Older Workers
Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services Gao ID: GAO-03-350 January 24, 2003Some economists predict that by 2030, the United States could experience a labor shortage of 35 million workers. As the shortage approaches, one option available is to encourage people to work beyond traditional retirement ages, especially because people who are age 55 or older will constitute nearly a third of the poppulation. Accordingly, increasing demands will be made on the workforce development system to help ensure that older workers are provided opportunities to help address the anticipated labor shortage. Concerned that the existing workforce development system may not meet the needs of older workers, the Subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member asked GAO to determine the extent that older workers are enrolled in federal employment and training programs, what services are provided, and how performance measures affect such services.
About 12 percent of the 1.3 million older people who were not working and wanted a job were enrolled in these programs between July 2000 and June 2001. Some older workers received services without being enrolled in a program but these people were not counted in program statistics. The majority of older people enrolled received subsidized jobs through the Senior Community Service Employment Program. About one-third participated in programs funded by the Workforce Investment Act and Trade Adjustment Assistance. Most of the older workers enrolled in these programs received job search assistance, such as help in preparing for interviews and writing resumes, but some also received job training. Research findings have been inconsistent as to whether older workers have distinct learning needs, but Workforce Investment Act program providers are less likely now than in the past to have separate programs for older workers. The Workforce Investment Act requires program providers to report certain information so that Labor can determine how well programs are performing. These performance measures include how many participants find jobs and how much their earnings have increased. Program providers report that some performance measures provide a disincentive to enrolling older workers into the program because of employment characteristics that may negatively affect program performance. For example, in 6 of 10 the local areas we visited, officials said they considered performance measures a barrier to enrolling older workers seeking part-time jobs because they would have lower earnings and therefore reduce program performance. Consequently, some older workers may only receive job search assistance and not have access to in-depth services, such as computer training.
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-03-350, Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-350
entitled 'Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized
Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve
Access to Other Services' which was released on January 24, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Employer-
Employee Relations, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
January 2003:
OLDER WORKERS:
Employment Assistance Focuses
on Subsidized Jobs and Job Search, but Revised Performance Measures
Could Improve Access to Other Services:
Older Workers:
GAO-03-350:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-350, a report to the Ranking Minority
Member,
Subcommittee on Employer-Employee Relations, Committee on
Education
and the Workforce, House of Representatives.
OLDER WORKERS
Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but
Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Some economists predict that by 2030, the United States
could experience a
labor shortage of 35 million workers. As the shortage
approaches, one option
available is to encourage people to work beyond traditional
retirement ages,
especially because people who are age 55 or older will constitute
nearly a third
of the population. Accordingly, increasing demands will be made
on the workforce
development system to help ensure that older workers are provided
opportunities
to help address the anticipated labor shortage. Concerned that
the existing
workforce development system may not meet the needs of older
workers, the
Subcommittee‘s Ranking Minority Member asked GAO to determine
the extent that
older workers are enrolled in federal employment and training
programs, what
services are provided, and how performance measures affect
such services.
What GAO Found:
About 12 percent of the 1.3 million older people who were not
working and wanted a
job were enrolled in these programs between July 2000 and June
2001. Some older
workers received services without being enrolled in a program
but these people were
not counted in program statistics. The majority of older people
enrolled received
subsidized jobs through the Senior Community Service Employment
Program. About
one-third participated in programs funded by the Workforce
Investment Act and Trade
Adjustment Assistance. Most of the older workers enrolled in these
programs received
job search assistance, such as help in preparing for interviews
and writing resumes,
but some also received job training. Research findings have been
inconsistent as to
whether older workers have distinct learning needs, but Workforce
Investment Act
program providers are less likely now than in the past to have
separate programs for
older workers. The Workforce Investment Act requires program
providers to report certain
information so that Labor can determine how well programs are
performing. These
performance measures include how many participants find jobs and
how much their earnings
have increased. Program providers report that some performance
measures provide a
disincentive to enrolling older workers into the program because
of employment
characteristics that may negatively affect program performance.
For example, in 6 of
10 the local areas we visited, officials said they considered
performance measures a
barrier to enrolling older workers seeking part-time jobs
because they would have lower
earnings and therefore reduce program performance. Consequently,
some older workers
may only receive job search assistance and not have access to
in-depth services, such
as computer training.
Older workers enrolled in a computer training class in
Sacramento, Calif., learning such
skills as keyboarding, office applications, and Internet
usage.
[See PDF for Image]
[End of Figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Secretary of Labor assess Workforce
Investment Act performance
measures and make adjustments as necessary to eliminate
disincentives to enrolling
older workers in the program. Labor generally agreed with our
recommendation and has
formed a task force to review older worker services and said
that as it assesses program
performance measures, it will identify and eliminate factors
that discourage participation.
To view the full report, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202) 512-7215
or nilsens@gao.gov
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Older People Enrolled in Federal Programs Generally Receive Subsidized
Community Service Jobs and Job Search Assistance:
Older People Most Likely to Receive Subsidized Community Service Jobs
and Job Search Assistance:
Providers Now More Likely to Include Older Workers in Services with
Younger Workers, but Some Still Offer Special Services:
WIA Performance Measures May Affect Older Workers‘ Access to Services:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: SCSEP National Grantee Activity in Program Year
2000 (July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001):
Appendix III: SCSEP Grantees‘ Use of 502(e) Funds in Program
Year 2000 (July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001):
Appendix IV: WIA Earnings Change and Earnings Replacement
Rate Performance Measure Calculations:
Adult Measure:
Dislocated Worker Measure:
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Demographics of People Aged 55 and Over across SCSEP, WIA, and
TAA Programs:
Table 2: States Using WIA Funds for Targeted Older Worker Services,
Program Year 2000 (July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001):
Table 3: WIA Employment Related Performance Measures for Adults and
Dislocated Workers:
Table 4: Program Year 2000 Age Differences on WIA Performance Measure
Outcomes:
Table 5: Part-time Workers by Age:
Table 6: Earnings Loss by Age of Workers Displaced from Full-Time Jobs
between January 1999 and December 2001:
Table 7: Proportion of Population Aged 55 and Older and Funds Received
for SCSEP and WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs for Selected
States:
Table 8: Local Areas Selected for Site Visits:
Table 9: SCSEP National Grantee Activity in Program Year 2000:
Table 10: SCSEP Grantees‘ Use of 502(e) Funds in Program Year 2000:
Figures:
Figure 1: Proportion of People Aged 55 and Over Living in Each State in
2000:
Figure 2: Use of SCSEP, WIA, and TAA by the 156,000 People Aged 55 and
Over Who Were Enrolled in Federal Employment and Training Programs
(July 2000-June 2001):
Figure 3: Number of People Enrolled in WIA and TAA Programs by Age
(July 2000-June 2001):
Figure 4: Unsubsidized Placement Rates for Older People Enrolled in
WIA, TAA, and SCSEP (July 2000-June 2001):
Figure 5: Percentage of Older Workers Enrolled in WIA and JTPA
Receiving Targeted and Nontargeted Services:
Figure 6: Employment Status by Age of Workers Displaced from Full-Time
Jobs between January 1999 and December 2001:
Abbreviations:
JTPA Job Training Partnership Act:
SCSEP Senior Community Service Employment Program:
TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance:
WIA Workforce Investment Act:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
January 24, 2003:
The Honorable Robert E. Andrews
Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee
on Employer-Employee Relations
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Andrews:
Some economists predict that by 2030, the nation could experience a
labor shortage of 35 million workers. If the potential labor shortage
is not addressed, the nation‘s productivity, growth, and international
competitiveness could be threatened. As the shortage approaches and
labor markets begin to tighten, one option available to increase the
labor supply is to encourage people to stay in the labor force beyond
traditional retirement ages, especially because people who are age 55
or older will constitute nearly a third of the total population--an
increase of 46 percent over three decades. Evidence suggests that older
workers--those people aged 55 and older who are either currently
employed or seeking employment--have a unique relationship with the
labor market. Generally, although older workers are less likely to lose
a job, they are less likely to seek reemployment after losing work and
may experience a larger loss in earnings, as compared to younger
workers, when they do re-enter employment.[Footnote 1] With the
potential labor shortage and an aging population, increasing demands
will be made on the workforce development system to help ensure that
older workers are provided adequate opportunities to help address the
anticipated labor shortage and meet employer needs for labor.
In 2000, several employment and training programs provided services to
older workers. These programs included the Senior Community Service
Employment Program, which primarily provides low-income older workers
with subsidized employment in public agencies and nonprofit
organizations; the Workforce Investment Act programs, which provide job
search assistance and training to adults and individuals who have lost
their jobs because of layoffs or plant closings (dislocated workers);
and the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs,[Footnote 2] which provide
employment and training assistance for those individuals who have lost
their jobs due to the adverse effects of international trade.
When the Workforce Investment Act replaced the Job Training Partnership
Act in 2000, it represented a major change in how employment and
training services were delivered to older workers. States were no
longer required to set aside funds to provide services specifically for
older workers and new performance measures were developed to assess
program success. The act also created a one-stop system where
information about and access to a wide array of employment and training
services became available at a single location. Concerned that existing
federal employment and training programs may not be oriented towards
the needs of older workers, you asked us to determine (1) the extent to
which people aged 55 and older are enrolled in federal employment and
training programs and what services they receive, (2) how employment
and training services are provided to older workers, and (3) how
performance measures may have affected services for older workers.
To determine what employment and training services are provided to
people aged 55 years and older (older workers) and how these services
are provided, we surveyed responsible officials in each of the 50
states and Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico, on states‘ services for
older workers through several of the major federal employment and
training efforts: (1) the Workforce Investment Act (49 states
responded),
(2) the Senior Community Service Employment Program (50 states
responded),
and (3) the Trade Adjustment Assistance programs (48 states responded).
We
also surveyed all 595 local workforce areas to obtain information on
services provided to older workers and received 470 responses. In
addition, we conducted telephone interviews with the 10 national Senior
Community Service Employment Program grantees and visited 5 states
(Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania) to
obtain more detailed information on how services are provided to older
workers and what these services include. We selected these states based
on a variety of considerations, such as the proportion of their
population that was 55 or older and whether they used Workforce
Investment Act funds specifically for older workers. Within each state,
we visited two local areas and met with local officials to discuss how
older workers access services and how these services are delivered. We
judgmentally selected these local areas to provide a mix of urban and
rural areas. (App. I contains a more detailed discussion of our scope
and methodology.) We performed our work between January and December
2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
About 12 percent of the 1.3 million older people who were not working
and wanted a job were enrolled in federal employment and training
programs between July 2000 and June 2001. Although people who enroll in
in-depth employment and training services are included in program
statistics, others who receive more limited or informal services are
not counted, making it difficult to determine the total number of older
workers receiving employment and training services. Among those
enrolled in federal employment and training programs, we found that
approximately 156,000 people were aged 55 and over--the majority of
whom had subsidized jobs through the Senior Community Service
Employment Program. Participants in this program usually earn the
minimum wage and frequently work in education and social service
agencies in positions such as teacher aides and receptionists. Fewer
people age 55 and over were enrolled in the Workforce Investment Act
and Trade Adjustment Assistance programs. Of the 49,600 older people
enrolled in these programs, most received job search assistance, such
as interviewing and resume writing workshops, while a smaller number
received training--including training for specific jobs as well as for
basic work skills. In addition, over 60 percent of those leaving the
Workforce Investment Act programs obtained unsubsidized jobs.
Employment and training providers are less likely now than in the past
to establish separate programs for older workers, but older workers
still have access to some services designed specifically for them.
While research findings on whether older workers have distinct learning
needs have been inconsistent, Workforce Investment Act and Trade
Adjustment Assistance providers generally do not serve older workers in
separate programs, instead choosing to include older workers in the
services they provide to all workers. For example, 90 percent of local
areas responding to our survey said their occupational training classes
funded through the Workforce Investment Act are designed for workers of
all ages. When the Workforce Investment Act was enacted, eliminating
the requirement that states reserve funds for older workers, most
states did not continue to fund programs specifically for older
workers. However, 10 states indicated that they used Workforce
Investment Act funds during 2000 to support special programs for older
workers, such as separate computer classes tailored to older workers.
Although most states have not used Workforce Investment Act funds to
support separate older worker programs, at the local level the one-stop
centers give older workers access to the Workforce Investment Act and
Trade Adjustment Assistance programs, as well as to the Senior
Community Service Employment Program that is specifically for older
workers. About four-fifths of local areas responding to our survey said
the Senior Community Service Employment Program is colocated in their
one-stop centers, increasing the likelihood that some targeted services
are available to older workers.
Employment and training providers report that Workforce Investment Act
performance measures have limited older workers‘ access to more
intensive services and training because older workers have employment
characteristics that may adversely affect program measures,
particularly those related to changes in earnings. The Department of
Labor holds states and local areas accountable for performance using
several measures and state and local areas may receive financial
incentives if they meet or exceed set performance levels but may be
penalized if they fail to meet these levels. Data from the Current
Population Survey suggest that older workers have unique employment
characteristics, such as being more likely than younger workers to work
part time and to take larger pay cuts when re-entering the labor
market. All older workers can receive Workforce Investment Act program
basic job search assistance but their unique employment characteristics
may discourage program administrators from enrolling older workers into
more in-depth services, such as training. For example, officials in 6
of the 10 local workforce areas that we visited consider performance
measures a barrier to enrolling older workers because of their high
prior wages and/or their desire to work part time.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Labor assess Workforce
Investment Act performance measures and make adjustments as necessary
to eliminate the disincentive to enrolling older workers in programs
funded by the Workforce Investment Act. In its comments, Labor
generally agreed with our recommendation and said that it has formed a
task force to review services to older workers and to identify policies
to help meet the needs of this group. Labor also noted that as it
assesses program performance measures it will identify and eliminate
factors that discourage participation of any group.
Background:
In 2000, approximately 59 million people aged 55 and over resided in
the United States. The proportion of people aged 55 and over living in
each state ranged from about 13 percent in Alaska to about 27 percent
living in Florida (see fig.1).
Figure 1: Proportion of People Aged 55 and Over Living in Each State in
2000:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In program year 2000,[Footnote 3] older workers received employment and
training services from various federal employment and training
programs, including the Senior Community Service Employment Program
(SCSEP), the Workforce Investment Act (WIA), and Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) programs. These programs have various eligibility
requirements and offer employment and training services through
different mechanisms.
Title V of the Older Americans Act of 1965 authorizes SCSEP to promote
part-time community service activities specifically for low-income
older individuals and to foster economic self-sufficiency through
unsubsidized employment. SCSEP, funded at $440.2 million in program
year 2001, is limited to people 55 years and older with incomes at or
below 125 percent of the federal poverty level.[Footnote 4] For program
year 2000, Labor allotted
78 percent of the funds to 10 national grantees, including the AARP
Foundation, Experience Works (formerly Green Thumb), and the National
Council on the Aging, Inc. (See appendix II for a complete list of
national grantees and funds expended in program year 2000.) The
remaining
22 percent was allotted to each of the 50 states, District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, and the other territories. At least 75 percent of SCSEP
funds must be used to subsidize participants‘ wages--typically for
minimum wage jobs in nonprofit and public sector agencies. The
remaining funds may be used for such activities as assessments,
counseling, training, and job placement assistance. Section 502(e) of
title V authorizes limited funds to be used for projects placing older
workers in unsubsidized employment in the private sector. (See appendix
III for more details on how these funds were used in program year
2000.) These projects are intended to emphasize training for jobs that
reflect required technological skills.
TAA programs assist U.S. workers who lose their jobs because of
increased imports from, or shifts in production to, foreign countries.
These programs provide benefits such as trade re-adjustment allowances
(extended income support beyond normal unemployment insurance
benefits), services such as job training, and funds for job search and
relocation. Groups of workers or their representatives can petition the
Department of Labor for certification of eligibility to apply for
services or benefits under TAA programs. In fiscal year 2001, TAA
programs received about $407 million to provide income support and
training benefits.
WIA specifies one funding source for each of the act‘s main client
groups--adults, dislocated workers, and youths--and creates a system
whereby clients can obtain information about and access to a wide array
of job training, education, and employment services at a single
location, called a one-stop center. WIA specifies 17 partner programs
that are to provide services through the one-stop center, including
SCSEP and TAA. This partnership can take different forms, including
physical colocation at the one-stop center or providing electronic
linkages to the partners‘ programs. WIA requires that the adult and
dislocated worker programs, funded at about $2.5 billion in program
year 2001, provide three levels of service: (1) core job search
assistance, including the provision of labor market information, and a
preliminary assessment of skills and needs;
(2) intensive job search assistance, including comprehensive
assessments, creation of an individual employment plan, case
management, and short-term prevocational services;[Footnote 5] and (3)
training, including skill upgrading, literacy classes, and occupational
training. Core services are available to all job seekers, but WIA
enrollment is required for intensive services and training. Under the
adult program, all persons aged 18 or older are eligible to receive
core services. In areas where funds are limited, priority for intensive
services and training must be given to recipients of public assistance
and other low-income individuals. The dislocated worker program is
generally for those individuals who have been laid off and are unlikely
to return to their previous employment. To be eligible for the youth
program, persons must be aged 14--21; have low income; and meet at
least one of six barriers to employment, such as being a school
dropout, homeless, or an offender.
When WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) in July
2000, it replaced the requirement that each state reserve five percent
of its adult allotment specifically for older worker services with the
provision that states can set aside up to 15 percent of their adult,
youth, and dislocated worker allotments to support statewide workforce
activities. WIA also contains a requirement that each state and local
area receiving WIA funds must achieve certain levels of performance on
several measures. The Department of Labor evaluates performance on
these measures to determine fiscal incentives and sanctions. Some
measures are common to both the adult and dislocated worker programs,
such as job placement and retention, but earnings are measured
differently for the two programs. For the adult program, the measure
compares participants‘ earnings before entering the program to their
earnings after completing the program and expresses the difference as
an actual dollar amount. For the dislocated worker program,
participants‘ earnings after completing the program are expressed as a
percentage of their earnings before entering the program.
In a previous GAO report on WIA performance measures,[Footnote 6] we
found that established performance measures were a concern to state and
local officials because of the fiscal sanctions associated with failure
to meet them. We reported that the need to meet performance measures
might be the driving factor in deciding who receives WIA-funded
services at the local level. For example, local staff might be
reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers who may be less
likely to get and keep a job or those who may be less likely to
experience an increase in earnings.
Older People Enrolled in Federal Programs Generally Receive Subsidized
Community Service Jobs and Job Search Assistance:
Approximately 12 percent of all older people who were not working and
wanted a job were enrolled in federal employment and training programs;
most of these individuals received subsidized community service jobs or
job search assistance, while a smaller number received training. The
majority of these older individuals, about 68 percent, were enrolled in
SCSEP. Other older workers may receive job assistance services without
being enrolled in a federal employment and training program, but these
individuals are not counted in program statistics.
Programs Enroll about
12 Percent of Older
People Who Want Jobs:
We found that approximately 156,000 people aged 55 and older were
enrolled in SCSEP, TAA, and WIA adult and dislocated worker programs
between July 2000 and June 2001--representing about 12 percent of all
the people in this age group who wanted a job but were not working.
According to the Current Population Survey, an average of 1.3 million
people aged 55 to 90 years old were unemployed or were out of the labor
force and wanted a job[Footnote 7] during this same time period. Many
of these individuals consider themselves to be retired but wish to
rejoin the labor market. Some of these individuals are actively looking
for work; others have tried to find work in the past and have become
discouraged from continuing their job search. In terms of the 59
million people who were age 55 and older in 2000, less than 1 percent
was enrolled in SCSEP, WIA, and TAA.
The total number of older people enrolled in these federal employment
and training programs is smaller than the number of people aged 55 and
older who may have actually received services. Although federal
employment and training programs count the number of people enrolled in
in-depth services,[Footnote 8] individuals who receive more limited or
informal employment assistance are not included in program statistics.
Within the WIA programs, for example, individuals can access self-
service employment resources, such as job listings, through entry-level
core services without enrolling in WIA. Similarly, within SCSEP, some
older people receive job search assistance from staff without being
enrolled as clients in the program. In Pennsylvania, for example, some
SCSEP providers maintain a job bank for older individuals who need help
finding a job but do not meet the income eligibility requirements for
the program.
Of the 156,000 older people enrolled in the three federal employment
and training programs, more than two-thirds received SCSEP services.
Our surveys also show that more people aged 55 and over were enrolled
in WIA programs than in TAA programs (see fig. 2).
Figure 2: Use of SCSEP, WIA, and TAA by the 156,000 People Aged 55 and
Over Who Were Enrolled in Federal Employment and Training Programs
(July 2000-June 2001):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: While individuals may be co-enrolled across programs, limited
national data exists on co-enrollments and what data are available
shows few co-enrollments.
Although SCSEP only enrolls people aged 55 and over, the WIA and TAA
programs serve both older and younger individuals. We found that older
people make up a relatively small proportion of the total number of
people enrolled in WIA and TAA programs (see fig. 3). Our surveys show
that both the WIA dislocated worker and adult programs enrolled more
older people than the TAA programs.
Figure 3: Number of People Enrolled in WIA and TAA Programs by Age
(July 2000-June 2001):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: States that did not submit enrollment data by age are not
included.
To the extent that it could be determined, the three federally funded
employment and training programs that we reviewed reach a small
proportion of those likely to be eligible. Although different
eligibility requirements and limited data make it difficult to
determine the number of older people who qualify for the three federal
employment and training programs we reviewed, some information is
available on the number of older people enrolled in individual
programs. For example, SCSEP enrolled about 1 percent of adults aged 55
and older whose incomes would make them eligible for services. Within
WIA, the adult program enrolled less than 1 percent of all people aged
55 and older who would have been eligible on the basis of age. The
percentage of eligible older people enrolled in the WIA dislocated
worker program and the TAA programs is unknown, because national labor
statistics do not track the population of older people who qualify for
these services. Nevertheless, information on older people who have
experienced mass layoffs shed some light on this population. For
example, the number of older people enrolled in the WIA dislocated
worker program represented about 14 percent of older people who had
experienced extended mass layoffs.[Footnote 9] Likewise, the number of
older people enrolled in the TAA programs constituted about four
percent of people aged 55 or older experiencing extended mass layoffs.
However, extended mass layoff data only provides a rough approximation
of the population eligible for these two programs because the data
excludes some older people who may qualify for services and includes
others who may not meet program eligibility requirements, particularly
for the TAA program.
Older People Most Likely to Receive Subsidized Community Service Jobs
and Job Search Assistance:
Although WIA and TAA are seen as providing transitional services to
help unemployed people find jobs, SCSEP primarily provides low-income
older people with long-term subsidized employment. For those older
people enrolled in WIA and TAA programs, most received job search
assistance, while a smaller percentage received job training.
The 106,000 individuals who received SCSEP jobs worked part time in
nonprofit and governmental host agencies, and typically earned the
minimum wage. SCSEP participants worked in a variety of fields, ranging
from public works to health care; however, they most frequently held
positions in education and social service organizations. SCSEP
community service jobs vary and can include positions such as teacher
aides, librarians, day care assistants, receptionists, and nurse‘s
aides. Although some of the host agencies provide services primarily to
senior citizens, most SCSEP jobs are with agencies that serve the
general community.
SCSEP has historically focused on providing older people community
service opportunities and income support, rather than employment and
training services. However, recent legislative changes to the program
have emphasized the importance of transitioning SCSEP participants into
unsubsidized jobs.[Footnote 10] While some SCSEP administrators permit
older people to work in subsidized community service jobs for 15 years
or more, other SCSEP operators have instituted time limits--of 1 to 2
years--to encourage participants to find unsubsidized
employment.[Footnote 11] SCSEP provides some job search assistance and
training services to people aged 55 and over to help them find
unsubsidized jobs. For example, many SCSEP providers help participants
create resumes and prepare for job interviews. In addition, SCSEP
operators have limited amounts of funding that can be used to pay for
classroom courses and on-the-job training at private sector companies.
For example, at least 14,000 older individuals--many of whom were also
enrolled in the community service jobs program--participated in SCSEP
training programs between July 2000 and June 2001 to prepare for
private sector jobs.[Footnote 12]
People aged 55 and over also received job search assistance and
training services through WIA and TAA programs. Of the approximately
523,000 people enrolled in TAA and WIA adult and dislocated worker
programs between July 2000 and June 2001, about 49,600 were aged 55 and
older. We estimate that most of these older people received job search
assistance, while a smaller percentage received job training.[Footnote
13] Job search assistance can include the provision of job listings and
information on the skills needed to obtain these jobs, career
counseling, and interviewing and resume writing workshops. Training
includes remedial education classes, and occupational skills training
taught in a classroom or on-the-job. Remedial classes focus on literacy
and other basic education and work skills, while occupational skills
training prepares people for specific careers. For example, some
occupational skills training helps participants obtain credentials or
licenses for particular professions, such as nursing or truck driving.
Within WIA adult and dislocated worker programs, older people received
job search assistance through core services before enrolling in the
programs and receiving intensive services and training. Of those people
aged 55 and over enrolled in these WIA programs, data suggest that
about half of these individuals also received training. In addition,
many other older people may have received job search assistance through
WIA‘s core services without enrolling in the program and were not
counted in program statistics. Within the TAA programs, more people
received job training than job search services; however, only about
6,600 people aged 55 and over were enrolled in this program.
Across SCSEP, WIA and TAA, we found similarities in the characteristics
of the older people enrolled in these programs. For example, women
constitute the majority of participants aged 55 and over in all three
programs. Likewise, as shown in table 1, most older participants in
each program have at least a high school diploma or general equivalency
diploma.
Table 1: Demographics of People Aged 55 and Over across SCSEP, WIA, and
TAA Programs:
Program[A]: SCSEP; Percentage of participants aged 65 or over: 62;
Percentage of female participants: 73; Percentage with at least a high
school diploma or equivalent: 66.
Program[A]: WIA-Adult; Percentage of participants aged 65 or over: 19;
Percentage of female participants: 57; Percentage with at least a high
school diploma or equivalent: 76.
Program[A]: WIA-Dislocated Worker; Percentage of participants aged 65
or over: 8; Percentage of female participants: 53; Percentage with at
least a high school diploma or equivalent: 88.
Program[A]: TAA; Percentage of participants aged 65 or over: 10;
Percentage of female participants: 61[B]; Percentage with at least a
high school diploma or equivalent: 69.
Sources: WIA and SCSEP data are from the Department of Labor. TAA data
are from GAO‘s national survey and the Department of Labor.
[A] WIA data cover the 12,309 older workers enrolled in PY00, who
received services through local adult and dislocated worker programs
and who exited WIA during this same year. The age data include all
12,309 older people but due to missing data the gender data are for
12,308 and the education data for 10,070. SCSEP gender and education
data are for 60,978 PY00 enrollees who have not exited the program.
SCSEP age data are for 60,992 PY00 enrollees who have not exited the
program.
[B] Data on the gender of TAA participants were provided by the
Department of Labor and cover
3,645 older people who received TAA services between 10/1/2000 and 9/
30/2001, and then exited the program. The other TAA data presented here
come from GAO‘s TAA survey and cover the
6,628 older workers enrolled in the program in PY00.
:
[End of table]
Although older participants share some similar characteristics across
programs, the people enrolled in SCSEP tend to be older than those
enrolled in WIA[Footnote 14] and TAA programs. While the majority of
SCSEP participants are age 65 or older, approximately 80 to 90 percent
of the older participants in WIA and TAA programs are between the ages
of
55 and 64. Older participants exiting WIA are more likely to be placed
in unsubsidized jobs than older participants exiting TAA and SCSEP (see
fig 4).
Figure 4: Unsubsidized Placement Rates for Older People Enrolled in
WIA, TAA, and SCSEP (July 2000-June 2001):
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: WIA placement rates are calculated by counting the number of
people aged 55 and over who were employed in the first full quarter
after exiting the program divided by the number of older people who
exited during that quarter. TAA placement rate is calculated by
counting the total number of people aged 55 and over who received
services in PY00 and exited during this same year, and then the
percentage of this group that were employed in the first full quarter
after exiting the program. SCSEP placement rate is calculated by
counting the number of enrollees placed in unsubsidized jobs divided by
the established enrollment. The unsubsidized jobs figure only counts
placements of at least 30 days that are intended to last for at least
90 days, and jobs in which the participant is better off financially
with the unsubsidized job than with the community service position.
Providers Now More Likely to Include Older Workers in Services with
Younger Workers, but Some Still Offer Special Services:
Fewer providers now serve older workers through separate and specially
tailored programs, but some special services are still available to
older workers. Research findings on how older workers learn and whether
they need special services have been inconsistent, and providers under
different programs have taken various approaches to serving older
workers. Providers are less likely under WIA than under JTPA to treat
older workers as a distinct group requiring a separate program, because
WIA emphasizes a common service delivery system for all workers and
individual choice over services. As they always have, TAA providers
include older workers with younger workers rather than providing
separate services. SCSEP, which serves exclusively older workers,
tailors its job search and training services to older workers, and is
colocated in the one-stop centers.
WIA Providers More Likely to Integrate Older Workers in Services with
Younger Workers:
Under WIA, providers are more likely to include older workers in
services with younger workers than to serve them in separate programs.
WIA puts greater emphasis than did JTPA on serving all workers together
in one common system and gives individuals more choice over the
services they receive. As a result, WIA providers are more likely to
assess the needs of older workers on a case-by-case basis, rather than
considering them a separate group that requires a separate set of
services. Officials in 5 of the 10 local areas we visited said the
implementation of WIA resulted in greater integration of older workers
in services with younger workers. WIA staff members in 9 local areas we
visited included older workers with younger workers in job search
activities, and 90 percent of the local areas responding to our survey
included older workers with younger workers in job training services.
Although some research studies support the approach of integrating
older workers with younger workers, other studies have found older
workers benefit from separate programs. Several research studies
support the view that older workers do not have distinct learning needs
and would not benefit from separate services. For example, two
studies[Footnote 15] found that the diversity among older workers as to
how quickly different older workers learned new skills made it
impossible to generalize about their employment and training needs.
Another study[Footnote 16] found that the most effective training
approaches for older workers are also the most effective for younger
workers. However, other studies[Footnote 17] found that while older
workers can learn the same skills as younger workers, they benefit from
instruction that is more hands-on, involves more one-on-one assistance,
and is slower-paced than what is typically available in most training
programs. In particular, older workers may benefit from separate,
slower-paced computer training classes because some older workers may
be unfamiliar with, and intimidated by, computers.
Several WIA officials we interviewed concluded that older workers
should be included in services with younger workers because as a group,
older workers have no distinct employment and training needs. For
example, a local area in Florida said older workers do well in job
training programs serving people of all ages. In past years the local
area offered a nursing class specifically for older workers, but it
cancelled this class in part because not enough older workers wanted to
take it. Similarly, a local area in Massachusetts no longer offered
training programs specifically for older workers, and said older
workers do not need such services. According to this local area,
instructional methods that are successful with younger workers are also
successful with older workers, and the fact that some older workers
prefer to take classes with their peers--just as some younger workers
feel more comfortable in classes serving only younger workers--does not
imply that older workers need separate classes.
One provision in WIA that has led to greater integration of older
workers with younger workers is the requirement that program
participants choose among training programs offered by qualified
providers. Under JTPA, a local area could contract with a training
provider to operate a job-training program designed for a specific
group, such as older workers. WIA generally prohibits such contracting,
instead letting individual program participants choose which training
to attend. Local areas now issue vouchers to program participants,
which they use to pay for training programs offered by qualified
providers. Because individual program participants choose which
training program to attend, no program can be restricted only to older
workers, and older workers are more likely to be integrated in training
with younger workers. For example, a local area in Pennsylvania used
JTPA funds to contract with a provider for a training program serving
only older workers. Under WIA, program participants choose among
training programs offered by qualified local providers, and none of
these providers operates a program serving exclusively older workers.
Another change under WIA that resulted in greater integration of older
workers with younger workers was the elimination of the JTPA older
worker set aside. Under JTPA, states were required to reserve a portion
of their funds for services to older workers. Some states passed set-
aside funds along to local areas, and others contracted directly with
training providers to serve older workers on a statewide basis. WIA
provided states with greater flexibility, allowing them to use their
statewide activities funds for a wide variety of purposes. Most have
not opted to reserve statewide activities funds specifically for older
workers, preferring instead to include older workers in the regular
adult and dislocated worker services available in the one-stop centers.
Twenty-six percent of local areas responding to our survey said that
because of the elimination of the older worker set-aside, they were
less likely to target training programs specifically to older workers,
although older workers still had access to training funded through WIA.
Several local areas we visited also said they were more likely to
include older workers in services with younger workers due to the
elimination of the set-aside. For example, a one-stop center in
Massachusetts now includes older workers in job search and resume-
writing workshops available to workers of all ages, rather than
providing separate workshops for older workers as they once did.
Ten of the states responding to our survey chose to use a portion of
their program year 2000 statewide activities funds specifically for
older worker services. Some states designated funds for older workers
because SCSEP providers applied to use the funds for this purpose.
Another state reserved funds for older workers to ease the transition
from JTPA to WIA and to promote best practices for serving older
workers under WIA. These states set aside a portion of their statewide
activities funds for older worker services ranging from $47,010 in
Wyoming to $931,214 in South Carolina (see table 2). Almost all the
states used these funds for job search assistance and classroom
training, and a few also provided other services such as on-the-job
training.
Table 2: States Using WIA Funds for Targeted Older Worker Services,
Program Year 2000 (July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001):
State: South Carolina; Amount expended: $931,214; Job search
assistance: X; [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills
training: Classroom training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills
training: On-the-job training: X; Services provided: Occupational
skills training: Customized training[A]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Remedial
training: [Empty].
State: Florida; Amount expended: 855,475; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Remedial training: [Empty].
State: Arizona; Amount expended: 588,491[B]; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: X; [Empty]; Remedial training: X.
State: Louisiana; Amount expended: 375,391; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: X; [Empty]; Remedial training: X.
State: District of Columbia; Amount expended: 253,242; Job search
assistance: X; [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills
training: Classroom training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills
training: On-the-job training: X; Services provided: Occupational
skills training: Customized training[A]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Remedial
training: [Empty].
State: Colorado; Amount expended: 250,000[B]; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Remedial training: [Empty].
State: Georgia; Amount expended: 243,236; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-
the-job training: [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills
training: Customized training[A]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Remedial training:
[Empty].
State: Idaho; Amount expended: 134,191; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: X; [Empty]; Remedial training: X.
State: Massachusetts; Amount expended: 50,000; Job search assistance:
X; [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: [Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: [Empty]; [Empty]; Remedial training: [Empty].
State: Wyoming; Amount expended: 47,010[B]; Job search assistance: X;
[Empty]; Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom
training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training: On-the-
job training: X; Services provided: Occupational skills training:
Customized training[A]: X; [Empty]; Remedial training: [Empty].
Source: Survey of state WIA administrative agencies.
[A] Customized training is designed to meet the special requirements of
an employer and is conducted with a commitment by the employer to hire
the individual upon successful completion of the training. The employer
pays not less than 50 percent of the cost of training.
[B] Program year 2000 funds reserved for older worker services, not
necessarily expended during that program year.
[End of table]
Fewer older workers received targeted services funded by these 10
states than received targeted services funded by the JTPA older worker
set-aside. In program year 2000, approximately 2,000 older workers
received targeted services, representing about 5 percent of the older
workers enrolled in the WIA adult and dislocated worker programs. In
program year 1998,[Footnote 18] about 11,000 people aged 55 and older
received services funded by the JTPA older worker set-aside,
representing about 29 percent of the older worker enrollment (see fig.
5).
Figure 5: Percentage of Older Workers Enrolled in WIA and JTPA
Receiving Targeted and Nontargeted Services:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Four of the states we visited were among those that used WIA statewide
activities funds specifically for older workers. Arizona, Florida, and
Massachusetts used program year 2000 statewide activities funds for
older workers, while California used program year 2001 funds. For
example, Massachusetts used the funds to support case managers at a
one-stop center who specialized in serving older workers. These
specialists helped older workers find jobs and managed support groups
in which older workers could share job-search experiences with their
peers. Arizona used its statewide activities funds partly to support
job-training programs serving only older workers, such as a customer
service representative training program. The state also reserved funds
to send older workers to training programs serving workers of all ages.
California used $190,853 in program year 2001 funds and $672,450 in
program year 2002 funds for a computer skills training program for
older workers. This program served only older workers, offered a slower
pace of instruction and constant review to ensure mastery of skills,
and included a job-search component.
TAA providers, like most WIA providers, include older workers in
services with younger workers. None of the states responding to our
survey of state TAA administrators said they used TAA funds in program
year 2000 to provide separate services specifically designed for older
workers. As they always have, TAA providers served older workers along
with younger workers.
During our site visits, administrators of public employment and
training programs were unable to identify private sector companies that
have established large scale training programs specifically for people
aged
55 and over.[Footnote 19] As we noted in a prior GAO report, employers
may feel that it is more difficult to recoup the costs of hiring and
training older workers because of the shorter potential length of time
older workers may remain with the employer as compared with younger
workers.[Footnote 20]
SCSEP Offers Older Workers Special Services and Is Accessible through
One-Stop Centers:
Because SCSEP is a program exclusively for older workers, SCSEP staff
provide job search assistance and training that is tailored to meet
older worker needs. For example, SCSEP staff members in a local area in
Pennsylvania adapted their job search assistance by helping older
workers learn to address age-related questions in job interviews and
advising them to drop graduation dates from their resumes in order to
deal with the age discrimination they may face in the job market.
Another SCSEP provider in Pennsylvania incorporated physical fitness
into a program that trained older workers for physically strenuous
health care jobs, such as home health aide. A number of SCSEP providers
offered computer classes that served only older workers and introduced
new material more gradually. These providers told us that older workers
who have not learned new technologies in many years benefit from these
computer classes.
In most local areas, older workers who visit the one-stop centers have
access to some of these special services through SCSEP. Seventy-eight
percent of the local areas responding to our survey said SCSEP staff
was physically present in their one-stop centers at least once a week,
usually providing direct services to older workers.[Footnote 21] In
most of the local areas we visited, older workers who visited the one-
stop centers initially received the same basic job search services
available to workers of all ages. Older workers were usually referred
to on-site SCSEP staff only if they had had no success with basic job
search and other one-stop staff members thought they could benefit from
SCSEP services. At a minimum, on-site SCSEP staff enrolled income-
eligible older workers in the SCSEP subsidized job program. In five of
the one-stop centers we visited SCSEP staff offered additional on-site
services specifically for older workers, such as job search workshops
tailored to older workers, ongoing case management to help older
workers find jobs, or a job bank of positions appropriate for older
workers. These services were usually available to older workers not
enrolled in SCSEP, as well as to SCSEP participants.
In three local areas we visited, WIA and SCSEP providers coordinated
their services in ways other than cross-referral and colocation to meet
the needs of their older workers. For example, in California one SCSEP
provider received WIA funds from the local Workforce Investment Board
to operate a satellite one-stop center focused on older workers.
Although the center served visitors of all ages, it offered an array of
special programs for older workers, such as a staffing service matching
older professionals with employers and a computer skills class tailored
to older workers. In a local area in Pennsylvania, a case manager in
the one-stop centers was funded jointly by the WIA and SCSEP programs
and split her time between helping visitors of all ages and providing
specific services to older workers. Officials in the local area said
this approach allowed the case manager to make efficient use of her
time, because she could serve younger workers whenever no older workers
needed assistance. Also, because the case manager was an expert both on
general workforce issues and on older worker issues, she could
determine the best service strategy for each older worker.
WIA Performance Measures May Affect Older Workers‘ Access to Services:
Employment and training providers report that, as a result of WIA‘s
performance measures, they are less likely to enroll some older workers
in services such as training. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Census
data suggest that older workers have unique employment characteristics,
such as a tendency to work part time and a likelihood to take larger
pay cuts than younger workers when they re-enter the labor market.
These characteristics may negatively affect outcomes on certain
performance measures, and, as a result, administrators in over half of
the local areas we visited indicated that performance measures are a
barrier to enrolling older workers into WIA intensive services and
training.
WIA‘s performance measures were established to provide for greater
accountability and to demonstrate program effectiveness. These
performance measures gauge program results in such areas as job
placement, employment retention, and earnings change, as well as skill
attainment and customer satisfaction. States are held accountable by
Labor for the quality of the service they provide in these areas, as
judged by specific performance outcomes. If states fail to meet their
expected performance levels, they may suffer financial sanctions; if
states meet or exceed their levels, they may be eligible to receive
additional funds. A prior GAO report[Footnote 22] noted that the WIA
performance levels are of particular concern to state and local
officials. If a state fails to meet its performance levels for 1 year,
Labor provides technical assistance, if requested. If a state fails to
meet its performance levels for 2 consecutive years, it may be subject
to up to a 5 percent reduction in its annual WIA formula grant.
Under WIA, older workers are subject to the same performance measures
as all other workers. There are a total of eight WIA employment related
performance measures that are relevant to adults---four pertaining to
individuals enrolled in the adult program and four pertaining to
individuals enrolled in the dislocated worker program (see table 3).
Table 3: WIA Employment Related Performance Measures for Adults and
Dislocated Workers:
WIA Funding Stream: Adult; Performance Measure: Entered employment
rate.
Performance Measure: WIA Funding Stream: Employment retention rate at 6
months.
Performance Measure: WIA Funding Stream: Average earnings change in 6
months.
Performance Measure: WIA Funding StreamDislocated worker: Entered
employment and credential rate.
WIA Funding Stream: Dislocated worker; Performance Measure: Entered
employment rate.
Performance Measure: WIA Funding Stream: Employment retention rate at 6
months.
Performance Measure: WIA Funding Stream: Earnings replacement rate in 6
months.
Performance Measure: WIA Funding StreamPerformance Measure: Entered
employment and credential rate.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 7-99 (Mar.
3, 2000).
[End of table]
The way two of these performance measures--earnings change which
compares pre-and post-WIA adult program enrollment earnings and
earnings replacement which compares pre-and post-WIA dislocated worker
enrollment earnings--are calculated may limit some older workers‘
access to more in-depth services, such as computer training. The most
favorable results to these measures occur when individuals seek full-
time work and had low or no prior earnings. (See appendix IV for a
description of how these two measures are calculated.) Older workers
are more likely to work part time than younger workers. As a result,
older workers seeking part-time work as well as older workers with high
prior earnings may produce lower outcomes on performance measures as
compared to those individuals seeking full-time work or with lower
prior earnings.
Labor‘s WIA outcome data for program year 2000 provides current
performance measure outcomes cumulatively for states[Footnote 23] and
provides evidence that older workers‘ unique characteristics may
adversely affect program outcomes. With regard to the earnings change
performance measure outcome for those enrolled in the WIA adult
program, older workers had an increase in earnings that was
approximately 35 percent less than younger workers--$2,924 versus
$4,566. Similarly, with regard to the earnings replacement rate for
those enrolled in the WIA dislocated worker program, younger workers
increased their earnings by 7 percent whereas older workers experienced
a decline in their earnings of 17 percent (see table 4).
Table 4: Program Year 2000 Age Differences on WIA Performance Measure
Outcomes:
Age: 18-54; Adult-earnings
change outcomes
(average earnings increase): $4,566; Dislocated worker-earnings
replacement outcomes (earnings replacement rate): 1.07.
Age: 55+; Adult-earnings
change outcomes
(average earnings increase): $2,924; Dislocated worker-earnings
replacement outcomes (earnings replacement rate): .83.
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Program Year 2000, Workforce
Investment Act Standardized Record Data.
Note: These data are for people who received services through local
adult and dislocated worker programs and who exited the program in the
first quarter of program year 2000.
[End of table]
As a result of the potential impact on program performance measure
outcomes, WIA employment and training providers may be choosing to
serve only those job seekers who are most likely to have large earnings
increases. A prior GAO report[Footnote 24] identified that the
performance levels for the measures that track earnings replacement for
dislocated workers and earnings change for adults may be especially
problematic and that several state officials reported that local staff
were reluctant to register dislocated workers with high prior earnings
or already employed adults. Officials in six of the ten local workforce
areas that we visited consider performance measures a barrier to
enrolling older workers into WIA because their high prior wages and/or
their tendency to work part time negatively impact the area‘s
performance. In addition, state officials in four out of the five
states that we met with concurred with this view. One state official
remarked that local workforce investment boards are struggling with the
WIA performance requirements, and are targeting their WIA training
funds to people seeking full-time jobs at certain wage levels to meet
the WIA requirements for earnings gain/replacement. The official
further stated that the WIA earnings requirements make it difficult to
serve job seekers looking for part-time work, and those who had prior
full-time jobs with high salaries.
Several state and local officials commented that performance measures
create a barrier to providing services and suggested creating a
separate set of performance measures for older workers or special
populations. One of the state officials stated that, in regards to the
performance measures, it is imperative that the vast majority of
participants earn higher wages and get full-time employment, which is
at odds with serving older workers who prefer part-time jobs. Two other
local officials told us that older workers seeking part-time work would
not be enrolled in intensive services or training because of their
effect on performance measure outcomes, but could receive core services
at the one-stop centers or be referred to another program.
Of the 230 local workforce investment boards providing written comments
on our survey, 23 specifically addressed the negative effects of the
performance measures on older workers. For example, one official
stated, ’federal programs must recognize the need and desire on the
part of people 55 and older for part-time work. Performance goals
discourage serving this group.“ Seven of the 10 SCSEP national grantees
we contacted also expressed a belief that WIA performance standards
could be a disincentive to enrollment of older workers.
Older workers have unique employment characteristics, such as a being
more likely to work part-time jobs and experiencing a greater decline
in earnings when re-entering the workforce, according to the 2001
Current Population Survey[Footnote 25] and the Bureau of Labor
Statistics.[Footnote 26] Older workers are approximately 50 percent
more likely than younger workers to work part time (see table 5).
Table 5: Part-time Workers by Age:
Age: 16-54; Total labor
force: 122,934,000; Part-time
workers: 19,915,000; Percentage of
part-time
Workers: 16.
Age: 55+; Total labor
force: 18,881,000; Part-time
workers: 4,575,000; Percentage of
part-time
Workers: 24.
Source: 2001 Current Population Survey.
Note: Labor force includes both employed and unemployed workers. The
part-time category includes people with part-time jobs or are
unemployed looking for part-time jobs.
[End of table]
The Bureau of Labor Statistics data also show older workers who are
laid off are less likely than younger workers to become re-employed.
Furthermore, these data show that these older workers are more likely
to be re-employed part-time (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Employment Status by Age of Workers Displaced from Full-Time
Jobs between January 1999 and December 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Older workers who were laid off from full-time jobs between January
1999 and December 2001 also tended to experience a slightly greater
loss of earnings than younger workers upon re-employment.[Footnote 27]
Specifically, older workers replaced 89 percent of their previous
median weekly earnings on average, versus 92 percent for younger
workers (see table 6). These figures understate the impact of job loss
on the income of older workers because they only pertain to full-time
work and older workers are less likely to work full time when they are
re-employed.
Table 6: Earnings Loss by Age of Workers Displaced from Full-Time Jobs
between January 1999 and December 2001:
Employed full-time: Age: 25-54; Employed full-time: Median weekly
earnings on lost job: $643; Employed full-time: Median weekly earnings
on
current job: $593; Employed full-time: Replacement rate: (percentage of
earnings on lost job): 92.
Employed full-time: Age: 55-64; Employed full-time: Median weekly
earnings on lost job: $710; Employed full-time: Median weekly earnings
on
current job: $630; Employed full-time: Replacement rate: (percentage of
earnings on lost job): 89.
Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, unpublished data from the Displaced
Worker Supplement.
[End of table]
Conclusions:
According to some economists, the United States will face a significant
labor shortage by 2030. As the population ages, older workers could
become crucial in filling this projected shortage. Many older workers
have difficulty re-entering the workforce, and often rely on federal
employment and training programs to help them find employment. Others
need these programs to help them upgrade some skills, particularly
computer skills, so they can enter or remain in a workplace that is
becoming increasingly reliant on information technology.
Research findings have been inconsistent as to whether older workers
need special services to help them find or retain employment and
employment and training providers have taken different approaches to
providing services to older workers. Under WIA, older workers are
likely to be integrated with younger workers when receiving employment
and training services through the one-stop centers rather than receive
these services through separate targeted programs. While performance
measures are not necessarily a problem, the way that some of WIA‘s
performance measures are constructed has created perverse incentives
for program administrators to exclude some older workers from receiving
more in-depth WIA services, such as training for a particular
occupation or upgrading computer skills. Consequently, some older
workers, and any other workers who share similar employment
characteristics with older workers, may not receive the more in-depth
services that may be necessary to help ensure that these workers are
provided adequate opportunities to fill the anticipated labor shortage
and meet employer needs.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
In light of concerns that older workers have unique employment
characteristics that could adversely affect certain program outcomes
and that older workers who need in-depth job search assistance and job
training to remain in, or re-enter, the workforce may not receive such
services, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor assess WIA
performance measures and make adjustments as necessary to eliminate the
disincentive to enrolling older workers in WIA.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to Labor for review and comment.
Labor noted that it found our draft to be both informative and
interesting because the Department has a strong interest in the aging
of the American workforce and recognizes that the increasing numbers of
older people will require changes in the way older workers are thought
of and treated by the employer community. Labor generally agreed with
our recommendation and identified steps that it is taking to address
it. Labor also provided technical comments that we incorporated where
appropriate. Labor‘s entire comments are reproduced in appendix V.
Although Labor acknowledged that our conclusion that some performance
measures may provide a disincentive to enrolling older workers in WIA
programs may be correct, Labor believes that such a conclusion may be
premature and noted that it is based on a limited number of comments
from project operators and Workforce Investment Boards. While we agree
that our conclusion is based on a limited number of survey responses
and interviews, we also believe that such comments raise a warning flag
to what could be a pervasive problem, and as such, should be taken into
consideration. Regarding our recommendation that Labor assess WIA
performance measures and make necessary adjustments to eliminate
disincentives to enrolling older workers in WIA programs, Labor
generally agreed, pointing out that as it assesses WIA performance
measures it will identify and eliminate factors that discourage
participation of any group. Labor also noted that it is preparing a
report for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education that addresses some of the same issues
covered by our report. Finally, Labor noted that it has formed a task
force to review services to older workers and to identify policies to
help meet the needs of this group.
We will send copies of this report to the Honorable Elaine L. Chao,
Secretary of Labor; relevant congressional committees; and other
interested parties. Copies will be made available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Please contact me on (202) 512-7215
if you or your staff have any questions about this report. Other major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce,
and Income Security:
Signed by Sigurd R. Nilsen:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to determine (1) to what extent people aged 55 and over
are enrolled in federal employment and training programs and what
services they receive, (2) how employment and training services are
provided to older workers, and (3) how performance measures may have
affected services for older workers. In our review of federal
employment and training programs we focused on three programs funded by
the Department of Labor (Labor): SCSEP because it is the only Labor
program that serves exclusively older workers; WIA because it is the
largest program in terms of funding for employment and training
services and because its predecessor program, JTPA, required states to
set aside funds to provide employment and training services
specifically for older *workers; and TAA because Labor officials told
us the program serves many older workers laid off from mature
manufacturing industries such as steel making and textiles.
To conduct our review we visited 10 local areas in 5 states, meeting
with both local and state officials. We surveyed state officials
responsible for the WIA, SCSEP, and TAA programs in all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. We also surveyed officials from
all 595 local Workforce Investment Boards nationally. We conducted
phone interviews with the ten national SCSEP grantees and interviewed
officials from Labor and from research and advocacy organizations such
as AARP, Urban Institute, and National Association of State Units on
Aging. We obtained and analyzed service and outcome data from Labor on
the WIA and SCSEP programs. Although we did not independently verify
the data from the Department of Labor we did review and take into
consideration Labor‘s documents describing the quality of the WIA data.
Finally, we reviewed research studies on older workers‘ employment and
training needs.
Site Visits:
We selected five states for site visits according to several criteria,
including the proportion of the population that was aged 55 and older
and the amount of funds received for administering SCSEP and the WIA
Adult and Dislocated Worker programs (see table 7). We also chose some
states because we knew they had special programs or policies regarding
older workers as well as to ensure geographic diversity. In each state,
we interviewed officials responsible for administering the state‘s WIA
and SCSEP programs. In some states, we also met with officials
responsible for the TAA program.
Table 7: Proportion of Population Aged 55 and Older and Funds Received
for SCSEP and WIA Adult and Dislocated Worker Programs for Selected
States:
State: Arizona; Proportion of
population
55+ (2000): 21.6%; Rank: 26; WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker, and SCSEP Funds
(Program Year 2000): $32,906,236; Rank: 25.
State: California; Proportion of
population
55+ (2000): 18.3; Rank: 47; WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker, and SCSEP Funds
(Program Year 2000): 495,357,738; Rank: 1.
State: Florida; Proportion of
population
55+ (2000): 27.3; Rank: 1; WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker, and SCSEP Funds
(Program Year 2000): 105,684,671; Rank: 5.
State: Massachusetts; Proportion of
population
55+ (2000): 22.2; Rank: 17; WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker, and SCSEP Funds
(Program Year 2000): 35,418,614; Rank: 20.
State: Pennsylvania; Proportion of
population
55+ (2000): 24.8; Rank: 3; WIA Adult, WIA Dislocated
Worker, and SCSEP Funds
(Program Year 2000): 95,409,899; Rank: 6.
Source: U.S. Census Bureau and Department of Labor.
[End of table]
Within each state we judgmentally selected two local workforce areas to
visit--one urban and one rural area (see table 8). In each location, we
interviewed officials representing the WIA program and officials from
at least one local SCSEP program. The local SCSEP programs we met with
received funds from state SCSEP grantees and from several of the
national SCSEP grantees. In addition, in some local areas we visited
one-stop centers, met with organizations that promote local business
development, and observed job-training programs designed for older
workers. Finally, while in California we met with Experience Works, a
SCSEP national grantee that received WIA funds to operate a computer-
training program targeted to older workers.
Table 8: Local Areas Selected for Site Visits:
State: Arizona; Local area: Maricopa County; City: Peoria (suburban
Phoenix); Funding source for local SCSEP program(s): Arizona, National
Council on the Aging, Inc..
Local area: Navajo County; City: Show Low; Funding source for local
SCSEP program(s): National Council on the Aging, Inc..
State: California; Local area: Silicon Valley; City: San Jose; Funding
source for local SCSEP program(s): California.
Local area: Stanislaus County; City: Modesto; Funding source for local
SCSEP program(s): California, National Senior Citizens‘ Education and
Research Center.
State: Florida; Local area: Chipola; City: Marianna; Funding source for
local SCSEP program(s): Florida.
Local area: Suncoast; City: Sarasota; Funding source for local SCSEP
program(s): AARP Foundation.
State: Massachusetts; Local area: Boston; City: Boston; Funding source
for local SCSEP program(s): National Senior Citizens‘ Education and
Research Center.
Local area: Franklin/Hampshire Counties; City: Greenfield; Funding
source for local SCSEP program(s): Massachusetts, National Senior
Citizens‘ Education and Research Center.
State: Pennsylvania; Local area: Central Pennsylvania; City: Lewisburg;
Funding source for local SCSEP program(s): Pennsylvania, Experience
Works.
Local area: Luzerne/Schuylkill Counties; City: Wilkes-Barre; Funding
source for local SCSEP program(s): Pennsylvania.
Source: GAO analysis :
[End of table]
Surveys:
We distributed three surveys to the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, and Puerto Rico, focusing on services to older workers during
program year 2000 (July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001). One survey was
designed to obtain information on how states used SCSEP funds,
including their use of these funds for training, whether they imposed
time limits on host agency assignments, and how they used 502(e) funds.
We received 50 responses to this survey (96 percent). Rhode Island did
not return the SCSEP survey, and Florida was unable to return the
survey because it did not centrally administer its SCSEP funds during
program year 2000. A second survey was designed to obtain information
on how states used WIA funds to serve older workers, including the
number of older workers served, what services they received, and
whether and how states used their statewide activities funds
specifically for older workers. We received 49 responses to this survey
(94 percent). Connecticut, Delaware, and South Dakota did not return
the WIA survey. Our third survey was designed to obtain information on
how states used TAA funds to serve older workers, including how many
older workers were served and what services they received. We received
48 responses to this survey (94 percent). Michigan, Missouri, and South
Dakota did not return the TAA survey, and Puerto Rico did not have a
TAA program.
We also distributed a survey to all 595 local Workforce Investment
Boards nationally to obtain information on how local workforce areas
delivered services to older workers during program year 2000. This
survey covered topics including special services available to older
workers in the one-stop centers, the colocation of SCSEP staff in the
one-stop centers, and the impact of the loss of older worker set-aside
funds on services to older workers. We received 470 responses to the
survey (79 percent).
Finally, we conducted telephone interviews and a mail survey to obtain
information from the ten national SCSEP grantees on their services to
older workers during program year 2000. The telephone interviews with
all ten national grantees covered topics such as how job search and
training services were delivered, the use of 502(e) funds, and
coordination with WIA. All 10 national grantees returned the mail
survey, which included quantitative questions on services provided and
the use of 502(e) funds.
[End of section]
Appendix II: SCSEP National Grantee Activity in Program Year 2000 (July
1, 2000 to June 30, 2001):
Table 9: SCSEP National Grantee Activity in Program Year 2000:
National grantee: AARP Foundation; Expenditures: $52,814,971;
Participants served: 15,253; Number of states in
which grantee operated[B]: 32.
National grantee: Asociacion Nacional Pro Personas Mayores (ANPPM);
Expenditures: 13,372,006; Participants served: 2,556; Number of states
in
which grantee operated[B]: 11.
National grantee: Experience Works (EW); Expenditures: 109,547,345;
Participants served: 29,416; Number of states in
which grantee operated[B]: 45.
National grantee: National Center and Caucus on Black Aged, Inc.
(NCBA); Expenditures: 13,048,388; Participants served: 2,672; Number of
states in
which grantee operated[B]: 11.
National grantee: National Council on the Aging (NCOA); Expenditures:
39,314,754; Participants served: 8,524; Number of states in
which grantee operated[B]: 19.
National grantee: National Senior Citizens Education and Research
Center, Inc. (NSCERC)[A]; Expenditures: 65,325,900; Participants
served: 15,156; Number of states in
which grantee operated[B]: 28.
National grantee: National Urban League (NUL); Expenditures:
15,328,944; Participants served: 3,504; Number of states in
which grantee operated[B]: 16.
National grantee: United States Forest Service (USFS); Expenditures:
27,394,144; Participants served: 5,563; Number of states in
which grantee operated[B]: 42.
National grantee: National Indian Council on Aging, Inc. (NICOA);
Expenditures: 6,077,530; Participants served: 1,415; Number of states
in
which grantee operated[B]: 15.
National grantee: National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA);
Expenditures: 6,037,991; Participants served: 1,326; Number of states
in
which grantee operated[B]: 8.
Source: The source for participants served and number of states in
which grantees operated was Labor. The source for expenditures was our
survey of the national grantees.
[A] Name has since been changed to Senior Service America (SSA).
[B] States include District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: SCSEP Grantees‘ Use of 502(e) Funds in Program Year 2000
(July 1, 2000 to June 30, 2001):
According to our surveys, eight national grantees and 22 state grantees
used 502(e) funds during program year 2000 to place older workers in
and train them for private sector employment. Grantees can operate
502(e) projects through two funding mechanisms: they can apply for
funds from a national pool of competitively awarded 502(e) funds, and
they can choose to use a portion of their regular formula funds to
sponsor 502(e) projects.
Table 10: SCSEP Grantees‘ Use of 502(e) Funds in Program Year 2000:
Grantee: AARP; 502(e) funds expended[A]: $391,120; Number served:
1,162; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training:
X; Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty];
Services provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training:
[Empty]; Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: EW; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 1,389,899; Number served: 9,667;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: NCBA; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 40,879; Number served: 68;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: X;
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: NCOA; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 1,601,082; Number served:
1,574; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training:
X; Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: X;
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: NSCERC[B]; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 523,164; Number served:
610; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: USFS; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 88,362; Number served: 48;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: NICOA; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 28,477; Number served: 14;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: NAPCA; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 73,460; Number served: 44;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Arizona; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 25,359; Number served: 15;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: California; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 24,208; Number served:
25; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: Delaware; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 52,228; Number served: 43;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Georgia; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 40,510; Number served: 66;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: Kansas; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 140,000; Number served: 101;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: X;
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Louisiana; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 38,836; Number served:
21; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: X;
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Michigan; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 6,000; Number served: 3;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Minnesota; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 4,296; Number served: Not
available; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job
training: X; Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty];
Services provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X;
Services provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training:
X; Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Montana; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 42,245; Number served: 75;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: [Empty];
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: New Hampshire; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 4,100; Number served:
5; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: X;
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: New Mexico; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 52,960; Number served:
7; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: New York; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 65,573; Number served: 89;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: North Carolina; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 57,912; Number
served: 43; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job
training: X; Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: X;
Services provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: Ohio; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 336,570; Number served: 216;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Oregon; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 30,519; Number served: 18;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Pennsylvania; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 99,777; Number served:
110; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: South Carolina; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 14,217; Number
served: 9; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job
training: X; Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: South Dakota; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 2,469; Number served:
27; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: Utah; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 76,000; Number served: 175;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: X.
Grantee: Vermont; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 99,200; Number served: 60;
Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: X; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Customized training: X; Services
provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Virginia; 502(e) funds expended[A]: Not available; Number
served: 6; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job
training: X; Services provided: Job search assistance: X; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty];
Services provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training:
X; Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Grantee: Wisconsin; 502(e) funds expended[A]: 19,637; Number served:
23; Services provided: Subsidized employment/on-the-job training: X;
Services provided: Job search assistance: [Empty]; Services provided:
Occupational skills training: Classroom training: [Empty]; Services
provided: Occupational skills training: Customized training: [Empty];
Services provided: Remedial training: [Empty].
Source: Surveys of state and national SCSEP grantees.
[A] Includes competitively awarded and regular formula 502(e) funds.
[B] Name has since been changed to Senior Service America (SSA).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: WIA Earnings Change and Earnings Replacement Rate
Performance Measure Calculations:
Adult Measure:
Measure 3: Adult Average Earnings Change in Six Months:
Of those who are employed in the first quarter after exit:
Total post-program earnings (earnings in quarter 2 + quarter 3 after
exit) minus pre-program earnings (earnings in quarter 2 + quarter 3
prior to registration) divided by the number of adults who exit during
the quarter.
Dislocated Worker Measure:
Measure 7: Dislocated Worker Earnings Replacement Rate in Six Months:
Of those who are employed in the first quarter after exit:
Total post-program earnings (earnings in quarter 2 + quarter 3 after
exit) divided by the pre-dislocation earnings (earnings in quarters 2 +
quarter 3 prior to dislocation):
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 7-99 on
Core and Customer Satisfaction Performance Measures for the Workforce
Investment System, March 3, 2000, pp. 11 & 13-14.
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training
Washington, D.C. 20210:
JAN 15 2003:
Mr. Sigurd Nilsen Director:
Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues United States General
Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
This letter is in response to the General Accounting Office (GAO)‘s
request for comments on the draft report GAO-03-350, Employment
Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job Search, but Revised
Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other Services.
The Department of Labor shares with the Congress a strong interest in
the ’graying“ of the American workforce. The demographic impact of
increasing numbers of older people in the population and older workers
in the workforce will require changes in the way that the older worker
is thought of and treated by the employer community. The impact of this
group will also be felt in the Federal employment and training systems
that have been established to assure that the American workforce is
prepared and available to meet the challenges of the 21 St century.
Consequently, we found the draft report to be both informative and
interesting.
We have comments on the draft report, particularly the Conclusions and
Recommendations sections of the report found on pages 29 and 30. The
system established by the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) is evolving.
As information becomes available, we will be making adjustments to that
system to meet the needs of both industry and the workforce. The GAO
report indicates that WIA performance measures provide a disincentive
for One-Stops to enroll older workers. This conclusion may be correct,
but we think it is premature. It is based on a limited number of
comments from project operators and Workforce Investment Boards (WIBs).
Looking at the same concern from a broader perspective, we note that,
while activities under the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) and the
WIA are not directly comparable, the proportion of older workers
leaving WIA-supported activities appears to be consistent with results
for this group obtained under JTPA. Our primary concern is that we have
available employment related services that can be useful to all
citizens, including older persons. To that end, as we assess WIA
performance measures we will identify and eliminate factors which
discourage participation of any group. Currently, we are preparing a
report for the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education that addresses some of the same issues
covered in your draft report. We will share our report with you when we
send it to the committee.
I have formed a task force to review services to older workers and to
identify policies that will make more effective use of this valuable
human resource. We will be examining as much information as possible to
formulate policies that can meet the needs of this portion of the
workforce. The Department of Labor is committed to continuous
improvement in all aspects of our mission to serve older workers.
Sincerely,
Emily Stover DeRocco:
Signed by Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Joan Mahagan (617) 565-7532
Wayne Sylvia (617) 565-7492:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Melissa Emrey-Arras, Laura Greene, and Lorin Obler made significant
contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work throughout the
assignment. In addition, Michael Coullahan conducted the information
gathering segment for the SCSEP national grantees, Arthur Merriam and
Joseph Evans contributed to the initial design of the assignment, Shana
Wallace and Stuart Kaufman assisted in the design of the four national
surveys, Carolyn Boyce conducted the data analysis for one of these
surveys, Roger Thomas provided legal support, and Corinna Nicolaou
assisted in the message and report development.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: States‘ Spending Is on Track, but Better
Guidance Would Improve Financial Reporting. GAO-03-239. Washington,
D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: States and Localities Increasingly Coordinate
Services for TANF Clients, but Better Information Needed on Effective
Approaches. GAO-02-696. Washington, D.C.: July 3, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Coordination of TANF through One-Stops Has
Increased Despite Challenges. GAO-02-739T. Washington, D.C.: May 16,
2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development.
GAO-02-413. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and One-
Stop Centers Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain. GAO-02-500T.
Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance and Revised Funding Formula
Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program. GAO-02-274. Washington, D.C.:
February 11, 2002.
Workforce Investment Act: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA‘s Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Older Workers: Demographic Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and
Workers. GAO-02-85. Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More
Guidance. GAO-02-94T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Trade Adjustment Assistance: Trends, Outcomes, and Management Issues in
Dislocated Worker Programs. GAO-01-159. Washington, D.C.: October 13,
2000.
Senior Community Service Employment: Program Reauthorization Issues
That Affect Serving Disadvantaged Seniors. GAO/T-HEHS-99-126.
Washington, D.C.: May 19, 1999.
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:
FOOTNOTES
[1] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Older Workers: Demographic
Trends Pose Challenges for Employers and Workers, GAO-02-85
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2001).
[2] Trade Adjustment Assistance programs include Trade Adjustment
Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement Transitional
Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA). These programs were combined under
the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act of 2002.
[3] A program year starts on July 1 of the calendar year. Program year
2000 ran from July 1, 2000, to June 30, 2001.
[4] In 2000, this would equate to $21,315 for a family of four in all
states except Alaska and Hawaii.
[5] Short-term prevocational services prepare individuals for
employment or training and include development of learning skills,
communication skills, interviewing skills, punctuality, personal
maintenance, and professional conduct.
[6] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Improvements Needed in Performance Measures to Provide a More Accurate
Picture of WIA‘s Effectiveness, GAO-02-275 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1,
2002).
[7] The Current Population Survey defines the unemployed as actively
seeking work. People defined as out of the labor force and wanting a
job, are people who are not searching for employment but have stated
they want a job. Some people who are retired are considered to be out
of the labor force and wanting a job.
[8] National program statistics count the number of SCSEP participants
in the community service jobs program and the number of WIA
participants enrolled in intensive services and training.
[9] The extended mass layoff data described here covers cases where
employers have laid off at least 50 workers for a period of at least 31
days and the workers have applied for unemployment insurance.
[10] The Older Americans Act Amendments of 2000, signed into law on
November 13, 2000, mandated that Labor establish performance measures
requiring SCSEP operators to generally place at least 20% of program
participants into unsubsidized jobs.
[11] Between July 2000 and June 2001, 13 states and 3 national grantees
operating SCSEP programs had time limits on the length of time
participants could either stay at a specific host agency or in the
subsidized community jobs program.
[12] These training programs were primarily funded under section 502(e)
of the Older Americans Act.
[13] This estimate is based on TAA and WIA data from our national
surveys, as well as WIA data from the Department of Labor. Labor‘s WIA
data tracks participants who received services and exited WIA during
program year 2000.
[14] WIA data are for individuals who received services through local
adult and dislocated worker programs and who exited WIA programs before
April, 2001.
[15] William Crown, ed., Handbook on Employment and the Elderly
(Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1996) and Noreen Hale, The Older
Worker: Effective Strategies for Management and Human Resource
Development (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, Inc., 1990).
[16] F.I.M. Craik and T.A. Salthouse, eds., The Handbook of Aging and
Cognition (Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum Press, 2000).
[17] Neil Charness, et al, ’Word-Processing Training and Retraining:
Effects of Adult Age, Experience, and Interface,“ Psychology and Aging,
vol.16, no.1 (2001). Committee for Economic Development, New
Opportunities for Older Workers (New York 1999). Irwin Goldstein,
Training and Development in Organizations (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, Inc., 1989).
[18] Program year 1998 is the last year for which JTPA data are
available.
[19] These program administrators, however, were able to identify
private employers--such as Wal-Mart and Disney World--that had a
reputation for hiring people aged 55 and over.
[20] GAO-02-85.
[21] Some SCSEP staff colocated in one-stop centers are permanent
employees of SCSEP provider agencies. Others are SCSEP enrollees whose
subsidized community service placement is in a one-stop center.
[22] GAO-02-275.
[23] There are no data from Alabama, Louisiana, New York or
Pennsylvania.
[24] GAO-02-275.
[25] Current Population Survey, 2001, conducted by the Bureau of the
Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Washington: Bureau of the
Census, 2001.
[26] U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, January 2002 Displaced Worker
Supplement to the Current Population Survey.
[27] For additional information see Louis Jacobson, et al, The Costs of
Worker Dislocation (Kalamazoo: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment
Research, 1993).
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:
