High-Skill Training
Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, but at Varying Skill Levels Gao ID: GAO-02-881 September 20, 2002In recent years, U.S. employers have complained of shortages of workers with higher-level skills in information technology, the sciences, and other fields. To find workers with these skills, employers often turn to foreign workers who enter the United States with H-1B visas to work in specialty occupations. Despite the recent economic downturn, employers report that they continue to need higher-skilled workers. Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to create a system connecting employment, education, and training services to better match workers to labor market needs. In 1998, Congress passed legislation raising limits on the number of high-skilled workers entering the United States and imposing a $500 fee on employers--which was later raised to $1000--for each foreign worker for whom they applied. Most of the money collected is to be spent on training that improves the skill of U.S. workers. The National Science Foundation (NSF) receives 22 percent of the funds to distribute as scholarship grants to post-secondary schools that distribute the funds as scholarships for low-income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics degree programs. The grantees operating skill grant programs use the flexibility allowed by the Department of Labor to administer training through a variety of service delivery options to individuals whose skills need to be upgraded, whereas NSF's scholarship grant programs provide scholarships to low-income students for college degree programs. The training offered by the skill grant programs is based on local workforce needs, although sometimes for lower-skill jobs than those filled by H-1B visa holders, and the scholarship program's training is based on national workforce needs and the types of jobs that many H-1B visa holders fill. Although federal initiatives are not coordinated to strategically address high-skill needs at a national level, local skill grant programs increased coordination, though Labor provided limited assistance to enhance these efforts.
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-02-881, High-Skill Training: Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, but at Varying Skill Levels
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-881
entitled 'High-Skill Training: Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific
Workforce Needs, but at Varying Skill Levels' which was released on
October 21, 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.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
September 2002:
High-Skill Training:
Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, but at
Varying Skill Levels:
H-1B Grants:
GAO-02-881:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Skill Grants Offer Training with Flexible Service Delivery While
Scholarship Grants Offer Education through Degree Programs:
Skill Grant and Scholarship Grants Designed to Meet Workforce Needs,
Though the Skill Levels for Which They Train Varies:
National Efforts Not Coordinated to Strategically Address High-Skill
Needs, but Local Coordination Shows Promise:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Survey Sent to Skill Grant Recipients:
Appendix III: Detailed Data on Skill Grant Programs:
Appendix IV: Detailed Data on NSF‘s Computer Science,
Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship Program:
Appendix V: Areas of Training for First 43 Skill Grants:
Appendix VI: Key Federal Programs and Initiatives with a High-Skill
Component:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VIII: Comments from the National Science Foundation:
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Commerce:
Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Top 10 Occupation Categories for H-1B Visa Petitions Approved
for Fiscal Year 2001:
Table 2: Skill Grant Recipients Visited:
Table 3: Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Visited:
Table 4: Participants Enrolled in Training:
Table 5: Gender of Participants:
Table 6: Age of Participants:
Table 7: Race/Ethnicity of Participants:
Table 8: Employment Status of Participants at the Time of Enrollment:
Table 9: Education Status of Participants at the Time of Enrollment:
Table 10: Participants Who Attained the Following as a Result of
Program Participation:
Table 11: Organization Obtained or Tried to Obtain H-1B Visa
Application Data to Identify Skill Shortages in High-Skill Occupations
in Local Area:
Table 12: Other Methods Used to Identify Skill Shortages in High-Skill
Occupations in Local Area:
Table 13: Number of Employers Needing High-Skilled Workers That
Organization Worked with before and after Receiving the Grant:
Table 14: Role of One-Stop System in the H-1B Skills Training Program:
Table 15: Methods Grantees Plan to Use to Sustain the Skill Grant
Training:
Table 16: Gender of Participants in IT Training:
Table 17: Race/Ethnicity of Participants in IT training:
Table 18: Characteristics of Computer Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Scholarship Recipients as of May 1, 2002:
Table 19: Occupations on Which Grantees from First Three Funding Rounds
Provided Training:
Figures:
Figure 1: Age of Participants:
Figure 2: Highest Education Level Participants Attained before Training
Program:
Figure 3: Percentage of Women, African Americans, and Hispanics
Participating in Skill Grant IT Training as Compared with the U.S. IT
Workforce:
Figure 4: Status of Participants as of January 31, 2002:
Figure 5: Funding Sources the 43 Grantees Expect to Use to Sustain the
Skill Grant Training Programs:
Figure 6: Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Current
Scholarship Program Students to Students Awarded Related Bachelor‘s
Degrees in the United States in 1999-2000:
Figure 7: Number of Grantees Who Offered Training in Various
Categories:
Figure 8: Scholarship Program Students‘ Majors by Categories:
Abbreviations:
ATELS: Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
EHR: Directorate for Education and Human Resources:
INS: Immigration and Naturalization Service:
IT: information technology:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
OVAE: Office of Vocational and Adult Education:
TA: Technology and Administration:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
September 20, 2002:
The Honorable James Barcia
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Environment, Technology, and Standards
Committee on Science
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lynn Rivers
House of Representatives:
In recent years, U.S. employers have complained of shortages of workers
with higher-level skills in information technology, the sciences, and
other fields. To find workers with these skills, employers often turn
to foreign workers, who enter the United States with H-1B visas to work
in specialty occupations.[Footnote 1] Despite the recent economic
downturn, employers report that they continue to need higher-skilled
workers. Congress passed the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 to
create a system connecting employment, education, and training services
to better match workers to labor market needs. In 1998, Congress passed
legislation raising limits on the number of high-skilled workers
entering the United States and imposing a $500 fee on employers--which
was later raised to $1,000--for each foreign worker for whom they
applied. Most of the money collected is to be spent on training that
improves the skills of U.S. workers. Fifty-five percent of the funds
are provided to the Department of Labor for technical skill grants to
increase the supply of skilled workers in occupations identified as
needing more workers. Labor awards the skill grants to local workforce
investment boards, created under WIA to establish local workforce
development policies, thereby linking the skill grant program with the
workforce system. The boards use the funds to provide training to
employed and unemployed people. The National Science Foundation (NSF)
receives 22 percent of the funds to distribute as scholarship grants to
post-secondary schools that distribute the funds as scholarships for
low-income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics
degree programs.[Footnote 2] As of July 1, 2002, about $197 million has
been awarded through the skill grant program; as of May 1, 2002, about
$72 million has been awarded through the scholarship grant program.
Because of your interest in how the United States is meeting the
employers‘ demand for high-skilled workers, you asked about the skill
grant and scholarship grant programs and how they relate to other high-
skill workforce development practices. Specifically, we address (1) how
the skill grant and scholarship grant programs are being administered
to raise the skill level of American workers; (2) whether the skill
grant and scholarship training is based on workforce needs and specific
jobs that
H-1B visa holders fill, particularly in the information technology (IT)
industry; and (3) to what extent these programs are coordinated with
other workforce development programs at the local and national level to
meet high-skill training needs.
In response to your questions, we surveyed the 43 recipients of skill
grants distributed in 2000; visited 12 of these grantees and
interviewed the local workforce investment board‘s staff, and, at most
grantees, the training providers, employers, and participants; visited
6 colleges that received scholarship grants; analyzed data on the
participants and outcomes for the scholarship grants; and discussed
these programs and other high-skill training with officials from the
Departments of Labor and Commerce, NSF, and Immigration and
Naturalization Service[Footnote 3] (INS), and industry
representatives. Our work was conducted in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards between October 2001 and July
2002. See appendix I for a full discussion of our scope and
methodology.
Results in Brief:
The grantees operating skill grant programs use the flexibility allowed
by Labor to administer training through a variety of service delivery
options to individuals whose skills need to be upgraded, whereas NSF‘s
scholarship grant programs provide scholarships to low-income students
for college degree programs. The skill grant program provides
flexibility to meet local workforce needs through the selection of the
partners who implement the program, the length and setting of training,
and the participants served. Three-fourths of the participants are
employed workers upgrading their skills, whose employers approved the
training. Information on participants and training outcomes is limited
because Labor has not collected consistent data on individual programs.
Grantees report that of the over 16,000 participants who enrolled in
training through January 31, 2002, about half have completed training.
Grantees could provide only limited data on outcomes and the same
participant could be counted in more than one outcome; however, these
data provide an indication of how the participants benefited from the
training. Grantees stated that of the participants they could report
on, about 1,800 were placed in new or upgraded jobs, 1,600 increased
their wages or salaries, 2,600 attained skill certifications, and 1,900
attained industry-recognized skill standards. Grantees who could report
on their participants‘ characteristics indicated that 43 percent are
female; 20 percent are African American; 7 percent Asian; and 6 percent
are Hispanic; and half had a
2-year or higher postsecondary degree. Although grantees have used the
skill grant program to create innovative programs and build ties with
new partners, many have not planned for alternative funding beyond the
program‘s two-year limit and may be unable to offer their program in
the future. In the scholarship grant program, postsecondary schools use
the funds in a structured academic setting to attract and retain low-
income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics
degree programs. Almost 8,000 students have received scholarships as of
May 1, 2002. Finding students eligible for the scholarship grant
program has proven to be a challenge, as some schools have struggled to
fill open slots; however, NSF officials believe that their change to a
less strict standard for financial eligibility has made it easier to
recruit students.
The training offered by the skill grant programs is based on local
workforce needs, although sometimes for lower-skill jobs than those
filled by H-1B visa holders, and the scholarship program‘s training is
based on national workforce needs and the types of jobs that many H-1B
visa holders fill. The skill grant training is designed by grantees to
address skill shortages in the local workforce by providing technical
skills training for both employed and unemployed workers. Almost all of
the 43 grantees funded in 2000 provided IT-related training; other
training provided included health care, telecommunications,
engineering, and manufacturing. Throughout the process of designing and
implementing the skill grant training, new partnerships were formed,
thereby increasing workforce investment boards‘ knowledge of local
workforce needs. In establishing their programs, grantees sought
information on local employers‘ use of H-1B visa workers and on
workforce shortages as identified in labor market data and through
discussions with employers. In its solicitations for grant
applications, Labor has provided guidelines that were confusing as to
the skill level of training that grantees should provide. INS, in
characterizing the occupations for which training was provided,
identified about 40 percent of the occupations as able to qualify for
an H-1B visa level occupation. The scholarship program, by its nature,
is preparing students for careers in fields with workforce shortages
nationally, and is focusing its efforts on attracting and keeping
students in those fields. In addition, it educates students for the
high-skill jobs comparable to jobs filled by H-1B visa holders.
While federal initiatives are not coordinated to strategically address
high-skill needs at a national level, local skill grant programs
increased coordination, though Labor provided limited assistance to
enhance these efforts. Several federal agenciesæLabor, NSF, Commerce,
and othersæhave independent programs to address the need for high-skill
workers; however, coordination across agencies is limited. While
Labor‘s Employment and Training Administration (ETA) has begun to take
a more strategic approach to identify skill shortfalls in a few key
industries--such as health care and IT--efforts to coordinate these
high-skill initiatives within ETA are also limited. At the same time,
local workforce program officials said that a major benefit of the
skill grant program was its contribution to advancing the goals of WIA,
such as building relationships with more employers and partners. Survey
respondents reported working with one-third more employers with high-
skill needs since receiving the
H-1B grants. Despite this progress, local skill grant representatives
faced challenges in obtaining information on companies needing H-1B
workers and would have liked assistance in marketing the program to
those employers. Furthermore, Labor and NSF provided few opportunities
for grantees to share information and learn from each other.
We include recommendations to the Secretary of Labor and to the
Director of NSF to improve the H-1B skill grants and scholarship
programs, respectively. We also recommend that the Secretary of Labor
proactively develop a more comprehensive approach to address high-skill
workforce needs across the country. In commenting on a draft of the
report, Labor and NSF generally agreed with our findings and
recommendations, although Labor believes its recent new reporting
requirements will provide the information needed to monitor progress
and evaluate the program. In its comments, Commerce raised no
objections to our recommendations but had concerns about our job
design, suggesting that we should have gathered information on the most
recent grants awarded in December 2001 and during 2002. However,
because these grants were so new, information generally was not
available regarding participant characteristics or program operations.
Background:
In recent years, Congress passed legislation that modified the visa
program for foreign workers who enter the country with H-1B visas to
work in specialty occupations. Changes have included expanding the
limits on the number of workers who may be approved for these visas
from 65,000 to 195,000, providing Labor with additional enforcement
authority, and establishing an employer fee to fund training of
American workers. The American Competitiveness and Workforce
Improvement Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-277) authorized programs to provide
technical skills training and scholarships for low-income postsecondary
students pursuing high technology fields of study. To fund these
programs, it assessed a $500 fee on employers for each person for whom
they submitted an application for an H-1B visa.[Footnote 4] In 2000,
the H-1B visa application fee for employers was raised to $1,000. Also,
the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act (P.L 106-
313) clarified some guidelines for administering the skill grant
program and included Commerce as a consultant to the skill grant
distribution process. The fee for employers who apply for H-1B visa
workers, which funds the skill grants and scholarship grants, expires
on September 30, 2003. Currently, 55 percent of the fees collected are
distributed to Labor for skill grants and 22 percent are distributed to
NSF for scholarship grants. The remaining 23 percent of the funds is to
be used for other activities.[Footnote 5] The 2003 Labor budget
proposed redirecting the skill grant funding beginning in fiscal year
2003 to reducing the backlog of applications submitted on behalf of
foreign workers for permanent residency.
In 1998, Congress also passed WIA, which replaced the Job Training
Partnership Act (JTPA) and introduced various reforms to the
coordination and delivery of federal employment and training services.
WIA seeks to create a workforce investment system that connects
employment, education, and training services to better match workers to
labor market needs. WIA specifies separate funding sources for each of
the act‘s main client groupsæadults, dislocated workers, and youth. The
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 linked
the H-1B skill grants to federally funded employment and training
services administered by Labor by requiring that the grants be awarded
to private industry councils, workforce investment boards or regional
consortia of these boards. [Footnote 6]
Labor is responsible for administering and overseeing the H-1B grant
program on a national level, which includes compiling and collecting
reports, maintaining an H-1B skill grants website, and providing
technical assistance. Labor‘s regional offices assign one staff person
to each grantee within the region to serve as the front-line contact
and monitor of the grantees.[Footnote 7]
Through its Office of Policy and Research, Labor has awarded 43 skill
grants totaling about $96 million distributed in three separate rounds
in February 2000, July 2000, and October 2000, and an additional 24
grants totaling about $67 million were distributed in a rolling award
process beginning in December 2001. Workforce investment boards or
regional consortia of these can receive skill grants. For each
application, a local workforce investment board must indicate that the
project is consistent with, and will be coordinated with, the region‘s
workforce investment efforts. The 2000 law allotted 25 percent of the
skill grants to business-related consortia; a first round was awarded
in May 2002 to 14 grantees, totaling about $34 million. Labor convenes
panels to review grant applications and recommends grantees for
selection on the basis of specific criteria, such as target population,
service delivery, and ability to meet labor market needs.
Grantees have been required to submit a quarterly financial report and
a quarterly narrative progress report. While Labor did not require a
standard format for the narrative progress report until the quarter
ending September 30, 2002, some grantees used a template developed by
Labor that included numbers for the following: individuals continuing
to be served from any quarter, individuals served during the quarter,
individuals served since the beginning of the project, individuals
newly enrolled, and individuals who exited without completion. Labor
limited the amount of money grantees‘ could spend on administrative
costs to 10 percent of the funding and set the grant period at up to 2
years, although some grantees have received 1 year extensions at no
additional cost. Grantees are required to obtain matching funds from
other parties; the amount they have been required to obtain ranged from
25 percent to 50 percent of the grant, depending on the round in which
they received their grant. Business consortia grantees are required to
obtain matching funds of 100 percent of the grant they receive.
The 2000 law provided specific guidance about the types of training
that should be provided under the skill grants, which was absent from
the 1998 law. It said that the training is not limited to skill levels
commensurate with a 4-year undergraduate degree, but should include the
preparation of workers for a broad range of positions along a career
ladder. It also required that at least 80 percent of the grants be
awarded to programs and projects that train employed and unemployed
workers in skills in high technology, information technology, and
biotechnology. The 1998 law did not elaborate on the nature of the
training authorized and did not mention any particular occupations.
NSF provides scholarship grants to schools that grant associate,
baccalaureate, or graduate degrees. The schools are selected by panels
that review applications from postsecondary schools. Students must be
majoring in computer science, engineering, or math; must be enrolled in
classes full-time; must demonstrate financial need; and must
demonstrate academic potential and ability. Initially, only students
who were eligible for Pell grants[Footnote 8] could be eligible for
scholarships, but NSF later relaxed this requirement to include
students who were eligible for any federal financial aid. Each student
receives up to $3,125 per year for up to 4 years. As of May 2002, 277
schools have obtained grants ranging from $24,750 to $760,320 in a
series of three rounds of grant awards totaling about
$72 million. Schools may ask for an additional 5 percent of the total
requested scholarship amount for administrative costs, an increase from
the original 2 percent for the first set of grants awarded. Schools may
also ask for an additional 5 percent of the total requested scholarship
amount for student support services.
Skill Grants Offer Training with Flexible Service Delivery While
Scholarship Grants Offer Education through Degree Programs:
Skill grantees use the grant program to offer training through a
variety of service delivery options to people whose skills need to be
upgraded; scholarship grantees use the scholarship program to offer
traditional degree programs in mathematics, computer science, and
engineering to low-income students. While the skill grant program
requires grantees to create partnerships to implement the program, the
nature of the partnerships is flexible. The grant training, which can
be used to prepare workers for a range of occupations, can be offered
to employed and unemployed individuals in a variety of settings.
However, in the scholarship grant program, the postsecondary schools
receiving grants provide scholarships toward undergraduate and graduate
postsecondary education, with a goal of attracting and retaining low-
income students in computer science, engineering, and mathematics
degree programs. Some schools are having difficulty finding students
eligible for the scholarship grant program to fill all available slots.
NSF officials, however, believe that their change to a less strict
standard for financial eligibility has made it easier to recruit
students.
Skill Grantees Form a Variety of Partnerships to Train Employed and
Unemployed Individuals, but Face Challenges Sustaining the Programs:
In implementing their skill grant programs, grantees form partnerships
to meet local workforce needs and to train diverse participants.
However, many grantees have not planned for alternative funding to
sustain the training program beyond the 2-year time frame allowed for
the grant. The skill grant program requires grantees to create
partnerships with local entities to implement the program, yet the
nature of the partnerships is flexible. Data on participants are
limited, however, because Labor does not require grantees to collect
consistent participant and outcome information. Although many grantees
have used the skill grant program to create innovative programs and
build ties with new partners, many have not planned for alternative
funding beyond the end of the grant period and may be unable to offer
their program in the future.
Variety of Service Delivery Options:
Skill grantees taking advantage of the skill grant program‘s
flexibility, have formed partnerships with local entities, and have
used a variety of innovative service delivery options. For the first
three rounds in which skill grants were awarded, workforce investment
boards or private industry councils were required to submit grant
proposals to Labor; however various partners initiated or implemented
the skill grant training program to best meet local workforce needs.
Other partners may include employers, unions, for-profit and not-for-
profit training institutions, community colleges, public and private 4-
year colleges, and other organizations such as business trade or
industry associations or community and faith-based organizations. The
following sites that we visited exemplify the variety of partner
configurations and service delivery options.
* At several sites in various states, the grantee implemented the skill
grant using local government, nonprofit or community based
organizations that were also administering WIA programs. The skill
grant funds were awarded either to employers to train current workers
or individuals to upgrade their skill set. For example, one offered
businesses grants of up to $50,000 to train their employees in
information technology, electrical engineering, mechanical
engineering, or precision manufacturing; another offered funds for IT
training and targeted employed workers as well as dislocated (laid-off)
workers, low-income people, and high school students. The local boards
advertised the availability of training through standard advertising
channels such as flyers, newspapers, and the one-stop centers.[Footnote
9] The training providers were chosen by the employer or the
individuals participating in the programs.
* At a site in California, a major health care provider with thousands
of employees partnered with the local board, the union, and training
providers to address specific skill shortages within its company.
Similarly, at a site in Massachusetts, unions at two manufacturing
plants partnered with the local board, training providers, and the
employers. For both grants, training was available primarily to company
employees. In this arrangement, the local workforce boards were not
heavily involved in the operation of the training program, but did
connect the grant to the local workforce system. Employers and unions
implemented the skill grants in the regions covered by the employers
instead of limiting participation to only workers in the area served by
the board.
* At a site in D.C., a college initiated and implemented the skill
grant, while the local board advised the college and established
networks to other partners. The college sought out employers who wanted
their underemployed workers to receive IT training. It also marketed
the training directly to unemployed individuals. All training occurred
at the college administrating the grant.
* At one site in California, the local board partnered with four
training providers to offer different IT curriculums to both employed
individuals and dislocated workers. The training partners and the board
were responsible for recruiting participants for the program.
The skill grant training programs vary in length and by type of
provider; different approaches are taken to respond to employers and
trainees‘ needs. Training programs at sites we visited were as short as
a 1-day course on new software taught through a for-profit training
provider and as long as a 2-year college curriculum at a technical
college. A grantee has the flexibility to provide different training at
different sites. For example, one grantee ran four different IT
training programs, each with a different time frame: one on weekends
for 9 months at a community college; one summerlong program on weekdays
at a community college; one full time for 10 months at a nonprofit
training provider; and one with various schedules offered through a
major state university continuing education program.
Depending on the partners and service delivery option for the skill
grant, the training can take place in a variety of locations, such as
on-site at a company or at a training facility. At one skill grant
location, a local community college offered math, electronics, and
other courses at the workplace after the close of the workday.
Employees could earn an associate degree in computer and
telecommunications technology at a convenient location, while upgrading
their skills for their employer.
The skill grant program‘s flexibility allows grantees to adjust the
content of their training in response to changes in local labor market
demands or events. The grant administrators at one site providing
training in both health care and IT increased the number of health care
training participants and decreased the number of IT training
participants in response to changing employer demand for workers.
Similarly, a local board that partnered with two large employers to
train current workers amended their grant to include training for
dislocated workers when one employer had a major lay-off. Participants
who had been laid off could continue in the training program.
Despite the flexibility of the skill grant program, many of the skill
grantees experienced challenges during the start-up phase of the grant.
On average, grantees took about 4 months from the time the grants were
awarded until the programs were operational and began serving
individuals. For two, forming new partnerships with employers and
training providers took longer than anticipated. For others, the
economic downturn that began in 2001 altered their ability to
participate. For a few grantees, these obstacles delayed their program
start-up 9 months or longer. As a result, several grantees asked or
planned to ask for a no-cost extension of up to 1 year beyond the
original 2-year grant period.
Between December 2001 and July 2002, Labor has awarded an additional 38
grants, including 14 awards under the 25 percent allotment reserved for
business or business-related consortia. Based on information in the
summaries of the funded projects, some of the regional consortia are
led by large nationwide corporations such as MetLife, Inc., or General
Motors Corporation, while other programs are led by community colleges,
or in one case, an organization working to enhance opportunities for
the Latino population. Many of the projects cover geographic areas
larger than the areas served through a single local workforce board.
For example, one project led by a national employer will serve
participants in five states: Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, New York, and
Ohio. Other projects will serve participants in a broad area of one
state or a few selected major metropolitan areas around the country.
Diverse Grant Participants, Though Data Are Limited:
In the first three rounds of skill grant awards, the training programs
served a range of participants, in part because of the flexibility
afforded in the skill grant program. The skill grant programs were not
required to select participants on the basis of eligibility factors
such as age, income, or employment status of the individuals. However,
in its solicitations for grant applications, Labor encouraged grant
applicants to reach out to underrepresented groups, such as minorities,
women, and individuals with disabilities. Grantees targeted various
combinations of employed, dislocated, and unemployed individuals, and
specific populations such as youth, disabled, or public assistance
recipients. For example, at one site, the grantee targeted two groups:
individuals who were employed and wanted to upgrade IT skills or gain a
new skill set and unemployed individuals who were seeking a computer-
related job. At another site, the grantee used the skill grant program
to train high school students in an IT program at the vocational high
school and also trained employed, dislocated, and low-income adults
using other training providers.
Data on participant characteristics are limited because Labor did not
require standard data on individual participants to be collected and
reported. Until the quarter from July 1 through September 30, 2002,
grantees were not required to report on standard data elements. For
that quarter, Labor will be requiring that grantees submit standard
information on the status of participants‘ training and certain
outcomes, such as new job placements and the number of wage increases
individuals received as a result of H-1B training. However, the new
requirements still do not require specific demographic data on the
individual participants or information on the specific levels of
training provided.
Because data collection varies across sites, the responses to our
survey questions about participant characteristics vary as
well.[Footnote 10] All grantees provided information on the number of
training participants in their program, reporting that a total of
16,590 individuals were enrolled in training between March 1, 2000, and
January 31, 2002. Grantees from the first three rounds who collected
participant employment data (39 of the
43 grantees) report that approximately three-fourths of skill grant
participants are employed workers upgrading their skills. In addition,
the data from our survey show that the skill grants are reaching a wide
range of ages, though focusing more heavily on ages 22 to 39, as shown
in
figure 1.
Figure 1: Age of Participants:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Based on 6,398 participants, or 39 percent of participants in the
first three rounds of the skill grant training program.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of figure]
Because many grantees chose to target employed individuals that want to
upgrade skills or change careers, the participants often have some
education beyond high school. Information on the educational background
of participants in the first three rounds of grants reveals that most
of the participants have some college education, many with at least a
bachelor‘s degree (see figure 2). In one case, a health care training
program required that a participant be a registered nurse before
receiving training as a nurse specialist in the operating room or
critical care.
Figure 2: Highest Education Level Participants Attained before Training
Program:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Based on 6,645 participants, or 40 percent of participants in the
first three rounds of the skill grant training program.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of figure]
Grantees reported that almost 5,000 participants were members of
’underrepresented“ groups. Underrepresented groups can include women,
minorities, persons with disabilities, and older workers. Information
gathered from grantees collecting gender, race, and ethnicity data
indicates that a greater percentage of women and African Americans are
training for IT occupations in this program than are working in IT
occupations nationally. Grantees indicate that 40 percent of the skill
grant participants in IT training[Footnote 11] were female as compared
with 27 percent of computer scientists and systems analysts, and
computer programmers in the U.S. workforce in 2001, according to Bureau
of Labor Statistics data. Further, a higher portion of African
Americans and about an equal portion of Hispanics were trained than
were present in those key IT occupations, as shown in figure
3.[Footnote 12]
Figure 3: Percentage of Women, African Americans, and Hispanics
Participating in Skill Grant IT Training as Compared with the U.S. IT
Workforce:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Includes data on the 19 grantees who provided IT training only.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics and GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant
Survey.
[End of figure]
In addition to participant demographic data, some grantees collected
outcome data, although these data were limited and had not been
standardized. In general, such data are not collected until after
participants have ended their training. As of January 31, 2002,
grantees reported that 7,646 had completed their entire training
program. Most of the remaining participants were still in training; the
rest were either waiting for training to start at the time of our
survey or had left or dropped out of the program (see figure 4).
Because grantees did not always collect outcome data, such as
certifications obtained or wages that increased, the outcome data are
not complete. The data we collected do not identify whether each
participant achieved only one or more than one of the outcomes
reported, thus the outcomes cannot be compared to the number of
participants who completed their training. While limited, the outcomes
reported indicate what the training programs achieved. Grantees
reported that
1,796 participants were placed in new or upgraded positions;
1,571 participants increased their wages/salaries; 2,582 participants
attained skill certifications, such as a Microsoft Certified Systems
Engineer; and 1,870 participants attained industry-recognized skill
standards. Grantees report a very low number of participants receiving
a
2-year or 4-year college degree, which may be due to the 2-year time
frame of the skill grant program.
Figure 4: Status of Participants as of January 31, 2002:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Information reported on 15,485 of the 16,590 participants, or 93
percent.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of figure]
Because the program is flexible, grantees can choose to measure success
with outcomes relevant to their service delivery option. For example, a
grantee that is targeting unemployed individuals can measure job
placements, while a grantee targeting employed individuals can measure
wage gains or job retention. Outcomes measured included student or
employer satisfaction, students‘ continuation in school, job retention,
job placements, wage gains, or upgraded positions. Only 1 of the 43
grantees is planning to measure reduced reliance on H-1B workers as an
outcome. Employers and employees we interviewed reported that the
training is valuable because it may contribute to an employee‘s loyalty
to the company or may provide a service within the company that would
otherwise have been outsourced. For example, at one skill grant
location, employees of a small nonprofit organization learned how to
edit and upgrade the company‘s website. By gaining the skills through
existing staff, the company became more competitive and saved money.
Even though grantees were interested in tracking outcomes of
participants, and had attempted to do so, they encountered a number of
challenges. Since the programs were largely based on the needs of
employers, the purpose of the training was often to upgrade a worker‘s
skills, which is not necessarily connected to an easily measured
outcome. For example, training that helps a registered nurse become an
operating room specialist or helps an employee at an IT firm upgrade
his or her skills to keep up with current technology may not be
accompanied with a wage gain or promotion. A couple of grantees we
visited said that the training helped employees avoid being laid off
with the recent dip in the economy. In addition, some skill grantees
said they had a difficult time collecting data from private industry
employers who were reluctant to give personal information, such as
wages, on their employees.
Future Funding for Sustaining Skill Grant Programs Is Uncertain:
Although grantees were required to outline a plan in their applications
for sustaining their programs beyond the grant period, some skill
grantees who were in their last year of funding had not identified
definite future funding sources. During our site visits, grantees said
that the H-1B grant provided funding to initiate programs. For example,
one grantee said it gave their program the ’shot in the arm“ it needed
to start a new and innovative training program. Some grantees hoped
that continuing the program would be easier once the program was
established. In their survey responses, grantees identified a wide
variety of other funding sources they expected to use to sustain the
training programs established under the skill grant. The most common
sources of funds were other federal programs, WIA program funds (adult,
dislocated workers, or youth program), H-1B employers, and tuition
assistance/remission (see figure 5).
Figure 5: Funding Sources the 43 Grantees Expect to Use to Sustain the
Skill Grant Training Programs:
[See PDF for image]
A: States can setaside 15 percent from each of the three WIA funding
streams (adults, dislocated workers, and youth) to be used for
statewide activities, including incumbent worker projects and
authorized youth and adult activities.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of figure]
However, several grantees we visited did not have definite plans for
alternative funding beyond the program‘s 2-year limit and may be unable
to offer their program in the future. For example, one program that
trained in IT areas had planned to seek funding from employers that
were hiring graduates of the training program, but with the downturn in
the IT industry, employers were not expected to want to contribute as
readily. Some grantees were planning to apply for another H-1B skill
grant to continue their programs, but whether they would be approved,
was not known.
In the recent grant solicitation, Labor has allowed grantees to reapply
to continue a program but has required at least some expansion of the
grantee‘s program. Previous skill grant recipients were encouraged to
apply for another H-1B grant to provide a different approach or scope
to skills training, including the option to expand the existing
training program. Labor did award one grantee from the first round of
awards another H-1B grant in the fourth round to expand its initial IT
training program. The grant administrator at this site commented that
continued funding could only improve the training now that the
infrastructure was in place.
Scholarship Grants Serve Low-income Students in Computer Science,
Engineering and Mathematics Degrees:
The scholarship grant program emphasizes the importance of attracting
and retaining low-income students in computer science, engineering, and
mathematics degree programs, primarily by providing them tuition funds
and supplemental income to assist with living expenses. As of May 1,
2002, 7,706 students had received scholarships through the program.
Scholarship program coordinators at sites we visited noted that
students who meet the low-income requirement for this program typically
have to work at least part-time, in addition to attending school.
According to an NSF official, the scholarships, which are not
restricted to tuition, can be used for any expenses related to school,
such as housing, transportation, or childcare. School officials said
that students could use the time that they would be working at a job to
focus on schoolwork. One student said that the scholarship is helping
her to finish the program faster because she is required to be a full-
time student to receive the scholarship. Moreover, two students thought
that the scholarship attracted them to these fields of study when they
were debating what major to choose. One student told us that even
though she excelled in math in high school, she only considered
becoming a math major after she learned about the scholarship
opportunity.
On the basis of data collected by NSF on students who receive the
scholarships, the program is attracting a higher proportion of women
and minorities than have pursued degrees in computer science,
engineering, and mathematics as a whole. As shown in figure 6,
scholarship recipients include a greater portion of women and
minorities than are included among computer science, engineering, and
mathematics degree awardees. Approximately 37 percent of the students
in the scholarship program are women, as compared with 24 percent of
all students earning computer and information science, engineering and
engineering related technologies, and mathematics bachelor‘s degrees in
1999-2000, according to Department of Education statistics. Further,
the percentage of minority students in the program was higher than the
percentage of minority students earning comparable bachelor‘s degrees
nationally.
Figure 6: Comparison of Demographic Characteristics of Current
Scholarship Program Students to Students Awarded Related Bachelor‘s
Degrees in the United States in 1999-2000:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Totals do not equal 100 percent due to rounding. Scholarship
program data exclude
812 students of the total 7,706 for whom ethnicity was unknown. Data on
students awarded degrees exclude nonresident aliens.
Source: NSF database on Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Scholarship students and Department of Education, Office of Educational
Statistics.
[End of figure]
During our visits we found that while the scholarship program is
serving low-income students, some of the schools were having trouble
filling their scholarship slots. An NSF program official agreed that
some of the smaller schools were having trouble filling slots, and that
one complaint heard from school representatives responsible for the
program was the restrictive requirement that students be eligible for
Pell grants to receive an award. Effective January 2002, NSF relaxed
this criteria to require that students are federal financial-aid
eligible, a less restrictive criteria. The NSF program official
estimates that while enrollments appear to have increased since the
criteria was relaxed, the effect of this change will not be known for
another year; however, he believes the change has made it easier to
recruit students. Moreover, since the start of the program, some
schools have begun other initiatives to publicize the program to find
more students that meet the eligibility requirements, which may help to
increase the enrollments in the scholarship program.
Skill Grant and Scholarship Grants Designed to Meet Workforce Needs,
Though the Skill Levels for Which They Train Varies:
The skill grant training is based on local workforce needs and
addresses occupations both below and at the bachelor‘s degree level
required for
H-1B visas, whereas the scholarship program‘s training is on the basis
of national workforce needs and the jobs that many H-1B visa holders
fill. The skill grant training is designed by grantees to address skill
shortages in the local workforce. However, the programs, as permitted
by law, do not always prepare participants for the specific kind of
jobs held by H-1B visa holders. The scholarship program also focuses
its efforts on attracting and keeping students in specific fields with
national workforce shortages.
Skill Grant Programs‘ Training Based on Local Workforce Needs:
As established by law, the skill grants were intended to provide
technical skills training, but acceptable areas of training were not
prescribed. Labor, in its solicitations for grant applications, stated
that the funds were intended for skill training in high-skill
occupations that are in demand by U.S. businesses. Its guidance stated
that the overall goal of H-1B-financed training is to raise the skills
of American workers so that they can fill high-skill jobs presently
being filled by temporary H-1B workers. Labor also stated that one key
indication of the occupations in demand is the number of employer
applications for H-1B foreign workers, and noted that two industries
appear to generate the most current H-1B demand--IT and health care.
The solicitations included an appendix of specific occupations in which
job openings were certified through these applications; the top two
occupations by far that were listed were ’occupations in systems
analysis and programming“ (an IT occupation) and ’therapists“ (a health
care occupation). However, many applications were never filled with a
foreign worker.[Footnote 13] INS data on the actual workers who
eventually obtain visas indicate a different mix; the largest category
is computer-related occupations, while medicine and health occupations
represent a much smaller portion of the visas approved, as shown in
table 1.
Table 1: Top 10 Occupation Categories for H-1B Visa Petitions Approved
for Fiscal Year 2001:
Occupation category: 1. Computer-related; Percent: 58.0.
Occupation category: 2. Architecture, engineering, and surveying;
Percent: 12.2.
Occupation category: 3. Administrative specializations; Percent: 7.2.
Occupation category: 4. Education; Percent: 5.3.
Occupation category: 5. Managers and officials (not elsewhere
classified); Percent: 3.8.
Occupation category: 6. Medicine and health; Percent: 3.4.
Occupation category: 7. Life sciences; Percent: 2.0.
Occupation category: 8. Social sciences; Percent: 1.9.
Occupation category: 9. Mathematics and physical sciences; Percent:
1.7.
Occupation category: 10. Miscellaneous professional, technical, and
managerial; Percent: 1.7.
Source: U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[End of table]
Most of the skill grant programs funded with the first three rounds of
grants distributed in 2000 were providing training for IT occupations.
Several programs trained in a variety of areas, but of the 43 grantees
selected in the first three rounds of grants, 35 provided training in
IT and 19 of these trained exclusively in IT. The number of grantees
who offered training in specific categories is shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: Number of Grantees Who Offered Training in Various
Categories:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Grantees often offered training in more than one area.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of figure]
As applicants for skill grants planned their programs, they used
information that Labor supplied in the solicitation about occupations
in demand and supplemented it with additional information about local
labor market needs. Of the 43 grantees selected in the first three
rounds, 33 tried to obtain H-1B visa data for their area to help them
identify shortage areas being filled with foreign workers, but only 23
were successful. During our site visits, some grantees said they
followed up with the employers identified as having H-1B visa workers
and discussed their workforce needs. The surveyed applicants also used
other approaches to identify local workforce needs:
* 42 reported using state and/or regional labor market information;
* 40 reported using information from employers on hiring demands;
* 19 reported using newspaper want ads; and:
* 27 reported using at least one other approach, including working with
industry groups, using others‘ studies of local skills gaps, analyzing
postings on Internet job sites, employer focus groups, and national
studies.
Grantees we visited commented that this process allowed the workforce
investment boards to better understand industries and employers that
employ higher skilled workers, with whom they had not previously had
strong relationships. One grantee official noted that the grant had
been useful in helping his organization look at broader labor market
needs and focus on emerging trends, such as an anticipated shortage of
nurses due to retirements. Another spoke of how this process helped to
better understand the telecommunications/information technology
industry. Several grantees noted that this grant gave them the
opportunity to provide training that helped meet employers‘ labor
needs.
Skill Grant Training in Several Occupational Areas, at a Range of Skill
Levels:
Although the skill level of H-1B occupations is generally required to
be at the bachelor‘s degree level, the law governing the skill grants
does not require that the grants, though funded with fees from H-1B
workers‘ employers, train at that same level. The goal of the skill
grant programs was to provide technical skill training to workers, both
for those who were employed as well as those who were unemployed. The
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act that established
the program does not refer to any particular occupations and did not
elaborate on the nature of the training authorized. The American
Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 did provide
more specific direction, stating that this training is not limited to
skill levels commensurate with a 4-year undergraduate degree, but
should include preparing workers for a broad range of positions along a
career ladder.
Unlike some other fields, occupations in the IT field are difficult to
classify as to the level of education degree they require. The Bureau
of Labor Statistics in its Occupational Outlook Handbook has noted that
some IT workers have a degree in computer science, mathematics, or
information systems, while others have taken special courses in
computer programming to supplement their study in other fields, such as
accounting or other business areas. The National Workforce Center for
Emerging Technologies has identified IT skill cluster titles and the
education necessary for the occupations. For several of the
occupations, workers can prepare academically with a range of training
types, from a 1-year certificate program to a 4-year degree
program.[Footnote 14]
Labor, when issuing guidance in its solicitations for grant
applications for various rounds, provided confusing language when
describing the level of training that was appropriate. The
solicitations state that the primary target served should be workers
who can be trained and placed directly in the high-skill H-1B visa
occupations. However, the solicitations also sometimes included other
information that allowed training for lower level positions. For
example:
* The first round‘s solicitation also says grantees should reach out to
high-and low-skilled workers to train for H-1B occupations related
career paths. However, some grantees commented that raising a low-
skilled worker to a baccalaureate level in the 2-year grant period
could be difficult.
* The two most recent solicitations for applications mirror the change
from the 2000 law. They state that the technical skills training is not
limited to skill levels commensurate with a 4-year degree and should
prepare workers for a broad range of positions along a career ladder.
Although Labor‘s solicitations were unclear as to the level of training
that was acceptable, according to Labor officials, they avoided being
overly prescriptive to allow grantees flexibility and encourage
innovation. In addition, Labor stated that because this was a new
program, it was difficult to determine where more clarification was
needed until grantees began to ask similar questions. Labor did post
some questions and answers about the H-1B skill grant program from two
conferences for potential grant applicants on the H-1B Technical Skills
Training Grant website.[Footnote 15] A Labor official also told us that
Labor is developing a list of commonly asked grantee questions and
answers to those questions, which should be posted in the near future.
The 43 grantees from the first three rounds provided training for a
range of levels of occupations. INS Adjudications Division staff, when
asked to assess whether these occupations are equivalent to skill
levels needed for H-1B positions, said that many of them could be
acceptable H-1B positions, depending on the details of the job
descriptions.[Footnote 16] The agency found that 25 (38 percent) of the
66 occupations in which training was provided could qualify for H-1B
occupations, 30 (45 percent) would generally not qualify, and the
remaining 11 occupations were too vague to be characterized either way.
(See app. V for a full list of the occupations in which skill grant
programs trained and INS‘s assessment of how the occupations compared
with H-1B occupations.) A few employers told us that in some cases the
specific skills they needed could be obtained from an H-1B worker, or
could be obtained by training a present employee, who already had some
knowledge of processes, in specific higher-level skills. For example, a
small nonprofit organization that had interviewed outside candidates,
including an H-1B worker, for a networking position decided to use the
skill grant funds to upgrade an employee‘s skill sets instead.
Similarly, the general manager at a manufacturing plant said that
electronics technicians who were being upgraded to junior engineers
would be able to do testing that previously was part of the
responsibilities of senior engineers, some of whom were H-1B workers.
Scholarship Grant Programs Targeted to Meet National Workforce Needs
and Train at High-Skill Levels:
Students receiving scholarship grants are enrolled in educational areas
that prepare students for occupations frequently filled by H-1B visa
holders, an indicator of national workforce needs. The law establishing
the program stated that scholarship recipients must use the scholarship
to enroll or continue enrollment at a school in order to pursue an
associate, undergraduate, or graduate level degree in computer science,
engineering, or mathematics. Although the students are pursuing a
variety of specific course programs, such as automation robotics and
actuarial science, their areas of study can be classified into broad
categories as shown in figure 8. INS data on H-1B visa workers indicate
that these majors would provide suitable training for positions these
foreign workers often fill. As shown in table 1, the data on H-1B visa
workers approved to begin work during fiscal year 2001, which reflect
national workforce needs, indicate that
58 percent of them were for computer-related occupations.
Figure 8: Scholarship Program Students‘ Majors by Categories:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Numbers do not total to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: NSF database on Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Scholarship students.
[End of figure]
Training paid for in part by scholarship grants is for occupations with
a similar level of complexity to those held by H-1B visa holders, who
must have bachelor‘s degrees or equivalent experience. Some students
receiving scholarships are attending 2-year schools while others are in
4-year undergraduate programs or graduate programs. (About a quarter of
the schools in the program are 2-year schools.) Some of those in 2-year
programs plan to transfer into 4-year degree programs. For example, one
program we visited at a 2-year community college was specifically
preparing students for transfer to a nearby 4-year public university, a
process that was simplified by the transfer agreements that the program
advisor had arranged.
National Efforts Not Coordinated to Strategically Address High-Skill
Needs, but Local Coordination Shows Promise:
While federal programs and initiatives are not coordinated to
strategically address the national need for high-skill workers, local
skill grant programs are more coordinated, though Labor has provided
limited assistance to enhance these local efforts. There are multiple
federal agencies and offices within agencies involved in efforts to
address the need for high-skill workers, although coordination is
limited. At the same time, local workforce officials said that as a
result of implementing their skill grants they have increased
coordination with partners and employers. Yet, skill grant
representatives said they would have liked more assistance from Labor
in obtaining information on companies needing H-1B workers and
developing a national strategy to market the program. Labor and NSF
provided few opportunities for grantees to share information and learn
from each other.
National Efforts Address High-Skill Needs for Workers, Although
Coordination is Limited:
Multiple federal agencies and offices within agencies are involved in
efforts to address shortages of high-skill workers and/or attract more
students to high technology fields. Yet, these efforts are not focused
on broadly coordinating across agencies to address national high-skill
workforce needs in a strategic way. Within Labor, many of these efforts
are discretionary grant programs operated by ETA through separate
offices with limited coordination. For example, ETA‘s Office of Policy
and Research oversees the H-1B skill grant program, ETA‘s Office of
Adult Services oversees several discretionary grant programs that
address employer skill shortages and a grant to the Information
Technology Association of America to inform IT companies about the
workforce investment boards‘ role in local communities; and ETA‘s
Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer and Labor Services oversees
a grant to expand apprenticeship in the IT occupational area. In
addition to the H-1B scholarship program, the NSF has other programs
aimed at attracting and retaining students in high-skill degree
programs. The Department of Commerce‘s Office of Technology Policy
within the Technology Administration, the Department of Education‘s
Office of Vocational and Adult Education, the Department of Health and
Human Services‘ Health Resources and Services Administration, also have
initiatives and programs to research and/or address areas of high-skill
needs and shortages. (A list of some key programs and initiatives that
have a component addressing the need for high-skill workers is shown in
app. VI.):
The lack of coordination between federal agencies was evidenced within
the two grant programs funded with H-1B fees. The Labor-administered
skill grants and NSF-administered scholarship grant programs have had
little coordination across agencies to address broader needs. According
to a NSF official, while programs such as the scholarship grants are
complementary to Labor‘s workforce programs, NSF‘s primary link to the
workforce system has been with the Department of Education. At the
local level, some of the skill grant representatives said they did not
know about the scholarship grants and some of the colleges with
scholarship grants did not know about the skill grants. Yet, local
grant representatives of both programs were interested in learning more
about each other and it appeared that there were some areas where they
could have benefited from more coordination. For example, one
university official overseeing the scholarship program mentioned that
she would like more information on the skill grants because of the many
requests about training programs from students who have degrees but
still need additional training to be more marketable to employers.
Within Labor, ETA oversees the WIA adult, dislocated worker, and youth
programs and has some other initiatives to address high-skill workforce
needs in addition to the skill grants; however, these efforts are not
linked together to build on the lessons being learned. For example, ETA
assigned regional staff from the Office of Apprenticeship Training,
Employer and Labor Services (ATELS) to monitor the skill grants. ATELS
also has a major initiative to develop apprenticeships in new and
emerging industries such as IT and health care. Yet, according to a
national ATELS official, a strong partnership between the skill grant
program and ATELS did not develop, which could have led to building a
broader infrastructure that connects the skill grants and
apprenticeship efforts in high technology industries. A Labor official
from the Division of One-Stop Operations within ETA said that a formal
mechanism is not currently in place to share information among grant
programs such as the skill grant program and other ETA grants and
programs. However, these officials did say that the ETA leadership is
interested in looking at the role of demonstration grants such as the
skill grant program and how they fit into ETA‘s ongoing employment and
training programs. An example of this type of coordination was
demonstrated by Labor‘s Boston regional office that convened a series
of 3 daylong conferences that focused on current worker training for H-
1B grantees and other discretionary grants awarded by Labor. In
addition, the Assistant Secretary of ETA recently announced the
establishment of a Business Relations Group that will strive to better
support business linkages with all components of the workforce system,
such as apprenticeship programs and Job Corps.
Labor involved Commerce in the skill grant program, as required by the
American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, but
these efforts were limited and not part of a more comprehensive
strategy to address high-skill needs across agencies. Labor consulted
with Commerce while developing the initial solicitation for grant
application for the skill grant program. The 2000 act mandated that
role by requiring that Labor consult with Commerce in awarding the
grants and requiring Commerce to complete a study of public and private
sector high-tech workforce training programs. Commerce staff also
served on some of the skill grant application review panels. Yet,
Commerce expressed frustration in trying to obtain information from
Labor on the skill grant program for their report on workforce training
programs. At the same time, Commerce is leading several major
initiatives addressing IT employers and employees, which are
independent of Labor‘s workforce programs.
While some federal agencies are taking steps to more broadly address
high-skill workforce needs and skill shortages, no agency has taken the
lead in coordinating across education, economic development and
workforce development programs to strategically focus on high-skill
needs. The Secretary of Labor established a ’21st Century Workforce
Initiative“ that includes the Office of the 21st Century Workforce,
created by executive order on June 20, 2001, to provide information and
forums on workforce issues. However, these efforts address the broad
workforce and are not focused specifically on high-skill needs. The
Secretaries of Labor and Health and Human Services are also working on
a Memorandum of Understanding to support joint efforts to address the
nation‘s nursing shortage. Within Labor‘s ETA, there are some efforts
to take a more strategic role in identifying skill shortfalls in a few
key industries, notably health care and IT. Yet, these efforts tend to
be limited largely to one agency or targeted to one industry, without
building on the lessons being learned across programs and initiatives
addressing high-skill needs.
Skill Grants Helped Local Boards Increase Coordination but Labor
Provided Limited Assistance to Enhance These Efforts:
Local workforce board representatives and program officials reported
that the skill grants helped them advance key goals of the WIA
workforce system, such as coordinating with new partners beyond local
boundaries, building relationships with more employers, and linking to
the one-stop system; however, they would have liked more assistance
from Labor to enhance these local efforts. Survey respondents reported
working with one-third more employers with high-skill needs since
receiving the H-1B grants. Some workforce officials said that the skill
grants enabled them to work with employers that would not have accessed
the WIA workforce system otherwise. We also spoke with some employers
who said they had not known of the services available or worked with
the WIA workforce system before this grant. At the same time, 10 of the
grantees said they had difficulty obtaining data on H-1B visa
applications to identify employers who used H-1B workers in their
areas. A number of grantees contacted Labor, INS, state workforce
agencies, and even congressional offices to attempt to track down this
information. While some grantees got information from Labor, others did
not. Almost a quarter of the grantees said they would like more
assistance from Labor in obtaining information on companies hiring H-1B
workers or networking with H-1B employers. A number of grantees
suggested that it would be beneficial for Labor to develop a national
strategy to market the H-1B grant program to employers and to
facilitate discussions with national employers who use H-1B workers.
One of the national employers who participated in a H-1B skill grant
program expressed interest in replicating its experiences and sharing
information on a national level.
Almost all (40) of the grantees reported that the one-stop centers,
which are the cornerstone of the WIA workforce system, had a role in
the grant and in some cases, increased visibility as a result of the
grant. For many of the grantees, the one-stop centers served multiple
functions with the most common being recruiting/referring participants,
followed by conducting intake/assessment, identifying job openings for
participants, and matching participants to job openings/employers. One
of the grantees that worked with employers to upgrade the skills of
current workers said that they used the one-stop centers to help
backfill the lower-level positions vacated by employees who got the H-
1B training and moved into higher-level positions. One employer we
interviewed, who was not aware of the publicly funded workforce system
before the H-1B grant, expressed interest in using the screening
services available through the local one-stop center after learning
about these services through the grant.
Local workforce officials also mentioned how these training programs
helped support other efforts under WIA to strengthen the workforce
system. For example the skill grants helped the workforce investment
boards think beyond local boundaries to regional and employer
territories and develop a model for employer-driven training that can
also be applied to other programs, such as those funded by WIA. A
number of grantees commented on how the H-1B grant enhanced their
capacity to work with community colleges and other partners to provide
innovative, higher-skills training. At the same time, some grantees
requested more technical assistance from Labor in such areas as
learning more about national efforts to develop and define career
ladders. As one grantee noted, information on career ladders is
available in different areas, but is hard to track down; information
developed by efforts such as the National Skill Standards
Board[Footnote 17] could be useful, but this information does not
always make its way to the local level.
Local Skill Grant and Scholarship Programs Had Limited Opportunities to
Share Information:
For both the skill grant and scholarship grant programs, grant
recipients thought they could have benefited from sharing more
information with one another about lessons learned and promising
practices. Yet, Labor and NSF provided few opportunities for this type
of information exchange. Labor has established a website with relevant
information for the H-1B grants, conducted an early study of the
program and a second study of exemplary practices of H-1B skill grants,
and convened two national meetings for H-1B skill participants.
However, grantees do not have a mechanism for ongoing information
exchange with each other. In our mail survey and through site visits
with grantees, 13 of the grantees noted that they would like to have
more opportunities to network and share information among grantees.
Some of the local grantees formed informal networks to share
information and have relied on each other for technical assistance.
Officials at scholarship programs we visited also said that they would
like the opportunity to exchange information and promising practices
with other schools. NSF plans to convene a meeting of the scholarship
program coordinators from all the colleges awarded NSF scholarship
grants in the spring of 2003. The schools we visited commended NSF for
distributing information about the program and responding to questions
in a timely fashion through e-mail.
Conclusions:
The H-1B skill grant and scholarship grant programs are two key
programs that train high-skill workers and help address employers‘
concerns about skill shortages in the United States--particularly in IT
and health care fields. The skill grant program‘s flexibility allows
training at high-skill levels, often in IT-related occupations, while
the scholarship program attracts and encourages students to stay in
degree programs in the computer science, engineering, or mathematics.
Both programs respond to workforce shortages in either the local or
national economies.
Both programs have encountered challenges during their early
implementation. Labor‘s confusing guidance on the skill grant program
has resulted in uncertainty about the type of training that should be
provided. Further, Labor‘s new reporting requirements, with the first
quarterly report due September 30, 2002, do not require grantees to
collect data on individual participants or the level of training being
provided. Without these data, Labor cannot identify whom the program is
serving or whether the training prepares participants for H-1B level
jobs or career ladders leading to those jobs. This limits the ability
of Labor to adequately assess the program‘s effectiveness and limits
the ability of Congress to determine whether the program is
accomplishing its goals. The local scholarship grant programs struggled
initially with recruiting enough students to fill all available spaces
in their programs. However, it appears that this may no longer be a
problem now that NSF broadened the program‘s financial eligibility
requirements.
Skill and scholarship grantees have had limited opportunities for
sharing information on best practices or how they overcame challenging
problems. While Labor recently published a report on exemplary
practices of H-1B training programs and has convened two national
meetings of grantees, there is no mechanism for grantees to exchange
information on lessons learned with each other on an ongoing basis. On
the basis of our site visits, the scholarship program grantees also
expressed interest in having the opportunity to share information with
each other. The skill grant and scholarship programs could also benefit
from better communication with one another. For example, local one-stop
systems could have helped colleges with scholarship grants recruit
potential students for the scholarship program. On the other hand,
skill grant programs could have benefited by knowing of scholarship
programs in their community, since they could be another resource for
participants who had trained through the skill grant program but wanted
to continue to work toward a college degree in computer science,
engineering, or mathematics.
While many efforts to train high-skill workers are underway by
different agencies, these efforts are not coordinated across agencies
to build on lessons learned and maximize their impact. The progress
made at the local level by the skill grant program in building
relationships with employers and identifying skills needed has broader
implications for enhancing national efforts to meet high-skill needs.
At the national level, Labor has initiated some promising efforts such
as analyzing workforce needs in health care and IT, two industries in
which employers have expressed concerns about labor shortages. In
addition, the partnership between Labor and Health and Human Services
to support joint efforts to address the nation‘s nursing shortage is a
positive example of bridging initiatives across agencies. While these
efforts by Labor and other agencies are moving in the right direction,
a more broad-based, comprehensive approach would help the United States
address its high-skill labor needs in a more strategic way.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To ensure that the skill grant program can assess its effectiveness and
that information about grantees‘ successful approaches are shared
throughout the program, the Secretary of Labor should:
* implement the new quarterly reporting requirements and expand these
requirements to also include information on individual participants and
the level of training that is being provided so they can better measure
whether the program is achieving its goals and:
* establish ongoing mechanisms to share successful strategies among
grantees and encourage networking.
To ensure that the scholarship program improves its ability to attract
and retain students to computer science, engineering, and mathematics
fields, the Director of NSF should establish mechanisms to share
successful strategies and encourage networking among the postsecondary
schools that are grantees.
In addition, in a more overarching effort to be responsive to workforce
development needs, the Secretary of Labor should be proactive in
building a comprehensive approach within the Department and across
federal agencies to address high-skill workforce needs across the
country.
Agency Comments:
The Department of Labor, the National Science Foundation, and the
Department of Commerce commented on a draft of this report (see apps.
VII, VIII, and IX). In general, Labor agreed with our recommendations,
although Labor believed that their new reporting requirements will be
sufficient to provide needed information to evaluate the program. NSF
generally agreed with the report, and provided technical comments.
While Commerce raised concerns about the design of our study, Commerce
did not take issue with our recommendations. Commerce was more
interested in the recent grants awarded than in the implementation of
the first three rounds of grant awards that was the focus of our study.
The recent grant awards were so new that information was generally not
available on participant characteristics or program operations. Because
Congress asked us to focus our study on how H-1B programs are
operating, we reviewed programs that were already in place. Overall,
Commerce‘s comments appear consistent with our findings that Labor has
not collected sufficient data on the program to judge its
effectiveness.
The Department of Labor supported our recommendation that the Secretary
of Labor take a proactive approach to addressing high-skill workforce
needs across the country. Regarding the recommendation about reporting
requirements, Labor pointed out that ETA has recently developed a
standard format for the quarterly report. However, we believe that the
new reporting requirements need to include additional information on
participants‘ demographic characteristics and the level of training to
ensure that Labor and others can evaluate who is being served and how
the training relates to occupations that H-1B visa workers fill. Labor
concurred with our recommendation that the Department establish
mechanisms for grantees to share successful strategies. In fact, Labor
noted that ETA has provided grantees with two studies that include
information about grantees‘ best practices and also plans to provide
additional technical assistance support to the H-1B program that will
include information sharing.
Commerce, in commenting on the draft, was critical of our decision to
focus on the skill grants distributed in the first three rounds of
grant awards and not on the more recent grantee selections. Commerce
notes that the changes in the law in 2000 governing the skill grants
and Labor‘s program implementation and grantee selection have had an
impact on the composition of the training offered. We focused our work
on the first rounds of grants because we wanted to obtain information
on how grantees were implementing programs. Grantees from the more
recent awards begun in December 2001 could have provided little, if
any, information on actual participants and training.
Commerce was also concerned about our presentation of information on
identifying the occupations for which grantees should be training.
Commerce states that we drew conclusions by comparing labor condition
application data and visa petition data from different years. Our
report, however, does not compare these two sources of information, but
rather points out that the most recent information available on H-1B
visa petitions approved provides a different picture of H-1B workers‘
occupations than was identified through the labor condition application
data. Further, as we noted in the report, grantees began their analysis
of workforce needs with data on H-1B occupations from labor condition
applications, but their decisions about occupations in which to train
were based on local labor market conditions and employers‘ needs.
Regarding our reporting on educational requirements for H-1B workers in
IT occupations, Commerce commented that we failed to contrast others‘
data on the high portion of workers in IT who have a bachelor‘s or
higher degree with the education profile of participants at grantees we
surveyed. The education data we present on participants reflect their
education profiles when they entered the programs. Participants may
achieve degrees as a result of the training. Further, we believe that
at the time of our survey it was too early to evaluate the number of
degrees participants attained because many longer programs were not yet
completed.
We agree with Commerce‘s comment that we provide limited information on
the level of training being provided; however, this information is the
most extensive data grantees could provide and was not available from
any other sources prior to our study. Consequently, we have included a
recommendation to Labor regarding data collection. Commerce also noted
that individual duties could vary within the same occupational title.
We recognize in the report that some occupation titles are vague, but
believe that the INS analysis that we present is helpful to identify
those occupations that could qualify as H-1B occupations, while
recognizing that some are too vague to categorize. In addition,
Commerce said we imply that a specific company‘s training of junior
engineers might reduce this firm‘s need for an H-1B worker. This
example was included to point out only that these workers trained with
H-1B grants could perform some duties otherwise performed by an H-1B
worker. Commerce also comments that we should have explored the
implementation of the career ladder concept with grantees. Our
discussions of career ladders focused on the level of training provided
and led to our discussion in the report about grantees‘ desire to have
more assistance in developing and defining career ladders.
Commerce also expressed some concerns regarding our review of the NSF
scholarship program. However, the additional areas that they believe we
should have explored, such as whether the scholarships are attracting
students who would otherwise not have pursued degrees in these
disciplines, would have required resource-intensive approaches, such as
surveying schools and scholarship recipients, and were beyond the scope
of this study. Because much information was available directly from
NSF‘s program database, we chose to rely on this participant data for
our study.
All three agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated
as appropriate.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until
30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Secretary of Labor, the Director of NSF, the Secretary of
Commerce, and other interested parties. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, this report will be
available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or Joan T. Mahagan at (617) 565-7532.
Other key contributors to this assignment are listed in appendix X.
Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce, and
Income Security Issues:
Signed by Sigurd R. Nilsen
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We took several steps to determine how the skill grant and scholarship
grant programs are being administered and the areas and skill levels in
which they train. We judgmentally selected 12 grantees (see table 2)
from the skill grant program to visit from the first 3 rounds (43
grants) funded within the skill grant program. Those selected
represented various geographic locations; rural and urban service
delivery; participation from all three grant rounds; and a mixture of
areas of training. For each grant, we met with key individuals, such as
representatives from the workforce investment boards and for most
grants, employers, participants, and training providers. We discussed
their objectives; their decisions on the occupational areas in which to
train, level of training, and methods of delivering training; their
outreach to potential training participants and employers; and their
views on the benefits and challenges of operating these programs.
Table 2: Skill Grant Recipients Visited:
Grantee: Metro North Regional Employment Board; Location: Malden,
Mass..
Grantee: Regional Employment Board of Hampden County, Inc.; Location:
Springfield, Mass..
Grantee: New Hampshire Workforce Opportunity Council; Location:
Concord, N.H..
Grantee: Vermont Human Resources Investment Board; Location:
Montpelier, Vt..
Grantee: Workforce Investment Council of the District of Columbia;
Location: Washington, D.C..
Grantee: Alexandria/Arlington Workforce Development Consortium;
Location: Arlington, Va..
Grantee: Dallas County Local Workforce Development Board; Location:
Dallas, Tex..
Grantee: North Central Texas Council of Governments; Location:
Arlington, Tex..
Grantee: City of Chicago; Location: Chicago, Ill..
Grantee: JobWorks, Inc. (Northeastern Indiana WIB); Location: Fort
Wayne, Ind..
Grantee: Contra Costa County Employment and Human Services Department;
Location: Concord, Calif..
Grantee: City of Sunnyvale - North Valley Job Training Consortium
(NOVA) Private Industry Council; Location: Sunnyvale, Calif..
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
We also surveyed all 43 of the round 1, 2, and 3 grantees to obtain
specific data, such as the kinds of participants they were serving, the
types of training they offered, and their sources for data on workforce
needs. While all 43 grantees returned their surveys, as noted in the
report, some could not provide information to all questions,
particularly those requesting detailed participant demographics.
Because this survey was sent to all 43 grant recipients, there is no
sampling error, but the practical difficulties of administering any
questionnaire may introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to
as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a particular
question is interpreted by a survey respondent could introduce unwanted
variability in the questionnaire‘s results. We took steps in developing
the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data editing and
analysis to minimize nonsampling errors. (The survey instrument is
provided in app. II.) We obtained Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) Adjudications Division‘s views on how the occupations for
which the grant programs trained compared with H-1B visa workers‘
occupations. In addition, we analyzed descriptions of programs funded
with more recent skill grants.
We also visited six colleges (see table 3) that received scholarship
grants, selected to give us a mix of publicly funded and privately
funded schools, 2-year and higher-degree granting schools, and
geographic representation. We discussed with program officials their
outreach to students, support services to students, and views on the
benefits and challenges of the program. To obtain specific information
on the grantees and students, we analyzed the National Science
Foundation (NSF) database of participants and schools.
Table 3: Post-Secondary Educational Institutions Visited:
School: Montgomery College; Location: Rockville, Md..
School: Texas Woman‘s University; Location: Denton, Tex..
School: University of California (Mathematics, Engineering, Science
Achievement Program); Location: Oakland, Calif..
School: Oakton Community College; Location: Des Plaines, Ill..
School: Springfield Technical Community College; Location:
Springfield, Mass..
School: American University; Location: Washington, D.C..
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
To provide views on the overall programs and the extent to which these
programs are coordinated with other workforce development programs
designed to meet high-skill training needs, we discussed these programs
with officials from the Department of Labor, NSF, the Department of
Commerce, the National Association of Workforce Boards, and groups
representing industry. We also performed an extensive Internet search
to identify programs that key agencies are sponsoring to meet high-
skill training needs.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Survey Sent to Skill Grant Recipients:
[See PDF for image]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Detailed Data on Skill Grant Programs:
The survey mailed out to the 43 grantees that received skill grants in
the first three funding rounds provided much data on those programs.
The tables below provide data from the surveys beyond the data provided
in the report.
Table 4: Participants Enrolled in Training:
Responses: Participants who completed training; Number: 7,646; Percent:
49.
Responses: Participants who left/dropped out of training; Number:
1,238; Percent: 8.
Responses: Participants who are still in training; Number: 5,691;
Percent: 37.
Responses: Participants who are waiting for training to start; Number:
910; Percent: 6.
Responses: Total; Number: 15,485; Percent: 100.
Note: Based on 93 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
:
[End of table]
Table 5: Gender of Participants:
Gender: Male; Number: 5,288; Percent: 57.
Gender: Female; Number: 4,066; Percent: 43.
Gender: Total; Number: 9,354; Percent: 100.
Note: Based on 56 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Survey.
[End of table]
Table 6: Age of Participants:
Age: 21 or under; Number: 401; Percent: 6.
Age: 22 - 39; Number: 3,497; Percent: 55.
Age: 40 - 54; Number: 2,088; Percent: 33.
Age: 55 and over; Number: 412; Percent: 6.
Age: Total; Number: 6,398; Percent: 100.
Note: Based on 39 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 7: Race/Ethnicity of Participants:
Race/ethnicity: American Indian/Alaskan Native; Number: 69; Percent: 1.
Race/ethnicity: African-American (non-Hispanic); Number: 1,524;
Percent: 20.
Race/ethnicity: Asian; Number: 556; Percent: 7.
Race/ethnicity: White (non-Hispanic); Number: 4,841; Percent: 62.
Race/ethnicity: Spanish/Hispanic; Number: 504; Percent: 6.
Race/ethnicity: Other; Number: 312; Percent: 4.
Race/ethnicity: Total; Number: 7,806; Percent: 100.
Note: Based on 47 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 8: Employment Status of Participants at the Time of Enrollment:
Employment status: Employed; Number: 10,411; Percent: 73.
Employment status: Unemployed; Number: 3,793; Percent: 27.
Employment status: Total; Number: 14,204; Percent: 100.
Note: Based on 86 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 9: Education Status of Participants at the Time of Enrollment:
Education level: No high school diploma/GED[A] or equivalent; Number:
132; Percent: 2.
Education level: High school diploma/GED or equivalent; Number: 1,937;
Percent: 29.
Education level: Some college, but no degree; Number: 1,269; Percent:
19.
Education level: 2-year college degree; Number: 718; Percent: 11.
Education level: 4-year college degree; Number: 2,218; Percent: 33.
Education level: Post-college degree; Number: 371; Percent: 6.
Education level: Total; Number: 6,645; Percent: 100.
[A] General Education Development (high school equivalency test):
Note: Based on 40 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 10: Participants Who Attained the Following as a Result of
Program Participation:
Outcomes: Placed in new or upgraded positions; Number: 1796.
Outcomes: Increased wage/salaries; Number: 1571.
Outcomes: Attained 2-year college degree; Number: 33.
Outcomes: Attained 4-year college degree; Number: 61.
Outcomes: Attained certifications; Number: 2,582.
Outcomes: Attained licenses; Number: 101.
Outcomes: Attained industry recognized skill standards; Number: 1,870.
Note: Because participants may have achieved more than one outcome, we
cannot tell what percent of the participants these numbers represent.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 11: Organization Obtained or Tried to Obtain H-1B Visa
Application Data to Identify Skill Shortages in High-Skill Occupations
in Local Area:
(Continued From Previous Page)
Response: Obtained H1-B visa application data; Number: 23; Percent: 54.
Response: Tried to obtain H1-B visa application data, but were not
successful in getting it; Number: 10; Percent: 23.
Response: Did not try to obtain H1-B visa application data; Number: 10;
Percent: 23.
Response: Total; Number: 43; Percent: 100.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 12: Other Methods Used to Identify Skill Shortages in High-Skill
Occupations in Local Area:
Response: State/regional labor market information; Number: 42.
Response: Newspaper want ads; Number: 19.
Response: Expressed employer hiring demands; Number: 40.
Response: Other; Number: 27.
Note: Respondents could check more than one answer.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 13: Number of Employers Needing High-Skilled Workers That
Organization Worked with before and after Receiving the Grant:
Response: Number employers needing high-skilled workers that
organization worked with at the time grant went into effect; Number:
1,978.
Response: Number employers needing high-skilled workers that
organization currently working with; Number: 2,648.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 14: Role of One-Stop System in the H-1B Skills Training Program:
(Continued From Previous Page)
Response: One-stop operator manages the H-1B grant; Number: 15.
Response: One-stop operator serves as fiscal agent of the H-1B grant;
Number: 15.
Response: Recruit/refer participants through one-stop centers; Number:
34.
Response: Conduct intake/assessment at one-stop centers; Number: 25.
Response: Identify job openings for participants through one-stop
centers; Number: 24.
Response: Match participants to job openings/employers through one-stop
centers; Number: 24.
Response: Other; Number: 7.
Note: Respondents could check more than one answer.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 15: Methods Grantees Plan to Use to Sustain the Skill Grant
Training:
Response: WIA[A] program funds; Number: 22.
Response: WIA[A] statewide set-aside funds; Number: 5.
Response: Other federal programs/grants; Number: 23.
Response: State programs; Number: 19.
Response: City programs; Number: 8.
Response: County programs; Number: 8.
Response: Foundations; Number: 13.
Response: H-1B employers; Number: 20.
Response: Tuition assistance/remission; Number: 20.
Response: Other; Number: 11.
[A] Workforce Investment Act.
Note: Respondents could check more than one answer.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 16: Gender of Participants in IT Training:
Gender: Males; Number: 2,061; Percent: 60.
Gender: Females; Number: 1,370; Percent: 40.
Gender: Total; Number: 3,431; Percent: 100.
Note: On the basis of grantees that provided information technology
(IT) training only (19 grantees) and reported that they served a total
of 5,672 participants. This response is based on 60 percent of the
participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
Table 17: Race/Ethnicity of Participants in IT training:
Race/ethnicity: American Indian/Alaskan Native; Number: 24; Percent: 1.
Race/ethnicity: African American (non-Hispanic); Number: 1,069;
Percent: 32.
Race/ethnicity: Asian; Number: 314; Percent: 9.
Race/ethnicity: White (non-Hispanic); Number: 1,753; Percent: 52.
Race/ethnicity: Spanish/Hispanic; Number: 186; Percent: 6.
Race/ethnicity: Other; Number: 44; Percent: 1.
Race/ethnicity: Total; Number: 3, 390; Percent: 100.
Note: On the basis of grantees that provided IT training only (19
grantees) and reported that they served a total of 5,672 participants.
This response is based on 60 percent of the participants.
Source: GAO data from H-1B Skill Grant Survey.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Detailed Data on NSF‘s Computer Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Scholarship Program:
This table provides additional data on the students in the Computer
Science, Engineering, and Mathematics Scholarship Program.
Table 18: Characteristics of Computer Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Scholarship Recipients as of May 1, 2002:
Category: Gender; Characteristic: Male; Number: 4,610; Percent: 60.
Characteristic: Category: Female; Number: Category: 2,859; Percent:
Category: 37.
Characteristic: CategoryAge[A]: No information; Number:
CategoryAge[A]: 237; Percent: CategoryAge[A]: 3.
Category: Age[A]; Characteristic: 21 and under; Number: 3,462; Percent:
45.
Characteristic: Category: 22-30; Number: Category: 3,016; Percent:
Category: 39.
Characteristic: Category: 31-40; Number: Category: 857; Percent:
Category: 11.
Characteristic: Category: 41-50; Number: Category: 282; Percent:
Category: 4.
Characteristic: CategoryRace/ethnicity[B]: 51-72; Number:
CategoryRace/ethnicity[B]: 88; Percent: CategoryRace/ethnicity[B]: 1.
Category: Race/ethnicity[B]; Characteristic: White; Number: 3,135;
Percent: 45.
Characteristic: Category: African American; Number: Category: 1,409;
Percent: Category: 20.
Characteristic: Category: Asian/Pacific Islander; Number: Category:
961; Percent: Category: 14.
Characteristic: Category: Hispanic; Number: Category: 957; Percent:
Category: 14.
Characteristic: Category: American Indian; Number: Category: 117;
Percent: Category: 2.
Characteristic: CategoryMajor: Multiple ethnicity[C]; Number:
CategoryMajor: 315; Percent: CategoryMajor: 5.
Category: Major; Characteristic: Computer Science; Number: 2,958;
Percent: 38.
Characteristic: Category: Engineering; Number: Category: 2,844;
Percent: Category: 37.
Characteristic: Category: Mathematics; Number: Category: 790; Percent:
Category: 10.
Characteristic: Category: Computer Science and Engineering; Number:
Category: 75; Percent: Category: 1.
Characteristic: Category: Computer Science and Mathematics; Number:
Category: 27; Percent: Category: 0.
Characteristic: Category: Mathematics and Engineering; Number:
Category: 9; Percent: Category: 0.
Characteristic: Category: Other; Number: Category: 44; Percent:
Category: 1.
Characteristic: CategoryCharacteristic: No information; Number:
CategoryNumber: 959; Percent: CategoryPercent: 12.
[A] Age when first entered the scholarship program. Information was not
available on one student.
[B] Race/ethnicity data excludes 812 students for whom ethnicity was
unknown.
[C] The majority of those with more than one category of ethnicity were
White/Hispanic (242).
Note: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding. :
Source: NSF Database on Computer Science, Engineering, and Mathematics
Scholarship students.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Areas of Training for First 43 Skill Grants:
This table presents data on occupations for which the grantees train,
as provided by the 43 grantees that received skill grants in the first
three funding rounds.
Table 19: Occupations on Which Grantees from First Three Funding Rounds
Provided Training:
[See PDF for image]
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI Key Federal Programs and Initiatives with a High-Skill
Component:
The following programs and initiatives were identified as having at
least a component that addresses the need for high-skills in the
following ways: training; education and scholarships; recruitment to
high-skill fields; collaborative efforts within/among agencies; and
resources and information related to high-skill areas. This list is not
comprehensive, but serves as an illustration of various efforts and
resources that currently exist.
Agency/office: Department of Labor.
Agency/office: Secretary‘s initiatives; Program/initiative: 21st
Century Workforce Initiative-mission to ensure that all American
workers have as fulfilling and financially rewarding a career as they
aspire to have and make sure no worker gets left behind in the
limitless potential of the dynamic, global economy of this new
millennium.
Office of the 21st Century Workforce-created by executive order June
20, 2001, to gather and disseminate information relating to workforce
issues by conducting summits, conferences, meetings, and other
appropriate forums. The executive order also established the
President‘s Council on the 21st Century Workforce to provide
information and advice on issues affecting the 21st century workforce.
A Memorandum of Understanding is under development between the
Department of Labor and the Department of Health and Human Services to
address issues such as the nursing shortage..
Agency/office: Employment and Training Administration (ETA)/Office of
Policy & Research; Program/initiative: H-1B Technical Skill Training
Grants-provides grants for technical skills training to employed and
unemployed individuals in occupations that are in employer demand.
Grants are provided to local workforce investment boards, private
industry councils or regional consortia, and to partnerships that
consist of at least two businesses or a business-related nonprofit
organization..
Agency/office: ETA/Office of Apprenticeship Training, Employer & Labor
Services; Program/initiative: Information Technology Industry Outreach
Initiative-Grant awarded to the Computer Technology Industry
Association in 5/01 and ends in 12/02-to expand apprenticeship in the
IT occupational area. This includes developing and testing an IT
apprenticeship model in five pilot sites and creating a structure to
market and support IT apprenticeships..
Agency/office: ETA/Office of Workforce Security/Division of One-Stop
Operations; Program/initiative: Serves as the One-Stop office within
ETA (national and regional offices) for any issues related to WIA and
provides support to state and local officials as they build One-Stop
systems. Also fosters partnerships on workforce issues with other
federal agencies such as the Department of Education, the Department of
Health and Human Services, and the Department of Housing and Urban
Development..
Agency/office: ETA/Office of Adult Services; Program/initiative: WIA
Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs-provide three levels of services
to adults 18 years and older. These services include: core services
(job search and placement assistance, etc.); intensive services
(comprehensive assessments, case management, etc.); and training
services (occupational skill training, skill upgrading, etc.)..
Agency/office: ETA/Office of Adult Services; Program/initiative:
Discretionary grants that relate to H-1 B skill grants:; * Information
Technology Association of America Grant-conduct a series of targeted
activities to inform IT companies about the role of workforce
investment boards in local communities.; * Skills Shortages,
Partnership Training/System Building Demonstration Program-awarded
grants to 11 states and the District of Columbia to help establish
regional partnerships to respond to employers‘ identified skill
shortages.; * Minority Colleges and Universities Workforce Partnerships
and Training Strategies to Address Skill Shortages Demonstration
Program-awarded grants to 13 minority colleges and universities to
develop new systems to train workers for high-skill jobs in areas where
companies are facing labor shortages.; * Incumbent/Dislocated Worker
Skill Shortage II Demonstration Program-awarded grants to 19
communities to create projects or industry-led consortia to upgrade
current workers, design/adapt training curricula in skill shortage
occupational areas, and recruit/retrain workers in this area..
Agency/office: ETA/Office of Technology and Information Services;
Program/initiative: Occupational Information Network-database
accessible from any Web browser that contains comprehensive information
on job requirements and worker competencies..
Agency/office: National Science Foundation; Program/initiative:
[Empty].
Agency/office: Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)/
Division of Undergraduate Education; Program/initiative: Computer
Science, Engineering and Mathematics Scholarships-grants to
postsecondary schools that distribute the funds as scholarships for
academically talented, low-income students in computer science,
computer technology, engineering, engineering technology, or
mathematics.
Program for Gender Equity in Science, Mathematics, Engineering and
Technology-grants to support research, demonstration, and
dissemination projects that broaden the participation of girls and
young women in science, mathematics, engineering, and technology
education. Addresses middle school, high school, and undergraduate
education.
Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Talent Expansion
Program-planning and pilot grants to academic institutions to increase
the number of students (U.S. citizens or permanent residents) pursuing
and receiving associates or baccalaureate degrees in science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics.
Noyce Scholarship Supplements-institutions of higher education that
lead or are partnering in other NSF grants can receive supplemental
funding for scholarships to encourage science, engineering, and
mathematics majors and professionals to become K-12 mathematics and
science teachers..
Agency/office: EHR/Divisions of Undergraduate Education and
Elementary, Secondary & Informational Education; Program/initiative:
Advanced Technological Education-grants to promote improvement in
technological education at the undergraduate and secondary school
levels by supporting curriculum development; preparation and
professional development of college faculty and secondary school
teachers; internships and field experiences for faculty, teachers, and
students, and other activities..
Agency/office: Department of Commerce; Program/initiative: [Empty].
Agency/office: Technology Administration (TA)/Office of Technology
Policy; Program/initiative: National Medal of Technology-presidential
award to individuals, teams, or companies for accomplishments in the
innovation, development, commercialization, and management of
technology. First awarded in 1985. Review and study of high-tech
workforce training programs in the United States-authorized by the
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act of 2000.
Work Force Reports-The Digital Work Force: Building Infotech Skills
at the Speed of Innovation--a report on the demand for highly skilled
information technology workers and its August 2000 Update, and Digital
Workforce State Data and Rankings.
Go 4 IT! Web site-maintains this site to provide information on IT
education, employment, and training programs.
GetTech-partnership developed by the Department of Commerce‘s Office
of Technology Policy and the National Association of Manufacturer‘s
Center for Workforce Success to encourage young people, particularly
those in middle school, to prepare for careers in mathematics, science,
and technology..
Agency/office: TA/National Institute of Standards and Technology;
Program/initiative: Manufacturing Extension Partnership-nationwide
network of not-for-profit centers in over 400 locations nationwide to
provide assistance to small and medium-sized manufacturers. If this
assistance includes obtaining new equipment, these centers may provide
training on the new equipment..
Agency/office: Economic Development Administration; Program/
initiative: Technology-Led Economic Development-Web site that
identifies federal, state, and local initiatives related to technology-
led economic development..
Agency/office: Department of Education; Program/initiative: [Empty].
Agency/office: Office of Vocational and Adult Education (OVAE);
Program/initiative: Preparing America‘s Future-initiative that
provides a framework to connect OVAE‘s activities to support education
reform and prepare the 21st century workforce. This effort organized
three teams, High School Excellence Team; Community and Technical
Colleges Team; and Adult Learning Team, to develop a coherent strategy
for preparing America‘s future with implications for policy and
practice.
Carl D. Perkins Vocational-Technical Education Act Amendments of
1998-provides federal funding for vocational and technical education
programs and services to youth and adults. The majority of the funds
are awarded as grants to state education agencies as State Basic Grants
and Tech Prep Grants.; ; Career clusters-established 16 broad career
clusters that consist of entry level through professional-level
occupations in a broad industry area. Each cluster includes academic
and technical skills and knowledge needed for further education and
careers.
IT Career Cluster Initiative-partnership of the Education Development
Center, Inc., the Information Technology Association of America, and
the National Alliance of Business to create a national model and career
cluster curricular framework for IT careers. This initiative is
sponsored by the Department of Education and National School-to-Work
Office.
Community Technology Centers program-grants to create or expand
community technology centers that will provide disadvantaged residents
of economically distressed urban and rural communities with access to
information technology and related training..
Agency/office: Department of Health and Human Services; Program/
initiative: [Empty].
Agency/office: Health Resources and Services Administration; Program/
initiative: Grants to address emerging nursing shortage include:; *
Advanced Education Nursing Traineeship grants.; * Advanced Education
Nurse Anesthetist Traineeship grants.; * Geriatric Nursing Knowledge
and Experiences in Long-Term Care Facilities grants.; * Nurse Faculty
Development in Geriatrics grants.; * ; Cooperative agreements for
health workforce research--available for state or local governments,
health professions schools, schools of nursing, academic health
centers, community-based health facilities, and other appropriate
public or private nonprofit entities, including faith-based
organizations to conduct research that will contribute to (1) the
development of information describing the current status of the health
professions workforce and (2) analysis of fundamental health workforce
related issues..
Agency/office: National Skill Standards Board; Program/initiative:
[Empty].
Program/initiative: Agency/officeProgram/initiative: Information
Communications Technology Voluntary Partnership-sponsoring research
for the development of skill standards and the potential alignment of
industry-based certifications in the Information Technology and
Telecommunications sector..
Source: Compiled by GAO from various Web sites.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training
Washington, D.C. 20210:
AUG 28 2002:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for your letter to Secretary of Labor Elaine L. Chao,
providing the draft GAO report entitled ’High Skill Training: Grants
from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, But at Varying Skill
Levels“ (GAO-02-881). We very much appreciate the opportunity to
comment on the draft report. We also value the professionalism of your
staff in conducting the H-1B Technical Skills Training Grant
Demonstration review and the constructive suggestions contained in the
draft report.
We are pleased that GAO‘s review found that the H-1B skills grant
demonstration has helped improve partnerships among local workforce
investment boards, businesses, and education and training
organizations. A major goal of the Department of Labor is to respond
firmly and clearly to business skill needs. This includes building
sustained partnerships between the business community and the public
workforce investment system created under the Workforce Investment Act
of 1998 (WIA). By doing this, workers will be the ultimate beneficiary
because they will be receiving more targeted training assistance that
will lead to better jobs at higher wages.
A key GAO recommendation is that the Secretary of Labor take a
’proactive approach to addressing high-skill workforce needs across the
country.“ The Department supports this recommendation and continues to
identify ways that the public workforce system can provide leadership
and solutions to this critical economic need. As GAO acknowledges, we
have industry initiatives underway in the areas of information
technology and health care, and we plan to expand our high growth job
training partnerships to several other industries. Any components of
the H1B skills grant demonstration that truly address high-skill
workforce needs will be incorporated in our efforts.
I also want to take the opportunity to address the other key GAO
recommendations. First, the draft report notes in several sections that
participant and outcome data should be standardized and collected so
that project outcomes can be obtained to determine whether goals and
objectives have been met. It also notes the absence of a reporting
system. The Department‘s Employment and Training Administration (ETA)
recently developed a standard format and content for the quarterly
report required from grantees and briefed all current grantees on the
new quarterly report format and requirements at the H-1B Grantee
Conference held July 31 - August 1, 2002. A copy of the report and
instructions is enclosed. Data elements required are specified, as is
the content of the narrative section of the quarterly report. The new
report will be effective for the quarter ending September 30, 2002.
ETA is developing a system to give grantees the option of completing
their quarterly reports electronically. This gives ETA a more efficient
way to review grantee information. In addition, ETA has completed an
automated system to report financial data and has trained grantees on
its use during the recent H-1B grantee conference; we expect it to be
online by the end of December 2002. ETA also plans to award a contract
to evaluate the impact of the H-1B grant program by the end of
September 2002.
The GAO also recommended that the Department ’establish mechanisms to
share successful strategies among grantees and encourage networking.“
We agree that this is an important objective. The GAO identified
several ETA activities that supported this objective. More are planned.
ETA also commissioned and has provided grantees copies of two process
studies that contain considerable information about grantees‘ best
practices. We will provide additional technical assistance support for
the H-1B demonstration project that includes the sharing of information
and experiences leading to improved program performance.
The GAO raised a significant concern that the H-1B grant program
guidelines ’were confusing as to the skill level of training that
grantees should provide.“ It also notes that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), in reviewing the first 43 H-1B grant
projects, characterized about 40 percent of the occupations for which
training was being provided as qualifying at the H-1B visa level. As
GAO notes in its report, the current legislation authorizing the H-1B
grant program (ACWIA 2000) specifically directs that H-1B skill grants
be used not only for H-1B visa level training, but also for ’the
preparation of workers for a broad range of positions along a career
ladder.“ While we acknowledge that some training may not fully meet the
H-1B visa level for baccalaurates or commensurate experience, this
statutory provision contributes importantly to differences between the
INS H-1B visa standard and some of the occupation training being
conducted by H-1B technical skills grantees.
We recognize, as does the GAO report, that the H-1B technical skills
grants are a demonstration project, and that the level of training
issue is one of the ’lessons learned.“ We do believe that a measure of
the ultimate success of this demonstration effort is whether the
workers trained can mitigate the need for businesses to import high
skill workers under the H-1B visa program. Therefore, we are monitoring
carefully the various grant applications and awards, and whether they
meet this objective. Future evaluation efforts will also take this
objective into consideration.
I have enclosed some additional comments about observations in the
draft report. Again, we appreciate your sharing the draft report with
us and for the cooperation of the study staff. Please contact Gerri
Fiala, Administrator, Office of Policy and Research, at 202-693-3665,
for any clarifications or additional information.
Sincerely,
Emily Stover DeRocco
Signed by Emily Stover DeRocco
Enclosures:
Responses and Comments to GAO H-1B Report:
1. Page 6 GAO comment: ’While Labor does not require a standard format
for the narrative progress report...“:
Response: ETA has developed a standard format and content for the
required quarterly report. Data elements required are specified, as is
the content of the narrative section of the quarterly report. Grantees
were briefed on the new quarterly report format and requirements at the
grantee conference held July 31 - August 1, 2002. The new report will
be effective for the quarter ending September 30, 2002.
2. Page 11 GAO comment: ’Data on participants is limited because Labor
did not establish standardized reporting requirements for the grantees.
Grantees express frustration with the lack of a reporting system, which
they had been told was in development...“:
Page 15 GAO comment: ’In addition to participant demographic data, some
grantees collect outcome data, although this data is limited and not
standardized. In general, such data is not collected until after
participants have ended their training...“:
Response: See response to #1 above. ETA has specified reporting
requirements for both the quarterly progress report and for the final
report. The data elements required to be provided by grantees are
sufficient for progress monitoring and for project evaluation purposes.
Grantees are required to report quarterly, including outcome data for
the quarter as well as cumulative outcome data. In addition to
identifying standardized elements for grantees to submit, ETA has
sought alternative ways to ease grantees‘ submissions of quarterly
reports. ETA has been working on the development of a system to provide
grantees the option of completing their quarterly reports
electronically and sending the reports via email. The system will also
provide ETA a more efficient way of reviewing quarterly information
submitted by grantees. An automated system to report grantee financial
data has been completed and will be online in the near future. Grantees
were provided training on the automated financial reporting system
during the recent H-1B grantee conference.
3. Page 34 Recommendations, GAO comment: ’The Secretary of labor
should:
*Identify the standard participant and outcome data that is needed...
*Establish mechanisms to share successful strategies among
grantees...“:
Response: See responses I and 2 above. With respect to sharing
strategies, ETA has sponsored two grantee conferences and has plans to
sponsor additional ones as necessary. ETA is currently in the process
of procuring additional technical assistance support for the H-1B
demonstration project, and one of the key priorities is supporting the
sharing of information and experiences among H-1B technical skills
grantees. In addition to national conferences, Regional Offices have
held H-IB grantee conferences to share information among grantees.
4. Page 4 GAO comment ’In its solicitations for grant applications,
Labor has provided guidelines that were confusing as to the skill level
of training that grantees should provide.“:
Response: The Solicitation published on April 13, 2001, stated (p.4)
that the ACWIA technical skills training is geared towards employed and
unemployed workers who can be trained and placed directly in highly
skilled H-1B occupations. Any possible confusion might be the:
result of the Department attempting to reconcile the statutory
provision of training for jobs on career ladders with the very clear
and primary goal of placing American workers in H-lB level jobs.
Recognition of the legislative language in amended section 414(c)(2)
should be included in the text of the report to explain any
administrative ’confusion.“:
5. Page 17 GAO comment ’Even though grantees were interested in
tracking outcomes of participants and had attempted to do so, they
encountered a number of challenges.“:
Response: The paragraph which the above sentence begins recognizes one
of the problems faced by DOL in administering this grant program - how
to collect and measure outcomes. For example, some positive results
(noted by GAO) include participants gaining a skill and thereby not
being laid off in a reduction which occurred because of a recent dip in
the economy.
6. Page 1 GAO footnote: ETA suggests the full definition of H-lB level
skill included so that readers will have the complete definition from
the beginning of the report.
7. Page 5: GAO may want to note that, in addition to the funds used for
technical skills grants, under ACWIA a small portion of the funds going
to Labor from H-1B visa fee applications are used for processing alien
labor certifications.
8. Page 7: GAO may want to note that the matching fund requirement
under ACWIA 2002 is a statutory requirement, not a DOL established
requirement.
9. Page 16 GAO observation on the two-year time frame of grants: ETA is
aware of the concerns by some grantees and partners that two years may
not be sufficient time to reach an H-1B skill level. Any future
solicitations will take this into account, using a three-year time
frame for grants.
10. Page 17 GAO observation on exemplary practices report: ETA
sponsored and has distributed two process analysis reports; the
exemplary practices report was the second. Both reports have been
distributed to all grantees and both reports are posted on the H-1B
website.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Comments from the National Science Foundation:
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 4201 WILSON BOULEVARD ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA
22230:
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR:
August 26, 2002:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues United States General
Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft report, ’High-
Skill Training: Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce
Needs, But at Varying Skill Levels.“ The report is generally accurate
in its discussion of NSF‘s Computer Science, Engineering, and
Mathematics Scholarship (CSEMS) program and of the modifications NSF
has made to improve the program since it made its first awards two
years ago.
To date, NSF has made awards to 277 colleges and“universities; and they
have awarded scholarships to almost 8000 undergraduate …and graduate
students. As part of the grants, awardee schools have collected
extensive data about their students, such as major field of study,
demographics, and progress toward the degree. We are pleased to see
that these data have been useful in this report, and they are also
being used as part of a CSEMS program evaluation conducted by an
external evaluator.
The draft report calls attention to the difficulty some early awardee
schools had in finding students who met all the eligibility
requirements. Effective January l, 2002, NSF broadened the requirements
for all awardees so that students are required to be eligible for need-
based Federal financial aid, rather than the more restrictive Pell
eligibility. This change has broadened the group of students who are
eligible while retaining the requirement for financial need that is
part of the legislation establishing the program. We have received many
favorable comments …about the change. In addition, the report comments
that project directors want some mechanism to ’share best practices
among themselves. There has been some sharing of information informally
through NSF staff, and, as noted in the draft report, NSF is already
planning a project director‘s meeting, probably in Washington in the
spring of 2003. The NSF staff talk with many of the project directors,
and we try to respond to suggestions for improving the effectiveness of
the projects, as we have in these two instances.
Some technical comments on the draft are as follows:
*On page 27, the pie chart shows the percentage of majors in the
scholarship program, and the data are given on page 55. It appears that
the sectors in the chart for ’Computer Science“ and ’No information“
have been switched. From the data, computer science should be 38% and
no information should be 12%.
As noted in several places in the draft, NSF broadened the scholarship
eligibility requirements for all awardees. That change is noted on page
3, page 21, and page 33, but not at the end of the first paragraph on
page 8, each of which points out the difficulty some awardees had in
recruiting enough students under the previous requirement. We suggest
that the change be noted on page 8 as well.
On page 7, the draft notes that ’Schools may request an additional 5%
of grant funds [for] administrative costs....“ It is a small
difference, but they may actually request an additional 5% of the total
requested scholarship amount for administrative costs. For
completeness, it should be noted that they may in addition request 5%
of the total requested scholarship amount for student support services,
and these services are important in helping to retain students and
encourage achievement among the scholarship recipients.
Sincerely,
Joseph Bordogna, Deputy Director:
Signed by Joseph Bordogna
[End of section]
Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Commerce:
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.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE The Assistant Secretary for
Technology Policy Washington, D.C. 20230:
SEP 4 2002:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security U.S. General
Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
The Department of Commerce appreciates the opportunity to review the
General Accounting Office draft report, GAO/RCED-02-881, ’HIGH SKILL
TRAINING: Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, But
at Varying Skill Levels.“:
The Commerce Department finds serious methodological and analytical
weaknesses in the GAO review of the high-tech training programs
supported with funds from the H-1B Petitioner Account.
First, Commerce notes with great concern GAO‘s choice to focus almost
exclusively on the grants made during the first three rounds of the
Labor Department‘s skill grants program. Importantly, the later
competitions were conducted under legislative changes to the program
made in 2000 under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First
Century Act (PL 106313). These changes have substantially affected, and
will continue to affect, the implementation of the grants. In addition,
the subsequent competitions account for more than half of the funds
distributed under the program. While we recognize that the grantees
from the later competitions have yet to produce results to assess in
terms of program outcomes, we believe that the composition of the
training to be provided has been impacted substantially by changes in
the law and in the Labor Department‘s program implementation and
grantee selection.
A review of these later grants, in our view, is necessary for GAO to
achieve its stated goal of addressing the issue of ’whether the skill
grant and scholarship training is based on workforce needs and specific
jobs that H-lB visa holders fill.“ There have been conflicting signals
in the course of the development and implementation of the Labor
Department‘s program that have affected the selection of grantees and
their training objectives. Public statements from executive and
legislative branch officials during the crafting and passage of the
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of 1998 centered
on using the funds collected from H-1B visa applications to meet the
Nation‘s future need for high-skill, high-wage workers by preparing
Americans for jobs currently held by H-1Bs. In the Labor Department‘s
public statements and its Solicitation for Grant Applications (SGAs),
especially those used in the early rounds, this
connection was clear though the legislation did not speak to this goal.
In the later competitions, this objective seems to have become less
clear as a result of legislative changes and the Labor Department‘s
implementation. Whereas H-1 Bs are required to have a four-year degree
(or equivalent skills and experience) in the field in which they are to
be employed, Congress broadened the training objectives of the Labor
training program in 2000 to include ’the preparation of workers for a
broad range of positions along a career ladder.“ In addition, Congress
defined the type of skills training to be provided, specifying ’high
technology, information technology, and biotechnology.“ Judging by the
outcome of the later competitions, these new criteria seem to have
created ambiguity in the grantee selection process with respect to the
occupations and skill levels to be trained. A significant amount of
training is now being provided for skill-levels below that required to
receive an H-1B visa, in areas for which there is no demonstrated
’career ladder“ to an H-1B occupation, for occupations not classified
as an H1 B occupation, and in occupations not articulated by the
legislation.
For example, in the Department‘s 2002 grants, more than 30 percent of
the grants went to training low-level healthcare workers, most on a
career ladder to Registered Nurse (RN), yet RNs are not admitted to the
United States on an H-1B visa. This would also seem to be in
contradiction of another provision of the 2000 law (which GAO does not
mention in its review) which specifies, ’No more than 20 percent of the
grants shall be available to programs and projects that train employed
and unemployed workers for skills related to any single specialty
occupation.“ The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies the educational
requirement for RNs as an associates degree, though they may also
qualify for state licensure through a hospital vocational diploma
program or by earning a bachelor‘s of science in nursing (B.S.N.)
degree. Also, while the review notes that the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) states that nurses ’could be H-1B
equivalent for supervisory or management level positions,“ the grants
awarded in 2002 do not include supervisory training.
Commerce also notes with concern GAO‘s failure to address the
disconnect between the occupations that grantees selected in the latest
WIA-focused competitions (under SGA/DFA 01105) are providing training
for and the occupations of those coming into the United States on H1B
visas. While fully half of the grantees (12 of 24) selected in these
competitions indicated training efforts focused on nursing or
healthcare occupations, only 42 percent (10 of 24) of grantees are
training for IT occupations.This stands in stark contrast to H-1B visa
statistics published by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
(INS) for FY 2001 which show ’computer-related occupations“ accounting
for more than 58 percent of H-1B visas, while only 3.9 percent of H-1B
visas were issued to those in ’occupations in medicine and health“ (of
which a substantial share, 44 percent, were issued to ’physicians and
surgeons“). Clearly the training focus of grantees selected in the 2000
competitions is out of sync with the portfolio of occupations for which
H-1B visas were issued.
In addition to this disconnect, it is unclear what statutory language
the Department of Labor is relying on in providing training grants for
nursing and healthcare occupations given that the 2000 law directs
funding for ’high technology, information technology, and
biotechnology.“
Second, throughout its review, GAO frequently refers to workforce
shortages, particularly in information technology (IT), computer
science, mathematics and engineering. This review by GAO fails to
provide clear, complete, and compelling evidence for a shortage of
workers in any of these occupations. The Commerce Department‘s
extensive analysis in this arena shows that while in recent years there
had been evidence indicating a tight labor market for highly-skilled IT
workers, there was no way to establish conclusively the existence of an
overall IT workforce shortage due to limitations of available data. In
1998, GAO itself endorsed Commerce‘s position that current statistics
frameworks and mechanisms for measuring labor supply do not allow for
precise identification of IT worker shortages. In addition, the recent
economic downturn has adversely affected employment growth in IT
occupations. In 2001, the Department of Labor‘s Current Population
Survey indicated that employment in IT occupations declined by 1.6
percent, after recording 10.9 percent compounded annual growth from
1995 to 2000. Given that rapid employment growth is a critical criteria
for ascertaining a workforce shortage, this would argue strongly
against a current shortage in IT occupations broadly.
The review also indicates that H-1B visas serve as a measure for
workforce shortages/national workforce needs and uses terminology
suggesting that H-1B use is based on a requirement unfilled by the
domestic workforce, e.g. ’companies needing H-1B workers,“ yet
employers are not required to attest that they cannot find an American
worker for the position when applying for an H-1B visa. Employers seek
workers under the provisions of H-1B for a variety of reasons including
securing knowledge and skills to enable their companies to better serve
overseas markets, to continue relationships established with these
workers during their courses of study in U.S. universities, and because
some of these workers are perceived to be superior choices for
competitive companies. Accordingly, Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs)
using H-1B visa data should explore their local employers‘ underlying
reasons for use of these workers.
GAO appropriately questions the Department of Labor‘s use of the
occupations indicated in Labor Condition Applications (LCAs) as a guide
for WIBs in assessing workforce needs. In fact, many positions
certified through LCAs are never filled by employers. And while
Commerce is inclined to believe that the portfolio of occupations
represented in LCAs may not ultimately reflect the portfolio of
occupations of those granted H-1B visas, it is analytically unsound for
GAO to reach this conclusion by comparing 1999 LCA data to 2001 H-1B
visa data. If, in fact, the visa list is more accurate for determining
current H-1B occupations in demand, then GAO should recommend the
Department of Labor make this data available to the applicants, the
panelists reviewing applications, and the Department‘s grant officers.
If the visa data is less current than the LCA data, GAO should
recommend that INS make its visa data available in a more timely
fashion to better ensure that the skill training is based on specific
jobs that H-1B visa holders fill.
Commerce also notes with concern that SGAs issued by the Department of
Labor on August 1, 2000 and April 13, 2001 include LCA numbers that
purport to represent different time periods (parts of FY 1999 and FY
2000, respectively), yet the numbers of LCAs for each occupation are
identical. Notwithstanding our above mentioned reservations about the
use of LCAs, given that the Labor Department included LCAs numbers to
provide guidance to potential applicants and that GAO reports that some
grantees reported difficulty finding H-1B visa data, Commerce believes
that this error could have misguided applicants.
Third, GAO is inconsistent in how it reports the educational
requirements of H-1Bs. According to the law, an H-1B must have ’(A)
theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized
knowledge, and (B) attainment of a bachelor‘s or higher degree in the
specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the
occupation in the United States.“ To meet the ’equivalent“ standard, an
H-1B must have ’(i) experience in the specialty equivalent to the
completion of such degree, and (ii) recognition of expertise in the
specialty through progressively responsible positions relating to the
specialty.“
GAO argues that ’Unlike other fields, occupations in the IT field are
difficult to classify as to the level of education degree they
require.“ In support of this thesis, GAO offers a non-sequitor: that
the Bureau of Labor Statistics‘ (BLS) Occupational Outlook Handbook
notes that IT workers have degrees from a variety of disciplines. We
readily acknowledge that IT workers come from a variety of academic
disciplines, as our 1998 report, The Digital Workforce: Building
Infotech Skills at the Speed of Innovation, illustrated. However, it
should be noted that 68.4 percent of the IT workforce in 2001 held a
bachelor‘s or higher-level degree, up from 64.9 percent in 1995. An
additional 9 percent hold an associate‘s degree. In addition, BLS‘s
biennial occupational projections for the 2000 to 2010 period indicate
that three-quarters of new IT jobs will be in IT occupations that
generally require a bachelor‘s or higher-level degree. The remaining
onequarter of new IT jobs will be in occupations that generally require
an associate‘s or higher-level degree. GAO fails to contrast this with
the educational profile of the grantees it generated through its own
survey that shows only 39 percent with four-year degrees and 11 percent
with two-year degrees. GAO also fails to contrast this with the outcome
that only 94 (1.2%) of the grantees‘ 7,646 participants earned a two-or
four-year degree through the program.
The GAO review provides extremely limited information on the level and
type of training provided by the grantees. While the review suggests
that nearly all grantees provided IT training, it fails to distinguish
between training designed to use information technology on the job
(such as the Microsoft Officer User Specialist (MOUS) certification,
which provides workers with basic office software skills such as word
processing, spreadsheets, and presentations) and training to prepare a
worker to become an IT professional (such as a Certified Network
Engineer or Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer). Even among those
receiving training to become an IT professional, there is a vast range
of knowledge and skills in each of the occupational areas. For example,
someone trained in HTML programming to maintain an informational
website versus someone capable of designing and implementing a web-
based e-Commerce enterprise integration solution for a multinational
corporation, though both of these could be classified in the occupation
’Web Development/Administrator“ provided in Appendix V of the review.
Nor do the knowledge and skills represented by a Certified Novell
Engineer certification equate with those gained through completion of a
four-year computer engineering curriculum, though those holding either
might be referred to as a ’computer engineer.“
In addition, technical skills are only one of several assets employers
evaluate in selecting candidates for higher-skill IT jobs. In addition,
employers seek formal education (generally at the bachelor‘s level or
higher), experience (’real world,“ paid, hands-on; sometimes in both a
specific technology and specific industry), soft skills (ability to
work in a team, problem-solving, oral and written communication), and
business skills (ability to apply technology to business problems,
requirements analysis, customer orientation).
The Labor Department‘s technical skills training program does not
address the complete set of knowledge and skills that workers need to
compete for high-skill IT jobs. The review confuses the ability to
perform one aspect of a high skill-level job with being prepared for
that job. For example, the review suggests that through training
electronics technicians were being upgraded to junior engineers through
a grantee‘s training. These junior engineers would also be capable of
performing one of the functions (testing) of the senior engineers, some
of who were H-1Bs. GAO‘s review implies that this might reduce this
employer‘s‘ need for an H-1 B, but clearly this newly trained junior
engineer does not have all of the requisite education, skills and
experience to fill the slot of a senior engineer occupied by an H-1B.
Third, as currently structured, the ’career ladder“ concept is critical
to the program‘s success in preparing students for H-1B-level jobs.
Commerce believes that GAO should have explored: how effectively the
grantees identified effective career ladders in the occupations for
which they provided training, the skills necessary to put a student on
a particular rung of the ladder, and whether they had conveyed to the
student an understanding of the career ladder and its rungs (including
requisite education, training and experience) to enable the student to
successfully navigate to an H-1B level position.
Commerce believes that the GAO review should include the following
recommendations regarding the Labor Department‘s skills grant program
greater clarity in the goals of the program,
stronger emphasis on recruiting and providing technical skills training
to those with twoand four-year degrees in non-technical fields;
stronger emphasis on providing formal education opportunities leading
to two-and fouryear degrees;
more extensive and rigorous data collection by the grantees and the
Department of Labor, and more rigorous evaluation of program, including
grantees‘ achievement of
stated goals and the program‘s preparation of workers for high-skill
jobs currently held by H-1Bs.
Commerce also has several concerns with respect to GAO‘s review of the
National Science Foundation‘s Computer Science, Engineering and
Mathematics Scholarship (CSEMS) program. Commerce believes GAO did not
address several important issues affecting the success of this program
in adding to the number of Americans educated in these disciplines.
Commerce would like to have seen GAO explore
Whether the scholarships are actually attracting students into the
CSEMS disciplines who would otherwise not have pursued degrees in these
disciplines (i.e., those who would have pursued a degree in another
discipline or those who would not have pursued a degree of any kind).
Whether the number of graduates in these disciplines is increased by
the scholarships or whether others that might have majored in these
disciplines were displaced from their seat by a scholarship student in
an institution with limited space. The large increase in the number of
students majoring in computer science in the last few years has
resulted in some institutions reaching full capacity in their computer
science programs.
The effect of the size of the scholarship (maximum of $3,125 per year
for up to four years) on the number and quality of the scholarship
candidates. Given the high cost of tuition, room and board at many
four-year universities, it seems that the size of the scholarship may
be inadequate, especially for those attending private four-year
universities. It would have been useful if GAO had provided the cost of
tuition, books, fees and estimated living expenses at the six schools
it visited. Commerce questions whether the scholarships are effective
at enabling low-income part-time students to become full-time students
by using these limited funds to cover non-academic expenses such as
transportation, housing and child care. Also, Commerce‘s reading of the
CSEMS enabling legislation casts doubts on the use of these scholarship
funds for these nonacademic purposes.
The effect of the size of the scholarships in attracting the interest
and applications of community colleges and four-year colleges and
universities.
Minor editorial changes have been provided to the General Accounting
Office under separate cover. The Department of Commerce hopes that the
comments in both letters will be helpful in the preparation of the
final report. If there are any questions regarding this response,
please contact John Sargent at (202) 482-6185.
Sincerely,
Bruce Mehlman
Assistant Secretary for Technology Policy:
Signed by Bruce Mehlman
[End of section]
Appendix X: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215
Joan T. Mahagan, Assistant Director (617) 565-7532:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, Laura J. Heald, Carol L. Patey, and
Tatiana Winger made important contributions to this report. Stuart M.
Kaufman, Corinna A. Nicolaou, and Beverly Ross also provided key
technical assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Under the H-1B program, specialty occupations are those requiring
theoretical and practical application of a body of specialized
knowledge and the attainment of a bachelor‘s or higher degree (or its
equivalent) in the specific specialty. These can be in a range of
fields from architecture, engineering, and mathematics to medicine,
education, theology, and the arts, but the majority of H-1B visa
petitions approved are for computer-related occupations. H-1B visas may
also be awarded to fashion models of distinguished merit and ability
but this report does not focus on them.
[2] The balance of the funds is directed toward nontraining activities.
[3] We consulted INS for their views on how the occupations in which
skill grants were training compared to H-1B positions.
[4] Assessments were also made for visa extensions and employment
changes.
[5] Fifteen percent is allotted for a direct or matching grant program
to support private-public partnerships in education for kindergarten to
grade 12, 4 percent to decrease processing times for H-1B petitions,
and 4 percent for labor condition application processing and
enforcement.
[6] As part of the reforms under WIA, local workforce investment boards
replaced private industry councils, the local administrative entity
under JTPA. While private industry councils provided oversight and
could operate local JTPA programs, workforce investment boards provide
oversight but are prohibited from directly providing services unless
they receive a waiver from the governor. Even though WIA passed in
1998, local areas were not required to establish boards until July 1,
2000, which means many private industry councils were still in place at
the time the skill grants were authorized.
[7] The front-line grant monitor is called a Grant Officer‘s Technical
Representative.
[8] Pell grants are based in part on students‘ financial need and their
cost of attendance. Students eligible for Pell grants must have lower
incomes than for other types of federal student aid. Pell grants do not
need to be repaid. Students can receive both Pell grants and these
scholarships.
[9] WIA establishes one-stop centers as the access point for
employment-related and training services.
[10] Although we received completed surveys from all 43 grantees in the
first three rounds of grant awards, information on demographics was
generally provided for less than half of the total number of training
participants. Data with low response rates may not be generalizable to
all skill grant participants.
[11] Based on data on those grantees that train for IT occupations
only. Data for participants on whom information was known (not only
those from grantees that train exclusively for IT occupations) indicate
that 43 percent are female, 20 percent are African Americans,
7 percent are Asian, and 6 percent are Hispanic.
[12] The Bureau of Labor Statistics data describes workers in these key
IT-related occupations. However, it does not represent all of the IT-
related occupations and skill sets trained for in the skill grant
training program.
[13] More applications are certified than visas approved for several
reasons, such as applications approved for anticipated employment that
does not transpire.
[14] See Building a Foundation for Tomorrow: Skill Standards for
Information Technology, by the Northwest Center for Emerging
Technologies, now called the National Workforce Center for Emerging
Technologies. This study was sponsored in part by the National Science
Foundation.
[15] The site address is http://www.doleta.gov/h-1b/.
[16] INS noted that many of the occupations they characterized as not
H-1B equivalent could be found to be H-1B equivalent and vice versa,
depending on the facts contained in an individual petition. For
example, many of the ’technician“ positions frequently require only a
2-year associate degree in a given field, or a baccalaureate degree in
an unrelated field and experience. However, an employer could require
at least a baccalaureate degree in the given field and the actual
duties could be presented as quite complex. INS added that other
occupations, such as nurses and radiology technicians, generally are
not H-1B equivalent; however, they could be H-1B equivalent for
supervisory or management level positions.
[17] The National Skill Standards Board was created by the National
Skill Standards Act of 1994 to develop a voluntary national system of
skill standards, assessment, and certification systems.
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 ( 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
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: 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:
