Workforce Training
Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers Gao ID: GAO-03-353 February 14, 2003Although training for employed workers is largely the responsibility of employers and individuals, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) allowed state and local entities to use federal funds for training employed workers. Similarly, welfare reform legislation created Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants and gave states greater flexibility to design training services for TANF clients to help them obtain and retain jobs. To better understand how the training needs of employed workers, including low-wage workers, is publicly supported, GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which local areas and states provide assistance to train employed workers, including funding training; (2) the focus of such training efforts and the kind of training provided; and (3) when targeting training to low-wage workers, the approaches state and local officials identified to address challenges in training this population.
Nationwide, two-thirds of the 470 local workforce boards responding to our survey provided assistance to train employed workers, such as partnering with employers to develop training proposals or funding training. Nearly 40 percent specifically budgeted or spent funds on training these workers. The number of boards that reported funding training for employed workers varied by state, but most states had at least one workforce board that targeted funds on such training. At the state level, all 16 states that GAO contacted also funded training for employed workers. These states and local workforce boards reported funding training that addressed specific business and economic needs. Although many types of training for employed workers were funded, most often occupational training to upgrade skills, such as learning new computer applications, and basic skills training, such as in English and math, were emphasized and community or technical colleges were most frequently used to provide these services. In targeting training specifically for low-wage workers, state and local officials identified approaches to challenges that hindered individuals' and employers' participation in training. Officials developed approaches to address some of the personal issues that low-wage workers face that made participating in training difficult. They also developed ways to gain support from employers who were reluctant to participate in low-wage worker training, such as by partnering with employers to develop career paths that help retain employees within companies. However, officials reported that challenges to implementing successful training still exist. For example, they explained that the WIA performance measure that tracks the change in adult earnings after 6 months could limit training opportunities for employed workers, including low-wage workers. The wage gain for employed workers would not likely be as great as that for unemployed job seekers, and this might provide a disincentive to enrolling employed workers into training because their wage gain may negatively affect program performance.
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-03-353, Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-353
entitled 'Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on
Business Needs, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access
for Some Workers' which was released on March 07, 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 Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
February 2003:
Workforce Training:
Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised
Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers:
GAO-03-353:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-03-353, a report to the Ranking Minority Member,
Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, and
Chairman, Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness, House
Committee on Education and the Workforce:
Why GAO Did This Study:
Although training for employed workers is largely the responsibility
of employers and individuals, the Workforce Investment Act (WIA)
allowed state and local entities to use federal funds for training
employed workers. Similarly, welfare reform legislation created
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) block grants and
gave states greater flexibility to design training services for TANF
clients to help them obtain and retain jobs.
To better understand how the training needs of employed
workers, including low-wage workers, is publicly supported,
GAO was asked to determine (1) the extent to which local areas and
states provide assistance to train employed workers, including
funding training; (2) the focus of such training efforts and the kind
of training provided; and (3) when targeting training to low-wage
workers, the approaches state and local officials identified to
address challenges in training this population.
What GAO Found:
Nationwide, two-thirds of the 470 local workforce boards responding
to our survey provided assistance to train employed workers, such as
partnering with employers to develop training proposals or funding
training. Nearly 40 percent specifically budgeted or spent funds on
training these workers. The number of boards that reported funding
training for employed workers varied by state, but most states had at
least one workforce board that targeted funds on such training. At
the state level, all 16 states that GAO contacted also funded training
for employed workers. These states and local workforce boards reported
funding training that addressed specific business and economic needs.
Although many types of training for employed workers were funded, most
often occupational training to upgrade skills, such as learning new
computer applications, and basic skills training, such as in English
and math, were emphasized and community or technical colleges
were most frequently used to provide these services.
In targeting training specifically for low-wage workers, state and
local officials identified approaches to challenges that hindered
individuals‘ and employers‘ participation in training. Officials
developed approaches to address some of the personal issues that
low-wage workers face that made participating in training difficult.
They also developed ways to gain support from employers who were
reluctant to participate in low-wage worker training, such as by
partnering with employers to develop career paths that help retain
employees within companies. However, officials reported that
challenges to implementing successful training still exist. For
example, they explained that the WIA performance measure that
tracks the change in adult earnings after 6 months could limit
training opportunities for employed workers, including low-wage
workers. The wage gain for employed workers would not likely be as
great as that for unemployed job seekers, and this might provide a
disincentive to enrolling employed workers into training because
their wage gain may negatively affect program performance.
Highlights Figure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
To improve the use of WIA funds for employed worker training, GAO
recommends that the Secretary of Labor review a current WIA
performance measure for change in adult average earnings. Labor
agreed with our recommendation and will evaluate performance
measures to identify and address unintended disincentives for
serving employed workers.
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Most Local Workforce Boards, and All States Contacted, Provided
Assistance for Training Employed Workers:
Training for Employed Workers Focused on Addressing Business Needs and
Certain Workplace Skills:
In Targeting Training to Low-Wage Workers, Officials Addressed Several
Challenges, though WIA Performance Measures Were an Issue:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Workforce Boards‘ Survey Information:
Appendix III: Information on State Funding Sources:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Health and
Human Services:
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: WIA Performance Measures for Adults and Dislocated Workers:
Table 2: States in Telephone Interview Sample--Population and Key
Funding Sources:
Table 3: Site Visit States and Locations:
Table 4: Local Workforce Boards‘ Survey Response Rate and Number
Targeting Funds for Employed Worker Training:
Table 5: Funding Sources Identified by Officials in 16 States That Were
Budgeted or Spent for Employed Worker Training for WIA Program Years
2000 and/or 2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: Map of 50 States Showing Local Workforce Boards That Reported
Funding Training Specifically for Employed Workers in Program Year 2000
or 2001:
Figure 2: Key Sources of Federal Funding Used by Local Workforce Boards
That Funded Training for Employed Workers, Program Year 2001:
Figure 3: Key Sources of Funding for Employed Worker Training Used in
Program Years 2000 and/or 2001 by 16 States We Contacted:
Figure 4: Economic Sectors Targeted by Local Workforce Boards That
Funded Training for Employed Workers in Program Year 2001:
Figure 5: Types of Training Funded by Local Workforce Boards That
Funded Training for Employed Workers in Program Year 2001:
Figure 6: Types of Training Providers Used by Local Workforce Boards
That Funded Training for Employed Workers in Program Year 2001:
Abbreviations:
ERA: Employment Retention and Advancement:
ESL: English as a Second Language:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
NAICS: North American Industry Classification System:
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
This is a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce
copyrighted materials separately from GAO‘s product.
February 14, 2003:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions
United States Senate:
The Honorable Buck McKeon, Chairman
Subcommittee on 21st Century Competitiveness
Committee on Education and the Workforce
House of Representatives:
Technological advances continue to transform the U.S. workforce and
economy. To keep pace, workers must periodically improve their skills,
and, as a result, training for employed workers has become an essential
part of the new workplace. In fact, according to data from the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, for almost 70 percent of all occupations,
work-related training is the primary source of education or training.
Such training can enable employed workers to advance in their jobs,
opening up entry-level positions for others. Furthermore, low-wage
workers who receive training can achieve wage gains leading to self-
sufficiency--a goal of both welfare reform and the Workforce Investment
Act (WIA).
When the Congress passed WIA in 1998, it allowed state and local
governments to use federal funds for training employed workers, instead
of primarily funding services designed to help the unemployed.
Similarly, welfare reform legislation in 1996 created Temporary
Assistance for Needy Families block grants (TANF) that sought to move
welfare recipients into jobs and gave states greater flexibility to
design training services--including postemployment training--for TANF
clients. Little is known, however, about the extent to which state and
local governments are funding training for employed workers because
options to train these workers under WIA and TANF are relatively new.
To better understand how states and local areas are training employed
workers, including low-wage workers, you requested that we determine
(1) the extent to which local areas and states provide assistance to
train employed workers, including funding training; (2) the focus of
such training efforts and the kind of training provided; and (3) when
targeting training to low-wage workers, the approaches state and local
officials identified to address challenges in training this population.
To respond to these questions, we obtained a national perspective on
local efforts to specifically fund training for employed workers using
a mail survey to all 595 local workforce investment boards that were
created under WIA to establish local workforce development policies. We
received responses from 79 percent of the workforce boards
surveyed.[Footnote 1] To determine how states provided assistance for
training employed workers, including low-wage workers, we conducted
telephone interviews with officials in 16 states who were responsible
for workforce development, economic development, and TANF funds used
for education and training.[Footnote 2] We selected these states
because, between 1998 and 2001, most of them had used federal funds,
such as demonstration grants, for training employed workers. In
obtaining information from state officials and local workforce
investment boards, we focused on program years 2000 and 2001.[Footnote
3] To obtain more in-depth information about the approaches state and
local officials use to address challenges in providing training
specifically for low-wage workers, we visited local areas in four of
the states--Florida, Texas, Oregon, and Minnesota; these were chosen
from the states whose officials we interviewed by telephone. We
selected these states for site visits largely because experts and
others had identified them as having specific efforts for training
employed workers, especially initiatives to help low-wage workers
retain employment and advance in their jobs. We also discussed efforts
to train employed workers with officials from the Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education, and representatives of
associations such as the National Governors‘ Association, National
Association of Workforce Boards, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. We
conducted our work from October
2001 through December 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. For further information on our scope and
methodology, see appendix I.
Results in Brief:
Nationwide, two-thirds of the 470 workforce boards responding to our
survey provided assistance to train employed workers--and did so in a
variety of ways, such as partnering with employers to develop training
proposals or funding training; all 16 states that we contacted also
funded training for employed workers. Nearly 40 percent of workforce
boards specifically budgeted or spent funds to train employed workers,
and a greater percentage of workforce boards reported funding such
training in program year 2001 than in the previous year. The 16 states
we contacted all funded training for employed workers, and most of
these states funded such training from two or more offices; these
offices included those responsible for workforce development, economic
development, and TANF funds used for education and training. When more
than one office within a state funded training for employed workers,
most state offices reported coordinating these efforts both formally
and informally. Few states and local workforce boards were able to
provide information on the number of low-wage workers who participated
in training because many do not categorize training participants by
wage or employment status. Local areas and states most commonly funded
training for employed workers with federal resources, such as WIA and
TANF funds.
States and local workforce boards focused their training initiatives
for employed workers on training that addressed specific business needs
and emphasized certain workplace skills. States and local workforce
boards often gave priority to training needed for certain economic
sectors, such as manufacturing and health care, or for occupations that
were in demand, such as certified nursing assistants. In Indiana, for
example, the state workforce office sponsored a high-skills, high-wage
training initiative designed to meet employers‘ specific needs for
skilled workers in information technology, manufacturing, and health.
Although states and local workforce boards funded many types of
training for employed workers, they most often emphasized occupational
training to upgrade skills, such as learning new computer applications,
and basic skills training, such as in English and math. They most
frequently used community or technical colleges to provide these
services.
In targeting training specifically for low-wage workers, state and
local officials addressed several challenges that hindered individuals‘
and employers‘ participation in training. State and local officials
also addressed some of the personal issues that low-wage workers face-
-such as limited English and literacy skills, childcare and
transportation needs, scheduling conflicts, and financial constraints-
-that made participating in training difficult. State and local
officials also developed a number of ways to gain support from
employers who were reluctant to participate in low-wage worker
training, such as by partnering with employers to develop career paths
that help retain employees within companies and by streamlining grant
application paperwork. Despite attempts to address both worker and
employer issues, challenges to implementing successful training still
exist. For example, state and local officials reported that the WIA
performance measure that tracks adult earnings gain, and certain
funding requirements that accompany some federally funded training
programs, may limit training opportunities for some low-wage workers.
The wage gain for employed workers would not likely be as great as that
for unemployed job seekers, and this measure might provide a
disincentive to local boards to enroll employed workers into training,
because lower wage gains could negatively affect their program
performance.
To improve the use of WIA funds for employed worker training, we
recommend that the Secretary of Labor review the current WIA
performance measure for changes in adult average earnings to ensure
that it does not provide disincentives for serving employed workers,
including low-wage workers. The Department of Labor agreed with our
findings and recommendation. Labor also noted that as part of an
evaluation of the WIA performance measurement system, a study for which
they contracted in May 2002, performance measures would be evaluated so
that unintended disincentives might be eliminated.
Background:
Although training for employed workers is largely the responsibility of
employers and individuals, publicly funded training seeks to fill
potential gaps in workers‘ skills. In recent years, the federal
government‘s role in training employed workers has changed. In 1998,
WIA replaced the Job Training Partnership Act after 16 years and, in
doing so, made significant changes to the nation‘s workforce
development approach. Before implementation of WIA, federal employment
and training funds were primarily focused on helping the unemployed
find jobs; the WIA legislation allowed state and local entities to use
federal funds for training employed workers.[Footnote 4] TANF block
grants to states also allowed more flexibility to states in serving
low-wage workers and, like WIA funds, federal funding authorized under
TANF can now be used for training employed workers, including low-wage
workers.[Footnote 5]
WIA Funding for Training Employed Workers:
WIA funds provide services to adults, youth, and dislocated workers and
are allocated to states according to a formula. States must allocate at
least 85 percent of adult and youth funds to local workforce areas and
at least 60 percent of dislocated worker funds to local workforce
areas. For training employed workers, the WIA funds used are from those
appropriated to provide services to all adults as well as dislocated
workers, funded at about $2.5 billion for program year 2001.[Footnote
6] WIA also permits states to set aside up to 15 percent of WIA funds
allocated for adults, youth, and dislocated workers to their states to
support a variety of statewide workforce investment activities that can
include implementing innovative employed worker programs.[Footnote 7]
These funds can also be spent for providing assistance in the
establishment and operation of one-stop centers, developing or
operating state or local management information systems, and
disseminating lists of organizations that can provide training. In a
previous GAO report, we reported that several states used these state
set-aside funds specifically for implementing employed worker
training.[Footnote 8]
WIA also required that all states and localities offer most employment
and training services to the public through the one-stop system--about
17 programs funded through four federal agencies provide services
through this system.[Footnote 9] For this system, WIA created three
sequential levels of service--core, intensive, and training. The
initial core services, such as job search assistance and preliminary
employment counseling and assessment, are available to all adults and
WIA imposes no income eligibility requirements for anyone receiving
these core services. Intensive services, such as case management and
assistance in developing an individual employment plan, and training
require enrollment in WIA and generally are provided to persons judged
to need more assistance. In order to move from the core level to the
intensive level, an individual must be unable to obtain or retain a job
that pays enough to allow the person to be self-sufficient, a level
that is determined by either state or local workforce boards. In
addition, to move from the intensive level to the training level, the
individual must be unable to obtain other grant assistance, such as
Department of Education grants, for such training services. Under WIA,
states are encouraged to involve other agencies besides workforce
development--including the agencies responsible for economic
development and the Department of Health and Human Services‘ TANF
program--in the planning and delivery of services in the one-stop
center system.
WIA Performance Measures:
WIA performance measures are designed to indicate how well program
participants are being served by holding states and local areas
accountable for such outcomes as job placement, employment retention,
and earnings change. WIA requires the Department of Labor and states to
negotiate expected performance levels for each measure. States, in
turn, must negotiate performance levels with each local area. The law
requires that these negotiations take into account such factors as
differences in economic conditions, participant characteristics, and
services provided. WIA holds states accountable for achieving their
performance levels by tying those levels to financial sanctions and
incentive funding. States meeting or exceeding their measures may be
eligible to receive incentive grants that generally range from $750,000
to $3 million. States failing to meet their expected performance
measures may suffer financial sanctions. 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 grant.
TANF Funding for Training Employed Workers:
In fiscal year 2000--the latest for which data are available--states
reported spending $121.6 million in federal TANF funds specifically for
education and training.[Footnote 10] Prior to WIA, welfare reform
legislation created the TANF block grant, which provided flexibility to
states to focus on helping needy adults with children find and retain
employment. The TANF block grant is a fixed amount block grant of
approximately $16.7 billion annually. Although the TANF program was not
required to be part of WIA‘s one-stop system, states and localities
have the option to include TANF programs. As we have previously
reported,[Footnote 11] many are working to bring together their TANF
and WIA services. The TANF block grants allow states the flexibility to
decide how to use their funds--for example, states may decide
eligibility requirements for recipients, how to allocate funds to a
variety of services, and what types of assistance to provide. Work-
related activities that can be funded under TANF encompass a broad
range of activities including subsidized work, community service
programs, work readiness and job search efforts, as well as education
and training activities such as on-the-job training, vocational
education, and job skills training related to employment.
TANF funds available to states can be used for both pre-and
postemployment services. Because of the increased emphasis on work
resulting from welfare reform and time limits for receiving cash
assistance, state offices responsible for TANF funds may focus largely
on helping their clients address and solve problems that interfere with
employment, such as finding reliable transportation and affordable
child care, especially for those in low-paying jobs.
Other Federal Funds Available for Training Employed Workers:
In recent years, several federal demonstration or competitive grants
were available for training employed workers. For example, the
Department of Labor‘s Welfare-to-Work state and competitive
grants[Footnote 12] were authorized by the Congress in 1997 to focus on
moving the hardest-to-employ welfare recipients and noncustodial
parents of children on welfare to work and economic self-sufficiency.
Overall, welfare-to-work program services were intended to help
individuals get and keep unsubsidized employment. Allowable activities
included on-the-job training, postemployment services financed through
vouchers or contracts, and job retention and support services. In
addition, shortly after WIA was enacted, Labor gave all states an
opportunity to apply for $50,000 planning grants for employed worker
training.[Footnote 13] States were instructed to develop policies and
program infrastructures for training employed workers and to indicate
their available resources, anticipated needs, and plans for measuring
success. The Secretary of Labor also awarded larger, 2-year competitive
demonstration grants, operating from July 1, 1999, to June 20, 2001,
for training employed workers.
In addition, HHS is supporting the Employment Retention and Advancement
(ERA) study of programs that promote stable employment and career
progression for welfare recipients and low-income workers. In 1998, for
the planning phase of this project, HHS awarded 13 planning grants to
states to develop innovative strategies. HHS has contracted with the
Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation to evaluate 15 ERA projects
in eight states, comparing the outcomes of those who received services
with a control group that did not.[Footnote 14]
About the same time as the enactment of WIA, the Congress passed the
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act of
1998,[Footnote 15] which authorized some funding for technical skills
training grants as part of an effort to increase the skills of American
workers. This legislation raised limits on the number of high-skilled
workers entering the United States with temporary work visas, imposing
a $500 fee on employers--later raised to $1,000--for each foreign
worker for whom they applied.[Footnote 16] Most of the money collected
is to be spent on training that improves the skills of U.S. workers.
Labor awards the skill grants to local workforce investment boards,
thereby linking the skill grant program with the workforce system. The
workforce boards may use the funds to provide training to both employed
and unemployed individuals. In a previous GAO report on these
grants,[Footnote 17] we reported that, for grantees that collected
participant employment data (39 of 43 grantees), approximately three-
fourths of the skills training grant participants are employed workers
upgrading their skills.
State Funds for Training Employed Workers:
In addition to being able to use WIA state set-aside funds for
different activities including training employed workers, states can
authorize funds from other available sources, such as state general
revenue funds or funds related to unemployment insurance trust funds.
States can also fund such training in conjunction with other federal
funding grants, such as the Department of Housing and Urban
Development‘s Community Development Block Grant. This grant can be used
for economic development activities that expand job and business
opportunities for lower-income persons and neighborhoods. These state
training programs serve primarily to help businesses address a variety
of issues including skill development, competitiveness, economic
development, and technological changes.
States can fund training for employed workers through various offices.
Workforce development offices have historically focused on training for
unemployed and economically disadvantaged individuals, while economic
development offices have typically focused on helping employers foster
economic growth for states. Economic development offices may also
provide employment and training opportunities to local communities,
generally by working with employers to meet skill shortages and long-
term needs for qualified workers. States have more often subsidized
training tailored for businesses through their economic development
offices, according to reports published by the National Governors‘
Association.[Footnote 18]
Most Local Workforce Boards, and All States Contacted, Provided
Assistance for Training Employed Workers:
Most of the local workforce boards reported that they provided
assistance to train employed workers, including funding training, as
did all 16 states that we contacted. Two-thirds of the workforce boards
responding to our survey provided assistance to train employed workers
in a variety of ways, and nearly 40 percent of the workforce boards
specifically targeted funds on training for these workers. Furthermore,
a greater percentage of workforce boards reported funding employed
worker training in program year 2001 than in program year 2000. The 16
states we contacted all funded training for employed workers and most
of these states funded and coordinated this training from two or more
offices. Few states and local workforce boards were able to provide
information on the number of low-wage workers who participated in
training because many did not categorize training participants by wage
or employment status. Generally, local areas and states funded training
for employed workers with various federal, state, local, or other
resources, although WIA and other federal funds were the most common
sources of funding for this training.
Most Local Workforce Boards Supported Training for Employed Workers:
Two-thirds of the local workforce boards reported performing tasks that
facilitated the provision of employed worker training, such as
partnering with employers to develop training proposals and providing
individual services to employed workers. For example, one workforce
board helped a local manufacturer obtain a state grant to retrain its
employees through a project to upgrade skills. Another workforce board
helped a local company by arranging English as a Second Language (ESL)
classes for its employees through a community college. Other workforce
boards helped employed workers establish individual training accounts
with eligible training providers. However, some workforce boards
responded that they did not specifically target training for employed
workers because their overall funds were so limited that such training
was not a priority. Several respondents explained that their clients
were served based on need and that individuals with jobs were not a
priority for services because of the sizeable unemployed population
served by the workforce boards.
Nearly 40 percent of the local workforce boards responding to our
survey specifically targeted funds for employed worker
training.[Footnote 19] The number of boards that reported budgeting or
spending funds on such training in program years 2000 or 2001 varied by
state. (See fig. 1.) Most states had at least one workforce board that
targeted funds for such training.[Footnote 20] Furthermore, a greater
percentage of workforce boards reported funding such training in
program year 2001 than in the previous year. Of all the workforce
boards responding to our survey, 22 percent reported spending funds
specifically for training employed workers in 2000 and 31 percent
reported spending funds on training these workers in 2001. When they
funded training for employed workers, local workforce boards reported
doing so in a variety of ways. For example, in cooperation with the
economic development office, one workforce board in West Virginia
worked with local businesses to identify and fund training programs to
meet their business needs. At a workforce board we visited in Texas,
officials received a competitive state grant to fund employed worker
training to meet critical statewide industry needs in health care,
advanced technology, and teaching.
Figure 1: Map of 50 States Showing Local Workforce Boards That Reported
Funding Training Specifically for Employed Workers in Program Year 2000
or 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Some local workforce boards that had not specifically targeted training
for employed workers were planning to become involved in such training
or had begun discussions about developing policies for this type of
training. For example, a workforce official in California cited plans
to use
$95,000 from a federal grant to train employed workers in information
technology. Another workforce board, in Minnesota, planned to open a
training center for employed workers that would focus on business needs
within the local community, such as health care, and provide training
through a local community college.
States Funded Training for Employed Workers, Usually through Two or
More Offices:
All of the 16 states we contacted funded training for employed workers.
In most of the 16 states, training for employed workers was not limited
to the efforts of a single state office, but was funded by two or more
state offices with training responsibilities. In fact, in 8 states, all
three offices we contacted funded training for employed workers. In
addition to offices responsible for workforce development, economic
development, and TANF funds used for education and training, state
officials also identified education departments--including those of
higher education--within their states as important funding sources for
training employed workers. In New York, for example, training funds
were spread across about 20 state agencies, according to one state
official.
When more than one office within a state funded training for employed
workers, most state offices reported coordinating their training
efforts both formally and informally. Formal coordination methods that
state officials cited included workgroups and advisory boards (15
states), memoranda of understanding or mutual referral agreements
between offices (12 states), or coordinated planning (12 states). For
example, Indiana‘s economic development office noted that it had formal
linkages with the workforce office and that they collaborated on a
lifelong learning project.[Footnote 21] Offices in 9 of the 16 states
also cited other means of coordination, such as having common
performance measures. For example, Oregon‘s workforce development
office reported that state agencies were held to a set of statewide
performance measures. In addition to these formal methods of
coordination, all states cited informal information sharing as a key
means of coordination among offices within their state. For example, an
economic development official in one state said he used his telephone
speed dial to contact his workforce development colleague, and a
workforce development official in another state told us she had
frequent working lunches with the state official responsible for TANF
funds used for education and training.
In addition, in a few states, offices jointly administered training
programs within their states. In New York, for example, workforce
development and economic development offices comanaged a high-skill
training grant program for new and employed workers using $34 million
in state general revenue funds over 3 years. For this training program,
begun in July 2001, both offices reviewed training proposals, and the
workforce department created contracts and reimbursed companies for
part of the training costs. Similarly, in Pennsylvania, five
departments--Labor and Industry, Public Welfare, Community and Economic
Development, Education, and Aging--jointly administered an industry-
specific training grant initiative that primarily funded training for
low-wage health care workers. This joint effort represented a new
approach for Pennsylvania, because previously the economic development
office was responsible for training that was tailored, or customized,
to employers. Under this joint program, a state committee with
representatives from each of the five departments reviewed grant
proposals and each agency funded a portion of approved grants.
Finally, several states had reorganized their workforce
responsibilities and funding, either by consolidating workforce
development and economic development responsibilities or combining
responsibilities for WIA and TANF funds. For example, Montana and West
Virginia transferred WIA responsibilities and funding from the
workforce office to the economic development office. According to state
officials, this approach was intended to better align and integrate
workforce and economic development goals for the state. In Texas, the
workforce commission--which was created in 1995 to consolidate 10
agencies and 28 programs--was responsible for WIA and TANF block
grants, among others. In Florida, a public-private partnership,
governed by the state‘s workforce board, became responsible in October
2000 for all workforce programs and funds in the state, including WIA,
TANF, and Welfare-to-Work grant funds; this shift was intended to
create a better link between workforce systems and businesses in the
state.
Few state officials or local workforce boards were able to report the
number of low-wage workers who participated in training, for various
reasons. For example, some officials told us they did not categorize
training participants by wage. Other officials reported that, although
they targeted low-wage workers for training, they did not categorize
training participants by employment status. Although states we
contacted could not always provide us with the number of low-wage
workers participating in training, 13 of 16 states we contacted
reported that they funded training targeted to low-wage workers.
Additionally, when WIA funds are limited, states and local areas must
give priority for adult intensive and training services to recipients
of public assistance and other low-income individuals.
WIA and Other Federal Funds Were the Most Common Sources of Funding for
Training Employed Workers:
Local workforce boards reported that WIA and other federal funds were
the most common source of funds used to support employed worker
training. Federal funding for these training efforts included WIA
funding--both local and the state set-aside portion--TANF funds, and
local Welfare-to-Work funds. (See fig. 2.) In addition, local boards
described various other important funding sources such as Labor‘s
demonstration grants for training employed workers and the federal
skills training grants intended to train workers in high-demand
occupations.
Figure 2: Key Sources of Federal Funding Used by Local Workforce Boards
That Funded Training for Employed Workers, Program Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Percentages are based on 148 local workforce boards responding to
our survey that reported specifically targeting funds for employed
worker training. Respondents were asked to identify all applicable
types of funding sources.
For those local workforce boards spending funds specifically for
training employed workers, their allocation of local WIA funds most
often paid for these training efforts, and more reported using local
WIA funds in program year 2001 than in the previous year.[Footnote 22]
However, while nearly all workforce boards responding to our survey
were aware that WIA allowed funds to be used for training employed
workers, some reported that there were too many priorities competing
for the WIA funds. Two local officials also noted that the federal
funds allocated to states under WIA--the state set-aside funds--in
their states were awarded competitively, which made it difficult to
consistently serve employed workers because they were uncertain that
they would receive these grants in the future.
Local workforce boards also combined funding from several sources--
including federal, state, local and foundation support--to train
employed workers. For example, one workforce board in Pennsylvania
combined $50,000 in funds from the state WIA set-aside with about $1.8
million from the state‘s community and economic development department
to fund such training. Although financial support from local entities
or foundations was available to a lesser extent, some workforce boards
were able to mix these with funds from other sources. For example, in
California, one workforce board funded training for employed workers
with a combination of foundation grants and fees for services from
training for employers in addition to TANF funds, Welfare-to-Work and
other competitive grants from Labor, and state funds.
States reported that WIA and other federal funds were the most common
sources of funding used for training employed workers. (See fig. 3.)
Twelve of the 16 states we contacted used three or more sources of
funds for this purpose. Of the 16 states we contacted, 13 used their
WIA state set-aside funds for training employed workers. For example,
in Texas, nearly $11 million was awarded competitively to 10 local
workforce boards, and the state projected that over 9,000 employed
workers would receive training. Eleven states also used TANF funds to
train employed workers. States also reported using state general
revenue funds, funds related to Unemployment Insurance (UI) trust
funds, such as penalty and interest funds or add-ons to UI taxes, and
funds from other sources such as community development block grants or
state lottery funds. (See table in app. III.):
Figure 3: Key Sources of Funding for Employed Worker Training Used in
Program Years 2000 and/or 2001 by 16 States We Contacted:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Training for Employed Workers Focused on Addressing Business Needs and
Certain Workplace Skills:
In their training initiatives for employed workers, states and local
workforce boards focused on training that addressed specific business
needs and emphasized certain workplace skills. States and local
workforce boards gave priority to economic sectors and occupations in
demand, considered economic factors when awarding grants, and funded
training that was tailored or customized to specific employers. States
and local workforce boards focused most often on training provided by
community or technical colleges that emphasized occupational skills and
basic skills.
States and Local Workforce Boards Often Focused on Business Needs in
Funding Training:
Most of the 16 states we contacted focused on certain economic sectors
or occupations in which there was a demand for skilled
workers.[Footnote 23] Twelve states had at least one office, usually
the economic development office, which targeted the manufacturing
sector for training initiatives. States also targeted the health care
and social assistance sector (which includes hospitals, residential
care facilities, and services such as community food services) and the
information sector (which includes data processing, publishing,
broadcasting, and telecommunications). New York took a sector-based
approach to training by funding grants to enable employees to obtain
national industry-recognized certifications or credentials, such as
those offered through the computer software or plastics industries.
Other training programs focused on occupations in demand. For example,
in Louisiana, two state offices funded training that gave preference to
occupations with a shortage of skilled workers, such as computer
scientists, systems analysts, locomotive engineers, financial
analysts, home health aides, and medical assistants.
Of the 148 local workforce boards that specifically funded training for
employed workers in 2001, the majority of workforce boards targeted
particular economic sectors for training these workers. As with the
states, most often these sectors were health care or manufacturing.
(See fig. 4.) For example, workforce boards we visited in Florida,
Minnesota, Oregon, and Texas became involved in funding or obtaining
funding for local initiatives to train health care workers, such as
radiographers and certified nursing assistants, that hospitals needed.
Figure 4: Economic Sectors Targeted by Local Workforce Boards That
Funded Training for Employed Workers in Program Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Thirteen of the 148 local workforce boards who said that they
specifically funded worker training did not specify whether they funded
training in a specific economic sector. Percentages are based on local
workforce boards responding to our survey that reported specifically
targeting funds for employed worker training. Respondents were asked to
identify all applicable sectors.
Some states considered local economic conditions, such as unemployment
rates, in their grant award criteria in addition to, or instead of,
giving priority to certain economic sectors and occupations. For
example, California‘s Employment Training Panel must set aside at least
$15 million each year for areas of high unemployment. Similarly, in
Illinois and Indiana, the state economic development offices considered
county unemployment or community needs in awarding training funds.
Florida‘s workforce training grants gave priority to distressed rural
areas and urban enterprise zones in addition to targeting economic
sectors.
In addition, most state economic development offices (13 of 16) and
more than half of the state workforce development offices (9 of 16) we
contacted funded training that was tailored or customized to specific
employers‘ workforce needs. For economic development offices, such
customized training was not new: these offices have typically funded
training for specific companies as a means of encouraging economic
growth within their states, and in some cases have done so for a long
time. For example, California has funded training tailored to specific
employers‘ needs since 1983 through its Employment Training Panel. This
program spent $86.4 million in program year 2000 to train about 70,000
workers; nearly all of them were employed workers according to state
officials. However, for many state workforce development offices,
funding customized training was a shift in their approach to workforce
training, one that could strengthen the links between employees and
jobs. With customized training, local employers or industry
associations typically proposed the type of training needed when they
applied for funding and often selected the training providers. Examples
of customized training initiatives sponsored by workforce development
offices include the following:
* In Indiana, the state workforce office has sponsored a high-skills,
high-wage training initiative since 1998 to meet employers‘ specific
needs for skilled workers in information technology, manufacturing, and
health. This effort is part of a statewide initiative for lifelong
learning for the existing workforce.
* In Hawaii, the workforce office established a grant program for
employer consortiums to develop new training that did not previously
exist in the state.
* In Louisiana, the workforce office has funded a training program
customized for employers who had been in business for at least 3 years.
It required that the company provide evidence of its long-term
commitment to employee training.
In the states we contacted, many customized training programs required
that grant applicants--usually employers--create partnerships with
other industry or educational organizations. For example, Oregon‘s
workforce development office required local businesses to work with
educational partners in developing grant proposals. One local workforce
board we visited in Oregon collaborated with a large teaching hospital
and its union to obtain funding for training hospital employees, and
local one-stop staff partnered with nursery consortia and community
colleges to obtain funds to upgrade the skills of agricultural workers.
Similarly, in its high-skill training grant program, New York‘s
workforce development office required employers to form partnerships
with labor organizations, a consortium of employers, or local workforce
investment boards.
In at least 11 of the 16 states we contacted, the programs also
required employers to provide matching funds for training employed
workers, which can help offset costs to the state for training as well
as indicate the strength of the employers‘ commitment to training.
States that had requirements for matching funds--often a one-for-one
match--included Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New York,
Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia. Utah‘s
economic development office required a lower match from rural
employers, and Indiana‘s match varied case-by-case. Sometimes states
required other kinds of corporate investments as a condition for
obtaining funds for training employees. For example, in Tennessee,
companies participating in a job skills training program for high
technology jobs were required to make a substantial investment in new
technology. In addition, several states included certain requirements
in their eligibility criteria to address potential concerns about
whether public funds were being used to fund training that businesses
might otherwise have funded themselves. For example, in Louisiana and
West Virginia, the workforce office requires employers to provide
evidence satisfactory to the office that funds shall be used to
supplement and not supplant existing training efforts.
Employed Worker Training Focused on Occupational and Basic Skills
Training Provided by Community and Other Colleges:
Although states reported funding many types of training for employed
workers, occupational skills training and basic skills training were
the most prevalent.[Footnote 24] Fifteen of the 16 states we contacted
funded occupational skills training--such as learning new computer
applications--for employed workers. In Tennessee, for example, the
economic development office spent more than $27 million of state funds
in program years 2000 and 2001 on a job skills training initiative for
workers in high-skill, high-technology jobs, according to a state
official.[Footnote 25] Nearly all states also reported funding basic
skills training, including in basic math skills and ESL, for employed
workers with low levels of education. For example, Texas funded ESL
training in workplace literacy primarily for Vietnamese and Spanish
speaking workers participating in health care training.
Local workforce boards also reported funding many types of training;
however, occupational skills training was most frequently provided to
employed workers. (See fig. 5.) For example, of the local workforce
boards that spent funds to train employed workers, in program year
2001, 90 percent funded occupational training to improve and upgrade
workers‘ skills. Forty-seven percent of the local workforce boards also
funded, in program year 2001, basic skills training for employed
workers. The next most prevalent type of training funded for employed
workers was in soft skills, such as being on time for work, and 34
percent of local workforce boards funded this type of training in
program year 2001.
Figure 5: Types of Training Funded by Local Workforce Boards That
Funded Training for Employed Workers in Program Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Six of the 148 respondents who said that they specifically funded
worker training did not specify the types of training they funded.
Percentages are based on local workforce boards responding to our
survey that reported specifically targeting funds for employed worker
training. Respondents were asked to identify all applicable types of
training.
Community or technical colleges were often used to train employed
workers, according to both state and local officials we contacted. For
example, 78 percent of local workforce boards that spent funds to train
employed workers reported that community or technical colleges were
training providers in program year 2001. (See fig. 6.) State and local
workforce officials also cited using private training instructors and
employer-provided trainers, such as in-house trainers.
Figure 6: Types of Training Providers Used by Local Workforce Boards
That Funded Training for Employed Workers in Program Year 2001:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Note: Eight of the 148 respondents who said that they specifically
funded worker training did not specify the types of training providers
used. Percentages are based on local workforce boards responding to our
survey that reported specifically targeting funds for employed worker
training. Respondents were asked to identify all applicable types of
training providers.
In Targeting Training to Low-Wage Workers, Officials Addressed Several
Challenges, though WIA Performance Measures Were an Issue:
In targeting training to low-wage workers, state and local officials
addressed several challenges that hindered individuals‘ and employers‘
participation in training. Workforce officials developed ways to
address the personal challenges low-wage workers faced that made
participating in training difficult. In addition, workforce officials
we visited identified ways to address employer reluctance to support
training efforts. Despite attempts to address these issues, however,
challenges to implementing successful training still exist. For
example, state and local officials reported that the WIA performance
measure that tracks adult earnings gain and certain funding
requirements that accompany some federally funded training programs,
may limit training opportunities for some low-wage workers.
Officials Found Ways to Accommodate Low-Wage Workers‘ Needs:
State and local officials developed a number of approaches to overcome
some of the challenges faced by low-wage workers. They noted that many
low-wage workers have a range of personal challenges--such as limited
English and literacy skills, childcare and transportation needs,
scheduling conflicts and financial constraints, and limited work
maturity skills--that made participating in training difficult.
However, many officials also reported several approaches to training
low-wage workers.
Offering workplace ESL and literacy programs were some approaches used
by officials to address limited English and literacy skills among low-
wage workers. For example, one workforce board in Minnesota used a
computer software program to develop literacy among immigrant
populations. Another state workforce official in Oregon reported
customizing ESL to teach language skills needed on the job. In
addition, some of the employers we visited provided training to their
employees in their native language or taught them vocational
ESL.[Footnote 26] Officials we visited in Texas offered a 5-week
vocational ESL course before the start of the certified nursing
assistant training program primarily to help prepare Vietnamese and
Spanish speaking students who were not fluent in English.
Many low-wage workers faced challenges securing reliable transportation
and childcare, particularly in rural areas and during evening hours.
Several state and local officials noted that assisting low-wage workers
with transportation and childcare enabled them to participate in
training. One program in Florida provided childcare and transportation
to TANF-eligible clients. In Minnesota, local officials told us that
they provided transportation for program participants. Participants
used the agency‘s shuttle bus free-of-charge until they received their
second paycheck from their employer. After the second paycheck, the
individual paid a fee for the shuttle and was encouraged and supported
in finding transportation on their own.
Providing on-site, paid, or flexible training were methods used to
address scheduling conflicts and financial constraints experienced by
low-wage workers. Many workforce boards that identified approaches on
our survey cited various methods of providing training to low-wage
workers that helped officials address some of the challenges faced by
low-wage workers. These methods included offering training at one-stops
or through distance learning and teleconferencing courses. For example,
an employer in California paid employees for 40 hours of work, but
allowed 20 hours of on-site training during that time. In addition,
some hospitals permitted flexible schedules for employees who sought
additional training for career advancement.
Offering additional assistance and incentives were approaches
identified by officials for improving low-wage workers‘ limited work
maturity skills such as punctuality and appropriate dress. Officials we
visited in Texas reported that they helped low-wage workers develop
better skills for workplace behavior. For example, they helped clients
understand the need to call their employer if something unexpected
happens, like a flat tire, that prevents them from coming to work. In
addition, another workforce board in West Virginia reported that they
provided a $50.00 incentive to the employee for perfect attendance
during the first 6 weeks of work.
Officials Identified Ways to Gain Employer Support for Low-Wage Worker
Training:
State and local officials developed a number of ways to address the
concerns of employers who were reluctant to participate in low-wage
worker training. According to state and local officials, employers‘
reservations about participation stemmed from different concerns,
including the fears that better trained employees would find jobs
elsewhere. Officials reported that other employers were hesitant to
participate in low-wage worker training because of paperwork
requirements or the time and expertise they believed were involved in
applying for state training grants. Despite these concerns, state and
local officials identified approaches to encourage employer
participation.
According to officials we contacted, some employers said that if their
employees participated in training, they would seek jobs elsewhere.
Officials addressed this perception by forming partnerships with
employers and educators and offering training that corresponded to
specific career paths within a company. For example, a workforce board
we visited in Oregon partnered with a local nursery, a landscaping
business, and a community college to train entry-level workers in
agriculture and landscaping to move up into higher-skilled and better
paying positions at the same company. These career paths also addressed
the concern, expressed by some employers, that too few employees were
qualified to fill positions beyond the entry level. Officials found
other ways to alleviate employers‘ fears. Officials in Oregon
encouraged trainees at a hospital to stay with their current employer
by requiring them to sign a statement of intent regarding training. The
hospital trained employees after they signed an agreement that asked
for a commitment that they remain with the employer for a specific
amount of time in return for training.
State and local officials noted that some employers were also reluctant
to have their employees participate in government-funded training
programs because they believed that certain data collection and
reporting requirements were cumbersome. For example, state workforce
officials we contacted reported that some employers found it difficult
to get employees to fill out a one-page form regarding income as
required to determine eligibility for certain funds, such as TANF. In
an effort to ease the funding paperwork burden, state officials we
contacted in West Virginia were working towards reducing the
application paperwork required for employers to obtain worker-training
dollars.
Workforce officials also reported that some employers were hesitant to
apply for federally funded training grants because they believed that
they did not have the time or the expertise to apply for such grants.
To address this, workforce officials we visited in Oregon worked with
union representatives and training providers to co-write training grant
proposals. The workforce officials we visited told us that the
involvement of the union was a key factor in the training initiative‘s
success. Prior to this cooperative effort, the employer had not been
responsive to workers‘ needs and the involvement of the union helped to
bridge the gap between worker and employer needs.
Performance Measures and Other Funding Requirements May Limit Training
Opportunities for Low-Wage Workers:
State and federal funding requirements--such as WIA performance
measures, time limits, and participant eligibility--may limit training
opportunities for some low-wage workers. Under WIA, performance
measures hold states accountable for the effectiveness of the training
program. If states fail to meet their expected performance levels, they
may suffer financial sanctions. State funding regulations for some
training initiatives, such as TANF-funded projects, required the funds
to be used within a specific time period. Because local areas must wait
for states to allocate and disburse the funding, local officials
sometimes had less than 1 year to use the funding. Finally, individuals
are sometimes eligible for services based on their income, especially
for TANF or WIA local funds. Depending on the level at which local
areas
set eligibility requirements, some low-wage workers may earn salaries
that are still too high to be eligible for services provided by these
training funds.
WIA established performance measures to provide greater accountability
and to demonstrate program effectiveness. These performance measures
gauge program results in areas such as job placement, employment
retention, and earnings change. (See table 1.) Labor holds states
accountable for meeting 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 noted that the WIA
performance levels are of particular concern to state and local
officials.[Footnote 27] If a state fails to meet its performance levels
for one year, Labor provides technical assistance, if requested. If a
state fails to meet its performance levels for two consecutive years,
it may be subject to up to a five percent reduction in its annual WIA
formula grant. Conversely, if a state exceeds performance levels it may
be eligible for incentive funds.
Table 1: WIA Performance Measures for Adults and Dislocated Workers:
Adults: Entered employment rate; Definition: Of those who did not have
a job when they registered for WIA, the percentage of adults who got a
job by the end of the 1st quarter after exit. This measure excludes
participants who are employed at the time of registration..
Adults: Employment retention rate at 6 months; Definition: Of those who
had a job in the 1st quarter after exit, the percentage of adults who
have a job in the 3rd quarter after exit..
Adults: Average earnings change in 6 months; Definition: Of those who
had a job in the 1st quarter after exit, the postprogram earning
increases as compared with pre-program earnings.
Adults: Employment and credential rate; Definition: Of those who
received WIA training services, the percentage who were employed in the
1st quarter after exit and received a credential by the end of the 3rd
quarter after exit..
[End of table]
Source: GAO.
State and local officials reported that the WIA performance measure
that tracks the change in adult earnings after six months could limit
training opportunities for employed workers, including low-wage
workers. Some workforce officials were reluctant to register employed
workers for training because the wage gain from unemployment to
employment tended to be greater than the wage gain for employed workers
receiving a wage increase or promotion as a result of skills upgrade
training. For example, a state official from Indiana noted that
upgrading from a certified nursing assistant to the next tier of the
nursing field might only increase a worker‘s earnings by 25 cents per
hour. Yet, for the purposes of performance measures, workforce boards
may need to indicate a change in earnings larger than this in order to
avoid penalties. For example, one workforce official from Michigan
reported that the performance measure requires the region to show an
increase that equates to a $3.00 per hour raise. In a previous GAO
study, states reported that the need to meet these performance measures
may lead local staff to focus WIA-funded services on unemployed job
seekers who are most likely to succeed in their job search or who are
most able to make wage gains instead of employed workers.[Footnote 28]
Time limits for some funding sources were a challenge for some
officials trying to implement training programs, according to some
state and local workforce officials. In Florida, for example, officials
we visited reported that they had a state-imposed one-year time limit
for using TANF funds for education and training, which made it
difficult for officials to plan a training initiative, recruit eligible
participants, and successfully implement the training program.
Similarly, state and local officials we contacted in Oregon expressed
frustration with the amount of effort required to ensure the
continuation of funding for the length of their training initiative.
They noted that funding for a one-year training grant for certified
medical assistants and radiographers expired seven months before the
training program ended. The local workforce board identified an
approach to fund the training for the remainder of the program by using
other funding sources. Although this workforce board was able to
leverage other funds, this solution is not always feasible.
Finally, several officials reported that eligibility requirements for
the WIA local funds are a challenge because they might exclude some
low-wage workers from training opportunities. States or local areas set
the income limit for certain employment and training activities by
determining the wage level required for individuals to be able to
support themselves. When funds are limited, states and local areas must
give priority for adult intensive and training services to recipients
of public assistance and other low-income individuals. Officials on
several workforce boards said that these eligibility guidelines for
their local areas, particularly the income limit, made it challenging
to serve some low-wage workers. For example, local workforce board
officials from California indicated that they would like more
flexibility than currently allowed under state WIA eligibility
requirements to serve clients who may earn salaries above the income
limit. The officials noted that some workers in need of skills upgrade
could not be served under WIA because they did not qualify based on
their income. To address this challenge, officials we visited at a
local workforce board in East Texas told us that they set the income
limit high enough so that they can serve most low-wage workers in their
area.
Conclusions:
As of program year 2001, many states and local workforce boards were
beginning to make use of the flexibility allowed under WIA and welfare
reform to fund training for employed workers, including low-wage
workers. They used WIA state set-aside funds and local funds, as well
as TANF and state funds, as the basis for publicly funded training for
employed workers. In addition, they considered business needs in
determining how these funds were used to train employed workers.
Consequently, training for employed workers could better reflect the
skills that employers need from their workforce in a rapidly changing
economy. In addition, such skills may help employees better perform in
their jobs and advance in their careers.
Training for employed workers is particularly critical for workers with
limited education and work skills, especially those earning low wages.
For such workers, obtaining training while employed may be critical to
their ability to retain their jobs or become economically self-
sufficient. While training low-wage workers involves particular
challenges, workforce and other officials have developed ways to
implement training initiatives for low-wage workers that may help
mitigate some of these challenges. This is especially necessary in the
economic downturn following the boom in the 1990s when TANF and WIA
were created.
However, WIA‘s performance measure for the change in average earnings
may create a disincentive for states and local workforce boards to fund
training for employed workers because employed workers, particularly
low-wage workers, may be less likely than unemployed workers to
significantly increase their earnings after training. To the extent
that state and local workforce investment areas focus on unemployed
workers to ensure that they meet WIA‘s performance measure for earnings
change--and thereby avoid penalties--employed workers, and especially
low-wage workers, may have a more difficult time obtaining training
that could help them remain or advance in their jobs. As currently
formulated, this performance measure supports earlier federal programs‘
focus on training unemployed workers and does not fully reflect WIA‘s
new provision to allow federally funded training for employed workers.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To improve the use of WIA funds for employed worker training, we
recommend that the Secretary of Labor review the current WIA
performance measure for change in adult average earnings to ensure that
this measure does not provide disincentives for serving employed
workers. For example, Labor might consider having separate average
earnings gains measures for employed workers and unemployed workers.
Agency Comments:
We provided the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services with
the opportunity to comment on a draft of this report. Formal comments
from these agencies appear in appendixes IV and V.
Labor agreed with our findings and recommendation to review the current
WIA performance measure for change in the adult average earnings to
ensure that the measure does not provide disincentives for serving
employed workers. Labor stated that, in May 2002, the department
contracted for an evaluation of the WIA performance measurement system
and noted that one of the objectives of the evaluation is to determine
the intended and unintended consequences of the system. Labor believes
that GAO‘s suggestion to have separate measures on earnings gains for
employed workers would be an option to consider for improving WIA
performance.
HHS also agreed with the findings presented in our report and noted
that the information in GAO‘s report would help states develop and
enhance appropriate worker training programs, and provide services and
supports that address the barriers to such training.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after its issue date. At that time we will send copies of this report
to relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties. We
will also make copies 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 GAO contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix IV.
Signed by Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Sigurd R. Nilsen
Director, Education, Workforce,
Income Security:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To provide the Congress with a better understanding of how states and
local areas were training employed workers, including low-wage workers,
we were asked to determine (1) the extent to which local areas and
states provide assistance to train employed workers, including funding
training; (2) the focus of such training efforts and the kind of
training provided; and (3) when targeting training to low-wage workers,
the approaches state and local officials identified to address the
challenges in training this population.
To obtain this information, we conducted a nationwide mail survey of
all local workforce investment boards, conducted semistructured
telephone interviews with state officials, and visited four states. We
conducted a literature search and obtained reports and other documents
on employed worker training from researchers and federal, state, and
local officials. To obtain information about the federal role in
employed worker training, we met with officials from the departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education. In addition, we
interviewed researchers and other workforce development training
experts from associations such as the National Governors‘ Association,
National Association of Workforce Investment Boards, U. S. Chamber of
Commerce, and American Society for Training and Development.
Nationwide Survey of Local Workforce Investment Boards:
To document local efforts to train employed workers, we conducted a
nationwide mail survey, sending questionnaires to all 595 local
workforce boards. We received responses from 470 boards, giving us a 79
percent response rate. Forty-five states had response rates of 60
percent or more, and 17 states, including all states with a single
workforce board, had response rates of 100 percent.[Footnote 29] The
mailing list of local workforce boards was compiled using information
from a previous GAO study of local youth councils,[Footnote 30] and
directories from the National Association of Workforce Investment
Boards and the National Association of Counties. The survey
questionnaire was pretested with 6 local workforce boards and revised
based on their comments. Surveys were mailed on April 24, 2002, follow-
ups were conducted by mail and phone, and the survey closing date was
August 16, 2002. We reviewed survey questionnaire responses for
consistency and in several cases contacted the workforce boards to
resolve inconsistencies but we did not otherwise verify the information
provided in the responses. In the survey, we collected data for the WIA
program years 2000 (from July 1, 2000--June 30, 2001) and 2001 (from
July 1, 2001-June 30, 2002) so that we could compare and perceive
trends. We analyzed these data by calculating simple statistics and by
performing a content analysis in which we coded responses to open-ended
questions for further analysis.
Because our national mail survey did not use probability sampling,
there are no sampling errors. However, the practical difficulties of
conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly
referred to as non-sampling errors. For example, differences in how a
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information
available to respondents, or the characteristics of people who do not
respond can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We
included steps in both the data collection and data analysis stages to
minimize such non-sampling errors. For example, survey specialists in
combination with subject matter specialists designed our questionnaire;
we pretested the questionnaire to ensure that questions were clear and
were understood by respondents; and to increase our response rate for
the mail survey, we made a follow-up mailing and called local workforce
investment boards that did not respond by a specified date.
Semistructured Telephone Interviews:
To determine state efforts to train employed workers, including low-
wage workers, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews in
16 judgmentally selected states with state officials responsible for
workforce development, economic development, and TANF funds used for
education and training. We selected these states in part because they
were geographically dispersed and represented about one-half of the
U.S. population.
In addition, we selected these states because between 1998 and 2001,
most of them used federal funds available for training employed
workers, including demonstration and planning grants, which potentially
indicated the state‘s interest in training these workers. Thirteen of
the selected states received States‘ Incumbent Worker System Building
Demonstration Grants in 1998 from the Department of Labor; 10 of the
selected states were identified in previous GAO work as having used WIA
state set-aside funds for current worker training, and 8 of the
selected states were among those receiving Employment Retention and
Advancement (ERA) demonstration grants from the Department of Health
and Human Services. (See table 2.):
Table 2: States in Telephone Interview Sample--Population and Key
Funding Sources:
State: California; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 33,871,648;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty]; DOL states‘
incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998:
[Empty]; HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Florida; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 15,982,378;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Hawaii; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 1,211,537;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: Illinois; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 12,419,293;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty]; DOL states‘
incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998:
[Empty]; HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Indiana; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 6,080,485;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: Louisiana; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 4,468,976;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty]; DOL states‘
incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X;
HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: Minnesota; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 4,919,479;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty]; DOL states‘
incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X;
HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Montana; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 902,195;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: New Hampshire; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data):
1,235,786; States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘
incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X;
HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: New York; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 18,976,457;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X[A]; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Oregon; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 3,421,399;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Pennsylvania; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data):
12,281,054; States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty]; DOL
states‘ incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June
1998: X; HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: Tennessee; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 5,689,283;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Texas; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 20,851,820;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: X.
State: Utah; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 2,233,169; States
using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty]; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: [Empty]; HHS
ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: West Virginia; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data):
1,808,344; States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: X; DOL states‘
incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: X[A];
HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
State: Total; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data): 146,353,303;
States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: 10; DOL states‘ incumbent
worker system building demonstration grants, June 1998: 13; HHS ERA
demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: 8.
State: Total U.S. population; Population: (April 1, 2000 Census data):
; 281,421,906; States using WIA governor‘s set-aside funds: [Empty];
DOL states‘ incumbent worker system building demonstration grants, June
1998: [Empty]; HHS ERA demonstration grants, as of fall 2001: [Empty].
[End of table]
Sources: U.S. Census Data; Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance
and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker Program
(GAO-02-274, Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002); Manpower Demonstration
Research Corporation, New Strategies to Promote Stable Employment and
Career Progression: An Introduction to the Employment Retention and
Advancement Project (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, February
2002); data from Department of Labor.
[A] These states were awarded DOL System-Building Incumbent Worker
Demonstration Grants, June 1998, but returned all (West Virginia) or
did not accept (New York) the funds.
In each state, we interviewed state officials responsible for workforce
development and economic development. We also interviewed state
officials responsible for TANF funds used for education and training to
obtain information about training for low-wage workers. To identify
these state officials, we initially called the state contact for the
WIA program. These officials then provided us with the names of
officials or their designees who represented workforce development and
economic development perspectives in their state. We similarly
identified state officials responsible for TANF funds used for
education and training. Since states structure their programs and
funding differently, sometimes state officials we interviewed were
located in different agencies while others were located in different
offices within the same agency. For this reason we used the term
’office“ throughout the report to represent their different
perspectives.
We used survey specialists in designing our interview questions and
pretested them in several states to ensure that they were clear and
could be understood by those we interviewed. In our interviews, we
asked state officials for information about training efforts for the
program year 2000, which ended on June 30, 2001, and asked if there
were any significant changes in program year 2001, which ended June
30, 2002. Our interviews with state officials were conducted between
March and October 2002. In analyzing our interview responses from
state officials, we calculated frequencies in various ways for all
close-ended questions and arrayed and analyzed narrative responses
thematically for further interpretation. We did not independently
verify data, although we reviewed the interview responses for
inconsistencies.
Site Visits:
To obtain in-depth information about the challenges that local
officials have experienced in developing and implementing training
programs specifically for low-wage workers, and promising approaches
they identified to address these challenges, we made site visits to
four states-Florida, Minnesota, Oregon, and Texas. We selected these
four states for site visits to provide geographic dispersion and
because federal and state officials and other experts had identified
these states as having specific efforts for training employed workers,
especially initiatives to help low-wage workers retain employment and
advance in their jobs. Furthermore, each of the four states received
federal HHS Employment Retention and Advancement grants. In our view,
these demonstration grants served as indications of the state‘s
interest in supporting job retention and advancement, including
training, for low-wage workers. We visited a minimum of two localities
in each state, representing a mix of urban and rural areas in most
cases. We chose local sites in each state on the basis of
recommendations from state officials about training initiatives with a
low-wage focus. Teams of at least three people spent from 2 to 4 days
in each state. Typically, we interviewed local officials, including
employers, one-stop staff, local workforce board staff, and training
providers such as community colleges and private training
organizations. We toured training facilities and observed workers and
students receiving training. We also obtained and reviewed relevant
documents from those we interviewed. (See table 3.):
Table 3: Site Visit States and Locations:
State: Florida; Local sites: Jacksonville; Palatka.
State: Minnesota; Local sites: Minneapolis; Shakopee, Chaska.
State: Oregon; Local sites: Portland; Clackamas County.
State: Texas; Local sites: Ft. Worth, Dallas; Kilgore, Tyler.
[End of table]
Source: GAO.
We reviewed surveys and telephone interview responses for consistency
but we did not otherwise verify the information provided in the
responses. Our work was conducted between October 2001 and December
2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Workforce Boards‘ Survey Information:
Table 4: Local Workforce Boards‘ Survey Response Rate and Number
Targeting Funds for Employed Worker Training:
State: Alabama; Total
surveys
sent: 3; Total
surveys
returned: 3; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 33.
State: Alaska; Total
surveys
sent: 2; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 50.
State: Arizona; Total
surveys
sent: 16; Total
surveys
returned: 14; Percentage
returned: 88; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 7.
State: Arkansas; Total
surveys
sent: 10; Total
surveys
returned: 9; Percentage
returned: 90; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 2; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 22.
State: California; Total
surveys
sent: 51; Total
surveys
returned: 44; Percentage
returned: 86; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 16; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 36.
State: Colorado; Total
surveys
sent: 9; Total
surveys
returned: 8; Percentage
returned: 89; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 50.
State: Connecticut; Total
surveys
sent: 8; Total
surveys
returned: 8; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 6; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 75.
State: Delaware; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: District of Columbia; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Florida; Total
surveys
sent: 24; Total
surveys
returned: 21; Percentage
returned: 88; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 15; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 71.
State: Georgia; Total
surveys
sent: 19; Total
surveys
returned: 9; Percentage
returned: 47; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 11.
State: Hawaii; Total
surveys
sent: 4; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 50; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 50.
State: Idaho; Total
surveys
sent: 6; Total
surveys
returned: 5; Percentage
returned: 83; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 20.
State: Illinois; Total
surveys
sent: 26; Total
surveys
returned: 19; Percentage
returned: 73; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Indiana; Total
surveys
sent: 16; Total
surveys
returned: 10; Percentage
returned: 63; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 40.
State: Iowa; Total
surveys
sent: 16; Total
surveys
returned: 15; Percentage
returned: 94; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 2; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 13.
State: Kansas; Total
surveys
sent: 5; Total
surveys
returned: 4; Percentage
returned: 80; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Kentucky; Total
surveys
sent: 11; Total
surveys
returned: 9; Percentage
returned: 82; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 11.
State: Louisiana; Total
surveys
sent: 18; Total
surveys
returned: 15; Percentage
returned: 83; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 5; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 33.
State: Maine; Total
surveys
sent: 4; Total
surveys
returned: 4; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 25.
State: Maryland; Total
surveys
sent: 12; Total
surveys
returned: 7; Percentage
returned: 58; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 3; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 43.
State: Massachusetts; Total
surveys
sent: 16; Total
surveys
returned: 13; Percentage
returned: 81; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 9; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 69.
State: Michigan; Total
surveys
sent: 25; Total
surveys
returned: 20; Percentage
returned: 80; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 5; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 25.
State: Minnesota; Total
surveys
sent: 16; Total
surveys
returned: 15; Percentage
returned: 94; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 27.
State: Mississippi; Total
surveys
sent: 6; Total
surveys
returned: 4; Percentage
returned: 67; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 25.
State: Missouri; Total
surveys
sent: 14; Total
surveys
returned: 14; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 29.
State: Montana; Total
surveys
sent: 2; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Nebraska; Total
surveys
sent: 3; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 67; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Nevada; Total
surveys
sent: 2; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 2; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 100.
State: New Hampshire; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 100.
State: New Jersey; Total
surveys
sent: 17; Total
surveys
returned: 13; Percentage
returned: 76; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 5; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 38.
State: New Mexico; Total
surveys
sent: 4; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 50; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 50.
State: New York; Total
surveys
sent: 33; Total
surveys
returned: 21; Percentage
returned: 64; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 15; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 71.
State: North Carolina; Total
surveys
sent: 23; Total
surveys
returned: 15; Percentage
returned: 65; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 2; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 13.
State: North Dakota; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Ohio; Total
surveys
sent: 8; Total
surveys
returned: 3; Percentage
returned: 38; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 33.
State: Oklahoma; Total
surveys
sent: 12; Total
surveys
returned: 11; Percentage
returned: 92; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 9.
State: Oregon; Total
surveys
sent: 7; Total
surveys
returned: 6; Percentage
returned: 86; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 67.
State: Pennsylvania; Total
surveys
sent: 22; Total
surveys
returned: 17; Percentage
returned: 77; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 10; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 59.
State: Puerto Rico; Total
surveys
sent: 15; Total
surveys
returned: 8; Percentage
returned: 53; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 50.
State: Rhode Island; Total
surveys
sent: 2; Total
surveys
returned: 2; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 2; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 100.
State: South Carolina; Total
surveys
sent: 12; Total
surveys
returned: 12; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 10; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 83.
State: South Dakota; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 100.
State: Tennessee; Total
surveys
sent: 13; Total
surveys
returned: 13; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 7; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 54.
State: Texas; Total
surveys
sent: 28; Total
surveys
returned: 23; Percentage
returned: 82; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 10; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 43.
State: Utah; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Vermont; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 1; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 100.
State: Virginia; Total
surveys
sent: 17; Total
surveys
returned: 13; Percentage
returned: 76; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 2; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 15.
State: Washington; Total
surveys
sent: 12; Total
surveys
returned: 10; Percentage
returned: 83; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 10; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 100.
State: West Virginia; Total
surveys
sent: 7; Total
surveys
returned: 6; Percentage
returned: 86; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 3; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 50.
State: Wisconsin; Total
surveys
sent: 11; Total
surveys
returned: 7; Percentage
returned: 64; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted funds
for employed worker training: 4; Percentage of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 57.
State: Wyoming; Total
surveys
sent: 1; Total
surveys
returned: 1; Percentage
returned: 100; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 0; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 0.
State: Totals; Total
surveys
sent: 595; Total
surveys
returned: 470; Percentage
returned: 79%; Of surveys returned, number of boards that targeted
funds for employed worker training: 184; Percentage of boards that
targeted funds for employed worker training: 39%.
[End of table]
Source: GAO survey of local workforce boards in the 50 United States,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, August 2002.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Information on State Funding Sources:
Table 5: Funding Sources Identified by Officials in 16 States That Were
Budgeted or Spent for Employed Worker Training for WIA Program Years
2000 and/or 2001:
State: California; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: [Empty]; Welfare-
to-work: P; State general revenue funds: [Empty]; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: P; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: a; H-
1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Florida; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: [Empty]; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS:
a; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Hawaii; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: [Empty]; H-1B:
grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Illinois; WIA 15% state set aside: [Empty]; TANF: [Empty];
Welfare-to-work: P; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS:
P; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Indiana; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: P; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: [Empty]; H-1B:
grant: [Empty]; Other: P.
State: Louisiana; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
P; State general revenue funds: [Empty]; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: P; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: [Empty]; H-1B:
grant: [Empty]; Other: P.
State: Minnesota; WIA 15% state set aside: [Empty]; TANF: P; Welfare-
to-work: [Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS:
a; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Montana; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: [Empty]; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS:
[Empty]; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: P.
State: New Hampshire; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-
work: [Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: P; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: P; H-
1B: grant: P; Other: [Empty].
State: New York; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: a; H-1B:
grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Oregon; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: [Empty]; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS:
P; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: P.
State: Pennsylvania; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-
work: P; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: [Empty]; H-1B:
grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Tennessee; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: [Empty]; Welfare-
to-work: [Empty]; State general revenue funds: [Empty]; Funds related
to unemployment insurance: P; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: a;
H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Texas; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: P; Welfare-to-work:
[Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: P; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: P; H-1B: grant:
[Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: Utah; WIA 15% state set aside: [Empty]; TANF: [Empty]; Welfare-
to-work: [Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related to
unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS:
[Empty]; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: [Empty].
State: West Virginia; WIA 15% state set aside: P; TANF: [Empty];
Welfare-to-work: [Empty]; State general revenue funds: P; Funds related
to unemployment insurance: [Empty]; Demonstration: grants -Labor or
HHS: [Empty]; H-1B: grant: [Empty]; Other: P.
State: Total number
of states; WIA 15% state set aside: 13; TANF: 11; Welfare-to-work: 4;
State general revenue funds: 10; Funds related to unemployment
insurance: 6; Demonstration: grants -Labor or HHS: 4; H-1B: grant: 1;
Other: 5.
[End of table]
Source: Analysis of GAO interviews with state officials in 16 states.
[A] While these states were awarded Employment Retention and
Advancement grants from HHS, state officials we contacted did not
identify these grants as sources of funding for employed worker
training.
[End of section]
Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services:
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES:
ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES Office of the Assistant
Secretary, Suite 60C 370 LEnfant Promenade, S.W. Washington, D.C.
20447:
DATE: February 4, 2003:
TO: Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director:
Education, Workforce, Income Security U.S. General Accounting Office:
FROM: Wade F. Horn, Ph.D. Assistant Secretary:
for Children and Families:
SUBJECT:Comments on the GAO Draft Report: ’WORKFORCE TRAINING: Employed
Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised Performance
Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers“ (GAO-03-353):
The Administration for Children and Families has reviewed and is
providing general comments on the GAO Draft Report: ’WORKFORCE
TRAINING: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised
Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.“ We concur
with the information provided in this document.
If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mack
Storrs, National Expert/Policy Advisor, Office of Family Assistance, on
(202) 401-9289.
Attachment:
COMMENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES ON THE GAO
DRAFT REPORT: ’WORKFORCE TRAINING: EMPLOYED WORKER PROGRAMS FOCUS ON
BUSINESS NEEDS BUT REVISED PERFORMANCE MEASURES COULD IMPROVE ACCESS
FOR SOME WORKERS“ (GAO-03-353).
General Comments:
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the General Accounting Office‘s (GAO) draft
report on workforce training programs for employed workers.
The methodology is based on a mail survey of all local workforce
investment boards, telephone interviews with 16 States and on-site
visits in four States. The report describes the extent to which local
workforce boards under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) and State
agencies under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)
program provide training assistance to employed workers. The report
also describes the focus of employed worker training, challenges to
such training and innovative approaches to address the personal issues
the low-wage workers face to participate in training. The GAO found
that two-thirds of the local workforce boards help train employed
workers and all 1.6 States fund training to help low-wage workers
retain jobs, increase wages and achieve career advancement. Community
or technical colleges are often used to provide occupational training
to upgrade needed skills.
The GAO findings are consistent with State-reported data and anecdotal
information obtained by ACF. Increasingly, States are expanding on the
post-employment services offered to current and former TANF clients.
Providing training to current and former low-wage TANF clients is often
critical to help them rise out of poverty and become economically
independent. ACF is committed to identifying what works and ensuring
that more resources are devoted to helping States identify and
implement effective practices_ The information in GAO‘s report will
help States develop and enhance appropriate worker training programs,
and provide services and supports that address the barriers to such
training.
GAO Recommendation:
GAO provided no specific recommendations for the TANF program.
Agency Comment:
As indicated in our general comments, ACF concurs with the information
provided.
[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:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues U.S. General
Accounting Office 441 G Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the GAO draft report 03-
353, ’Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs, but Revised
Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.“:
The study objectives were to determine: 1) The extent to which local
areas and states provide assistance to train employed workers including
funds for training; 2) the focus of such training efforts and the kind
of training provided; and 3) when targeting training to low wage
workers, the approaches state and local officials identified to address
challenges in training this population. The draft report recommendation
on page 31 goes to the issue of addressing challenges in training this
population.
The report recommends that the Secretary of Labor ’review the current
WIA measure for change in the adult average earnings to ensure that
this measure does not provide disincentives for serving employed
workers.“ The recommendation further suggests that Labor might consider
having separate average earnings gains measures for employed workers.
We agree with the GAO recommendation to review the performance measure
on earnings gains for incumbent workers with an eye towards eliminating
unintended disincentives. In May 2002, through a competitive
procurement prior to the issuance of GAO‘s draft report, the Employment
and Training Administration engaged Social Policy Research Associates
to conduct an ’Evaluation of the WIA Performance Measurement System.“
The major goals of the evaluation are to determine the effectiveness of
measures and strategies that are in place, and to identify alternatives
that might more effectively accomplish the aims of the performance
measurement system. One of the objectives of the evaluation is to
determine the intended and unintended consequences of the performance
measurement system.
GAO‘s suggestion to have separate measures on earnings gains for
incumbent workers will be an option for DOL consideration in making
improvements to WIA performance. This input, together with the findings
from the evaluation, will be used in ETA‘s continuing review of the
performance measures of the workforce investment system.
If additional information is required, please don‘t hesitate to contact
me at (202) 693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by Emily Stover DeRocco:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of section]
Appendix VI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Sigurd R. Nilsen, Director (202) 512-7215
Joan T. Mahagan, Assistant Director (617) 565-7532:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Natalie S. Britton, Ramona L. Burton, Betty S. Clark, Anne Kidd, and
Deborah A. Signer made significant contributions to this report, in all
aspects of the work throughout the assignment. In addition, Elizabeth
Kaufman and Janet McKelvey assisted during the information-gathering
segment of the assignment. Jessica Botsford, Carolyn Boyce, Stuart M.
Kaufman, Corinna A. Nicolaou, and Susan B. Wallace also provided key
technical assistance.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
High-Skill Training: Grants from H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce
Needs, but at Varying Skill Levels. GAO-02-881. Washington, D.C.:
September 20, 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 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.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
Over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Implementation Status and the Integration of
TANF Services. GAO-/T-HEHS-00-145. Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000.
Welfare Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States‘ Use of Welfare-
to-Work Grants. GAO/HEHS-99-40. Washington, D.C.: February 5, 1999.
FOOTNOTES
[1] We administered the survey to local workforce investment board
directors in the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico.
[2] Although it is possible that state offices other than those we
contacted could also use some TANF funds to support training for
employed workers, contacting additional offices was outside of the
scope of our work.
[3] A program year under WIA begins on July 1 of a year and ends on
June 30 of the following year. A program year is designated by the year
in which it begins. Thus program year 2000 began on July 1, 2000, and
ended on June 30, 2001.
[4] Pub. L. No. 105-220 (1998). WIA is administered and funded at the
federal level through the Department of Labor and traditionally
administered through a state‘s workforce structure.
[5] Pub. L. No. 104-193 (1996). TANF block grants to states were
created under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act of 1996. TANF grants are administered and funded at
the federal level through the Department of Health and Human Services
and are generally part of a state‘s human services structure.
[6] In certain limited situations, dislocated worker funds can be used
to provide services to employed workers as long as they meet WIA‘s
definition of a dislocated worker.
[7] For training current workers, Labor refers to training using WIA
local funding as employed worker training and training using WIA state
set-aside funds as incumbent worker training, to distinguish between
the two funding sources. For the purposes of this report, however, we
refer to all training provided to current workers as employed worker
training.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act: Better
Guidance and Revised Funding Formula Would Enhance Dislocated Worker
Program, GAO-02-274 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 11, 2002).
[9] Workforce development activities are coordinated through state and
local workforce investment boards--the majority of board members must
come from the private sector. The governor certifies local boards to,
among other duties, select one-stop operators.
[10] The $121.6 million in fiscal year 2000 expenditures for education
and training includes TANF funds available from fiscal years 1997,
1998, 1999, and 2000.
[11] U.S. General Accounting Office, Workforce Investment Act:
Implementation Status and the Integration of TANF Services, GAO/
T-HEHS-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2000) and Workforce
Investment Act: Coordination between TANF Programs and One-Stop Centers
Is Increasing, but Challenges Remain, GAO-02-500T (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 12, 2002).
[12] Six states--Idaho, Mississippi, Ohio, South Dakota, Utah, and
Wyoming--did not participate in the welfare-to-work state formula grant
program. These states chose not to participate for various reasons,
including concerns about their ability to provide state matching funds.
Most states had at least one local service organization that received
competitive grant funds. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Welfare
Reform: Status of Awards and Selected States‘ Use of Welfare-to-Work
Grants, GAO/HEHS-99-40 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 5, 1999).
[13] States were not required to provide matching funds for this grant
but only 29 states applied--several did not use their grant funds or
returned a part of the grant award.
[14] The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan social policy research organization.
[15] Pub. L. No. 105-277 (1998).
[16] The fee for employers who apply for H-1B visa workers expires on
September 30, 2003.
[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Skill Training: Grants from
H-1B Visa Fees Meet Specific Workforce Needs, but at Varying Skill
Levels, GAO-02-881 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2002).
[18] National Governors‘ Association Center for Best Practices, Lessons
from State Demonstration Projects: A Guide to Incumbent Worker Training
(Washington, D.C., 1999) and A Comprehensive Look at State-Funded,
Employer-Focused Job Training Programs (Washington, D.C., 1999).
[19] Our survey asked local workforce boards to identify if they had,
since July 1, 2000, budgeted or spent any funding, including funding
from federal, state, local or other sources, to target training for
employed workers. Other than asking for some general funding
information, economic sectors or industry clusters targeted, types of
training, and providers for employed worker training, we did not ask
the boards to further describe how the funds were spent. Some
respondents did, however, provide additional comments on their efforts
to provide employed worker training.
[20] For additional information on the number of boards, by state, that
targeted funds for training employed workers, see app. II.
[21] The mission of lifelong learning in this context is to develop the
skills that workers need to meet current and future work demands. In
Indiana, this program was designed to provide financial assistance to
companies and organizations committed to expanding the skills of their
existing workers.
[22] In our mail survey, year 2000 referred to the program year
beginning July 1, 2000, and ending June 30, 2001; year 2001 referred to
the program year July 1, 2001, to the time that the survey was
completed--either several weeks prior to the end of the program year or
the end of that year, June 30, 2002. The surveys were mailed on April
24, 2002, and the survey was closed on August 16, 2002.
[23] In obtaining information from states and local boards on economic
sectors, we used the terms for these sectors as defined under the new
North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which replaced
the previous industry classification system starting in 1997. NAICS
groups industries into 20 broad economic sectors, several of which are
new. Two of these new sectors are Information, consisting of 34
industries that produce information and cultural products, disseminate
information or products, and process data; and Health Care and Social
Assistance, consisting of 39 industries, most of them new, such as
diagnostic imaging centers and community food services.
[24] In addition to occupational skills and basic skills training,
states frequently identified conflict resolution/team building/
negotiation (14 of 16 states) and productivity enhancement or quality
assurance training (14 of 16 states) as types of training they funded.
This emphasis may reflect the historic focus of states‘ economic
development offices on skills training that fosters economic
competitiveness and growth.
[25] According to the state official we interviewed, a small portion of
the unemployment insurance fund is allocated to the department‘s job
skills training initiative. If the trust fund falls below $750 million,
this money is not allocated to training. Since January 2002, no
unemployment insurance funds were allocated to training since the fund
has fallen below that level.
[26] Vocational ESL refers to a type of English language training for
speakers whose language is not English that focuses on vocabulary used
in specific vocations. For example, vocational ESL for a certified
nursing assistant would focus on medical terminology.
[27] In this report, we noted that, as a result, only individuals who
are most likely to be successful might be served. In addition, 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. 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).
[28] See GAO-02-275.
[29] This includes Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia.
[30] Workforce Investment Act: Youth Provisions Promote New Service
Strategies, but Additional Guidance Would Enhance Program Development,
GAO-02-413 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 2002).
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:
