to assist local workforce officials in using the
greater flexibility afforded by the act to design programs and
services. Such guidance would help the local areas further define their
policies and procedures to meet the needs of their dislocated workers.
We also recommend that the secretary identify strategies for
disseminating this information in a timely manner. In particular, Labor
should:
* proactively identify areas that emerge as requiring additional
guidance to help state and local areas implement the dislocated worker
program;
* disseminate guidance that is more responsive to the concerns of
workforce officials responsible for implementing the act‘s
requirements, including when to register individuals into the
dislocated worker program and how to provide additional assistance to
local areas using rapid response funds; and:
* disseminate timely information on best practices being developed by
local areas to meet the needs of their dislocated workers.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
We suggest that the Congress consider modifying the existing dislocated
worker funding formula to minimize funding volatility and to ensure
that dislocated worker funds are better distributed to states in
relation to their dislocated worker population. The Congress may wish
to direct Labor to undertake a study of the dislocated worker funding
formula to identify factors that would enable better distribution of
program funds to states in relation to their dislocated worker
population.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment.
Labor noted that the report provided an informative review of how
states have responded to the challenges presented by the implementation
of WIA. Labor generally agreed with our recommendations and identified
steps that it is taking to address them. Labor commented that the
report provided the agency‘s first opportunity to review many of the
issues regarding the use of state set-aside funds for rapid response
and other statewide activities and said that analysis of this data will
be used to determine areas requiring more technical assistance and
guidance. Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated
where appropriate. Labor‘s entire comments are reproduced in appendix
VI.
Regarding our recommendation that Labor proactively identify areas
requiring additional guidance, Labor generally agreed, pointing out
that it had organized four WIA readiness workgroups consisting of
local, state, and federal representatives that had identified several
potential areas for additional federal guidance. However, Labor said
that it did not want to interfere with the flexibility that WIA
provides to states and localities. We acknowledge Labor‘s efforts and
encourage Labor to continue to monitor emerging issues by facilitating
discussions between local, state, and federal officials on an ongoing
basis.
Regarding our recommendation that Labor disseminate more guidance on
issues such as point of registration and use of rapid response funds
for additional assistance, Labor agreed, saying that it plans to issue
additional guidance on establishing the point of registration and
believes that a common point of registration is an integral component
of a nationwide system of performance accountability. Labor also
recognizes that registration guidance cannot be developed in isolation
and must reflect the complexities of WIA‘s performance accountability
system. Regarding the issue of guidance on the use of rapid response
funds for additional assistance, Labor said that a lack of guidance on
this subject was not identified previously in its implementation
assessments or the workgroups‘. Labor noted that the information in our
report would allow further exploration of this issue and a
determination of whether federal guidance is necessary on this topic.
We concur with Labor‘s assessment and agree that such guidance should
be developed with input from those officials responsible for
implementing WIA at the local level and should be consistent with the
accountability system established under WIA.
Regarding our recommendation that Labor disseminate timely information
on best practices, the agency stated that it has a contract with the
state of Illinois to develop a Web site to display promising practices.
We applaud Labor‘s efforts in this regard, agreeing that a Web site is
an excellent vehicle for providing information to a wide audience. We
strongly encourage Labor to monitor the site‘s implementation to ensure
that the information posted to the Web site is kept current.
Finally, regarding our suggestion that the Congress consider modifying
the dislocated worker funding formula, Labor replied that it has been
aware of the severe funding fluctuations and the difficulties such
fluctuations present to states. It believes that resource allocation
practices should ensure that funds are distributed in a manner that
puts resources where they are most needed, and it acknowledged that
because worker dislocations take place after formula funds are
allocated, available resources do not always match need. Labor noted
that it has initiated a review of the WIA dislocated worker funding
formula. While we support Labor‘s efforts to review this formula, we
believe that it is imperative that such an initiative be
congressionally mandated.
We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Elaine L. Chao,
secretary of Labor; relevant congressional committees; and others who
are interested. Copies will be made available to others upon request.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix VII.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to determine (1) how the implementation of WIA has
affected the services provided to dislocated workers at the local
level, (2) how funds set aside for rapid response and other statewide
activities are used to assist dislocated workers under WIA, and (3)
whether the distribution of dislocated worker funds is appropriately
targeted to states in relation to their dislocated worker population.
To determine how services are provided to dislocated workers, we
visited 14 local workforce areas located in 6 states and distributed
surveys to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico
concerning the use of state set-aside funds for rapid response
activities and for other statewide activities. We also interviewed
officials from the U.S. Department of Labor (Labor), the National
Alliance of Business, the National Governor‘s Association, and the
National Association of Workforce Boards.
Site Visits:
In selecting which states to visit, we categorized them according to
the size of each state‘s allotment for program year 2000, the number of
mass layoff events during the previous year, and the number of workers
affected by those events. We used three categories for the size of the
dislocated worker allotment: large”more than $50 million; medium”$15
million to $50 million; and small”less than $15 million. Similarly, we
used three categories for layoff activity: large” more than 200 mass
layoff events or more than 30,000 workers laid off; medium”75 to 200
mass layoff events or 10,000 to 30,000 workers laid off; and
small”fewer than 75 mass layoff events or fewer than 10,000 workers
laid off. We obtained the funding information from Labor‘s Employment
and Training Administration and the mass layoff data from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. We then chose states from the different
groups to provide variety in terms of funding size, dislocation
activity, and location (see table 3).
Table 3: Dislocated Worker Funding and Dislocation Activity for
Selected States:
State: California;
DOL region: 6;
Program year 2000 allotment: $297,723,349
Number of dislocation events[A]: 618;
Number of affected workers[A]: 130,798.
State: Illinois;
DOL region: 5;
Program year 2000 allotment: $38,725,943;
Number of dislocation events[A]: 353;
Number of affected workers[A]: 86,315.
State: Louisiana;
DOL region: 4;
Program year 2000 allotment: $24,339,414;
Number of dislocation events[A]: 37;
Number of affected workers[A]: 5,549.
State: Maryland;
DOL region: 2;
Program year 2000 allotment: $16,806,330;
Number of dislocation events[A]: 13;
Number of affected workers[A]: 1,977.
State: Massachusetts;
DOL region: 1;
Program year 2000 allotment: $13,588,888;
Number of dislocation events[A]: 119;
Number of affected workers[A]: 27,908.
State: Minnesota;
DOL region: 5;
Program year 2000 allotment: $8,023,090;
Number of dislocation events[A]: 117;
Number of affected workers[A]: 23,326.
Legend: DOL = Department of Labor.
[A] Dislocation events and separations are for the second quarter of
1999 to the third quarter of 2000 or the equivalent time period for
program year 1999.
[End of table]
Within each state, we picked two local workforce areas, except in
California where we picked four areas. We judgmentally selected these
workforce areas to provide a range funding sizes and types of areas”
specifically, urban versus rural (see table 4 for a list of the
selected local workforce areas).
Table 4: Local Workforce Areas Selected for Visits:
State: California:
Local workforce area: Los Angeles City;
City: Los Angeles;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $24,985,890.
State: California:
Local workforce area: North Santa Clara Valley Job Training Consortium
(NOVA);
City: Sunnyvale;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $1,205,672.
State: California:
Local workforce area: Riverside County;
City: Riverside;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $7,247,483.
State: California:
Local workforce area: San Francisco City/County Consortium;
City: San Francisco;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $2,369,840.
State: Illinois;
Local workforce area: City of Chicago LWA#9;
City: Chicago;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $6,030,064.
State: Illinois;
Local workforce area: Rock Island County LWA#13;
City: Rock Island;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $572,949.
State: Louisiana;
Local workforce area: Lafayette Parish #41;
City: Lafayette;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $473,855.
State: Louisiana;
Local workforce area: Orleans Parish #12;
City: New Orleans;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $2,128,962.
State: Maryland;
Local workforce area: Baltimore City;
City: Baltimore;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $2,227,582.
State: Maryland;
Local workforce area: Western Maryland;
City: Hagerstown;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $731,484.
State: Massachusetts;
Local workforce area: Bristol;
City: Fall River;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $689,772.
State: Massachusetts;
Local workforce area: Hampden;
City: Springfield;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $642,483.
State: Minnesota;
Local workforce area: Hennepin/Scott/Carver;
City: Minneapolis;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $598,205.
State: Minnesota;
Local workforce area: Southeast;
City: Rochester;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allocation: $362,989.
[End of table]
At each of these locations, we interviewed officials representing the
local workforce area and local workforce board and we toured one or
more one-stop centers. In some of the locations, we also attended
orientation meetings and met with one-stop center staff.
Surveys:
We distributed two surveys to the 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico. One survey was designed to obtain information on how
states used their set-aside funds for other statewide activities, and
the other was designed to obtain information on how states used their
set-aside funds for rapid response. We sent the survey on other
statewide activities to the 52 state agencies responsible for WIA
implementation and sent the survey on rapid response to the 52 state
units responsible for rapid response activities. As of September 27,
2001, we had received 50 responses (96 percent) for the survey on
statewide activities and 50 responses (96 percent) to the survey on
rapid response. Ohio and Pennsylvania did not respond to the survey on
other statewide activities, and Maine and New Hampshire did not respond
to the survey on rapid response.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Use of Dislocated Worker Funds for Rapid Response in 42
States:
Fifty states responded to our survey on states‘ rapid response
programs. Of the 50 respondents, 42 provided program year 2000
financial data that do not include program year 1999 carryover funds.
Table 5 shows, for each of these 42 states, the total amount of
dislocated worker funds set aside for rapid response activities. Funds
obligated for rapid response activities are further broken down into
two categories of obligations: rapid response services and additional
assistance to local areas.
Table 5: Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Allotment and Rapid
Response Set-Aside Funds in 42 States:
State: Alabama;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,337,794;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $3,040,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $300,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,740,000.
State: Arkansas;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,375,366;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,317,187;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,317,187;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: California;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $297,723,349;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $52,800,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $29,500,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $23,300,000.
State: Colorado;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $8,967,371;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $511,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $511,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Connecticut;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $8,480,789;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,816,948;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,816,948;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Delaware;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,664,457;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $20,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $20,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: District of Columbia;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $10,174,200;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $149,664;
Obligations for rapid response services: $149,664;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Florida;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $41,053,379;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $8,246,621;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,956,686;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $6,289,935.
State: Georgia;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $21,970,886;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,492,721;
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,778,257;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,714,464.
State: Hawaii;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,921,697;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $96,913;
Obligations for rapid response services: $96,913;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Illinois;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $38,725,943;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $8,670,303;
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,424,796;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $6,245,507.
State: Indiana;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $10,502,473;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,549,700;
Obligations for rapid response services: $796,100;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,753,600.
State: Iowa;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $4,984,236;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $198,995;
Obligations for rapid response services: $173,820;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $25,175.
State: Kansas;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $5,772,856;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $614,286;
Obligations for rapid response services: $345,746;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $268,540.
State: Kentucky;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $11,423,295;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,750,564;
Obligations for rapid response services: $250,564;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,500,000.
State: Louisiana;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $24,339,414;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $983,791;
Obligations for rapid response services: $949,711;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $34,080.
State: Maryland;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $16,806,330;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,350,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $580,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $770,000.
State: Massachusetts;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $13,588,888;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,400,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,200,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,200,000.
State: Michigan;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $22,130,803;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,821,710;
Obligations for rapid response services: $520,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,301,710.
State: Mississippi;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $13,390,794;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,008,619;
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,008,619;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Nebraska;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $2,388,261;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $425,166;
Obligations for rapid response services: $90,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $335,166.
State: Nevada;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $5,076,189;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $194,595;
Obligations for rapid response services: $194,595;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: New Jersey;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $30,833,430;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,530,641;
Obligations for rapid response services: $5,530,641;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: New Mexico;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $20,907,033;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $873,756;
Obligations for rapid response services: $873,756;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: New York;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $42,360,726;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,775,996;
Obligations for rapid response services: $5,775,996;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: North Carolina;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $16,906,622;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $730,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $360,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $370,000.
State: North Dakota;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,421,909;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $200,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $200,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Ohio;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $30,844,022;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $4,721,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,645,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,076,000.
State: Oregon;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $30,420,464;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,489,544;
Obligations for rapid response services: $589,544;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $900,000.
State: Pennsylvania;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $38,179,716;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,220,309;
Obligations for rapid response services: $2,000,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,220,309.
State: Puerto Rico;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $108,278,443;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,856,854;
Obligations for rapid response services: $856,854;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $1,000,000.
State: Rhode Island;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $2,924,830;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $731,208;
Obligations for rapid response services: $731,208;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: South Carolina;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $9,726,336;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $1,163,845;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,113,845;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $50,000.
State: South Dakota;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,477,871;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $44,721;
Obligations for rapid response services: $44,721;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Tennessee;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $14,194,628;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $3,459,711;
Obligations for rapid response services: $738,046;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $2,721,665.
State: Texas;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $74,756,662;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $11,760,858;
Obligations for rapid response services: $8,211,858;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,549,000.
State: Utah;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $4,343,544;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $828,513;
Obligations for rapid response services: $340,515;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $487,998.
State: Vermont;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,220,468;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $84,398;
Obligations for rapid response services: $84,398;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
State: Virginia;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $12,359,788;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $853,186;
Obligations for rapid response services: $453,186;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $400,000.
State: Washington;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $28,220,707;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $2,000,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,100,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $900,000.
State: West Virginia;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $23,364,426;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $4,200,000;
Obligations for rapid response services: $1,200,000;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: $3,000,000.
State: Wyoming;
Program year 2000 dislocated worker allotment: $1,921,722;
Total obligations for rapid response activities: $5,215;
Obligations for rapid response services: $5,215;
Obligations for additional assistance to local areas: 0.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Combined Set-Aside Funds Available for Statewide
Activities in 52 States:
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) permits states to set aside up to 15
percent of the allotments for their adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs. In addition, the act allows the states to combine these funds
to support a variety of statewide activities. Table 6 lists, for all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the program year
2000 WIA adult, dislocated worker, and youth allotments and the maximum
allowable combined set-aside for statewide activities.
Table 6: Program Year 2000 WIA Allotments and Maximum 15 Percent
Combined Set-Aside for Statewide Activities for 52 States:
Program Year 2000 WIA Allotments:
State: Alabama;
Adults: $13,600,837;
Dislocated workers: $12,337,794;
Youth: $14,066,303;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,000,740.
State: Alaska;
Adults: $3,089,722;
Dislocated workers: $6,719,943;
Youth: $3,215,719;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,953,808.
State: Arizona;
Adults: $15,648,932;
Dislocated workers: $11,542,782;
Youth: $16,578,123;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,565,476.
State: Arkansas;
Adults: $10,068,804;
Dislocated workers: $12,375,366;
Youth: $10,429,385;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$4,931,033.
State: California;
Adults: $160,743,770;
Dislocated workers: $297,723,349;
Youth: $171,424,027;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$94,483,672.
State: Colorado;
Adults: $6,409,369;
Dislocated workers: $8,967,371;
Youth: $6,550,692;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$3,289,115.
State: Connecticut;
Adults: $7,486,306;
Dislocated workers: $8,480,789;
Youth: $7,700,441;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$3,550,130.
State: Delaware;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $1,664,457;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$973,587.
State: District of Columbia;
Adults: $4,412,566;
Dislocated workers: $10,174,200;
Youth: $4,528,781;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$2,867,332.
State: Florida;
Adults: $39,256,368;
Dislocated workers: $41,053,379;
Youth: $39,070,163;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$17,906,987.
State: Georgia;
Adults: $19,518,990;
Dislocated workers: $21,970,886;
Youth: $20,496,219;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$9,297,914.
State: Hawaii;
Adults: $6,049,854;
Dislocated workers: $12,921,697;
Youth: $6,045,743;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$3,752,594.
State: Idaho;
Adults: $3,872,663;
Dislocated workers: $6,033,643;
Youth: $4,095,248;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$2,100,233.
State: Illinois;
Adults: $38,399,632;
Dislocated workers: $38,725,943;
Youth: $40,030,985;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$17,573,484.
State: Indiana;
Adults: $10,557,597;
Dislocated workers: $10,502,473;
Youth: $11,014,284;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$4,811,153.
State: Iowa;
Adults: $3,209,170;
Dislocated workers: $4,984,236;
Youth: $3,259,920;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,717,999.
State: Kansas;
Adults: $3,434,681;
Dislocated workers: $5,772,856;
Youth: $3,440,280;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,897,173.
State: Kentucky;
Adults: $15,516,224;
Dislocated workers: $11,423,295;
Youth: $15,511,193;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,367,607.
State: Louisiana;
Adults: $20,662,594;
Dislocated workers: $24,339,414;
Youth: $21,598,829;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$9,990,126.
State: Maine;
Adults: $3,667,080;
Dislocated workers: $3,854,255;
Youth: $3,720,413;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,686,262.
State: Maryland;
Adults: $13,552,128;
Dislocated workers: $16,806,330;
Youth: $13,787,590;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,621,907.
State: Massachusetts;
Adults: $12,483,536;
Dislocated workers: $13,588,888;
Youth: $12,957,434;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$5,854,479.
State: Michigan;
Adults: $27,277,938;
Dislocated workers: $22,130,803;
Youth: $28,969,657;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$11,756,760.
State: Minnesota;
Adults: $7,782,432;
Dislocated workers: $8,023,090;
Youth: $8,048,735;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$3,578,139.
State: Mississippi;
Adults: $11,341,654;
Dislocated workers: $13,390,794;
Youth: $12,562,595;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$5,594,256.
State: Missouri;
Adults: $13,732,983;
Dislocated workers: $15,326,715;
Youth: $14,008,527;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,460,234.
State: Montana;
Adults: $4,193,064;
Dislocated workers: $6,417,081;
Youth: $4,149,252;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$2,213,910.
State: Nebraska;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $2,388,261;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,082,157.
State: Nevada;
Adults: $3,550,960;
Dislocated workers: $5,076,189;
Youth: $3,661,485;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,843,295.
State: New Hampshire;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $2,247,442;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,061,034.
State: New Jersey;
Adults: $23,265,426;
Dislocated workers: $30,833,430;
Youth: $23,699,434;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$11,669,744.
State: New Mexico;
Adults: $9,968,030;
Dislocated workers: $20,907,033;
Youth: $10,430,066;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,195,769.
State: New York;
Adults: $81,558,176;
Dislocated workers: $142,360,726;
Youth: $81,034,703;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$45,743,041.
State: North Carolina;
Adults: $14,198,520;
Dislocated workers: $16,906,622;
Youth: $14,391,704;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,824,527.
State: North Dakota;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $1,421,909;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$937,205.
State: Ohio;
Adults: $40,353,010;
Dislocated workers: $30,844,022;
Youth: $41,633,629;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$16,924,599.
State: Oklahoma;
Adults: $10,261,832;
Dislocated workers: $8,085,953;
Youth: $10,326,811;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$4,301,189.
State: Oregon;
Adults: $14,237,385;
Dislocated workers: $30,420,464;
Youth: $14,609,203;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$8,890,058.
State: Pennsylvania;
Adults: $34,243,052;
Dislocated workers: $38,179,716;
Youth: $34,298,461;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$16,008,184.
State: Puerto Rico;
Adults: $52,848,829;
Dislocated workers: $108,278,443;
Youth: $54,369,986;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$32,324,589.
State: Rhode Island;
Adults: $2,478,859;
Dislocated workers: $2,924,830;
Youth: $2,490,640;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,184,149.
State: South Carolina;
Adults: $11,664,248;
Dislocated workers: $9,726,336;
Youth: $12,091,526;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$5,022,317.
State: South Dakota;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $1,477,871;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$945,599.
State: Tennessee;
Adults: $18,118,821;
Dislocated workers: $14,194,628;
Youth: $18,465,533;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$7,616,847.
State: Texas;
Adults: $82,451,236;
Dislocated workers: $74,756,662;
Youth: $88,620,250;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$36,874,222.
State: Utah;
Adults: $2,753,861;
Dislocated workers: $4,343,544;
Youth: $3,301,394;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,559,820.
State: Vermont;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $1,220,468;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$906,988.
State: Virginia;
Adults: $12,992,562;
Dislocated workers: $12,359,788;
Youth: $13,385,882;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$5,810,735.
State: Washington;
Adults: $20,455,166;
Dislocated workers: $28,220,707;
Youth: $21,370,932;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$10,507,021.
State: West Virginia;
Adults: $10,306,103;
Dislocated workers: $23,364,426;
Youth: $10,548,280;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$6,632,821.
State: Wisconsin;
Adults: $9,366,589;
Dislocated workers: $11,506,979;
Youth: $9,633,249;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$4,576,023.
State: Wyoming;
Adults: $2,369,063;
Dislocated workers: $1,921,722;
Youth: $2,457,058;
Maximum 15 percent combined set-aside for statewide activities:
$1,012,176.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Used for Various
Activities:
Forty-three of the 50 states responding to our survey on the use of set-
aside funds for statewide activities indicated that they combined set-
aside funds from their adult, youth, and dislocated worker allotments,
as allowed by the act. The following graphs identify the percentage of
statewide set-aside funds that these states spent on various
activities. In some instances, the upper limit (greater than 10
percent) included a wide range. Accordingly, we have provided more
information in the text on expenditures by states for this category.
Figure 9: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Disseminating State List of Training Providers:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Disseminating State
List of Training Providers:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 11 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 2 states.
[End of figure]
One state (North Dakota) spent 30 percent of its set-aside funds on
disseminating a state list of training providers.
Figure 10: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting
Evaluations of Programs or Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting Evaluations
of Programs or Activities:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 10 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 7 states.
[End of figure]
Five states spent between 10 percent and 18 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on conducting evaluations of programs or activities. In
addition, South Dakota and Arizona spent about 25 percent on this
activity.
Figure 11: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Incentive Grants to Local Areas:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Incentive
Grants to Local Areas:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 17 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 11 states.
[End of figure]
Seven states spent between 10 percent and 17 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on providing incentive grants to local areas. In
addition, Illinois spent over 21 percent, Wisconsin spent almost 29
percent, and Nebraska spent about 38 percent on this activity.
Figure 12: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Technical Assistance to Local Areas:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Technical
Assistance to Local Areas:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 12 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 6 states.
[End of figure]
Four states spent between 10 percent and 15 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on providing technical assistance to local areas. In
addition, Mississippi and South Dakota spent 25 percent on this
activity.
Figure 13: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Assisting
in the Establishment or Operation of One-Stop Delivery Systems:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Assisting in the
Establishment or Operation of One-Stop Delivery Systems:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 6 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 18 states.
[End of figure]
Seven states spent between 11 percent and 20 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on assisting in the establishment and operation of one-
stop center systems; another nine states spent between 22 percent and
37 percent of their funds on this activity. In addition, Connecticut
spent about 41 percent and Missouri spent about 52 percent.
Figure 14: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Additional
Assistance for Local Areas with a High Concentration of Eligible
Youths:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Additional Assistance
for Local Areas with a High Concentration of Eligible Youths:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 19 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 4 states.
[End of figure]
Four states spent between 12 percent and 15 percent of their set-aside
funds on additional assistance for local areas with a high
concentration of eligible youths.
Figure 15: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Operating
Fiscal and Management Accountability Information Systems:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Operating Fiscal and
Management Accountability Information Systems:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 6 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 15 states.
[End of figure]
Four states spent between 10 percent and 20 percent of their set-aside
funds on operating fiscal and management accountability information
systems; another eight states spent from 20 percent to 30 percent on
this activity. In addition, Arkansas spent almost 39 percent, Idaho
spent about 47 percent, and Virginia spent about 51 percent on this
activity.
Figure 16: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Carrying
Out General State-Level Administrative Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Carrying Out General
State-Level Administrative Activities:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 2 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 36 states.
[End of figure]
Nine states spent between 10 percent and 20 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on carrying out general state-level administrative
activities, six states spent between 20 percent and 30 percent on this
activity, and 18 states spent between 30 percent and 35 percent. In
addition, Texas spent about 38 percent, Nebraska spent about 45
percent, and Iowa spent about 64 percent of their combined set-aside
funds on this activity.
Figure 17: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Capacity Building to Local Areas through Training of Staff and
Development of Exemplary Program Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Capacity
Building to Local Areas through Training of Staff and Development of
Exemplary Program Activities:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 10 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 5 states.
[End of figure]
Five states spent between 10 percent and 19 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on providing capacity building to local areas through
training of staff, development of exemplary program activities, or
both.
Figure 18: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting
Research and Demonstration Projects:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Conducting Research
and Demonstration Projects:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 29 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 3 states.
[End of figure]
Idaho spent 13 percent, Florida spent about 29 percent, and New
Hampshire spent about 35 percent of their combined set-aside funds on
conducting research and demonstration projects.
Figure 19: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Incumbent Worker Training:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Incumbent
Worker Training:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 26 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 7 states.
[End of figure]
Four states spent between 10 percent and 20 percent of their combined
set-aside funds on implementing incumbent worker training. In addition,
Vermont spent 30 percent, Florida spent 34 percent, and Indiana spent
37 percent of their combined set-aside funds on this activity.
Figure 20: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Programs Targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise
Communities:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Programs
Targeted to Empowerment Zones and Enterprise Communities:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 37 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 0 states.
[End of figure]
Figure 21: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing
Support for the Identification of Eligible Training Providers:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Providing Support for
the Identification of Eligible Training Providers:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 23 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 0 states.
[End of figure]
Figure 22: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Programs for Displaced Homemakers:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Programs
for Displaced Homemakers:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 37 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 1 states.
[End of figure]
Virginia spent 19 percent of its set-aside funds on implementing
programs for displaced homemakers.
Figure 23: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on
Implementing Training Programs for Nontraditional Employment Positions:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Implementing Training
Programs for Nontraditional Employment Positions:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 37 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 1 states.
[End of figure]
Vermont spent about 11 percent of its set-aside funds on implementing
training programs for nontraditional employment positions.
Figure 24: Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Other
Activities:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Percentage of Statewide Set-Aside Funds Spent on Other Activities:
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 0%: 13 states;
Percentage of set-aside funds spent on this activity: 10%: 19 states.
[End of figure]
Seven states spent between 10 percent and 18 percent of their set-aside
funds on other activities, six states spent between 19 percent and 31
percent, and two states spent between 31 percent and 40 percent. In
addition, Alabama and West Virginia both spent about 47 percent of
their set-aside funds on these activities, while Nevada spent about 73
percent and California spent about 76 percent.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Detailed Listing of the Federal Funding Formula for
Dislocated Workers:
Appendix V presents detailed results of our analysis of the federal
funding formula for dislocated workers and its impact on 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico (see tables 7 through 11). We
obtained information for the analysis of the funding formula and the
state dislocated worker allotments between program years 1997 and 2001
from the Department of Labor.
Table 7: Dislocated Worker Allotments for Program Years 1997 through
2001, by State:
State: Alabama;
Program year 1997: $14,887,940;
Program year 1998: $10,405,271;
Program year 1999: $11,310,449;
Program year 2000: $12,337,794;
Program year 2001: $15,068,548.
State: Alaska;
Program year 1997: $3,931,646;
Program year 1998: $5,569,805;
Program year 1999: $6,053,763;
Program year 2000: $6,719,943;
Program year 2001: $11,395,001.
State: Arizona;
Program year 1997: $10,790,780;
Program year 1998: $13,481,176;
Program year 1999: $9,383,103;
Program year 2000: $11,542,782;
Program year 2001: $12,879,316.
State: Arkansas;
Program year 1997: $5,898,001;
Program year 1998: $9,331,256;
Program year 1999: $10,872,546;
Program year 2000: $12,375,366;
Program year 2001: $7,103,656.
State: California;
Program year 1997: $226,611,355;
Program year 1998: $228,452,063;
Program year 1999: $252,751,353;
Program year 2000: $297,723,349;
Program year 2001: $273,391,437.
State: Colorado;
Program year 1997: $6,569,865;
Program year 1998: $6,965,327;
Program year 1999: $6,515,135;
Program year 2000: $8,967,371;
Program year 2001: $8,255,862.
State: Connecticut;
Program year 1997: $12,269,326;
Program year 1998: $13,972,394;
Program year 1999: $10,137,244;
Program year 2000: $8,480,789;
Program year 2001: $7,406,982.
State: Delaware;
Program year 1997: $1,966,568;
Program year 1998: $1,962,967;
Program year 1999: $1,730,577;
Program year 2000: $1,664,457;
Program year 2001: $2,184,617.
State: District of Columbia;
Program year 1997: $5,631,401;
Program year 1998: $5,710,918;
Program year 1999: $9,278,408;
Program year 2000: $10,174,200;
Program year 2001: $8,433,959.
State: Florida;
Program year 1997: $47,487,185;
Program year 1998: $43,088,420;
Program year 1999: $37,376,186;
Program year 2000: $41,053,379;
Program year 2001: $39,311,417.
State: Georgia;
Program year 1997: $15,447,527;
Program year 1998: $16,437,304;
Program year 1999: $17,327,420;
Program year 2000: $21,970,886;
Program year 2001: $20,930,127.
State: Hawaii;
Program year 1997: $5,392,433;
Program year 1998: $7,124,058;
Program year 1999: $9,203,634;
Program year 2000: $12,921,697;
Program year 2001: $6,477,632.
State: Idaho;
Program year 1997: $3,203,461;
Program year 1998: $4,218,044;
Program year 1999: $5,142,284;
Program year 2000: $6,033,643;
Program year 2001: $3,898,217.
State: Illinois;
Program year 1997: $41,727,268;
Program year 1998: $38,162,269;
Program year 1999: $33,944,834;
Program year 2000: $38,725,943;
Program year 2001: $41,575,303.
State: Indiana;
Program year 1997: $11,375,233;
Program year 1998: $10,887,945;
Program year 1999: $9,999,244;
Program year 2000: $10,502,473;
Program year 2001: $10,682,428.
State: Iowa;
Program year 1997: $4,209,472;
Program year 1998: $5,193,070;
Program year 1999: $4,603,653;
Program year 2000: $4,984,236;
Program year 2001: $5,437,368.
State: Kansas;
Program year 1997: $4,690,124;
Program year 1998: $5,046,917;
Program year 1999: $5,107,811;
Program year 2000: $5,772,856;
Program year 2001: $5,502,565.
State: Kentucky;
Program year 1997: $11,913,534;
Program year 1998: $16,465,202;
Program year 1999: $10,071,794;
Program year 2000: $11,423,295;
Program year 2001: $11,735,435.
State: Louisiana;
Program year 1997: $22,984,811;
Program year 1998: $24,467,573;
Program year 1999: $25,508,779;
Program year 2000: $24,339,414;
Program year 2001: $23,158,418.
State: Maine;
Program year 1997: $4,643,804;
Program year 1998: $3,812,342;
Program year 1999: $4,094,611;
Program year 2000: $3,854,255;
Program year 2001: $3,214,945.
State: Maryland;
Program year 1997: $16,322,396;
Program year 1998: $14,535,456;
Program year 1999: $19,792,477;
Program year 2000: $16,806,330;
Program year 2001: $17,559,765.
State: Massachusetts;
Program year 1997: $18,455,865;
Program year 1998: $14,048,429;
Program year 1999: $13,467,578;
Program year 2000: $13,588,888;
Program year 2001: $15,134,353.
State: Michigan;
Program year 1997: $24,798,043;
Program year 1998: $20,753,875;
Program year 1999: $21,366,758;
Program year 2000: $22,130,803;
Program year 2001: $21,932,071.
State: Minnesota;
Program year 1997: $8,025,182;
Program year 1998: $8,655,629;
Program year 1999: $8,482,964;
Program year 2000: $8,023,090;
Program year 2001: $10,473,235.
State: Mississippi;
Program year 1997: $10,812,972;
Program year 1998: $11,851,804;
Program year 1999: $14,148,987;
Program year 2000: $13,390,794;
Program year 2001: $30,701,477.
State: Missouri;
Program year 1997: $10,875,026;
Program year 1998: $12,288,831;
Program year 1999: $13,857,280;
Program year 2000: $15,326,715;
Program year 2001: $12,374,521.
State: Montana;
Program year 1997: $3,531,457;
Program year 1998: $2,892,798;
Program year 1999: $4,879,006;
Program year 2000: $6,417,081;
Program year 2001: $7,084,638.
State: Nebraska;
Program year 1997: $1,594,122;
Program year 1998: $1,965,472;
Program year 1999: $1,997,095;
Program year 2000: $2,388,261;
Program year 2001: $2,997,707.
State: Nevada;
Program year 1997: $4,632,379;
Program year 1998: $4,648,561;
Program year 1999: $3,910,433;
Program year 2000: $5,076,189;
Program year 2001: $5,334,057.
State: New Hampshire;
Program year 1997: $2,260,095;
Program year 1998: $2,272,311;
Program year 1999: $1,583,448;
Program year 2000: $2,247,442;
Program year 2001: $1,877,882.
State: New Jersey;
Program year 1997: $44,679,005;
Program year 1998: $43,261,829;
Program year 1999: $36,304,389;
Program year 2000: $30,833,430;
Program year 2001: $30,498,439.
State: New Mexico;
Program year 1997: $8,607,771;
Program year 1998: $12,173,813;
Program year 1999: $14,447,813;
Program year 2000: $20,907,033;
Program year 2001: $21,923,521.
State: New York;
Program year 1997: $91,917,963;
Program year 1998: $113,707,688;
Program year 1999: $141,469,827;
Program year 2000: $142,360,726;
Program year 2001: $105,559,534.
State: North Carolina;
Program year 1997: $13,056,615;
Program year 1998: $13,313,849;
Program year 1999: $14,354,831;
Program year 2000: $16,906,622;
Program year 2001: $16,959,265.
State: North Dakota;
Program year 1997: $11,735;
Program year 1998: $812,799;
Program year 1999: $791,223;
Program year 2000: $1,421,909;
Program year 2001: $1,279,725.
State: Ohio;
Program year 1997: $30,158,145;
Program year 1998: $30,143,462;
Program year 1999: $28,150,483;
Program year 2000: $30,844,022;
Program year 2001: $34,309,127.
State: Oklahoma;
Program year 1997: $6,134,591;
Program year 1998: $5,531,341;
Program year 1999: $6,881,200;
Program year 2000: $8,085,953;
Program year 2001: $6,561,865.
State: Oregon;
Program year 1997: $8,292,745;
Program year 1998: $15,100,295;
Program year 1999: $17,668,368;
Program year 2000: $30,420,464;
Program year 2001: $28,811,913.
State: Pennsylvania;
Program year 1997: $47,736,539;
Program year 1998: $45,002,996;
Program year 1999: $36,555,932;
Program year 2000: $38,179,716;
Program year 2001: $38,706,830.
State: Puerto Rico;
Program year 1997: $39,306,758;
Program year 1998: $49,534,488;
Program year 1999: $82,314,462;
Program year 2000: $108,278,443;
Program year 2001: $166,101,676.
State: Rhode Island;
Program year 1997: $4,450,933;
Program year 1998: $3,588,822;
Program year 1999: $3,851,636;
Program year 2000: $2,924,830;
Program year 2001: $2,885,714.
State: South Carolina;
Program year 1997: $13,502,936;
Program year 1998: $16,723,308;
Program year 1999: $8,163,435;
Program year 2000: $9,726,336;
Program year 2001: $11,936,257.
State: South Dakota;
Program year 1997: $815,418;
Program year 1998: $890,691;
Program year 1999: $986,630;
Program year 2000: $1,477,871;
Program year 2001: $1,283,809.
State: Tennessee;
Program year 1997: $15,412,716;
Program year 1998: $18,581,291;
Program year 1999: $14,120,459;
Program year 2000: $14,194,628;
Program year 2001: $12,771,543.
State: Texas;
Program year 1997: $81,382,699;
Program year 1998: $81,009,852;
Program year 1999: $74,819,227;
Program year 2000: $74,756,662;
Program year 2001: $63,747,179.
State: Utah;
Program year 1997: $2,503,785;
Program year 1998: $2,446,846;
Program year 1999: $3,229,390;
Program year 2000: $4,343,544;
Program year 2001: $4,430,131.
State: Vermont;
Program year 1997: $1,060,691;
Program year 1998: $1,298,100;
Program year 1999: $1,391,491;
Program year 2000: $1,220,468;
Program year 2001: $1,240,882.
State: Virginia;
Program year 1997: $13,354,807;
Program year 1998: $14,527,059;
Program year 1999: $13,872,204;
Program year 2000: $12,359,788;
Program year 2001: $12,424,713.
State: Washington;
Program year 1997: $26,317,878;
Program year 1998: $24,728,657;
Program year 1999: $13,905,356;
Program year 2000: $28,220,707;
Program year 2001: $27,119,437.
State: West Virginia;
Program year 1997: $12,065,944;
Program year 1998: $13,035,793;
Program year 1999: $16,082,147;
Program year 2000: $23,364,426;
Program year 2001: $25,423,973.
State: Wisconsin;
Program year 1997: $8,791,150;
Program year 1998: $9,028,070;
Program year 1999: $9,944,587;
Program year 2000: $11,506,979;
Program year 2001: $12,880,353.
State: Wyoming;
Program year 1997: $999,905;
Program year 1998: $1,299,464;
Program year 1999: $1,204,056;
Program year 2000: $1,921,722;
Program year 2001: $1,663,175.
State: Total;
Program year 1997: $1,034,400,000;
Program year 1998: $1,080,408,000;
Program year 1999: $1,124,408,000;
Program year 2000: $1,271,220,000;
Program year 2001: $1,272,032,000.
[End of table]
Table 8: Percentage Change in Total Dislocated Worker Allotments for
Program Years 1998 through 2001, by State:
State: Alabama;
Program year 1998: -30%;
Program year 1999: 9%;
Program year 2000: 9%;
Program year 2001: 22%.
State: Alaska;
Program year 1998: 42%;
Program year 1999: 9%;
Program year 2000: 11%;
Program year 2001: 70%.
State: Arizona;
Program year 1998: 25%;
Program year 1999: -30%;
Program year 2000: 23%;
Program year 2001: 12%.
State: Arkansas;
Program year 1998: 58%;
Program year 1999: 17%;
Program year 2000: 14%;
Program year 2001: -43%.
State: California;
Program year 1998: 1%;
Program year 1999: 11%;
Program year 2000: 18%;
Program year 2001: -8%.
State: Colorado;
Program year 1998: 6%;
Program year 1999: -6%;
Program year 2000: 38%;
Program year 2001: -8%.
State: Connecticut;
Program year 1998: 14%;
Program year 1999: -27%;
Program year 2000: -16%;
Program year 2001: -13%.
State: Delaware;
Program year 1998: 0%;
Program year 1999: -12%;
Program year 2000: -4%;
Program year 2001: 31%.
State: District of Columbia;
Program year 1998: 1%;
Program year 1999: 62%;
Program year 2000: 10%;
Program year 2001: -17%.
State: Florida;
Program year 1998: -9%;
Program year 1999: -13%;
Program year 2000: 10%;
Program year 2001: -4%.
State: Georgia;
Program year 1998: 6%;
Program year 1999: 5%;
Program year 2000: 27%;
Program year 2001: -5%.
State: Hawaii;
Program year 1998: 32%;
Program year 1999: 29%;
Program year 2000: 40%;
Program year 2001: -50%.
State: Idaho;
Program year 1998: 32%;
Program year 1999: 22%;
Program year 2000: 17%;
Program year 2001: -35%.
State: Illinois;
Program year 1998: -9%;
Program year 1999: -11%;
Program year 2000: 14%;
Program year 2001: 7%.
State: Indiana;
Program year 1998: -4%;
Program year 1999: -8%;
Program year 2000: 5%;
Program year 2001: 2%.
State: Iowa;
Program year 1998: 23%;
Program year 1999: -11%;
Program year 2000: 8%;
Program year 2001: 9%.
State: Kansas;
Program year 1998: 8%;
Program year 1999: 1%;
Program year 2000: 13%;
Program year 2001: -5%.
State: Kentucky;
Program year 1998: 39%;
Program year 1999: -39%;
Program year 2000: 13%;
Program year 2001: 3%.
State: Louisiana;
Program year 1998: 6%;
Program year 1999: 4%;
Program year 2000: -5%;
Program year 2001: -5%.
State: Maine;
Program year 1998: -18%;
Program year 1999: 7%;
Program year 2000: -6%;
Program year 2001: -17%.
State: Maryland;
Program year 1998: -11%;
Program year 1999: 36%;
Program year 2000: -15%;
Program year 2001: 4%.
State: Massachusetts;
Program year 1998: -24%;
Program year 1999: -4%;
Program year 2000: 1%;
Program year 2001: 11%.
State: Michigan;
Program year 1998: -16%;
Program year 1999: 3%;
Program year 2000: 4%;
Program year 2001: -1%.
State: Minnesota;
Program year 1998: 8%;
Program year 1999: -2%;
Program year 2000: -5%;
Program year 2001: 31%.
State: Mississippi;
Program year 1998: 10%;
Program year 1999: 19%;
Program year 2000: -5%;
Program year 2001: 129%.
State: Missouri;
Program year 1998: 13%;
Program year 1999: 13%;
Program year 2000: 11%;
Program year 2001: -19%.
State: Montana;
Program year 1998: -18%;
Program year 1999: 69%;
Program year 2000: 32%;
Program year 2001: 10%.
State: Nebraska;
Program year 1998: 23%;
Program year 1999: 2%;
Program year 2000: 20%;
Program year 2001: 26%.
State: Nevada;
Program year 1998: 0%;
Program year 1999: -16%;
Program year 2000: 30%;
Program year 2001: 5%.
State: New Hampshire;
Program year 1998: 1%;
Program year 1999: -30%;
Program year 2000: 42%;
Program year 2001: -16%.
State: New Jersey;
Program year 1998: -3%;
Program year 1999: -16%;
Program year 2000: -15%;
Program year 2001: -1%.
State: New Mexico;
Program year 1998: 41%;
Program year 1999: 19%;
Program year 2000: 45%;
Program year 2001: 5%.
State: New York;
Program year 1998: 24%;
Program year 1999: 24%;
Program year 2000: 1%;
Program year 2001: -26%.
State: North Carolina;
Program year 1998: 2%;
Program year 1999: 8%;
Program year 2000: 18%;
Program year 2001: 0%.
State: North Dakota;
Program year 1998: -11%;
Program year 1999: -3%;
Program year 2000: 80%;
Program year 2001: -10%.
State: Ohio;
Program year 1998: 0%;
Program year 1999: -7%;
Program year 2000: 10%;
Program year 2001: 11%.
State: Oklahoma;
Program year 1998: -10%;
Program year 1999: 24%;
Program year 2000: 18%;
Program year 2001: -19%.
State: Oregon;
Program year 1998: 82%;
Program year 1999: 17%;
Program year 2000: 72%;
Program year 2001: -5%.
State: Pennsylvania;
Program year 1998: -6%;
Program year 1999: -19%;
Program year 2000: 4%;
Program year 2001: 1%.
State: Puerto Rico;
Program year 1998: 26%;
Program year 1999: 66%;
Program year 2000: 32%;
Program year 2001: 53%.
State: Rhode Island;
Program year 1998: -19%;
Program year 1999: 7%;
Program year 2000: -24%;
Program year 2001: -1%.
State: South Carolina;
Program year 1998: 24%;
Program year 1999: -51%;
Program year 2000: 19%;
Program year 2001: 23%.
State: South Dakota;
Program year 1998: 9%;
Program year 1999: 11%;
Program year 2000: 50%;
Program year 2001: -13%.
State: Tennessee;
Program year 1998: 21%;
Program year 1999: -24%;
Program year 2000: 1%;
Program year 2001: -10%.
State: Texas;
Program year 1998: 0%;
Program year 1999: -8%;
Program year 2000: 0%;
Program year 2001: -15%.
State: Utah;
Program year 1998: -2%;
Program year 1999: 32%;
Program year 2000: 35%;
Program year 2001: 2%.
State: Vermont;
Program year 1998: 22%;
Program year 1999: 7%;
Program year 2000: -12%;
Program year 2001: 2%.
State: Virginia;
Program year 1998: 9%;
Program year 1999: -5%;
Program year 2000: -11%;
Program year 2001: 1%.
State: Washington;
Program year 1998: -6%;
Program year 1999: -44%;
Program year 2000: 103%;
Program year 2001: -4%.
State: West Virginia;
Program year 1998: 8%;
Program year 1999: 23%;
Program year 2000: 45%;
Program year 2001: 9%.
State: Wisconsin;
Program year 1998: 3%;
Program year 1999: 10%;
Program year 2000: 16%;
Program year 2001: 12%.
State: Wyoming;
Program year 1998: 30%;
Program year 1999: -7%;
Program year 2000: 60%;
Program year 2001: -13%.
State: US + Puerto Rico;
Program year 1998: 4%;
Program year 1999: 4%;
Program year 2000: 13%;
Program year 2001: 0%.
[End of table]
Table 9: States with Excess Unemployment for Program Years 1997 through
2001:
State: Alabama;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Alaska;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Arizona;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Arkansas;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: California;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Colorado;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Connecticut;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Delaware;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: District of Columbia;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Florida;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Georgia;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Hawaii;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Idaho;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Illinois;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Indiana;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Iowa;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Kansas;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Kentucky;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Louisiana;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Maine;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Maryland;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Massachusetts;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Michigan;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Minnesota;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Mississippi;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Missouri;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Montana;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Nebraska;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Nevada;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: New Hampshire;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: New Jersey;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: New Mexico;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: New York;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: North Carolina;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: North Dakota;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Ohio;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Oklahoma;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Oregon;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Pennsylvania;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Puerto Rico;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Rhode Island;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: South Carolina;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: South Dakota;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Tennessee;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Texas;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Utah;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Vermont;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Virginia;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Washington;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: West Virginia;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Check];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Check].
State: Wisconsin;
Program year 1997: [Empty];
Program year 1998: [Empty];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Empty];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: Wyoming;
Program year 1997: [Check];
Program year 1998: [Check];
Program year 1999: [Empty];
Program year 2000: [Check];
Program year 2001: [Empty].
State: State Count;
Program year 1997: 36;
Program year 1998: 34;
Program year 1999: 23;
Program year 2000: 18;
Program year 2001: 13.
[End of table]
Table 10: Percentage Change in Long-Term Unemployment Allotments from
Prior Year, by State:
State: Alabama;
Program year 1997: -20%;
Program year 1998: 32%;
Program year 1999: -4%;
Program year 2000: 35%.
State: Alaska;
Program year 1997: 49%;
Program year 1998: 33%;
Program year 1999: -29%;
Program year 2000: 11%.
State: Arizona;
Program year 1997: 48%;
Program year 1998: -20%;
Program year 1999: 16%;
Program year 2000: -32%.
State: Arkansas;
Program year 1997: 60%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 41%;
Program year 2000: -8%.
State: California;
Program year 1997: 3%;
Program year 1998: -6%;
Program year 1999: 18%;
Program year 2000: -8%.
State: Colorado;
Program year 1997: 18%;
Program year 1998: -24%;
Program year 1999: 74%;
Program year 2000: -10%.
State: Connecticut;
Program year 1997: -4%;
Program year 1998: 10%;
Program year 1999: -21%;
Program year 2000: -12%.
State: Delaware;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: -3%;
Program year 1999: -15%;
Program year 2000: 48%.
State: District of Columbia;
Program year 1997: -2%;
Program year 1998: 7%;
Program year 1999: 29%;
Program year 2000: -22%.
State: Florida;
Program year 1997: -1%;
Program year 1998: 1%;
Program year 1999: 21%;
Program year 2000: -9%.
State: Georgia;
Program year 1997: 9%;
Program year 1998: 12%;
Program year 1999: 38%;
Program year 2000: -10%.
State: Hawaii;
Program year 1997: 15%;
Program year 1998: 25%;
Program year 1999: 32%;
Program year 2000: -5%.
State: Idaho;
Program year 1997: 42%;
Program year 1998: 2%;
Program year 1999: 21%;
Program year 2000: 11%.
State: Illinois;
Program year 1997: 1%;
Program year 1998: 6%;
Program year 1999: 16%;
Program year 2000: 7%.
State: Indiana;
Program year 1997: 10%;
Program year 1998: -22%;
Program year 1999: 09%;
Program year 2000: -22%.
State: Iowa;
Program year 1997: 42%;
Program year 1998: -12%;
Program year 1999: -6%;
Program year 2000: 39%.
State: Kansas;
Program year 1997: -1%;
Program year 1998: 0%;
Program year 1999: 6%;
Program year 2000: -14%.
State: Kentucky;
Program year 1997: 17%;
Program year 1998: -7%;
Program year 1999: 11%;
Program year 2000: 6%.
State: Louisiana;
Program year 1997: 4%;
Program year 1998: -5%;
Program year 1999: -1%;
Program year 2000: 15%.
State: Maine;
Program year 1997: -2%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 3%;
Program year 2000: -31%.
State: Maryland;
Program year 1997: -6%;
Program year 1998: 36%;
Program year 1999: 5%;
Program year 2000: 14%.
State: Massachusetts;
Program year 1997: -16%;
Program year 1998: -8%;
Program year 1999: -3%;
Program year 2000: 24%.
State: Michigan;
Program year 1997: -8%;
Program year 1998: 2%;
Program year 1999: -12%;
Program year 2000: 2%.
State: Minnesota;
Program year 1997: 11%;
Program year 1998: 8%;
Program year 1999: -23%;
Program year 2000: 54%.
State: Mississippi;
Program year 1997: 46%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 9%;
Program year 2000: -11%.
State: Missouri;
Program year 1997: 9%;
Program year 1998: 14%;
Program year 1999: 27%;
Program year 2000: -25%.
State: Montana;
Program year 1997: -7%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 1%;
Program year 2000: 33%.
State: Nebraska;
Program year 1997: 78%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: -15%;
Program year 2000: 48%.
State: Nevada;
Program year 1997: 16%;
Program year 1998: -12%;
Program year 1999: 57%;
Program year 2000: 0%.
State: New Hampshire;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: -56%;
Program year 1999: 89%;
Program year 2000: -44%.
State: New Jersey;
Program year 1997: 5%;
Program year 1998: -14%;
Program year 1999: 10%;
Program year 2000: 18%.
State: New Mexico;
Program year 1997: 56%;
Program year 1998: -14%;
Program year 1999: 52%;
Program year 2000: -26%.
State: New York;
Program year 1997: 5%;
Program year 1998: 34%;
Program year 1999: 7%;
Program year 2000: -2%.
State: North Carolina;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: 11%;
Program year 1999: 34%;
Program year 2000: -15%.
State: North Dakota;
Program year 1997: -29%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 112%;
Program year 2000: -26%.
State: Ohio;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: 9%;
Program year 1999: 2%;
Program year 2000: 19%.
State: Oklahoma;
Program year 1997: -15%;
Program year 1998: 31%;
Program year 1999: 10%;
Program year 2000: -21%.
State: Oregon;
Program year 1997: 97%;
Program year 1998: 7%;
Program year 1999: 10%;
Program year 2000: -21%.
State: Pennsylvania;
Program year 1997: 2%;
Program year 1998: -4%;
Program year 1999: 18%;
Program year 2000: 3%.
State: Puerto Rico;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: 22%;
Program year 1999: 47%;
Program year 2000: 3%.
State: Rhode Island;
Program year 1997: -34%;
Program year 1998: 31%;
Program year 1999: -6%;
Program year 2000: -7%.
State: South Carolina;
Program year 1997: 47%;
Program year 1998: -36%;
Program year 1999: 0%;
Program year 2000: 37%.
State: South Dakota;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 112%;
Program year 2000: -26%.
State: Tennessee;
Program year 1997: -2%;
Program year 1998: 30%;
Program year 1999: -3%;
Program year 2000: -23%.
State: Texas;
Program year 1997: -3%;
Program year 1998: 12%;
Program year 1999: 7%;
Program year 2000: 13%.
State: Utah;
Program year 1997: -24%;
Program year 1998: 63%;
Program year 1999: 41%;
Program year 2000: 11%.
State: Vermont;
Program year 1997: 42%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: -29%;
Program year 2000: 11%.
State: Virginia;
Program year 1997: 9%;
Program year 1998: 4%;
Program year 1999: -26%;
Program year 2000: 0%.
State: Washington;
Program year 1997: 9%;
Program year 1998: -26%;
Program year 1999: 63%;
Program year 2000: -4%.
State: West Virginia;
Program year 1997: -2%;
Program year 1998: 1%;
Program year 1999: 56%;
Program year 2000: -14%.
State: Wisconsin;
Program year 1997: -5%;
Program year 1998: 22%;
Program year 1999: 7%;
Program year 2000: 17%.
State: Wyoming;
Program year 1997: 7%;
Program year 1998: 17%;
Program year 1999: 41%;
Program year 2000: 11%.
State: US + Puerto Rico;
Program year 1997: 4%;
Program year 1998: 4%;
Program year 1999: 13%;
Program year 2000: 0%.
[End of table]
Table 11: Total Dislocated Worker Allotment per Unemployed Worker for
Program Years 1997 through 2001, by State:
State: Alabama;
Program year 1997: $135;
Program year 1998: $107;
Program year 1999: $127;
Program year 2000: $133;
Program year 2001: $156.
State: Alaska;
Program year 1997: $170;
Program year 1998: $230;
Program year 1999: $298;
Program year 2000: $354;
Program year 2001: $595.
State: Arizona;
Program year 1997: $100;
Program year 1998: $121;
Program year 1999: $101;
Program year 2000: $116;
Program year 2001: $138.
State: Arkansas;
Program year 1997: $96;
Program year 1998: $142;
Program year 1999: $173;
Program year 2000: $206;
Program year 2001: $132.
State: California;
Program year 1997: $195;
Program year 1998: $220;
Program year 1999: $262;
Program year 2000: $325;
Program year 2001: $327.
State: Colorado;
Program year 1997: $77;
Program year 1998: $92;
Program year 1999: $91;
Program year 2000: $128;
Program year 2001: $134.
State: Connecticut;
Program year 1997: $139;
Program year 1998: $156;
Program year 1999: $148;
Program year 2000: $162;
Program year 2001: $173.
State: Delaware;
Program year 1997: $107;
Program year 1998: $110;
Program year 1999: $122;
Program year 2000: $129;
Program year 2001: $154.
State: District of Columbia;
Program year 1997: $237;
Program year 1998: $280;
Program year 1999: $416;
Program year 2000: $537;
Program year 2001: $545.
State: Florida;
Program year 1997: $127;
Program year 1998: $124;
Program year 1999: $113;
Program year 2000: $135;
Program year 2001: $137.
State: Georgia;
Program year 1997: $90;
Program year 1998: $94;
Program year 1999: $108;
Program year 2000: $139;
Program year 2001: $141.
State: Hawaii;
Program year 1997: $156;
Program year 1998: $197;
Program year 1999: $266;
Program year 2000: $375;
Program year 2001: $235.
State: Idaho;
Program year 1997: $102;
Program year 1998: $130;
Program year 1999: $158;
Program year 2000: $188;
Program year 2001: $131.
State: Illinois;
Program year 1997: $129;
Program year 1998: $129;
Program year 1999: $122;
Program year 2000: $143;
Program year 2001: $151.
State: Indiana;
Program year 1997: $84;
Program year 1998: $105;
Program year 1999: $103;
Program year 2000: $119;
Program year 2001: $109.
State: Iowa;
Program year 1997: $79;
Program year 1998: $98;
Program year 1999: $110;
Program year 2000: $118;
Program year 2001: $154.
State: Kansas;
Program year 1997: $87;
Program year 1998: $90;
Program year 1999: $101;
Program year 2000: $116;
Program year 2001: $116.
State: Kentucky;
Program year 1997: $125;
Program year 1998: $159;
Program year 1999: $117;
Program year 2000: $137;
Program year 2001: $150.
State: Louisiana;
Program year 1997: $176;
Program year 1998: $200;
Program year 1999: $225;
Program year 2000: $235;
Program year 2001: $241.
State: Maine;
Program year 1997: $132;
Program year 1998: $121;
Program year 1999: $136;
Program year 2000: $148;
Program year 2001: $132.
State: Maryland;
Program year 1997: $120;
Program year 1998: $113;
Program year 1999: $151;
Program year 2000: $158;
Program year 2001: $191.
State: Massachusetts;
Program year 1997: $120;
Program year 1998: $109;
Program year 1999: $119;
Program year 2000: $136;
Program year 2001: $162.
State: Michigan;
Program year 1997: $107;
Program year 1998: $98;
Program year 1999: $111;
Program year 2000: $117;
Program year 2001: $126.
State: Minnesota;
Program year 1997: $85;
Program year 1998: $96;
Program year 1999: $119;
Program year 2000: $119;
Program year 2001: $144.
State: Mississippi;
Program year 1997: $142;
Program year 1998: $169;
Program year 1999: $210;
Program year 2000: $216;
Program year 2001: $437.
State: Missouri;
Program year 1997: $94;
Program year 1998: $101;
Program year 1999: $116;
Program year 2000: $160;
Program year 2001: $156.
State: Montana;
Program year 1997: $140;
Program year 1998: $129;
Program year 1999: $198;
Program year 2000: $257;
Program year 2001: $301.
State: Nebraska;
Program year 1997: $64;
Program year 1998: $85;
Program year 1999: $107;
Program year 2000: $103;
Program year 2001: $119.
State: Nevada;
Program year 1997: $110;
Program year 1998: $111;
Program year 1999: $100;
Program year 2000: $140;
Program year 2001: $142.
State: New Hampshire;
Program year 1997: $95;
Program year 1998: $113;
Program year 1999: $89;
Program year 2000: $127;
Program year 2001: $106.
State: New Jersey;
Program year 1997: $173;
Program year 1998: $186;
Program year 1999: $176;
Program year 2000: $160;
Program year 2001: $182.
State: New Mexico;
Program year 1997: $158;
Program year 1998: $218;
Program year 1999: $271;
Program year 2000: $401;
Program year 2001: $476.
State: New York;
Program year 1997: $172;
Program year 1998: $207;
Program year 1999: $276;
Program year 2000: $305;
Program year 2001: $252.
State: North Carolina;
Program year 1997: $80;
Program year 1998: $92;
Program year 1999: $107;
Program year 2000: $143;
Program year 2001: $131.
State: North Dakota;
Program year 1997: $89;
Program year 1998: $83;
Program year 1999: $107;
Program year 2000: $150;
Program year 2001: $133.
State: Ohio;
Program year 1997: $108;
Program year 1998: $112;
Program year 1999: $112;
Program year 2000: $126;
Program year 2001: $142.
State: Oklahoma;
Program year 1997: $88;
Program year 1998: $93;
Program year 1999: $111;
Program year 2000: $125;
Program year 2001: $130.
State: Oregon;
Program year 1997: $95;
Program year 1998: $156;
Program year 1999: $188;
Program year 2000: $310;
Program year 2001: $319.
State: Pennsylvania;
Program year 1997: $145;
Program year 1998: $148;
Program year 1999: $133;
Program year 2000: $147;
Program year 2001: $159.
State: Puerto Rico;
Program year 1997: $222;
Program year 1998: $291;
Program year 1999: $463;
Program year 2000: $692;
Program year 2001: $1,193.
State: Rhode Island;
Program year 1997: $162;
Program year 1998: $140;
Program year 1999: $160;
Program year 2000: $146;
Program year 2001: $145.
State: South Carolina;
Program year 1997: $133;
Program year 1998: $168;
Program year 1999: $124;
Program year 2000: $126;
Program year 2001: $148.
State: South Dakota;
Program year 1997: $72;
Program year 1998: $79;
Program year 1999: $92;
Program year 2000: $144;
Program year 2001: $133.
State: Tennessee;
Program year 1997: $111;
Program year 1998: $130;
Program year 1999: $113;
Program year 2000: $131;
Program year 2001: $123.
State: Texas;
Program year 1997: $142;
Program year 1998: $150;
Program year 1999: $152;
Program year 2000: $156;
Program year 2001: $139.
State: Utah;
Program year 1997: $78;
Program year 1998: $75;
Program year 1999: $96;
Program year 2000: $118;
Program year 2001: $134.
State: Vermont;
Program year 1997: $79;
Program year 1998: $98;
Program year 1999: $121;
Program year 2000: $120;
Program year 2001: $136.
State: Virginia;
Program year 1997: $89;
Program year 1998: $99;
Program year 1999: $122;
Program year 2000: $123;
Program year 2001: $131.
State: Washington;
Program year 1997: $150;
Program year 1998: $156;
Program year 1999: $102;
Program year 2000: $191;
Program year 2001: $190.
State: West Virginia;
Program year 1997: $200;
Program year 1998: $232;
Program year 1999: $305;
Program year 2000: $452;
Program year 2001: $556.
State: Wisconsin;
Program year 1997: $84;
Program year 1998: $87;
Program year 1999: $107;
Program year 2000: $120;
Program year 2001: $132.
State: Wyoming;
Program year 1997: $86;
Program year 1998: $107;
Program year 1999: $106;
Program year 2000: $159;
Program year 2001: $151.
State: US + Puerto Rico;
Program year 1997: $140;
Program year 1998: $155;
Program year 1999: $176;
Program year 2000: $209;
Program year 2001: $223.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments From the U.S. Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
A Proud Member of America's Workforce Network:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
January 25, 2002:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report titled,
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program (GAO-02-274). I read the report
with interest, and appreciate the considerable effort it represents as
well as the thoughtful recommendations the General Accounting Office
has provided. This is the first opportunity for the Employment and
Training Administration (ETA) to review many of the areas of inquiry
regarding the states' use of dislocated worker funds for rapid response
as well as the use of statewide set-aside funds. We will be analyzing
this data to determine other areas in which states may need technical
assistance or guidance regarding the opportunities afforded them with
this funding.
The following are ETA's comments:
The draft report provides an informative review of how the states have
responded to the challenges presented by the implementation of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and many of the key issues
during the implementation process. The draft report presents three
recommendations for executive action and presents, as a matter for
Congressional consideration, the subject of modifying the existing
dislocated worker funding formula to better reflect the distribution of
dislocated workers.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Recommendation: Identify areas proactively that emerge as requiring
additional guidance to help state and local areas implement the
dislocated worker program.
Comment: As the report points out, Congress passed the WIA with the
intent to provide greater flexibility to states and local workforce
areas. ETA regards this flexibility as one of the fundamental
principles governing its relationship to the workforce investment
system, and has been prudent in considering guidance that would have
the effect of setting national requirements for program operations. As
a result of the findings contained in its initial assessments of WIA
implementation (Report on Early State Progress Toward WIA
Implementation: Final Interim Report (February 2001), and The Status of
the WIA Readiness Implementation Report (March 2001)), ETA organized
four WIA readiness workgroups comprised of representatives of local,
state and federal partners. The workgroups confirmed the basic findings
and identified several potential areas for the development of
additional federal guidance.
For adult and dislocated worker programs, areas that emerged and have
been targeted for guidance by ETA include: increasing the participation
of training providers as Eligible Training Providers; clarifying
eligibility determination policies, procedures and documentation;
delineating the point of registration for adult and dislocated worker
programs to establish consistent measurement of participant services
throughout the system; clarifying WIA policy on "work first" and
customer-focused services; and clarifying the levels of service (core,
intensive and training) and eligibility for each. These and other WIA
implementation issues, and short-term actions proposed to address them,
are discussed in Training and Employment Information Notice No. 4-01,
November 14, 2001, Subject: WIA Readiness Workgroup Activities.
Recommendation: Disseminate guidance that is more responsive to the
concerns of workforce officials responsible for implementing WIA's
requirements, including when to register individuals into the
dislocated worker program and how to provide additional assistance to
local areas using rapid response funds.
Comment: As discussed above, the "point of registration" issue was
addressed by the WIA Readiness Workgroup, and ETA plans to issue
additional guidance on this topic. Our review has found that the
issuance of a clarification regarding when to register WIA participants
should take into consideration the following factors: 1) the need to
ensure adequate services for those who are registered, especially the
availability of a range of training program options; 2) the need to
assess the potential impact of such a clarification on the performance
accountability system currently in effect for WIA; 3) the relationship
between registration and eligibility issues and the pending development
of eligibility guidance; and 4) the absence of a "One-Stop system
measure" capturing all individuals - registered and unregistered -
served by the One-Stop system. ETA believes that a common point of
registration is an integral component of a nationwide system of
performance accountability. The interdependence between registration
and the factors identified above means that registration guidance
cannot be developed in isolation, and must reflect the complexities of
the performance accountability system that has been established under
WIA.
The subject of how to provide additional assistance to local areas
using rapid response funds was not identified as an issue in ETA's WIA
implementation assessments or the WIA Readiness Workgroups. During
Calendar Year 2001, the primary financial issue affecting the
dislocated worker program has been the relatively low rate of
expenditures reported by the states, a condition which was the primary
impetus for Congress to pass legislation in July rescinding $177.5
million in dislocated worker funds. Nonetheless, the draft report's
Appendix II, Table 5 Program Year 2000 Dislocated Worker Allotment and
Rapid Response Set-Aside Funds in 42 States, provides valuable
information for ETA and for the workforce investment system in
considering how dislocated worker resources are allocated.
In reviewing the data, there appear to be two groups of states that
chose not to provide significant additional assistance to local areas:
(1) states that reserved amounts of rapid response funds far below the
25 percent authorized in the Act, which seriously limited their ability
to use such funds to provide additional assistance to local areas (e.g.,
Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Nevada, New Mexico and New York), and (2)
states with relatively higher proportions reserved, but relatively
small amounts available for additional assistance (e.g., Connecticut,
Mississippi, New Jersey, Oregon and Puerto Rico). Because worker
dislocations take place after formula funds are allocated to local
areas, available resources do not always match need. ETA believes that
Governors should strongly consider using the authority provided in WIA
to assist local areas in responding to increased worker dislocations
during the Program Year. The information provided by Appendix II, Table
5 will allow ETA to explore this issue with states that did not provide
significant additional assistance funds to local areas and determine
whether federal guidance is necessary on this topic.
Recommendation: Disseminate timely information on best practices being
developed by local areas to meet the needs of dislocated workers.
Comment: Beginning in early 1998, ETA has supported a National
Dislocated Worker and Rapid Response Workgroup. This group helped to
organize two national conferences and developed several technical
assistance products. The group will be reconstituted in 2002 and a new
agenda developed to reflect current issues. Staff in local workforce
areas will be among the audiences targeted for technical assistance.
In addition, ETA has a contract with the State of Illinois to develop a
website to display "promising practices" in a timely manner.
Appropriate screening criteria will be used to assure policies and
approaches put up on the site meet the intent of the WIA. Meetings are
scheduled in January 2002 to begin implementation of the project.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Suggestion: The report suggests that Congress consider modifying the
existing dislocated worker funding formula, in order to minimize
funding volatility and to ensure that dislocated worker funds are
better distributed to states in relation to their dislocated worker
population. It also suggests that Congress may wish to direct DOL to
undertake a study of the dislocated worker funding formula to identify
factors that would better distribute program funds to states in
relation to their dislocated worker population. The report observes
that "without stable funding levels that are tied to the number of
dislocated workers, states are unable to conduct meaningful long- or
short-term financial planning that is necessary to develop and deliver
high quality services for dislocated workers."
Comment: ETA has been aware of the severe year-to-year funding
fluctuations created by the present formula and the concomitant
difficulties for states in their planning and delivery of dislocated
worker services. We believe that resource allocation practices should
ensure that funds are distributed in a manner that puts resources where
they are most needed. In conjunction with the WIA-mandated review of
the adult funding formula, ETA has initiated a review of the WIA
dislocated worker funding formula and fund distribution process. In
addition, ETA will seek to identify effective practices for states to
consider in determining within-state allocations of dislocated worker
funds. We note that several states are revising their state dislocated
worker distribution formulae.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment. If you have questions
regarding these comments, please contact me at (202) 693-2700, James
Aaron at (202) 693-2814, or Shirley M. Smith at (202) 693-3500.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Joan Mahagan, Assistant Director (617) 565-7532:
Wayne Sylvia, Analyst-in-Charge (617) 565-7492:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Arthur Merriam, Joseph Evans, and Lorin Obler made significant
contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work throughout the
review. In addition, Jerry Fastrup and Richard Horte led the analysis
of the dislocated worker funding formula, James Wright and John Smale
assisted in the design of the two national surveys, Jessica Botsford
and Richard Burkard provided legal support, and Corinna Nicolaou
assisted in the message and report development.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Standards
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA‘s Effectiveness. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-275]. Washington, D.C.: February 1,
2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
Over New Requirements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-72]. Washington, D.C.: October 4,
2001.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Experiences of Six Trade-Impacted
Communities. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-838].
Washington, D.C.: August 24, 2001.
Veterans‘ Employment and Training Service: Proposed Performance
Measurement System Improved, But Further Changes Needed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-580]. Washington, D.C.: May 15,
2001.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in
Dislocated Worker Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-59]. 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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] A program year begins on July 1 of a year and ends on June 30 of
the following year. A program year is designated by the year in which
it begins. Thus, program year 2000 began on July 1, 2000, and ended on
June 30, 2001.
[2] Hereinafter, the term ’states“ will refer collectively to the 50
states plus the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
[3] A displaced homemaker is an individual who has been providing
unpaid services to family members in the home and who (a) has been
dependent on the income of another family member but is no longer
supported by that income and (b) is unemployed or underemployed and is
experiencing difficulty in obtaining or upgrading employment.
[4] The criteria for determining whether employment leads to self-
sufficiency are set by either state or local workforce boards and, for
dislocated workers, may include employment that pays a percentage of
the layoff wage or employment that pays a specified wage established
for the local area.
[5] Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for
employment or training and include development of learning skills,
communication skills, interviewing skills, punctuality, personal
maintenance, and professional conduct.
[6] Customized training is designed to meet the special requirements of
an employer and is conducted with a commitment by the employer to hire
the individual upon successful completion of the training, for which
the employer pays not less than 50 percent of the cost.
[7] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Office of Field Operations, Status of WIA Readiness
Implementation Report (Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[8] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, A Report on Early State Progress Toward WIA
Implementation: Final Interim Report (Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[9] See U.S. General Accounting Office,Workforce Investment Act: Better
Guidance Needed to Address Concerns Over New Requirements, GAO-02-72
(Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001).
[10] See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Office of Field Operations, Status of WIA Readiness
Implementation Report (Washington, D.C.: 2001).
[11] Although 50 states responded to our survey, eight states could not
separate program year 1999 carryover funds from program year 2000 funds
in their reporting.
[12] Rapid response activities include specific rapid response services
as well as additional assistance provided to local workforce areas.
[13] Each state must allocate at least 60 percent of its dislocated
worker funds to local workforce areas according to a formula
established by the state.
[14] These services are not provided by all local workforce areas
within a state, nor are they necessarily provided for all layoffs and
plant closings within a local workforce area.
[15] Although states may have a policy for responding to specific
layoffs, situations may occur that prevent states from providing rapid
response services, such as an employer‘s not notifying the state unit
that a layoff is going to occur or an employer‘s not allowing the state
unit on-site to provide services.
[16] Because the number of total unemployed includes many who are not
eligible for many of the services provided under the dislocated workers
program, we also compared, using Labor data, Texas‘s and Mississippi‘s
funding per unemployed worker. We found even larger funding disparities
based on this indicator of program need. For example, in 2001,
Mississippi‘s funding was more than 4 times that of Texas.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
