Workforce Investment Act
Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient Gao ID: GAO-05-54 December 14, 2004The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 includes provisions intended to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs and activities offered through one-stop career centers (one-stops). But little is known, and questions have been raised, about how well this system is working for persons with disabilities. This report examines (1) what the Department of Labor (Labor), states, and the one-stops have done to facilitate comprehensive access to the WIA one-stop system; (2) the various relationships that the one-stops have established with disability-related agencies to provide services to persons with disabilities; (3) what Labor has done to ensure that the one-stops are meeting the comprehensive access requirements, and the factors that have affected efforts to ensure compliance; and (4) what is known about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities who use the one-stop system.
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access, which is defined in this report as providing people with disabilities the equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs, activities, and/or employment offered by the WIA one-stop system. States and local areas have used these grants for a range of efforts, including increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with disabilities. During our site visits to 18 local areas and one-stops, we found that officials at most sites were working to implement architectural access requirements. Moreover, local areas and one-stops varied in the degree to which they had addressed other areas of comprehensive access. For example, a few sites had only begun to acquire assistive technology devices; other sites had assistive technology and had trained some or all of their staff in how to use it. One-stops have established various relationships to provide services to persons with disabilities. The structure of the one-stops' relationships with state vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs varied, as did the extent to which they have formed relationships with disability-related service providers other than VR. A few local areas and one-stops primarily formed relationships with VR, while others had also formed relationships with community-based disability organizations. Although Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access to one-stops, these efforts may not be sufficient. Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), Civil Rights Center (CRC), and Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) have issued guidance and assistance on the regulatory requirements. CRC also has conducted on-site reviews at local areas and one-stops in two large metropolitan areas in two states. In both areas, CRC identified instances of noncompliance with these requirements. Reviews in two other states will be completed during fiscal year 2005, but Labor has not developed a long-range plan for how it will carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities beyond 2005. To date, CRC's monitoring and enforcement efforts account for less than 2 percent of the total number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. The CRC Director stated that she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct additional on-site reviews. The information that Labor publishes on employment outcomes for people with disabilities is limited for a variety of reasons. Disclosure about disability status is voluntary, thus the information about employment outcomes may be misleading. The collection of information on the employment outcomes of WIA participants is limited to those who are registered for services, and one-stops are not required to register customers who participate in self-service or informational activities. The performance measurement system may result in customers being denied services because local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded services to job seekers who may be less likely to find employment.
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-05-54, Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-54
entitled 'Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to
Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These
Efforts May Not Be Sufficient' which was released on December 14, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2004:
WORKFORCE INVESTMENT ACT:
Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops for
Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient:
GAO-05-54:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-54, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 includes provisions intended
to ensure that people with disabilities have equal opportunity to
participate in and benefit from the programs and activities offered
through one-stop career centers (one-stops). But little is known, and
questions have been raised, about how well this system is working for
persons with disabilities. This report examines (1) what the Department
of Labor (Labor), states, and the one-stops have done to facilitate
comprehensive access to the WIA one-stop system; (2) the various
relationships that the one-stops have established with disability-
related agencies to provide services to persons with disabilities; (3)
what Labor has done to ensure that the one-stops are meeting the
comprehensive access requirements, and the factors that have affected
efforts to ensure compliance; and (4) what is known about the
employment outcomes of persons with disabilities who use the one-stop
system.
What GAO Found:
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access, which is
defined in this report as providing people with disabilities the equal
opportunity to participate in and benefit from the programs,
activities, and/or employment offered by the WIA one-stop system.
States and local areas have used these grants for a range of efforts,
including increasing staff capacity to provide services to persons with
disabilities. During our site visits to 18 local areas and one-stops,
we found that officials at most sites were working to implement
architectural access requirements. Moreover, local areas and one-stops
varied in the degree to which they had addressed other areas of
comprehensive access. For example, a few sites had only begun to
acquire assistive technology devices; other sites had assistive
technology and had trained some or all of their staff in how to use it.
One-stops have established various relationships to provide services to
persons with disabilities. The structure of the one-stops‘
relationships with state vocational rehabilitation (VR) programs
varied, as did the extent to which they have formed relationships with
disability-related service providers other than VR. A few local areas
and one-stops primarily formed relationships with VR, while others had
also formed relationships with community-based disability
organizations.
Although Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access
to one-stops, these efforts may not be sufficient. Labor‘s Employment
and Training Administration (ETA), Civil Rights Center (CRC), and
Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) have issued guidance and
assistance on the regulatory requirements. CRC also has conducted on-
site reviews at local areas and one-stops in two large metropolitan
areas in two states. In both areas, CRC identified instances of
noncompliance with these requirements. Reviews in two other states will
be completed during fiscal year 2005, but Labor has not developed a
long-range plan for how it will carry out its oversight and enforcement
responsibilities beyond 2005. To date, CRC‘s monitoring and enforcement
efforts account for less than 2 percent of the total number of local
areas and one-stops nationwide. The CRC Director stated that she had
not yet determined whether CRC would conduct additional on-site
reviews.
The information that Labor publishes on employment outcomes for people
with disabilities is limited for a variety of reasons. Disclosure about
disability status is voluntary, thus the information about employment
outcomes may be misleading. The collection of information on the
employment outcomes of WIA participants is limited to those who are
registered for services, and one-stops are not required to register
customers who participate in self-service or informational activities.
The performance measurement system may result in customers being denied
services because local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded
services to job seekers who may be less likely to find employment.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that Labor develop and implement a long-term plan for
ensuring that the one-stops comply with the comprehensive access
requirements. In developing such a plan, Labor should use the expertise
of staff from CRC, ETA, and ODEP. Labor generally agreed with our
recommendation and said that even more could be done to ensure
comprehensive access within the one-stop system.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-54.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Sigurd Nilsen at (202)
512-7215 or nilsens@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Labor, Local Areas, and One-Stops Have Made Various Efforts and Degrees
of Progress in Facilitating Access:
One-Stops and Disability Agencies Have Established Various
Relationships to Serve Persons with Disabilities:
Labor Has Taken Actions to Ensure That One-Stops Comply with Access
Requirements, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient:
Information on Employment Outcomes Is Limited:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Labor:
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO's Related Products:
Tables:
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory One-Stop Partner Programs and Related Federal
Agencies:
Table 2: Work Incentive Grants: 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004:
Table 3: Selected Types of Auxiliary Aids and Services:
Table 4: Co-location Status of VR Staff in the One-Stops We Visited:
Figure:
Figure 1: GAO Site Visits to Local Areas and One-Stop Centers:
Abbreviations:
ADAAG: Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for
Buildings and Facilities:
CRC: Civil Rights Center:
ETA: Employment and Training Administration:
EO: equal opportunity:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
JTPA: Job Training Partnership Act:
MOA: Methods of Administration:
ODEP: Office of Disability Employment Policy:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
TDD: telecommunications device for the deaf:
TTY: text telephone:
UFAS: Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards:
VR: Vocational Rehabilitation:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
WIG: Work Incentive Grant:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 14, 2004:
The Honorable Judd Gregg, Chairman:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Tom Harkin:
United States Senate:
The ability to engage in productive employment is the cornerstone of
the American workforce system, and the programs and services provided
through the Workforce Investment Act (WIA) of 1998 are intended for
persons with and without disabilities. WIA unifies previously
fragmented employment and training programs and creates a more
comprehensive workforce investment system by bringing together over $15
billion of federally funded programs into a single service delivery
system--the one-stop center system. WIA requires about 17 programs to
provide services through the one-stop system, including the Department
of Education's Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program, which provides
services to eligible individuals with disabilities. The Department of
Labor (Labor) is responsible for providing general leadership and
guidance to the one-stop system. Within Labor, the Civil Rights Center
(CRC) and the Employment and Training Administration (ETA) each have a
role in ensuring that people with disabilities can participate in and
benefit from the programs and services provided through the one-stop
system. Additionally, Labor's Office of Disability Employment Policy
(ODEP) has a role in increasing employment opportunities for people
with disabilities.
Section 188 of WIA, among other things, prohibits discrimination on the
basis of disability with respect to the programs funded or otherwise
financially assisted under WIA. Labor's regulations implementing WIA
Section 188 include specific provisions intended to ensure that persons
with mobility, mental health, hearing, vision, speech, cognitive, or
other impairments have equal opportunity to participate in or be
employed by the programs and activities offered through the one-stop
system. These regulations encompass provisions that oblige recipients
of WIA financial assistance to take positive actions to provide people
with disabilities the equal opportunity to participate in and benefit
from the programs, activities, and/or employment offered by the one-
stop system. For the purpose of this report, we use the term
comprehensive access when referring to these requirements. These
requirements include actions such as providing architectural access,
program accessibility, reasonable accommodations or modifications,
service delivery in integrated settings, and effective communication.
Labor's regulations also include provisions prohibiting covered
recipients of federal financial assistance from taking discriminatory
actions that exclude people with disabilities from participating in the
programs, activities, or employment offered by the one-stop career
center system, and provisions requiring recipients to establish the
administrative structure that CRC views as necessary in order to ensure
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for members of all groups
protected by Section 188 of WIA.
Despite the requirements contained in these provisions, little is known
about how well the one-stop system is working for people with
disabilities. As a result, you asked us to examine (1) what Labor,
states, and the one-stop centers have done to facilitate comprehensive
access to the WIA one-stop system; (2) the various relationships that
the one-stop centers have established with disability-related agencies
to provide services to persons with disabilities; (3) what Labor has
done to ensure that the one-stop centers are meeting the comprehensive
access requirements, and the factors that have affected efforts to
ensure compliance; and (4) what is known about the employment outcomes
of persons with disabilities who use the one-stop system.
To address these issues, we interviewed officials at Labor, and we
conducted document reviews of Labor's Work Incentive Grants (WIG) and
the Disability Program Navigator (Navigator) grants.[Footnote 1] The
Work Incentive Grants are designed to enhance the employment and career
advancement of people with disabilities. The Navigator grants are
intended to increase employment and self-sufficiency of people with
disabilities. We used information obtained from these grants to help
select which states, local areas, and full-service one-stop career
centers (one-stops) to visit. We selected these states on the basis of
geographical dispersion, as well as whether they received one or more
types of grants, if any. We conducted site visits to six states--
California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Mexico, and
Tennessee. We visited three local workforce investment areas (local
areas) and associated one-stop centers in each of these states. After
discussions with WIA officials within the six states, we selected the
local areas and one-stop centers to obtain both urban and suburban
centers and, where possible, one-stop centers in small towns or rural
areas. Figure 1 shows the 18 locations we visited. At the local
workforce investment area and one-stop centers, we interviewed WIA
officials, one-stop staff, and officials from organizations
representing people with disabilities about issues and practices for
providing programs, services, and activities to individuals with
disabilities. Additionally, we reviewed relevant documents from Labor,
as well as the WIA statute and regulations and other relevant statutory
and regulatory provisions.
Figure 1: GAO Site Visits to Local Areas and One-Stop Centers:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
While WIA and its implementing regulations require that persons with
disabilities can use the one-stop facilities and participate in and
benefit from the system's programs, activities, and services, we did
not assess the extent to which the approximately 1,900 one-stops,
located in about 600 local areas nationwide, meet the comprehensive
access requirements. Determining whether a particular site meets
architectural access standards is fairly straightforward, but this is
not the case with determining whether other comprehensive access
requirements have been met. While many of the elements of these
requirements, such as provision of assistive technology devices, are
described in existing regulations, the regulations allow one-stops to
use a variety of methods to meet the requirements. Because there is no
one list of methods that covers all paths to comprehensive
accessibility, it is a complex and resource-intensive task to determine
whether the comprehensive access requirements have been met.
Determining whether a single one-stop center is in compliance with
these requirements requires both on-site observations of the facility
and its equipment, as well as extensive document reviews and interviews
with one-stop staff. Determining whether one-stops are in compliance
with comprehensive access requirements on a nationwide basis was beyond
the scope of this study.
We conducted our work between September 2003 and October 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access to
employment and training programs for persons with disabilities, and
local areas and one-stop centers have also made numerous efforts, as
well as various degrees of progress, in facilitating comprehensive
access to their programs and services. Specifically, Labor's Employment
and Training Administration has awarded states and local entities over
100 grants totaling $80 million for disability-related activities, such
as enhancing comprehensive access to the one-stops. States and local
areas have used these grants for a range of efforts, including
assessing one-stop architectural accessibility, acquiring assistive
technology devices, and increasing staff capacity to provide services
to persons with disabilities. During our site visits to 18 local areas
and their one-stops, we found that officials in most sites were working
to implement architectural access requirements. Some of these officials
told us that they had made at least some changes to improve
architectural access. For example, some changes included installing
signage and electric door openers. However, we found that the local
areas and one-stops we visited varied in the degree to which they had
addressed other comprehensive access concerns. For example, a few sites
had only begun to acquire assistive technology devices, while other
sites had assistive technology devices and had trained some or all of
their staff in how to use them.
One-stops, VR, and other disability-related agencies in the community
have established various relationships to provide services to persons
with disabilities. From our site visits, we found that the structure of
the one-stop centers' relationships with VR varied, particularly in
terms of whether co-location was occurring. While most of the one-stops
we visited had VR staff on-site at least part of the time, four of the
sites we visited had no on-site VR staff. Officials from the sites at
which full-or part-time co-location of VR staff was taking place said
that co-location was beneficial because, among other reasons, it helped
the one-stop staff provide faster and less fragmented services to
persons with disabilities. For those locations at which VR was not on-
site, officials told us that there were a variety of reasons for this,
such as a lack of space in the one-stop. The one-stop centers we
visited also varied in terms of the extent to which they formed
relationships with disability-related service providers other than VR.
In a few cases, local areas and one-stops primarily formed
relationships with VR. However, other local areas and one-stops we
visited had also formed relationships with one or more disability-
related organizations in the community, such as independent living
centers, mental health agencies, and cognitive/developmental
disability agencies. Officials from local areas and their one-stops, as
well as those from VR and community disability agencies, cited a range
of benefits to being able to refer their customers to one another for
services, when it was appropriate to do so. For example, some local
area and one-stop officials said the one-stop's relationship with VR
allowed the two agencies to combine their resources to maximize the
services they can provide to their customers.
Labor has taken several actions to ensure comprehensive access to one-
stops by persons with disabilities, but these efforts may not be
sufficient. For instance, Labor has not only funded grants, it has also
provided training in ways to facilitate comprehensive access in the
one-stop centers. Further, within Labor, CRC, along with ETA and ODEP,
has provided guidance and assistance to one-stops on accommodations and
other comprehensive access requirements. In addition, CRC has
responsibility for interpreting, monitoring, and enforcing WIA's
statutory and regulatory nondiscrimination, comprehensive access, and
administrative provisions. One key method Labor uses to ensure
adherence to these provisions has been to require that each state's
governor sign a plan, known as the Methods of Administration (MOA),
that describes the policies, procedures, and systems that each state
has established to ensure adherence with WIA's statutory and regulatory
requirements. In addition, in 2003, CRC completed its first phase of
on-site reviews at local workforce areas and one-stops in two large
metropolitan areas in two states, Miami/Dade County, Florida, and New
York City, New York. In both metropolitan areas it reviewed, CRC
identified instances of noncompliance with WIA's comprehensive access
and other requirements, including the existence of barriers limiting
services to persons with disabilities. On the basis of its findings,
CRC required the two states to provide it with written responses of the
corrective actions they planned to make. Further, in May 2004, the CRC
Director requested that all states complete, for themselves and their
largest local area, a self-assessment tool to assess compliance with
the requirements of WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations.
CRC anticipates using the information provided by the on-site reviews
and self-assessments to identify exemplary practices as well as areas
needing improvement. Although Labor has taken actions to address the
comprehensive access and other requirements for persons with
disabilities, these efforts may not be sufficient to ensure one-stop
system compliance. For instance, although CRC plans to complete on-site
reviews in two other large metropolitan areas in two states during
fiscal year 2005, it has not developed a long-range plan that describes
how it will carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities
beyond 2005. Currently, the CRC reviews that have been completed, or
are in process, represent less than 2 percent of the local areas and
one-stop centers nationwide. At the time of our review, the CRC
Director said that she had not yet determined whether CRC would conduct
additional on-site reviews.
Information about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities
is limited by the extent to which disability data are collected and
overall data collection methods under WIA. Although Labor publishes
some information on employment outcomes for people with disabilities in
areas such as job placement, employment retention, earnings change, and
skill attainment for the WIA-funded programs, this information is
limited for several reasons. One reason is that the information Labor
publishes on the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities is
limited to the subpopulation of persons with disabilities who disclose
their disability status, and therefore the employment outcomes may be
misleading for the total population of persons with disabilities
receiving services through WIA. Labor has issued guidance stating that
one-stops must inquire about disability status from job seekers upon
registration for services. Such inquiries must be asked of all job
seekers, but an individual's decision to disclose his or her disability
status must be completely voluntary. Further, the collection of
employment outcome information on WIA participants, including
information on individuals with disabilities, is limited to those
individuals who are registered for services. Current law does not
require that one-stops register job seekers who receive services that
are self-service and informational in nature, and thus they are not
included in the performance measures. Finally, the performance
measurement system developed under WIA may result in the denial of
services to some customers because performance levels are tied to
incentives and sanctions depending on whether states meet these levels.
Consequently, local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded
services to job seekers, including persons with disabilities, in
situations in which the persons may be unlikely to find employment or
experience an increase in earnings when placed in jobs. In a prior
report, we recommended that Labor develop a systematic method to
account for different populations and local economic conditions when
negotiating performance levels.[Footnote 2] Labor agreed with the
importance of taking economic conditions and characteristics of the
population into account when setting performance expectations and has
commissioned a study to address this issue.
To improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities to the
one-stop system, we recommend that Labor develop and implement a long-
term plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the
comprehensive access requirements for persons with disabilities. In
developing such a strategy, Labor should utilize the expertise of CRC,
ETA, and ODEP staff. In commenting on the draft of this report, Labor
generally agreed with our recommendation and said that even more could
be done to ensure comprehensive access within the one-stop system.
Background:
The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 requires states and localities to
bring together about 17 federally funded employment and training
services into a single system--the one-stop system. Funded through four
federal agencies, these programs, also known as the mandatory partner
programs (or more simply, mandatory partners),[Footnote 3] are to
provide services through a statewide network of one-stop career
centers. (See table 1.)
Table 1: WIA's Mandatory One-Stop Partner Programs and Related Federal
Agencies:
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: WIA Adult.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: WIA Dislocated Worker.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: WIA Youth.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Employment Service (Wagner-Peyser).
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Trade Adjustment Assistance
Programs.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Veterans' Employment and Training
Programs.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Unemployment Insurance.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Job Corps.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Welfare-to-Work Grant-Funded
Programs.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Senior Community Service Employment
Program.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Employment and Training for Migrant
and Seasonal Farm Workers.
Federal Agency: Department of Labor[A];
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Employment and Training for Native
Americans.
Federal Agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Vocational Rehabilitation Program.
Federal Agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Adult Education and Literacy.
Federal Agency: Department of Education;
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: Vocational Education (Perkins Act).
Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
Mandatory One- Stop Partner Program: Community Services Block Grant.
Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD);
Mandatory One-Stop Partner Program: HUD-administered Employment and
Training.
Source: GAO-04-657.
[A] Labor's Employment and Training Administration (ETA), in
collaboration with the partner programs, provides general leadership
and guidance to the one-stop system.
[End of table]
Three of these 17 programs, which were created and funded by Title I of
WIA to provide services to adults, dislocated workers, and youth,
replace those previously funded under the Job Training Partnership Act
(JTPA). The Department of Labor distributes funds for these three
programs to the states, and the states in turn distribute funds to
designated local areas within the states based on formulas prescribed
by WIA. WIA also established performance measures that states and
localities must track in order to demonstrate the programs'
effectiveness. The performance measures primarily focus on entered
employment rates, employment retention rates, earnings changes, and
credential rates.[Footnote 4]
WIA programs provide for three levels of services for adults and
dislocated workers: core, intensive, and training. Core services
include basic services such as job search and labor market information.
These activities may be self-service or may require some staff
assistance. Intensive services include such activities as comprehensive
assessment and case management, which require greater staff
involvement. Training services include such activities as occupational
skills training or on-the-job training.
WIA requires the establishment of workforce investment boards at the
state level and in local areas. The state boards are responsible for a
number of functions, including the development and improvement of the
statewide workforce investment system and the designation of local
areas. The state board assists in the preparation of the state plan and
the annual report, both of which are submitted to the Secretary of
Labor. The local workforce investment board sets policy for the local
area, and its specific duties include developing a comprehensive 5-year
local plan and selecting one-stop operators.
WIA contains a number of provisions to ensure that individuals with
disabilities are adequately served. The most important of these
provisions is Section 188, which prohibits any program or activity
funded or otherwise financially assisted in whole or part under WIA
from discriminating on the basis of disability as well as race, color,
religion, sex, national origin, age, or political affiliation or
belief.[Footnote 5]
To help states and local areas implement the Section 188 provisions,
the Department of Labor issued interim final regulations in November
1999.[Footnote 6] These regulations, which have the force of law,
describe requirements for the recipients of financial assistance under
WIA Title I, and for programs and activities operated by the one-stop
partners as part of the one-stop system.[Footnote 7] The regulations
also identify how recipients will be held accountable for ensuring
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity for individuals with
disabilities.
The WIA Section 188 regulations contain certain provisions that
prohibit recipients of WIA financial assistance from taking certain
discriminatory actions. For example, recipients must not:
* provide significant assistance to a person or entity that
discriminates in providing any aid, benefits, services, or training to
registrants, applicants, or participants;
* make a selection for the site or location of a facility that has a
discriminatory effect; or:
* impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to
screen out individuals with disabilities, unless such criteria are
necessary for the provision of the aid, benefit, service, training,
program, or activity being offered.
Further, WIA Section 188 regulations contain provisions that oblige
recipients to take certain positive actions to provide comprehensive
access to WIA programs and services. For example, these regulations
require some recipients of WIA financial assistance--those who are in
facilities or parts of facilities that are constructed or altered on
their behalf--to make those facilities architecturally accessible. In
contrast, recipients of WIA financial assistance who are in unaltered
existing facilities are not necessarily required to make those
facilities architecturally accessible, but are subject to other
requirements for accessibility, known as program access, which specify
that a recipient must operate each service, program, or activity so
that it, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and
usable by individuals with disabilities. Recipients of WIA financial
assistance do not have to make each of their existing facilities or
every part of an existing facility accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities, and can satisfy the accessibility
requirements for existing facilities by redesigning equipment,
reassigning services to accessible buildings, assigning aides to
beneficiaries, and providing home visits, among other options.
As part of providing comprehensive access, WIA Section 188 regulations
require recipients of WIA financial assistance to take a number of
additional actions when administering their programs or activities.
Under these provisions, recipients must:
* take steps to ensure that communications with individuals with
disabilities are as effective as communications with others, including
providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary;
* provide reasonable accommodation to qualified individuals with
disabilities who are applicants, registrants, or eligible applicants/
registrants for, or participants in, employees of, or applicants for,
employment with their programs and activities, unless providing the
accommodation would cause undue hardship;[Footnote 8]
* make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures,
unless making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of
the service, program, or activity;
* provide the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of
qualified individuals with disabilities; and:
* take appropriate steps, such as advertising and marketing, to ensure
that they are providing universal access to their WIA financially
assisted programs and activities.
The regulations also require recipients of WIA financial assistance to
establish an administrative structure so that they ensure compliance
with WIA's nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions. Each
recipient, except small recipients[Footnote 9] and service providers,
must designate an equal opportunity (EO) officer who is responsible for
ensuring that the recipient complies with Section 188 regulations. EO
officers' responsibilities include:
* monitoring and investigating activities by recipients of WIA
financial assistance to ensure that they do not violate WIA Section 188
regulations,
* reviewing written policies to ensure that those policies are
nondiscriminatory, and:
* developing and publishing the recipient's procedures for processing
discrimination complaints.
Recipients of WIA financial assistance must also provide written
notification that they do not discriminate on the basis of disability
or on other prohibited bases. This notification must be placed
prominently in the facility and distributed through other means. In
addition, recipients of WIA financial assistance must collect and
maintain data necessary to allow Labor to determine whether the
recipient is complying with Section 188 of WIA and the implementing
regulations. The Director of Labor's Civil Rights Center determines
which data are necessary.
Under WIA Section 188 regulations, the governor of each state is
responsible for, among other things:
* oversight of all WIA financially assisted state programs,
* ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188 and its implementing
regulations, and:
* negotiating with recipients to secure voluntary compliance when
noncompliance is found.
Moreover, both the Governor and the recipient of WIA financial
assistance are liable for all violations of Section 188 unless the
Governor has, among other things, established, signed, and adhered to
an MOA.[Footnote 10] The MOA must be in writing and describe how the
state programs and recipients of WIA financial assistance have
satisfied the requirements of certain regulatory provisions, including
those regarding people with disabilities.
In addition, the Director of Labor's CRC has oversight responsibilities
under the Section 188 regulations, which include:
* conducting compliance reviews,
* reviewing the activities of a governor, including the adequacy of the
MOA, and:
* investigating and resolving complaints alleging violations of Section
188.
As part of its oversight responsibility, CRC, with assistance from ETA
and ODEP, issued a compliance checklist on July 25, 2003, to ensure
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity to persons with disabilities
participating in WIA programs and activities. This checklist,
officially known as the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist,[Footnote
11] identifies the regulations implementing Section 188 of WIA,
including portions of the regulations implementing Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, and covers requirements applicable to local area
grant recipients regarding the operation of their programs and
activities. The checklist is based on the elements required by the MOA
and includes lists of questions for each element of the MOA. For some
of the elements, the questions are followed by examples of concrete
actions that can be taken to ensure compliance with Section 188
requirements. The appendix to the Checklist also includes additional
examples of policies, procedures, and other steps that local area grant
recipients can take to ensure compliance with Section 188.
Labor, Local Areas, and One-Stops Have Made Various Efforts and Degrees
of Progress in Facilitating Access:
Labor has awarded grants to facilitate comprehensive access to
employment and training programs for persons with disabilities, and
local areas and one-stop centers have also made numerous efforts, as
well as various degrees of progress, in facilitating comprehensive
access to their programs and services. Specifically, ETA has awarded
over 100 grants to states and local entities for disability-related
activities, such as enhancing comprehensive access to the one-stops.
States and local areas have used these grants for a range of efforts,
including assessing one-stop architectural accessibility, acquiring
assistive technology devices, and increasing staff capacity to provide
services to persons with disabilities.
Federal Grants Have Provided Funding to Facilitate One-Stop
Accessibility:
Between 2000 and 2004, ETA awarded state and local entities a total of
approximately $65 million in competitive Work Incentive Grants in order
to enhance one-stops' capacity to provide programs and services to
persons with disabilities, which included improving one-stop
accessibility. ETA awarded 113 grants in four rounds between 2000 and
2004. (See table 2.)
Table 2: Work Incentive Grants: 2000, 2002, 2003, and 2004:
Work Incentive Grants: First round (2000);
Total number of grants awarded: 23;
Total amount of grants awarded[A]: $20 million;
States in which grants were awarded[B]: Alaska, California, Florida,
Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington.
Work Incentive Grants: Second round (2002);
Total number of grants awarded: 23;
Total amount of grants awarded[A]: $20 million;
States in which grants were awarded[B]: California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin.
Work Incentive Grants: Third round (2003);
Total number of grants awarded: 42;
Total amount of grants awarded[A]: $17 million;
States in which grants were awarded[B]: Arizona, Arkansas, California,
DC, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington,
West Virginia.
Work Incentive Grants: Fourth round (2004);
Total number of grants awarded: 25;
Total amount of grants awarded[A]: $8 million;
States in which grants were awarded[B]: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas,
Virginia, Washington.
Total;
Total number of grants awarded: 113[C];
Total amount of grants awarded[A]: $65 million.
Source: GAO analysis of Labor's Work Incentive Grant information.
[A] The Work Incentive Grants are funded through Labor's annual
appropriation.
[B] Grants could either be statewide in scope, meaning that they
covered all local areas throughout the state, or local, meaning that
they covered a designated region within a state (such as a specific
local area). Although we are classifying grants by their state
affiliation, this does not necessarily indicate that all local areas
throughout the state benefited from the funds.
[C] In the first and second rounds, only one grant was awarded within
each state that received a grant. In the third and fourth rounds, more
than one grant was awarded within some states.
[End of table]
On the basis of its experience administering the first two rounds of
grants, ETA has targeted its specific grant objectives--and, therefore,
its resources--to meet the emerging needs that states, local areas, and
one-stops have identified in providing programs and services to persons
with disabilities. ETA's objectives for the early rounds of grants were
relatively broad, and as a result, grantees were permitted to use the
funds to undertake a range of activities, including:
* assessing one-stops' architectural accessibility;
* acquiring assistive technology devices;
* conducting outreach to the disability community;
* linking and coordinating with community disability-related agencies,
such as community mental health agencies and independent living
centers;
* training existing one-stop staff on disability issues; and:
* making available staff who have the experience, knowledge, and skills
necessary to address a broad range of disability-related issues.
By the third round of grants, in 2003, ETA had begun to focus its
priorities more narrowly--though not exclusively--on increasing the
capacity of one-stop staff to provide services to persons with
disabilities. According to the third round grant notice, previous
grantees had found that building staff capacity was successful in
improving overall service delivery in their one-stops. ETA officials
said that although they believe that building staff capacity will
enhance one-stops' progress toward making their services available to
persons with disabilities, they recognize that some one-stops may also
still need to address other issues, such as meeting the architectural
access requirements. In addition to targeting their grant objectives,
ETA officials said they plan to change the process by which they award
grants. ETA used a competitive process to award all four rounds of
grants, and as a result, according to ETA officials, some states or
local areas that needed grants may not have received them.[Footnote 12]
ETA officials said they plan to use a different process in the future,
which would allow them to target funding toward specific areas, such as
states that did not receive grants in the first four rounds and/or
states where they would like to intensify current grant activities.
ETA, in conjunction with the Social Security Administration (SSA),
which administers employment support programs for its disability
beneficiaries, has provided approximately $24 million to fund a
demonstration project focused on the establishment and training of one-
stop Disability Program Navigators.[Footnote 13] The Navigators' role
is to address the needs of persons with disabilities seeking to use the
one-stop system. Since July 2003, Navigator grants have been awarded in
a total of 17 states.[Footnote 14] At the time of our review, this
initiative had led to 221 Disability Program Navigators working in or
with one-stops in those states. As designed by ETA and SSA, in
collaboration with ODEP, Navigators are to provide expertise and serve
as a resource to one-stops as well as persons with disabilities. ETA
and SSA expected that Navigators would, in part, carry out many of the
same types of accessibility-related activities that were funded under
the initial Work Incentive Grants. The third and fourth rounds of the
Work Incentive Grants have led to the hiring of staff who can perform
functions similar to those of a Navigator. At the time of our review,
122 Navigator-like staff had been established through the Work
Incentive Grants. Eleven of the sites we visited had either Disability
Program Navigators or Work Incentive Grant Navigators. Some of the
Navigators we interviewed told us they had the following job
responsibilities:
* providing disability-related staff training;
* helping staff locate resources for specific persons with
disabilities, such as accommodations or services in the community;
* developing relationships with disability-related service providers,
such as VR and other community agencies; and:
* helping to ensure the accessibility of the one-stop, such as by
conducting accessibility assessments or developing accessibility
plans.
Local Areas and One-Stops Have Made Efforts to Facilitate Access to the
One-Stops' Services, but Progress Has Varied:
During our site visits, we found that local areas and one-stop centers
had made various efforts and degrees of progress in facilitating
comprehensive access to the one-stops' programs and services.
Specifically, we found the following:
Architectural access. Our site visits showed that most local area and
one-stop officials were working to implement architectural access
standards, which are required by the WIA Section 188 regulations.
Nearly all of the sites we visited had undergone at least one
architectural accessibility assessment within the last few years, and
the assessments were typically conducted by VR or other disability-
related agencies. Our review of these assessments showed that there
were often considerable differences in the degree of architectural
access that the locations had achieved. For example, some of the sites
had either no or few problems with regard to architectural access.
Other locations had a number of access-related problems, including
those related to parking, ramps, and doors, as well as restrooms and
signage. Some officials at these locations told us they had made at
least some changes to improve architectural access. For example, some
changes included:
* adding or changing accessible parking spaces to meet requirements;
* installing signage or changing existing signage to meet requirements;
* building a new exterior ramp because the existing one did not meet
architectural access requirements; and:
* installing electric door openers.[Footnote 15]
Auxiliary aids and services. Many of the one-stops we visited had
acquired auxiliary aids and services, such as assistive technology and
materials in alternate formats, which the WIA Section 188 regulations
require that one-stops provide to persons with disabilities when
necessary. Auxiliary aids and services include a range of devices,
equipment, and services that provide effective communication for
persons with various types of impairments. According to ETA, the
auxiliary aids and services requirement covers any method of
communication, including verbal, written, computer-based, or telephone
communications. Assistive technology refers to products or equipment
that can be used to help people with disabilities perform their major
life functions. Some types of assistive technology can be used to make
existing information technology, including computers and telephones,
available to persons with disabilities. Alternate formats can, for
instance, make written or visual materials available to persons with
visual impairments or make oral information available to persons with
hearing impairments. Table 3 describes selected types of auxiliary aids
and services that were available in some of the one-stops we visited.
Table 3: Selected Types of Auxiliary Aids and Services:
Type: Screen reading software;
Purpose: Software programs that present text as speech;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Visual impairments;
* Cognitive impairments.
Type: Screen magnification software;
Purpose: Software that can increase the size of characters on a
computer screen;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Visual impairments.
Type: Closed-circuit television/video magnifier;
Purpose: Electronically magnifies printed text and displays it on a
monitor;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Visual impairments.
Type: Speech recognition software;
Purpose: Software programs that allow users to give commands and enter
information using speech rather than a mouse or keyboard;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Visual impairments;
* Mobility impairments;
* Cognitive impairments.
Type: Large-screen computer monitors;
Purpose: Increases character size in proportion to computer monitor
dimensions;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Visual impairments.
Type: Trackball mouse;
Purpose: An alternative to a standard mouse, this mouse has movable
balls on top of a base that can be used to move the cursor on screen;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Mobility impairments.
Type: Alternative keyboards;
Purpose: Those with larger or smaller than standard keys or keyboards,
alternative key configurations, keyboards for use with one hand, and
others;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Mobility impairments.
Type: TTY (text telephone)/TDD (telecommunications device for the
deaf);
Purpose: Device that lets people with hearing or speech impairments use
the telephone to communicate, by allowing them to type messages back
and forth to one another instead of talking and listening;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Hearing impairments;
* Speech impairments.
Type: Other assistive listening devices;
Purpose: Devices that amplify sound in specific listening situations
(e.g., watching television, using the telephone), while also reducing
the effects of background noise;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Hearing impairments;
* Cognitive impairments.
Type: Alternate formats;
Purpose: Presenting print or visual materials in Braille or large
print, on audiotape, or on compact disk Presenting spoken information
in writing;
Examples of impairments for which the aid or service may be beneficial:
* Visual impairments;
* Cognitive impairments;
* Hearing impairments;
* Cognitive impairments.
Source: GAO summary of information collected through site visits and
from access guides.
[End of table]
At the time of our site visits, a few one-stops had either recently
installed assistive technology for the first time or were still in the
process of acquiring it. However, other sites had assistive technology,
and some or all of the staff had already received training in how to
use it. Some of these sites offered a range of devices, which could
assist many types of impairments. Given the wide variety of devices
available, some local areas and one-stops targeted their resources, at
least initially, toward items that might be used frequently. For
example, one local area--working with an agency that had assistive
technology expertise--collected data on the types of impairments that
were most prevalent among potential customers and then used these data
to determine which devices to purchase first. In addition, a couple of
officials said that their one-stops had some materials, such as basic
orientation materials, routinely available in Braille or large-print
formats. Some officials told us that they did not have any of their
materials routinely available in alternate formats, although they would
provide these to customers upon request. In some cases, officials said
that they could rapidly provide customers with certain types of
alternate formats, such as Braille, large print, computer diskette, or
compact disk, through the use of their assistive technology or
computers.
Reasonable accommodations. Some officials and staff we interviewed said
they try to make reasonable accommodations for persons with
disabilities. Reasonable accommodations, which are required by the WIA
Section 188 regulations, enable persons with disabilities to receive
aid, benefits, services, or training equal to that provided to persons
without disabilities. For example, a number of officials and staff
mentioned that although they did not have a qualified American Sign
Language interpreter on-site at their one-stops, they have obtained an
interpreter upon a customer's request.[Footnote 16] However, during our
site visits, we also found that local area and one-stops' policies and
procedures for providing reasonable accommodations varied. For example,
officials from a few local areas and one-stops said they referred to
their state workforce agency's or their local government's policies for
guidance on this issue. A few officials said that they had developed
their own local accommodation policies or procedures, or planned to do
so. For example, one local area developed written policies and
procedures that provided information on how customers should request an
accommodation, which staff could assist in providing a reasonable
accommodation, and which staff were responsible for determining if the
one-stop is able to provide the accommodation. In addition, some
officials told us that when they have received accommodation requests,
they have not maintained records on the types of accommodations
requested or whether the one-stop provided these accommodations.
However, in at least one of the local areas we visited, the local equal
opportunity officer--who addressed all accommodation requests--said
that he maintained records on this information.
Integrated settings. During our site visits, we found variation in
viewpoints regarding the practice of automatically referring persons
with disabilities to VR for services.[Footnote 17] Even though agencies
such as VR could provide services to persons with disabilities, the WIA
Section 188 regulations require that one-stops allow persons with
disabilities the opportunity to receive services in the most integrated
setting appropriate to meet their needs. An integrated setting is one
that enables persons with disabilities to interact with persons without
disabilities. Although a referral to VR may be appropriate for some
individuals, automatically referring all persons with disabilities to
VR does not allow for the opportunity to receive services along with
persons without disabilities. Moreover, an automatic referral to VR
does not provide customers with an individualized assessment of their
abilities and needs.
Some local area and one-stop officials we interviewed acknowledged that
automatic referrals to VR did occur in the past. However, a number of
officials and staff understood that this practice is not appropriate,
or said that it is not currently occurring in their one-stops. Some of
these officials and staff said that services for persons with
disabilities are determined on a case-by-case basis and that unless
these individuals want or indicate that they need VR services, they are
not referred to VR. Some WIA officials, as well as a few VR officials
and others who have provided staff training on disability issues,
explained that one-stop staff have been trained not to automatically
refer persons with disabilities to VR. For example, staff were trained
not to stereotype persons with disabilities or assume that they need VR
services, or were trained to provide these customers with a choice
regarding which services they use.
However, during our site visits, officials in two local areas told us
that they currently found it preferable or necessary to automatically
refer persons with disabilities to VR. Officials from one local area
stated that while a disability-related agency advised them that one-
stop staff should not be automatically referring persons with
disabilities to VR, they took exception to this guidance. The local
area officials explained that it would be irresponsible of them not to
fully utilize the expertise of the only mandatory disability partner in
the WIA system. Officials from another local area said that although
their long-term goal is to train one-stop staff to work directly with
persons with disabilities, they believe that their one-stop staff are
currently referring these customers to VR. Additionally, some WIA, VR,
and disability-related agency officials also expressed concerns that
trying to meet performance standards could provide an incentive for
one-stops to automatically refer persons with disabilities to VR, only
serve those with the least severe disabilities, or not serve them at
all. Some officials explained that it is sometimes more difficult for
persons with disabilities, particularly those with more severe
disabilities, to find and retain jobs, and that it is often more costly
for the one-stop to serve these individuals.
Marketing and outreach. Some officials and staff we interviewed cited a
variety of reasons why marketing the one-stops' services and conducting
outreach to persons with disabilities, which are activities required by
the WIA Section 188 regulations, may be important. One of the reasons
cited was that many individuals in the community, including those with
disabilities, were still not aware of the types of programs and
services that one-stops offer. For example, a one-stop official said
that one-stops are often thought of as an employment service, without
recognition that they can offer participants education, referrals to
disability-related agencies for services, and other assistance. Some
WIA officials and disability-related agency representatives also said
that even when the disability community knows what the one-stops offer,
the one-stops often have to overcome the belief that one-stops do not
want to, or are not capable of, providing services to persons with
disabilities. For example, the disability community may believe that
the one-stops do not have assistive technology or provide other
assistance to persons with disabilities. Additionally, some officials
also stated that they believe that persons with disabilities are still
more likely to seek services from disability-related organizations than
from one-stops.
Some of the officials from local areas and one-stops that had engaged
in marketing and outreach efforts said they had used one or more
community-based disability organizations in their efforts. For example,
local areas or one-stops sometimes approached independent living
centers, agencies that serve individuals with specific types of
disabilities, or other organizations to inform them about the one-
stops' services and their accessible technology. Some officials also
said they used brochures, television or radio ads, billboards, or other
means to market their services to persons with disabilities. Other
local area and one-stop officials told us about the specialized
techniques they used, such as holding a yearly job fair for persons
with disabilities, which provides attendees with information about one-
stop services.
Officials in a few local areas and one-stops, however, stated that they
were hesitant to market their services to persons with disabilities.
For example, one local area official was not confident about the
ability of some one-stop staff to handle disability issues and, as a
result, did not want to market what the one-stops in the area could not
provide. An official in another local area expressed a similar
viewpoint with regard to the lack of marketing around an assistive
technology device that had not been used. The official stated that the
local area had not advertised the device because he did not believe the
one-stops in that area were fully capable of providing services to
persons with disabilities.
Staff training. Although the WIA Section 188 regulations do not
specifically require that one-stop staff, other than the equal
opportunity officer and his or her staff, receive training on
disability, the WIA Section 188 Checklist includes training as one
example of how one-stops can ensure compliance with WIA's comprehensive
access requirements. One-stop staff in the majority of the local areas
we visited had received some disability-related information and
training, but the range of topics covered varied across sites. For
example, officials in at least one local area told us that they were
still focusing on providing staff with disability awareness training,
while officials, staff, and staff training providers in other locations
described a wider range of training topics, such as:
* disability awareness or sensitivity training;[Footnote 18]
* types of services that VR provides, and the agency's eligibility
rules and criteria;
* types of disability-related agencies in the community, as well as who
they serve, the types of services they offer, and their contact
information;
* how to identify certain disabilities, including hidden disabilities
such as mental illness or learning disabilities; and:
* WIA Section 188 training.
We also found that a few local areas and one-stops created
comprehensive training programs or targeted their training to
identified staff needs. For example, one local area created an
extensive disability-training program that provides online and in-class
training on a range of relevant disability-related issues and discusses
these issues in the context of particular disabilities. This training
program has been made available on a statewide basis. Also, in one
state, staff at the three one-stops we visited had undergone, or were
scheduled to undergo, an assessment of their training needs. These
assessments were then going to be used to develop training plans for
each of these one-stops.
Some officials and staff stated that the available disability-related
staff training was beneficial and provided positive outcomes. For
example, some officials and staff said that the available training made
staff more comfortable interacting with, and providing services to,
persons with disabilities and helped them learn about the range of
disability-related services that VR and other agencies in the community
offer. However, other officials and staff expressed some concerns about
the available training. For example, a few of these officials and staff
said that they would like training on specific disability-related
topics to be available, and in at least one case, local area and one-
stop officials had concerns about how well their limited training
prepared staff for providing services to persons with disabilities.
Additionally, some of the officials, staff, and staff training
providers we interviewed said that their training efforts were affected
by high staff turnover and the prospect of staff forgetting the
information learned in training if it is not used very often. Some
officials, staff, and staff training providers said that offering
ongoing training was important for these reasons or that they would
like ongoing training to be available in their one-stops.
One-Stops and Disability Agencies Have Established Various
Relationships to Serve Persons with Disabilities:
One-stops, VR, and other disability-related agencies in the community
have formed various relationships to provide services to persons with
disabilities. From our site visits, we found that the structure of the
one-stops' relationships with VR varied, particularly in terms of
whether co-location was occurring. While most of the one-stops we
visited had VR staff on-site at least part of the time, four of the
sites we visited had no on-site VR staff. Table 4 shows the co-location
status of VR staff at the one-stops we visited.
Table 4: Co-location Status of VR Staff in the One-Stops We Visited:
Co-location status of VR staff: One or more VR staff on-site on a full-
time basis;
Number of sites: 5.
Co-location status of VR staff: One or more VR staff on-site on a part-
time basis;
Number of sites: 9.
Co-location status of VR staff: No VR staff on-site;
Number of sites: 4.
Source: GAO site visits.
[End of table]
Officials from the sites at which full-or part-time co-location of VR
staff was taking place said that co-location was beneficial for a
variety of reasons. For example, some WIA and VR officials said that
co-location itself helped the one-stop staff provide faster and less
fragmented services to persons with disabilities because, when the one-
stop staff made referrals to VR, they did not have to send customers
off-site. A few officials also stated that co-location facilitated
information sharing and helped build relationships between the staff in
the two agencies. The reasons for VR staff not being on-site also
varied, and included a lack of space in the one-stop, the inability of
VR to break its lease at an existing local office, and lack of an
interface between the one-stops' and VR's computer systems.
The one-stops we visited also varied in terms of the extent to which
they formed relationships with disability-related service providers
other than VR. Although VR has extensive expertise in providing
services to persons with disabilities, other disability agencies in the
community also have expertise and resources that can benefit one-stops.
At the time of our site visits, a few local areas and one-stops were
relying primarily on VR and had not formed working relationships with
any other disability agencies. However, other local areas and one-stops
we visited had formed relationships with one or more disability-related
organizations in the community, such as independent living centers,
mental health agencies, and cognitive/developmental disability
agencies.[Footnote 19] In at least one instance, a local area formed
relationships with agencies that focus on particular impairments. This
local area conducted a needs analysis and found that relationships with
organizations that provide services to persons with psychiatric
impairments, learning disabilities, and substance abuse issues were
lacking. As a result, the local area conducted outreach to these types
of organizations in order to initiate relationships with them.
Officials from local areas and their one-stops, as well as those from
VR and community disability agencies, cited a range of benefits to
being able to refer their customers to one another for services, when
it was appropriate to do so. For example, some WIA and VR officials
said the one-stop's relationship with VR allowed the two agencies to
combine their resources to maximize the services they can provide to
their customers. For example, for co-enrolled customers, one agency
might pay for school tuition while another pays for books. Some local
area and one-stop officials also said that referring customers to VR
and other community disability agencies is beneficial because those
agencies have the ability and funding to provide certain services that
the one-stops cannot. In addition, officials in some local areas and
one-stops said that VR and other community agencies' willingness to
conduct staff training, provide one-stop accessibility assessments, or
participate in one-stop access committees was beneficial.
VR and community disability agencies also cited a number of benefits to
referring their customers to the one-stops, including access to the
one-stops' career resource centers' computers and telephones, their
workshop or training classes (such as those for computer skills,
interview skills, and résumé-writing), and a range of job listings and
employer connections broader than their own. VR officials also cited
other benefits. For example, when a VR customer is faced with delayed
services because VR is waiting for documents substantiating the
customer's disability, the one-stops can provide other services in the
interim. Additionally, VR officials told us they find it useful to
refer individuals who did not qualify for services through VR, whether
because of limited funding[Footnote 20] or other reason, to the one-
stop for services.
Labor Has Taken Actions to Ensure That One-Stops Comply with Access
Requirements, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient:
Labor has taken several actions to ensure that persons with
disabilities have comprehensive access to one-stops, including
training, monitoring, and enforcement activities, but these efforts may
not be sufficient. For example, Labor has not only funded grants, it
has also provided training in ways to facilitate comprehensive
accessibility in the one-stop centers. Specifically, within Labor, ETA
and ODEP, along with SSA, provided Disability Program Navigator
training in November 2003 in which successful approaches to ensuring
comprehensive access to one-stops were discussed. Additional Disability
Program Navigator training was provided in November 2004. Further, CRC,
with assistance from ETA and ODEP has provided written guidance and
assistance to one-stops on accommodations and other ways to improve
comprehensive access for persons with disabilities. Also within Labor,
CRC conducts national equal opportunity training annually. Its August
2004 training included topics such as new EO officer orientation,
implementing an MOA, ensuring compliance with WIA Section 188, testing
and assessment tools for improving services to persons with
disabilities, and train-the-trainer EO training.
In addition to providing training, CRC is the entity responsible for
interpreting, monitoring, and enforcing WIA Section 188 regulations
regarding programs receiving financial assistance from Labor, including
the applicable comprehensive access and administrative regulatory
requirements for one-stop centers. One key method Labor uses to ensure
compliance with these regulations has been to require that each state's
governor establish and sign an MOA, which describes and contains
supporting documentation of the policies, procedures, and systems that
each state has established to ensure compliance. By signing the MOA,
and submitting it to CRC, the governor agrees to adhere to its
provisions. CRC provides guidance on preparing the MOA, reviews the
adequacy of each state MOA submitted, and approves those MOAs that meet
its standards. Currently, all governors have submitted MOAs that have
been approved by CRC. After initial approval, states are to notify CRC
of any updates to their MOAs, and every 2 years Labor requires states
to review them and the manner in which they have been implemented, and
determine whether their MOAs continue to be effective in ensuring
compliance with the requirements of WIA Section 188 and its
implementing regulations.
In addition, CRC monitors states' compliance with the
nondiscrimination, comprehensive access, and administrative regulatory
requirements by conducting on-site technical assistance compliance
reviews at selected locations. To facilitate the review process, CRC
conducts a 2-to 3-day training session for state, local workforce
investment area, and one-stop center staff.[Footnote 21] In 2003, CRC
completed its first phase of on-site training, technical assistance,
and compliance reviews in two large metropolitan areas in two states,
Miami/Dade County, Florida, and New York, New York. According to
Labor's 2003 Annual Report, CRC focuses its reviews on large
metropolitan areas so as to maximize the use of its resources. The
annual report notes that the large labor markets in these areas provide
the opportunity for gaining a representative picture of the degree of
compliance with nondiscrimination and equal opportunity laws and
regulations.
In both metropolitan areas it reviewed, CRC identified instances of
noncompliance, including the existence of barriers limiting services to
persons with disabilities. At one of the two metropolitan areas, CRC
found significant differences between the disability-related
requirements in WIA Section 188 and its implementing regulations and
the policies, procedures, and systems that were actually being used.
For example, CRC found that the local area had developed a service
delivery system in which customers with disabilities were routinely
being served by programs or activities that were separate from those
used to serve customers without disabilities. Officials at the local
area told CRC such a service delivery system had developed in part
because there was a general sentiment among disability-related service
providers that many of their customers did not feel comfortable in the
one-stops. The WIA Section 188 regulations, however, require that
services to qualified persons with disabilities be provided in the most
integrated settings appropriate to the needs of those customers.
Therefore, as noted in CRC's review, a one-stop center generally should
not refer customers with disabilities to a separate program or activity
until after it has conducted an individualized assessment of a
customer's needs, and determined that the channels used to serve
customers without disabilities cannot provide equally effective aid,
benefits, services, or training to persons with disabilities. In
addition, the ultimate decision whether to accept the referral to a
separate program or activity must be left up to the customer with a
disability. If the customer declines to accept the referral, the one-
stop must serve the customer with a disability through the same
programs or activities used to serve all other customers.
In addition, CRC found that the EO officer at the local area in that
metropolitan area had not been provided with sufficient staff, other
resources, or adequate support from top management to carry out his
duties. As a result, staff at the local workforce investment area and
one-stops had little understanding of their disability-related or other
obligations under WIA Section 188 regulations.
At the other metropolitan area reviewed, CRC found that some of the
policies, procedures, and systems in the state's approved MOA had not
been fully implemented. For instance, the local workforce investment
area had developed an intake eligibility form for use by the one-stops
that included questions concerning whether or not the customer had a
disability that was or was not a substantial barrier to employment.
Frontline staff at the one-stop centers told CRC that all customers
were welcome to use self-service and core services. However, CRC found
that customers who indicated on the intake form that they had a
disability could not receive intensive or training services unless they
provided the one-stop with documentation to support their disability,
even when disability was not an eligibility criterion to receive such
services. CRC found that the use of the intake form, combined with the
requirement that customers provide documentation of their disability,
unnecessarily screened out people with disabilities from receiving
intensive and training services, even though Labor's WIA Section 188
regulations require that the one-stops must not deny any qualified
person with a disability the opportunity to participate in, or benefit
from, a WIA-funded program or activity because of that person's
disability. On the basis of its findings, CRC required the state
entities responsible for WIA in which the two metropolitan areas were
located to provide it with written responses of the corrective actions
they planned to make.
In addition, in May 2004, the CRC Director requested that all states
complete, for themselves and their largest local area, a self-
assessment tool to assess compliance with the equal opportunity and
nondiscrimination laws and regulations. The self-assessment tool, which
provides a structured approach for monitoring compliance, was adapted
from the WIA Section 188 Disability Checklist. For each state and its
largest local workforce investment area, the self-assessment tool asks
whether or not each measure of compliance has been met. For all unmet
measures, the self-assessment tool asks for a written explanation of
how and when the measure will be met. At the time of our review, CRC
was in the process of developing a plan to analyze the qualitative
responses they would receive from the states. CRC anticipates using the
information provided by these self-assessments and from its on-site
reviews to identify exemplary practices as well as areas needing
improvement.
In addition to the two on-site reviews CRC conducted in 2003, CRC is in
the process of conducting two additional reviews in two large
metropolitan areas in two other states, which it plans to complete
during fiscal year 2005. To date the monitoring and enforcement efforts
that have been or are being conducted account for less than 2 percent
of the total number of local areas and one-stops nationwide. Moreover,
the CRC Director said that she had not yet determined whether CRC would
conduct additional on-site reviews. Limited staff and competing work
priorities may hinder CRC's ability to conduct additional reviews. The
Director noted that CRC has experienced an erosion in the number of
staff since 1998, and she did not foresee any change to this trend in
the future. The 44 professional and administrative staff that CRC
currently has are responsible for not only all issues involving
discrimination in one-stops and other Labor-funded programs, but also
for all discrimination issues involving the more than 17,000 employees
at Labor. Moreover, the Director explained that these staff are also
responsible for addressing other workload priorities, such as issues to
improve access to programs and activities for persons who are limited
in their English proficiency.
Information on Employment Outcomes Is Limited:
Information about the employment outcomes of persons with disabilities
is limited by the extent to which disability data are collected and the
overall methods used for collecting data for WIA's performance
measures. The three WIA-funded programs--Adult, Dislocated Worker, and
Youth--have performance measures established under WIA that states must
track and report in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the
programs. These performance measures gauge program results in such
areas as job placement, employment retention, earnings changes, and
skill attainment. In addition to providing information about all
participants in the three WIA-funded programs, Labor also publishes
outcome information about certain subpopulations, including veterans,
older individuals, and persons with disabilities.
The information Labor publishes on the employment outcomes of persons
with disabilities, however, is limited for several reasons. One reason
is that the information is limited to the subpopulation of persons with
disabilities who disclose their disability status, and therefore the
employment outcomes may be misleading for the total population of
persons with disabilities receiving services through WIA. The WIA
Section 188 regulations require one-stops to collect, maintain, and
report job seekers' demographic data--including disability status--to
ensure that discrimination is not occurring. Labor has issued guidance
stating that one-stops must inquire about disability status from job
seekers upon registration for services. Such inquiries must be asked of
all job seekers, but an individual's decision to disclose his or her
disability status must be completely voluntary. Even though an
individual declines to indicate his or her disability status, the one-
stop must still provide services to the individual.
Further, the collection of information on employment outcomes,
including the information on persons with disabilities, is limited to
those persons who are registered for WIA services. Current law does not
require job seekers who receive services that are self-service and
informational in nature to be included in the performance measures.
Labor's guidance instructs states to register and report on adults and
dislocated workers who receive core services that require significant
staff assistance designed to help with job seeking or acquiring
occupational skills, but states have flexibility in deciding what
constitutes significant staff assistance.[Footnote 22] We have
previously reported that most of the one-stop customers who participate
in self-directed services, and receive only limited staff assistance,
are estimated to be the largest proportion of job seekers under
WIA.[Footnote 23] But since they are not registered for services, they
are excluded from the employment outcome data published by Labor. In
that report, we also noted that Labor said that it is developing a new
reporting system that would enable states to report activity and
outcomes for all WIA participants. According to Labor, tracking all
one-stop job seekers will enable officials to obtain information about
who is served, what services are provided, which partner programs
provided the services, and what outcomes are achieved.[Footnote 24]
Finally, the performance measurement system developed under WIA may
have a negative effect on the economic outcomes of some people with
disabilities because the performance levels may provide a disincentive
to serve certain clients, including those with disabilities. Under WIA,
performance levels are tied to incentives and sanctions so that states
can be financially rewarded if they meet them or penalized if they do
not. As such, local areas may be reluctant to provide WIA-funded
services to job seekers, including persons with disabilities, who may
be less likely than others to find employment or experience an increase
in earnings when they are placed in jobs. To address this issue, we
recently recommended that the Secretary of Labor develop an adjustment
model or other systematic method to account for different populations
and local economic conditions when negotiating performance
levels.[Footnote 25] In commenting on our recommendation, Labor agreed
with the importance of taking economic conditions and characteristics
of the population into account when setting performance expectations
and had commissioned a study of adjustment models that could better
take these differences into account.
Conclusions:
The WIA one-stop system's ability to provide comprehensive access to
its programs, services, and activities can affect whether, and how,
individuals with disabilities participate in the American workforce.
Although Labor has developed specific regulations requiring that people
with disabilities have equal opportunity to participate in and benefit
from the programs and services offered in the WIA one-stop system, its
efforts to date may not be sufficient to ensure that result. Five years
after Labor issued regulations implementing the nondiscrimination and
equal opportunity provisions of WIA Section 188, the agency has yet to
develop and implement a long-term plan for ensuring that the one-stop
system complies with the comprehensive access requirements for persons
with disabilities. Although CRC, ETA and ODEP have worked together on
some comprehensive access projects, they have not developed an overall
plan to conduct the activities necessary to ensure comprehensive access
to one-stops for all Americans.
Recommendation:
To improve comprehensive access for persons with disabilities to the
one-stop system, we recommend that Labor develop and implement a long-
term plan for ensuring that the one-stop system complies with the
comprehensive access requirements for people with disabilities.
Moreover, in this era of constrained resources, Labor should utilize
the expertise of CRC, ETA, and ODEP staff in developing such a plan.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Labor and
Education for their review and comments. Education did not have
comments on our report.
Labor generally agreed with our recommendation and said that even more
could be done to ensure comprehensive access within the one-stop
system. Specifically, ETA has pledged to work with ODEP and CRC to
develop and implement a long-term plan for addressing comprehensive
access in the one-stop system. ETA also suggested that the development
of such a long-term plan should include all of the participating
agencies and programs. Moreover, ODEP stated that the comprehensive
plan should also address nonspecialized disability supports and
services, such as transportation.
ODEP and CRC also provided us with some general comments on our report.
ODEP noted that, in addition to the WIG and Navigator grants, Labor
supports other efforts to facilitate the inclusion of people with
disabilities in the one-stop system. Although our report focuses on
those grants that are most directly related to facilitating
comprehensive access in the one-stop system, we have added examples of
some of the types of grants that ODEP has awarded to support
employment-related initiatives for people with disabilities. In
addition, CRC asked us to clarify our use of the term comprehensive
access. CRC expressed some concern that we had included administrative
requirements in the use of the term comprehensive access. CRC believed
that administrative requirements should not be included as they are not
specifically disability-related. We have modified the language in our
report to clarify that the administrative requirements are not included
in the term comprehensive access.
ETA, ODEP, and CRC also provided us with technical comments and
clarifications, which we have incorporated as appropriate. Copies of
their comments appear in appendix I.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Labor, the
Secretary of Education, relevant congressional committees, and others
who are interested. Copies will also be made available to others upon
request. The report will be available on GAO's Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staff have any
questions about this report. Other major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
Sigurd R. Nilsen: Director, Education, Workforce and Income Security
Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Labor:
U.S. Department of Labor:
Assistant Secretary for Employment and Training:
Washington, D.C. 20210:
NOV 23 2004:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is in receipt of the
draft Government Accountability Office (GAO) report entitled,
"Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to
Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These
Efforts May Not Be Sufficient" (GAO-05-54). Since the enactment of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA), ETA has worked to ensure that
individuals with disabilities are provided with access, reasonable
accommodations, and effective communication in the One-Stop Career
Center system. While good progress has been made, we acknowledge that
more work remains to be done.
We support the report's recommendation that the U.S. Department of
Labor should develop and implement a long-term plan for ensuring that
the One-Stop Career Center system complies with comprehensive access
requirements for people with disabilities. In fact, we would argue that
it does not go far enough. While it is ETA's role to provide policy
leadership to the One-Stop system, the system is comprised of many
Federal partner programs which work together to provide a network of
coordinated workforce services. A comprehensive long-term plan for
addressing comprehensive service requirements in the One-Stop system
should be developed by all of the participating agencies and programs.
ETA will work with the Department of Labor's Civil Rights Center and
the Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) to develop such a
plan, and will also include our partners at the U.S. Department of
Education and the Social Security Administration.
Be assured that efforts to promote integrated and coordinated planning
are already underway. ETA has taken the lead in establishing a federal
Inter-Agency Coordinating Forum for People with Disabilities in the
Workforce. This group has begun meeting regularly under ETA's
leadership, to examine federal policy guidance for the development of a
strategic, comprehensive plan to achieve One-Stop accessibility and a
coordinated approach to promote employment of individuals with
disabilities.
The Coordinating Forum provides the opportunity for Assistant
Secretary-level participation in the development of such a plan, and
includes the Department of Administration, Disability and Income
Support Programs; the Department of Labor, Veterans" Employment and
Training Service, ODEP and ETA. This group is just beginning to
formulate ideas and a strategy; however the result of our efforts will
be similar to what you are recommending as an outcome.
It is also important to mention the work that is being done at the
state and local level through our investments in Work Incentive Grants
and the Disability Program Navigator Initiative which will continue to
improve the quality of the One-Stop system. These efforts are designed
to ensure that individuals with disabilities have access to a broad
range of services and information through One-Stop Career Centers. In
addition, the Administration's WIA Reauthorization proposal contains
several provisions that would strengthen the One-Stop system's capacity
to service individuals with disabilities.
Enclosed are ETA's technical comments on the draft report. If you would
like additional information, please do not hesitate to call me at (202)
693-2700.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Emily Stover DeRocco:
[End of letter]
U.S. Department of Labor:
November 23, 2004:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G. Street, N.W.:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Thank you for allowing the U.S. Department of Labor Office of
Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) an opportunity to comment regarding
the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report entitled,
"Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to
Facilitate Access to One-Stops for Persons with Disabilities, but These
Efforts May Not Be Sufficient." This letter provides comments, which
are essentially technical in nature, on recommendations contained in
the draft report.
As an overall comment, ODEP asserts that by reducing the grant
activities by ODEP to a vague footnote on page 2, the report does not
reflect the full range of efforts by DOL to facilitate the inclusion of
people with disabilities into WIA programs. Specifically, multiple ODEP
grants are facilitating comprehensive access to One Stops. For
instance:
* ODEP initiatives are testing and demonstrating innovative methods for
serving people with disabilities by changing the culture, operating
philosophy and menu of services in ways that will endure and that will
enhance the ability of One Stops to better serve all of its clients
with complex needs, including people with disabilities.
* ODEP will identify and disseminate to the workforce investment system
the best policies and practices pulled from the activities of the
grantees. As an example, some grantees are involving One Stops,
Vocational Rehabilitation agencies, micro-enterprise agencies and
other small business development resources in new relationships that
are resulting in permanent policy changes at the respective agencies.
Grantees are also exploring creative methods for combining funds from
multiple sources, including leveraging resources and funding from other
state and local systems to meet the needs of clients in ways that
promote choice and self-determination. In some locations, the
activities of ODEP grantees are coordinated with and supplementing
those of other DOL grant programs and of other federal agencies.
* ODEP is also collaborating with ETA to provide guidance to the One
Stops on their authority under the WIA to serve people with
disabilities and how to identify resources other than VR in their
communities that can expand their capacity to serve them. ODEP provided
leadership in development of the Section 188 checklist. Additional
policy documents have been developed and are being reviewed. ODEP is
also working with ETA to identify successful practices within the One
Stops across the country for working with people with psychiatric
disabilities.
ODEP further recommends that two separate paragraphs be inserted on
page 14 of the report at the section entitled, "Federal Grants Have
Provided Funding to Facilitate One-Stop Accessibility." Specifically,
ODEP suggests adding the following language:
Each year, over the last three years, ODEP has awarded 7-10 grants
designed to demonstrate the use of customized employment strategies for
persons with disabilities within the context of the One-Stop Center
system. Currently, ODEP has 31 such customized employment programs
operating in 19 states, involving over 40 local workforce investment
boards. These 31 grant programs are building programmatic accessibility
in local One-Stop Career Centers to be able to effectively serve people
with multiple challenges to employment. These include individuals on
SSI or SSDI; people on waiting lists for employment services; young
people transitioning from special education programs; people in
sheltered workshops who choose to change to integrated, competitive
employment; and individuals who are chronically homeless - individuals
often considered the "hardest to serve." Through ODEP's customized
employment initiative, the One-Stop Career Centers are changing their
practices to welcome them as customers, and bringing new partners to
the One-Stop whose funds and expertise are being leveraged.
Over the last three years, through its youth to work employment
initiative, ODEP has also funded 31 grants totaling $20.3 million
designed to improve transition outcomes for youth with disabilities.
All of these grants had a goal of improving programmatic accessibility
in local One-Stop Career Centers for youth with disabilities, and a
number of the projects also focused on improving physical
accessibility. State and local workforce investment boards were the
direct recipients of some of this funding. Research indicates that when
youth, including youth with disabilities, engage in career exploration,
work-based learning, youth leadership development activities, and have
access to the other types of supports they need, (e.g., housing,
transportation, etc) the likelihood of their transitioning successfully
is greatly increased. Through ODEP's youth to work employment
initiative, One-Stop Center staff and their partners are working more
collaboratively to ensure that youth with disabilities have access to
these opportunities.
ODEP's final recommendation is to include the following language as the
second and third line of the recommendation on page 32:
This comprehensive plan should address the full range of access issues,
including reasonable accommodations and effective communication to
achieve access to non-specialized supports and services, such as
transportation and assistive technology, through the One-Stop Centers.
DOL would regularly report on the progress of the plan.
We appreciate having had the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
W. Roy Grizzard, Jr., Ed.:
Assistant Secretary:
[End of letter]
U.S. Department of Labor:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
Washington, D.C. 20210:
NOV 23 2004:
Mr. Sigurd R. Nilsen:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
Government Accountability Office:
441 G St., NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Nilsen:
Enclosed please find the comments of the Civil Rights Center (CRC),
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management
(OASAM), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), regarding the draft report of
the Government Accountability Office entitled "WORKFORCE INVESTMENT
ACT: Labor Has Taken Several Actions to Facilitate Access to One-Stops
for Persons with Disabilities, but These Efforts May Not Be Sufficient"
(GAO-05-54).
For further information regarding these comments, please contact Denise
Sudell, Senior Policy Advisor, CRC/OASAM. Ms. Sudell may be reached at
(202) 693-6554, or by e-mail at sudell.denise@dol.gov.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Patrick Pizzella:
Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management:
Enclosure:
COMMENTS FROM THE CIVIL RIGHTS CENTER, OASAM ON THE DRAFT REPORT OF THE
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE REGARDING DOL'S ENFORCEMENT OF THE WIA
NONDISCRIMINATION REGULATIONS RELATING TO PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
(GAO-05-54):
This document contains the comments of the Civil Rights Center (CRC),
OASAM, on GAO-05-54, the Government Accountability Office's (GAO's)
draft report regarding DOL's enforcement of the provisions of the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) and its implementing regulations
relating to persons with disabilities. Questions or concerns regarding
these comments may be directed to Senior Policy Advisor Denise Sudell
at 202-693-6554 or sudell.denise@dol.gov.
SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS:
General Concerns:
1) Inaccurate use of the term "comprehensive access requirements" In
our discussions with GAO, we agreed to the use of the term
"comprehensive access requirements" to refer to positive actions
(including providing accessibility, reasonable accommodations and
modifications, and effective communication) that recipients must take
in order to give persons with disabilities equal opportunity to benefit
from the programs, activities, and/or employment offered by the One-
Stop system. The draft report, however, also includes within the term
"comprehensive access requirements" those regulatory provisions that
require recipients to establish the administrative structure that CRC
views as necessary in order to ensure nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity for members of all groups protected by Section 188 of WIA
In our view, these administrative requirements should not be considered
"comprehensive access requirements," because they are not specifically
disability-related. We therefore ask that the definition of the term
"comprehensive access requirements" be revised to exclude the latter
category of requirements, and that the remainder of the report be
revised accordingly.
a) Use of the term "comprehensive access requirements" as a
replacement for all disability-related requirements: At various points,
the draft report inaccurately uses the term "comprehensive access
requirements" in contexts in which it appears that the term is intended
to encompass all of the disability-related requirements in the WIA
nondiscrimination regulations. This usage is inconsistent both with our
discussions with GAO and with the definition of the term on page 2 of
the main portion of the report. We ask that the report be reviewed to
identify all such instances and that these instances be revised to
correct them. Examples:
i) The second sentence in the third paragraph of the summary section
("What GAO Found") states that various agencies within DOL, including
CRC, have "issued guidance and assistance on the comprehensive access
requirements." This statement is slightly inaccurate. These agencies
have issued guidance and provided assistance regarding the
nondiscrimination, equal opportunity, and administrative requirements
of the WIA nondiscrimination regulations, including those requirements
characterized by the GAO report as "comprehensive access requirements."
We ask that the sentence be revised to correct it.
ii) Similarly, the fourth sentence of the same paragraph, in
discussing the findings of CRC's disability compliance reviews of New
York City and Miami/Dade County, states that "[i]n both instances, CRC
identified instances of noncompliance with the comprehensive access
requirements." The same incorrect usage appears in the "Results In
Brief' section of the draft report, in the paragraph at the bottom of
page 6. In fact, CRC identified instances of noncompliance with all
three categories of relevant requirements, including the
nondiscrimination and administrative requirements as well as the
"comprehensive access" (or equal opportunity) requirements. We ask that
the sentence be revised accordingly.
2) Role of Vocational Rehabilitation: We are concerned about the
report's focus on the Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) program. At
various points (including in the Letter and in the "Integrated
Settings" subsection, among other places), the draft report states that
VR "provides services to individuals with disabilities." We are
concerned that readers may misinterpret these statements as signifying
that all individuals with disabilities who are entitled to protection
from discrimination and to positive actions under WIA Section 188 and
its implementing regulations are also eligible to receive services
under VR. Rather, the only individuals with disabilities who are
eligible for VR services are those persons who have a physical or
mental impairment that "for such individual constitutes or results in a
substantial impediment to employment, and [who] can benefit in terms of
an employment outcome from vocational rehabilitation services ...... 29
U.S.C. § 705(20)(A). This definition is much narrower than the
definition of "disability" for purposes of nondiscrimination and equal
opportunity under WIA Section 188 and the WIA nondiscrimination
regulations; therefore, many individuals with disabilities who are
entitled to nondiscrimination and equal opportunity under the latter
legal provisions are ineligible for services from VR. See 29 CFR 37.4.
Additionally, we emphasize that under WIA Section 188 and the WIA
nondiscrimination regulations, One-Stop Centers may not rely on VR (or
other outside organizations serving persons with disabilities) to
provide services for individuals with disabilities; rather, such
individuals must be served alongside individuals without disabilities
except under very limited circumstances. A clear understanding of these
points is necessary in order to understand the role, or potential role,
of VR in the One-Stop system. We ask that these points be clarified in
the final report, and note that additional changes to the report may be
necessary as a result.
3) "Funds" vs." financial assistance" At numerous points, the draft
report inaccurately uses the term "funds," or variations on the term
(such as "WIA-funded"), where the term "financial assistance" (or a
variation thereon) should be used. The concept of financial assistance
under WIA Title I extends well beyond funds, to various types of in-
kind assistance. See 29 CFR 37.4, definitions of "financial assistance"
and "financial assistance under Title I of WIA." Therefore, the term
"funds" (or variations thereon) should be used only when referring
specifically to the use of dollars and cents. For the same reasons, the
phrase "recipients of WIA funds" should be changed to "recipients of
WIA Title I financial assistance" or "recipients of WIA financial
assistance" wherever it appears. Similarly, we are concerned that the
phrase "funded or assisted" may be misleading, and suggest that it be
replaced with "funded or financially assisted," or other similar
specific references to financial assistance.
4) "Methods ofAdministration" At various points (including in the
abbreviations section and the Results In-Brief section), the draft
report uses the uncapitalized term "methods of administration." The
phrase must be capitalized (as "Methods of Administration") to avoid
confusion with a similar term, with a different meaning, that is used
in the regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA).
5) "WIA regulations" vs. "WIA nondiscrimination regulations"
Throughout the report, the term "WIA regulations" is used to refer to
the regulations, published at 29 CFR part 37, that implement WIA
Section 188. However, an additional set of "WIA regulations" exists:
the programmatic regulations promulgated by ETA, which appear at 20 CFR
part 660 et seq. To avoid confusion between these two sets of
regulations, we ask that the phrase "WIA nondiscrimination regulations"
be used to refer to the regulations implementing WIA Section 188.
Specific Comments:
1) Summary section ("What GAO Found'): We have the following comments
regarding this section, which appears on an un-numbered page at the
beginning of the report.
a) Use of undefined terminology: In the summary section, the report
uses broad terminology, such as "comprehensive access," without
defining the terms that are used. We are concerned that the use of such
undefined terms may cause readers - particularly readers who rely
primarily on the summary section - to misunderstand the findings of the
report. We suggest that either such terms be defined in the summary
section, or that their use be restricted to the main portion of the
report.
b) Inaccurate statement regarding self-assessment compliance tools: In
the third paragraph of the summary section, the fifth sentence ("In
addition, CRC requested that each state complete a self-assessment
compliance tool for the state and its largest local area") is placed in
a context that makes it appear that only the states of New York and
Florida were asked to complete such self-assessment tools. (The same
error appears in the "Results In Brief" section, at the top of page 7
of the draft report.) In fact, all states were required to submit such
completed tools to CRC. We ask that this sentence be moved, deleted, or
otherwise corrected.
c) Final sentence of third paragraph: We ask that the final sentence of
the third paragraph, beginning "The CRC Director said...", be
deleted.
2) Results In Brief We have the following comments regarding this
section, which begins on page 5 of the draft report.
a) CRC responsibilities: The fourth sentence of the third paragraph of
this section states, in pertinent part, that "CRC has responsibility
for monitoring and enforcing WIA's statutory and regulatory
nondiscrimination and equal opportunity provisions." This sentence
appears on page 6 of the draft report. (Similar language appears in the
first sentence in the second paragraph on page 27 of the draft report.)
We ask that the term "interpreting" be added to the other two
responsibilities listed, both on page 6 and on page 27.
b) Final sentence of third paragraph: We ask that the final sentence of
the third paragraph of this section, beginning "Moreover, the CRC
Director told us...", be deleted. This sentence appears on page 7 of
the draft report.
c) Disability data re: registrants: A portion of the fourth paragraph
of this section, which appears on the bottom half of page 7 of the
draft report, states, in pertinent part: "[T]he collection of
information on WIA participants, including information on individuals
with disabilities, is limited to those individuals who are registered
for services. Current law does not require that one-stops register job
seekers that are self-service and informational in nature, and thus
they are not included in the performance measures." (Similar statements
appear on page 31 of the draft report, and a paraphrase appears on the
Summary page.) These statements, in our view, provide an incomplete
picture of the requirements relating to collection of information about
customers with disabilities. Although the WIA nondiscrimination
regulations require collection of disability-related information only
about those customers who are registered, the definition of
"registrant" under those regulations encompasses any individual who has
submitted personal information, such as his or her name, in response to
a request by the recipient. See 29 CFR 37.4, definitions of
"registrant" and "applicant," and 20 CFR 663.105(c). It is CRC's
experience that in practice, many One-Stop Centers require customers to
provide their names on a sign-in sheet in order to use the self-service
and informational services offered by the centers, such as the computer
rooms. Under the WIA nondiscrimination regulations, therefore, such
centers are required to collect demographic information, including
disability status, from such customers. See 29 CFR 37.37(b)(2). We ask
that the report be revised as appropriate to incorporate this
information.
3) Background: We have the following comments regarding this section of
the draft report.
a) "Political affiliation or belief': The last full paragraph on page 10
of the draft report purports to list the bases on which discrimination
is prohibited under WIA Section 188. In addition to disability,
according to the report, those bases include "race, color, religion,
sex, national origin, age, political affiliation or belief" (emphasis
added). This formulation incorrectly makes it appear that the bases of
"political affiliation" and "belief" are separate bases. In fact,
"political affiliation or belief" is one basis. The sentence should be
revised, in pertinent part, as follows: "...age, or political
affiliation or belief."
b) "Held accountable" The final sentence in the first paragraph at the
top of page 11 of the draft report states that the WIA
nondiscrimination regulations "also identify how recipients will be
held accountable for ensuring nondiscrimination and equal opportunity
for individuals with disabilities." We are concerned that this sentence
appears to imply that recipients will not be "held accountable" for
violations of the regulatory provisions relating to members of other
protected groups, or the provisions imposing administrative
requirements. We ask that the sentence be revised accordingly.
c) "Significant assistance" The first entry in the bullet-point list on
page 11 of the draft report states that recipients must not provide
significant assistance to "a person or entity that discriminates on the
basis of disability." This statement is overbroad. Section 37.7(b) of
the WIA nondiscrimination regulations prohibits such significant
assistance to a more limited category of persons or entities: those
that discriminate "in providing any aid, benefits, services, or
training to registrants, applicants, or participants."
d) Architectural accessibility requirements: In the last full paragraph
on page 11, a sentence in the draft report states that recipients "who
are in facilities or parts of facilities designed, constructed, or
altered on their behalf" must comply with architectural accessibility
requirements. This sentence contains two errors.
i) "Designed" The relevant regulatory provision, 29 CFR 32.28, does not
provide for coverage of facilities that are "designed" on behalf of a
recipient. The word "designed" must be deleted.
ii) The same sentence omits an important aspect of the requirements
relating to architectural accessibility. The sentence should be
revised, in pertinent part, as follows:
"... facilities that are constructed or altered on their behalf after
they first receive Federal financial assistance."
e) Program accessibility requirements: A later sentence in the same
paragraph states, in pertinent part, that "[r]ecipients of WIA funds
[see General Concern 3 above] do not have to make each of their
existing facilities or every part of an existing facility accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities, and can satisfy the
accessibility requirements by redesigning equipment, reassigning
services ...... We ask that this sentence be clarified by adding the
phrase "for existing facilities" after the word "requirements."
f) Reason for administrative structure: A sentence on page 12 of the
draft report states that the WIA nondiscrimination regulations require
recipients to establish an administrative structure "so that they may
be held accountable for compliance with WIA's nondiscrimination and
equal opportunity provisions." This statement is inaccurate. The
administrative requirements are designed primarily to ensure compliance
with the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity requirements, although
they (the administrative requirements) do include provisions relating
to holding recipients accountable for non-compliance. We ask that the
sentence be revised accordingly.
g) Definition of "small recipient" Footnote 8 on page 12 of the draft
report defines a small recipient as one that serves a total of 15
beneficiaries "during a year" and employs fewer than 15 employees on
any given day "in the year." The use of the unmodified term "year" in
this definition is inaccurate. The definition of the term in 29 CFR
37.4 requires that these calculations be made with regard to a "grant
year" (the latter term is a term of art in the WIA context). We ask
that the footnote be corrected.
h) Responsibilities of EO officers: The paragraph that begins on the
bottom of page 12 of the draft report purports to list the
responsibilities imposed on EO officers by the WIA nondiscrimination
regulations. We ask that the paragraph be revised to make clear that
the list provided in the report is not all-inclusive.
i) Responsibilities of CRC Director: Similarly, the material at the
bottom of the main text on page 13 of the draft report purports to list
the oversight responsibilities of the CRC Director. We ask that this
material also be revised to make clear that the list provided in the
report is not all-inclusive.
4) "Local Areas and One-Stops Have Made Efforts..." We have the
following comments regarding this section, which begins on page 18 of
the draft report.
a) "Auxiliary aids and services" We have several comments regarding
this subsection.
i) Definition of assistive technology: The definition of the term
"assistive technology" in this subsection of the report is overly
narrow. The report asserts that the term "refers to products or
equipment that can be used to make existing information technology,
including computers and telephones, accessible to persons with
disabilities." In CRC's interpretation, however, the application of the
term is not limited to "information technology." Rather, it is a more
general term that refers to a piece of equipment, a system of products,
or any other item or group of items that is used to help people with
disabilities increase, improve, or maintain their functional
capabilities (in other words, their ability to perform their major life
activities). To be considered assistive technology, the item or items
need not have been originally purchased to help people with
disabilities; items that have been modified or customized for that
purpose after they were originally acquired also fall into the
category. Some, but by no means all, assistive technology items are
related to communication.
ii) Use of term "accessible" At several points, this subsection of the
report uses the term "accessible" incorrectly. The report states that
assistive technology can be used to make information technology
"accessible" to persons with disabilities, and that alternative formats
can make written or visual materials or oral information "accessible"
to such persons. However, the term "access" does not apply to
communications; the WIA nondiscrimination regulations use the term
"available," rather than "accessible," in this context. For example,
the regulatory definition of "auxiliary aids and services" refers to
effective means of making aurally and delivered materials "available"
to individuals with hearing or visual impairments. See 29 CFR 37.4,
definition of "auxiliary aids and services," paragraphs (1) and (2). We
ask that the term "accessible" be replaced by "available" in all such
instances in this subsection.
iii) Height-adjustable tables: Table 3 on page 19 lists "height-
adjustable tables" as an example of auxiliary aids and services. Such
tables, however, are not specifically related to communication, and
therefore do not qualify as auxiliary aids. This example should be
deleted from Table 3.
b) "Reasonable accommodations" The first sentence in this subsection
states that the WIA regulations require reasonable accommodations "to
enable persons with disabilities to receive the same benefits as
persons without disabilities" (emphasis added). This statement is
inaccurate. In the context of provision of services, reasonable
accommodations enable qualified individuals with disabilities "to
receive aid, benefits, services, or training equal to that provided to
qualified individuals without disabilities." 29 CFR 37.4, definition of
"reasonable accommodation," paragraph (1)(ii) (emphasis added). The
term also applies in the context of application for such aid, benefits,
services, or training, or in the employment context. We ask that the
report be corrected accordingly.
c) "Staff training" We have several comments regarding this subsection,
which begins on page 23 of the draft report.
i) Training requirements: The first sentence of this subsection states,
in pertinent part, that "the WIA regulations [sic - see General Concern
5 above] do not specifically require that one-stop staff, other than
the equal opportunity officer, receive training on disability... ."
In fact, the WIA nondiscrimination regulations require that training be
provided to the EO Officer and his/her staff. See 29 CFR 37.25(f),
37.26(d), 37.54(d)(2)(vi). We ask that the report be corrected
accordingly.
ii) Final bullet point in list: A list of training topics that have been
provided to One-Stop staff appears on page 23 of the draft report. The
final bullet point refers to "WIA Section 188, or other disability-
related training." It appears that something is missing from this
entry; we ask that the entry be corrected.
5) "Labor Has Taken Actions to Ensure..." We have the following
comments regarding this section, which begins on page 27 of the draft
report.
a) CRC responsibilities: The first sentence in the second paragraph on
page 27 states, in pertinent part, that CRC is responsible for
monitoring and enforcing the nondiscrimination and equal opportunity
regulations "regarding programs receiving financial assistance from
Labor." This statement is incomplete. CRC also has responsibility for
the regulations that apply to programs and activities that are
conducted as part of the One-Stop system and operated by One-Stop
partners, regardless of the source of the financial assistance for such
programs and activities. See 29 CFR 37.2(a)(2); 37.4 (definition of
"recipient," material following paragraph (12)); 37.85(c). A similar
statement appears in the next-to-last sentence in the first paragraph
on page 30 (CRC's professional and administrative staff are responsible
for "all issues involving discrimination in one-stops and other Labor-
unded programs") (emphasis added). We ask that these statements be
revised to correct them.
b) CRC-conducted training: The sentence that begins on the bottom of
page 27 and continues on page 28 of the draft report states, in
pertinent part, that CRC "conducts a 2-day training session... ." In
fact, the training sessions that have been conducted by CRC have ranged
from two days to three full days, depending on the needs of, and
facilities available to, the particular local workforce investment area
in which the training has been conducted.
c) "Finalized for publication" Footnote 20 on page 28 of the draft
reports states that at the time of GAO's review, CRC "had not yet
finalized ... for publication" the Reports of Findings resulting from
its disability compliance reviews of New York City and Miami/Dade
County.
This statement is inaccurate, and we are concerned that it may be
misleading: it appears that GAO may have confused the final Reports of
Findings, which were "finalized" and issued in September 2003, with the
draft Final Determinations, which were sent to the New York and Florida
recipients in September 2004. The Reports of Findings, which set forth
the results of CRC's compliance reviews, were issued pursuant to 29 CFR
37.64, 37.94, and 37.95. We have provided GAO with copies of each of
these two Reports of Findings. The relevant States and LWIAs were given
six months to respond to the Reports. CRC has reviewed the responses
the States and LWIAs provided; based on those responses, CRC has
produced draft Final Determinations, pursuant to 29 CFR 37.98 through
37.100. The draft documents were sent to the respective recipients on
September 30, 2004. At the time GAO was completing its review, CRC,
pursuant to 29 CFR 37.100(a), was in separate negotiations with both
the New York and Florida recipients regarding the findings set forth in
those draft Final Determinations, in an effort to achieve voluntary
compliance by each set of recipients. CRC did not provide GAO with
copies of those draft Final Determinations because the ongoing
negotiations may result in amendments to the Final Determinations, or
in issuance of a Conciliation Agreement or a written assurance in lieu
of a Final Determination. See 29 CFR 37.95(a), (b)(3); 37.96; 37.97;
37.100(a).
d) Integrated settings: The paragraph that begins on page 28 of the
draft report contains a description of the circumstances under which a
One-Stop Center may serve customers with disabilities separate from
customers without disabilities. We have several comments regarding this
description.
i) "According to CRC's review" The paragraph states that the
requirements regarding integrated settings are "[a]ccording to CRC's
review." In fact, the requirements are for the most part based directly
on the language of the WIA nondiscrimination regulations. See 29 CFR
37.7(a)(4), (c), (d).
ii) Order of steps: The description reverses the order in which the
required steps should be taken; we ask that the description be
corrected. Those steps, in the correct order, are as follows:
(I) the recipient must determine that in general, the segregation is
necessary in order to provide customers with disabilities, or customers
with specific disabilities, with programs or activities that are as
effective as those provided to customers without disabilities;
(2) the segregated program or activity provided by the recipient must
in fact be as effective as the programs or activities provided to
customers without disabilities L;
(3)the recipient must perform an individualized assessment, and
determine that the segregated program or activity would be appropriate
for a particular customer with a disability, before referring that
customer to the segregated program or activity; and:
This requirement is based on case law as well as the regulatory
language. See, e.g., Lovett v. Chandler, 303 F.3d 1039 (9`h Cir. 2002)
("the plain language of the [Section 504 and ADA Title II] regulations
prohibits a state from [excluding persons with disabilities from a
program] unless it provides them with benefits `as effective as those
provided to others'").
(4) the ultimate decision whether to participate in the segregated
program or activity must be left up to the customer. If the customer is
qualified for, and wishes to participate in, the "regular," non-
segregated programs or activities, he or she must be permitted to do
so.
e) Statements by CRC Director: Two sentences in the first full
paragraph on page 30 state, in pertinent part, that "the CRC Director
said that there were no plans for conducting additional on-site reviews
beyond the two that are planned for completion in 2005. The Director
further said that limited staff and competing work priorities may
hinder CRC's ability to conduct additional reviews." We ask that these
sentences be corrected, in pertinent part, as follows: "... said that
she had not yet determined whether CRC will conduct additional on-site
reviews, and that the determination will be based on the staff and
resources that are available at the time the determination is made."
6) "Information on Employment Outcomes is Limited" Two sentences in the
full paragraph on page 31 state, in pertinent part: "[M]ost of the one-
stop customers who participate in self-directed services, and receive
only limited staff assistance, are estimated to be the largest
proportion of job seekers under WIA. But since they are not registered
for services, they are excluded from the employment outcome data
published by Labor." As noted above in Specific Comment 2(c),
"Disability data re: registrants," the definition of "registrant"
under the WIA nondiscrimination regulations encompasses any individual
who has submitted personal information, such as his or her name, in
response to a request by the recipient. See 29 CFR 37.4, definitions of
"registrant" and "applicant," and 20 CFR 663.105(c). It is CRC's
experience that in practice, many One-Stop Centers require customers to
provide their names on a sign-in sheet in order to use the self-service
and informational services offered by the centers, such as the computer
rooms. Under the WIA nondiscrimination regulations, therefore, such
centers are already required to collect demographic information,
including disability status, from such customers. See 29 CFR
37.37(b)(2). We ask that the report be revised as appropriate to
incorporate this information.
EDITORIAL COMMENTS:
1) Use of shorthand terms in summary section: We are concerned that
general readers will find the opening summary of the report difficult
to understand, because the summary uses shorthand terms (such as "one-
stops") without defining them. We suggest that in the summary, either
complete terms (such as "One-Stop Career Centers") be used rather than
shorthand terms, or the shorthand terms be defined.
2) Ambiguity: Various portions of the summary section of the report are
ambiguous. For example, the third sentence of the second paragraph of
the summary states, in pertinent part: "In a few cases, local areas and
one-stops relied primarily on VR ...... Even in the context of the
paragraph, it is unclear what the cited "local areas and one-stops"
relied on VR for. We suggest that such ambiguous statements be
clarified.
3) Abbreviations: In this section, the Job Training Partnership Act is
abbreviated as "JPTA." The correct acronym is "JTPA."
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Carol Dawn Petersen, Assistant Director (202) 512-7215 Gretta L.
Goodwin, Senior Economist (202) 512-7215:
Staff Acknowledgments:
William E. Hutchinson and Caterina Pisciotta made significant
contributions to all phases of this report. In addition, Jessica
Botsford and Richard Burkard provided legal assistance, and Amy Buck
assisted in report development.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed
Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO-
04-657. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: One-Stop Centers Implemented Strategies to
Strengthen Services and Partnerships, but More Research and Information
Sharing Is Needed. GAO-03-725. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: Exemplary One-Stops Devised Strategies to
Strengthen Services, but Challenges Remain for Reauthorization. GAO-03-
884T. Washington, D.C.: June 18, 2003.
Workforce Training: Employed Worker Programs Focus on Business Needs,
but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access for Some Workers.
GAO-03-353. Washington, D.C.: February 14, 2003.
Older Workers: Employment Assistance Focuses on Subsidized Jobs and Job
Search, but Revised Performance Measures Could Improve Access to Other
Services. GAO-03-350. Washington, D.C.: January 24, 2003.
Workforce Investment Act: States 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: Improvements Needed in Performance Measures
to Provide a More Accurate Picture of WIA's Effectiveness. GAO-02-275.
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2002.
Voters with Disabilities: Access to Polling Places and Alternative
Voting Methods. GAO-02-107. Washington, D.C.: October 15, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: Better Guidance Needed to Address Concerns
over New Requirements. GAO-02-72. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
Workforce Investment Act: New Requirements Create Need for More
Guidance. GAO-02-94T. Washington, D.C.: October 4, 2001.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The WIG and Navigator grants do not represent all of Labor's grants
for disability-related activities. For example, the Office of
Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) also provides grants for serving
customers with disabilities in the WIA one-stop system, including
grants that focus on providing customized employment strategies to
create opportunities for individuals with disabilities and improving
school-to-work transition outcomes for youth with disabilities.
[2] GAO, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have
Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to
Help. GAO-04-657 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004).
[3] Co-location of the mandatory partners at the one-stop center is not
required. Labor has stated that under WIA, one-stop operations can
range from coordination, co-location, and integration.
[4] For more information on WIA's performance measures, see GAO-04-657
and GAO, 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).
[5] For WIA beneficiaries only, Section 188 also prohibits
discrimination on the basis of an individual's status as a citizen or
national of the United States, or as an individual lawfully authorized
to work in the United States, or on the basis of participation in any
WIA Title I financially assisted program or activity.
[6] See 64 Fed. Reg. 61692. These regulations are found at 29 CFR Part
37 and incorporate, by reference, certain portions of the regulations
implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended,
pertaining to employment practices and employment-related training,
architectural and program accessibility and reasonable accommodation.
[7] WIA Section 188 regulations apply to programs and activities that
are conducted as part of the one-stop system and operated by one-stop
partners, regardless of the source of the financial assistance for such
programs and activities.
[8] In the one-stop context, the term reasonable accommodation can
include making existing facilities accessible; restructuring a program,
service, or training, or the way in which it is provided; part-time or
modified training schedules; making appropriate adjustments or
modifications to examinations, training materials, or policies;
acquiring or modifying equipment and devices; and providing qualified
readers and interpreters, among other possible actions. One-stops and
other recipients are required to make a requested accommodation unless
providing it would create an undue hardship for them, which is defined
as "significant difficulty or expense," when considered in light of a
list of specified factors. The WIA Section 188 regulations also require
one-stops to make reasonable modifications to their policies,
practices, or procedures for persons with disabilities unless making
the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or
activity.
[9] A small recipient is one that serves a total of fewer than 15
beneficiaries during a grant year and employs fewer than 15 employees
on any given day in that year.
[10] In order to be exempt from liability for Section 188 violations,
the governor must also enter into a written contract with the recipient
outlining the recipient's obligations under Section 188, act with due
diligence to monitor the recipient's compliance with those provisions,
and take prompt and appropriate corrective action to affect compliance.
[11] The WIA Section 188 Checklist is located at http://www.dol.gov/
oasam/programs/crc/section188.htm.
[12] Through this competitive process, an ETA technical review panel
chose grantees by evaluating their applications against specified
criteria (such as a statement of need). ETA officials explained that
some applicants, such as those who were less adept at writing
applications that met technical review standards, may not have received
grants even though they needed them.
[13] Of the $24 million in funds, Labor contributed approximately $15
million and SSA contributed $9 million.
[14] In July 2003, ETA and SSA's Office of Program Development and
Research awarded Navigator grants to 14 states: Arizona, California,
Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New York, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. ETA and SSA
have since awarded Navigator grants to Mississippi, New Mexico, and
Oregon. All 17 of these states were chosen for this effort because SSA
has employment support initiatives in these locations.
[15] Electric door openers are not required by either the Uniform
Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) or the Americans with
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities
(ADAAG). However, officials from some sites said that their lack of
electric doors was an accessibility concern.
[16] A reasonable accommodation may require making specific structural
or other modifications, including the provision of auxiliary aids and
services such as sign language interpreters, telephone amplifiers, or
alternate formats, to meet the specific needs of a particular customer
with a disability. Accommodations are generally provided only after an
individual with a disability requests it, as opposed to being available
up front.
[17] Individuals with disabilities who are eligible for VR services are
those persons who have a physical or mental impairment that, for an
such individual, constitutes or results in a substantial impediment to
employment, and who can benefit in terms of an employment outcome from
vocational rehabilitation services.
[18] Disability awareness or sensitivity training teaches one-stop
staff, for example, to use people-first language--such as "an
individual with a disability" as opposed to "the disabled." It may also
include education on how to interact with persons with disabilities,
such as asking if an individual needs assistance first rather than
automatically providing it or speaking directly to a person who is deaf
instead of speaking to the person's sign language interpreter.
[19] These community-based disability organizations typically did not
co-locate their staff at the one-stops on either a full-time or a part-
time basis. However, there were some exceptions--such as, for example,
in cases in which the disability-related agencies were the sole or co-
operators of a one-stop.
[20] In states where VR funding is not sufficient to serve all eligible
clients, there may be an order of selection in place, whereby VR is
able to accept only those individuals with the most significant
disabilities who could benefit from VR services. Of the states we
visited, only one was not under an order of selection for the general
disability population.
[21] In addition to CRC staff, presenters at the sessions included
staff from ETA and ODEP, as well as representatives of the United
States Access Board, and the Job Accommodation Network.
[22] All youth who receive WIA-financially assisted services are
required to be registered.
[23] GAO-04-657.
[24] In addition, on July 16, 2004, Labor published a notice in the
Federal Register on a proposal to collect additional information on the
types of impairments that one-stop customers have, including learning
disabilities, visual, hearing, and speech impairments, and cognitive
and psychological impairments. Labor believes that collecting
information on impairment types will facilitate its ability to focus
on, and evaluate its effectiveness in, servicing people with
disabilities through the one-stop system.
[25] GAO-04-657.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability 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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" 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. Government Accountability 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. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
